Per and Uncle None discuss endgame monologues

[Per]

Arcanum is another great example how to make NPCs, even villains.
Kerghan anyone? His speech? http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=cMZi217RUUY&

Taking emo to the Nth degree doesn't make it cool.

 

[Brother None]

All nihilism is emo by default now? All old nihilistic philosophy is invalid now because it's retroactively become "taking emo to the Nth degree"?

Nice, Per. Nice.

 

[Per]

FINE. Kerghan is really cool because he's really really old (like a Rice vampire!) and probably dresses in black (like a Rice vampire!) and has glowing eyes (like any proper Mary Sue!) and speaks in a gravelly voice (you can sense how old and tired he is, oh how his soul must be suffering!) and wants to extinguish all life (because that's really really original for a villain motivation!).

Excuse me I'm gonna go slit my wrists now bye!

 

[Black]

Excuse me I'm gonna go slit my wrists now bye!

I'm a helper!

 

[Brother None]

FINE. Kerghan is really cool because he's really really old (like a Rice vampire!) and probably dresses in black (like a Rice vampire!) and has glowing eyes (like any proper Mary Sue!) and speaks in a gravelly voice (you can sense how old and tired he is, oh how his soul must be suffering!) and wants to extinguish all life (because that's really really original for a villain motivation!).

I could probably make an analogy of Dostojewski with a goth poem writer like that, that doesn't mean it's valid.

Kerghan isn't the most brilliant end-game boss, but I never really understood all the flak Arcanum got over its end-game. It's not the best, but it's far from bad, and while all the plot-points are technically cliche, they're cliche in the same way Fallout's plot is cliche, and the execution makes up for quite a part of it. Kerghan's story in itself is pretty cliche goth, I guess, the discussion you can spin around it and the way your parrty NPCs are drawn into it makes it more than that.

You always get all curmudgeonly when someone dares to name something good about any RPG other than Wasteland, per. Why the anger?

 

[Per]

You always get all curmudgeonly when someone dares to name something good about any RPG other than Wasteland, per. Why the anger?

Anger? Do I have to make my tantrums even more over-the-top? Next time I'll ask for my account to be deleted... with a Vendigroth device!

One of the reasons you won't hear me complain a lot about Wasteland is that it pretty much stretched the technical resources available to it. Short of putting a lot of exposition in the paragraph book there isn't much you can add without having to subtract or mess around and you just don't do that to classic works of art. Another reason is that very seldom do people actually blurt out things like: "Wasteland did a really good job of balancing the skill set!" which would prompt me to bash that aspect of the game in reaction. I don't usually obsess over things that disappoint me in games, but I feel compelled to speak up when someone specifically praises something that for me felt stale or poorly handled.

As for Kerghan, unless I'm wrong his speech amounts to "there is all this suffering, it must stop". The reason I derided this as emo (which, I guess we are all aware, is not a technical term) is that it shares the central, perhaps necessary premise that nothing is better than suffering, or in other words, denying that anything is better than nothing (because if you believe that, then suicide and mercy killings are absurd). I don't regard emo as a subset of nihilism, which is simply speaking the belief that nothing matters. Wanting to destroy the world is not specifically nihilist; invoking a reason for destroying the world fairly contradicts it.

Your second argument is the one you should have made in the first place; that anything is fair game if done well. This is true. (To a point. And heavily subject to subjectivity.) For myself, I can only say Kerghan didn't resonate with me, not so much because he was badly done as because 1) they introduced a philosophical point they hadn't been building towards even though they reasonably could have, meaning it came off as a sudden jack-on-a-soapbox, and 2) my reaction to him was pretty much "ah, another one of these" - the latter being dependent on your own reading history, I guess. It was a plot turn that fell flat at a critical point of the game where there should have been a payoff, and that can easily sour your opinion of the game as a whole.

 

[Brother None]

As for Kerghan, unless I'm wrong his speech amounts to "there is all this suffering, it must stop". The reason I derided this as emo (which, I guess we are all aware, is not a technical term) is that it shares the central, perhaps necessary premise that nothing is better than suffering, or in other words, denying that anything is better than nothing (because if you believe that, then suicide and mercy killings are absurd). I don't regard emo as a subset of nihilism, which is simply speaking the belief that nothing matters. Wanting to destroy the world is not specifically nihilist; invoking a reason for destroying the world fairly contradicts it.

It's not nihilism, I wasn't saying it was (I just used nihilism as an analogues example), it's a perfect example of Existentialism. And by perfect I mean textbook perfect. Just because it also resembles gothicism doesn't mean it automatically defaults to gothicness rather than being Existential, because that's the most logical way to define it.

Your second argument is the one you should have made in the first place; that anything is fair game if done well. This is true. (To a point. And heavily subject to subjectivity.) For myself, I can only say Kerghan didn't resonate with me, not so much because he was badly done as because 1) they introduced a philosophical point they hadn't been building towards even though they reasonably could have, meaning it came off as a sudden jack-on-a-soapbox, and 2) my reaction to him was pretty much "ah, another one of these" - the latter being dependent on your own reading history, I guess. It was a plot turn that fell flat at a critical point of the game where there should have been a payoff, and that can easily sour your opinion of the game as a whole.

1) is true, except that the value of building up is not an inherently necessary quality of building a good character. In fact, I'd say it's "the easy way out" to have a game slowly build its philosophical structure, like PS:T. It's easier because you have time to get the idea to penetrate, rather than having to make something forcefully in one blow. That's probably why Kerghan made no impact on you, because its writing fell short of that forceful blow, but this is not a matter of failure, it's a matter of the challenge being too high.

2) again, I don't get that. "Another one of these" is true of any plot, because all plots have been covered. It's pretty personal whether or not it feels like just another one to you, so there's not much to debate there.

 

[Per]

It's not nihilism, I wasn't saying it was

Taking emo to the Nth degree doesn't make it cool.

All nihilism is emo by default now?

I guess you weren't!

1) is true, except that the value of building up is not an inherently necessary quality of building a good character.

It's relevant to the impact and contribution of that character to the whole. Arguably the characters in Torment which were hit a lot with the buildup stick (Ravel, Pharod) were much more interesting and successful than those with a tenuous relation to TNO (Fhjull, Trias). In fact I have always thought that the Ravel arc made a better centrepiece for the game than the Fortress of Regrets arc.

In fact, I'd say it's "the easy way out" to have a game slowly build its philosophical structure, like PS:T. It's easier because you have time to get the idea to penetrate, rather than having to make something forcefully in one blow.

That doesn't really make sense as a statement on dramaturgy. There are no bonus points for forgoing the building of themes in order to introduce viewpoints and motivations as isolated phenomena, whether you "succeed" or not. It just means your work will lack the building of themes to draw from.

 

[Brother None]

I guess you weren't!

Either way, I am now.

It's relevant to the impact and contribution of that character to the whole. Arguably the characters in Torment which were hit a lot with the buildup stick (Ravel, Pharod) were much more interesting and successful than those with a tenuous relation to TNO (Fhjull, Trias). In fact I have always thought that the Ravel arc made a better centrepiece for the game than the Fortress of Regrets arc.

Maybe that's just, like, your opinion, man.

That doesn't really make sense as a statement on dramaturgy. There are no bonus points for forgoing the building of themes in order to introduce viewpoints and motivations as isolated phenomena, whether you "succeed" or not. It just means your work will lack the building of themes to draw from.

It also means your work is more unique and striking. By foregoing standard tools of dramatic storytelling you're adding to the story's worth by definition, especially if you succeed.

Unless you consider doing the same as everyone else a great success. Winning formulas are winning formulas, no reason they're the only formulas.

 

[Sorrow]

He isn't emo if he doesn't listen to emo music.

 

[Per]

Either way, I am now.

Now you're confusing me.

Maybe that's just, like, your opinion, man.

The two last sentences, which were included to illustrate the point, sure. The first sentence was where the stone-cold truthiness resided.

It also means your work is more unique and striking. By foregoing standard tools of dramatic storytelling you're adding to the story's worth by definition, especially if you succeed.

The story's worth for whom? The player? Certainly not. Sure, any absence or deviation can be rationalized as a form experiment. It could even be true. It's still card tricks in the dark, on the scale we're talking about. This is Storytelling 101, not engineering the skilful omission of the letter E from all the text in the game, or having decided to make a highbrow RPG when everyone's clamouring for a stupid shooter. Even someone who really, really liked Kerghan's bit isn't going to look back and say, "And the really memorable and striking thing about it is that they didn't even set it up beforehand! Wooo!" If it works, it works in spite of not being supported by a context. As someone who thought it didn't quite work as well as I would have wanted, I'm not really inclined to give Kerghan a break on that count.

Unless you consider doing the same as everyone else a great success. Winning formulas are winning formulas, no reason they're the only formulas.

If you trip yourself up regularly while running a marathon and win, sure, people are going to be impressed. But they'll also be justified in asking why you wouldn't lay off the trippage and go for a big record instead. What's worse, if you lose, which may be more likely, you're not going to be remembered as the guy who was so awesome he tripped himself up for a challenge; you'll be remembered as an eccentric who was funny to watch, but who competed stupidly and who ultimately failed.

 

[Brother None]

Now you're confusing me.

Existentialism

he two last sentences, which were included to illustrate the point, sure. The first sentence was where the stone-cold truthiness resided.

Platitude.

The story's worth for whom? The player? Certainly not. Sure, any absence or deviation can be rationalized as a form experiment. It could even be true. It's still card tricks in the dark, on the scale we're talking about. This is Storytelling 101, not engineering the skilful omission of the letter E from all the text in the game, or having decided to make a highbrow RPG when everyone's clamouring for a stupid shooter. Even someone who really, really liked Kerghan's bit isn't going to look back and say, "And the really memorable and striking thing about it is that they didn't even set it up beforehand! Wooo!" If it works, it works in spite of not being supported by a context. As someone who thought it didn't quite work as well as I would have wanted, I'm not really inclined to give Kerghan a break on that count.

I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle because the carefully set up storyline is done well more often than the bang suddenly storyline. The bang sudden revelation is usually used to be non-creative writers who write unprepared storylines on the go and just think it up as it comes along.

That doesn't mean it has nothing to add if done right. It's a completely different mode of storytelling with an almost visceral experience. There is no "aaaah, so that's what he meant!" which is a drastically overdone storytelling mode, because nobody hinted at it before. Instead, you're hit with a certain reality disjointed and diametrically opposed to what you've seen so far. The problem and the reason I called the set-up storymode easier to do, because it is, and exactly because it is is why you almost never see the bang-in-your-face mode of storytelling done well. It's the area of dime novelists, which is also why it's avoided.

Ascribing this to some kind of inherent inferiority and stating this mode of storytelling can only represent a nerfed version of the set-up storymode just shows limits of vision, man.

 

[Per]

Platitude.

An odd way of saying you're not going to acknowledge or contest the rebuttal. You could have just silently ignored it, that's what I usually do.

I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle because the carefully set up storyline is done well more often than the bang suddenly storyline.

The discussion did get me thinking about J-RPGs and how their storylines are typically considerably more elaborate than western freeform ones because they can work with forced companions, forced cutscenes, etc. to a much greater extent, setting the stage for greater emotional impact. (That, and they're far less afraid of emotional cheese, so they can go at it with guns blazing.) Other differences complicate attempts to correlate this with quality and/or popularity, however.

There is no "aaaah, so that's what he meant!" which is a drastically overdone storytelling mode, because nobody hinted at it before.

Overdone or not, if you have a climactic revelation with an "ooh, things are moving, shifting perspective and coming together in a new light" done well, that is awesome, and unfortunately rare enough in itself. It's not like everyone mastered the art and now we can move on to other things without worry.

Instead, you're hit with a certain reality disjointed and diametrically opposed to what you've seen so far.

Great, but that prompts the question, what purpose did the rest of it serve in this regard? Only to provide something to be diametrically opposed to? Why are these two pieces X and Y in the same story? If we could bring in a new ending Z that fits X, then use ending Y elsewhere, aren't we just as well or better off? If Y is not going to derive from X, if in fact it is held up as a virtue of Y that it stands free of X, then where is the art in connecting the two? You're just sticking two things together. All the art lies in writing Y to be so shockingly good that X doesn't matter - then why are we having X in connection with it at all? It seems like a contrary, destructionist* approach to plotting. If Kerghan-in-Arcanum and Kerghan-on-YouTube have exactly the same impact, and if that's awesome, then yay, more power to Kerghan. But it should cause Arcanum to blush for a few seconds in becoming modesty.

Ascribing this to some kind of inherent inferiority and stating this mode of storytelling can only represent a nerfed version of the set-up storymode just shows limits of vision, man.

You paint this as a bold artistic move of the plotter's, I agree it could be so but don't see the basis for such an assumption. I don't think it goes to reveal either party's aesthetic boundaries.


* I don't actually know if "destructionist" is a term.