Storytelling

A month or so ago I got in contact with someone who has worked in the comic book industry and got some advice from him. One little tidbit was to get a Twitter account and follow a whole bunch of writers and artists. For comedy reasons alone, this was a great idea. Artists and writers have a tendency to be really creative, witty people. Or complete d-bags. But every now and then, quite frequently really, I get a tidbit from some writer or some artist about what they do that makes my day.

I've been in a thoughtful kind of mood today. Thinking about storytelling and the various differences between genres, mostly because a certain musician whose work I hate got me going on what I dislike (I hesitate to say "what's wrong") about that particular industry. What it boils down to is that I enjoy the art of storytelling, oftentimes more than I enjoy the story itself. Due to this thought I've been jumping around blogs and tweets and quotes all morning, getting into the mind of the storytellers and artists.

One such search brought up a little musing from Gail Simone, the current writer of Batgirl, about how video games are changing the three act structure (http://gailsimone.tumblr.com/post/30447440749/the-video-game-as-game-changer). It's an interesting musing, and I like seeing how her mind mulls it over and adapts it,  but I'm pretty sure she's making a mistake.

First, nobody plays Skyrim or World of Warcraft for their story, they play those games so they can play. Neither game changes it's mechanics during the play time, but the mechanics are broad enough that you've always got new things to do. Second, the three act structure is apparent in every side quest, if dulled down a bit. The first act, meeting the characters, is the main quest line. The second act is finding the quest giver and accepting the quest, and the third act is the actual quest itself.

The most prominent point she made though was how the second act is the entire game. And that's not entirely true. I'm going to take some notes off of Extra Creditz here and their opinion of the three act structure in Bioshock. Almost the entirety of the play is in act 2, but act 1 is littered around the environment. Every bit of Rapture is the first act. You see it scattered along the walls, propaganda from when Rapture was first made to when it fell. The ideas that first built this incredible city down to the abuse that fell it and started the second act.

Here's the thing. Every genre tells its stories differently. Books tell you everything up front, leaving it to your imagination for the visuals but giving you every nook and cranny to build off of. Movies show you everything. It's very easy to consciously miss what they're doing, but everything down to the cinematography to the acting is nuanced to give you this general feeling that the director wants to give you. Comic books have this in between, where they direct your imagination. Everything's shown to you except the movement. You get various snapshots in time that are supposed to work along with the dialogue to give you an idea of what happened that your subconscious pieces together. Even music has it's own form of storytelling, without much of a story. The very specific choice of words mingled with the tone of voice and the music to project emotion and meaning, usually directed at what the musician wanted but defined by the listeners subconscious, an art that I feel is lost in today's "make 'em dance" top tracks that mimic each other.

All of these, though, are based off of one thing. The directed story. You have a protagonist who goes through this world to learn the ideas that the writer/director/actor/artist wanted you to learn. Video games are, quoting Extra Creditz again, the worlds first truly interactive medium, and it's new. Video games, at the moment, are nearing the end of their attempts to ape movies and moving into their own as an art form, we've seen a few pieces like Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Spec Ops: The Line try and move past that stigma of "we must be movies where you're doing the fight scenes" and become what games will do best.

Video Games make you a world. They make you the supporting cast for that world and send you into their story. But the story that a video game can tell better than any other medium is the story of the player. The storytelling in a video game should make the player do something that teaches them about themselves. It should be able to subtly direct the player, to the point where the player feels like he's in complete control, and then yank the rug out from under them. The effectiveness of this, and what no other medium can do, is that the player is the one that did it. He pulled that trigger, he spared that life, he made the call that killed hundreds.

Without the directed story the acts change. With an interactive story you want people in act 2 immediately because that's where things happen. Act 1 is always happening, because you are the character and the game is introducing you to yourself. Or the world is the character and you're being introduced to that. The third act does take a blow, but it's still there. The three act structure in video games is simply altered, almost unrecognizable, because video games are still so new.

This is all idealized video game storytelling, not every game is like this but it seems like the logical place they'll end up. The reason I play Video Games is for the gameplay. The people who play video games "for the story" wade through a lot of sandbox playgrounds, multiplayer, and poorly written but fun mechanics games to get to the well written ones, and they'll play and love the horribly written games for nothing more than gameplay. Modern Warfare, for example. But when a great game gets a great story we get to see what gaming could be, and will be.

All Work and No Play Make Me... Not Sure, Hasn't Come Up

So, I'm working on a comic. I'm gonna throw it up on Kickstarter  once I have a prologue online to show the world, but it's kind of taking up my time. I'll link everything up when I finish the prologue.

So here's the deal. I'm going to try and throw up one image a week, a pencil, of my favourite comic that week. I'll have one up tomorrow, when I've finished reading this week's comics. I'll also try and say why I like the issue without spoiling what happens and give what I know about the character and the current writer's current arc.

The Dark Knight Returns

I wasn't a fan. I'm going to say that now. Was it a good movie? Yeah, it was good. Like pretty much every other movie that tries to go into gritty realism and deliver a story that's supposed to be deep and show a hidden side to humanity. The advantage of Nolan's previous movie was the fact that it was Batman, so the message was generally that people were good. And in Nolan's previous movie they did it so much better. Beyond that, the story was pretty predictable, with one exception that's more my fault than anything.

There be spoilers ahead.

Okay, the twist. Talia Al Ghul. Why? Why didn't they make her the main antagonist? It would have rounded off the series perfectly, Talia's a much more interesting character than Bane, we could have understood our main antagonist, and we wouldn't have spent the majority of the movie learning a backstory for a character only for "Surprise!" all of that story is actually this character's and Bane's really nothing more than a glorified henchman. Seriously, go back to what we learned about Bane. At the end of the day we learned that the League of Shadows broke him out of prison, something that a large portion of Gotham can say due to the first movie, and he was too brutal for them. Okay, that knocks the League of Shadows down a peg, what with them previously being an army of murderous ninjas that were only a finger point away from slitting the throats of an entire city. Lets not forget that that included civilians. Children. Jophrey Baratheon would have been the only acceptable loss there.

The entirety of Bane's backstory was given to Talia at the last second. Which, I got to be honest, I didn't see the twist coming because I started getting angry at Talia not being there. Wanna know why I thought Talia wouldn't be there? Because I didn't think anyone would be dumb enough to put their main villain front and center for the last ten minutes of the movie! Seriously, we spend the entirety of a movie learning the backstory of a character that we only knew for ten minutes, and amping up a character who, in the end, get's shuffled off the stage so offhandedly that you can really tell he was the henchman now.

Okay, the good parts. This movie was probably the best example of Bruce Wayne as a character and Batman as a character that I've seen in a Batman movie. That bar's pretty low, but we get to see Wayne reacting to his new place in life after retiring as the Bat, and I found the whole shut in thing a great way to show Wayne as just the alias of the Bat. The Bat was gone, the Alias was gone. And, naturally, the prison time was pretty great.

And Batman. The few times Batman showed up in the movie were kind of great. I'm going to say it right now, the scene in the sewers with Catwoman walking past the guards while Batman disappears them can sit beside some of the lesser fights in Avengers (Better than Hawkeye vs Widow, below Coulson vs Loki). Something the series has done really well is the whole symbolism of the Bat and the theatricality. I loved those scenes.

And Catwoman! I felt like she was the only person in the movie who had a personality. I mean, Batman's supposed to be the quiet shut in type, Alfred disappears, and Morgan Freeman was great when he was on the screen, but that was pretty rare. Bane had a cool thing he was doing with his hands on his vests like he was wearing a fancy coat at all times. But everyone but Catwoman was so very bland to me. Catwoman was fantastic. She added a liveliness to the movie that was very in with her character in the comics.

That's pretty much it, but I have to bring up on little thing. What's with the super heroes sending their billionaire genius's with all the cool toys off into the distance with the massive explosion that going to kill us all? Tony Stark and Batman both flew Nukes away and "Surprise!" walk it off, and even Spider-man had to defuse a gene bomb on a skyscraper. For that matter, why was Spider-man the only one to actually fix his problem as opposed to letting it blow up a little to the left? I think Tony Stark could defuse a nuclear device while moving at Mach 4, what with being able to make a never before thought of battle suit in a cave with pop cans and having made these bargain basement nukes for years, and Batman not only found out how to turn his weapon into a bomb the second he found out it was possible, he figured out how to defuse it the second after. There's got to be a better way than depending on your inherent immunity to nuclear explosions.

Spec Ops: The Line

Might as well, I guess. My opinions certain games. Probably wont stick to just games. I'll start with Spec Ops: The Line, since it's the most recent new title I've played.

So, let me say this before things get spoilery. Buy the game. It's a great example of storytelling through gameplay, especially since the story is reacting to what would happen if some jackass in real life started acting like a gamer does in a video game when handed a gun. There's a lot of furked up shit in this game, some great imagery, and some great characterization. The gameplay is pretty samey but I took that as being part of the story. You've all done this in a game before, this is what it would be like if you did it in reality. And, y'know, were capable of healing several bullet wounds. I think it's a great example of story through mechanics. If I had one complaint it would be that I seemed to never have ammo, but that can probably be said to be part of the story too.

Spoilers from this point on. Seriously, do not read forward from this point. I will ruin the ending.

Well, holy shit. That ending. I loves me some psychopaths in fiction, and that may make me biased towards the Fight Club-esque ending, but here's a funny thing. At the end, as you all probably well know, I had grown decidedly hateful towards my character. The black guy (who's name escapes me, but so does the rest of the cast. Captain Walker is the protagonist?) was the only character I actually liked, and the way he went out, so hateful and suicidal... Well, that was the point when I started hating the enemy and my character equally. Your other squad mate, who I disliked, him dying made me have to restrain myself from killing the civilians who did it. Let that sink in, I actually restrained myself from murder in a video game.

But here's the point. At the end I hated my character, and when you learned what a crazy fuck he was and had the option to kill yourself... I didn't do it. I'd resolved to do it when whatshispersonalityface pointed the gun at me, but then came the countdown. I made it to 4, dammit! Then he had to ask "is this what you really want?" When he said that I pulled the trigger. Turns out, loathing and all, I'd managed to project a little onto the character. That hasn't really happened before. The final decision of the game, suicide by soldier after the credits, I decided to live. I wanted this psychopath to live, and hopefully get better.

This game strikes me as a great example of storytelling through gameplay, and the great part is that they didn't do anything new with the gameplay. The story was crafted for a video game, specifically this sort of shooter. We play tons of 'em, and in all of them we do horrible shit to people who don't deserve it without thinking. Killed a soldier? No worries, we've got millions. Hell, that character model will be back next level. Mow down a shitload of human beings? Eh, no worries, they're bad guys dumb enough to go up against the shredder of men.

You kill two types of people in this game. US soldiers, from your US, from your army. And civilians. As in these poor jackasses lost their homes and now you're taking their lives. I don't think you actually spend more than a mission or two with the same faction, you're just the lone gunman making sure to finish the job that mother nature in her sandy fury could not.

Early on it tries to make you seem more human, when you're running through and commenting on how this jackass, I think his name was Gould, was throwing civilians with weapons against trained soldiers. And then they ask you to save him or civilians! Naturally I saved the civilians, it was the slaughter of desperate homeless people that made the decision for me. And then you go on a mission with only half the plan, fished out of Gould's mouth, and wind up killing a shit-ton of civilians. I only learned later that they would have died one way or another, and all that really happened was that I saved the three civilians from the Gould choice (I think) when otherwise they would have died with Gould and the civilians in the fire. But at the time I got angry. The game had made me kill them. I knew they were there when I pulled the trigger, or at least I suspected, but the game had done it and your character reacts the same way. "They made me do it". Maybe that was the moment I felt a kinship with the protagonist, I honestly don't know. I didn't know about the kinship until I'd decided to let him live.

The game was great, plain and simple.

Contestant

Okay, so my lovely Gorgon is now up for voting in the T-shirt contest. Basically what you do is go here: http://browse.deviantart.com/designbattle/mythical/?qh=&section=&q=gorgon It's on the second to bottom row. Scroll over the icon, don't click it. An Icon saying "I want this" will come up. Click that.

Gorgon, Deviantart contest entry

http://cadhla182.deviantart.com/#/d582svv

The link above is where you can vote on a sexy sexy shirt. The image on the shirt, you ask? Why it's...

Why yes indeed, the lovely Medusa! Okay, I know she was supposed to be hideous. But I have two reasons for this. The first being sex sells. I'm not going to lie, that was a big reason for this image. Oh, here's the one I didn't have to cut down on the colours to finish:

Anyway, my justification. How different do you think one would have to be to be considered hideous in ancient Greece? The folk of yore have a tendency to be incredibly racist, I doubt the green skin and snakes on the head would have been considered beautiful in ancient days, and the turning people to stone when they look at you just adds to the myth. "How ugly could she be?" "Dude. Looking at her turns you to stone."

So vote above, please. Winning this would help considerably towards my producing Ragdoll Psychiatric, and I would be very appreciative. Also, it'll give you the opportunity to wear this beauty around all day.

Marvelous Characters

I have multiple issues when I read solicits, watch a commercial, listen to someone talk... Generally when someone would want to convince me of something. Which is whenever words are involved. All of the issues stem from terminology. In this case it's the "strong ____ character" line. It doesn't matter what the blank is --woman, black, gay -- that blank is a problem. Y'see, you're segregating the character, marketing it as the character as being a big deal because of blank. A lot of the time I expect it to be a moderate story trying to ride on the fact that their character is blank. The marketing scheme instantly turns me cynical.

Now, don't get me wrong. We need more strong ___ characters. The issue is making them strong blanks takes away from making them strong characters. A lot of the time I'll hear strong female character and I'll get a female character who's in charge and sassy while all the male characters are idiotic.

Why I bring this up today is Captain Marvel #1 came out today, by Kelly Sue DeConnick. I already love her work from Osborn: Evil Incarcerated, but Captain Marvel, a series that will hopefully be going on for quite some time, is a great book. The reason for this is Captain Marvel, Carol Danvers, is a strong character. I'm one of those people who can forgive a flaw or two in the story so long as the characters are consistent and entertaining. Interesting characters make me buy books, movies, etc. Carol is an interesting character. She's flawed, she has dreams, both possible and impossible, and she has a trait that I love in all characters. She's tough. There's a theory that everyone has a favourite ninja turtle, and it signifies one of four different mindsets. Mine's Raphael. Carol Danvers, as Kelly Sue DeConnick writes her, reminds of of Raphael. Of Toph.

What I'm saying is I may have my new favourite book, and a new third favourite super hero. (Hulk, my first favourite super hero. X-23, because she got me into comics and by extension pushed me down my path in life. Ms. Marvel, general badass and entertaining read.)