This has got to be one of the best talks on game writing (or writing in general) that I've ever seen. One of the reasons I think it's so great is that it actually works without necessarily increasing your budget. It'll work even in text-only games without voice acting.
this isn't even video game writing, it's just writing, good writing advice sure, but it applies to every kind of narrative writing! maybe that's the secret to good video game writing, good writing = good video game writing
His talks are always very content dense, almost like mini courses. Many other speakers present what amount to course advertisements with little to no substance.
Great talk. One of my favorite examples of subtext which comes to mind is from LoTR: Samwise Gamgee: [hands Frodo some lembas bread] Here. Frodo Baggins: What about you? Samwise Gamgee: I'm not hungry. Leastways, not for lembas bread. Frodo Baggins: Sam. Samwise Gamgee: Alright. We don't have that much left. We have to be careful or we're going to run out. You go ahead and eat that, Mr Frodo. I've rationed it. There should be enough. Frodo Baggins: For what? Samwise Gamgee: The journey home. And then the look on Frodo's face.
What a great talk! I wish I had seen that before :) I vividly remember one the projects I was on, where the animators just didn't have enough time to make all the cutscenes we needed. I wonder how much we could have omitted, or just conveyed without words (acting/animation, art, etc).
20:00 to 20:35 while I don't disagree with this, I definitely think there could be more storytelling within allowing the player to make choices that "shouldn't" be there. For example, in the case of a memory where the player still has options, it can either show that memories are flexible (similar to what was being said) and can be indirectly modified by time or other people or influences (there's tons of examples of memories being 'implanted' by suggesting the person does actually remember an event when it never really happened) or it can also help shape how the main character can respond by querying the player for personality traits - maybe if they sit in the back of the theater away from other people the main character will act more shy or self aware while if they sit in a group of strangers the main character will act more outgoing.
Having it be a personality quiz type thing is not only a lot of work you dont understand, it *completely* defeats the purpose of having the character choose the seat. The choosing of the seat is to show where the character's priorities lie, by having her be an unreliable narrator in that moment. Not just that "mEmories Are flexIble". Its not shocking info to anyone older than 14 that memories arent reliable. The WHY is whats being conveyed here, which would be erased if any of your dumb ideas were put in. This isnt for one of you kids to do the "Wouldnt it be cool if??" thing. Completely defeats the purpose, maybe pretend to be able to make a good story and a game when you have language comprehension.
This was really interesting! When he talked about non-sequiturs with subtext, I immediately thought of a scene I wrote for one of my games: (One of the main characters, Detective Mel, enters his car. His client is in the back seat. He starts frantically explaining clues he's collected for her case, but she doesn't have any context on what he's saying.) Mel: --But she broke her arm, which means she couldn't have written it! It was her maid taking dictation! Which means she's not the murderer, because her handwriting doesn't match the one on for the bounced cheque! It's brilliant! Client: ... Client: Mel, maybe _I_ should drive? That's all she replies with, yet we know exactly what's going through her head. :3
I would add that the use of the "2. Apparent non-sequiturs" can express more of a character's personality and his state of mind. Ex: - Do you think we'll make it through 'til dawn? A: I... Where is my book? I need to know if Cinderella finds the prince. B: I... Need to take a shower, NOW! C: I... Hey, look, there's a limited edition Chewbacca on the shelf!
I'm not a writer, but I disagree with 18:18 with the adding humor and the "love" in the dialogue. I feels like your are ignoring the context of the other person's question by adding humor to another person's seriousness. I think it's okay if you play off of it with pure humor, but not after being resolute. I find it understandable when someone is rambling about nonsense and then another says something that explains how they feel by changing the subject to something they can do. I don't find it understandable to subvert a serious question by answering it in a way that could confuse the other person asking it. To me, it's good writing, but it's bad use of explaining the context to the other person asking it. It answers the question by removing tension and it almost makes the question irrelevant or negligible. Feels like the guy asking is being told to shut up, and comes off as rude to me. But I guess I'm reading too much into it.
no. you actually do have a point. In real life I despise people like those who act like they inadvertently changed the topic. But, there are times when it works.
I think in this case the topic change implicates the answer to the original question, which makes it really cool and powerful. If they don't make it they don't need the coat. I understand that some people can find this offensive, but I would be totally fine with responses like this. It is more reassuring than saying something like "yeah, we will definitely make it".
I get what you mean, but personally, if the answer was "I... just check your ammo," then it would feel like an actual response to the question without denoting the question's importance from the one asking, mostly because you can understand what the other guy is feeling from it. If one is rambling about something and the other responds with something unrelated, I feel there needs to be a clear disconnect from the understanding of the conversation or from each other. There needs to be a person who doesn't understand and wants to change the subject to understand or it needs to be with changing the mood in a meaningful way. The example he gives, tries to change the mood, but it doesn't change the mood nor does it imply the guy answering doesn't understand the question. As a person who've been interrupted a lot in my life(I'm sure everyone has), I think there are particular ways of coming off as answering it meaningful vs disrespectfully, but most of the time, I never get the prior without an apology to change the topic first. If I did, I feel that the answer would be a little confusing if I don't know they are seriously answering the question. Overall, I think it can work, but if you try to put too many emotions in it, it comes off with a bit of a miscommunication, at least from me.
Nothing wrong with sophisticated interactions, but it depends if the scene calls for it. If the tone demands a direct answer, you don't give one that leaves anyone confused or unsure, unless you intend to distort the pacing and emotions present. Nothing from the interactions should come of as misunderstood, whether it's for the character or the audience.
he was just providing an example, if you feel "i... just check your ammo," is a better response, than go with that. But you have no other context, maybe they're going to have to expedite in the middle of the night and it's storming, etc, they need a coat. You're clearly missing the point. try harder. You're completely ignoring the complexity/dynamic of humanized player/actors. Let's say the 2nd person is literally out of breath, not from running, but pure exhaustion, emotional distress, you dont just come into a story out of no where, will we make it? maybe, the end. This is 2 lines in the middle of thousands. How are the characters acting? What else are they doing? Attacking? Defending? Scavenging? Uncertain? Maybe the portrayed character is incapable of maintaining their composure. They hear the question but they're already in the middle of another thought, maybe out of their self-demeaning nature unsure of themselves, affraid to show to the other person their ignorance of the current state of affairs they redirect the conversation they're mentally incapable of having. Not everyone always every time is going to be perfect, that's not how people work. Some people think in different ways, some have harder times speaking, etc. There are hundreds of different ways of explaining this. And I'm going to have to give your point a non passing grade.
Kind of disappointed that during his talk about unreliable narrators he didn't once mention any H.P. Lovecraft novels. Most of his stories were told through unreliable narrators.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
This has got to be one of the best talks on game writing (or writing in general) that I've ever seen. One of the reasons I think it's so great is that it actually works without necessarily increasing your budget. It'll work even in text-only games without voice acting.
Can't believe it takes me so long to find this talk, what a great perspective to narrative, really refreshed my mind. Thanks a lot to share it to us.
I'm always impressed by his talks!
Don't forget your audio team. Wisdom.
this isn't even video game writing, it's just writing, good writing advice sure, but it applies to every kind of narrative writing! maybe that's the secret to good video game writing, good writing = good video game writing
His talks are always very content dense, almost like mini courses. Many other speakers present what amount to course advertisements with little to no substance.
Great talk. One of my favorite examples of subtext which comes to mind is from LoTR:
Samwise Gamgee:
[hands Frodo some lembas bread] Here.
Frodo Baggins:
What about you?
Samwise Gamgee:
I'm not hungry. Leastways, not for lembas bread.
Frodo Baggins:
Sam.
Samwise Gamgee:
Alright. We don't have that much left. We have to be careful or we're going to run out. You go ahead and eat that, Mr Frodo. I've rationed it. There should be enough.
Frodo Baggins:
For what?
Samwise Gamgee:
The journey home.
And then the look on Frodo's face.
Amazing talk. Thank you so much for sharing.
You know this is an old talk when they have "ARG" as an acronym with dots between the letters (30:22)
What a great talk! I wish I had seen that before :) I vividly remember one the projects I was on, where the animators just didn't have enough time to make all the cutscenes we needed. I wonder how much we could have omitted, or just conveyed without words (acting/animation, art, etc).
Dom Casmurro is a great example of unreliable narrator too
This was a really great talk about writing better stories in general.
Also, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is the original Grand Budapest Hotel.
Awesome talk, I'm thinking of doing my first game and I wanted to be narrative-focused.
Howd it go?
20:00 to 20:35 while I don't disagree with this, I definitely think there could be more storytelling within allowing the player to make choices that "shouldn't" be there. For example, in the case of a memory where the player still has options, it can either show that memories are flexible (similar to what was being said) and can be indirectly modified by time or other people or influences (there's tons of examples of memories being 'implanted' by suggesting the person does actually remember an event when it never really happened) or it can also help shape how the main character can respond by querying the player for personality traits - maybe if they sit in the back of the theater away from other people the main character will act more shy or self aware while if they sit in a group of strangers the main character will act more outgoing.
Having it be a personality quiz type thing is not only a lot of work you dont understand, it *completely* defeats the purpose of having the character choose the seat. The choosing of the seat is to show where the character's priorities lie, by having her be an unreliable narrator in that moment. Not just that "mEmories Are flexIble". Its not shocking info to anyone older than 14 that memories arent reliable. The WHY is whats being conveyed here, which would be erased if any of your dumb ideas were put in.
This isnt for one of you kids to do the "Wouldnt it be cool if??" thing. Completely defeats the purpose, maybe pretend to be able to make a good story and a game when you have language comprehension.
"Don't forget your coat" chills.
I love how he explain things, its so simple for me to understand and its all so useful, and I am a brazilian with a bad english soo... its something
interesting talk!
This was really interesting! When he talked about non-sequiturs with subtext, I immediately thought of a scene I wrote for one of my games:
(One of the main characters, Detective Mel, enters his car. His client is in the back seat. He starts frantically explaining clues he's collected for her case, but she doesn't have any context on what he's saying.)
Mel: --But she broke her arm, which means she couldn't have written it! It was her maid taking dictation! Which means she's not the murderer, because her handwriting doesn't match the one on for the bounced cheque! It's brilliant!
Client: ...
Client: Mel, maybe _I_ should drive?
That's all she replies with, yet we know exactly what's going through her head. :3
I would add that the use of the "2. Apparent non-sequiturs" can express more of a character's personality and his state of mind.
Ex: - Do you think we'll make it through 'til dawn?
A: I... Where is my book? I need to know if Cinderella finds the prince.
B: I... Need to take a shower, NOW!
C: I... Hey, look, there's a limited edition Chewbacca on the shelf!
This dude's a genius.
The genius attribute gets peddled around much these days...
I wish I had my degree in what this guy has!
really bad audio compression artifacts
I'm amazed he played enough of Arkham Knight to get that much of the story.
good talk
Now I need to read King Lear. A good translation to Spanish should be easy enough to find...
Indispensable. Applicable to all forms of writing.
I...
...nice video.
Really nice talk. Also, this dude does some music on Brazil under the name Supla! What a versatile artist
17:27 I teared up at this, don't know why?
I'm not a writer, but I disagree with 18:18 with the adding humor and the "love" in the dialogue. I feels like your are ignoring the context of the other person's question by adding humor to another person's seriousness. I think it's okay if you play off of it with pure humor, but not after being resolute.
I find it understandable when someone is rambling about nonsense and then another says something that explains how they feel by changing the subject to something they can do.
I don't find it understandable to subvert a serious question by answering it in a way that could confuse the other person asking it. To me, it's good writing, but it's bad use of explaining the context to the other person asking it. It answers the question by removing tension and it almost makes the question irrelevant or negligible. Feels like the guy asking is being told to shut up, and comes off as rude to me.
But I guess I'm reading too much into it.
no. you actually do have a point. In real life I despise people like those who act like they inadvertently changed the topic. But, there are times when it works.
I think in this case the topic change implicates the answer to the original question, which makes it really cool and powerful. If they don't make it they don't need the coat. I understand that some people can find this offensive, but I would be totally fine with responses like this. It is more reassuring than saying something like "yeah, we will definitely make it".
I get what you mean, but personally, if the answer was "I... just check your ammo," then it would feel like an actual response to the question without denoting the question's importance from the one asking, mostly because you can understand what the other guy is feeling from it.
If one is rambling about something and the other responds with something unrelated, I feel there needs to be a clear disconnect from the understanding of the conversation or from each other. There needs to be a person who doesn't understand and wants to change the subject to understand or it needs to be with changing the mood in a meaningful way.
The example he gives, tries to change the mood, but it doesn't change the mood nor does it imply the guy answering doesn't understand the question. As a person who've been interrupted a lot in my life(I'm sure everyone has), I think there are particular ways of coming off as answering it meaningful vs disrespectfully, but most of the time, I never get the prior without an apology to change the topic first. If I did, I feel that the answer would be a little confusing if I don't know they are seriously answering the question.
Overall, I think it can work, but if you try to put too many emotions in it, it comes off with a bit of a miscommunication, at least from me.
Nothing wrong with sophisticated interactions, but it depends if the scene calls for it. If the tone demands a direct answer, you don't give one that leaves anyone confused or unsure, unless you intend to distort the pacing and emotions present. Nothing from the interactions should come of as misunderstood, whether it's for the character or the audience.
he was just providing an example, if you feel "i... just check your ammo," is a better response, than go with that. But you have no other context, maybe they're going to have to expedite in the middle of the night and it's storming, etc, they need a coat. You're clearly missing the point. try harder. You're completely ignoring the complexity/dynamic of humanized player/actors. Let's say the 2nd person is literally out of breath, not from running, but pure exhaustion, emotional distress, you dont just come into a story out of no where, will we make it? maybe, the end. This is 2 lines in the middle of thousands. How are the characters acting? What else are they doing? Attacking? Defending? Scavenging? Uncertain? Maybe the portrayed character is incapable of maintaining their composure. They hear the question but they're already in the middle of another thought, maybe out of their self-demeaning nature unsure of themselves, affraid to show to the other person their ignorance of the current state of affairs they redirect the conversation they're mentally incapable of having. Not everyone always every time is going to be perfect, that's not how people work. Some people think in different ways, some have harder times speaking, etc. There are hundreds of different ways of explaining this. And I'm going to have to give your point a non passing grade.
I'm glad the talks are now returning to the interesting stuff, instead of political and philosophical bullcrap.
The I know line was improvised, they took tonnes of takes and the director told Harrison Ford to come up with and that's what he said
He mentioned that
Kind of disappointed that during his talk about unreliable narrators he didn't once mention any H.P. Lovecraft novels. Most of his stories were told through unreliable narrators.
"My name is PROFESSOR Mata Haggis" omfg this is so cringy.