Jump to content

when the music stops

Veterans
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Authors of traditional written narrative have a term for world-focused stories -- mileu. One of the best examples would be Gulliver's Travels, but while Jonathan Swift cared very little for Gulliver, the character still needed to exist to provide a POV for the audience, so that they had a focal point to witness the strange and wondrous lands. Personally I'm of the opinion that you don't even need that if you wish to make a mileu-focused game. Dark Souls is about the world you inhabit rather than the character itself, which is silent. My thoughts are -- what kind of story do you want to tell? That should be your starting point, and then how you immerse your audience branches from there. If you're writing a game driven by characters, making your protagonist silent likely isn't a good idea. Dragon Quest XI really suffers from this, I feel -- you have this vibrant cast of voiced characters, and then your main character is just always standing off to the side, stone-faced. That breaks immersion, because it's such a jarring contrast from the rest of the characters. The silent protagonist from Dark Souls, meanwhile, fits the somber atmosphere of the game. Edit: An exception, I feel, is a game like Undertale. Even though the protagonist is silent, the very gameplay itself offers interaction with the other characters in the game. Therefore it can get away with a silent protagonist despite the heavy emphasis on characters, because the gameplay is literally defined by character interaction. I do agree that simplicity has something to do with it, although I would add an addendum; the complexity of relationships between characters in the game should also play a role in whether they're silent or not, and not just the complexity of the plot or world. The silent protagonist is more noticeable in Sun/Moon because of Lily and her dynamics with Kukui, her mother, Nebby, and the protagonist themself compared to the simpler dynamics found in Red/Blue.
  2. Is there a good place to respond to your article about the cycle of repetition in a Pokemon game? I kind of wanted to discuss it with you but the topic has been archived. Also, thank you for taking the time out of your day to write these articles. It's very much appreciated.
  3. This was interesting and got me to actually make an account so I could respond. Bear in mind that I don't play a whole lot of video games, although I have written extensively/studied film concepts. I just found this intriguing and figured I'd chip in with some of my thoughts. I strongly, strongly disagree with this statement. I often think of the beginning of a story as a question, a question from the author to the audience, and the ending provides the answer to the posed query. Having an interesting question is important, because it piques the audience's interest, but ultimately what matters is the answer. While I've played neither of the games you use as examples, video games in general are such a new medium, with gameplay often obfuscating traditional narrative, that these games breaking ground in terms of successfully combining the two is enough to get them remembered, regardless of whether or not it's consistent throughout. While this is true, it's such a broad statement that it doesn't really tell me much. Here's what I believe: show people what is happening and why. Don't hide or cloud themes/characters/plot for the sake of cheap tension or drama. This is something I see often and it baffles me. People want to see characters on screen reacting to events/information in believable and/or interesting ways. Why would you want to hide this? For a cheap 'gotcha' moment? If a character does something that deviates from their normal disposition, set it up first and then follow through with a payoff. I'm of the opinion that authors don't trust their own ability to write characters with clear motivations and goals, so they set up a smokescreen instead to get the audience asking more questions as opposed to thinking about answers. I'll also add that characters are defined by their actions and reactions. Something happens and they respond. It's up to the author to tie this to the character's traits and/or flaws, and to use it to build toward the central theme of the narrative OR to progress the plot OR to shed further light on said character. Well... yes and no. Good presentation makes it so that it's not bad, per se, but it doesn't mean the scene will stand out. The example you used, with Awakening, is quite bog standard. Yes, it's not bad, but it's also not very interesting, and rushing off to fight bandits tends to be a narrative crutch in a lot of the fantasy genre. Why? Because it's a simplistic conflict with a simple resolution -- kill the bandits. Then we get some plot and onward to the next set piece! It's just so... uninspired. Lazy. Competent, but lazy. The example you use isn't bad, but it lacks context, and it lacks that spark, that je ne sais quoi. It's just... fine. It exists competently. Having an interesting concept is fundamental to creating a memorable hook. Of course if the presentation is bad it will fall flat, this is an audio visual medium we're talking about, but good presentation without anything interesting to say is just empty calories. Reborn, meanwhile, starts off discussing a scarcity of Pokemon in the region, challenging gyms, and then we have a train explosion. Then we see the fallout of this explosion through Julia, Ame, and the surrounding NPCs. Good concept, good execution --> memorable hook. You can't have one without the other. I disagree. There's nothing wrong with making them an idiot. The problem is when the idiocy is treated as a situational quirk rather than an actual, consistent character trait, or as a means to force conflict. Then it's lazy storytelling. I both agree and disagree. Self-inserts are often bad because people don't want to be critical of themselves, or want to engage in simple fantasy. But I feel every character an author writes should have some element or another of their own soul imprinted upon said character. Art is communication between the audience and the author, and the best way to retain suspension of disbelief is to make it feel real. And what better way to make something feel real than to draw upon personal life experiences? Ah, yes the everyman. Trust me, they're not just common in RPGs. I don't think it's because they're likable, however, but because they supposedly appeal to a broad spectrum of people. Kind of like those personality tests that are vague enough to mean anything to anyone. I mostly agree with your points regarding writing good characters. I decided to rewrite this next portion. I had time to think about it at work and I found myself wanting to better clarify my position. The problem with the silent protagonist is not the silent protagonist itself, it's that using the silent protagonist badly is very noticeable and can shatter suspension of disbelief. I would argue that video games are the only medium in which a silent protagonist, or perhaps more fittingly, a player avatar, can be more effective than a predetermined character with a predetermined character arc. Because a player avatar can better immerse the player in the game, since they become that character. Another way to think about it is like this; when I'm playing as a talking protagonist with a defined personality and backstory, I feel like I'm simply guiding that character down their path (or one of several paths if the game has multiple endings). When I'm playing as a player avatar, I feel like I am the one inhabiting the world. It's a subtle difference and one that I believe is only effective in an interactive medium, which makes it a powerful tool. That's not to say that a character with an established personality cannot be effective, they absolutely can be, or that a badly implemented player avatar is better than a badly written typical protagonist, because it's not (looking at you, Rejuvenation), I just feel that some of my pinnacle gaming experiences have come through the eyes of an avatar. And I believe it's a concept that can continue to be expanded upon and improved as the medium itself expands and improves. I don't want to see it thrown away for the sake of a more traditional narrative, because then we lose something unique only to video games. Strongly disagree. Music and art style are two of the basic foundations of a visual-narrative medium. They are fundamental. They transcend good games into great games. I talked about this already, but in my opinion a hook should showcase the central premise in some capacity or another. And if you don't think the central premise is interesting enough to hook the reader, why are you making this game in the first place? I'll use Undertale as an example. It's opening, the "tutorial", explains the state of the world, introduces the core mechanic, and then the rest of the game proceeds to build upon these ideas from there. I don't understand what you mean by this. As in a dropped plot point that isn't further elaborated on? Also, I thought Persona 3 had a great hook, the problem was... almost everything else. I definitely remember the beginning much more vividly than most of the rest. A lot of what you talk about the end struck me as sort of jumbled and unclear. Maybe if I'd played Chrono Cross I would understand better. I will say this though: This is the important takeaway of all, I think. There's nothing worse than a piece of entertainment that's boring. Make me feel or make me think and if you can do both you're more than golden. At the end of the day, the "it gets better excuse" is problematic because I feel like I'm wasting my time. Why wait for something to get better when I can go play something that engages me right off the bat? I only have so much free time to enjoy entertainment, if it doesn't interest me I'm going drop it and find something that does.
×
×
  • Create New...