Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
ESCALATION
Posts
Pages:
1
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
LockeZ
View playlists
CloseSo, here's how your typical American epic fantasy/scifi tale escalates:
- Story begins
- Villain is introduced
- Villain announces his plan, people assume he's bluffing
- Villain takes over, starts enacting his plan, things get bad
- Heroes fight the villain's minions
- Heroes fight the villain's stronger minions, and either lose contact with or are abandoned by the agency giving them support
- Heroes fight the villain's crazy axe murderer, the black hero dies in the process
- Heroes fight the villain's mad scientist, the asshole hero dies in the process
- Heroes fight the villain's lancer, the professor hero dies in the process (but leaves his journal)
- Heroes fight the villain's second in command, the female hero who is the less popular member of the love triangle dies in the process
- The last surviving two heroes fight the main villain, the world is saved, and the hero makes out with the surviving girl as credits roll
Here's how a typical Japanese epic fantasy/scifi tale escalates:
- Story begins
- Terrible things start happening
- Villain shows up, announces why he's doing it
- Heroes fight the villain's minions
- Heroes fight the villain's crazy axe murderer, who hints at secret motives by the villain
- Heroes fight the villain's mad scientist, who explain's the villain's true goals, which are different
- Heroes fight a former good guy enslaved by the villain, who explains the villain's actual true goals, which are even more different
- Heroes fight the villain, who explains his real actual true goals, which are even more different still
- A new villain appears from behind the scenes, and explains his goals, which involved manipulating the previous villain to do everything he did
- Heroes fight the new villain, and for a moment the world seems to be saved
- Another new villain appears, this time a cosmic deity who has manipulated all the events of the game for its master plan, which involves the destruction of the universe
- Heroes kill God, humanity is nearly destroyed but survives, humanity gets ready to rebuild as credits roll
I am wondering how people feel about these two extremely typical and predictable styles of escalating story. Obviously some party of those lists are examples rather than generalities, but you get the idea of what I'm trying to say, I hope.
Is there one you prefer? Do you like your story to reveal the main conflict and the main villain early, or not until the end? Do you follow a completely different path from the villain's introduction to the final conflict? How much escalation do you really think is necessary at minimum, or allowable at maximum?
Share your thoughts about what methods of rising action you think work well, and what methods you think are ridiculous!
- Story begins
- Villain is introduced
- Villain announces his plan, people assume he's bluffing
- Villain takes over, starts enacting his plan, things get bad
- Heroes fight the villain's minions
- Heroes fight the villain's stronger minions, and either lose contact with or are abandoned by the agency giving them support
- Heroes fight the villain's crazy axe murderer, the black hero dies in the process
- Heroes fight the villain's mad scientist, the asshole hero dies in the process
- Heroes fight the villain's lancer, the professor hero dies in the process (but leaves his journal)
- Heroes fight the villain's second in command, the female hero who is the less popular member of the love triangle dies in the process
- The last surviving two heroes fight the main villain, the world is saved, and the hero makes out with the surviving girl as credits roll
Here's how a typical Japanese epic fantasy/scifi tale escalates:
- Story begins
- Terrible things start happening
- Villain shows up, announces why he's doing it
- Heroes fight the villain's minions
- Heroes fight the villain's crazy axe murderer, who hints at secret motives by the villain
- Heroes fight the villain's mad scientist, who explain's the villain's true goals, which are different
- Heroes fight a former good guy enslaved by the villain, who explains the villain's actual true goals, which are even more different
- Heroes fight the villain, who explains his real actual true goals, which are even more different still
- A new villain appears from behind the scenes, and explains his goals, which involved manipulating the previous villain to do everything he did
- Heroes fight the new villain, and for a moment the world seems to be saved
- Another new villain appears, this time a cosmic deity who has manipulated all the events of the game for its master plan, which involves the destruction of the universe
- Heroes kill God, humanity is nearly destroyed but survives, humanity gets ready to rebuild as credits roll
I am wondering how people feel about these two extremely typical and predictable styles of escalating story. Obviously some party of those lists are examples rather than generalities, but you get the idea of what I'm trying to say, I hope.
Is there one you prefer? Do you like your story to reveal the main conflict and the main villain early, or not until the end? Do you follow a completely different path from the villain's introduction to the final conflict? How much escalation do you really think is necessary at minimum, or allowable at maximum?
Share your thoughts about what methods of rising action you think work well, and what methods you think are ridiculous!
Muninn
2233
I wouldn't necessarily say that escalation is necessary, but a "dramatic" story needs to have at least some kind of change in status quo to remain interesting. Making things appear tougher for the heroes as time goes by (because they've been losing allies throughout the story) or revealing that what's at stake is different from what was thought before are both valid ways of doing so.
Something that's probably overlooked when designing videogames is de-escalation, by doing things such as killing off the current greatest threat and allowing the story to continue at a lower level of conflict for a while before raising it again (either by introducing a new villain, old villain wasn't really dead, old villain became undead, his plans are being hijacked or were set to continue in event of his death, etc). De-escalation really works better on a series-wide scale, though (ie. Game/book/season one deals with Dark Lord Imanevilperson trying to take over the world, installment two steps down to where the main characters establish a mercenary group and deal with less-extreme threats, so that in installment three when Shguasdsc the Unpronouncable awakens to destroy the world, the greater contrast will make it more exciting than steady escalation would have). This also would alleviate the problem of the audience not caring about this threat because it's just following the natural progression that every other threat so far has followed.
This could work in videogames, but it would have to be a sufficiently long one to effectively have two (or more) separate plot arcs, with a little bit of down time in between. It'd be interesting to see, but might be a bit beyond the scope of most independent games.
As for personal preference, I prefer the "Japanese" style (not revealing the villains true motives right away, having the obvious villain be manipulated by another villain, etc) as the main force of escalation in the story, although a mix of both types is usually ideal.
Something that's probably overlooked when designing videogames is de-escalation, by doing things such as killing off the current greatest threat and allowing the story to continue at a lower level of conflict for a while before raising it again (either by introducing a new villain, old villain wasn't really dead, old villain became undead, his plans are being hijacked or were set to continue in event of his death, etc). De-escalation really works better on a series-wide scale, though (ie. Game/book/season one deals with Dark Lord Imanevilperson trying to take over the world, installment two steps down to where the main characters establish a mercenary group and deal with less-extreme threats, so that in installment three when Shguasdsc the Unpronouncable awakens to destroy the world, the greater contrast will make it more exciting than steady escalation would have). This also would alleviate the problem of the audience not caring about this threat because it's just following the natural progression that every other threat so far has followed.
This could work in videogames, but it would have to be a sufficiently long one to effectively have two (or more) separate plot arcs, with a little bit of down time in between. It'd be interesting to see, but might be a bit beyond the scope of most independent games.
As for personal preference, I prefer the "Japanese" style (not revealing the villains true motives right away, having the obvious villain be manipulated by another villain, etc) as the main force of escalation in the story, although a mix of both types is usually ideal.
I personally like a mixture of both. I like the gradual build-up to an overall villain, and the noble sacrifices of some of the Hero's most trusted allies and friends. And the tragic deaths of some of said allies.
For villains, I personally use "two villain" and "three villain" routes. My two villain process is using a lesser villain in a kind of initial conflict that sets up the abilities of the main hero and introduces a friend or ally to aid him. The lesser villain is typical one of the least capable subordinates of the main villain, who is ordered to carry out some small, yet significant, mission. After his defeat and the fleeing of the battle, he returns to the main villain who decides to carry out things from that point on.
For the "three villain" route, there's the two listed above, but a third villain a "Trusted Subordinate/Right-Hand" to the villain who replaces the lesser villain on the missions until his defeat. His defeat signifies the abilities and resolve of the heroes, who force the villain's hand and action.
And as for the tragedy aspect, I like the use of tragedy as the "de-escalation" of events. A low point of action and chaos that still progresses the story. It motivates the characters on a personal level, since they're no longer fighting for justice, order, the greater good. They're now fighting for themselves and the get a type of a deserved-retribution or revenge to go along with ending his goals. I don't believe in a lot of deaths, but one either given to allow the heroes to succeed (a noble sacrifice) or the assassination of a lover or best friend or mentor by the Right-Hand or Main Villain.
And, just saying, I like this topic. Gives me something to think about.
For villains, I personally use "two villain" and "three villain" routes. My two villain process is using a lesser villain in a kind of initial conflict that sets up the abilities of the main hero and introduces a friend or ally to aid him. The lesser villain is typical one of the least capable subordinates of the main villain, who is ordered to carry out some small, yet significant, mission. After his defeat and the fleeing of the battle, he returns to the main villain who decides to carry out things from that point on.
For the "three villain" route, there's the two listed above, but a third villain a "Trusted Subordinate/Right-Hand" to the villain who replaces the lesser villain on the missions until his defeat. His defeat signifies the abilities and resolve of the heroes, who force the villain's hand and action.
And as for the tragedy aspect, I like the use of tragedy as the "de-escalation" of events. A low point of action and chaos that still progresses the story. It motivates the characters on a personal level, since they're no longer fighting for justice, order, the greater good. They're now fighting for themselves and the get a type of a deserved-retribution or revenge to go along with ending his goals. I don't believe in a lot of deaths, but one either given to allow the heroes to succeed (a noble sacrifice) or the assassination of a lover or best friend or mentor by the Right-Hand or Main Villain.
And, just saying, I like this topic. Gives me something to think about.
Crystalgate
694
Out of those two, I guess I prefer the Japanese tale, the American tale always makes the least interesting characters survive.
When it comes to introducing the main villain, a technique I like is introducing him early on, but not letting the player know he's the villain. The absolute best is if there are enough clues so that it's conceivable to call it, but so subtle that the majority won't. The same actually goes with plot twists, those are possible to spot, but hard to do so are the best ones. Pulling that of is very hard though, especially if you copy JRPG writing.
As for escalation, I do think some is good, if not necessary. RPGs, like many Dragon Quest titles, does right from the start introduce a world threatening villain, but they are usually seen as having very bare-bone stories. However, I don't believe that the bigger the threat, the better. I won't care more if you're threatening the whole universe instead of a single world. Generally, there's no point in threatening anything the player has no emotional connection to. Let's this time take Alundra as an example, the whole world was in peril in that game, but I really only cared about the village.
Not all escalation has to be by making things worse, what also works is that things have always been really bad, it's just that for a long time the heroes only see the tip of the iceberg. Again, this is the most effective with good foreshadowing.
Finally, the true goals of your villain is most likely not that interesting, don't try to build to much suspense over it.
When it comes to introducing the main villain, a technique I like is introducing him early on, but not letting the player know he's the villain. The absolute best is if there are enough clues so that it's conceivable to call it, but so subtle that the majority won't. The same actually goes with plot twists, those are possible to spot, but hard to do so are the best ones. Pulling that of is very hard though, especially if you copy JRPG writing.
As for escalation, I do think some is good, if not necessary. RPGs, like many Dragon Quest titles, does right from the start introduce a world threatening villain, but they are usually seen as having very bare-bone stories. However, I don't believe that the bigger the threat, the better. I won't care more if you're threatening the whole universe instead of a single world. Generally, there's no point in threatening anything the player has no emotional connection to. Let's this time take Alundra as an example, the whole world was in peril in that game, but I really only cared about the village.
Not all escalation has to be by making things worse, what also works is that things have always been really bad, it's just that for a long time the heroes only see the tip of the iceberg. Again, this is the most effective with good foreshadowing.
Finally, the true goals of your villain is most likely not that interesting, don't try to build to much suspense over it.
Shinan
4314
I always thought the hero made out with the girl in the switch between the second and third acts. Just BEFORE the fight with the main villain. (alternatively if the girl is destined to die the making out happens between the first and second acts)
I prefer the American one. You could say it makes more sense. It's good to know all the pieces on the board when a story gets going. It always feels like a cheap shot if you introduce important characters after the first act. (of course you can still have secret villains, just make sure you at least introduce them in the first act so they don't come out of nowhere)
With escalation I do agree with the de-escalation part. This is usually in the act breaks. You can't have a high without quiet moments inbetween. In fact these quiet moments tend to make the loud moments more effective. Providing atmosphere and build-up. You have a quiet stealth mission just before shit's going down.
Games do this fairly well with hub areas. I'm thinking of, for example, Deus Ex Human Revolution (which had one of those secret villains btw. But he too was introduced in the first act... though I suppose it was handled poorly anyway) with its hub areas that quiet stuff down (usually after a boss fight even). Escape from Butcher Bay also used it to great effect. As do lots of RPGs I suppose, but it's slightly different than having a proper open world.
I prefer the American one. You could say it makes more sense. It's good to know all the pieces on the board when a story gets going. It always feels like a cheap shot if you introduce important characters after the first act. (of course you can still have secret villains, just make sure you at least introduce them in the first act so they don't come out of nowhere)
With escalation I do agree with the de-escalation part. This is usually in the act breaks. You can't have a high without quiet moments inbetween. In fact these quiet moments tend to make the loud moments more effective. Providing atmosphere and build-up. You have a quiet stealth mission just before shit's going down.
Games do this fairly well with hub areas. I'm thinking of, for example, Deus Ex Human Revolution (which had one of those secret villains btw. But he too was introduced in the first act... though I suppose it was handled poorly anyway) with its hub areas that quiet stuff down (usually after a boss fight even). Escape from Butcher Bay also used it to great effect. As do lots of RPGs I suppose, but it's slightly different than having a proper open world.
ChuJooRi
1035
If I had to choose one I would go for the second approach where not everything is revealed right away. That being said, I like a mix of both. The heroes go after a certain goal, and then they go after the real goal of the game.
I also wish more games would have de-escalation. I just like those moments where it seems like everything is over for a while. Kind of showing that these heroes also get a break sometimes. And it's even better if it includes a passage of time. For example jumping a year or something.
Something like this:
- Villain is introduced
- Heroes go after the villain
- Villain is defeated, or the villain escapes
- Time passes
- New villain is introduced, or the previous villain returns
- Heroes go after the villain
- Heroes defeat the villain
I also wish more games would have de-escalation. I just like those moments where it seems like everything is over for a while. Kind of showing that these heroes also get a break sometimes. And it's even better if it includes a passage of time. For example jumping a year or something.
Something like this:
- Villain is introduced
- Heroes go after the villain
- Villain is defeated, or the villain escapes
- Time passes
- New villain is introduced, or the previous villain returns
- Heroes go after the villain
- Heroes defeat the villain
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Sounds like my opinion that the second way feels vastly more idiotic is unpopular! I feel like you should make the conflict get worse, not get replaced by a different one. And that's how the Power Behind The Throne trope feels to me.
I mean, I'm okay with plot twists, but 25% of the way into the game I at least want to know what the story is ABOUT, so I know if it's the kind of story I want to keep playing/watching.
I mean, I'm okay with plot twists, but 25% of the way into the game I at least want to know what the story is ABOUT, so I know if it's the kind of story I want to keep playing/watching.
Crystalgate
694
Try "the story is about a rag-tag group of heroes who saves the world" and it will fit the vast majority of JRPGs with a new villain coming out of nowhere. Usually, it isn't the surprises that are problematic in JRPGs, it's the opposite. JRPGs are good at pulling plot twists that surprises absolutely nobody. In those games where I do get a disappointing plot twist, the story was rarely doing to well to begin with.
Personally, I want to know about the premise of the game, not necessarily the conflict itself. For example, I would not be happy if a game begins with that a king died without having any heir to inherit the throne and multiple nobles are now warring for the power, only for the story to halfway in change to a plot about a demonic entity trying to destroy the world. However, if the plot stays at the concept of multiple nobles warring, I would not mind if a person who previously stayed in the background unexpectedly takes an active role and raises the stake of the conflict, provided it makes sense.
Personally, I want to know about the premise of the game, not necessarily the conflict itself. For example, I would not be happy if a game begins with that a king died without having any heir to inherit the throne and multiple nobles are now warring for the power, only for the story to halfway in change to a plot about a demonic entity trying to destroy the world. However, if the plot stays at the concept of multiple nobles warring, I would not mind if a person who previously stayed in the background unexpectedly takes an active role and raises the stake of the conflict, provided it makes sense.
Pages:
1
