320 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

naledgeborn wrote...

 I rest my case.

Good. I fear for the ultimate fate of your "argument" if you were to keep on talking.

[didymos1120]

I'm gonna take a wild guess that Naledgeborn isn't a lawyer. If that's not correct, I feel real, real sorry for the clients.

[Il Divo]

didymos1120 wrote...

I'm gonna take a wild guess that Naledgeborn isn't a lawyer. If that's not correct, I feel real, real sorry for the clients.

I feel really sorry for us. Hell, we might as well be defending ourselves at that point.

[naledgeborn]

Let's all bash on me now. Are you guys seriously defending an excuse for sub-par writing? Sure people will improvise in any given story, but chucking anything resembling a structure out the window and winging it are some ****ed up narrative skills. I can literally give you guys a wall of text on some of the ****ty decisions they made in their attempt to "make it up as they go along" I gravitate to this certain developer for the stories they tell. When they admit that not much thought is going into the series (which I've suspected since ME2) then I have a legitimate reason to call them out on it. Especially since story-telling is the defining trait that this certain developer likes push to the public.

Modifié par naledgeborn, 26 janvier 2012 - 05:11 .

[Il Divo]

naledgeborn wrote...

Let's all bash on me now. Are you guys seriously defending an excuse for sub-par writing? Sure people will improvise in any given story, but chucking anything resembling a structure out the window and winging it are some ****ed up narrative skills. I can literally give you guys a wall of text on some of the ****ty decisions they made in their attempt to "make it up as they go along" I gravitate to this certain developer for the stories they tell. When they admit that not much thought is going into the series (which I've suspected since ME2) then I have a legitimate reason to call them out on it. Especially since story-telling is the defining trait that this certain developer likes push to the public.

That's great. And it's irrelevant. Go read Alan Moore's explanation for how he didn't know the ending of Watchmen until four chapters in. Go talk to Eidos about their original plan for Soul Reaver's Ending. Look into George R. R. Martin's original plans for A Song of Ice and Fire. Likewise with Lucas' original version/ending of Star Wars. Structure and plot points are always liable to change. Bioware, as per the interview, have a general structure, with specifics changing (Ex: Illusive Man as a plot device). You not liking a plot point is not evidence of anything.

Modifié par Il Divo, 26 janvier 2012 - 05:17 .

[Blacklash93]

Like others have said, this is a very common way to develop a series. Many popular works clearly attribute themselves to this kind of progression.

Depending on how well it's done, you can end up with either a story ridden with holes or one that feels like it has moved on organically in a way that you might not have gotten with a strict outline (just as relationships develop). It also allows the writers to do things that please and surprise fans.

I'd say Mass Effect is somewhere in the middle. The series definitely does have its holes, although they are tolerable. But things that obviously weren't planned from the beginning do bring a nice sense of surprise and development. The series definitely came to be more because of things like the Geth factions and Liara becoming the Shadow Broker.

[Lucky Thirteen]

I think your are taking this to the extreme naledgeborn.

Like I said, most writers write their stories in chunks and make up the rest as they go along. Sometimes you write the ending way before you figure out how you're going to start any of it. When you sit down to write something, you're not going to have a complete story set out in your head. You'd have to be a super genius with super memory powers to know every detail from start to finish when you go to write it. This is just how the writing process works for many people.

Telling a story is not like writing an essay for your English class. Story telling is an art form.

Stories always evolve and change as the writer goes along. No level of notes and structure will ever fully hold.

I believe they put a lot of thought into the series, I believe they work their butts off, the problem is they don't always think up good ideas. Which is a problem with any writer out there.

Modifié par Lucky Thirteen, 26 janvier 2012 - 05:24 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Lucky Thirteen wrote...

Oh dear, looks like someone discovered a dirty secret of story crafting. People don't have the complete story from start to finish in their heads, just the chunks of important stuff and make up the rest as they go along.

This is how I write my stories and this is how I know half my friends write their stories. You know you want to get to from point A to point B, so you write out point A and point B and then figure out how to connect them. Which means making it up as you go along. There are times that I just write out point B, long before I think of what point A be.

A lot of the time characters I think will be important fall to the side because they just aren't that important to the plot any more. In turn, another character thought to be very minor can become more important. That's what I think happened to Liara, however, they didn't want to let her fall to the side and tried to reinvent her. They just couldn't make good enough sense for it to really work. Meanwhile, a character like Tali who used to be this minor character in the basement that babbled about her people all the time, turned into someone who could be extremely important when it comes to issues of the geth and quarians. (Note, I'm not a big fan of either of these characters, this is just my honest observation of the two and how their stories have progressed. Please don't hate me fan boys.)

This is no big deal in my opinion. When you sit down to write a story, it's almost never a solid thing and you are almost always making it up as you go along.

I have to agree here, and I imagine a 90-hour story that's been written over eight years, is heavily influenced by its medium (better tech, gameplay changes, budget), and can be completely different based on what the player decides to mess around with is even more subject to completely change direction at a moment's notice.

It's kind of like painting a self-portrait from life instead of a photo.  You start out with your face and your materials, and you make some rough sketches of the pose you want.  But as you paint, you get different ideas, discover new tricks, run out of a color, buy different kinds of paint, get a haircut, and get some constructive criticism from your friends.  The longer you work on it, the more it changes, sometimes with you, sometimes against you.  But in the end, it's still a self-portrait.

Now, if you used a photo, it may have been more technically accurate, but you'd be much more restricted in what you could portray, and the need for accuracy would stifle your ability to invent and recreate on the fly.  It'd be truer to the original plan, but it'd be the you from the past and not as you are now.  It may be a much sharper, more realistic painting because the lighting, angle, and everything else was already sealed in place, but it would have much less life.

But that's just my opinion.  What makes a good painting is just as subjective as what makes a good story.

[Blacklash93]

I'd also argue that this approach is much more enjoyable for the writers. This way you get to flex your creative muscle all through the series' development instead of planning it all at the beginning and then robotically excecuting it for the next 8 years.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 26 janvier 2012 - 05:26 .

[bleetman]

Considering that we aren't playing it live with them writing it as we play, um, yeah. What? Don't be silly.

[snfonseka]

Old news.

[AdmiralCheez]

Blacklash93 wrote...

I'd also argue that this approach is much more enjoyable for the writers. This way you get to flex your creative muscle all through the series' development instead of planning it all at the beginning and then robotically excecuting it for the next 8 years.

Again, I totally agree.  Hence the painting metaphor.

[Dominus]

Now, if you used a photo, it may have been more technically accurate, but you'd be much more restricted in what you could portray, and the need for accuracy would stifle your ability to invent and recreate on the fly. It'd be truer to the original plan, but it'd be the you from the past and not as you are now. It may be a much sharper, more realistic painting because the lighting, angle, and everything else was already sealed in place, but it would have much less life.

This reminds me of an analogy I read in a book a couple years ago. It's a blueprint versus a recipe.

A blueprint will be piece for piece exactly as its laid out ahead of time. A recipe will take certain existing variables and apply them in a more improvised way. This creates a much less predictable final result.

But didymos already said it, this is nothing really new - in or out of the ME development team.

[DRACO1130]

Anyone who has ever put pen to paper in any gaming format, DND is the most common, recognizes that, yes, you make it up as you go along and ADAPT what is happening to the overall goal(s).
I am quite pleased that what is occurring in Mass Effect is a creative give and take round table type creation motif that has produced one of the most memorable gaming events ever. Given the worldwide success of the Bioware ME products, i'd venture a guess that more than just I are pleased.
By all means - Keep making it up as you go along -You are doing an Awesome job!

[Zakatak757]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

ME trilogy plan:

ME1 - shapard finds and stops a reaper
ME2 - stuff happens. Shep dies, recruits ppl. Insert filler enemy
ME3 - repaers are defeated.


BRILLIANT!

It's really saddening that you have no idea just how right you are.

<_<

[anlk92]

naledgeborn wrote...

Let's all bash on me now. Are you guys seriously defending an excuse for sub-par writing? Sure people will improvise in any given story, but chucking anything resembling a structure out the window and winging it are some ****ed up narrative skills. I can literally give you guys a wall of text on some of the ****ty decisions they made in their attempt to "make it up as they go along" I gravitate to this certain developer for the stories they tell. When they admit that not much thought is going into the series (which I've suspected since ME2) then I have a legitimate reason to call them out on it. Especially since story-telling is the defining trait that this certain developer likes push to the public.

Did you even read the OP or are you just basing all this on the thread title? When did they ever say that not much thought goes into the series or that they've thrown everything out the window?

What Casey said here is basically what any writer does, as others already mentioned. You outline your story and fill in the gaps as you go along. You cannot expect them to write detailed scripts for all three games from the beginning and stick to them, especially when you're getting so much feedback and working alongside others, not on your own.

[Chuvvy]

Is anyone surprised by this?

[Savber100]

And the point of this is?

Bioware has never said that everything was already intricately planned out to begin with only that they had a GENERAL idea where they wanted the franchise to go.

That said, I vote that Bioware reveal the alternate storylines... It would be a fun read.

[littlezack]

Speaking as a guy who's actually written a novel - yeah, that's how it works.

When I start writing a story, I don't know exactly how everything is going to go. I don't know every encounter. I don't have every piece of dialogue mapped out in my head. It's not like I just have to write out everything I've thought and it'll be fine. Sometimes I focus on pathways I didn't think to. sometimes I give characters I might have thought would be minor bigger roles, certain plot points get downplayed or brought up. You have a general idea of where things are going and what you want to do, but in the process of writing, things change. The idea that Bioware should have planned everything to the iota right from the beginning is frankly idiotic. Hell, when they started making Mass Effect 1, they probably didn't have everything nailed down for how that game alone was going to end, much less the entire franchise.

[aj2070]

Mister Mida wrote...

<snip>

Bioware has always made it (publicly) clear that ME was intented as a trilogy. I can dig up footage going as far 2005 where they said this, including their intention (which they failed at) to release DLC that would link the acts together.

I'll be more generous and say a partial fail.  Arrival is the tie between 2 and 3 but they did miss the bus between 1 and 2.

[Labrev]

When I've written stories, it does tend to go like this. You have a general idea in your head where things are going to go, how it's starting and how you plan to end it and most of the key points along the way.

But as you go, you change lots of things. You throw out stuff you had planned, and then pick up and expand on things you weren't planning to.

This is nothing to get all that worked up about, really.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

You seriously think George RR Martin already knows how a Song of Ice and Fire is going to end? No. Then why should people who create videogames, where story is only one aspect of the total product, have to?

Another complaint that makes no sense. People generally make things up as they go along, with only a vague outline of where they are going. It's called WRITING. Read any book, watch any movie or TV show.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

aj2070 wrote...

Mister Mida wrote...

<snip>

Bioware has always made it (publicly) clear that ME was intented as a trilogy. I can dig up footage going as far 2005 where they said this, including their intention (which they failed at) to release DLC that would link the acts together.

I'll be more generous and say a partial fail.  Arrival is the tie between 2 and 3 but they did miss the bus between 1 and 2.

How, exactly? It's a direct sequel, and apart from dumping all the lousy half-baked gameplay aspects that made ME1 such a horrible game, it's seamless. It even has the original Normandy, the original characters, story-wise it picks up immediately where it left off.

[DaJe]

More than anything else Arrival feels like it was made up along the way, by someone who didn't really consider logic and what happened before. Or the writer simply didn't have time and resources to make sense or deliver reasonable explanations. And that after LotSB which was coherent and believable for the most part.

[MAZ77]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

When I've written stories, it does tend to go like this. You have a general idea in your head where things are going to go, how it's starting and how you plan to end it and most of the key points along the way.

But as you go, you change lots of things. You throw out stuff you had planned, and then pick up and expand on things you weren't planning to.

This is nothing to get all that worked up about, really.

Nothing you write has anything to do with "making it up as they go along"; what you describe is the normal process of developing a story.

Mapping out a trilogy in advance is the same as developing a story for a stand-alone-game.

The only difference is, in stand-alone games you don't have to care about how to tie together loose ends in a sequel. But in a trilogy, this problem will arise, that's why mapping it out in advance is necessary.

Mapping it out in advance is developing a VERY LONG story = far more work to do.

If you don't map it out, massive plot holes and "retcons" are almost inevitable - see Mass Effect.

But mapping out a trilogy with sufficient details to keep quality high takes time and money, which are in short supply in the gaming business, as it seems. Still, a good writer should get it right, but Mac Walters simply is not a good writer. He should be responsible for developing characters and their backgrounds (which he seems to do well), but the story/plot should be put in more qualified hands.


PS.: Did you people really understand any of the answers of Casey Hudson in that interview? He is incredibly vague, for example whast he says about TIM being a "story device" at first, without knowing what it will be in the end...excuse me? Am I supposed to just accept that gibberish for an answer? Do any of his answers make sense? This article is yet another example of how to get through an interview without saying anything.

Modifié par MAZ77, 26 janvier 2012 - 06:49 .