288 réponses à ce sujet

[Xamufam]

Found this
[quote]Iozeph wrote...
The trouble with narrative storytelling as opposed to pictures, is that pictures/paintings are made to be seen and it's acceptable for meaning to be left to the viewer. Yet words are to writers as palette, paint, and inks to a illustrators. And a blank page isn't enough.

There's a compact between the writer and the reader. As readers we accept that a work of fiction is a carefully constructed fabrication, yes. Yet it's one in which we, as readers, are 'in on' with the writer. There's an understanding that there will be consistency which adheres within that written framework. As readers we give our trust to the writer. All we'll ever know of the world he's created are the bits he's shown to us.

Bad or good, are of course, subjective. I would even argue irrelevant.

Where integrity breaks downs is when the writer breaks that compact- where he either deliberately leaves details out that are germain/central to explaining the narrative, or forgets them without later addressing them; when he breaks consistency, either in plot or in character development, but without giving solid causation leading toward it. Worse yet are the times when he handwaves- when he lies or omits, is caught out, and then says it doesn't matter. Let me just say that it does matter. Being subtle is one thing, so long as there is a progression the reader is able to follow. It needn't be grand or sweeping- perhaps no more than a simple sentence given in passing, so long as it's there.

You don't hide from or deceive your reader. You don't tie a blindfold over their eyes and expect them love you for it. You just don't. I don't care who you are. That's the worst sin a writer could ever commit. It shows utter contempt for the reader.

A teacher once said to me, 'Never write something on a page that you wouldn't want someone to read. The words you write come from you. They are your soul in print.' The integrity of an author and his work are so tightly woven together as to be one. When a writer deceives a reader, it's not a matter of whether having his integrity attacked becomes reasonable. He loses what no angry reader or critic could ever hope to steal from him. He has no integrity left.

Modifié par Troxa, 10 juillet 2012 - 02:19 .

[NedPepper]

nitefyre410 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Killing your mother in self defense would have a profound impact on a person. Sorry to disagree with you. People seem to just brush this off and think that a person should just go back to business as usual. She got a lot of OJT with Shepard going after Sovereign, and you do a mission like that, you're never the same afterward. She saw horrors that most people who are "bookworms" never see.

She's highly intelligent and she saw there's more to life than just art and culture. That stuff became a hobby. She needed to earn a living, and she wanted to get to the bottom of this reaper business. That led to the Shadow Broker, Collectors, and Cerberus.

And remember she is 1/4 Krogan.

But haters gotta hate.

People do change in real life too.

Please don't lie to yourself... more to life than just art and culture? do you even know what an archaeologist does?
The earn a living is just in your head, the fact that she refused to help Shepard in ME2 contradicts your point of she trying to get to the bottom of this reaper business. Her obsession with Shepard led to the Shadow Broker, the Reapers had nothing to do with this.

We're discussing the bipolarity of Liara and the ridiculous change of naive and socially awkward archaeologist to ruthless experienced killer and Shadow Broker.

I can't believe you consider the 1/4 Krogan thingy something serious.
Nobody is hating Liara, we're hating her ridiculous change.

 

You do  know there is a perfect good explaination for why  Liara change does not make sense.. 

Poorly executed time skip. 

Kiling Shepard to start time skip was the the dumbest thing that could have done.   

But Bioware does great character development... right? 

To be honest, the best character development and the most nuanced characters exist in the Dragon Age Universe.  Mass Effect improved with the second game, but it doesn't do what Gaider accomplishesin his writing .  Even Dragon Age 2, as much as people hate it, has really interesting characters.  Alistar, Varric, Morrigan, Leliana, Isabella,Aveline, and Anders are all, to me, more nuanced than any Mass Effect character.  I still love my ME squaddies, but they're not as fleshed out as Dragon Age characters.  That and the Warden and Hawke are much more fun to role play.   Shepard is really limited, unfortunately.

[NedPepper]

Troxa wrote...

The trouble with narrative storytelling as opposed to pictures, is that pictures/paintings are made to be seen and it's acceptable for meaning to be left to the viewer. Yet words are to writers as palette, paint, and inks to a illustrators. And a blank page isn't enough.

There's a compact between the writer and the reader. As readers we accept that a work of fiction is a carefully constructed fabrication, yes. Yet it's one in which we, as readers, are 'in on' with the writer. There's an understanding that there will be consistency which adheres within that written framework. As readers we give our trust to the writer. All we'll ever know of the world he's created are the bits he's shown to us.

Bad or good, are of course, subjective. I would even argue irrelevant.

Where integrity breaks downs is when the writer breaks that compact- where he either deliberately leaves details out that are germain/central to explaining the narrative, or forgets them without later addressing them; when he breaks consistency, either in plot or in character development, but without giving solid causation leading toward it. Worse yet are the times when he handwaves- when he lies or omits, is caught out, and then says it doesn't matter. Let me just say that it does matter. Being subtle is one thing, so long as there is a progression the reader is able to follow. It needn't be grand or sweeping- perhaps no more than a simple sentence given in passing, so long as it's there.

You don't hide from or deceive your reader. You don't tie a blindfold over their eyes and expect them love you for it. You just don't. I don't care who you are. That's the worst sin a writer could ever commit. It shows utter contempt for the reader.

A teacher once said to me, 'Never write something on a page that you wouldn't want someone to read. The words you write come from you. They are your soul in print.' The integrity of an author and his work are so tightly woven together as to be one. When a writer deceives a reader, it's not a matter of whether having his integrity attacked becomes reasonable. He loses what no angry reader or critic could ever hope to steal from him. He has no integrity left.

Great post.

[Xamufam]

nedpepper wrote...

Troxa wrote...

The trouble with narrative storytelling as opposed to pictures, is that pictures/paintings are made to be seen and it's acceptable for meaning to be left to the viewer. Yet words are to writers as palette, paint, and inks to a illustrators. And a blank page isn't enough.

There's a compact between the writer and the reader. As readers we accept that a work of fiction is a carefully constructed fabrication, yes. Yet it's one in which we, as readers, are 'in on' with the writer. There's an understanding that there will be consistency which adheres within that written framework. As readers we give our trust to the writer. All we'll ever know of the world he's created are the bits he's shown to us.

Bad or good, are of course, subjective. I would even argue irrelevant.

Where integrity breaks downs is when the writer breaks that compact- where he either deliberately leaves details out that are germain/central to explaining the narrative, or forgets them without later addressing them; when he breaks consistency, either in plot or in character development, but without giving solid causation leading toward it. Worse yet are the times when he handwaves- when he lies or omits, is caught out, and then says it doesn't matter. Let me just say that it does matter. Being subtle is one thing, so long as there is a progression the reader is able to follow. It needn't be grand or sweeping- perhaps no more than a simple sentence given in passing, so long as it's there.

You don't hide from or deceive your reader. You don't tie a blindfold over their eyes and expect them love you for it. You just don't. I don't care who you are. That's the worst sin a writer could ever commit. It shows utter contempt for the reader.

A teacher once said to me, 'Never write something on a page that you wouldn't want someone to read. The words you write come from you. They are your soul in print.' The integrity of an author and his work are so tightly woven together as to be one. When a writer deceives a reader, it's not a matter of whether having his integrity attacked becomes reasonable. He loses what no angry reader or critic could ever hope to steal from him. He has no integrity left.

Great post.

You can thank Iozeph for it, he wrote it

[Gruntburner]

Not every writer plans out where things are going from the start. I know George R. R. Martin didn't. Plus last time I checked most stories don't take into account decisions made by the audience. It would be a logistical nightmare.

[garrusfan1]

your supposed to plan some of the story ahead of course there is gonna be some you don't plan ahead. That said good god 99.5% wasn't planned ahead WTF that is ridiculous. Honestly like I said your not gonna plan 100% but for F***s sake your supposed to plan alot of it ahead of time. Honestly you should plan ahead remember this before you write your next press release by the way

[I Ryukage I]

 guess this confirms they were winging it. That really sucks man

[A Great Biotic Wind]

Jenonax wrote...

Why on Earth would he admit this? Does he not realise how incompetent it makes him seem?

Him and the rest of the writers are probably very guilty about the crap they wrote at the end (the terrible direction it went in), and how they lied about it being awesome (and how it's just a small sliver of the forums whining). Using the media's corporate-biased opinion, along with the newcomers support for the original ending to support their claims.

Or not.

[garrusfan1]

A Great Biotic Wind wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

Why on Earth would he admit this? Does he not realise how incompetent it makes him seem?

Him and the rest of the writers are probably very guilty about the crap they wrote at the end (the terrible direction it went in), and how they lied about it being awesome (and how it's just a small sliver of the forums whining). Using the media's corporate-biased opinion, along with the newcomers support for the original ending to support their claims.

Or not.

wow wait a minute that was two people who wrote the ending and changed alot of stuff but they let the rest of the writers take the flak for it too

[Drake-Shepard]

DeamonSlaz wrote...

JK Rowling planned ahead. SHe wrote the final book and then worked backwards.

Several authors when writing series create 'bibles' that contain their lore and evolve it over time.

ME 3 writers failed to evovle ME and ME 2 lore and keep to the developing narratives.

3/4 of ME 3 was awesome, started to come together nicely with a lot of plot tie-ups and then you get the shoe-horned ending.

The Star Child is just as alien to the plot as he is to the entire game and storyline. He does not exist and then suddenly is amde out to be some super god and the head guy. He then offers a bunch of options and forces you to just flat out trust him.

THat ending was poorly executed. If they wanted the three chocies of Destroy, Control or Synthesis, well I've proposed in three seperate threads how it could have been worked into the storyline alongside a sucide mission and Boss Fight.

However, that is not what Bioware wanted.

On a personal note, I am hobby writer and part time text based GM for Warhammer 40K forum and I learnt very early on to have a great storyline, you do have to plan some parts and if you are doing a sequal begin to drop hints in the later half. So no, MW is wrong. You should plan ahead. Not plan every single detail, but plan roughly and know where you want it to end at.

bullseye

especially if you want to make a near invincible enemy...warning bells should go off...we need a motive and possible victory method right now that makes sense and will make sense because we can base the story,themes and lore around it.

it's hard to believe they mapped out so much lore and thousands of years of history of the races (rachni wars, genophage etc) yet couldn't do that for the reapers..who are the point of the entire trilogy.

I don't know if a trilogy over arching storyline was out of BW's depth or if it was just a few silly decisions to change things last minute

Modifié par Drake-Shepard, 10 juillet 2012 - 09:05 .

[nitefyre410]

Drake-Shepard wrote...

DeamonSlaz wrote...

JK Rowling planned ahead. SHe wrote the final book and then worked backwards.

Several authors when writing series create 'bibles' that contain their lore and evolve it over time.

ME 3 writers failed to evovle ME and ME 2 lore and keep to the developing narratives.

3/4 of ME 3 was awesome, started to come together nicely with a lot of plot tie-ups and then you get the shoe-horned ending.

The Star Child is just as alien to the plot as he is to the entire game and storyline. He does not exist and then suddenly is amde out to be some super god and the head guy. He then offers a bunch of options and forces you to just flat out trust him.

THat ending was poorly executed. If they wanted the three chocies of Destroy, Control or Synthesis, well I've proposed in three seperate threads how it could have been worked into the storyline alongside a sucide mission and Boss Fight.

However, that is not what Bioware wanted.

On a personal note, I am hobby writer and part time text based GM for Warhammer 40K forum and I learnt very early on to have a great storyline, you do have to plan some parts and if you are doing a sequal begin to drop hints in the later half. So no, MW is wrong. You should plan ahead. Not plan every single detail, but plan roughly and know where you want it to end at.

bullseye

especially if you want to make a near invincible enemy...warning bells should go off...we need a motive and possible victory method right now that makes sense and will make sense because we can base the story,themes and lore around it.

it's hard to believe they mapped out so much lore and thousands of years of history of the races (rachni wars, genophage etc) yet couldn't do that for the reapers..who are the point of the entire trilogy.

I don't know if a trilogy over arching storyline was out of BW's depth or if it was just a few silly decisions to change things last minute

  


Exactly and whats even  worse is the  the Catalyst and the Crucible can actually work with in the story... 

Yeah if they explained  them durning the 30hrs of game running  grabbing  random useless war assest instead of the last 10 minutes of the game.      

Yeah  Tuchunka and Rannoch don't count as main plot becasue are sub  plots..  The main plot of ME 3  is non existent.

[Broham]

With movies and games being pushed to become series (duology, trilogy, tetralogy, etc) you'd think the creators would brainstorm and map out an extensive story with beginning, middle and end.

With the story complete, it is just a matter of inserting break points in the main plot and separating it into parts.

Design and publish part 1. If it does well, do the same for part 2 then so on.

[Armass81]

Well, no ****. Whod have thunk it.

Modifié par Armass81, 10 juillet 2012 - 11:29 .

[Fionn Marr]

Broham wrote...

With movies and games being pushed to become series (duology, trilogy, tetralogy, etc) you'd think the creators would brainstorm and map out an extensive story with beginning, middle and end.

With the story complete, it is just a matter of inserting break points in the main plot and separating it into parts.

Design and publish part 1. If it does well, do the same for part 2 then so on.

The process is a little more complicated than this. Your initial treatment can't be too extensive because each part you break it into needs it's own narrative structure. Usually three acts, with certain events happening at certain times. Each part needs to stand on it's own feet narrative-wise. It's why Game of Thrones makes for a fantastic series, but would be a lousey movie trilogy. You can't just hack a story into three especially when it is extensive. Your initial treatment has to be a bit more flexible.

The irony is they do attempt to give ME the correct structure:

Number one: Perfect Three Act structure ala Star Wars a New Hope, all plot points hit nicely.

Number two: Three Act with an extended middle act ala Empire Strikes Back. Heroism, friendship and romance in the darkest of times. Again, hit the mark nicely.

Number three: Conventional three act resolution but with a false third act break. Uh-Oh. Almost got it right. Characters at their lowest after Kai Lengs success on Thesia. Heroes bowed, but need to find thier resolve, villians power increased. classic third act break. Story should have ended in control panel room after death of Anderson. But then the God-Brat rises Neo, um, I mean Shepard into heaven and fracks it all up. False act break, narrative disolves, tension is replaced by frustration. Story ruined.