9 réponses à ce sujet

[hangmans tree]

Really?
How did it happen that I have no say in my thread? I go to sleep and the next day I see thread closed. WTF people?
Is BSN really incapable of DISCUSSION?

I didnt start it for forumites to toil over describing MEU shortcomings or DA past dissapointments. I had tendencies in mind. Storytelling, narrative, all the tools writers can use to craft a story. That's what is important.

Not some childis arguments in a sandpit. Whose more right, the ones that liked a game or the ones that didnt...

Back on topic.
When DAO was played, done and put to sleep I began to wonder how could this story be written anew.
A character that is saved from the sloughter of Ostogar. Pulled from the captives-to-torture, saved from the darkspawn. Lets say by Flemeth. His new purpose - to work in shadows, and pave the way for the remaining Grey Wardens and their companions who set on the journey to end the Blight. Imagine all you've done as GW was thanks to ominous forces working behind your back. Your success was achived thanks to those few battleing the odds. To make the final sacrefice possible.
Now think off all developements that could be interwaved with Origins plot and Wardens trail. Now that would be a story to tell. The Heroes of Feralden never knew its all thanks to you and your companions that the Landsmeet actually happened. That the assasins arrow never reached Wardens heart. That the bridge in Orzammar was still intact when the heroes needed it. Constant race agains time, with too few moments of respite, a little bit for love, maybe.

So please dont tell me stories cant be written in a way to forget they build upon something that already was... If I can think of a few ideas I'm sure writers could spring a dozen more, and of better quality I imagine (dragons, lol).

I want to forget past misfortunes in BW accomplisments. I want to be angaged in DAI story, to progress with the held breath, gripped by the narrative and moved by companions stricken by their backstory. Is it too much to ask? i wonder.
(To clarify - personally, DA2 had almost none I cared about, elf girl ended up as LI because there was no one else interesting enough).

Modifié par hangmans tree, 22 novembre 2013 - 10:21 .

[Allan Schumacher]

No. You do not have stories where Average Joe goes to his boring job, works, goes home, watches TV, and goes to sleep with nothing else happening. You do not have stories of people being stuck in traffic. Or using the bathroom. Or filing documents. There's always something else. Always.

Sure you do. They just aren't very interesting stories.


By definition, a story is: "an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment."

The resolution of conflict is the basis of all narrative. If there is no
conflict, there is no story. Very short stories can get away with
proportionally very small conflicts, but there's always at least a
trickle of something out-of-the-ordinary.

This absolutely is not correct.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 22 novembre 2013 - 11:47 .

[Allan Schumacher]

why Allan why??

I closed the last one because of inane picture spam and couldn't be bothered to try to clean it up.

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Sylvius the Mad: Because nobody wants to read a story about an ordinary person that does nothing extraordinary.

How are those the only two options?  A character can be exceptional and ambitious and successful without being heroic.  Villains are an excellent example.

I , personally, don't find RPGs as interesting if my character is presupposed to be exceptional.  I'd much rather play an unexceptional character, who then goes on to do exceptional things.  That would be far more triumphant.

Medhia's post gives me the inclination that they are also okay with being ordinary and doing extraordinary things.

I don't think there's any indication that the protagonist must be an exceptional character in their own right.  Just that they do something interesting.

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

It is correct.

Maybe not in the sense of there being some physical law preventing certain words from existing in a certain order, but in just about every other. Storytellers don't make stories like that and people don't spend time with them.

Irrelevant.

That a story is or is not good doesn't make it any less a story.


If you're going to be patronizing and condescending to fellow posters and state something like "A story by definition" you better use an actual definition of the word story.

Your entire second paragraph has nothing to do with what a story is.

[Allan Schumacher]

It's completely relevant. I'm not going to compromise a very useful definition for the .0001% of fan fiction that might not be in tune with it and is given no attention in any case.

Where are you getting your definition from?

And "patronizing and condescending"? My post was in response to someone outright saying that my words were a result from being sheltered from fiction.

The joys of not quoting your posts. Your response came immediately after one that didn't say that.  Your posting history also comes into question.

And given your strange definition of the term story, and the exceptional aspects they require, questioning your exposure to fiction may not be an unfair question.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 23 novembre 2013 - 12:21 .

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Where are you getting your definition from?

Do you mean a source of some sort?

It comes from reason. Everyone agrees a story must including an accounting of events. But that alone has nothing meaningful inherent to it. My definition gives it inherent meaning and is inclusive of 99.999% of your definition anyway. When I talk about the importance and power of stories, I don't want collections of meaningless events included in that catagory. 

First, reason/logic is often incorrect.  It's fine that you have made a logical deduction, but when you state something is "by definition" your world view, you're immediately going to come across as antagonistic towards those that disagree with the perspective.

I have heard (and told) plenty of stories that include nothing extraordinary.  I'd actually say that most stories I hear are recounts of events that don't have something extraordinary happen in them (and I am skeptical that they have extraordinary thoughts associated with them).


If you're referring to the idea of marketing stories for the purpose of selling, mass market appeal, and whatnot, then I can sort of see where you're coming from (though I disagree with the assessment that it requires anything extraordinary).  It mostly just comes across as "what David likes" as opposed to any generalized statement, but comes across communicated much more in a "this is the way reality is."  As such, people will be put on the defensive because it challenges their own perceptions in ways that they disagree with.

In this case, a boring story is not what someone is going to look for most of the time, because few people actively seek out (and pay money for!) things that bore them.  Though what people consider boring is very personal, and against I'd still argue that nothing extraordinary is required in those cases.

[David Gaider]

Almost anything is possible with a narrative.

When it comes to a narrative for a game, it's a little different. Just because you can think of something that qualifies as a story, that does not mean it would necessarily make for a good game. Games, particularly the sort that we make, require interactivity and agency.

Does that mean a "save the world" scenario is required? Hardly. Even so, it would take a special kind of jaded to opine that heroic tales couldn't possibly be presented in an interesting manner. There were people who made the same kind of posts prior to DAO coming out ("What? ANOTHER save-the-world-from-evil tale?") , and I grew tired of trying to explain the differences between what they were assuming and what we were actually doing, or all the possibilities that exist within one admittedly enormous category.

So if one prefers to simplify: yes, it's a heroic tale. Yes, saving the world (in some fashion) is on the table. No, we don't "always" do this, as we didn't do it in DA2, but this story was what DA2 was always meant to lead into. And if you can't imagine any way that a heroic tale could be done in a manner interesting or satisfying to you, that's fine. Come back when we do a concept that more appeals to your sensibilities.

[David Gaider]

Maria Caliban wrote...
I think it's important to draw a distinction between 'stories you can tell in games' and 'stories you can tell in games that need to sell enough copies to support hundreds of employees.'

The Stanley Parable, Gone Home, and Papers Please... are all examples of interesting, non-traditional game stories. They're all also made by small development teams.

Sure. I didn't suggest that all games required heroic stories--you can indeed fit stories within games that do some very non-traditional things. It does not follow, however, that just because something qualifies as a "story" that it would work within a game--which is where the conversation here seemed to be heading. Even the games you mention still had stories that required the player to be able to do something. The Stanley Parable, in particular, is the best example of that as its entire story is about game stories and agency.

Talking about what makes for a commercial story and what has more mass appeal--that's a different topic, if you ask me. The heroic tale has broader appeal, just as the fantasy genre does (something that has proven true time and time again, even if some jaded folks prioritize novelty and despair at the familiar), but if that's the sole reason to do it that would be pretty soulless. Currently, this story is what it is because that's what we wanted to write since DAO ended. If someone prefers to believe otherwise, they probably want DA to be a series about something it's not actually about.

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I would like to add (and I have mentioned it earlier) that while BioWare does often require that the PC do heroic things, BioWare does not typically (I can't think of a single example, actually) require that the PC actually be heroic.

The PC can do heroic things for entirely unheroic reasons, and BioWare has generally done a really good job of supporting that, even if only by not making explicit what the PC's motives were.

This is, I think, the important element that needs to be preserved.

Yep. A heroic story need not require heroic motivations. I'm not sure why anyone would assume we'd suddenly start imposing such on the player, but whatever.