Rules to Writing: Eyes on Mass Effect 3

image by lukemat

Recently I’ve been playing through Mass Effect 2 a couple times in preparation for the drop of ME3.  On one of the play-throughs it struck me that Mass Effect is an excellent IP.  I originally didn’t expect much out of the franchise and was shocked when I was hooked.  Sure I play Warhammer 40K, I watch SyFy shows, love science fiction, but I would have never considered myself a hardcore sci-fi guy.  I’ll admit my interest has been growing as I’ve moved more from traditional high fantasy, but fantasy in general was my first love and will always hold that place in my heart.  So how did I wind up on a third play-through on ME2 and loving it?  Was it something about the game itself?  I mean I can nitpick some holes into areas of the game that could use improvement, but why did I like it so much?  So it got me to thinking.  What makes something “good?”

Fellow GC writer Maurice and I just went recently to see Rise of the Planet of the Apes.  On the way back we chatted about comics, trends in film, games, etc.  But all the topics were jointed by the question of what really makes it “good.”  Was it a nostalgic connection to a specific series of comics?  Perhaps it was just quality storytelling?  Could game mechanisms or depth of play be the basis to judge quality?  We tossed around a lot of ideas that kept me thinking.

While the peripherals vary from genre to genre, there are some core principle we can all apply to help find the answer of what’s “good” and what isn’t.  Now as a disclaimer these parameters won’t account for everyone’s taste, but hey we’re talking generalizations here so deal with it…

• Writing:  I can’t say how much this is essential in all genres.  Some mediums of entertainment (video games, film, comics) can get by with slightly weaker writing if other elements are considered extraordinary, but in every case writing will be the make or break of any genre.  As an example let’s look at the game Mass Effect 2.  There is some really great depth to the world development in the setting, but ultimately the story of Shepard and his\her battle against the Collectors is one filled with betrayal, conflict, decisions that weigh on the outcome, and at least to some degree a tension that rides through the entire story.  Now it’s important to note the game was a success for more reasons that just the narrative, but the attention to detail was immense.  Every little world has some sort of cohesive story about it.  Each one adding little bits to the depth of the ME2 world.  And while that has more to do with setting, the point is the attention to detail in the writing that created the environment and communicating it in an interesting way.  Something a lot of new novelists (and some not so new ones) do when writing sci-fi or fantasy is, in an attempt to explain their world, they information dump during a particular scene in the book.  Now they’ve managed to alienate the reader at worst or bore them at least with details, usually right at the beginning of the story.  What needs to happen, and ME2 writers did well at, is the world must be revealed through the lives of the characters inhabiting it.  As an author we can’t just jump out of context for a chapter so the reader can make sense of the world.  Little bits of information need to be revealed throughout the story, preferably in a manner where it’s the character learning or explaining and not the narrator.

• Setting:  It’s important that the world in which the story exists be well thought out and formed.  There are two approaches to this we can look at within modern literature, the Tolkien and the Rawlings.  One is set in a fantastic world with no real connection to the real world; the other is a fantastic world that is part of the real world.  These are called “not earth” and “alternate earth” in world building.  Other medium examples would be Star Wars for “not earth” and the X-men comics for “alternate earth.”  Make sense?  On one hand you have the Tolkien\Star Wars approach where so much detail was put into the creation of the setting.  During the world building process, details were added on details, creating a strict environment in which the story simply unfolds.  At times this approach can help the writing process when the details (rules) of the world help guide the story telling from the writers approach.  It can however become problematic if the author tries to include all the details and hard work into the tale.  It’s a delicate balance of picking bits and pieces to include in the story so it is full and detailed without becoming too complex or disconnected from what we know.  Rawlings went the other way, much like Marvel’s X-men, we work with what we know with some changes and as one writes the details kind of come to life on their own.  This can be good because it’s more flexible and doesn’t always dictate hard rules to get lost in.  However it can also make for some seemingly disconnected world “rules” and elements of your story if your not careful.  The challenge with this method is choosing which world elements to explain in detail and what to let rest under the “suspension of disbelief” clause all fiction writers’ work under.

• Catalyst & Connection:  There are two very important sub points to Setting which need to be considered.  The means by which the fantastic comes into being in the story, and how does the reader relate to it as a whole.  I always had a problem with cosmic level comics.  Superman, Thor, The Green Lantern, etc. for the exact reasons of Catalyst and Connection.  “Ok, so you’re omnipotently powerful because you have a ring, or a hammer, or some tights.  Lame.”  The method (catalyst) by which the super human\fantastic element of the story is delivered must be believable and visceral.  Likewise the reality (connection) of the tale must be manageable.  Many fantasy novels fail here.  They abuse the “suspension of disbelief” of the reader; elements of the world\story are just too crazy and too far out there for the minds eye to visualize well or reader to relate.  And ultimately as a writer isn’t that what we’re looking for?  The relationship between the reader and the story we craft.  Superman addresses connection in a unique way by flipping the traditional hero tale upside down.  Instead of the hero finding his heroic nature, we have a super human being that is trying to find his humanity.  The conflicts aren’t really the battles he fights with his powers but those he encounters in life with relationships and stress.  So there is some flex to come at this sub point from different angles but catalyst and connection can’t be ignored.

All in all Mass Effect 2 did many of these things well.  Sure there are some actual in game elements that need tweaking, but in general they hit the points nicely.  Mass Effect 3 promises to continue to develop the setting through hopefully excellent writing.  It’ll be interesting to see where the story goes.  Sorry for going long today.

In your experience as a reader or writer, what areas do you care least about and which are most important to you?