170 réponses à ce sujet

[spirosz]

So wrong much thread in.

[themikefest]

David7204 wrote...

It makes utterly no difference whatsoever. In real life, most wars have probably been won because of boring logistics work and grunt work. Which side can supply their army better, dig more ditches, produce more weapons. Not because of any heroism or idealism or great leaders or skill in combat. Empires have been built on shovels. Not swords.

Guess what? That doesn't mean we tell stories about digging ditches.

So your saying you don't need to have any skill in combat? Interesting. Makes me wonder why I had to go through basic training and all the other traing that I received. that gave me the skill to survive and fight.

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No, Julia. Having a character the audience trusts turn out to suddenly be a traitor is silly and contrived. Using dramatic irony and hinting to the audience that characters aren't what they seem is good writing. What you suggest isn't.

The Freys would like a word David

LOL, good example. I didn't see the Red Wedding coming. I was appalled - and delighted that a piece of fiction managed to surprise me. That doesn't happen every day. If a writer can surprise a genre-savvy audience, and then in hindsight it all seems obvious enough that it doesn't come across as contrived, then I call that very good writing.

It appears to me that the writers at Bioware have a long way to go before they can manage that.  

[wright1978]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

David7204 wrote...

No, Julia. Having a character the audience trusts turn out to suddenly be a traitor is silly and contrived. Using dramatic irony and hinting to the audience that characters aren't what they seem is good writing. What you suggest isn't.

The Freys would like a word David

LOL, good example. I didn't see the Red Wedding coming. I was appalled - and delighted that a piece of fiction managed to surprise me. That doesn't happen every day. If a writer can surprise a genre-savvy audience, and then in hindsight it all seems obvious enough that it doesn't come across as contrived, then I call that very good writing.

It appears to me that the writers at Bioware have a long way to go before they can manage that.  

Once i was completely surprised(overjoyed) at Eddard's fate i was much less so by the red wedding because of i saw parrallels. I still loved it though. I think such a scenario would be hard to achieve without coming across as forced.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

themikefest wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It makes utterly no difference whatsoever. In real life, most wars have probably been won because of boring logistics work and grunt work. Which side can supply their army better, dig more ditches, produce more weapons. Not because of any heroism or idealism or great leaders or skill in combat. Empires have been built on shovels. Not swords.

Guess what? That doesn't mean we tell stories about digging ditches.

So your saying you don't need to have any skill in combat? Interesting. Makes me wonder why I had to go through basic training and all the other traing that I received. that gave me the skill to survive and fight.

David is just being David again. 

[Kurremurre]

David7204 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Finding out troop numbers, the nature of the enemy faced, how the enemy communicates with one another, what their strategies are, where they are from, what their goals could be, are all part of research and have been part of wars since at least the Persians rise to power.

It makes utterly no difference whatsoever. In real life, most wars have probably been won because of boring logistics work and grunt work. Which side can supply their army better, dig more ditches, produce more weapons. Not because of any heroism or idealism or great leaders or skill in combat. Empires have been built on shovels. Not swords.

Guess what? That doesn't mean we tell stories about digging ditches.

First off, what makes no difference whatsoever? I wouldn't assume you mean to say that the activities listed make no difference in war, but the rest of your post suggests that's exactly what you mean. Now, I'm no war expert, but I was under the impression that intelligence played an important role in war regarding how to go about with the "boring logistics work and grunt work". Brotarian's point appears to be that in acquiring this intelligence - which is seen as a form of science - there is ample opportunity for themes to be explored.

Also, as more of a tangent, what ditches are you thinking of prior to the 20th century, exactly? And how do you suppose any war could be won without skill in combat?

Modifié par Kurremurre, 30 décembre 2013 - 06:50 .

[David7204]

Stories are not made about things just because they exist or they're important in real life. That's not good enough. They have to be interesting and thematically rich.

Secondly, nobody is denying that great leaders and combat skill and whatnot make a difference. The point is throughout history, they probably made less of an impact than the boring stuff. Yes, there are no doubt many battles where great leaders or hardened warriors made a huge difference. (Which is exactly what fiction focuses on.) But over the course of history, it probably more often than not came down to who was sick and hungry and who was fed and equipped more than who had the better warriors and leaders.

[Kurremurre]

I never said anything about stories. I was mainly addressing the "wars in history" issue.

Now, of course such things as you describe were the primary issues; that should be obvious. However...

It makes utterly no difference whatsoever.

... doesn't sound quite like what you're saying now.

[David7204]

It makes utterly no difference into what goes into a story. It doesn't matter if 1% of battles were won by busywork or 90%. It's still not very interesting and thematically poor.

Likewise, we all know research makes a titanic difference in real life conflicts, and pretty much real life anything. But that doesn't matter, because a person solving problems by working away in a lab doesn't have the conflict or themes stories need.

[Kurremurre]

Ah, so that's what you meant, then. Since I didn't get a reply to that question, I figured I'd understood it right.

[Jorji Costava]

David7204 wrote...

Likewise, we all know research makes a titanic difference in real life conflicts, and pretty much real life anything. But that doesn't matter, because a person solving problems by working away in a lab doesn't have the conflict or themes stories need.

I'd say that if you've started out telling a story of larger-than-life characters doing great deeds, then yes, it's probably not a great idea to have the whole resolution to the final conflict turn on busywork. But things might be different for a game, movie, book, etc. that sets out from the beginning to be about the unglamorous realities of how stuff gets done. Works like Das Boot, The French Connection, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy all very successfully explored some of the more banal and yes, even tedious aspects of how their central conflicts get resolved. Obviously, that's not what ME has ever been, but it's something worth considering, anyways.

[David7204]

Indeed. This is more or less confined to epic fiction.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

osbornep wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Likewise, we all know research makes a titanic difference in real life conflicts, and pretty much real life anything. But that doesn't matter, because a person solving problems by working away in a lab doesn't have the conflict or themes stories need.

I'd say that if you've started out telling a story of larger-than-life characters doing great deeds, then yes, it's probably not a great idea to have the whole resolution to the final conflict turn on busywork. But things might be different for a game, movie, book, etc. that sets out from the beginning to be about the unglamorous realities of how stuff gets done. Works like Das Boot, The French Connection, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy all very successfully explored some of the more banal and yes, even tedious aspects of how their central conflicts get resolved. Obviously, that's not what ME has ever been, but it's something worth considering, anyways.

I'd say its also an individual aspect as well. More mechanical minded people for example might better appreciate and enjoy the more tedious and banal means of accomplishing an objective in a story, even in something that involves the larger than life things. I certainly would. 

[Ieldra]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

osbornep wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Likewise, we all know research makes a titanic difference in real life conflicts, and pretty much real life anything. But that doesn't matter, because a person solving problems by working away in a lab doesn't have the conflict or themes stories need.

I'd say that if you've started out telling a story of larger-than-life characters doing great deeds, then yes, it's probably not a great idea to have the whole resolution to the final conflict turn on busywork. But things might be different for a game, movie, book, etc. that sets out from the beginning to be about the unglamorous realities of how stuff gets done. Works like Das Boot, The French Connection, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy all very successfully explored some of the more banal and yes, even tedious aspects of how their central conflicts get resolved. Obviously, that's not what ME has ever been, but it's something worth considering, anyways.

I'd say its also an individual aspect as well. More mechanical minded people for example might better appreciate and enjoy the more tedious and banal means of accomplishing an objective in a story, even in something that involves the larger than life things. I certainly would.

To add to that: all the badassery and larger-than-life-ness means absolutely nothing if the protagonists don't have believable means to get their stuff done, and (a) those means - in an SF story - are often provided by science and technology, and ( the protagonists often start without those means, and acquiring them through research and engineering isn't just a sideshow, but - again, in an SF story - an important part of the story.

To say that research and engineering don't play a critical part in conflict resolution in an SF story is plainly ludicrous. It may be the protagonist's ultimate task to bring the "stuff" to bear on the conflict, but it may also be their task to find information relating to useful technology. We may never see a protagonist in the lab for more than a minute even if they're a scientist, because extended lab sequences tend to be boring, but they may spend a lot of time there offscreen nonetheless without being any less heroic for it.

Actually, I respect characters like Mordin more than Shepard, because they're smart *and* courageous, and Shepard's stupid lines only didn't make me lose almost all my respect for them in ME3 because I pinned that on the writers instead of the character and don't consider it real - after all, *my* Shepard would've never said those things.       

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 décembre 2013 - 08:39 .

[David7204]

It is just a sideshow.

Mordin's cure? Never seen in progress or shown to be a conflict. It happens, off screen.
Thanix guns? Silaris Armor? Multicore Shielding? Never seen or shown to be a conflict. It happens, off screen. Same with every other upgrade.
All the fleet upgrades, the quarian's anti-geth weapon, EDI's development, Cerberus research...

And that's pretty much true for any nearly all fiction. At most, a story will work some sequence of characters working in a lab or whatever. Montage. Music backdrop. Breaking Bad style. Beakers and chemicals.

Does science play a role? Sure, in the same sense that food, water, and oxygen play a role. As in, it happens in the background, it's necessary for success, but isn't what the story and conflicts are about and thus shouldn't have a central presence. And thus doesn't. 

Modifié par David7204, 30 décembre 2013 - 08:47 .

[Ieldra]

David7204 wrote...
Does science play a role? Sure, in the same sense that food, water, and oxygen play a role. As in, it happens in the background, it's necessary for success, but isn't what the story and conflicts are about and thus shouldn't have a central presence. And thus doesn't. 

So...you would say that the genophage story is not about science and technology? The story of Shepard's coming back from the dead? The whole conflict about the Reapers and their ....gasp..... technology? About AI? Biotics and the suspicions against them (a story in an ME1 sidequest)? *scoffs*

The only reasons we don't see the development process on-screen is because (a) it's boring to watch and ( the finer details of how things are achieved often don't matter for the story. In any good SF story, you can be rather sure that if showing the process makes a point and it can be made to look interesting, that's what we'll see. For instance, in ME2 we see Mordin in the SR2 lab when he talks about having found a means to protect the team against the swarms, and he even comments on the process further when the team lands. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 décembre 2013 - 09:09 .

[David7204]

In the manner that's it's presented to us, no. It absolutely isn't.

[TheMyron]

Zan51 wrote...

I am actually agreeing with you here David. Good stories, good movies and so on have 3 components - Violence, Humor and Sex.

Oh, how I miss the days when a story could be perfect and yet have 0.00% involvement in sexual themes (scenes, references, etc.)

[Display Name Owner]

It's not Shepard's job to even be coming up with such ideas and if he were the one who somehow devised the means to stop the Reapers it would have been ridiculous. Still, I'd have liked it if he and the Normandy crew were more involved in the actual gathering of data - exploring Prothean data caches and the like, picking up some interesting info on the Reapers and their history along the way, and then handing the materials over to the brainy people. I'm not looking for a fictional science lesson, but I do like a little attention to those details.

The whole crucible thing might have been a lot better if we actually were involved in tracking down the data, instead of being told by a scientists that it exists and hey, it's right here on Mars.

[David7204]

It would have been better. But still mediocre at best. It's an idea that never should have been used in the first place.

[dreamgazer]

Can't figure out where to start in all that with counter-examples and rebuttals.

Soooo, I'll shrug and deliver my canned response: "Experience more fiction, David".

[Display Name Owner]

No disagreement here. But then I can't think of any other ideas as to how the Reapers should have been overcome. Although I'm not a professional writer...

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

It would have been better. But still mediocre at best.

And what would be a great-writing end to the Reapers in ME3, David? Please, educate us.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It would have been better. But still mediocre at best.

And what would be a great-writing end to the Reapers in ME3, David? Please, educate us.

Heroism being meaningful. And Shepard stopping the Reapers through the power of perfect teeth and skimpy outfits full of characterization.

[dreamgazer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It would have been better. But still mediocre at best.

And what would be a great-writing end to the Reapers in ME3, David? Please, educate us.

Heroism being meaningful. And Shepard stopping the Reapers through the power of perfect teeth and skimpy outfits full of characterization.

Oh, my.  Why haven't we discovered this sooner?!



They're the secret weapon against the Reapers! Let's bounce some lasers and biotics and stuff off those pearly whites, and blast 'em to kingdom come.