The writing for the upcoming story content - some thoughts on the latest news article

JemadarofCaerSalis

metheglyn wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I want to see more of Revus and Tiras, with them having *grown* like it seemed they showed in that one quest. I would like Raynor and Kirith to have actually grown as well. (you would think that supposedly intelligent people, after getting into all these situations and needing to be rescued, would realize something, but no...) I am sure there are also plenty of other characters from the base game that you only see once that I would love to have come back, but only if they show some growth! Not just come back as a one dimensional 'hey, this is their quest 2.0! here you can do the same things you did for them the first time, but with a different skin on it!'.

I'm quite fond of Revus and was glad to see him return in Blackwood, and he was a returning character done really well. If they can bring him back and move him further along his arc, that would be lovely.

As for the Vanos twins, I think Raynor is the highly intelligent one while Kireth is more action-oriented. She is rather reckless/adventurous/bold (however you want to term it) and was more interested in delving than getting into the academy or earning recognition with the mages' guild. I think they're meant to be rather young, as far as mer go, and so I put their misadventures down to the folly of youth in general. But, I do agree that seeing them always in those situations makes them come across rather one-note.

I'm curious if you've done their Clockwork City quest, because that isn't a reskin of them running headfirst into trouble and actually does show some growth.

I have and it was an interesting departure.

For me, it is because they are young that I feel they should be showing *some* growth (and to be fair to them, they are no where near as bad as some of the other recurring characters. I don't groan when I see them like I do a coupe of the others)

Being young is the time when you really should see the most growth, because you are still learning and aren't set in your ways.

I think one issue is that so many people confuse things like 'interest' with 'personality'. IE, someone is interested in Ruins, so their personality is 'Ruins' and everything they do must be about Ruins. Kireth and Raynor do break that mold a bit because their quests aren't always just about ruins.

You can see it offline all the time, where people will take one single aspect and suddenly that is all they can talk about. Nothing else matters, and if the conversation moves away from that subject, they will either clam up or they will move the topic back.

Dogs, specific video games, hobbies, etc... These people don't seem to understand that people can be interested in more than one thing at a time, and don't always want to talk about that one subject.

I have seen this in writing as well. It was touched upon earlier, the difference between writing a 'Hero' and writing a 'Person who is a hero'. That difference is being lost, and so many characters fall victim to the trap of 'I am a hero, so therefore my personality is HERO'. It makes the characters come across as one dimensional.

Laurent and Stibbons, to me, are a good example, Rigurt is another. Laurent and Stibbons, no matter how often I have seen them, always seem one note. You go through the exact same actions with them, and they never learn anything, they never grow, and the next time you meet them you know that you will do the exact same actions.

Basically, they come across as having been written for this specific role, rather than being written as characters who then have adventures. Just as Rigurt was written, not as a cultural ambassador that was clueless, but rather as a clueless cultural ambassador. Again, there is a distinction there, one that can often be hard to put into words. But it is there nonetheless.

I wonder if character growth is hampered by the notion that everything that's happened thus far has all basically happened at the same time, or in the same year, canonically. I don't remember when ZOS introduced that strange rationale (never been a fan of it) or even if that would somehow impact the writing for the characters.

I agree with you whole-heartedly about Laurent, Stibbons, and Rigurt. Unless those characters show some growth, I never want to see them again. Or, if I have to see them in the same tired roles, I want the ability to sabotage whatever they're doing.

I do agree that the characters often come across as a collection of quirky traits rather than actual characters. I think this is partly due to the medium--we're never going to get inside any npcs thoughts like we can in books with the narrator voice (even the in-game journals of npcs are rather sparse)--and perhaps also due to it being easier to come up with a 'hook' than a character. I think the need to come out with new content on a regular schedule hampers creativity to a degree, so maybe with the intended flexibility of the upcoming seasonal framework, they can return to more well-rounded characters.

I got so excited with that one quest where you could make a choice that seemed like it would mean no more Laurent and Stibbons! then my hopes were crushed.

I am not so sure it is really due to the medium. We can have well written characters on TV, for example, where we don't ge their inner thoughts or narrators. It might be partly due to the medium, but I still think that the biggest issue is that people started writing characters to fit scenarios rather than writing scenarios to fit characters.

We even see it with some of the companions and characters of ESO. I personally think that Zerith is a good example, because he doesn't come across as if he were written as a scenario that just needed a character. We don't get his inner voice or narrators, but he still seems well rounded.

Syldras

tomofhyrule wrote: »

I'm one of those people who tends to dislike fan-favorites on principle. It's almost like I feel like this character is shoved in my face because the writers are like "look how cool they are, you are supposed to like them!" and that tends to rub me the wrong way.

Indeed. What bothers me most, I think, is that it's always the same type (okay, Fennorian, whom I like, is a little off - but I also have the feeling he's not pushed to the extent like it's done with Naryu or Razum-dar, for example; I'm a little wary though what the future might bring; I mean, I also found Jakarn rather amusing the first time I saw him, but what had become of him in High Isle was horrible). It's like I've been told "This is the character type that's awesome and you have to like this!" - not acknowledging that people might like very different things.

And then the usual big focus on "flirtyness", which makes it even worse for me, since it's personally reminding me of the ages-old "sex sells" principle, which is a concept I really, really dislike. It's off-putting to me if I get the feeling a company thinks "Let's put some mainstream attractive guy/girl there and let them spew suggestive lines, then people love it, and everything else doesn't matter to them!" - Not saying that ZOS thinks like that, really not; just explaining what "sex sells" as a marketing priciple means (although I do think most people are familiar with it?); anyway, the more I get the feeling that this principle is used in decisions of how to write or design a game/book/movie, I don't like it. I get that some people like a bit of flirtyness, or "fan service", and it's okay to have a bit of that, but at some point the focus on that becomes too much for me.

To add to that, not only that they're flirty, even the idea of what that means seems very one-dimensional. It's always "suggestiveness" in a very, very common way, and it's always the same. Add to that some "roguish/bad boy (but mild enough not to scare or offend anyone)" thing... boring. And of course, males portrayed as love interests are usually of the same type. How many buff, topless love interests have I encountered so far (wasn't it especially absurd in Blackwood?) - is this a dime novel? (Well, I hope not.) Yes, I know, this is a mainstream product, but I doubt that even the mainstream knows only one "type".

tomofhyrule wrote: »

And I hate seeing characters return as a one-dimensional caricature of themselves. Stop that. If you're bringing someone back, keep them written the same.

From time to time I had been wondering if that's done deliberately, because they think people want that, or is it that the writing team changed over the years and the new writers have no knowledge about how the original writers envisioned these characters? Probably it's a conscious decision, because the writers can, just like all of us, just read old dialogues to get a picture... But it's still strange to me, how there sometimes don't seem to be a real continuity.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Now there are also those 'fan-favorite' characters who always get into the 'humorous hijinks' style sidequests, and for me, they've absolutely run their course.

It's an "easy" type of humour - the commercially "safest" in the way that no one will fail to comprehend it, while other types of humour, like witty remarks between the lines, will not be understood by everyone. There's a German term for it: Holzhammer-Humor. "Holzhammer" means "wooden mallet", and just like a wooden mallet, this humour just gets hammered down on the recipient. There's no way to miss it (and if you prefer wittier things, it will hurt your brain just like being hit on the head with a hammer, too).

More on the other posts later.

Finedaible

Oh boy do i dislike the overused trope characters like Narsis Dren, Stibbons and Laurent, and Rigurt. Every quest you do with them feels like old recycled content since it's the same skit with minor changes. The first time a joke was told is great, but repeat it many times and it loses its effect. In fact, comedy relief seems to be a bit too prevalent these days, which undermines the tone of a zone in my opinion. Humor is ok once in a while, but for people looking to explore a lived-in world with people who face daily struggles, it's not very immersive.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

So a movie or game company or a writer who wants to get their work seen is more likely going to write something that they know the audience is going to live vs something avant guarde.

The current concept seems to be based very much on an idea of "safety": easy writing everyone understands, nothing offensive (with ever more things being labeled as "offensive", and from my perspective unfortunately only few of them rightfully so). If this trend continues, everything would get even less complex (people not being used to complexity anymore - standards drop even more) and ever more inoffensive (there's always someone vocal who complains about something, so another few things fly off to the "evil" list) over the years... When and how will this downward spiral end? For art and creativity it's definitely not a positive development.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

It isn't just that their personality is the same, which it should be, but they often use the same type of jokes, get into the same types of messes, blame the same people (looking at you Laurent, get your head out of your rear!). They don't learn from their past and so each time you see them, you know it is basically going to be the exact same quest you already had.

I'd think npcs like Stibbons or Rigurt aren't even characters in the actual sense of the word - they're the embodiment of running gags, nothing more. And what is a running gag? Basically an endless, meme-y repetition. Giving those npcs a development would reduce their recall value, so it's probably a completely deliberate decision that there's none. Whether one likes that... Some people seem to do; I, personally, have grown tired of it by now (for a few years already).

metheglyn wrote: »

I'm quite fond of Revus and was glad to see him return in Blackwood, and he was a returning character done really well. If they can bring him back and move him further along his arc, that would be lovely.

I seriously want to see him reach Master rank one day. Keeping him quirky is fine, of course, it's not like eccentricity has ever been a problem with Telvanni Masters, after all.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Being young is the time when you really should see the most growth, because you are still learning and aren't set in your ways.

And then there's me who has already been like this at 16, just with less experience and knowledge and a few hundred books less in his library. But honestly, from my experience, especially if you tend to have a special interest, it usually starts early. Of course you amass more knowledge over the decades, but I'd not expect big shifts in interests or personality.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I still think that the biggest issue is that people started writing characters to fit scenarios rather than writing scenarios to fit characters.

Especially happens when a writer wants to present a message, I think. Then they have in mind the message they want to convey, and everything gets bent to fit it, which then often leads to the whole thing looking very artificial/constructed, not part of an organic world, and on top of that often clichéd, so everyone gets what "character type" the npcs involved are supposed to represent.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Yet another long post :P

Syldras wrote: »

tomofhyrule wrote: »

I'm one of those people who tends to dislike fan-favorites on principle. It's almost like I feel like this character is shoved in my face because the writers are like "look how cool they are, you are supposed to like them!" and that tends to rub me the wrong way.

Indeed. What bothers me most, I think, is that it's always the same type (okay, Fennorian, whom I like, is a little off - but I also have the feeling he's not pushed to the extent like it's done with Naryu or Razum-dar, for example; I'm a little wary though what the future might bring; I mean, I also found Jakarn rather amusing the first time I saw him, but what had become of him in High Isle was horrible). It's like I've been told "This is the character type that's awesome and you have to like this!" - not acknowledging that people might like very different things.

And then the usual big focus on "flirtyness", which makes it even worse for me, since it's personally reminding me of the ages-old "sex sells" principle, which is a concept I really, really dislike. It's off-putting to me if I get the feeling a company thinks "Let's put some mainstream attractive guy/girl there and let them spew suggestive lines, then people love it, and everything else doesn't matter to them!" - Not saying that ZOS thinks like that, really not; just explaining what "sex sells" as a marketing priciple means (although I do think most people are familiar with it?); anyway, the more I get the feeling that this principle is used in decisions of how to write or design a game/book/movie, I don't like it. I get that some people like a bit of flirtyness, or "fan service", and it's okay to have a bit of that, but at some point the focus on that becomes too much for me.

To add to that, not only that they're flirty, even the idea of what that means seems very one-dimensional. It's always "suggestiveness" in a very, very common way, and it's always the same. Add to that some "roguish/bad boy (but mild enough not to scare or offend anyone)" thing... boring. And of course, males portrayed as love interests are usually of the same type. How many buff, topless love interests have I encountered so far (wasn't it especially absurd in Blackwood?) - is this a dime novel? (Well, I hope not.) Yes, I know, this is a mainstream product, but I doubt that even the mainstream knows only one "type".

tomofhyrule wrote: »

And I hate seeing characters return as a one-dimensional caricature of themselves. Stop that. If you're bringing someone back, keep them written the same.

From time to time I had been wondering if that's done deliberately, because they think people want that, or is it that the writing team changed over the years and the new writers have no knowledge about how the original writers envisioned these characters? Probably it's a conscious decision, because the writers can, just like all of us, just read old dialogues to get a picture... But it's still strange to me, how there sometimes don't seem to be a real continuity.

tomofhyrule wrote: »

Now there are also those 'fan-favorite' characters who always get into the 'humorous hijinks' style sidequests, and for me, they've absolutely run their course.

It's an "easy" type of humour - the commercially "safest" in the way that no one will fail to comprehend it, while other types of humour, like witty remarks between the lines, will not be understood by everyone. There's a German term for it: Holzhammer-Humor. "Holzhammer" means "wooden mallet", and just like a wooden mallet, this humour just gets hammered down on the recipient. There's no way to miss it (and if you prefer wittier things, it will hurt your brain just like being hit on the head with a hammer, too).

More on the other posts later.

My issue with the flirtyness is it is the same type.

It isn't just a 'oh, this person has gotten to know you, and so is just flirting with you because they like to flirt' or even 'they got to know you and are interested in you' but rather the cliche 'this person's default setting is flirt, and they flirt with everything'. It is so impersonal.

It doesn't make me feel special, if anything it makes me feel the opposite of special. It just gets tiring to have yet another NPC who just starts tossing flirty lines out.

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

So a movie or game company or a writer who wants to get their work seen is more likely going to write something that they know the audience is going to live vs something avant guarde.

The current concept seems to be based very much on an idea of "safety": easy writing everyone understands, nothing offensive (with ever more things being labeled as "offensive", and from my perspective unfortunately only few of them rightfully so). If this trend continues, everything would get even less complex (people not being used to complexity anymore - standards drop even more) and ever more inoffensive (there's always someone vocal who complains about something, so another few things fly off to the "evil" list) over the years... When and how will this downward spiral end? For art and creativity it's definitely not a positive development.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

It isn't just that their personality is the same, which it should be, but they often use the same type of jokes, get into the same types of messes, blame the same people (looking at you Laurent, get your head out of your rear!). They don't learn from their past and so each time you see them, you know it is basically going to be the exact same quest you already had.

I'd think npcs like Stibbons or Rigurt aren't even characters in the actual sense of the word - they're the embodiment of running gags, nothing more. And what is a running gag? Basically an endless, meme-y repetition. Giving those npcs a development would reduce their recall value, so it's probably a completely deliberate decision that there's none. Whether one likes that... Some people seem to do; I, personally, have grown tired of it by now (for a few years already).

metheglyn wrote: »

I'm quite fond of Revus and was glad to see him return in Blackwood, and he was a returning character done really well. If they can bring him back and move him further along his arc, that would be lovely.

I seriously want to see him reach Master rank one day. Keeping him quirky is fine, of course, it's not like eccentricity has ever been a problem with Telvanni Masters, after all.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Being young is the time when you really should see the most growth, because you are still learning and aren't set in your ways.

And then there's me who has already been like this at 16, just with less experience and knowledge and a few hundred books less in his library. But honestly, from my experience, especially if you tend to have a special interest, it usually starts early. Of course you amass more knowledge over the decades, but I'd not expect big shifts in interests or personality.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I still think that the biggest issue is that people started writing characters to fit scenarios rather than writing scenarios to fit characters.

Especially happens when a writer wants to present a message, I think. Then they have in mind the message they want to convey, and everything gets bent to fit it, which then often leads to the whole thing looking very artificial/constructed, not part of an organic world, and on top of that often clichéd, so everyone gets what "character type" the npcs involved are supposed to represent.

I don't know if I have said this here, but I know I have said it elsewhere: I had a professor of history in college who said that if you look throughout history, it is on a pendulum. It will swing from one extreme to the other and then back again. He was mainly talking about political movements, but it also goes for other things as well.

Lets take the US and the city/rural divide. I mentioned that my mother loved old movies, and so I could see the trends in the movies. In one decade there were a lot of movies about 'getting back to nature' and people leaving the 'rat race' and buying a farm out in the country. Then in another decade, it was all about the rural folk who wanted the 'big city excitement'. Then it went back to moving away from the hectic life of the city, and so on.

I see this as the same. I want to say 'pretty soon' but I don't really know that, but at some point there will be a shift where people will start pushing back against the mainstream 'safe' and soon 'avant guarde' will become 'mainstream' again. Then, in a few years/decades/however long it takes, it will likely start heading back towards 'safe'.

So I don't think this is a *permanent* shift in this direction, it is just something we have to live through.

When I was talking about growth and learning, I was more talking about the whole 'you see a button in a ruin, you don't just press it' type of learning.

Taking Laurent, she always seems to blame either Stibbons or the player character for the things she does. If she were to 'grow' then she would start taking more and more responsiblity for HER actions, rather than just blaming it on everyone else.

I think the quests that Revus is in sort of highlight this. Without getting into specifics, he is still the same personality and interests in the two quests, but to me, in the second quest, in blackwood, he seems a bit more mature.

That is what I meant by growth, it doesn't have to be dramatic, it doesnt' have to be about their interests or personality, but rather just a change in their behavior based upon how their past actions have went. The whole 'Live and Learn' bit.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

My issue with the flirtyness is it is the same type.
It isn't just a 'oh, this person has gotten to know you, and so is just flirting with you because they like to flirt' or even 'they got to know you and are interested in you' but rather the cliche 'this person's default setting is flirt, and they flirt with everything'. It is so impersonal.

Yes, this seems arbitrary and meaningless and as such even less appealing. But for me, it's also the style of the flirting behaviour itself, with all the "Hey good-looking!" ad nauseam and the very direct, from my point of view, sleazy remarks (Even if it was someone I'd find attractive until then, that behaviour would drive me away; the admittedly trope-y situation that you see someone who looked interesting, and once that person opens their mouth and only nonsense comes out of it you decide to immediately end the conversation, turn around and leave). Or does the average person enjoy that type of flirting? I honestly don't know (I never cared for the culturally ritualized ideas about courtship, like how to date and what to say or do or whatever; I don't even have a clue about that, despite having been in relationships most of my life); for me, friendships come to existence through shared interests and philosophy, which usually leads to endless blabbering, which leads to deep friendships, and in some cases to even more than that. People complimenting my appearance out of nothing has no worth to me; it might get them a few seconds of my attention, but if they don't say anything of substance, my interest is gone.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I don't know if I have said this here, but I know I have said it elsewhere: I had a professor of history in college who said that if you look throughout history, it is on a pendulum. It will swing from one extreme to the other and then back again.

I know that saying and in some cases I deem it right, but if people get used to consuming media without using their brain much, and to appeal to them media gets even more simplified, and then people get even less used to thinking,... Where would the upturn come from? At some point people would be so alienated from complex narrations that such a narration would not appeal to them anymore, or even not understood anymore, I just don't see how that could take a u-turn.

katanagirl1

I don’t have much to contribute to the interesting and detailed analysis of story writing, other than to say I think our society since the 80s has become all about facades and everything is so simpleminded - in all forms of media, music, movies, TV. All people want is to be “entertained”. Appearance is everything, there is no substance. Reality shows highlight the worst in humanity because most people seem to think that drama is entertaining. Just listen to music from the 60-70s, groups like Rush, Genesis, and Boston, they were musicians who wrote their own music and lyrics. Compare that to today’s singers with autotune and “ooh baby” lyrics. Movies like Micheal Bay’s, where even in a Stargate TV episode where a movie director wanted to make a movie about them, Teal’c’s character said “Why must everything in this script explode?” Somehow Rosanne made being low-class cool and funny, Howard Stern the shock jock made being crude cool and funny. I don’t follow literature much and never was a fan of the classics, but it would not surprise me if it is going in the same direction.

I hope you don’t kill recurring characters like Laurent and Stibbbons and Rigurt, I laugh at their exploits every time. Maybe you would not mind some comic relief if the main stories were more thought-provoking and had more substance instead.

metheglyn

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I want to see more of Revus and Tiras, with them having *grown* like it seemed they showed in that one quest. I would like Raynor and Kirith to have actually grown as well. (you would think that supposedly intelligent people, after getting into all these situations and needing to be rescued, would realize something, but no...) I am sure there are also plenty of other characters from the base game that you only see once that I would love to have come back, but only if they show some growth! Not just come back as a one dimensional 'hey, this is their quest 2.0! here you can do the same things you did for them the first time, but with a different skin on it!'.

I'm quite fond of Revus and was glad to see him return in Blackwood, and he was a returning character done really well. If they can bring him back and move him further along his arc, that would be lovely.

As for the Vanos twins, I think Raynor is the highly intelligent one while Kireth is more action-oriented. She is rather reckless/adventurous/bold (however you want to term it) and was more interested in delving than getting into the academy or earning recognition with the mages' guild. I think they're meant to be rather young, as far as mer go, and so I put their misadventures down to the folly of youth in general. But, I do agree that seeing them always in those situations makes them come across rather one-note.

I'm curious if you've done their Clockwork City quest, because that isn't a reskin of them running headfirst into trouble and actually does show some growth.

I have and it was an interesting departure.

For me, it is because they are young that I feel they should be showing *some* growth (and to be fair to them, they are no where near as bad as some of the other recurring characters. I don't groan when I see them like I do a coupe of the others)

Being young is the time when you really should see the most growth, because you are still learning and aren't set in your ways.

I think one issue is that so many people confuse things like 'interest' with 'personality'. IE, someone is interested in Ruins, so their personality is 'Ruins' and everything they do must be about Ruins. Kireth and Raynor do break that mold a bit because their quests aren't always just about ruins.

You can see it offline all the time, where people will take one single aspect and suddenly that is all they can talk about. Nothing else matters, and if the conversation moves away from that subject, they will either clam up or they will move the topic back.

Dogs, specific video games, hobbies, etc... These people don't seem to understand that people can be interested in more than one thing at a time, and don't always want to talk about that one subject.

I have seen this in writing as well. It was touched upon earlier, the difference between writing a 'Hero' and writing a 'Person who is a hero'. That difference is being lost, and so many characters fall victim to the trap of 'I am a hero, so therefore my personality is HERO'. It makes the characters come across as one dimensional.

Laurent and Stibbons, to me, are a good example, Rigurt is another. Laurent and Stibbons, no matter how often I have seen them, always seem one note. You go through the exact same actions with them, and they never learn anything, they never grow, and the next time you meet them you know that you will do the exact same actions.

Basically, they come across as having been written for this specific role, rather than being written as characters who then have adventures. Just as Rigurt was written, not as a cultural ambassador that was clueless, but rather as a clueless cultural ambassador. Again, there is a distinction there, one that can often be hard to put into words. But it is there nonetheless.

I wonder if character growth is hampered by the notion that everything that's happened thus far has all basically happened at the same time, or in the same year, canonically. I don't remember when ZOS introduced that strange rationale (never been a fan of it) or even if that would somehow impact the writing for the characters.

I agree with you whole-heartedly about Laurent, Stibbons, and Rigurt. Unless those characters show some growth, I never want to see them again. Or, if I have to see them in the same tired roles, I want the ability to sabotage whatever they're doing.

I do agree that the characters often come across as a collection of quirky traits rather than actual characters. I think this is partly due to the medium--we're never going to get inside any npcs thoughts like we can in books with the narrator voice (even the in-game journals of npcs are rather sparse)--and perhaps also due to it being easier to come up with a 'hook' than a character. I think the need to come out with new content on a regular schedule hampers creativity to a degree, so maybe with the intended flexibility of the upcoming seasonal framework, they can return to more well-rounded characters.

I got so excited with that one quest where you could make a choice that seemed like it would mean no more Laurent and Stibbons! then my hopes were crushed.

I am not so sure it is really due to the medium. We can have well written characters on TV, for example, where we don't ge their inner thoughts or narrators. It might be partly due to the medium, but I still think that the biggest issue is that people started writing characters to fit scenarios rather than writing scenarios to fit characters.

We even see it with some of the companions and characters of ESO. I personally think that Zerith is a good example, because he doesn't come across as if he were written as a scenario that just needed a character. We don't get his inner voice or narrators, but he still seems well rounded.

I think the difference with TV characters is we spend more time with them overall, so though we don't get insight into their inner thoughts or the narrative voice, we see them interacting with their world and others, which gives us a more rounded view of them. A lot of quest npcs in this game don't return, and you get one chance to get to know them. I think that might be some of the appeal of having returning characters because it's another chance to see what they're about. Unfortunately they can also end up disappointing, for a variety of reasons.

Zerith is a great example of creating a great character within the confines of the medium. He, and all the companions, get fairly extensive arcs. Plus they'll comment on matters as you travel with them, so you get a little insight into their personality that way, too. Basically, they're created with the intent that you'll be spending quite a bit of time with them.

So I'm blanking on which quest seemed like we could get rid of Laurent and Stibbons. I know there's one in Al'ikir where it seems like she's going to fire Stibbons in favor of someone else, but sadly that never happened. Ugh, those two.

Syldras wrote: »

I'd think npcs like Stibbons or Rigurt aren't even characters in the actual sense of the word - they're the embodiment of running gags, nothing more. And what is a running gag? Basically an endless, meme-y repetition. Giving those npcs a development would reduce their recall value, so it's probably a completely deliberate decision that there's none. Whether one likes that... Some people seem to do; I, personally, have grown tired of it by now (for a few years already).

You know, I never really thought of them like that. That they were never meant to be more than a gag. Probably was too annoyed by them to even give them that due.

Syldras wrote: »

metheglyn wrote: »

I'm quite fond of Revus and was glad to see him return in Blackwood, and he was a returning character done really well. If they can bring him back and move him further along his arc, that would be lovely.

I seriously want to see him reach Master rank one day. Keeping him quirky is fine, of course, it's not like eccentricity has ever been a problem with Telvanni Masters, after all.

So true, as you well know! Yeah, his quirkiness works with his character. He's a character who happens to have quirks and is an eccentric, but he's not merely that. There's emotional depth in his conversations, and a hint at his overall life. Plus, he's pretty self-aware and also very charming. Did I mention I'm quite fond of him?

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I hope you don’t kill recurring characters like Laurent and Stibbbons and Rigurt, I laugh at their exploits every time. Maybe you would not mind some comic relief if the main stories were more thought-provoking and had more substance instead.

I doubt these characters can be killed. I mean, I've been trying to get rid of Narsis Dren ever since my first encounter with him, and somehow dude always manages to get out of whatever dire predicament I left him in.

Syldras

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I don’t have much to contribute to the interesting and detailed analysis of story writing, other than to say I think our society since the 80s has become all about facades and everything is so simpleminded - in all forms of media, music, movies, TV. All people want is to be “entertained”. Appearance is everything, there is no substance. Reality shows highlight the worst in humanity because most people seem to think that drama is entertaining.

Even in opera. It might be shocking to some who think that's different because it's "high culture", but no, actually it's the same tendency. I live in a city with 3 big opera houses (plus a few smaller avant-garde establishments), I'd say it's roughly 100 to 120 new stagings each year in total, and out of those, maybe 3 are interesting. The big rest relies on shock value, scandals, fake blood, fake guts, and nudity - and if one director does something shocking, the next director wants to be even more shocking; It's all just a big circus without much meaning. (The only remarkable thing is probably that there, shock-value seems to be the current thing, not "safety"; but who knows, maybe that will come next).

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Just listen to music from the 60-70s, groups like Rush, Genesis, and Boston, they were musicians who wrote their own music and lyrics. Compare that to today’s singers with autotune and “ooh baby” lyrics.

There are still individuals and bands who take writing their own songs very seriously, but that's not the normal mainstream artists, indeed.

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I don’t follow literature much and never was a fan of the classics, but it would not surprise me if it is going in the same direction.

Same. Just recently I read an article (although it was limited to the German-language book market) about how especially self-publishing has bloated everything, and it gets increasingly difficult to find well-written books. The book market has basically exploded, with most of the new releases being of low quality and basically all iterations of the same shallow nonsense (and always copying the current popular theme; let's say there has been a bestseller about vampires, then there will be several thousands of fastly and mass produced low-quality vampire-themed books two months later, because they're all jumping on the same wagon for commercial reasons). I'm not against self-publishing, by the way, because I know there are really interesting and talented amateurs, and I absolutely find it wonderful if they get a chance to publish their works, but really, most releases are actually a waste of paper.

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I hope you don’t kill recurring characters like Laurent and Stibbbons and Rigurt, I laugh at their exploits every time. Maybe you would not mind some comic relief if the main stories were more thought-provoking and had more substance instead.

That's true, if the stories are serious and thought-provoking, a light-hearted quest every now and then might feel more welcome.

colossalvoids

Mention of music made me think about tes getting too big to have that good writing we're talking about. And it's that big since 2011 already, way before proper ESO release but in time when it was in writing still. As there surely a lot, a lot of good artists and developers with amazing ideas and execution, but the more you go from the underground the less genuine good things there's to find at many occasions and genres. They are present surely but few and far between comparatively as mass appeal takes it's toll.

Syldras

metheglyn wrote: »

So true, as you well know! Yeah, his quirkiness works with his character. He's a character who happens to have quirks and is an eccentric, but he's not merely that. There's emotional depth in his conversations, and a hint at his overall life. Plus, he's pretty self-aware and also very charming. Did I mention I'm quite fond of him?

He's one of my favorites too (who would have guessed).

colossalvoids wrote: »

Mention of music made me think about tes getting too big to have that good writing we're talking about. And it's that big since 2011 already, way before proper ESO release but in time when it was in writing still. As there surely a lot, a lot of good artists and developers with amazing ideas and execution, but the more you go from the underground the less genuine good things there's to find at many occasions and genres. They are present surely but few and far between comparatively as mass appeal takes it's toll.

That's true, but I still think that ESO's writing could be more complex. People can handle that, also the masses.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

My issue with the flirtyness is it is the same type.
It isn't just a 'oh, this person has gotten to know you, and so is just flirting with you because they like to flirt' or even 'they got to know you and are interested in you' but rather the cliche 'this person's default setting is flirt, and they flirt with everything'. It is so impersonal.

Yes, this seems arbitrary and meaningless and as such even less appealing. But for me, it's also the style of the flirting behaviour itself, with all the "Hey good-looking!" ad nauseam and the very direct, from my point of view, sleazy remarks (Even if it was someone I'd find attractive until then, that behaviour would drive me away; the admittedly trope-y situation that you see someone who looked interesting, and once that person opens their mouth and only nonsense comes out of it you decide to immediately end the conversation, turn around and leave). Or does the average person enjoy that type of flirting? I honestly don't know (I never cared for the culturally ritualized ideas about courtship, like how to date and what to say or do or whatever; I don't even have a clue about that, despite having been in relationships most of my life); for me, friendships come to existence through shared interests and philosophy, which usually leads to endless blabbering, which leads to deep friendships, and in some cases to even more than that. People complimenting my appearance out of nothing has no worth to me; it might get them a few seconds of my attention, but if they don't say anything of substance, my interest is gone.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I don't know if I have said this here, but I know I have said it elsewhere: I had a professor of history in college who said that if you look throughout history, it is on a pendulum. It will swing from one extreme to the other and then back again.

I know that saying and in some cases I deem it right, but if people get used to consuming media without using their brain much, and to appeal to them media gets even more simplified, and then people get even less used to thinking,... Where would the upturn come from? At some point people would be so alienated from complex narrations that such a narration would not appeal to them anymore, or even not understood anymore, I just don't see how that could take a u-turn.

Yeah, the type of flirting is not good, in my opinion, as well, I just object more to the fact that these characters are supposed to be 'charming' and all they do is flirt.

For the media thing, there are always going to be people that push back against societal norms, and they are the ones that typically spearhead the movement when people get tired of what you currently have. You will always have the ones who want more complex media, and those who don't want to write mainstream stuff.

As a microism, look at the trends in movies. Dinosaurs, Superheroes, etc.. are all trends that come and go, as people get tired of the oversaturation of one, another trend comes to take its place.

It is that way with media in general. Eventually people will start getting tired of the current trends and start pushing back, starting, potentially, just like we are doing now, where we are discussing what we don't like, and why it is like this.

As more people get tired and join the movement, this viewpoint will gain traction. Writiers who have tired of writing the same old things will start writing things that appeal to this type of movement, old works that will become 'new' again as people discover them when they are tired of the current works. As time goes by, people will start raising their kids with this viewpoint and it will start shifting back towards more complex narrations.

If we take westerns as an example, in the early days, the 'Hero' was just that, he had to be a hero who was totally good. This went on even in other genres. Then people started getting tired of it, and heroes started becoming more complex, until we started seeing 'anti-heroes'.

So, I do think that the trend is going to turn around, I just don't know how long it will take. I also don't know if I will like the direction it goes when it does turn around, because it won't just be a simple 'head back towards more complex times'.

Someone mentioned music, and even as some become mainstream, there are always other genres that are 'pushed to the side' and they become popular with those who don't want to be mainstream. Then, as time goes by, those genres become mainstream and new genres popup that other people start following.

I am sure that if we look hard enough now, we can find plenty of games, multiplayer games even, that don't follow the 'mainstream' trends, and they are currently considered 'niche' games. Eventually those 'niche' games, or ones similiar to them, might start becoming more mainstream as more people get tired of the 'dime a dozen' trendy games and go looking for something different.

I know that there have been times I have just wanted something *different* and so took a chance on something that wasn't normally in my preferred tastes, and there have been times I have been pleasantly surprised by what I have found.

Basically, I am not too worried about whether or not the current trend of 'safe and non-offensive' stories will turn around, I am more concerned about when and about the games and stories that come out in the meantime.

Also, not quoting, but to return to the topic of TV, I was thinking more of movie characters, where we have an hour and a half, maybe two hours, with these characters, without getting to see their inner thoughts most of time and without narration, not necessarily TV series.

That is why I feel that it isn't so much about the different mediums, though that can certainly affect how *easy* it is to write good characters, because plays and movies have written engaging characters for quite a long time, all without being able to show the inner thoughts of the character.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Yeah, the type of flirting is not good, in my opinion, as well, I just object more to the fact that these characters are supposed to be 'charming' and all they do is flirt.

From my point of view the current behavior is the opposite of being charming, as charming is more subtle and actually makes the other person feel flattered (in a positive way).

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

So, I do think that the trend is going to turn around, I just don't know how long it will take. I also don't know if I will like the direction it goes when it does turn around, because it won't just be a simple 'head back towards more complex times'.

Who knows; maybe the first turn we'll see won't be about complexity but about "safety" because people grow tired of that first - and what we'll get might be works written "edgy for the sake of being edgy" (scandalous, with a big shock-value, but still incomplex and void of actual substance), which I wouldn't be a fan of either, personally.

Although the idea of "safe writing" is, admittedly, something I personally find utmost off-putting; most of all because it's mostly just an euphemism for censorship.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Someone mentioned music, and even as some become mainstream, there are always other genres that are 'pushed to the side' and they become popular with those who don't want to be mainstream. Then, as time goes by, those genres become mainstream and new genres popup that other people start following.

I'd say what usually emerges in the mainstream from time to time are simplified, sanitized versions of the original niche genre, or just superficial trends mirroring the aesthethic, commercializing it, but also lacking the ideological background. There had been a "hippie" fashion trend a while ago, and the clothes looked roughly like 1960's hippie fashion, and music roughly of that style became popular for a while, but most consumers had neither knowledge nor interest in what this movement once stood for. It gets even more ridiculous when ever "punk" becomes fashionable again, a strongly anti-mainstream and anti-consumerist movement, that gets turned into some caricature then, with uplifting, uncritical radio music, and mass-produced fake leather jackets at fast fashion stores.

Again: Superficial items to "label" oneself (or rather pretend) to be whatever, with no more to it than that. It all seems to be about facades.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Yeah, the type of flirting is not good, in my opinion, as well, I just object more to the fact that these characters are supposed to be 'charming' and all they do is flirt.

From my point of view the current behavior is the opposite of being charming, as charming is more subtle and actually makes the other person feel flattered (in a positive way).

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

So, I do think that the trend is going to turn around, I just don't know how long it will take. I also don't know if I will like the direction it goes when it does turn around, because it won't just be a simple 'head back towards more complex times'.

Who knows; maybe the first turn we'll see won't be about complexity but about "safety" because people grow tired of that first - and what we'll get might be works written "edgy for the sake of being edgy" (scandalous, with a big shock-value, but still incomplex and void of actual substance), which I wouldn't be a fan of either, personally.

Although the idea of "safe writing" is, admittedly, something I personally find utmost off-putting; most of all because it's mostly just an euphemism for censorship.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Someone mentioned music, and even as some become mainstream, there are always other genres that are 'pushed to the side' and they become popular with those who don't want to be mainstream. Then, as time goes by, those genres become mainstream and new genres popup that other people start following.

I'd say what usually emerges in the mainstream from time to time are simplified, sanitized versions of the original niche genre, or just superficial trends mirroring the aesthethic, commercializing it, but also lacking the ideological background. There had been a "hippie" fashion trend a while ago, and the clothes looked roughly like 1960's hippie fashion, and music roughly of that style became popular for a while, but most consumers had neither knowledge nor interest in what this movement once stood for. It gets even more ridiculous when ever "punk" becomes fashionable again, a strongly anti-mainstream and anti-consumerist movement, that gets turned into some caricature then, with uplifting, uncritical radio music, and mass-produced fake leather jackets at fast fashion stores.

Again: Superficial items to "label" oneself (or rather pretend) to be whatever, with no more to it than that. It all seems to be about facades.

(that is why 'charming' was in quotes, because I don't find it charming at all.)

Oh, I agree with what you are saying, but those are really just the surface and the beginnings of the movement.

Mainstream is pretty much always going to be the 'safe' options out of all the various trends and movements, because it is commercialized. But, as each 'edgy' becomes 'mainstream' there will be times in there when 'mainstream' is closer to what we want.

Basically, each turn requires a starting point, and while that starting point might not be where *we* would prefer it, it doesn't mean that it won't turn into it.

Edgy for the sake of being edgy can then turn into edgy to explore what it means to be edgy, and then into edgy to delve into deeper understandings of how humans work, then into dropping the 'edgy' bit and turning into complexity. Especially as not only the movement itself grows, but the people who got into it grow. If you look at trends, especially using music, a lot of times these 'edge' movements are enjoyed the most by teenagers. They get into it, in my opinion, because they are 'pushing back' against their parents. But, as they grow and mature, so to will their tastes. Some of them will drop the entire movement and 'go mainstream', but others will get into music, for example, and they will bring their own tastes to the movement they like, which can (not always) bring complexity that the original movement didn't really have.

I am also not really talking about bringing 'trends' back, because, yeah, that is typically about superfical stuff, not the deeper meaning behind the trend. I am talking about new trends themselves.

But, the biggest thing that sadly we have to get used to, is that things are going to change. A true 'hippie' movement isn't going to come back. There will likely be, however, a movement that might take some inspiration from the hippie movement, but 'modernizes' it to make it appealing to the current audience. (not commercializes it) Even when the pendulum shifts back towards less 'safe' and 'sanitized' writing, it isn't going to be the writing we are used to, and it might not be exactly what we want.

Jaimeh

Desiato wrote: »

They've been going down the path of Disney for a while now. I don't think it's even possible for TES to be edgy or nuanced anymore.

This ^ I think with characters like Jakarn getting a lot of flack by the playerbase, the writers are changing to a shallower approach. The thing is, in a world like TES, all sorts of characters are supposed to exist, even irredeemable lechers that are wholly unpalatable, and it's par for the course that the Vestige will get hit on, threatened, and receive all sorts of reactions from NPCs, if the environment is to be immersive. I found it so strange that people hated Jakarn, but didn't mind, for example, Voriak Solkyn saying 'I shall kill you and animate your corpse' in Maelstrom Arena, which as lines go is 100% more problematic and darker than any lecherous advances. I don't mind a villain being irredeemable, or a story being dark, or a companion being annoying, as long as it makes sense for that character or situation. What I wouldn't like is seeing less variety in characters, 'safer' stories, or resolutions that are increasingly appeasing with the purpose of adhering to our sensibilities. For instance, Voriak's line did not adhere to my sensibilities, and to this day I find that it's one of worse things said to the Vestige, but it absolutely made sense for the character and the moment, and that's why it's so impactful and memorable all these years since MA was released.

metheglyn

Jaimeh wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

They've been going down the path of Disney for a while now. I don't think it's even possible for TES to be edgy or nuanced anymore.

This ^ I think with characters like Jakarn getting a lot of flack by the playerbase, the writers are changing to a shallower approach. The thing is, in a world like TES, all sorts of characters are supposed to exist, even irredeemable lechers that are wholly unpalatable, and it's par for the course that the Vestige will get hit on, threatened, and receive all sorts of reactions from NPCs, if the environment is to be immersive. I found it so strange that people hated Jakarn, but didn't mind, for example, Voriak Solkyn saying 'I shall kill you and animate your corpse' in Maelstrom Arena, which as lines go is 100% more problematic and darker than any lecherous advances. I don't mind a villain being irredeemable, or a story being dark, or a companion being annoying, as long as it makes sense for that character or situation. What I wouldn't like is seeing less variety in characters, 'safer' stories, or resolutions that are increasingly appeasing with the purpose of adhering to our sensibilities. For instance, Voriak's line did not adhere to my sensibilities, and to this day I find that it's one of worse things said to the Vestige, but it absolutely made sense for the character and the moment, and that's why it's so impactful and memorable all these years since MA was released.

I think part of the reason Jakarn got some negative reactions is because he seemed more shallow than he used to be. The first time the Vestige encounters him, he's a charming rogue, always looking for the main chance, and true to no one but himself. Later, his dominant personality trait hinges on endless, repetitious flirting, and he seems to have lost any nuance he once had. And because the Vestige has to interact with him a lot during the course of the main quest in High Isle, that flirting becomes really annoying because there's never an opportunity to tell him to back off.

While it may add to the realism of the world if npcs have varying reactions to the Vestige, it doesn't add to the realism if the Vestige can't then react accordingly. A couple of lines would be all it would take, and since we have been able to react to threatening npcs in the past, why can't we react to flirtatious ones?

JemadarofCaerSalis

Jaimeh wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

They've been going down the path of Disney for a while now. I don't think it's even possible for TES to be edgy or nuanced anymore.

This ^ I think with characters like Jakarn getting a lot of flack by the playerbase, the writers are changing to a shallower approach. The thing is, in a world like TES, all sorts of characters are supposed to exist, even irredeemable lechers that are wholly unpalatable, and it's par for the course that the Vestige will get hit on, threatened, and receive all sorts of reactions from NPCs, if the environment is to be immersive. I found it so strange that people hated Jakarn, but didn't mind, for example, Voriak Solkyn saying 'I shall kill you and animate your corpse' in Maelstrom Arena, which as lines go is 100% more problematic and darker than any lecherous advances. I don't mind a villain being irredeemable, or a story being dark, or a companion being annoying, as long as it makes sense for that character or situation. What I wouldn't like is seeing less variety in characters, 'safer' stories, or resolutions that are increasingly appeasing with the purpose of adhering to our sensibilities. For instance, Voriak's line did not adhere to my sensibilities, and to this day I find that it's one of worse things said to the Vestige, but it absolutely made sense for the character and the moment, and that's why it's so impactful and memorable all these years since MA was released.

The thing is, flirty has its place. But, when you get multiple characters that the vestige has to travel with and interact with often (So far it the ones I have seen are Jakarn, Darien, TAnlorin, and several others) and you can't tell them 'hey, not interested back off!', it breaks immersion.

Being hit on by a random NPC that you might do one quest for, and then can forget all about them, or you head to a bar and the innkeep flirts with you is one thing.

But the ones that have the most complaints leveled against them are the recurring characters. The ones that you are going to see time and time again, the ones that you will talk to several times.

ArchangelIsraphel

Jaimeh wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

They've been going down the path of Disney for a while now. I don't think it's even possible for TES to be edgy or nuanced anymore.

This ^ I think with characters like Jakarn getting a lot of flack by the playerbase, the writers are changing to a shallower approach. The thing is, in a world like TES, all sorts of characters are supposed to exist, even irredeemable lechers that are wholly unpalatable, and it's par for the course that the Vestige will get hit on, threatened, and receive all sorts of reactions from NPCs, if the environment is to be immersive. I found it so strange that people hated Jakarn, but didn't mind, for example, Voriak Solkyn saying 'I shall kill you and animate your corpse' in Maelstrom Arena, which as lines go is 100% more problematic and darker than any lecherous advances. I don't mind a villain being irredeemable, or a story being dark, or a companion being annoying, as long as it makes sense for that character or situation. What I wouldn't like is seeing less variety in characters, 'safer' stories, or resolutions that are increasingly appeasing with the purpose of adhering to our sensibilities. For instance, Voriak's line did not adhere to my sensibilities, and to this day I find that it's one of worse things said to the Vestige, but it absolutely made sense for the character and the moment, and that's why it's so impactful and memorable all these years since MA was released.

Those who offer criticism concerning Jakarn and his flirting in High Isle definitely weren't looking for a "safer", shallower approach. On the contrary. What they're asking for is more nuance, better characterization. Jakarn's flirting in High Isle doesn't strike me as being that of an irredeemable lecher. It strikes me as filler in places where a better, more useful response could have been crafted. One that might have moved the story forwards, rather than constant repetition of the same thing.

And like others have said before me- the ability to behave in-character and respond to the flirting, instead of just standing there and letting it happen, is very much wanted. People should either have the ability to respond in kind, ignore it, or reject it and tell the NPC to back off.

And the ways of telling the NPC to back off can have a range. Anything from polite to different ranges of anger, or simply a neutral 'no'. We have intimidate as an option in some quests as well- I don't see why we can't use it. That certainly wouldn't be disney-like at all.

I think it bears saying that some of the dialogue choices in the past have shown the Vestige to be someone you don't mess with lightly (Provided it's in character for someone to chose those options) For example:

Wanting the way flirting gets handled to be altered doesn't necessarily mean wanting things to be goody-goody. I can handle lechers. I just want my character to be able to give them the response I deem to be in-character.

Also, when given the choice between listening to Jakarn flirt through an entire questline again, or Voriak Solkyn killing my character and animating his corpse, I'm going for necromancy every time

Edit: To add spoiler tags to avoid large images being repeated/drowning out text.

Edit 2: Didn't check my sources well enough and posted inaccurate screenshots. They've been removed. I'm sleepy, apologies!

JemadarofCaerSalis

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Jaimeh wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

They've been going down the path of Disney for a while now. I don't think it's even possible for TES to be edgy or nuanced anymore.

This ^ I think with characters like Jakarn getting a lot of flack by the playerbase, the writers are changing to a shallower approach. The thing is, in a world like TES, all sorts of characters are supposed to exist, even irredeemable lechers that are wholly unpalatable, and it's par for the course that the Vestige will get hit on, threatened, and receive all sorts of reactions from NPCs, if the environment is to be immersive. I found it so strange that people hated Jakarn, but didn't mind, for example, Voriak Solkyn saying 'I shall kill you and animate your corpse' in Maelstrom Arena, which as lines go is 100% more problematic and darker than any lecherous advances. I don't mind a villain being irredeemable, or a story being dark, or a companion being annoying, as long as it makes sense for that character or situation. What I wouldn't like is seeing less variety in characters, 'safer' stories, or resolutions that are increasingly appeasing with the purpose of adhering to our sensibilities. For instance, Voriak's line did not adhere to my sensibilities, and to this day I find that it's one of worse things said to the Vestige, but it absolutely made sense for the character and the moment, and that's why it's so impactful and memorable all these years since MA was released.

Those who offer criticism concerning Jakarn and his flirting in High Isle definitely weren't looking for a "safer", shallower approach. On the contrary. What they're asking for is more nuance, better characterization. Jakarn's flirting in High Isle doesn't strike me as being that of an irredeemable lecher. It strikes me as filler in places where a better, more useful response could have been crafted. One that might have moved the story forwards, rather than constant repetition of the same thing.

And like others have said before me- the ability to behave in-character and respond to the flirting, instead of just standing there and letting it happen, is very much wanted. People should either have the ability to respond in kind, ignore it, or reject it and tell the NPC to back off.

And the ways of telling the NPC to back off can have a range. Anything from polite to different ranges of anger, or simply a neutral 'no'. We have intimidate as an option in some quests as well- I don't see why we can't use it. That certainly wouldn't be disney-like at all.

I think it bears saying that some of the dialogue choices in the past have shown the Vestige to be someone you don't mess with lightly (Provided it's in character for someone to chose those options) For example:

Wanting the way flirting gets handled to be altered doesn't necessarily mean wanting things to be goody-goody. I can handle lechers. I just want my character to be able to give them the response I deem to be in-character.

Also, when given the choice between listening to Jakarn flirt through an entire questline again, or Voriak Solkyn killing my character and animating his corpse, I'm going for necromancy every time

Edit: To add spoiler tags to avoid large images being repeated/drowning out text.

Just want to ask if that last screenshot is of actual dialogue? I went searching and found that it was supposedly an edited screenshot. If So, who is the character you are talking to?

ArchangelIsraphel

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Jaimeh wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

They've been going down the path of Disney for a while now. I don't think it's even possible for TES to be edgy or nuanced anymore.

This ^ I think with characters like Jakarn getting a lot of flack by the playerbase, the writers are changing to a shallower approach. The thing is, in a world like TES, all sorts of characters are supposed to exist, even irredeemable lechers that are wholly unpalatable, and it's par for the course that the Vestige will get hit on, threatened, and receive all sorts of reactions from NPCs, if the environment is to be immersive. I found it so strange that people hated Jakarn, but didn't mind, for example, Voriak Solkyn saying 'I shall kill you and animate your corpse' in Maelstrom Arena, which as lines go is 100% more problematic and darker than any lecherous advances. I don't mind a villain being irredeemable, or a story being dark, or a companion being annoying, as long as it makes sense for that character or situation. What I wouldn't like is seeing less variety in characters, 'safer' stories, or resolutions that are increasingly appeasing with the purpose of adhering to our sensibilities. For instance, Voriak's line did not adhere to my sensibilities, and to this day I find that it's one of worse things said to the Vestige, but it absolutely made sense for the character and the moment, and that's why it's so impactful and memorable all these years since MA was released.

Those who offer criticism concerning Jakarn and his flirting in High Isle definitely weren't looking for a "safer", shallower approach. On the contrary. What they're asking for is more nuance, better characterization. Jakarn's flirting in High Isle doesn't strike me as being that of an irredeemable lecher. It strikes me as filler in places where a better, more useful response could have been crafted. One that might have moved the story forwards, rather than constant repetition of the same thing.

And like others have said before me- the ability to behave in-character and respond to the flirting, instead of just standing there and letting it happen, is very much wanted. People should either have the ability to respond in kind, ignore it, or reject it and tell the NPC to back off.

And the ways of telling the NPC to back off can have a range. Anything from polite to different ranges of anger, or simply a neutral 'no'. We have intimidate as an option in some quests as well- I don't see why we can't use it. That certainly wouldn't be disney-like at all.

I think it bears saying that some of the dialogue choices in the past have shown the Vestige to be someone you don't mess with lightly (Provided it's in character for someone to chose those options) For example:

Wanting the way flirting gets handled to be altered doesn't necessarily mean wanting things to be goody-goody. I can handle lechers. I just want my character to be able to give them the response I deem to be in-character.

Also, when given the choice between listening to Jakarn flirt through an entire questline again, or Voriak Solkyn killing my character and animating his corpse, I'm going for necromancy every time

Edit: To add spoiler tags to avoid large images being repeated/drowning out text.

Just want to ask if that last screenshot is of actual dialogue? I went searching and found that it was supposedly an edited screenshot. If So, who is the character you are talking to?

That's not my screenshot, I googled to find examples- but thank you for pointing that out. I'll remove it. More than one was actually incorrect. Sometimes I don't always recall the quests and character names as accurately as I think I do, and an edit can fool me! I appreciate you checking/correcting me before anyone got the wrong idea, though. (I'm sleepy and not checking my sources as well as I should- how embarrassing!)

TaSheen

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Those who offer criticism concerning Jakarn and his flirting in High Isle definitely weren't looking for a "safer", shallower approach. On the contrary. What they're asking for is more nuance, better characterization. Jakarn's flirting in High Isle doesn't strike me as being that of an irredeemable lecher. It strikes me as filler in places where a better, more useful response could have been crafted. One that might have moved the story forwards, rather than constant repetition of the same thing.

And like others have said before me- the ability to behave in-character and respond to the flirting, instead of just standing there and letting it happen, is very much wanted. People should either have the ability to respond in kind, ignore it, or reject it and tell the NPC to back off.

And the ways of telling the NPC to back off can have a range. Anything from polite to different ranges of anger, or simply a neutral 'no'. We have intimidate as an option in some quests as well- I don't see why we can't use it. That certainly wouldn't be disney-like at all.

I think it bears saying that some of the dialogue choices in the past have shown the Vestige to be someone you don't mess with lightly (Provided it's in character for someone to chose those options) For example:

Wanting the way flirting gets handled to be altered doesn't necessarily mean wanting things to be goody-goody. I can handle lechers. I just want my character to be able to give them the response I deem to be in-character.

Also, when given the choice between listening to Jakarn flirt through an entire questline again, or Voriak Solkyn killing my character and animating his corpse, I'm going for necromancy every time

Edit: To add spoiler tags to avoid large images being repeated/drowning out text.

Edit 2: Didn't check my sources well enough and posted inaccurate screenshots. They've been removed. I'm sleepy, apologies!

Exactly.

JemadarofCaerSalis

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Jaimeh wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

They've been going down the path of Disney for a while now. I don't think it's even possible for TES to be edgy or nuanced anymore.

This ^ I think with characters like Jakarn getting a lot of flack by the playerbase, the writers are changing to a shallower approach. The thing is, in a world like TES, all sorts of characters are supposed to exist, even irredeemable lechers that are wholly unpalatable, and it's par for the course that the Vestige will get hit on, threatened, and receive all sorts of reactions from NPCs, if the environment is to be immersive. I found it so strange that people hated Jakarn, but didn't mind, for example, Voriak Solkyn saying 'I shall kill you and animate your corpse' in Maelstrom Arena, which as lines go is 100% more problematic and darker than any lecherous advances. I don't mind a villain being irredeemable, or a story being dark, or a companion being annoying, as long as it makes sense for that character or situation. What I wouldn't like is seeing less variety in characters, 'safer' stories, or resolutions that are increasingly appeasing with the purpose of adhering to our sensibilities. For instance, Voriak's line did not adhere to my sensibilities, and to this day I find that it's one of worse things said to the Vestige, but it absolutely made sense for the character and the moment, and that's why it's so impactful and memorable all these years since MA was released.

Those who offer criticism concerning Jakarn and his flirting in High Isle definitely weren't looking for a "safer", shallower approach. On the contrary. What they're asking for is more nuance, better characterization. Jakarn's flirting in High Isle doesn't strike me as being that of an irredeemable lecher. It strikes me as filler in places where a better, more useful response could have been crafted. One that might have moved the story forwards, rather than constant repetition of the same thing.

And like others have said before me- the ability to behave in-character and respond to the flirting, instead of just standing there and letting it happen, is very much wanted. People should either have the ability to respond in kind, ignore it, or reject it and tell the NPC to back off.

And the ways of telling the NPC to back off can have a range. Anything from polite to different ranges of anger, or simply a neutral 'no'. We have intimidate as an option in some quests as well- I don't see why we can't use it. That certainly wouldn't be disney-like at all.

I think it bears saying that some of the dialogue choices in the past have shown the Vestige to be someone you don't mess with lightly (Provided it's in character for someone to chose those options) For example:

Wanting the way flirting gets handled to be altered doesn't necessarily mean wanting things to be goody-goody. I can handle lechers. I just want my character to be able to give them the response I deem to be in-character.

Also, when given the choice between listening to Jakarn flirt through an entire questline again, or Voriak Solkyn killing my character and animating his corpse, I'm going for necromancy every time

Edit: To add spoiler tags to avoid large images being repeated/drowning out text.

Just want to ask if that last screenshot is of actual dialogue? I went searching and found that it was supposedly an edited screenshot. If So, who is the character you are talking to?

That's not my screenshot, I googled to find examples- but thank you for pointing that out. I'll remove it. More than one was actually incorrect. Sometimes I don't always recall the quests and character names as accurately as I think I do, and an edit can fool me! I appreciate you checking/correcting me before anyone got the wrong idea, though. (I'm sleepy and not checking my sources as well as I should- how embarrassing!)

I am the same way! I had to google the screenshots because I didn't remember them, not even the real one, until I finally, *finally* remembered that incident :P. I wasn't sure whether the quest was faked or just the name.

Syldras

Jaimeh wrote: »

I found it so strange that people hated Jakarn, but didn't mind, for example, Voriak Solkyn saying 'I shall kill you and animate your corpse' in Maelstrom Arena, which as lines go is 100% more problematic and darker than any lecherous advances.

To add to what the others wrote:

The big difference is that Voriak Solkyn is presented as an "evil" character to us, while Jakarn is one of the npcs they usually call a "fan favorite" and we're supposed to find his "flirty" behavior appealing.

To me the threat of necromancy honestly also feels less severe since obtrusive sleazy people are something I can come across in real life, while the danger of ending up as a demon's necromantic thrall is rather limited where I live.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

If you look at trends, especially using music, a lot of times these 'edge' movements are enjoyed the most by teenagers. They get into it, in my opinion, because they are 'pushing back' against their parents. But, as they grow and mature, so to will their tastes. Some of them will drop the entire movement and 'go mainstream', but others will get into music, for example, and they will bring their own tastes to the movement they like, which can (not always) bring complexity that the original movement didn't really have.

I mean, I can't of course speak for every subculture there is, but the ones I'm more familiar with always had a strong ideological as well as artistic background and people felt drawn to them for that reason. Of course there was also, from times to times, a flow of edgy rebelling teens (and even worse so when there was some media trend), but those usually didn't stay for long and normally didn't care for much more than the fashion aspects anyway - so there was never a deeper interest from the beginning (the ones who had one often also contributed their art from the beginning on), and usually it didn't develop either.

But I heard that nowadays that doesn't seem to be very common anymore anyway? At least I've read and been told that most teens seem to be listening to the same music, dressing the same way and having the same interests and world view now (which interestingly seems to correlate with the impression that society has rather gotten less diverse in worldviews, opinions and even taste within the past decade). Of course there has always been a mainstream, but the deviations from that seem to be much rarer today then they had been 20 or even just 10 years ago. There are even essays on the "death of subculture".

And from a personal perspective, the people I know who are involved in some subculture, are also about my age or older now. Basically found interest in their teens (at times that was also the beginning time of the movement) and now the age average rises every year because the long-time members grow older and at the same time there's no new young people joining anymore. Those seem to be content enough with the mainstream (or at least aren't bothered enough to actively search for alternatives). Of course that looks rather concerning to me when we think about the topic of writing that we're discussing here. There will be no change as long as most just stay silent about the way it currently is; no matter whether they truly like it, uncritically consume everything, or are not fond of it either but still don't care enough to voice their opinion about it.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

Jaimeh wrote: »

I found it so strange that people hated Jakarn, but didn't mind, for example, Voriak Solkyn saying 'I shall kill you and animate your corpse' in Maelstrom Arena, which as lines go is 100% more problematic and darker than any lecherous advances.

To add to what the others wrote:

The big difference is that Voriak Solkyn is presented as an "evil" character to us, while Jakarn is one of the npcs they usually call a "fan favorite" and we're supposed to find his "flirty" behavior appealing.

To me the threat of necromancy honestly also feels less severe since obtrusive sleazy people are something I can come across in real life, while the danger of ending up as a demon's necromantic thrall is rather limited where I live.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

If you look at trends, especially using music, a lot of times these 'edge' movements are enjoyed the most by teenagers. They get into it, in my opinion, because they are 'pushing back' against their parents. But, as they grow and mature, so to will their tastes. Some of them will drop the entire movement and 'go mainstream', but others will get into music, for example, and they will bring their own tastes to the movement they like, which can (not always) bring complexity that the original movement didn't really have.

I mean, I can't of course speak for every subculture there is, but the ones I'm more familiar with always had a strong ideological as well as artistic background and people felt drawn to them for that reason. Of course there was also, from times to times, a flow of edgy rebelling teens (and even worse so when there was some media trend), but those usually didn't stay for long and normally didn't care for much more than the fashion aspects anyway - so there was never a deeper interest from the beginning (the ones who had one often also contributed their art from the beginning on), and usually it didn't develop either.

But I heard that nowadays that doesn't seem to be very common anymore anyway? At least I've read and been told that most teens seem to be listening to the same music, dressing the same way and having the same interests and world view now (which interestingly seems to correlate with the impression that society has rather gotten less diverse in worldviews, opinions and even taste within the past decade). Of course there has always been a mainstream, but the deviations from that seem to be much rarer today then they had been 20 or even just 10 years ago. There are even essays on the "death of subculture".

And from a personal perspective, the people I know who are involved in some subculture, are also about my age or older now. Basically found interest in their teens (at times that was also the beginning time of the movement) and now the age average rises every year because the long-time members grow older and at the same time there's no new young people joining anymore. Those seem to be content enough with the mainstream (or at least aren't bothered enough to actively search for alternatives). Of course that looks rather concerning to me when we think about the topic of writing that we're discussing here. There will be no change as long as most just stay silent about the way it currently is; no matter whether they truly like it, uncritically consume everything, or are not fond of it either but still don't care enough to voice their opinion about it.

It very well could be different where you are, so I can't really speak to that.

However, one of the things is, even if the edgy teens aren't really interested in the deeper aspects of it, they still soak up some of that ideology and that influences them when they get older.

I think one of the things is that there are still plenty of deviations from the mainstream, but even many of those can still be seen as 'mainstream' because it is so easy to find them, which means that more people can get into them and enjoy them and it then makes it seem like there isn't much mainstream.

I don't really think that the world has gotten less diverse in worldviews, but rather more divisive in worldviews and more quick to shout down any dissenting opinions, which often makes it seem like there are fewer. However, those diverse worldviews still exist, you just have to look deeper to find them, and sometimes know where to look in the first place to find them.

You aren't going to find them on the main platforms, which, at least in the US, is where most people get their data and ideas from. You likely would have to go to very niche discords, and even niche forums. Because whatever diverse worldview they have isn't welcomed on the main platforms.

For instance, if you ever feel cold, just go to reddit or facebook and post 'I like well done steak'. You will be warm in no time. And this is over an opinion that literally doesn't hurt anyone else. I have seen the same for a lot of other pretty harmless opinions as well. If you mention them, you are likely to get flamed because people don't want to hear opposing opinions any more. (well, they probably never did, but they didn't really have a choice but to hear them)

I do agree that as long as people are willing to still consume the stuff they aren't happy with or don't like, little to no change is going to happen.

I think in this case, the change is going to be a slow burn type change, where it isn't going to happen within a year, or even a decade, but rather might take a generation or two to come about, which really stinks for people of THIS generation, but eventually people will get tired of it, and start raising their kids to be tired of it and wanting more.

As an example, I have seen many people say they prefer older style cartoons, and they have raised their kids on them, rather than the newer cartoons. Same thing with movies etc...

Going back to my example (A few posts ago) about the war between rural and urban, I have been seeing more and more 'homestead' type reels on facebook where they are talking about growing your own garden, and making your own jams and condiments etc...

I have also seem more and more people dissatisfied with the 'safe and non-offensive' trend of writing as well.

So, I believe that the movement is out there, and it is gaining traction. But, to me at least, it is really hard to tell when you are currently living in that moment. It is much easier to see the movement when you can look back on it and go 'yeah, that was a movement'. (unless it is a counter culture type movement that gets a LOT of attention)

Also, for writing specifically, there are still plenty of people who are writing stories with in depth characters and good plots, they just often aren't 'mainstream' and are rather writing because they love writing and publishing it either themselves or for free online somewhere to gain fans for their works. (or they are writing fanfiction where they can't publish it for monetary gain)

Sadly, I think this is going to be a case of 'it is going to get worse before it gets better', because more people have to get tired of the 'safe and non-offensive' writing and join in on being vocal about not liking it.

Jaimeh

The point was that the writing doesn't make sense to the character anymore for extraneous reasons. They did do Jakarn dirty compared to how he was introduced in Stros M'Kai, but since they decided to turn him completely sleazy and overbearing, then it makes more sense, compared to having Ember (who wanted to help her friends, and wrote the most moving letter to the Vestige) exhibit glee when going on an innocent killing spree, just because the playerbase wanted a companion without criminal negative rapport. I think writing decisions should be based on what makes the most sense for the character and situation and not extraneous reasons that are slapped on top without nuance or consideration, and I think some of the recent writing is the latter.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

However, one of the things is, even if the edgy teens aren't really interested in the deeper aspects of it, they still soak up some of that ideology and that influences them when they get older.

Well, back in my teens, there were a few people at school who "were" something different each month, and the most absurd cases of course were those where the mindset of the group they claimed to suddenly be a member of were completely contrary (like turning from an anti-consumerist and anti-mainstream punk to some type of fashion girl only interested in shopping and luxury brands within just two weeks; or being a peace- and unity-proclaiming hippie-type one month and then suddenly trying to get a rather aggressive and martial image the next). If was clear that these people were never interested in anything deeper and the only thing they ever did was changing their wardrobe. I think sometimes they weren't even interested in the subculture's music and other related arts. Why they even switched through all that without really having interest in a culture - I don't know. But luckily, there were also people who did not just run after a trend, but had a more solid idea of who they are, what they believe in and what they want.

For me it had been the case that I already had my interests earlier, and upon learning here's a whole subculture of people with a similar mindset and similar interests and tastes (although with variations, of course), I just flocked together with those people (while staying an individual, not feeling a need to become a cliché, and it's not like I didn't have acquaintances outside of that group either; but we had our community where we could share our ideas, including philosophy, made our art and lived the way it seemed right to us).

Now I really wonder whether that might be a rather culture-specific phemomenon that might not exist like that in other countries or cultures; Germany also loves clubs after all, there are clubs for almost everything, so there is a cultural habit of grouping up with people of similar ideas and also being visible as such.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

You aren't going to find them on the main platforms, which, at least in the US, is where most people get their data and ideas from. You likely would have to go to very niche discords, and even niche forums. Because whatever diverse worldview they have isn't welcomed on the main platforms.

That's already a big difference to earlier where there were bigger groups of very different mindset who were noticeable as parts of society, at least in my country. When you looked around you'd already see that there are people who are part of some sub- or counterculture with a different ideology (to clarify: with "ideology" I don't mean politics, but the whole package of world views, ideas, interests, tastes, and certainly related to that also moral and behavioral/habitudinal differences to the mainstream).

I'm well aware of course that you don't have to look a specific way to deviate from the mainstream sentiment (and you don't necessarily have to group with some community either, although most people probably seach for something like kinship at least every now and then), but if you have to go great lengths to find something non-mainstream at all, be it online or anywhere else, at least in my country that's not the way it was before. I really feel there had been more plurality in the past decades.

Which for me leads to the question how much of a non-mainstream there still is, or whether deviations from the mainstream are getting ever rarer now. Also, how many people just consume whatever they get and don't care much? Which of course is an aspect when it comes to our question of writing/media/fiction.

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

the war between rural and urban

That's interesting since we don't have that here at all.

Syldras

So, since this thread is about what we like and dislike about the writing, I'd like to add another thing that came to my mind: I really enjoyed the attention to detail in the earlier chapters.

I've been replaying the Morrowind chapter on an alt lately, and one thing that I find remarkable is that, throughout the main story, Barbas will watch you. Many players might not even notice, but the writers did it nonetheless: If you're attentive enough, you'll see a dog (the typical wolfhound that Barbas is usually depicted as) observing you. From the very beginning on; the first time he appears is in front of the Andrano ancestral tomb. Next, when you enter Balmora, you'll hear a woman screaming and stating that a dog bit her - if you look fast enough, you'll see Barbas again, running away. To add to that, although I'm not sure whether that's intentional or a coincidence, in the Morrowind prologue, when you come across the shrine of Clavicus Vile, the Barbas statue is missing.

I think storytelling through such minor things, including background dialogues, is a wonderful thing. But I have the impression that this kind of storytelling was also reduced in later chapters?

whitecrow

Syldras wrote: »

So, since this thread is about what we like and dislike about the writing, I'd like to add another thing that came to my mind: I really enjoyed the attention to detail in the earlier chapters.

I've been replaying the Morrowind chapter on an alt lately, and one thing that I find remarkable is that, throughout the main story, Barbas will watch you. Many players might not even notice, but the writers did it nonetheless: If you're attentive enough, you'll see a dog (the typical wolfhound that Barbas is usually depicted as) observing you. From the very beginning on; the first time he appears is in front of the Andrano ancestral tomb. Next, when you enter Balmora, you'll hear a woman screaming and stating that a dog bit her - if you look fast enough, you'll see Barbas again, running away. To add to that, although I'm not sure whether that's intentional or a coincidence, in the Morrowind prologue, when you come across the shrine of Clavicus Vile, the Barbas statue is missing.

I think storytelling through such minor things, including background dialogues, is a wonderful thing. But I have the impression that this kind of storytelling was also reduced in later chapters?

That's fantastic. I'm not sure I ever noticed all of that.

metheglyn

Syldras wrote: »

So, since this thread is about what we like and dislike about the writing, I'd like to add another thing that came to my mind: I really enjoyed the attention to detail in the earlier chapters.

I've been replaying the Morrowind chapter on an alt lately, and one thing that I find remarkable is that, throughout the main story, Barbas will watch you. Many players might not even notice, but the writers did it nonetheless: If you're attentive enough, you'll see a dog (the typical wolfhound that Barbas is usually depicted as) observing you. From the very beginning on; the first time he appears is in front of the Andrano ancestral tomb. Next, when you enter Balmora, you'll hear a woman screaming and stating that a dog bit her - if you look fast enough, you'll see Barbas again, running away. To add to that, although I'm not sure whether that's intentional or a coincidence, in the Morrowind prologue, when you come across the shrine of Clavicus Vile, the Barbas statue is missing.

I think storytelling through such minor things, including background dialogues, is a wonderful thing. But I have the impression that this kind of storytelling was also reduced in later chapters?

The first time I played through the Morrowind chapter, I didn't much notice Barbas, but somewhere along the line I did catch sight of him and wonder if I had missed something earlier. The second time I played through, I kept an eye out, and was surprised I had missed him the first time around. It gave me more appreciation for the story and heightened the tension, knowing I was being watched like that.

I do like it also when you first approach a quest-giver or quest-point and npcs are having a conversation that you walk in on or interrupt, because it adds to the idea that they live in this world and aren't just standing frozen waiting for you to activate them.

I'm drawing a blank, though, on any recent examples of that kind of thing (thinking of the past two chapters specifically). Closest I can come up with is in Necrom when you first meet Gadayn, and I think there was an npc standing outside the building telling everyone the crypts were closed and to deal with it before walking out of the scene. (Crypts? Temple? Where did Gadayn work?) That wasn't so much a background thing as an in-front thing leading directly to the quest (if I'm even remembering it correctly) but I do like those little touches.

For the writing, I prefer when everything isn't spelled out specifically for you; npcs as exposition dumps aren't that interesting to me. I understand they want to give people the chance to learn more about the situation/lore, but sometimes there's no way to advance the quest without asking the dummy question that tells you what you already know. I much prefer the option to skip dialogue choices if they don't align with your character. Like in Morrowind, though you had the option to ask about the Tribunal early on, you didn't have to take that conversational strand if your character already knew about them.

mdjessup4906

For the writing, I prefer when everything isn't spelled out specifically for you; npcs as exposition dumps aren't that interesting to me. I understand they want to give people the chance to learn more about the situation/lore, but sometimes there's no way to advance the quest without asking the dummy question that tells you what you already know. I much prefer the option to skip dialogue choices if they don't align with your character. Like in Morrowind, though you had the option to ask about the Tribunal early on, you didn't have to take that conversational strand if your character already knew about them.

I think curbing this constant over-explaining would go a long way towards making quests not sound like they were written for especially dull witted kindergarteners.

Especially the main quests. Side quests dont have this problem as much for some reason.