80611 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

RavenEyry wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Except I'm not whining, but merely stating my observations and asking questions. But of course if anyone even dares to mention "bad writing" in this thread you guys all of the sudden go into attack mode. It's rather unnecessary really.

Everyone is aware of your stance on bad writing. I think they get hostile because they're sick of you bringing it up in every other post.

Except I haven't brought it up for a while now and right now all I do is asking valid questions.


How come that everything I see in ME3 goes directly against everything I've learned about basic writing 101 during my last semester?


For example: How to build up a story and what you should or shouldn't put in certain parts of the story. I've learned that it's generally a dumb idea to introduce an entirely new character, plot device or plot twist during the resolution of the story. Such introductions are often experienced as a "deus ex machina". These things are best introduced during the 2nd plot point, or the climax of the story. It's often called bad writing when someone does introduce a new element during the resolution.

That's what I've learned and ME3 goes directly against this. Is it therefor really so weird that I call this bad writing?

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 28 novembre 2012 - 08:50 .

[Ophiskc]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Except I haven't brought it up for a while now and right now all I do is asking valid questions.


How come that everything I see in ME3 goes directly against everything I've learned about basic writing 101 during my last semester?


For example: How to build up a story and what you should or shouldn't put in certain parts of the story. I've learned that it's generally a dumb idea to introduce an entirely new character, plot device or plot twist during the resolution of the story. Such introductions are often experienced as a "deus ex machina". These things are best introduced during the 2nd plot point/mark of the story. It's often called bad writing when someone does introduce a new element during the resolution.

That's what I've learned and ME3 goes directly against this. Is it therefor really so weird that I call this bad writing?

Who cares?
Your original question sounds as you want purely a confrontation, there's no point whatsoever to ask a question like that. There're writers here, so? what's the problem?

[RavenEyry]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
I've learned that it's generally a dumb idea to introduce an entirely new character, plot device or plot twist during the resolution of the story. Such introductions are often experienced as a "deus ex machina". These things are best introduced during the 2nd plot point, or the climax of the story. It's often called bad writing when someone does introduce a new element during the resolution.

Yes everyone knows that. It's one of the things that isn't real in IT.

[The Heretic of Time]

Ophiskc wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Except I haven't brought it up for a while now and right now all I do is asking valid questions.


How come that everything I see in ME3 goes directly against everything I've learned about basic writing 101 during my last semester?


For example: How to build up a story and what you should or shouldn't put in certain parts of the story. I've learned that it's generally a dumb idea to introduce an entirely new character, plot device or plot twist during the resolution of the story. Such introductions are often experienced as a "deus ex machina". These things are best introduced during the 2nd plot point/mark of the story. It's often called bad writing when someone does introduce a new element during the resolution.

That's what I've learned and ME3 goes directly against this. Is it therefor really so weird that I call this bad writing?

Who cares?
Your original question sounds as you want purely a confrontation, there's no point whatsoever to ask a question like that. There're writers here, so? what's the problem?

Not everything is always about confrontation. Too bad that you precieve it as such. I was not looking for confrontation. I was looking for a discussion. I'm also just curious about how comes so many people in here are busy with writing stuff. Nothing harmful in being curious.


Seriously, why are some of you so on edge today? Did someone ****** in your coffee or something? Relax people, calm down.

Here, have some pie, maybe that will cheer you up :

[The Heretic of Time]

RavenEyry wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
I've learned that it's generally a dumb idea to introduce an entirely new character, plot device or plot twist during the resolution of the story. Such introductions are often experienced as a "deus ex machina". These things are best introduced during the 2nd plot point, or the climax of the story. It's often called bad writing when someone does introduce a new element during the resolution.

Yes everyone knows that. It's one of the things that isn't real in IT.

Which doesn't make it better, it only makes it worse in my opinion.

[Andromidius]

I just find it insulting to be called a so-called writer. Its a very petty and low attack.

I write, therefore I am. If you're going to judge someone's ability to write on whether or not they've been published, then every single sports personality who's released an autobiography is a writer.

The connotation is that if its a hobby you're somehow not good at it and thus can't judge whether or not something is done well. Which is utter garbage.

Of course, I know why its being said. Its an attempt to discredit the opinion and viewpoints of others by claiming they don't have the qualifications to make them. A failed attempt, I might add.

[RavenEyry]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...
Yes everyone knows that. It's one of the things that isn't real in IT.

Which doesn't make it better, it only makes it worse in my opinion.

It's just you can't say "IT is wrong because of <thing that's only valid in a literal interpretation>"

[The Heretic of Time]

SwobyJ wrote...

Basic Writing 101 (and I've taken a few classes of it or its variations) tend to go against amazing literature itself.

It's just that - how to write a basic story. Not every story requires the progression that a low level writing class teaches.

The big problem is that when a writer (of novel, film, game, whatever) decides to go against convention, they better friggin know what they're dealing with, or else they're taking a gamble on how the audience (either the immediate audience or people decades and centuries in the future) see their work.

So I usually reserve 'bad writing' for MUCH MUCH worse writing than the worst noted stuff of Mass Effect.

Better to say: "Unconventional writing that doesn't work with me" or "That writing wasn't enjoyable", but that's a perception thing.

*Bad* writing, to me, would be many MMO quest window texts, not Mass Effect dialogue and plot writing.

Fair enough. That sounds reasonable. Thanks for your honest and educative answer. I'll think about this.

Could you name a few pieces of literature that go against the basic rules of writing laid down by Aristotles and Freytag, yet are still generally considered to be good pieces?

[The Heretic of Time]

RavenEyry wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...
Yes everyone knows that. It's one of the things that isn't real in IT.

Which doesn't make it better, it only makes it worse in my opinion.

It's just you can't say "IT is wrong because of <thing that's only valid in a literal interpretation>"

And where in this entire discussion about writing did I say "IT is wrong because..."?

[Krimzie]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
I've learned that it's generally a dumb idea to introduce an entirely new character, plot device or plot twist during the resolution of the story. Such introductions are often experienced as a "deus ex machina". These things are best introduced during the 2nd plot point, or the climax of the story. It's often called bad writing when someone does introduce a new element during the resolution.

Yes everyone knows that. It's one of the things that isn't real in IT.

Which doesn't make it better, it only makes it worse in my opinion.

Introducing a new element full of forced exposition at the "resolution" of the story is as bad as ending a final number of a score on an unresolved chord, and the ending of ME3 does BOTH of those things...

So at that point, I start wondering if it was intentional -- a sort of implied "hang on, you guys" -- but what the hell do I know? Could just be intense rationalization on my end.




Edit to add: And I never really share my diagnosis of the ending, but I sort of lean toward the opinion that it is clever and has a lot more going on than is immediately apparent, but in an effort to make things less obvious, they might have made things too obscure. And I think that has a lot to do with how you drop hints and foreshadow in a medium that engages the "game brain" more quickly than the "story brain."

Modifié par Krimzie, 28 novembre 2012 - 09:10 .

[Ophiskc]

A petty way to search for a discussion I would say.
And I had a wonderful free day today, but thank you for your concern.

[CoolioThane]

I love it when you read to me and yoooooouuuuuu, you can read me anything.

[The Heretic of Time]

Krimzie wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
I've learned that it's generally a dumb idea to introduce an entirely new character, plot device or plot twist during the resolution of the story. Such introductions are often experienced as a "deus ex machina". These things are best introduced during the 2nd plot point, or the climax of the story. It's often called bad writing when someone does introduce a new element during the resolution.

Yes everyone knows that. It's one of the things that isn't real in IT.

Which doesn't make it better, it only makes it worse in my opinion.

Introducing a new element full of forced exposition at the "resolution" of the story is as bad as ending a final number of a score on an unresolved chord, and the ending of ME3 does BOTH of those things...

So at that point, I start wondering if it was intentional -- a sort of implied "hang on, you guys" -- but what the hell do I know? Could just be intense rationalization on my end.

You're talking about the original score that played during the scene where the Normandy is getting destroyed before the EC?


Well yeah, that was not necessarily bad. It's something most music composers do at the climax of something, or at a cliffhanger.

[RavenEyry]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
And where in this entire discussion about writing did I say "IT is wrong because..."?

You're constantly saying you disagree with IT because it's just bad writing and then proving it's bad writing by using examples that don't count in IT.

Try using how Earth is suddenly the center of the universe. That's bad writing that is unrelated to IT.

[The Heretic of Time]

Ophiskc wrote...

A petty way to search for a discussion I would say.
And I had a wonderful free day today, but thank you for your concern.

Well that is your opinion. Too bad you saw it that way. At least I'm glad to hear that no one decided to ****** in your coffee today.  And free days are always good.

[Krimzie]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...


You're talking about the original score that played during the scene where the Normandy is getting destroyed before the EC?

Well yeah, that was not necessarily bad. It's something most music composers do at the climax of something, or at a cliffhanger.

Correct. And I don't think it's bad, but it definitely performs a cliffhanger function -- and that was rectified in the EC... so now it ends on a resolved major chord. In the same way, if the Catalyst thing *is* some twisted version of a cliffhanger, it's not necessarily bad (still a buttload of forced exposition...)... but the whole audience was expecting resolution and got two instances of cliffhanger cues.

Modifié par Krimzie, 28 novembre 2012 - 09:09 .

[The Heretic of Time]

RavenEyry wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
And where in this entire discussion about writing did I say "IT is wrong because..."?

You're constantly saying you disagree with IT because it's just bad writing and then proving it's bad writing by using examples that don't count in IT.

And when was the last time I actually said something along the lines of "I disagree with IT because it's bad writing"? I haven't said anything of the sorts for quite a while now.

That said, the IT does not fix the bad-writing part. Just because you try to invalidate the DEM at the end of ME3 with a "it's just an illusion" trope doesn't make it any better. It only makes the story even worse if you ask me. I hate "all just a dream" or "all just an illusion" plot-devices. I haven't seen a single well-written story that uses such a plot-device. Not once.

Try using how Earth is suddenly the center of the universe. That's bad writing that is unrelated to IT.

Well at least we can agree on that. There are many more examples to give why I think ME3 is badly written, all of them unrelated to the IT. I could sum the up, but I have done so several times in the past and I'm sure I'll only get angry faces here if I even dare to do that.

[The Heretic of Time]

Krimzie wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...


You're talking about the original score that played during the scene where the Normandy is getting destroyed before the EC?

Well yeah, that was not necessarily bad. It's something most music composers do at the climax of something, or at a cliffhanger.

Correct. And I don't think it's bad, but it definitely performs a cliffhanger function -- and that was rectified in the EC... so now it ends on a resolved major chord. In the same way, if the Catalyst thing *is* some twisted version of a cliffhanger, it's not necessarily bad (still a buttload of forced exposition...)... but the whole audience was expecting resolution and got two instances of cliffhanger cues.

Agreed.


I also try to think of any trilogy that ever ended on a cliffhanger. I can't think of any trilogy that ever did that. Not a movie trilogy, not a game trilogy either.

Do you know any past examples of trilogies that ended on a cliffhanger? And I don't mean a cliffhanger AFTER the resolution, but rather a cliffhanger DURING or INSTEAD OF the resolution.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 28 novembre 2012 - 09:12 .

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
I've learned that it's generally a dumb idea to introduce an entirely new character, plot device or plot twist during the resolution of the story. Such introductions are often experienced as a "deus ex machina". These things are best introduced during the 2nd plot point, or the climax of the story. It's often called bad writing when someone does introduce a new element during the resolution.

Yes everyone knows that. It's one of the things that isn't real in IT.

Which doesn't make it better, it only makes it worse in my opinion.

I dont see how considering a common belief in the IT is that the child in every iteration, including the dreams is a vision induced by Harbinger, an old character who was mysteriously absent (yet mentioned like he was a big deal on at least two occasions) from the game.

That makes it not a new character, but an old character performing a deception and perhaps even better ties all the appeareances of the child together meaning the character of the child, even if a vision was present since the beginning.

[smokingotter1]

Hey Everyone. I'm back, took a couple of extra days of vaca time. Anyway here is the compilation of the #icalledit

Restrider:
“We get to know that Omega is actually of Reaper origin (to some extent) and that the Crucible is not what it seems.”

And

“Chorban DLC in the next months”

 

ElSuperGecko:
“We'll find out that TIM used the Collector Base (or the remains thereof) to directly contact Harbinger and the Reapers in darkspace...”

and

“Also,
while I'm in a predictive mood: It will be possible to persuade General Oleg Petrovsky defect to join the Alliance forces, in which case both  he and his Cerberus forces become War Assets.”

And

“There'll be a comment about 6,000+ pages of speculation in Omega somewhere...”


Dwailing:
“Now I'm about to call it.  You'll have to choose whether you want Petrovsky to work with you but Aria die or vice versa.”

Paxxton:
“Omega DLC will reveal the great secret of Omega, namely, why did Cerberus take control of it? Maybe since Shepard gets to know how the Crucible really works in conjunction with Omega he will have more to say to the
Catalyst, defy his thinking.”

Eryri:
“The Adjutants will be revealed to be the remnants of either the Inusannon, or the "Intelligence's" original thralls, that it used to harvest the Leviathans.”

Smokingotter:
“My prediction: Increased dialogue options with Starchild and maybe Harbinger getting hit from Orbit a couple of times when he descends during the conduit run. Modular theory ftw!”


Sad modular theory turned into a bust. (based on comments). Haven't tried out Omega yet so I'm not sure who got it right.

Modifié par smokingotter1, 28 novembre 2012 - 09:15 .

[Restrider]

 I haven't seen a single well-written story that uses such a plot-device. Not once.

Really? Not even Fight Club?

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Krimzie wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...


You're talking about the original score that played during the scene where the Normandy is getting destroyed before the EC?

Well yeah, that was not necessarily bad. It's something most music composers do at the climax of something, or at a cliffhanger.

Correct. And I don't think it's bad, but it definitely performs a cliffhanger function -- and that was rectified in the EC... so now it ends on a resolved major chord. In the same way, if the Catalyst thing *is* some twisted version of a cliffhanger, it's not necessarily bad (still a buttload of forced exposition...)... but the whole audience was expecting resolution and got two instances of cliffhanger cues.

Agreed.


I also try to think of any trilogy that ever ended on a cliffhanger. I can't think of any trilogy that ever did that. Not a movie trilogy, not a game trilogy either.

Do you know any past examples of trilogies that ended on a cliffhanger? And I don't mean a cliffhanger AFTER the resolution, but rather a cliffhanger DURING or INSTEAD OF the resolution.

The Kingdom Hearts series lives and breathes pretty much setting thinsg up or hinting at the next game with the end of each of the older ones. Not outright cliffhangers in most cases (though i would argue Sora going to sleep at the end of Chain of Memories count) and Dream. Drop. Distance. ends on the certainty that things are about to get really, really bad.

True none of the games pretend they are going to resolve the plot in that paticular game, but they arent exactly telling you it is over either.

[Restrider]

smokingotter1 wrote...

----8<-------------------8<-----

Well, maybe I am still right with the Chorban DLC (also commonly dubbed Citadel DLC).