831 réponses à ce sujet

[Yalision]

Well done.

[Tovanus]

Orson Scott Card wrote a book about writing books some time ago. The ending of ME 3 makes me think of a few quotes from it.

"The truth is that good fantasies carefully limit the magic that's possible. In fact, the magic has to be defined, at least in the author's mind, as a whole new set of natural laws that cannot be violated during the course of the story. That is, if at the begnning of the story you have established that your hero can make only three wishes, you better not have him come up with a fourth wish to save his neck right at the end. That's cheating, and your reader will be quire correct to throw your book across the room and carefully avoid anything you ever write in the future.

...

So in a sense even science fiction stories have to define the "rules of magic" as they apply in the world of the tale, just as fantasies do. If FTL travel is possible in your science fiction universe, you have to establish that fact early on. If you want time travel, you must make the story be about time travel or establish immediately that time travel is commonplace in the world of the story.

...

You must inform your reader as quickly as possible after the beginning of your story whether it's going to be fantasy or science fiction. If it's science fiction, and you signal this to the reader, then you have saved yourself enrmous amounts of effort, because your reader will assume that all the known laws of nature apply, except where the story indicates an exception."

If the ME writers had always assumed they would beat the Reapers by bringing in a god-kid, MAN they should have been indicating that from ME 2 at the very least. Maybe the best thing would have been to give some vague hints about it from Vigil on Ilos in ME 1.

And nothing to me epitomizes the failure by the ME writers to define their "rules of magic" more than the option of the synthesis ending.

[Rulycar]

Hmm, completely ignores the fact this is the third installment.
Doesn't the Crucible become deus ex machina by appearing suddenly in the last third of the story?
... and promising to stop the unstoppable by unkowable means?

[Meltemph]

Rulycar wrote...

Hmm, completely ignores the fact this is the third installment.
Doesn't the Crucible become deus ex machina by appearing suddenly in the last third of the story?
... and promising to stop the unstoppable by unkowable means?

He meant ME3 on its own.

[kyrieee]

This deserves more views =[

[MB957]

Thank you OP. very helpful...and I learned quite a bit.

great post. give us more when you can!

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

This really should be linked in a few other threads. Very informative.

[KingDan97]

Only 1 small disagreement , I think the goodbyes before the runup to the Conduit beam were actually very well placed, it made it feel like everyone knew it could very well be a one way trip, it actually raised my determination to come back from it, because I felt like I'd a few of them that much, which made the hit that much harder when I realized that Bioware had decided that just wouldn't happen.

[SmokePants]

Early on in the story, the question was raised, "How will the Crucible end the Reaper threat." The discussion with the Catalyst simply answers that question. I don't view that as having new, unsolicited information dumped in my lap.

Also, keep in mind the rules of "good storytelling" are broken all the time, to varying degrees of success. It is merely theory and like all theories, it is designed to evolve.

I know more about humor than screenwriting, so I'll use that basis to illustrate my point. Modern comedy evolved into post modern, and on into post-post modern. Think about Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien. Jay Leno being an example of modern and Conan being an example of post-modern. Leno follows very established rules of joke-telling that were designed to appeal to a broad cross-section of people who are unaware of those rules. Conan's humor intentionally breaks those rules to catch an audience that is expecting an obvious punchline off-guard. And past Conan, we have styles of humor that break even more rules and defy even more expectations, but are equally valid.

So, theory has to evolve as expectations evolve. Criticism has to take into account that the audience's awareness of certain "rules" necessitates that those rules should be reconsidered. You can't just dust off a set of guidelines printed out in the 80's on a dot matrix printer and put a check plus or check minus next to every bullet point.

As a screenwriter, you have to know that ideas about storytelling are popping up all the time. Some previously-established rules are being set aside. That's art.

In my mind, the real heart of the issue is that people didn't get an ending that made them want to jump up and headbutt a wall out of excitement. KOTOR had that kind of ending. ME1 and 2 did. Dragon Age 1 did. Dragon Age 2 didn't and ME3 didn't. It's not that their storytelling execution failed (I'm sure you could take your rulebook and find many faults with those more well-received games), it's that people didn't get to feel like they "won", which is a concept that is more specific to the gaming medium.

Modifié par SmokePants, 16 mars 2012 - 03:29 .

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

Bravo

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

SmokePants wrote...

Also, keep in mind the rules of "good storytelling" are broken all the time, to varying degrees of success. It is merely theory and like all theories, it is designed to evolve.

I know more about humor than screenwriting, so I'll use that basis to illustrate my point. Modern comedy evolved into post modern, and on into post-post modern. Think about Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien. Jay Leno being an example of modern and Conan being an example of post-modern. Leno follows very established rules of joke-telling that were designed to appeal to a broad cross-section of people who are unaware of those rules. Conan's humor intentionally breaks those rules to catch an audience that is expecting an obvious punchline off-guard. And past Conan, we have styles of humor that break even more rules and defy even more expectations, but are equally valid.

So, theory has to evolve as expectations evolve. Criticism has to take into account that the audience's awareness of certain "rules" necessitates that those rules should be reconsidered. You can't just dust off a set of guidelines printed out in the 80's on a dot matrix printer and put a check plus or check minus next to every bullet point.

As a screenwriter, you have to know that ideas about storytelling are popping up all the time. Some previously-established rules are being set aside. That's art.

But you can't just break the rules for the sake of breaking them.  Often times they're there for a reason.  You can argue that the writers were trying to break from expectations and take the audience someplace new, but judging from the fan response, they took us someplace horrible.

[CronoDragoon]

SmokePants wrote...
In my mind, the real heart of the issue is that people didn't get an ending that made them want to jump up and headbutt a wall out of excitement. KOTOR had that kind of ending. ME1 and 2 did. Dragon Age 1 did. Dragon Age 2 didn't and ME3 didn't. It's not that their storytelling execution failed (I'm sure you could take your rulebook and find many faults with those more well-received games), it's that people didn't get to feel like they "won", which is a concept that is more specific to the gaming medium.

I can think of one immediately: the god-child conception in DA:O and the convoluted way it saved your Warden's soul. But the introduction of this provided the character more choice in how to end his game and not less, and so I think most people were okay with it.

[SmokePants]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

But you can't just break the rules for the sake of breaking them.  Often times they're there for a reason.  You can argue that the writers were trying to break from expectations and take the audience someplace new, but judging from the fan response, they took us someplace horrible.

Actually, if you're trying to use audience expectations to induce a specific response, then breaking rules for the sake of breaking them is a valid strategy.

Like I said: it wasn't so much the way they told the story, it was the story they chose to tell that is the source of the negative reactions. You can't convince me that if Bioware had gone with a super-predictable resolution that everyone saw coming a mile away, that allowed Sheperd to survive and left the Mass Effect-iverse intact, people wouldn't have eaten it up.

That's probably the message Bioware is getting from this and DA2. Happy, player-filating endings are almost mandatory. Wheras in film, they tend to induce eye-rolling as a response to overuse and over-familiarity with the device by the audience.

Modifié par SmokePants, 16 mars 2012 - 04:01 .

[streamlock]

Oh for Christ's sake. The art argument does not work on so many levels. To begin with Bioware was creating new art by melding so many game play genre's together. No need to go further.

But I digress.

There is a VERY big difference to going to a concert billed as a new age impressionist interpretation of a piece that goes all over the damn place......

And going to hear the city philharmonic play Beethoven's 5th and have Axel Rose strut out into the music hall during the last 10 minutes screaming his head off and the whole symphony dives into a discordant mess.

That is not art. It's not in good taste. It's not fair to the people who bought tickets. And it probably sounds like total crud on the ears.

Sure, you can try and twist it into some crap arse argument about how the 5th was billed as C minor and shifts to C major during the end, and he sneaks some.....what was it? Eb, Bb in there as well? And that it in and of itself was a who done it trick he did at the end. And that bringing the heroin addled Axel and stage was a modern day recreation of what it must have been like to hear it for the 1st time, and that it was a work of genius and true creativity....blah blah blah.

But it DOES NOT WORK. It sucks. It sounded like crap. It's not what you paid for. The art argument just does not fly. (Well maybe the New York Times critic-that is a critic for ya) The vast majority of people leave confused as to WTF just happened, and in the end feel like they just wasted their night.

This is no Rite of Spring.

[Madecologist]

Nice read, I admit I love tropes. I read them all the time to get general ideas or when I'm trying to go to sleep. That said, despite I find them fun, they aren't the best tools for critical analysis. If you want to critically analyse something you do it properly.

That said, really good read. I am gonna read over a second time just to make sure I didn't miss any of the points you have made.

[SmokePants]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I can think of one immediately: the god-child conception in DA:O and the convoluted way it saved your Warden's soul. But the introduction of this provided the character more choice in how to end his game and not less, and so I think most people were okay with it.

Following my theory, I don't believe Dragon Age would have been as well-received by fans if that loophole didn't exist. It let the player have his cake and eat it too.

As a 33-year old adult, I can accept and appreciate being presented with those hard choices. A vocal segment of the fanbase cannot, however. For right or wrong, they have to account for that as designers of a commercial product.

[Lost Cipher]

The Crucible is not the Deus Ex Machina, the God Child and his options are.

Modifié par Lost Cipher, 16 mars 2012 - 04:16 .

[Capone666]

What's worse, it seems all road point to a more complete ending available in the near future. Economics enfringing on story telling. for shame

[anexanhume]

Thank you. The devs need to read good explanations of what was wrong.

[Lurchibald]

The crucible isn't a Deus ex Machina, though i do believe the Guardian or "Starchild" is..

Deus ex Machina is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object

The starchild is exactly that, a contrived and unexpected character who intervenes at the last minute.

[SmokePants]

streamlock wrote...

Oh for Christ's sake. The art argument does not work on so many levels. To begin with Bioware was creating new art by melding so many game play genre's together. No need to go further.

But I digress.

There is a VERY big difference to going to a concert billed as a new age impressionist interpretation of a piece that goes all over the damn place......

And going to hear the city philharmonic play Beethoven's 5th and have Axel Rose strut out into the music hall during the last 10 minutes screaming his head off and the whole symphony dives into a discordant mess.

That is not art. It's not in good taste. It's not fair to the people who bought tickets. And it probably sounds like total crud on the ears.

A better analogy would be going to a concert where the band closes out the show with a new, experimental song, rather than playing one of its greatest hits.

The new song may have more merit and may be more stimulating for the band to perform, but many in the concert did not come to hear it and are not receptive to it.

Typically, when we're not receptive to something, we will find reasons why it sucks. That is the human animal in a nutshell.

[ph0enix66]

SmokePants wrote...

Early on in the story, the question was raised, "How will the Crucible end the Reaper threat." The discussion with the Catalyst simply answers that question. I don't view that as having new, unsolicited information dumped in my lap.

Also, keep in mind the rules of "good storytelling" are broken all the time, to varying degrees of success. It is merely theory and like all theories, it is designed to evolve.

I know more about humor than screenwriting, so I'll use that basis to illustrate my point. Modern comedy evolved into post modern, and on into post-post modern. Think about Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien. Jay Leno being an example of modern and Conan being an example of post-modern. Leno follows very established rules of joke-telling that were designed to appeal to a broad cross-section of people who are unaware of those rules. Conan's humor intentionally breaks those rules to catch an audience that is expecting an obvious punchline off-guard. And past Conan, we have styles of humor that break even more rules and defy even more expectations, but are equally valid.

So, theory has to evolve as expectations evolve. Criticism has to take into account that the audience's awareness of certain "rules" necessitates that those rules should be reconsidered. You can't just dust off a set of guidelines printed out in the 80's on a dot matrix printer and put a check plus or check minus next to every bullet point.

As a screenwriter, you have to know that ideas about storytelling are popping up all the time. Some previously-established rules are being set aside. That's art.

In my mind, the real heart of the issue is that people didn't get an ending that made them want to jump up and headbutt a wall out of excitement. KOTOR had that kind of ending. ME1 and 2 did. Dragon Age 1 did. Dragon Age 2 didn't and ME3 didn't. It's not that their storytelling execution failed (I'm sure you could take your rulebook and find many faults with those more well-received games), it's that people didn't get to feel like they "won", which is a concept that is more specific to the gaming medium.

unless you are Stanley Kubric, the Coen Brothers, Terry Gillian, et al, you better be really f***ing careful about breaking rules. Yes, rules can be broken, but it depends on your skill. You can't break a rule just for the sake of breaking a rule.

[Banelash]

Seems like the basics was lost. Just like watching a sucky movie from a sucky director, I will be wary of things to come.

[Meltemph]

SmokePants wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

I can think of one immediately: the god-child conception in DA:O and the convoluted way it saved your Warden's soul. But the introduction of this provided the character more choice in how to end his game and not less, and so I think most people were okay with it.

Following my theory, I don't believe Dragon Age would have been as well-received by fans if that loophole didn't exist. It let the player have his cake and eat it too.

As a 33-year old adult, I can accept and appreciate being presented with those hard choices. A vocal segment of the fanbase cannot, however. For right or wrong, they have to account for that as designers of a commercial product.

Umm... Your theory defies comics/books/movies you realize that these interests overlap, right?  People dont need a happy ending, they need a resolution and closer.  What they did is bring up a very, very shallow point at a philisophical/metaphysical debate, while brining about 9,000 other questions with it.  IF a movie did this it would be blasted just as hard, I dont know how you think people want a happy ending and THIS ending is even worth the comparison.  At this point who cares if people were mad the ending wasnt happy, the ending didnt make sense.

Modifié par Meltemph, 16 mars 2012 - 04:38 .

[Lurchibald]

It would be like them getting Uwe Boll to direct the Mass Effect movie....