Oh, does "seemingly irrelevant choices during seemingly irrelevant conversation" and "come back later in the narrative to either bite me in the ass" mean something I wasn't aware of? To my knowledge, those words had pretty clear definitions in the English language.
Shockingly enough, basing huge consequences on small choices or even medium choices doesn't actually to anything to address the inherent stupidity of the whole concept. it only dilutes it. It's the same fundamental problem.
Oh, does "seemingly irrelevant choices during seemingly irrelevant conversation" and "come back later in the narrative to either bite me in the ass" mean something I wasn't aware of? To my knowledge, those words had pretty clear definitions in the English language.
Shockingly enough, basing huge consequences on small choices or even medium choices doesn't actually to anything to address the inherent stupidity of the whole concept. it only dilutes it. It's the same fundamental problem.
You're the only one that sounds stupid here. 
Yeah, seemingly irrelevant choices biting you in the ass down the line doesn't exactly mean that the existence of all life as we know it will hinge on an interview. That's just your own radical delusion.
I advocate for less transparent choices, branching narratives/missions/settings based on those choices.....and you come up with some whackjob scenario and call it stupid. Cool story bruh. You're on your own there.
But why can't stories reflect this aspect of reality if the point of the story is to show the randomness of real life? It doesn't make for inherently better writing nor does it make worse. It's just different.
I think wanting some stories to embrace the randomness of reality is a completely reasonable thing, especially in sci-fi/fantasy where stuff can often happen only because of divine will and heroic deeds. Many people have heard that story, might be a bit tired of it, and want to see a different take to be surprised again.
First of all, because you don't want randomness of real life at all. Nobody does. You're not thinking about what randomness actually means.
You're thinking that randomness means something along the lines of the example of I gave, where maybe instead of the shining hero, it's some random civilian that comes along that does something or another that decides the fate of the final epic battle. Something like that, yes?
See, that's not what 'random' actually means.
Real Random would be the final epic battle never happening at all. Real random would be buying a ticket for the action movie and within ten minutes, the army ranger trainee decides to leave the program because he 'randomly' sees an advertisement for a technical school. He moves, signs up, and the rest of the film is footage of him methodically writing code and working his part time job at a gas station clerk. And for 90 minutes, we just watch him browse Reddit on his phone and politely interacting with customers. Literally nothing else happens. None of this is in the advertisments for the film, by the way.
Does that sound like a good story to you? It's very 'random.' It's certainly a surprise to people who expected an action story with lots of heroics.
It's not. You would hate it. Because you don't really want to see how randomness works in reality. You spend time and money with fiction because you want something to happen. But that something is inherently opposed to how randomness actually works. Real randomness is utterly boring.
So yes. It inherently makes for worse writing.
You're the only one that sounds stupid here.
Yeah, seemingly irrelevant choices biting you in the ass down the line doesn't exactly mean that the existence of all life as we know it will hinge on an interview. That's just your own radical delusion.
I advocate for less transparent choices, branching narratives/missions/settings based on those choices.....and you come up with some whackjob scenario and call it stupid. Cool story bruh. You're on your own there.
The 'delusion' is you thinking you have any understanding of these simple concepts because you can parrot pretty phrases like 'transparent choices' and 'branching narratives.' Boy, those sure do sound smart, don't they now? Unfortunately for you, they aren't actually arcane chants to turn bad writing into good writing, which seems to be about the limit of your use of them. They actually do mean things, with ideas and concepts behind them.
The 'delusion' is you thinking you have any understanding of these simple concepts because you can parrot pretty phrases like 'transparent choices' and 'branching narratives.' Boy, those sure do sound smart, don't they now? Unfortunately for you, they aren't actually arcane chants to turn bad writing into good writing, which seems to be about the limit of your use of them. They actually do mean things, with ideas and concepts behind them.
Yup, you sure like to project your minimalistic interpretation onto anybody who posts anything that you clearly don't grasp. As far as non-transparent choices and branching narratives, I did make reference specifically to how CDPR handles them with The Witcher series (yeah, they're pretty "smart"). So, yes they are actual concepts....concepts that you don't seem to understand or just automatically assume that the end result is some reporter effecting the endgame. I don't recall anything of the sort happening within the game series I referenced. Not sure why you would manifest something so ridiculous and implement it into Mass Effect.
You look and sound foolish. Stop assuming you think you know what I expect from a branching narrative. It certainly isn't some asinine scenario where a reporter's interview determines the outcome of a trilogy. Nice idea. I think I speak for everyone when I say "I'll pass".
First of all, because you don't want randomness of real life at all. Nobody does. You're not thinking about what randomness actually means.
You're thinking that randomness means something along the lines of the example of I gave, where maybe instead of the shining hero, it's some random civilian that comes along that does something or another that decides the fate of the final epic battle. Something like that, yes?
See, that's not what 'random' actually means.
Real Random would be the final epic battle never happening at all. Real random would be buying a ticket for the action movie and within ten minutes, the army ranger trainee decides to leave the program because he 'randomly' sees an advertisement for a technical school. He moves, signs up, and the rest of the film is footage of him methodically writing code and working his part time job at a gas station clerk. And for 90 minutes, we just watch him browse Reddit on his phone and politely interacting with customers. Literally nothing else happens. None of this is in the advertisments for the film, by the way.
Does that sound like a good story to you? It's very 'random.' It's certainly a surprise to people who expected an action story with lots of heroics.
It's not. You would hate it. Because you don't really want to see how randomness works in reality. You spend time and money with fiction because you want something to happen. But that something is inherently opposed to how randomness actually works. Real randomness is utterly boring.
So yes. It inherently makes for worse writing.
I would attribute randomness to something like pedantics. Where you know everything that's gonna happen, and then, boom, out of nowhere someone comes along and screams, "TESTICLES! TESTICLES! THAT IS ALL!"
It's a very hmmm... Disconcerting thing for a grown person to deal with. Randomness can happen to a grown person... But it is pedantic to say the least.
First of all, because you don't want randomness of real life at all. Nobody does. You're not thinking about what randomness actually means.
You're thinking that randomness means something along the lines of the example of I gave, where maybe instead of the shining hero, it's some random civilian that comes along that does something or another that decides the fate of the final epic battle. Something like that, yes?
See, that's not what 'random' actually means.
Real Random would be the final epic battle never happening at all. Real random would be buying a ticket for the action movie and within ten minutes, the army ranger trainee decides to leave the program because he 'randomly' sees an advertisement for a technical school. He moves, signs up, and the rest of the film is footage of him methodically writing code and working his part time job at a gas station clerk. And for 90 minutes, we just watch him browse Reddit on his phone and politely interacting with customers. Literally nothing else happens. None of this is in the advertisments for the film, by the way.
Does that sound like a good story to you? It's very 'random.' It's certainly a surprise to people who expected an action story with lots of heroics.
It's not. You would hate it. Because you don't really want to see how randomness works in reality. You spend time and money with fiction because you want something to happen. But that something is inherently opposed to how randomness actually works. Real randomness is utterly boring.
So yes. It inherently makes for worse writing.
But you said that having the random interview influence later events was random and pointless as well. That's not very boring. Random implies literally anything, so it could be very mundane. But it cold also be very interesting.
A narrative has an implied interest to it. Yes, I would be very bored by what you said, but only if the writers didn't do anything with it. The plot you described could make a very good movie about a ranger ashamed of his cowardice or proud of his choice to avoid a war. Maybe his decision leads him to the love of his life or to the police force. Anything can happen.
There's a difference between surprise and false advertising. Yes, changing the movie from action to something else would be outright lying, but a movie can still take surprising turns without betraying it's motives.
Randomness it isn't purely banal; the phrase "truth is stranger than fiction," came from somewhere. Randomness also isn't all or nothing; just because the ranger movie started with a soldier deciding to leave the service, doesn't mean the rest of his life isn't interesting or even action packed.
Random implies literally anything, so it could be very mundane. But it cold also be very interesting.
We're inching along to a truth here.
Yes, random could be anything. it could be interesting or boring. Now, in real life, it's overwhelmingly boring. The boring outcome is overwhelmingly more likely to 'realistically' happen. But we don't tell stories about that. We don't tell stories about the 999,999 boring random outcomes, we tell stories about the one interesting one. The one in a million. The others aren't important. It doesn't matter how much more likely they are. It's irrelevant.
And we do this, because, as you said, a narrative has an implied interest it in.
it's the exact same thing with meaning.
In real life, when you make a choice, there's a very good chance it really won't matter much. There's a very good chance that the outcome won't have anything to do with your intention. There's a very good chance it will end up being pointless. But that's irrelevant. We don't tell stories about the lives of the 999,999 soldiers who made choices and had them backfire or not matter. They're not important. We tell stories about the one protagonist, the one in a million, where they do matter.
Because just as a narrative has an implied interest in it, a narrative has an implied meaning.
The interview example I gave isn't bad because by itself in isolation, it's bad because it renders the surrounding heroic story pointless. It's okay to have stories where the 'theme,' the 'truth' is how random the world is. I can think of some comedy stories that have basically done this very well. That being said, the choice driven combat RPG would be a spectacularly poor medium for that sort of theme.
Like you said, and like I said earlier, you can have surprises but those surprises cannot betray the themes of motives of the story. Whatever surprises, whatever unexpected content is in a BioWare game, it needs to enunciate the themes of the story, not betray them.
Randomness it isn't purely banal; the phrase "truth is stranger than fiction," came from somewhere. Randomness also isn't all or nothing; just because the ranger movie started with a soldier deciding to leave the service, doesn't mean the rest of his life isn't interesting or even action packed.
I believe these words were first uttered by Mark Twain who also said... "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction is bound by rules." Or something to that effect.
We're inching along to a truth here.
Yes, random could be anything. it could be interesting or boring. Now, in real life, it's overwhelmingly boring. The boring outcome is overwhelmingly more likely to 'realistically' happen. But we don't tell stories about that. We don't tell stories about the 999,999 boring random outcomes, we tell stories about the one interesting one. The one in a million. The others aren't important. It doesn't matter how much more likely they are. It's irrelevant.
And we do this, because, as you said, a narrative has an implied interest it in.
People tell stories about plenty of stories. In fact, in recent history, writers have begun to put more of an emphasis on smaller, realistic stories through creative nonfiction. What can be called boring can be the beginning of an interesting story. Even 'life as usual," can be used to tell an interesting story if the writer has the inclination.
Staying inside has as as many thematic implications as going out, it just has to be written well.
it's the exact same thing with meaning.
In real life, when you make a choice, there's a very good chance it really won't matter much. There's a very good chance that the outcome won't have anything to do with your intention. There's a very good chance it will end up being pointless. But that's irrelevant. We don't tell stories about the lives of the 999,999 soldiers who made choices and had them backfire or not matter. They're not important. We tell stories about the one protagonist, the one in a million, where they do matter.
I disagree. I don't mean to imply that everyone's life is like The Butterfly Effect, but I think you can find an interesting story somewhere in everyone's life.
Yea, not every decision will factor into everything or be earth shattering in some way, but cause and effect adds up. Stories take place over a long period of time, they just distill them down to more critical moments. That doesn't necessarily make them one in a million, just crafted in a way that doesn't waste our time. We don't see 999,998 other choices Shepard makes because it wouldn't be very fun.
Of course watching a drop out ranger go on reddit for an hour is going to be uninteresting, that doesn't make his choice to go on reddit uninteresting. It might show that he's avoiding something or that he has a poor work ethic or just that's he's a normal guy like us. A movie wouldn't freeze at the same action for an hour, it would establish the event in a scene and move on.
You're right, if it doesn't add anything to the story, then it shouldn't be there, but that doesn't mean that random events in normal people's lives can't be stories. Interesting narratives and meaningful events can be found in everyone's life, the writer just has to look for them and portray them in a way that isn't excessively boring.
Because just as a narrative has an implied interest in it, a narrative has an implied meaning.
The interview example I gave isn't bad because by itself in isolation, it's bad because it renders the surrounding heroic story pointless. It's okay to have stories where the 'theme,' the 'truth' is how random the world is. I can think of some comedy stories that have basically done this very well. That being said, the choice driven combat RPG would be a spectacularly poor medium for that sort of theme.
Like you said, and like I said earlier, you can have surprises but those surprises cannot betray the themes of motives of the story. Whatever surprises, whatever unexpected content is in a BioWare game, it needs to enunciate the themes of the story, not betray them.
I don't think it would betray the themes of Mass Effect. In fact, it would only strengthen them.
Mass Effect is about choice, big or small. If the game showed us that even tiny decisions factored into our success, then we'd take them a bit more seriously, and if more decisions took an unexpected twist, then we'd be more cautious with our choices.
In your specific example, it would show the necessity of maintaining one's public image. Not only does Shepard need to be a hero, but he needs to be a hero for the public and gain their trust. It might be a bit out of place at the climax of the game (mainly because retaining PR isn't the absolute core theme of the game), but I could easily imagine it happening beforehand.
Should choices randomly turn Shepard into a flying unicorn? Obviously not, but I think its reasonable to want a few twists in our plot.
Except when it comes to landing on a Divine. What a mess.
Twice as complicated as G/Q peace and if you actually want it to reflect your worldview you have to pander to specific characters instead of speaking your mind.
Twice as complicated as G/Q peace and if you actually want it to reflect your worldview you have to pander to specific characters instead of speaking your mind.
You're not saying that's a bad thing, right? Speaking your mind isn't often the best way to advance a political agenda.
Not saying it's bad I'm saying that if you need to explain to people (several times) as a community how to achieve result X and Z instead of Y you might have overdone it.
No thanks. Too much railroading, even if it's based on "choices" you made.
Some sort of compromise where ending choices are gated behind doing x of y things is acceptable. Like with making peace between geth and quarians. Lots of ways to get the required "points" for that, lots of ways to lock it out.
But at the end of the day, for something as big as the ending, not just of a game, but also of a franchise, explicit choices are better.
Why can't we have both?
There needs to be a balance between story and choice, as well as a balance between explicit and subtle choices. What matters most is whether choices impact the ending way that makes sense in the greater narrative.
Bioware already gives us the explicit decisions - ie, who do you support? Which faction do you assist? Who do you kill? Etc. These thing s should, of course, affect the ending. But they also use other mechanics to affect the game endings in existing games and they haven't ruined the games or anything (imo).
They already have subtle and seemingly "random" choices in their games - example, in DAOyou are a city elf, you have a very story-driven motivation to kill the jerk nobleman, but will miss the opportunity to get his vote in the Landsmeet. If you are a human noble and never met him before, you have no reason to kill him and and you'll likely get his vote. These types of choices can be problematic if it is done too much (and can feel too random and confusing). However, if incorporated into the game here and there, and if they make sense in terms of changing things up to fit different types of characters, then it can totally enrich the story. Ie, it made sense that a city elf who grew up in the slums of Denerim would have harder time getting noble support than the daughter of a Teryn. It is not random or hidden...it is just not an overt choice.
Relationship-driven impacts on how the stories play out are also important in Bioware games. They have tried it with the whole hardening versus non- hardening (e.g. strong impact on how Alistair acts at the Landsmeet and ultimately rules) and through personal quests (who lives in the ME2 suicide mission), as well as through companions who view you as a rival versus a friend (like in DA2). How you influence your followers as their leader seems like it SHOULD be important to how things play out, especially when you are the boss. However...I do think all of these existing mechanics are flawed in their own way (for example, I refuse to give gifts to get approval...it is stupid). I would like to see this improved in a novel way in the new game...in a way that makes it all a bit more realistic and even a bit more difficult to anticipate how those influences on your party members will affect the ending. It seems to me that how you impact another person, through your words and actions, can often be unexpected and surprisingly important (I have lotsa weird true stories about these kinds of things in my own life, as I am sure many others do). And this is true in many great stories as well (The Cask of Amontillado, anyone? 
).
I guess my point is that I DO agree that the choices cannot be so hidden that there is no ryhme or reason to them. I don't want Mass Effect to turn into the Butterfly Effect. But the impact of both how we influence our team and as well as how we might limit ourselves by doing things like killing some guy or pissing off some delegate early on, etc, should definitely be in the game. It is what makes them worth replaying as different characters.
As long as the story is good, I will be happy. But if playing as different characters and really changing up the outcome of the game is in there...i will be ecstatic!
Retour en haut