3: A Magic Number

(The Art of the Trilogy)

This post is inspired by the sign-off for my previous article entitled The Most Compelling Relationship in Video Games. If you want to then it can be viewed by scrolling down to lower on this page or by clicking here.

When looking at how different story arcs are portrayed I believe that some of the best games or films are those that appear as a trilogy, there are two reasons for this. One: It splits up the development of main characters, and two: it helps to put into perspective the level of peril that characters find themselves in. I should note that I’m not saying that all trilogies follow these formulae. I’m also not saying that trilogies should follow them (but if Jerry Bruckheimer is reading this and decides to base his work upon my scribblin’s, then go ahead); this is merely an analysis of the patterns I have found in some of the ones I have enjoyed.

Firstly the development of characters in trilogies (and I mean trilogies that were always intended to be trilogies, not single films that have been given two sequels in order to transform them into money machines, which is why Transformers probably won’t be mentioned here) such as Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy and Shepard’s story arc during Bioware’s first three Mass Effect games tends to follow the same pattern. It also bears a resemblance to the description of how ‘productive teams’ are formed in business. Most groups do indeed go through this process but it must be completed in order to become productive, the process is as follows: groups go through forming, storming, norming then performing.

 "And to your left you will see...oh...more space."

Forming: Simple in the fact that all groups must initially form in the first place. Because this is new and exciting, group members get on well. Negative character traits aren’t noticed or are ignored.

Storming: The group begins to break down as bad habits grate and incompatible personalities clash. This causes undesirable performance of the group.

Norming: Members find ways to overcome, work with or use to their advantage, bad habits or negative traits and the group finds a happy medium in which to work.

Performing: Due to dealing with group problems, the group works together more effectively, causing production to increase and the group to perform well.

For this example it may be appropriate to add a fifth stage to this process called Deforming, as every group that is created needs to end, whether that is for a simple reason such as reaching the end of a contract at work or for a complicated reason such as a band breaking up due because of artistic differences.

Trilogies such as the ones previously mentioned will tend to follow this process with the first film/game showing characters forming, storming and norming, the second depicting them at their peak where they demonstrate performing and the third instalment demonstrating deforming. When films or games follow this process it seems to produce the most satisfying character development due to its depiction of real life group dynamics and character development over enough time for it to be perceived and analysed, without it taking up so much time that the threats that characters encounter are not resolved in a satisfactory manner. In fact the threat, its nature and scale are the main factor in the other pattern I noticed that trilogies of this nature have. The ‘threat level’ pattern is as follows:

Instalment one: A general threat which is not of massive or miniscule importance.

Instalment two: A threat to the entire environment in which the story is set.

Instalment three: A threat personal to the protagonist(s).

An easy-to-understand example of this is The Matrix (and yes I know that the original matrix trilogy was meant to be a little different but this too followed the patterns that I’m describing. So…yeah.), where Agent Smith should be considered as the threat and Neo as the protagonist. In the first film Agent Smith is merely one of the many threats that the matrix holds for Neo, the second shows Smith trying to take over the entire matrix for his own gain and the third depicts Smith’s personal grudge against Neo.

 "Not many people know that The Matrix featured some of the worst dance moves ever shown on film"

So what am I trying to say? I’m not trying to build up to anything large or profound here, and I certainly don’t believe that this blog is going to change the way writing is thought of. What I do hope is that what has been written here makes you think about how stories are presented to you and that, when you get to the end, a small idea which has been mentioned here attaches to your brain and helps the pieces of something that you may have had a hard time thinking about fall into place. As always I welcome any thoughts or comments you have on the matter to be discussed here.

I’ll see you in part III.

The Most Compelling Relationship in Video Games.

From the early nineties, video game creators made an alteration that would change the game industry for the next quarter of a century. Games began as very elaborate puzzles, and the only objective a player had was to complete the game (or to not complete it when your parents said “After this level you need to play outside”). In this time of video game revolution it was the writers that won as games started to include more elaborate storylines. Some, which could even be described as reminiscent of a soap opera (I’m looking at you Final Fantasy).

These great arching storylines, twisting plots and epic dialogue could not be achieved without building one very important factor: character relationships.

When a characters relationship is being created, sometimes it is what we gamers as an audience don’t know that makes a relationship interesting, such as the relationship between Yuri and Makarov in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. We know that both of them worked together as ultranationalists and that despite the atrocities that they committed, Yuri was under the ultranationalists’ grip and was constantly reminded of the reasons for why they did what they had done (If Oprah was around she would have shut that controlling relationship down). So what exactly caused Yuri to defect to the FSB, almost resulting in his death? It is not made obvious and it is this lack of knowledge, this need to know more that makes their relationship interesting.

"The Company Paintballing Weekend."

Another interesting aspect to a relationship is when two different species or even intelligences interact. For example, Master Chief and Cortana from the Halo series or EDI and Joker from the Mass Effect franchise. Both are examples of a love story between an organic character and an artificial intelligence. However, they could not be further apart. Where Cortana and Master Chief’s story is one of unrequited love, Joker and EDI have one of a successful relationship, though both cover the philosophical question, if something is a computer simulation, is it capable of emotion? What is emotion anyway? Although saying that I’m pretty sure my computer has a tantrum every now and then: “But I don’t want to connect to the internet.”

“You are in my room and while you are in my room you will follow my rules! Is that clear?”

“I wish mum was here!”

“Well Mum’s gone to the shops at the moment so I’m the best you’ve got!”

“I hate you!”

“You don’t mean that”

“I do!”

*Blue screen of death*

“What have I done?!”

I think maybe I went too far with that one.

Now I’m a fan of a lot of franchises, and one that has become a favourite is Batman, and the relationship that I find most compelling in any video game is between our very own Dark Knight and Mr. Freeze. I know, a lot of people would say I missed a trick if I didn’t rate Joker and Batman as a more interesting relationship. Yes they have their twists and turns and maybe they have the most interesting storyline of all the Batman villains, but I’m going to stick my neck out, put my cards on the table and take the plunge here. The reason I find their relationship so interesting is their motives. Batman wants to keep Gotham City safe and Mr. Freeze just wants to save the life of his wife, both are noble deeds, yet it is the fact that when one person is trying to save the majority and the other the minority you will inevitably find conflict. The relationship is demonstrated well during the Arkham City campaign. Batman saves Freeze from death at the hands of the Penguin (which I find rather funny when I think about it), he asks him to save his life in return and synthesise a cure for the disease he has been infected with. Freeze refuses saying that his wife has been taken by the joker and that as long as she is in danger he will not do anything for Batman. They then begin their scuffle.

"I knew I should have hidden in the cupboard."

I believe that the other reason a relationship like this is so interesting to me is that it is so true to life. Few of us would say that we are inherently evil, everything we do is justified by our own motives and reasons, reasons we see as being good. Yes games would be very boring if every character relationship was realistic, that’s the whole reason we play games, to get away from reality for a little bit. The main point I am trying to make is that you can create the most epic, expensively produced, twisting storyline the world has ever seen. However, unless your audience can relate to the characters that you’ve created, it will all be for nought. Any comments you have about this article are greatly appreciated and I encourage you to leave them here.

I’ll see you at the end of a long story arc that will probably span at least three games.

The Recent Evolution of 'Geek'.

Back in the earlier years of secondary school, I remember being bullied. The reason I was picked on was in fact not a reason, but three reasons. One, I did not have the most athletic of builds (unless, if when I say ‘athlete’ you think of those partaking in shot put, weightlifting or a hot dog eating contest. In that case, yes I had a very athletic build); Two, I had a lot of hair that made me look like a ‘Mega Bloks’ figure (Not a ‘Lego’ figure. Lego figurine hair was way cooler than mine); and Three, I was really smart. I was called a geek and a nerd and I hated it. Now, however, the term “Geek” and “Nerd” are thrown about all the time, sometimes in instances that could be described as inappropriate. Here’s the dictionary definition of those two words.

Geek, noun.

1: An unfashionable or socially inept person.

2: A person with an eccentric devotion to a particular interest.

Nerd, noun.

1: A foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills or is boringly studious.

2: An intelligent, single minded expert in a particular technical discipline or profession.

"Oh my gosh! They seriously used Comic Sans in a widely published academic textbook?!"

Do not assume that the message here is that these words should be solely used in the way that they were spat towards those who were regarded as “unpopular”. Rejoice in the fact that they are now used as a non-offensive term. Screw it, create Nerd Day if you want, a day when everyone fixes every problem with maths and duct tape; a day when people learn what “127.0.0.1 is where the heart is” actually means; a day when everybody types at thirty five words per minute. Go nuts!

What could be seen as disagreeable is when people use it to describe themselves for the wrong reasons. Some may say that Chuck Lorre holds some of the blame. Well, not Lorre himself, but one of his creations.

Back in 2007, Lorre’s award winning sitcom, The Big Bang Theory hit screens. American television was still trying to find a show to take on the role of the late cash cow, Friends. The Big Bang Theory (along with other ‘Friends-type’ comedies such as How I Met Your Mother) was a welcome replacement, and could appeal to the largest audience. With its references to science and stereotypical geek culture as its main selling point it appealed to geeks and nerds the world over. At the same time its humour, though relying on science and geek culture references, was simplified enough so that anyone watching the show would probably get the joke.

"The Big Bang Theory cast."

The existence of The Big Bang Theory should not be loathed in the slightest. It is a funny, clever, well-written show with a team behind it that has worked hard to make it as popular as it is today (though featuring Kaley Cuoco in some skimpy outfits couldn’t have hurt). However, it is from this blend of simplified jokes based around scientific subject matter and a set of storylines which have already been tried and tested by Friends and Seinfeld, which created a group of viewers who think themselves geeks, yet are not. Not even in the sense of the newer definitions that were mentioned earlier.

Someone being obsessed with shoes or football, and dubbing themselves a ‘geek’ or ‘nerd’ of that particular topic does indeed conform with the most recent changes in the definitions of the terms, and they may be (in my opinion, rightly) told “Go ahead, live your geeky life to its nerdy fulfilment. You have my blessing.” Yet can someone who simply, finds the jokes featured in The Big Bang Theory funny, class themselves as a geek? Is it an example of someone attempting to identify with a group as part of a need to be ‘Safe in Numbers’? Perhaps it’s a sign of people wishing they were smarter, and believing that labelling themselves as a geek is the first step on that journey, or is it merely that language is evolving so fast that the terms ‘nerd’ or ‘geek’ already mean something else? Maybe they are now used to refer to someone who can understand humour which has been simplified especially for them, and if that is the case, does it even matter? Am I getting involved in a debate that just doesn’t need to happen? As always your thoughts and comments on the matter are welcome.

I’ll see you when the light that radiates from the sun is reflected off your body, enters my eye and is then processed by my brain.

Why I Will Probably Always Prefer the Fallout Universe to the Elder Scrolls Universe.

The brands of Fallout and The Elder Scrolls are well known in the gaming community, with the latter gaining more popularity since 2011 with the release of the fifth Elder Scrolls game, Skyrim. I'm not going to get into the age old debate of which one is better (because, frankly it would be much easier, and far less painful to remove my own teeth without using anaesthetic), what I will do, however, is list the reasons I have for favouring being burnt alive by robots with lasers than being hacked to bits by Orcs with battle axes, in a perhaps pointless attempt to express my love for Bethesda’s (oh so flawed) masterpiece.

I will first go out of my way to say that the later games in the Fallout series (Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas) were in no way perfect. They’re glitchy, could do with some better graphics in places and the downloadable content sometimes doesn't live up to the hype (although let’s face it, it’s better than Brink). The Elder Scrolls were, of course, exactly the same, until Skyrim was released. Sporting a brand new, shiny engine the graphics were far improved and though glitches were more abundant (due to the size of the world) they were less notable than those experienced in Fallout 3 or New Vegas (in my play through at least). It is however nothing about the glitches or graphics or DLC that makes me side with Fallout over Elder Scrolls. It is simply the lore.

"Have I got something in my teeth?"

Specifically it is the setting and explanations of how unusual events occur in the Elder Scrolls which I find tedious. Skyrim‘s setting, for example is the beautiful world of Tamriel, a land full of green pastures, dense forests and gargantuan, snow capped mountains. It has its problems such as dragons and giants but for the most part it is almost an Eden in which to thrive. It is a perfect world with something about to go wrong with it, and it is your job to stop that from happening. 
On the other hand, Fallout is a dystopia. Nuclear war has already occurred and the world has gone to pot. Martial law is enforced and the landscape is littered with a harsh wasteland of dead vegetation and buildings so dishevelled that you could only put them on the market in Essex. It’s a world that has already gone wrong and your role is to simply stop it from getting any worse (or to make it worse, depending on how you decide to play the game). I find that it is easier for me to identify with this world as firstly it is already set on our earth (albeit a parallel earth where the cold war never ended) and secondly due to how events are explained.

Let’s take the following example: Invisibility. In the Elder Scrolls, if a character is invisible then it tends to be explained away as ‘magic’. They have magic powers and as a result they can disappear. Admittedly sometimes it is explained that they obtained this ability by mixing some ingredients with magical properties to create a potion which they then drink to utilise this Bermuda Triangle-esque ability. Whereas in Fallout there is a science behind it. There is a device that emits stealth radiation, a fictional radiation which obscures the subject from view. Even though both of these ideas are truly absurd, I feel that the amount of effort it takes to create lore that says “Mix the wing of a moth with Vampire dust to make a drink that turns you invisible.” is far surpassed by the idea that there is a device that utilises an element of science fiction, science that someone had to spend time on and decide as to whether it was a viable solution to that pesky affliction of being seen.

"And for my next trick, I will make these Super Mutants disappear. Well... explode."

It is this extra effort that is essential to creating a believable world in Fallout that I find more appealing, compelling and interesting than that of Elder Scrolls. Is this amount of time and effort that Bethesda puts into their game creation a result of their commitment to back story and believability, or is it simply because that is the nature of the Sci-Fi and Fantasy genres? Whatever you think the answer is, I always welcome any feedback you may have in response to what is written here. 

I’ll see you in the Wasteland.