Ieldra2 wrote...
Yes, that is probably true. Yet, I think that "think things through to the end" is one thing I can expect from professional worldbuilders and storytellers. As for the demands of the plot: don't make plots that would nullify everything already established. If worldbuilding has any meaning at all, it absolutely must restrict the kinds of stories you can tell, and accepting that means to strengthen the identity and integrity of the fictional world and all plots that take place within those confines.CaptainBlackGold wrote...
With the "Fade Tear" issue you brought up, and the nature of the fade itself, you are trying to make sense of the data we've been given. Your analysis might be smack on the money; even the writers might say, "Yeah, that's how we envisioned it would work" but then, plot demands might then nullify everything they've already established and we are left with a mess. I would bet though, that the writers themselves have not really worked through all the implications of their own lore (and that is not a criticism, just a reasonable guess as to the limitations of a commercial enterprise).
Of course nobody is perfect and getting *all* the implications is probably unlikely, so there will always be some mistakes and sacrifices, but a cavalier attitude to your own lore, resulting in major inconsistencies, and overuse of the principle that drama is more important than consistency are hugely damaging to your world and the stories told within it, as the example of ME3 amply demonstrates.
However, I have little tolerance for wilful restrictions applied retroactively against what is already established, especially if there is no visible need and I must suspect that it's caused by real-world controversy rather than concern about the effects on the stories told.
With regard to my theory of the Fade, of course I hope I have touched on something but it would be just as interesting to see a different picture emerging. What I think I can rightly expect, though, is a halfway consistent picture that isn't thrown away for short-term considerations.
I could not agree more. And, may I add, you said this far more charitably than I might. I would be tempted to use words of one syllable, replete with Anglo-Saxon gutterals to describe the design decisions that are sometimes made, and "lore be damned!"
Sadly, we are facing the problem of art meeting commercial necessities. The game costs so much to make, that the developers need to see a huge return. Therefore knowing their audience (and we on the BSN are a trivial part of that audience) are happier with Flash! Bang! Boom! than a deeply told story that works because of a consistent underlying world view, we get into the difficulties we've been discussing.
There is also the problem of any game being a cooperative effort; and the old adage of too many cooks spoiling the broth is apt. The leads have one set of priorities, the game mechanic monkeys have another, the writers the third, and the publisher their own agenda that has nothing to do creating a consistent world.
As an example, just think about every action movie ever made. They usually have enormous plot holes; ones big enough to drive a truck through, but the average audience member is so distracted by the explosions and gunfire, they never notice them. The writers probably knew about them, but I would give long odds those inconsistencies were overruled by the producer, director, special effects team or whoever who said something like, "The audience will never notice it..."
This is why movies and computer games have never replaced reading a really well written novel. Maybe, some day not too far off, the cost of creating a game can be diminished through automation (e.g., having realistic sounding, robotic voices so you don't blow the budget on big name actors, automating artistic design, etc.). But that's taking us really off topic...
Modifié par CaptainBlackGold, 24 janvier 2014 - 09:31 .
Retour en haut
