21 réponses à ce sujet

[Linkenski]

Here's ME3 in the 3-act structure. 

 

It's a classic narrative design. You have a beginning, a middle and an ending, where beginning is about premise; Exposition and establishing a central conflict or objective. Act 2 is rising action and point of no return (dealing in those conflicts or exploring them in detail; Like the analysis in a written assignment). Act 3 is the climax, falling action and resolution. We've seen this work for 3 games (I can't say much about ME2 but ME1 and ME3 clearly use this). They have a main plot that has the playtime of an extended movie where we're allowed to make choices that sometimes have and sometimes don't have consequences but no matter what it all has to fall into the nature of the 3-act structure. For example, you can't join Saren in ME1 because it would change the flow and focus of the story. Usually the way the climax works here is where you fight off the final boss or big bad and save the day.

 

This is the 5-act structure. It's very shakespearean actually. I also think Episode III of Star Wars follows it.

 

The big difference, you'll notice, is the climax happens at the end of the middle of the plot, and is simultaneously the point of no return. This is usually the formula for tragedy so the protagonist does something he can't undo, and the rest of the story is about dealing with the consequences. Macbeth for example. Macbeth gets a prophecy of his downfall told by witches, then proceeds to do things he can to avoid it which is exactly what ends up causing it and towards the end he's surrounded in his keep where he ultimately meets his maker.

 

I've been thinking though, even if it wasn't a tragedy, wouldn't this be an interesting story-structure for a video-game with choices and consequences? You'd make a big choice in the middle which could split the rest into different paths where you deal with the consequences, perhaps folding back at the 5th act (or not) but the idea is, the last half of the game is dealing with a choice you've made. There can still be a climax at the end like in Episode III when Anakin fights Obi Wan. We all know where it's going, but there could be a final boss for example who you'll have to fight even though the thematic climax is in the middle.

 

What do you think?

[Natureguy85]

I want to think on it more and do a more in depth response, but I must point out that you should never point to the Star Wars prequels as how to do anything well or good.

[Linkenski]

I want to think on it more and do a more in depth response, but I must point out that you should never point to the Star Wars prequels as how to do anything well or good.

I happen to think Episode III is fantastic if you look past some of its stupidities. I think dramatically it's great and it's the one movie of the prequels where I really enjoyed the CG which dominates those movies.

[SlottsMachine]

I happen to think Episode III is fantastic if you look past some of its stupidities. I think dramatically it's great and it's the one movie of the prequels where I really enjoyed the CG which dominates those movies.

 

Grunt: No.

 

 

To me Episode III is no different than I and II, there is a shift in tone that is really bizarre when you think about it and that's the only real difference. 

[SlottsMachine]

As for the OP I'm too dumb for that sort of literary discussion, I will say this though. I don't think it matters what structure you use, if the writing isn't there the end result is going to be bad regardless. BioWare doesn't have the greatest track record with main story arcs. I guess the 5 act structure would allow them to parcel the story out a little bit more, so that no one act has to carry the load so to speak. For instance The Witcher 3 which has a three act structure and as great as it is it really struggles in Act 3 when so many things needed to be resolved all at once.  

[Killroy]

Stories that have the climax close to the middle tend to feel dragged out and meandering. You end up with movies that have half a dozen endings, like Return of the King, or TV shows that use the last episode or two of the season/series tying up loose ends without any action or dramatic turns, like Bosch.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You certainly don't want those five acts to be of equal length.  Babylon 5 did that, with each season of the show being one of the 5 acts.  Season 1 was a bit too long, and season 5 was almost entirely pointless (seasons 2-4 were amazing, though).

[General TSAR]

The three act structure is far superior.

[Han Shot First]

I think the 5 act structure runs the risk of feeling very anti-climactic. 

 

I'm fine with the story ending immediately after the big bad takes his or her beating.

[Natureguy85]

As some others have said, I think you risk falling action being too long. Lord of the Rings was a good example. This would be especially true in games and movies, but even in the books, I was only interested in the retaking of the Shire because I knew Sarumon was still around.

 

 

I happen to think Episode III is fantastic if you look past some of its stupidities. I think dramatically it's great and it's the one movie of the prequels where I really enjoyed the CG which dominates those movies.

 

I disagree. I think most of the movie is stupidities and the CG is very hit or miss. I do like the space battle at the start. The worst is when Dooku pulls the platform down on Obi-Wan, who once again looks like an incompetent boob. That is a sin which I can not forgive. It does have some more emotion in it than the others, but that's not a high bar. The final fight goes too long and I was done once I saw them swinging on the cables.

[Gothfather]

No single structure is "best" for storytelling. And no single approach to game design is best for a game.

 

The needs of the narrative should dictate the needs of the structure. What story are you trying to tell? What experience do you wish your game to provide? Is your experience and story at cross purposes? I think it is very dangerous to view any narrative technique as the "best" this is how you become repetitive.

[SardaukarElite]

It depends on the story. I could see it working for DA2, but I'm expecting ME:A is more straight up conventional adventure story. 

 

 

I happen to think Episode III is fantastic if you look past some of its stupidities. I think dramatically it's great and it's the one movie of the prequels where I really enjoyed the CG which dominates those movies.

 

If you look past Episode III's stupidities you're just left with the opening shot of the jedi starfighters rolling over the edge of the Venator-class star destroyer and diving into the battle, and you're right that was fantastic, everything after that first minute though... yeeeesssshhhhhh.

[Jorji Costava]

I happen to think Episode III is fantastic if you look past some of its stupidities. I think dramatically it's great and it's the one movie of the prequels where I really enjoyed the CG which dominates those movies.

 

Anakin: "You're so . . . beautiful."

Padme: "It's only because I'm so in love."

Anakin: "No, it's because I'm so in love with you."

[Sylvius the Mad]

No single structure is "best" for storytelling. And no single approach to game design is best for a game.

But RPGs are a terrible vehicle for storytelling. Without some fairly rigid controls on the protagonist, you cannot tell a decent story.

But those controls break roleplaying.

The needs of the narrative should dictate the needs of the structure.

The needs of the roleplaying should dictate the rules. The rules should dictate the setting. The setting should dictate the structure. The narrative should merely emerge.

What story are you trying to tell?

That is always the wrong question when designing a roleplaying game.

[Vortex13]

I think that a better way to go about story telling; regardless of the medium or narrative arc; is to get the ending down pat, ensure that the beginning is solid and then weave the middle portions to your heart's content. That way you don't have to worry about writing yourself into a corner and all the plot lines have a definite starting and finishing point to tie onto. 

 

 

Knowing how the series was going to end up front would have really helped Mass Effect, and shows like Lost (IMO).

[Linkenski]

Grunt: No.

 

 

To me Episode III is no different than I and II, there is a shift in tone that is really bizarre when you think about it and that's the only real difference. 

The shift in tone is not bizarre, it's just the moment when it becomes visible the plot follows a 5-act, macbeth-type structure. Also, I is bad but at least it had the podrace and the Darth Maul battle which is excellent BTW. Camera focuses on the tension of the actors, Darth Maul is played by a stuntman so Liam and Ewan had to really keep up their choreography making it feel authentic plus John Williams's score is classic in that fight. Episode II was bad and the CG was as bad as Episode 1. The only thing that stood out to me was Anakin losing his mom and then Ep III was fantastic. CG was much better even if the entirety of the movie was still filmed in blue-screened rooms. It has cheap devices but the drama is not unjustified. Anakin succumbs so easily after Mace dies because he really believes his visions will become reality and it drives him insane (and headcanon I have is that once he is under Sidious's influence, the dark side twists him further) and the Order 66 scene is amazing. I can live with the prequel hate but I always felt Ep III got a bad wrap out of ignorance and hivemind mentality.

 

Again, main point I wanted to make: The 5-act structure has room for a tonal shift and personally I'm a fan of such things. Back when ME3 was new I remember being frustrated it didn't build up the first third the plot before the reapers attacked but people argued it would be too much of a tonal shift too late in the plot. I still think it could work.

 

 

I think the 5 act structure runs the risk of feeling very anti-climactic. 

 

I'm fine with the story ending immediately after the big bad takes his or her beating.

The big bad doesn't have to be in the climax of a 5-act structure. You could try to experiment with it and create a post-climax with the bad guy towards the end, but basically the climax in the middle is the point of no return that guarantees an inevitable fight between you and the bad guy. The main idea is that with the 5-act structure there's a high-point in the middle with a choice and the remainder of the story is the player dealing with the consequences of that choice. I think Witcher 2 for example, which had 3 acts but act 2 was completely different (even down to location) based on a choice made in act 1, but it folded back to the same final act ultimately. It would be cool to see a game that had a replay value because it splits from the middle and until the epilogue.

I haven't analysed Alpha Protocol at all, but it allowed pretty substantial alterations of which order you played each area in and who you cooperated with.

 

 

Anakin: "You're so . . . beautiful."

Padme: "It's only because I'm so in love."

Anakin: "No, it's because I'm so in love with you."

So bad it's good xD. Me and a friend of mine have watched the movie maybe 10 times in total and at this point we just anticipate those scenes to laugh at them.

 

Also, Obi-Wan looks like he's about to laugh when he sees the videos of Anakin killing children: 

[Linkenski]

I think that a better way to go about story telling; regardless of the medium or narrative arc; is to get the ending down pat, ensure that the beginning is solid and then weave the middle portions to your heart's content. That way you don't have to worry about writing yourself into a corner and all the plot lines have a definite starting and finishing point to tie onto. 

 

 

Knowing how the series was going to end up front would have really helped Mass Effect, and shows like Lost (IMO).

Planning the story out before writing the bulk of it would be great, but really I think the important thing is making sure you know what you're trying to tell before you start at all, rather than having to know what the conclusion is before getting there. Writing an ending first is not always the way. Especially in a company like Bioware I think the writers learn new things along the way or make changes along the way because they have to work with the other departments of their company to make their writing come to life, and sometimes there's cuts or sometimes their vision cannot be translated into a scene. Instead, I think the best thing one can do is get to the ending and then think "what is the story we've told?", then you summarize it subtextually with some event that happens in the finale. It's important to realize what your limitations are. For example, I rewatched Contact recently (sci-fi drama from 1997) and I admired something bold it did: It has an ending some people consider to be a cop-out, but in reality what it does is to aknowledge that it cannot honestly conclude anything about the nature of alien life because no one in real life knows that and doing so would break someone's suspension of disbelief, so instead, it concludes by saying "we don't know yet. We have to take small steps at a time".

 

That is a perfectly rational conclusion and it's way more meaningful than had the movie ended with the protagonist coming into contact with a real alien because then it would be out there and be a fantasy. I think you can write an ending however you want, but you just can't conclude anything that hasn't been highlighted in the bulk of the narrative.

[Natureguy85]

But RPGs are a terrible vehicle for storytelling. Without some fairly rigid controls on the protagonist, you cannot tell a decent story.

But those controls break roleplaying.
The needs of the roleplaying should dictate the rules. The rules should dictate the setting. The setting should dictate the structure. The narrative should merely emerge.
That is always the wrong question when designing a roleplaying game.

 

I don't think that's automatic. Dragon Age Origins had a great story and allowed for more Role Playing than Mass Effect did because you had a more open character than Shepard.

[KaiserShep]

I happen to think Episode III is fantastic if you look past some of its stupidities. 

 

I'm sure there's a killer 15 minutes in the movie somewhere, but it's hard to really soak it all in.

[rapscallioness]

oh, look, it's a prologue and denouement. haven't seen one of those in awhile.

 

I think I'd want the climax a little later, however. A little more in Act 4, then the falling action and denouement. I don;t want almost half the game to be reflecting on my choice. But I would like the story structure to allow for more room to breathe, if you will.

[Jaquio]

For a tragedy?  Sure.  And you could argue that the vision that was in place for ME3 would have suited a five act setup.

 

But for a game with choices, I don't necessarily want to be railroaded into tragedy.  Partly because good tragedy requires establishment of the protagonist's hamartia or tragic character flaw that leads to their downfall.  This is particularly tricky in a role playing game because you're either establishing a character and their flaws, which impedes role playing, or you're trying to play into the player's flaws, which is super tricky and requires excess maturity and resources, both of which are woefully lacking in most AAA games.

 

The closest thing I can think of where a game manipulated a player into establishing their own character flaw in game was Spec Ops: The Line, but that was a heavily-railroaded linear first person shooter.

[BioWareMod11]

As this thread has deviated into an off-topic discussion, it has now been locked.