The upgraded writing

[Ivy Mike]

What StraitLacedDeviant and Twinfalls said. Your editor needs to "tighten" his/hers writing and make it more similar to the original - in style, not in wording - as the reworks sometimes tend toward the overly verbose. Since you designed most of the NPCs (I guess) have you yourself put forward any opinion on the changes to your editor? Editing is good if it helps the "flow" of the text involved, without changing its character. Otherwise it's contra-productive to what you're trying to portray. For example, the character mentioned in SLD's post needs dialouge that fits his/her persona. Do you picture him/her as rehtorical as he/she comes across now? If you're looking for the gruff, grim murderer the before part fit's the character better, although it's could use some editing. For example:

Look alive boys. This is a business, not a social club. Dias! An Aurelian envoy is expected to arrive today to deliver an ultimatum to Lord Antidas. A bloody accident should befall him before he reaches Teron.

Coltan! There's a family in town that needs your delicate touch. [Your expertise in poison is required.]

[charname] I've got a treat in mind for you. Do you think you could handle two marks at the same time?

That's just a quick and dirty edit of the original text and your editors alterations. Stylistically I view that mix to lean more towards the "grim and gruff" character portrayed in you original text, rather than the "sly and verbose" assassin in your editor's variant. Also, I consider your original (or the mix I've written above) to signal that the assassin actually trusts his subjects to be professional killers that know how to "dispose" of unwanted meddlers. Your editors rework of the original gives me the impression of the, stereotypical, "smart boss, stupid followers" relationship within the gang/organisation. (oh, and the part in [ ] is unnecessary if Coltan is a poison-assassin and the leader trusts his expertise.)

I don't know how you and your editor work with the written material in the game, but perhaps you need to give him/her more clear instructions of what kind of character he/she is "editing", if you know what I mean. Other than that, you have a fine editor on your hands.

 

[obediah]

Much better to see this kind of "input" thread on dialogue than another one about shadows or lighting.

Why? They're just polishing the word candy rather than the graphics candy, rather than adding content or altering gameplay. I'm not against either, but I am getting a bizarro world feeling - VD spending so much time on graphics bells & whistles on a game, and the codex critiquing rpg dialogue as overly verbose.

P.S. - for the most part I found the rewrites better. Certainly of high enough quality for me not to engage in nitpicking.

 

[fraunclein]

The mandatory bit: I'm neither a literacy critic nor a native english speaker blah blah BUT...
The mandatory bit #2: I'm sure the editor knows his/her trade much better than I do, and woofa woofa BUT...

...I really think the rewrite is mostly worse than the original. To be brief and avoid repetition, I'll just emphasize what Sage, SLD and Twinfalls said. Especially:

VD's original characterisation should be treated as more appropriate by default, since he's the one with the whole game concept in mind, and not the editor.....The direct, concise and acerbic wit which characterises much of your Codex comments can be a plus, despite any lack of overall elegance when expanded into prose.

It seems to me that your editor is doing his job in a way of editing a book, not a computer game. He/She's taking too much freedom in trying to morph your dialogue script and narrative into a prose. The result is text that reads more fluidly but feels just totally out of place.

I'd say the emphasis should be put in correcting the grammatical errors and major wonkiness of your writing. It's a big plus if the editor manages to integrate his own descriptive text(which, in your own words, is not your strongest area) to the context, but I think the narrative itself should be left alone.

 

[Hazelnut]

Some passages were drastically improved, the first two for instance. The first that seemed not so good was the one about Dellar. I've not got too much time to respond I'm afraid, but where I found your text flowed and seemed spot on, I don't like the edits. Not everything needs editing, and it borders on rewriting rather than editing at times.

On the whole it looks like this editor can help you improve the writing, but only if you're careful and collaborate. Edit the editors work... ;-)

I also find some of VD's direct style can give a certain 'punch':

Feng's exact age was undeterminable. He could only be described as old, usually followed by "bastard".

Which I found stronger than the alternative:

Feng was old. None knew his exact age. Some people called him 'as old as the hills' and others called him 'old as dust' and everyone called him an 'old bastard'.

I feel completely the opposite Twinnie, I much prefer the edited version. Also, as for making sense people can be called different things by the same people.. simultaneousness is not implied in the text that I can see.

 

[Twinfalls]

Mmm. I also preferred VD's "stylish black rectangle" beard passage to the more cliched goatee, because there was that 'punch' again, with something unusual. But I can see how people would prefer the second in both cases.

These micro examples will yield mainly personal preferences. However, I think what VD will probably take away from this thread are that he should:

- keep the editor's verbosity down
- preserve more of the original writing's characterisation and flavour.

it borders on rewriting rather than editing at times.

This is exactly it, indeed it's gone over the border quite a bit, to me.

I really, really think VD's writing should be preserved much more and just polished. Hand in hand with it's sometimes jarring or clunky nature, is that it seems often more quirky, unusual, and less inclined to 'easy-reading' prosaic cliche than the editor's.

 

[Twinfalls]

Sorry for the double post:

On re-reading the examples, my view has become clear.

VD's original text is overall much, much better. It's got more character, it's more concise, and crucially - it lacks the cliche that the editor seems to put into every passage.

"Intriguing", "an enigma", "wiry strength", "thick mane of black hair", "chasing after women", "old as the hills", "many a close-fought battle"

VD, your editor uses cliched, pre-formed word-combinations. While this makes it seem initially more 'flowing', it really detracts from what you've got. On what we've seen here, it looks to be a time-consuming mistake - you should just get somebody to polish what you've written, but keep it basically intact.

It's hard for you to be objective, but trust me (it'll be cool) - your writing is good stuff.

 

[bylam]

So, this is my first post. Hello everybody! (Kicks the Oblivion horse corpse lying nearby)

Editing involves trimming away the fat to get to the good stuff. What VD has posted here is not editing but rewriting. What we are seeing is two consistently different styles of writing. They clash, especially when you read them one after the other. The words used evoke differing images and therein lies the problem.

Frankly, you would be best served by having one consistent style throughout the narrative. Pick one and have the other person look it over, but only edit it for structure, verbosity and spelling.

 

[fraunclein]

Sorry for the unconstructive one-liner, but after re-reading the examples once more I have to say I pretty much agree with Twinfalls.

 

[YourConscience]

Twinfalls, what you call cliche is more of a normal mechanism in language. Obviously the editor (whoever it is) is more used to writing such stuff than VD. That automatically incurs using a certain terminology.

Pretty much like us scientists use a lot of words a plumber might never have heard in his life, the plumber has words I might not be able to make sense of.

However, additionally for writers each terminological unit also invokes associations and that is where the art comes in. Only a good writer is fully aware of all associations any expression is going to invoke. And then it's still complicated, because the combination and arrangement of such utterances might override the specific default association of one expression in favor of another. And this is somethin at least I - as an inexperienced writer in English - really cannot judge. Can you?

Perhaps that is what your feeling is telling you, that it invokes the wrong associations. But also be aware that using the 'second view' you began to dissect the writing into distinct pieces, thus breaking the aforementioned arrangement. And then, of course, it might look like pots of cliche.

@VD: I'd propose the following: Congratulate your editor for the good work he is undoubtedly doing. BUT: Pick one character (or plotline or so) in the plot and only you write his dialogue and don't allow any editing to him. Pick a character who fits you. This will make his personality a lot stronger within the game. If you feel witty, pick another character as an antipersona to the first one (but don't go over the top with the anti-stuff).

Ideally, if you have more people (even someone who claims to not be able to write at all), choose a fitting character (or plot line) and let him write it.

This 'role playing' inherently adds more styles and diversifies the writing.

One last comment: I also don't like too long-winded writing (as some new passages are now), especially for non-native speakers such stuff is hard to read and at least I just begin to skip such passages, which of course breaks immersion.

 

[Monolith]

I prefer the edited version in every respect. It's much more fluent and "sounds" more talked than written. Some of the original could be part of a technical manual and not of something actually said.

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

I have to agree with Twinfalls. Technically speaking, the "after" version is much improved, and the grammar and flow are better, but it's lost the dry character that seems apparent in the original version. Maybe find a middle ground somewhere?

 

[trystero]

humm...

The editor has cleaned up some of the text. He has also introduced a language of description that relies heavily on stylistic flourishes.

While the effect, overall, is more pleasing than that of the original prose, I prefer a more austere approach:

VD:
"It was commonly believed that Feng possessed and improved all sins known to man, but greed was definitely his favourite."

Editor:
"Feng was reputed to have tried every sin known to man, mastered most of them, and even improved on some of them."

Austere:
"Feng was a reputed sampler of sin, all vices mastered, but none more precious to him than Greed."

Regardless, in most cases, the editor does improve the original text ( although he left out what I would have considered the textually significant reference to 'greed' as Feng's favorite sin ).

- trystero

 

[suibhne]

I like a lot of the changes. I really like most of the changes to dialogue; your editor has a real knack for crisp, believable speech. Otoh, s/he has a tendency in the descriptive (non-dialogue) texts toward overlong sentences which don't scan very well. E.g.:

"His preference for chasing after women instead of chasing after scrolls about long-gone battles fought by dead emperors was well-known in town."

"Most of the citizens of Teron thought that even Death herself was so intimidated at the idea of tallying Feng's sins that she let him wander the world well past his time, instead of gathering him home when she should have, fifty years ago or more."

"As you approach the gate the pair of guards, wearing ill-kept armor and weapons showing some rust, watch your approach with minor interest."

As a crotchety writer myself, I'm particular in certain ways that might not be broadly shared, but I think those three passages are examples of text which needs to be restructured for grammatical clarity. The problem in the first case is a clumsy separation between subject and verb, easily solved by revising the sentence; the second and third passages are simply overlong in ways that obscure their structure.

Overall, yes, absolutely an improvement. The new dialogue is better than most games I've played, and the descriptive text, while not nearly as effective, still gets the job done.

 

[obediah]

Re: humm...

The editor has cleaned up some of the text. He has also introduced a language of description that relies heavily on stylistic flourishes.

While the effect, overall, is more pleasing than that of the original prose, I prefer a more austere approach:

VD:
"It was commonly believed that Feng possessed and improved all sins known to man, but greed was definitely his favourite."

Editor:
"Feng was reputed to have tried every sin known to man, mastered most of them, and even improved on some of them."

Austere:
"Feng was a reputed sampler of sin, all vices mastered, but none more precious to him than Greed."

Oh, I want to play

"Feng was regarded as a master of all sins, and even a pioneer of many, but none drove him more than greed. His hunger went beyond thrift or avarice. The unquenchable need to accumulate affected every action and decision of his damnable existence."

or at the opposite end of the situation.

"You see a Feng 60' away. Feng is sinful and especially greedy:"

a) Cast Spells/Fire Missile Weapons
b) Approach 10'
c) Run Away.

 

[Gambler]

It's a bit better, but I would cut down on the bloat and cliches.

Twinfalls, what you call cliche is more of a normal mechanism in language.

http://mla.stanford.edu/Politics_&_English_language.pdf

 

[YourConscience]

Oh, please! George Orwell is certainly a great writer and I admire him very much for that. But he isn't really a linguist (in the meaning of scientist). And especially in that article he really overexaggerates quite a bit. If I say something is a natural mechanism of language, then that is backed by several years of research going into what are mechanisms of language. With which I just wanted to say that I didn't make it up on the spot.

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

Re: humm...

"Feng was regarded as a master of all sins, and even a pioneer of many, but none drove him more than greed. His hunger went beyond thrift or avarice. The unquenchable need to accumulate affected every action and decision of his damnable existence."

You're the new editor.

 

[MacBone]

VD,

Your edits have been dissected enough, but I echo Twinfalls' points about verbosity and voice. Your editor's job is to edit, not to rewrite (unless that's what you want him to do). Overall, his rewrites sound better than your own, but he's much too wordy. For instance," . . .mostly his own" is better than "a great deal of it being his own." Each says the same thing, but your original is much more concise.

 

[Gambler]

If I say something is a natural mechanism of language, then that is backed by several years of research going into what are mechanisms of language.

Great. Now, would you be so kind to provide references to the actual study, and to explain how "natural mechanisms of language" relate to good literary style?

 

[Claw]

I'd say the cliché is a natural mechanism of language, but I don't see how that excuses the overuse of clichés.

 

[Elwro]

Re: humm...

"You see a Feng 60' away. Feng is sinful and especially greedy:"

a) Cast Spells/Fire Missile Weapons
b) Approach 10'
c) Run Away.

Or the oldskul way:

"You see a Feng 60' away. Feng is sinful and especially greedy."
>> Aproach Feng
"I don't know what you mean, you suck."
>> Approach Feng
"You see a Feng 50' away. Feng is sinful and especially greedy."
>> Fire misile at Feng
"I don't understand, you retard."
>> Fire missile at Feng
"You have to equip the ring to do that."

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, one of the things mentioned in the book was to use as few long words as you can - long words take up more time in mental processing and it slows down reading. Getting rid of the word "undeterminable" was a good start.

Undeterminable doesn't imply old.

It also emphasizes the point that he was old by repeating the idea twice: it always helps to ram home a point by mentioning it more than once, then you're more likely to remember it.

It might be a good idea to emphasize with maybe a bolder or more italicized font the word "old" in the first sentence. It will attract the eye to that word, so it stresses just how old he is.

e.g. He is old. He is old.

You need to go into this cave and kill the Foozle. Remember, cave, Foozle, dead, loot. Let me repeat that in case you weren't listening, go into the cave and kill the Foozle. Cave, Foozle. Foozle, cave.

This alteration here seems to change the tone of the character.

It did, unfortunately, but it's easy to fix.

It's hard for you to be objective, but trust me (it'll be cool) - your writing is good stuff.

Thanks.

Overall, I like the details the editor added (illiterate soldiers, dead kids, etc) as such details help fleshing out the world, but in some cases, the original details were either lost or altered. As for the character descriptions, I prefer shorter and to the point style, something similar to Snatch (the movie) descriptions.

Anyway, thanks for the opinion, guys.

 

[Top Hat]

It also emphasizes the point that he was old by repeating the idea twice: it always helps to ram home a point by mentioning it more than once, then you're more likely to remember it.

It might be a good idea to emphasize with maybe a bolder or more italicized font the word "old" in the first sentence. It will attract the eye to that word, so it stresses just how old he is.

e.g. He is old. He is old.

You need to go into this cave and kill the Foozle. Remember, cave, Foozle, dead, loot. Let me repeat that in case you weren't listening, go into the cave and kill the Foozle. Cave, Foozle. Foozle, cave.

Well, I've gotten too used to dealing with retarded people. Sue me.

 

[suibhne]

Also, to counteract my previous message 100%, count me as one of the people who never saw the writing as that much of a problem in the first place. :wink:

At first glance, from what I've seen of your writing and this editor's work, I'd probably use the editor for dialogue and keep your descriptive texts (with editing for grammar, of course :wink: ).

 

[Paranoid Jack]

VD, I like the rewrite but it does alter the feel of your dialog a bit too much. This can be both good and bad depending on how you plan to use it.

Is there any chance you could implement several version? I think you posted previously that you would not be creating different dialogs for lower intellect characters. What about using the editors version as the dialog choices for the intelligent character builds? I see this as a way of building in even more replay, if you can do it.

What I mean is you could build some in-game triggers (or even a menu option) that changes the dialog depending on several factors. Say for instance the gamer chooses to play a scholar or other character with high intelligence well then he should get mostly the editors version of the dialogs (except where specific NPC types apply, their dialogs and character should remain intact through-out all versions).

Would that be possible to implement?

Like I've told you before your writing of the dialogs isn't as bad as you make it out to be and has a distinct feel which fits the game well. Some have already pointed out the rewrites lose some of that flavor.

I would love to see several versions implemented for different character builds. Though it will add to your workload it will add a lot to the game. At the very least please consider keeping your versions of the dialogs so that we can alter the game to play it through with whichever version we prefer. (like a change to an ini file or just swapping out the dialog files)

The editor is very good and can add a lot to some of the descriptions but specify which characters are to remain in character since you have done a good job of it already. Or even give the editor back-ground info on how you want each NPC to come across. And then you alter the edited version if it doesn't fit your image of the NPC.

Looking forward to the game as much as/more than ever...