22 réponses à ce sujet

[ozthegweat]

When I read an article about Drew Karpyshyn saying that there were two vastly different ideas for the motives of the reapers (Dark Energy and what eventually made it into ME3), I wondered why the motives of the reapers weren't defined at the start.

 

Is that a common approach, kinda like "let's see where the story takes us"? I've never written any kind of fiction, let alone the story for a huge game trilogy (nor do I aspire to), but I am curious about the process of writing multi-part stories. I consider the reason why the events of a trilogy happen to be pretty important, and I would have imagined that the most important aspects of the story would be defined at the beginning? Or isn't that how it's usually done?

 

Or are these two ideas for the reaper's motives from that time during the development of ME1, and the synthetics vs. organics plot was set in stone before ME1 came out?

 

Please no discussion about the quality of the ending of ME3, I'd like this thread to be solely about the approach to writing a trilogy.

[Malanek]

Completely depends on the writer. Some have a hard outline of every event, some give the story complete life, and some take a middle ground approach with with vague outlines but plenty of creative room to change.

 

None of my favorite writers have the outright rigid approach. I think it stifles creativity and they all say is incredibly boring to actually write with, although it would make continuity easier to manage.

[PCThug]

I think a video game trilogy, which has a lot of people working it in different capacities, really needs to have at least the basic story arc plotted beforehand, if only to keep the entire team on the same page and aware of what they need to be working towards.

 

I think sticking with the decision to make the series a trilogy was a mistake. ME2 is a great game but doesn't work as a 2nd act in a trilogy. I think most of ME3 would have fit better in the middle of the story (crisis point, everything is going to hell, etc).

[Coming0fShadows]

What should be done at the begining is have most of the main story written out, the basic plot like you said. Other things like characters could be done so they can if need be, taken out of the story. I dont know how they could seriously write a story without deciding why the main "bad guys" are killing everyone, unless they didnt think that was important at the time... Of course multiple writers with different ideas could explain why they couldnt perhaps agree on something, and sideline it for down the road.

Its not a smart move whatever it was that they did, pretty apparent from all the problems so often discussed here. I think the writers for the games have alot of talent, but i dont think they knew how to write a trilogy or a story arc.

[XXIceColdXX]

Mass Effect just like Lost and BSG Galactica suffered in quality towards the end due to too much writing on the fly.

All 3 could have improved if they had even roughly worked out an endgame for their series early on and kept it in mind when branching off on other storylines.

[Han Shot First]

Star Wars is a famous example of a series that has written on the fly.

 

Originally Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader were seperate characters. This was still true even after the first Star Wars film was released, which is why in that film Ben Kenobi tells Luke that Vader killed his father. At the time the first film was produced, Kenobi was telling the truth. During the making of Empire Strikes Back however, Lucas shifted gears and decided to have Anakin Skywalker fall to the dark side and become Darth Vader. That retcon obviously created problems with Kenobi's dialogue in the first film, so a scene was later written into Return of the Jedi where Luke confronts Kenobi's ghost on that "lie," and Kenobi hand waves it as having been true "from a certain point of view."

 

In that instance Lucas making it all up as he went along worked, and produced one of the great twists in movie history. On the other hand, it also resulted in some very bad decisions (and gaping plot holes) in the prequel trilogy.

[Sequin]

This is a hard thing to judge since I've never in my life attempted to write a trilogy (and on top of that, a trilogy of interactive video games). I don't even know what "drafting" looks like in terms of video game writing and so it really is a whole other beast. But to the direct point of the topic, I personally would hate to have everything rigidly laid out beforehand. It almost robs the magic out of the process of writing altogether. But that's just me.

[Sanunes]

The problem I see is developing video games has many rewrites and changes to make the game work within all the  changes that are required during development. I recommend looking at David Gaider's blog to see what he says about writing, for I found it to be really informative.  Here is his post on re-writes Link

 

 

I think a good example could be make of Cerberus considering they were originally to be a larger presence in Mass Effect 1*, so you could say that they planned all along to have Cerberus an major part of Mass Effect 2.  I remember the negativity around how Cerberus was a large part of Mass Effect 2 because it was such a small part of Mass Effect 1.  Did they make the right decision to leave Cerberus in Mass Effect 2 if they did have an outline of how the three games should have worked, or would Mass Effect 2 been better off without Cerberus as the central "organization" to help Shepard?

 

(*I remember this from an old forum comment, but I could be remembering it wrong)

[Drone223]

I think that a basic outline of the over all plot should be written first before adding the subplots and other changes, that way the story remains very consistent, the lack of an overall plot out line is the biggest problem with the current trilogy all three games are good as a stand alone game, they do not make a good three part story arc.

[JamesFaith]

There is no "ideal" way how to write trilogy, every procedure has its pros and cons.

 

Detailed plan for trilogy give you solid guidance, but such plan is very hostile against any changes. Even small ones like new minor character, character with bigger role then planned or new side plot can destroy whole structure and start domino effect.

 

Vague idea give you freedom to alter story and enhance it with new instant ideas but but you need to keep focus whole time because possible retcons, unsolved sideplots and so on.

 

Both approaches can be successful of fail miserably, it always depends on author and type of story. I personally know successful writers of both types. 

[KevinT18]

the answer to the topic is:

 

WHICH trilogy?

[AlanC9]

I think Gene Wolfe said that the way he works is to write until the story's done, and then look at how high the stack of pages is to see if what he's written is a short story, novella, or novel. If the stack falls over before the story's done, it's a multi-book work.

[Drone223]

There is no "ideal" way how to write trilogy, every procedure has its pros and cons.

 

Detailed plan for trilogy give you solid guidance, but such plan is very hostile against any changes. Even small ones like new minor character, character with bigger role then planned or new side plot can destroy whole structure and start domino effect.

 

Vague idea give you freedom to alter story and enhance it with new instant ideas but but you need to keep focus whole time because possible retcons, unsolved sideplots and so on.

 

Both approaches can be successful of fail miserably, it always depends on author and type of story. I personally know successful writers of both types. 

imo I think the bolded works if you want an overarching story, the underlined works for stand alone stories..

[SwobyJ]

Basic main arc.

 

For Mass Effect, you can be damn sure that it was intended for the end to be Shepard facing the Reapers in conversation about their motives.

[EatChildren]

The million dollar question with just as many answers. I believe a famous example is The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien writing "Strider" in for the bar encounter though not entirely sure who he was going to develop his character into. However, like GRRM and Song of Ice and Fire, a very, very general outline of the plot had been established. But "general" is the key word, because what might seem to us as important specifics, like certain battles and characters, might not be a part of that "general". GRRM has always said that he's confident with the end point of his ASOIAF, he knows the conclusion to the story, but the actual road to it happens on the fly.

Video games, or any expensive medium for that matter, are particularly different because what we expect from a good, true trilogy isn't necessarily what is going to be a reality. Tolkien was confident (or confirmed) in security to write all three chapters of The Lord of the Rings. It didn't matter how Fellowship ended in the grand scheme of things, as long as it ended the first act. We can satisfying sit with the Fellowship haven broken up the various groups heading off with knew goals even though the main narrative, the core theme, that being the return of a great evil, hadn't yet been resolved. It's okay the ring exists, and it's okay to end the story that way, because two more books are already in the pipeline.

I said this in another thread, but the video game industry is very difficult at times, especially securing financial support to see a game through to its intended vision. The industry as a whole is still pretty juvenile and going through a lot of growing pains. Fact of the matter is no matter how planned the trilogy was, BioWare could never have made Mass Effect with the Tolkien-like security of two more games coming out for sure. They didn't know how the development of Mass Effect would actually go, how much it would cost in the long run, and what troubles they'd run into. They didn't know how well it would sell. And so they couldn't know if Mass Effect 2 and 3 would exist at all, let alone fit some vision. What if Mass Effect tanked? What if Microsoft or EA or BioWare went under or someone was sold off to someone else? What if rights to the franchise were caught in legal disputes? What if the publisher caused a difficult working relationship with BioWare due to wanting things done with any of the one games that BioWare didn't want to do?

How do you plan and complete a trilogy the same way Tolkien completed his when you don't even know if you'll truly finish the first game?

So again, this is why I feel Mass Effect ends the way it does, and is structured the way it is. Hypothetically it tanked and no publisher was interested in picking up the franchise. Despite being a trilogy we only get one game, yet the narrative arc while open to future games still ends on a surprisingly satisfying note. We don't end with our heroes separated and on an even more dangerous journey than they started, the enemy regrouping and more powerful than ever before, the greatest threat to the narrative, the antagonist itself, still lingering and threatening existence for all the we love. We end with our hero branded as such, the enemy's nefarious plan crushed in a thrilling climax, several plot threads having come to conclusion, with no clear vision of how the remaining enemy will be able to respond, if at all. You could end it there and be happy, or you could take it further.

As a side, this is why you should always be wary of "planned trilogy" for any expensive, AAA, blockbuster gaming franchise. It's a lot of money, a lot of risks, and a lot of important variables that can easy derail any "plans" for the trilogy the creative team might have.

EDIT: holy crap wall of text

[AlanC9]

Basic main arc.
 
For Mass Effect, you can be damn sure that it was intended for the end to be Shepard facing the Reapers in conversation about their motives.

Agreed. Bio considered a lot of things for ME, but leaving the Reapers beyond our comprehension? Not a chance.

[InterrogationBear]

@EatChildren

 

I agree, but LotR is a bad example. It's not a trilogy. Tolkien wrote one large book that was divided (against his wishes) into three volumes.

[ozthegweat]

@EatChildren: your post is very interesting and brings up a lot of points I haven't thought about in relation to "trilogy writing". I guess a lot of people don't really appreciate it when something like the MET comes together, and at how many points it could have failed.

 

But I don't quite see the connection of my question to the points you're bringing up. Defining the major plot points beforehand doesn't have a lot to do with creating the first third of a story in such a way that it could stand alone should the rest be cancelled. One wouldn't interfere with other, would it?

[JamesFaith]

imo I think the bolded works if you want an overarching story, the underlined works for stand alone stories..

 

Not necessarily.

 

I know that it looks logical, but there is little problem with different perspective of reader and writer.

 

Because trilogy are mostly published minimally in five, six months intervals, readers have tendency to perceive them more separated then they are.

 

But for writer is this "break time" only 2, 3 weeks long till he start working on new part. For him overarching story is more one big book divided in three parts, only with limitation of unalterable parts which were already published. And with this he can keep his approach of vague story mixed with instant ideas even during more then one book, if this approach is fitting for him personally.

 

It is like comparing trilogy of books, each of 300 pages, and one huge book of 900 pages divided in three pats inside. When reader see two completely different things, for writer it is nearly same, just with little necessity differences, f.e. like more detailed prologues in each book.

[Beerfish]

It's a difficult thing to face for game development I think because you simply don't know how popular the game will be.  I would be surprised if there isn't a decent outline of events if a company has decided they want a franchise to be multi-game.  You are also faced with different people being put in control of a story arch unlike a novelist who usually is responsible for his or her series of stories.

 

I would guess there is a lot more input overall for a story arch from multiple sources than if it was just one author.  Also I am thinking story direction can change from game to game when the game maker sees what was popular and what worked or did not work in the previous game in a series.

[Heimdall]

I think that, the longer the work, the more has to be prepared at the outset to ensure it all has a cohesive feeling.

When I write fiction, I try to have a vague outline of events, but not too far into the future. Like, I'll write down vaguely what's going to happen in the beginning, middle, and end. Then I'll write down a five to six sentence summary of the first three, four, or five chapters. When I reach the end of those, I'll write down similar summaries for the next four or five chapters, and so forth. Of course, things evolve along the way and plans change. The overall plan helps me keep things from spinning out too much and ensures I have a destination.

With a multi-entry series that has multiple writers working on it? A plan is certainly needed.

[AlanC9]

Depends on the publication schedule. For multi-volume book sets, it's often the case that the writer has at least a first draft of the whole thing before the first volume is released. Sometimes the whole thing is done. George R.R. Martin is something of an outlier here.

As Beerfish mentions, this isn't practical for a game design.

[Phoenix_Also_Rises]

Depends on what you are writing, I guess. I only have experience (if I can call it that) with fiction. I never go into a project knowing it would span several installments. If it does balloon into a series, it is usually because 1) the one-shot gets me thinking about motivations and backgrounds of some of the characters and their stories, which usually spawns a prequel, but sometimes a sequel, or 2) I realize the story I have been writing is too big for a single installment. But when I realize I do have a series on my hands, I do sit down and "allocate" plot points across the series as a whole, so as to make sure everything is evenly paced and internally consistent. Books also have the advantage of being able to go back once your first draft is finished and do major changes and alterations to the second so as to reflect what you have come up with in the interim period, if that makes any sense.

 

Now, I know next to nothing about writing in video games, but from what I have heard/read, it seems to me that the process is whole lot more elemental, for the lack of a better word. A lot of changes are made on the fly, writing is spread across several writers who each work on a chunk of the bigger whole, so I cannot even begin to imagine how implementing changes and redrafting would work in that kind of environment. It does seem a lot more controlled, though. So in that regard, if the execs know in advance they want the game to have sequels (which they all do these days) or at least a sequel potential, the writing should reflect that. There should be at least the vague direction where the story should go next and, most importantly, where it would end. When you go from point A to point B, you do need to know what the point B is. The line from the former to the latter need not be straight or direct - make it as crooked as you like - but you should know where the finish-line is. Or at least have a vague idea; there is no need for a carefully scripted, fully planned-out endgame for Game Three if you are still working on the first one, but there are some things you should work with in advance.