As you've probably seen in a few other of my recent posts we welcome player feedback because it allows us to improve future episode of The Silver Lining.
Some people have complained that certain parts of the dialogs made them cringe or simply wrote it off as bad writing. Unfortunately that type of feedback is very vague so I'd like to ask for specific examples of things that you had an issue with. Though sometimes its more a matter of personal taste we may actually agree with some of your comments and if so can maybe improve upon it in the future.
Well, not to be smart alec-y, but the thread title should probably spell "Writing" correctly. :P
LOL, there's irony for you :) But looks like that's fixed now!
"Guards! Guards! Someone's trying t-...Well fine, I'll stop if you do."
I'm probably missing the humor here, but nonetheless, this line feels out of place every time I hear it.
Quote from: kindofdoon on September 26, 2010, 12:33:50 PM
"Guards! Guards! Someone's trying t-...Well fine, I'll stop if you do."
I'm probably missing the humor here, but nonetheless, this line feels out of place every time I hear it.
Yeah, I heard it every time I accidentally clicked the 'hand' icon on a guard, and I fear my imagination has run wild. Any explanations for what that phrase means?
I have a feeling it's something sexual, but I have no idea what it could be... :-\
Or that could be completely wrong.
She says it when you click the hand on people.... I assumed it meant I shouldn't be trying to manhandle or feel up on everybody. Even though I get it, it's still not my favorite line of narration.
Then again, I'm partial to the Warcraft/Starcraft thing where the thing you're clicking on responds and eventually gets irritated if you click on it too much. :P
Quote from: kindofdoon on September 26, 2010, 12:44:15 PM
I have a feeling it's something sexual, but I have no idea what it could be... :-\
Or that could be completely wrong.
That's what I was thinking, but I'm not sure if it is. This is supposed to be a "family-friendly" game. So I think there is an actual meaning behind it, but if no one understands it, then people will assume it's a sexual innuendo (at least the adults will).
LOL, it wasn't meant to have a sexual connotation! It's more the idea that someone's trying to take something from the person you're clicking on (that being what the hand icon is mostly there for, picking things up). Having gotten it a few times myself, it doesn't quite translate as well as we'd thought it would, I agree.
So I was write with the manhandling but not with the feeling up? So how do I do that?? :P
Haha, play Leisure Suit Larry, from what I hear. ;)
So then what is the complete line? What does she say after "Someone's trying t-"?
There wasn't a fuller line written, but I would figure it to be something like "someone's trying to [mug/steal/hit] [the person being clikced on]"
Quote from: Rick_Florez on September 26, 2010, 11:52:34 AM
As you've probably seen in a few other of my recent posts we welcome player feedback because it allows us to improve future episode of The Silver Lining.
Some people have complained that certain parts of the dialogs made them cringe or simply wrote it off as bad writing. Unfortunately that type of feedback is very vague so I'd like to ask for specific examples of things that you had an issue with. Though sometimes its more a matter of personal taste we may actually agree with some of your comments and if so can maybe improve upon it in the future.
Hi Rick, I tried to be specific in another thread:
Quote from: Cat1 on August 23, 2010, 04:09:26 PM
For instance in the description of the vases, a whole sentence is taken to say, "These vases are fine antiquities indeed." Maybe it's because I've spent practically the whole year trying to cut words out of a research report, but to me that sentence is crying out to be edited to: "These fine antique vases... (and then carry on with the description)". In that way you get rid of the useless words "are" and "indeed".
The suggestion I made would have cut out 1/3 of the words in that sentence, making it less wordy :)
Since I've made mention of this several times before, I will take some time and try to put together a very thorough and thoughtful explanation of exactly what my issues are with the writing. Glad the topic is open to discussion, even if changes to TSL aren't possible at this stage. Cheers. :)
Quote from: crayauchtin on September 26, 2010, 12:49:47 PM
She says it when you click the hand on people.... I assumed it meant I shouldn't be trying to manhandle or feel up on everybody. Even though I get it, it's still not my favorite line of narration.
LOL, I am soooooooooo glad I'm not the only one who thought that! That line bothers me, too. That's the only one I can think of right of the bat, let me just replay Episde 1 and get to Episode 2 and we'll see what other opinions I have.
Quote from: Haids1987 on September 26, 2010, 11:42:26 PM
Quote from: crayauchtin on September 26, 2010, 12:49:47 PM
She says it when you click the hand on people.... I assumed it meant I shouldn't be trying to manhandle or feel up on everybody. Even though I get it, it's still not my favorite line of narration.
LOL, I am soooooooooo glad I'm not the only one who thought that! That line bothers me, too. That's the only one I can think of right of the bat, let me just replay Episde 1 and get to Episode 2 and we'll see what other opinions I have.
That really never occurred to me. :angel:
I'm waiting til I get a chance to replay both episodes later this week before I say anything in depth about the writing--but I think it's worth pointing out that part of what makes certain lines cringeworthy is the uneven voice acting. Better actors might have been able to make some of the cheesier lines of dialogue more palatable.
We know the voice acting is a wide spread in terms of talent (and recording quality). I'd say to leave that out in any feedback, as we won't be recasting any voice actors at this point, and will only be recording new lines in a limited number of cases (i.e., some narrator lines, possibly some Graham ones, etc).
I'd have to play again to cite anything directly, but what drove me crazy about the dialogue was the pacing, and using 8-10 lines to say things that couldv been said in 2. One example i remember is when people were talking about the "unnatural storm". Dialogue would go something like "That storm sure wasnt natural." "It was an unnatural storm? What couldv caused it?" "I dont know, something not natural". In fact, a bunch emphasis was placed on the storm in both episodes...yet the storm passed uneventfully and people continued to talk about it, slowly.
Which conversation are you referring to? The one with the cartographer?
I don't remember where exactly, but at one point the narrator says "have took", as in, "you have took the item."
Just... no. Please, no.
I would expect myself to catch such a glaring grammatical error, but I never did. Can you be more specific about its location?
Quote from: darthkiwi on September 29, 2010, 03:46:52 PM
I don't remember where exactly, but at one point the narrator says "have took", as in, "you have took the item."
Just... no. Please, no.
Indeed. :P That was very, very bad. :P
I'm also surprised that I didn't catch that; I would have visibly cringed.
Yeah, same here. Therefore I can only conclude that I didn't hear that line in the first plane.
Quote from: Deloria on September 29, 2010, 07:42:01 PM
Quote from: darthkiwi on September 29, 2010, 03:46:52 PM
I don't remember where exactly, but at one point the narrator says "have took", as in, "you have took the item."
Just... no. Please, no.
Indeed. :P That was very, very bad. :P
No, no. You don't understand. It was intentional. It adds realism to the dialog. ;)
Now that's not fair. :P
I'm pretty sure what Cesar meant when he said that was like, people don't go around saying "What is the item of which you speak?" and it's much more likely to see "What are you talking about?" even though that sentence is grammatically frowned upon. Because of that, you're going to see more of the latter types of statements in TSL.
No intelligent person would say "have took." :P
I agree, it's unfair to equate grammatical errors of grossly differing magnitudes.
I'm sure Lambonius was just poking fun and didn't mean any harm, but still, it's not fair. :P
Quote from: kindofdoon on September 29, 2010, 09:32:46 PM
I agree, it's unfair to equate grammatical errors of grossly differing magnitudes.
LOL, doon FTW!
Heh. Yeah, I was just teasing. To be fair though, the errors I was referring to in my initial review were more of the "have took" type and less of the "prose-vs.-vernacular" type. I write humanities papers as part of my career--I know the difference. ;) I haven't had a chance yet to go back through the game and try to pick out specifics. I plan on replaying both episodes this weekend to try and get a handle on what exactly it was that was bothering me about writing (and I'll keep my ears open about grammar, too--though I'm not going to go through it with a fine toothed comb or anything. ;))
And actually, most of the characters in TSL DO talk like "What is the item of which you speak?"--more formal sounding English. Which is what makes the incorrect parts stand out even more to my ears. Again though, I can't really talk specifics til I replay this weekend. Not to mention the fact that almost all the characters in the old KQ games spoke in formal English, too. :)
Quote from: Lambonius on September 29, 2010, 09:43:27 PM
And actually, most of the characters in TSL DO talk like "What is the item of which you speak?"--more formal sounding English. Which is what makes the incorrect parts stand out even more to my ears.
I agree. I recall one specific line from Episode 1, where Hassan says "This ain't like nothing I've ever seen before." Now that line stuck out like...well, a lot. He speaks very formally, with no colloquialisms, and then he drops that one like a bomb.
Note: I am not citing this as grammatically incorrect English (though technically it is), but rather as awkward-sounding English in context.
You raise a good point, doon. It's not necessarily that some lines COULDN'T work--but it seems like there is a consistency issue in the dialog with many characters. Hassan may not be the best example, given the plethora of salty sea-slang that we hear from him in Ep. 2, but there are others that go from very formal to very informal on a dime--which makes the informalities sound more awkward than they might otherwise sound if the character spoke that way all the time.
Yes, exactly. Though I would assert that Hassan is still a good example. Though his salty sailor talk may be...well, salty, it's still grammatically correct and doesn't use any colloquialisms like "ain't" or any double negatives like "ain't like nothing", so it does blend with his more formal stuff. It's just that one line...
(Posted on: September 30, 2010, 12:03:35 AM)
The way I think of it is as follows. For dialog to be consistent, a character must stay within the language palette they define through their introductory dialogue. Hassan defines his language palette on the IoC docks, speaking formally and without colloquialisms. The issue presents itself on the IoM, when Hassan suddenly breaks from his language palette by saying "ain't like nothing" in a formal voice (very awkward).
It would be like me suddenly dropping an expletive in the middle of the post. You'd notice it immediately, because I don't curse, and thus it would seem unnatural.
Frankly, the main places I noticed awkward sounding lines were with the narrator. Probably because she's supposed to be very formal most of the time. There were one or two awkwardly worded lines from the sea nymphs that stuck out in my mind as well. One that I seem to remember specifically was something like, "This is for that spell that you're searching for ingredients for." Grammatically incorrect and awkwardly/redundantly worded, which was, of course, enhanced by the formal manner in which they spoke almost all of their other lines.
The narrator is another can of worms entirely...
Yes, I agree.
Sorry, I'm not sure where the infamous "have took" thing happened and since I've just gone back to university I'm too busy to play through again :( I know it was the narrator who said it, though. I remember because I thought "They can't even use the 'It's ungrammatical but colloquial' argument for this one!"
No, if that's in there, we definitely just missed one. I'm wondering which line it is now too.
Quote from: Rosella on September 29, 2010, 09:25:47 PM
No intelligent person would say "have took." :P
Shakespeare did.
Romeo and Juliet, Scene V:JULIET
Then have my lips the sin that they have took.:pleased:
Those darn Capulets! >:(
::) She's allowed to say it: it screws up the metre otherwise ;D
Hmmm. So does that make Juliet unintelligent, even if she's allowed to say it?
I'm interested in hearing how people make the excuse for Shakespeare now ;) I'm not buying the first attempt at it :P
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.03.0080%3Asection%3D4%3Asubsection%3D11%3Aparagraph%3D343
XD I was going to mention that VERY perseus.tufts article earlier! XD
Given the setting, you could permit it from a character for the purposes of meter on those grounds, but a big point of that article comes about in the first paragraph:
QuoteOwing to the tendency to drop the inflection en, the Elizabethan authors frequently used the curtailed forms of past participles which are common in Early English: [...]
This practice
was common in
Early English. One can't say "Languages evolves so I don't have to obey grammar!" and then say "Ah, yes, but 800 some odd years ago (I've no idea if I got that century right), it was grammatically or at least colloquially acceptable to speak like this"... One cannot on the first hand discard linguistic authority (for something standard within the last 50 years) by debasing it in favor of an ever changing language and then on the second hand summon up those same linguistic resources (from centuries before that even) as justification for an error.
Which I'm not saying Cez was (
forgive my use of the generic third person "you" nevermind, I changed them all to "one"s :P)... I have just encountered that EXACT argument before. ::)
To put it another way, English was going through puberty and what inflection went where was a rather fluid thing at the time (and Shakespeare took advantage)... now English is more of a grumpy old man who wishes all these newfangled dialects and accents would stay off of his lawn.
Then again, since King's Quest takes place in what we believe is the same time period (or actually, earlier), you could call it correct, right? If it was something that was used commonly in those times, a character could have said it and it would still be "historically" right (unless it was the narrator).
I honestly don't know what line it is, and I honestly don't know if it was intentional or not. I do know that for the purposes of writing TSL, I re-read a lot of Shakespeare at the time (hence why all the subtitles are Shakespeare inspired). Especially since some of the characters you encountered in later chapters used the Olde English of Hath and Thou. So it's very possible that it came directly from that. I also made the point for example of not using words like "OK" (outside the narrator), and for example, Graham, most of the times, says "Thank You" instead of "Thanks" --But it's possible there are "thanks" in there.
At the end, we decided to go with a mix between modern and old to make it a bit more accessible, but it is very plausible that's where that comes from.
It would be bad if it was found in the modern world of C9, but on TSL? If it was used back then, what's so bad about it?
On the subject of Shakespeare, this is by far the best fan-written Shakespeare-inspired adaptation EVER.
Watch and laugh thine ass off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRNLrCoPzbs
Quote from: Haids1987 on September 30, 2010, 05:33:35 PM
So does that make Juliet unintelligent,
......she's a fourteen year old girl who got married and killed herself over a boy she'd known for roughly a week. How she talks is the *least* significant thing indicating that she's unintelligent. :P
Quote from: crayauchtin on September 30, 2010, 11:43:43 PM
Quote from: Haids1987 on September 30, 2010, 05:33:35 PM
So does that make Juliet unintelligent,
......she's a fourteen year old girl who got married and killed herself over a boy she'd known for roughly a week. How she talks is the *least* significant thing indicating that she's unintelligent. :P
Hahaha...too true.
edit: i guess the "have took" thing doesnt really matter ;) It just seems silly and out of place, but definitely doesnt matter.
Quote from: Lambonius on September 30, 2010, 08:03:26 PM
On the subject of Shakespeare, this is by far the best fan-written Shakespeare-inspired adaptation EVER.
Watch and laugh thine ass off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRNLrCoPzbs
I am compelled to point out that this is one of the most brilliant things I have seen in recent memory. And that guy is doing a dead on John Goodman! The guy who wrote that is incredible. Anyway, back to the actual topic, after that quick aside.
Personally I didn't notice much as far as egregious grammatical errors. In a couple places I felt some of the dialogue seemed stilted or it just didn't flow naturally, but it didn't take me out of the game particularly, so I just shook it off.
I Just don't understand people complaining about the narrator or grammer errors or plot holes.
Sure I noticed little things that don't add up, but I am enjoying it for what it is.
The story and the music are awesome. I love going over Episode 2 in particular again and again.
And I can't wait for episodes 3,4, 5 & C9 and any future projects.
Quote from: crayauchtin on September 30, 2010, 11:43:43 PM
Quote from: Haids1987 on September 30, 2010, 05:33:35 PM
So does that make Juliet unintelligent,
......she's a fourteen year old girl who got married and killed herself over a boy she'd known for roughly a week. How she talks is the *least* significant thing indicating that she's unintelligent. :P
*Mumbles*
You silly Easterners, taking things at face value, underanalyzing the greatest love story ever written, and saying the word "wicked" when not referring to a witch. I don't know why I love you guys! ;)
Actually, the foolishness of Romeo and Juliet is a major part of the point of the story as it was originally told pre-Shakespeare. The main morals of the story are: hatred kills love, killing breeds killing, and love is foolish (it's sort of like "love is blind" but, y'know, slightly different.) So, I am not underanalyzing. I'm pointing out one of the main facets of the story -- they're idiots.
Fair enough.
QuoteThen again, since King's Quest takes place in what we believe is the same time period (or actually, earlier),
Than qhi, min hlaford, speketh they not inne this maner? :suffer:
Quote from: Lambonius on September 30, 2010, 08:03:26 PM
On the subject of Shakespeare, this is by far the best fan-written Shakespeare-inspired adaptation EVER.
Watch and laugh thine ass off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRNLrCoPzbs
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Guy is a comedic master.
Quote from: crayauchtin on October 02, 2010, 12:10:42 AM
Actually, the foolishness of Romeo and Juliet is a major part of the point of the story as it was originally told pre-Shakespeare. The main morals of the story are: hatred kills love, killing breeds killing, and love is foolish (it's sort of like "love is blind" but, y'know, slightly different.) So, I am not underanalyzing. I'm pointing out one of the main facets of the story -- they're idiots.
Agreed, and Shakespeare himself loved the tragic heroes, who were good people, but whose faults led them to their downfall. Romeo and Juliet were teenagers. Brutus loved Rome too much so that Cassius could manipulate that to make him lose sight of what actually mattered and justify killing his friend. Othello was naive, not because he was stupid, but because he was a military commander who could just not conceive that someone under his command would lie to him for no discernible motive. Hamlet was too indecisive and it took his own imminent death (and the slaughter of everyone around him) for him to finally do something. The list goes on and on.
Anyway, it occurred to me that there was one issue that tended to crop up in the writing of TSL that bugged me. I will hasten to point out (as I have in the past) that it doesn't ruin the game for me, but it does bug me when it happens. That is when we get some of the longer back stories, which I know have meaning for the writer, because they can picture it happening, but when we as an audience hear it, it just doesn't have an effect. An example would be Edgar talking about how Rosella had him dress up in a disguise during the Mask of Eternity celebration. Yes, it tells us a bit about Rosella, but we never saw that as an audience, so what we have are two characters sharing an inside joke that we have no context for. It just doesn't translate as well. And, in general, I did feel some of the exposition about Rosella got to be a bit much. We're at a point that we need to actually meet her, not just hear about her. Otherwise it seems like trying to build exposition on something that doesn't exist. Now, I have no doubt that this issue is exacerbated by the fact that there's time between episodes, which makes it seem like we've gone an eternity without seeing Rosella. If we were just playing the game straight through, that issue might not be as major. That said, though, I know I'm at a point where I don't want to hear about what a free spirit and how willful Rosella is. I want to see her act these things out in her dream world or in a flashback, or something that gives more context and meaning than two people talking about it.
Another example of exposition that just didn't seem to work for me would be the vases in the castle and the sour grapes. In both cases it reminded me of many conversations I've had with my sister, where she says, "The funniest thing happened!" and then proceeds to tell me this long story, which then ends with a punchline and total silence on my end. Because you just had to be there. The humor doesn't translate. I literally had that thought with the sour grapes story. When the narrator gave Rosella's response of "No, they were sour!" I basically just nodded my head and thought, "I guess I just had to be there." It's an easy trap to fall in to. Heck, we've all been there, we've all told those stories, and we've all sat through those stories. And I know if I'm writing something, I do the same thing. I find myself writing long exposition which I find fascinating, because I'm imagining it, because I'm creating the situation, the facial expressions, the tone, everything. But once an audience is there, they don't get that, and the story loses context and the meaning drains out.
Like I said though, it doesn't ruin the game (not even mildly), mainly because you don't have to look at the vases or the sour grapes to beat the game. If every little thing you did brought out a long story without the context of having been there, then I'd say it's a problem. But it's just a few optional places that leave me thinking, "I appreciate what the writer is trying to do, but it's become lost in translation."
Damar, that's an excellent point.
When a writer is creating a fictional narrative, it is often helpful for the writer to create long back stories for his characters as part of the creative process, so that he better understands their motivation when they react to situations created in the actual narrative itself. But you don't want to tell the audience the whole back story. It's not necessary for the audience to know these things, and from a pacing standpoint, including these in the narrative itself typically brings the flow of the story to an awkward screeching halt, which I think happens in TSL quite a few times, so far. It's not that the back story itself is bad, it's just that the audience doesn't need to hear it--it breaks the pacing of the adventure and as you correctly pointed out, a lot of the emotional impact of it is lost in translation.
Well, Rosella & Alex are kind of in a coma/magical deep sleep, so....meeting them directly is a bit problematic. ;)
And, if you read the Four Winds, the occasion Edgar is talking about is also mentioned in the article about Connor's knighting in Issue 1. Not the same I know, but just sayin'. :)
Yeah, I recognize that it's tough to meet Alexander and Rosella at this point since they're unconscious, but we've got an introduction to Alexander, and that's going a ways to underlining the damage that Manannan did, even though the scene was relatively short. Seeing it is much stronger than hearing about it from others. In fact, I would say that even though hearing about Alex's scars from Edgar is technically bringing up a more traumatic issue, hearing Manannan call Alexander "Gwydion" and seeing Alexander's reaction was infinitely more emotional because now it's the character reacting to emotional pain, not two people talking about it. But like I said, the verbal exposition versus actually seeing it may not be as much of an issue simply because the game is still getting started. Still, I'm hoping that we get to see some of Rosella in her dream world as that would go a long way to building more of an emotional connection with the character than the exposition does. Ironically enough, as much exposition as there's been on Rosella, I still feel that the most important things about her, her strength, her willfulness, and so on, I'm picking up from having played KQ4 as opposed to the verbal exposition in TSL.
Anyway, like I said, I don't want to call it a writing issue at this point. Now if Episode 3 is released and there's no scenes with Rosella or Alexander, then I'd say it's a problem. We've got to get scenes with these characters to give us full development, even if it's just a cut scene. But I have no doubt that those scenes are coming. There's just been too much juxtaposition of Rosella's light versus Alexander's darkness for there not to be.
Quote from: darthkiwi on October 02, 2010, 06:47:12 AM
QuoteThen again, since King's Quest takes place in what we believe is the same time period (or actually, earlier),
Than qhi, min hlaford, speketh they not inne this maner? :suffer:
XD XD I love you. :D
I was going to point out that, in that case, she would have used "nimen". :P
QuoteYeah, I recognize that it's tough to meet Alexander and Rosella at this point since they're unconscious, but we've got an introduction to Alexander, and that's going a ways to underlining the damage that Manannan did, even though the scene was relatively short. Seeing it is much stronger than hearing about it from others. In fact, I would say that even though hearing about Alex's scars from Edgar is technically bringing up a more traumatic issue, hearing Manannan call Alexander "Gwydion" and seeing Alexander's reaction was infinitely more emotional because now it's the character reacting to emotional pain, not two people talking about it. But like I said, the verbal exposition versus actually seeing it may not be as much of an issue simply because the game is still getting started. Still, I'm hoping that we get to see some of Rosella in her dream world as that would go a long way to building more of an emotional connection with the character than the exposition does. Ironically enough, as much exposition as there's been on Rosella, I still feel that the most important things about her, her strength, her willfulness, and so on, I'm picking up from having played KQ4 as opposed to the verbal exposition in TSL.
I kind of agree. But I really liked the dialogue with Edgar, because it reinforced Edgar's character, pointed out similarities between him and Alexander, and gave us a taste - third-hand, but still a taste - of the brutality of Manannan which had not been touched on since KQ3. Then that small anecdote primed us for the dream sequence, where it was explored more immediately and more personally. This formed a narrative and emotional peak which also coincided with Valanice's distress. So from a technical standpoint I think the writing was very well structured. Plus, this is a video game: ideally you should be able to explore and find sections of the story that are not obligatory but which reward you for trying.
QuoteI was going to point out that, in that case, she would have used "nimen".
;D
Quote from: darthkiwi on October 02, 2010, 06:47:12 AM
QuoteThen again, since King's Quest takes place in what we believe is the same time period (or actually, earlier),
Than qhi, min hlaford, speketh they not inne this maner? :suffer:
Actually, some of they did. Alas, they are characters you won't meet now. But the residents of the Land of Dragons spoke in this manner.
Also, I just did a search through all the conversation files, and there's not one single instance where "have took" is used. I really need you to point me to that one if you expect an honest answer.