The Merits and Demerits of predictable story telling

[Jotari]

So someone made a comment here the other day about something a Fire Emblem writer said, which was that they don't see any merit in a predictable story. The commenter disagrees saying that if that were the case then there'd be no values in prequels. And that got me thinking about quite a few different shows.

For one, I agree with the notion that there's no value in a predictable story, insofar as one the things I dislike the most is a prequel that doesn't tell it's own story. If it's simply a checklist of events we already know about using characters we already know and are aware of how they feel, then there is nothing more boring for me. And I cite Xenoblade 2's DLC Torna as a masterclass example of this. It just offers nothing outside of what is already gleamed in the main game. If you like it then we'll for you, but for me a story that just pointlessly covers what was already covered is even worse than an actual bad story....however I actually do have an example of a prequel that does exactly that which I like, that being the Twin Peaks movie Fire Walk With Me. To make a long story short the tv series covers the investigation into the last days of a murder victim and then the movie actually shows those last days and we learn (almost) nothing new. I don't know why I like it, maybe it's just the directing and tonal difference to the series he movie is very dark in tone while the series is bizarrely wacky despite very serious subject matter), but my other theory is that it has focus. It is still telling its own story even if we know the details. It's not just a list of events but an insight into the character.

So focus is key then right? A predictable story is fine if it's focused...well that leads me to another example of, not a prequel, but a story with a predictable ending. I've recently finished watching the medical dramedy Dr Cha, which does have very focused story telling and overall was very enjoyable, but upon finishing the last episode and thinking of it as an episode I could only give a big shrug of "meh". Because undoubtedly the right choice was made for every character to finish their arc in the most appropriate manner, but such focus leading to predictably makes the ending feel more like an obligation than anything truly satisfying, at least for me.

But structurally when I have realize obscured elements in my own writing it feels good, it feels like things are coming together as theu should in the place. It's super easy to make a story unpredictable, you just have things be random without foreshadowing or Chekhov's guns, but rarely if ever would a story written randomly be considered good or rewarding to read.

So, eh, anyway those are my disperate thoughts on the matter covering some very different examples. I have no conclusion on how I feel on the matter. What do you think about predictablity in storytelling?

[Armchair General]

57 minutes ago, Jotari said:

What do you think about predictablity in storytelling?

It kind of has it's place, but too much of it can easily ruin it, obviously. Like, it's an given that the hero in most video games will win, in the long run. Only questions that exists is how and when it'll happen? Sure, there's nothing wrong with it being resolved within an hour or two of playtime; but it gets kind of grating when it's just "you win because you have this legendary weapon that's the bane of all evil"

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I guess there's an easy way to test if there is merit. Read a wikipedia plot synopsis of a movie, then watch the movie. Obviously a film is about more than its plot. Wikipedia won't tell you if there's a character you connect with. It won't tell you how well the scenes were shot or about the actors' performances. I follow an essayist Patrick H Willems and his recent Tenet video is all about films where the plot, What is happening and Why, does not have to matter. But in a prequel/sequel situation it's hard to make broad statements without locking down an approach

For a video game example, Red Dead Redemption 2 was an interesting experience. If you played the first game then you know the broad strokes of what happened to the Dutch Van Der Linde gang, then the pre-sequel has you playing a member of that notorious gang in its final days. I remember some folks talking about how they know Dutch is going to do *something and so there was no twist. But that's not the story. There are more characters in this gang than Dutch. 95% of RDR2's plot is not known from the bits and pieces we got in the first game. 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Zapp Branniglenn

[lenticular]

I think that, as a general rule, stories need a balance of the predictable and the unexpected. Too much predictable and the story is dull. Too much unexpected and it's jarring or nonsensical.

Predictable endings, by and large, are a good thing. If I read a romance novel, it is very predictable that the protagonist and the love interest are going to get together at the end, but I still want that to happen. It would be very unpredictable for a wizard to appear out of nowhere, turn the protagonist into a mouse and the love interest into an owl and then the owl eats the mouse. But that would be a horrible ending.

It's predictable that Luke blows up the Death Star. It's predictable that Frodo destroys the One Ring. And so on and so forth. Endings need to make sense and be consistent with the rest of the story being told. And they also need to conform to the standards of the genre, or they're just going to disappoint people. If something starts off looking like a regency romance but it ends up as a science fiction thriller, then most people are going to hate it. The people who like regency romance don't get the endings they hoped for, and the science fiction fans got bored at the start and stopped reading/watching/playing before the subversion happened.

Which isn't to say that it's impossible to have good stories with twist endings or good stories that subvert expectations. But they're tricky and much easier to do badly than to do well. Even if some sort of twist is desirable or expected, then it still has to operate within the confines of genre expectation and internal story logic. Mystery stories are known for their twist endings, but nobody wants to read a book that ends with Sherlock Holmes deciding that there just isn't enough evidence and the crime will have to remain unsolved. It would be an unexpected surprise ending, but it would also suck.

So, generally speaking, I think it is good to know in advance more or less where a story is going to end up. The unexpected should come in how we get there. What are the difficulties that the protagonists face along the way to the final goal, and how do they overcome these difficulties? That's where a lot of the interest comes from, and that's what makes the predictable ending feel satisfying and earned.

[Saint Rubenio]

11 minutes ago, lenticular said:

nobody wants to read a book that ends with Sherlock Holmes deciding that there just isn't enough evidence and the crime will have to remain unsolved.

Funnily enough, there actually is a Sherlock Holmes story that goes somewhat like this. I don't remember which one it was exactly (I read all the books back-to-back a while ago and the names of the tales escape me), but most of it is spent on Holmes's client explaining the horror-like tale of the events he went through. Afterwards, Sherlock and company go to get the bad guys... and it turns out they just set fire to the building and left. So the story just sort of ends with the criminals at large and nothing resolved.

...Then again, if I recall correctly, that story also had a section where Holmes criticises the shit out of Watson for his writing, so perhaps the whole thing was just Doyle venting his increasing hatred for the character.

Anyway, the point is, it is every bit as unsatisfying as you say. That being said, there are other stories where Sherlock fails, but they're written much more effectively - one of them is perhaps my personal favorite among all the stories, in fact. So it's not like it's impossible to write a good story where the good guy fails at the end, it just needs to... not be the angry rant of a tired author lol

Edited June 7, 2023 by Saint Rubenio

[Eltosian Kadath]

I feel this classic quote from George R R Martin feels particularly relevant to this discussion

As I think how predictable a story doesn't have a large impact on how good it is, but obsessing over it being unpredictable can ruin one. Sure an unpredictable story has its advantage, but so can a predictable one, its more important that it be a good story. When we read the classics we know the story before we read it, from its cultural impact, and that doesn't make the story worse for our initial knowledge.

EDIT:

18 minutes ago, Saint Rubenio said:

That being said, there are other stories where Sherlock fails, but they're written much more effectively - one of them is perhaps my personal favorite among all the stories, in fact. So it's not like it's impossible to write a good story where the good guy fails at the end, it just needs to... not be the angry rant of a tired author lol

Just out of curiosity, is that possible favorite where Sherlock fails "A Scandal in Bohemia" ?

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by Eltosian Kadath

[Jotari]

6 hours ago, Armchair General said:

"you win because you have this legendary weapon that's the bane of all evil"

Hey now, there's useually like six temples to get through too!

49 minutes ago, lenticular said:

It's predictable that Frodo destroys the One Ring.

Actually Frodo doesn't destroy the ring. He claims it for himself in the end. It's destroyed through sheer happenstance...which is actually an excellent example for the purpose of this conversation. Jackson had it get destroyed more through the struggle between Gollum and Frodo which I do like a bit more than Gollum just randomly falling off a cliff.

37 minutes ago, Saint Rubenio said:

Funnily enough, there actually is a Sherlock Holmes story that goes somewhat like this. I don't remember which one it was exactly (I read all the books back-to-back a while ago and the names of the tales escape me), but most of it is spent on Holmes's client explaining the horror-like tale of the events he went through. Afterwards, Sherlock and company go to get the bad guys... and it turns out they just set fire to the building and left. So the story just sort of ends with the criminals at large and nothing resolved.

...Then again, if I recall correctly, that story also had a section where Holmes criticises the shit out of Watson for his writing, so perhaps the whole thing was just Doyle venting his increasing hatred for the character.

Anyway, the point is, it is every bit as unsatisfying as you say. That being said, there are other stories where Sherlock fails, but they're written much more effectively - one of them is perhaps my personal favorite among all the stories, in fact. So it's not like it's impossible to write a good story where the good guy fails at the end, it just needs to... not be the angry rant of a tired author lol

On the other hand, there are also like 40 Sherlock Holms stories in total, so honestly one in which the bad guys just plain get away can work just to break up the formula.

27 minutes ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

Just out of curiosity, is that possible favorite where Sherlock fails "A Scandal in Bohemia" ?

 

Can't speak for Eltosian Kadath, but I know the Sherlock Holmes fails story that I like the most is The Adventure of the Yellow Face, where Holmes is completely wrong in his deductions, but the story ends up having an anti racism and tolerance moral which is like super heartening for a Victorian Era novel (and then you read the Professor Challenger series and it's like "The same guy wrote this!").

Edited June 7, 2023 by Jotari

[Saint Rubenio]

37 minutes ago, Jotari said:

On the other hand, there are also like 40 Sherlock Holms stories in total, so honestly one in which the bad guys just plain get away can work just to break up the formula.

Yeah, that's true, but the one I was talking about just feels off in general. It feels less like a story and more like a tired Doyle taking his anger out on the character.

1 hour ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

Just out of curiosity, is that possible favorite where Sherlock fails "A Scandal in Bohemia" ?

37 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Can't speak for Eltosian Kadath, but I know the Sherlock Holmes fails story that I like the most is The Adventure of the Yellow Face, where Holmes is completely wrong in his deductions, but the story ends up having an anti racism and tolerance moral which is like super heartening for a Victorian Era novel (and then you read the Professor Challenger series and it's like "The same guy wrote this!").

Both great stories as well - Yellow Face in particular was also one of my favorites, and Bohemia is a classic for a reason - but I had Five Orange Pips in mind, myself. Holmes's failure there leads to terrible consequences, and the man's reaction to it is quite interesting.

There's actually a fair amount of stories where the good detective fails on some level. More than you'd first expect, when you really stop to think about it.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Saint Rubenio

[lenticular]

36 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Actually Frodo doesn't destroy the ring. He claims it for himself in the end. It's destroyed through sheer happenstance...which is actually an excellent example for the purpose of this conversation. Jackson had it get destroyed more through the struggle between Gollum and Frodo which I do like a bit more than Gollum just randomly falling off a cliff.

Well, let that be a lesson to me, then, not to use examples from works I'm not too familiar with. I read LotR decades ago, and kept falling asleep in The Two Towers when I tried watching the movies. It is difficult to come up with good examples though, because there are so few works that are universally known. And even when people think they know them, a portion of them are actually misremembering. I'd be able to talk more usefully about the books that I read last month, but then probably nobody else would know what I was talking about. (To Say Nothing of the Dog had a great ending. But I didn't like Sourcery's ending at all. And while Imogen Obviously's ending was entirely predictable, it was the right sort of predictable. All of which is probably meaningless to most if not all the people reading this.) But yeah, I really should be more careful with the examples I choose.

5 minutes ago, Saint Rubenio said:

There's actually a fair amount of stories where the good detective fails on some level. More than you'd first expect, when you really stop to think about it.

I'm not a big fan of nor an expert on Sherlock Holmes, but from memory, both Five Orange Pips and Scandal In Bohemia both ended with exposition on what actually happened though, right? Yes, the expectations are subverted slightly by having the great detective fail to solve the crime, but they're also met by having an ending that fully explains the mystery. Which I think is the more important part. Mystery readers typically want to understand the mystery, and having the detective solve the crime is a convenient way to reach that point, but not the only one. You can only subvert expectations so much before a story just stops working.

[Eltosian Kadath]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Can't speak for Eltosian Kadath, but I know the Sherlock Holmes fails story that I like the most is The Adventure of the Yellow Face, where Holmes is completely wrong in his deductions, but the story ends up having an anti racism and tolerance moral which is like super heartening for a Victorian Era novel (and then you read the Professor Challenger series and it's like "The same guy wrote this!").

42 minutes ago, Saint Rubenio said:

Both great stories as well - Yellow Face in particular was also one of my favorites, and Bohemia is a classic for a reason - but I had Five Orange Pips in mind, myself. Holmes's failure there leads to terrible consequences, and the man's reaction to it is quite interesting.

I like how all three of us were thinking of different Sherlocke Holmes stories here.

 

25 minutes ago, lenticular said:

To Say Nothing of the Dog had a great ending.

I love that story's take on time travel. Thanks for reminding me a great little read, although I unfortunately don't recognize the others you mentioned.

 

 

A bit more on topic here, I wanted to point out that Shakespeare's classic Romeo and Juliet literally tells you an overview of the plot in the prologue, and I don't think that diminishes from the story in any way.

 

[vanguard333]

9 hours ago, Jotari said:

So someone made a comment here the other day about something a Fire Emblem writer said, which was that they don't see any merit in a predictable story. The commenter disagrees saying that if that were the case then there'd be no values in prequels. And that got me thinking about quite a few different shows.

It feels weird being indirectly referenced like this in a brand new topic.

 

9 hours ago, Jotari said:

What do you think about predictability in storytelling?

Well, since I just confirmed that I'm the commenter who disagreed with what the Fire Emblem writer said, I think my opinion has already been stated.

Anyway, one additional thing I will say, as an aspiring writer, is that, if I publish one of my books, and someone figures out a plotline or upcoming reveal in advance, I will be thinking, "Good; that means at least some of the audience noticed the clues and foreshadowing that I left and they understood what's going on". In other words, I'll take someone being able to predict what I'm about to write as evidence that I'm doing something right. I think it's easy to see being able to predict what's going on as evidence of the writer doing something wrong, but I think seeing it that way is a mistake.

 

2 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

I feel this classic quote from George R R Martin feels particularly relevant to this discussion:

I love that quote. It does a great job illustrating what I was saying above about how, if those that read my book when I finally publish it can figure out what's going to happen, then it means that I've done something right.

 

9 hours ago, Jotari said:

For one, I agree with the notion that there's no value in a predictable story, insofar as one the things I dislike the most is a prequel that doesn't tell it's own story. If it's simply a checklist of events we already know about using characters we already know and are aware of how they feel, then there is nothing more boring for me. And I cite Xenoblade 2's DLC Torna as a masterclass example of this. It just offers nothing outside of what is already gleamed in the main game. If you like it then we'll for you, but for me a story that just pointlessly covers what was already covered is even worse than an actual bad story

I disagree; I think that a prequel that explores events we already know can work very well, as there can be value in seeing how the pieces moved into place for those events to happen. One analogy for this that I once heard is as follows:

If you write that there's a bomb in a room full of characters and it blows up, the audience has ten seconds of shock. If the audience is shown that there's a bomb in that room and it will blow up in ten minutes, the audience has ten minutes of suspense. I think this analogy does a good job summing up what this kind of prequel can do really well.

For all the Star Wars prequel trilogy's many, many faults, being a story about the fall of the Jedi and the rise of the Sith Empire was not one of them; the best moments in those three films were the moments that illustrated the rot within the Republic and how the Jedi had lost their way, and the moments of Palpatine's scheming and Anakin gradually becoming Darth Vader.

I think prequel video games have a greater advantage than other forms of media in this regard, as the audience isn't just seeing the events unfold; they're experiencing the events as the player character. There's a reason why a lot of these prequels, such as Halo Reach and Final Fantasy Crisis Core, usually end on an unwinnable mission that's usually the player character's last stand; if any other type of game ended on an unwinnable last stand where the player character fights until they run out of health, it wouldn't really work, but in this type of prequel, not only does the player know going in that it's going to happen, but everything is leading up to it, so it works.

And it isn't just prequels that can do this; a lot of Shakespeare's tragedies tell the audience upfront that the main characters are doomed. Romeo and Juliet opens by referring to the titular couple as "star-crossed (ill-fated, i.e. doomed) lovers", so you know it's all going to end tragically, and it wouldn't work as well if the audience didn't know in advance that the characters are doomed.

[Armchair General]

3 hours ago, lenticular said:

If I read a romance novel, it is very predictable that the protagonist and the love interest are going to get together at the end, but I still want that to happen. It would be very unpredictable for a wizard to appear out of nowhere, turn the protagonist into a mouse and the love interest into an owl and then the owl eats the mouse. But that would be a horrible ending

You know, shit like this would actually be hilarious if it was revealed that the wizard was actually the stereotypical jealous ex.

[DefyingFates]

9 hours ago, Jotari said:

but I know the Sherlock Holmes fails story that I like the most is The Adventure of the Yellow Face, where Holmes is completely wrong in his deductions, but the story ends up having an anti racism and tolerance moral which is like super heartening for a Victorian Era novel

Yep, I absolutely love that one too! Too bad the BBC show used it for something ridiculous.

On topic, I don't think there's anything wrong with a predictable story as long as the journey to get there is interesting: the specific path taken to that ending for example, or an interesting character arc or (in all seriousness) the friends made along the way. Heck, a story can even have some twists in it just to throw you off even if everything gets back on track by the end.

For a personal example, this reminds me of how I felt about the first two Mistborn novels:

The first one had a straight-forward premise: "plucky underdogs vs a tyrant", but even though it played up all the classic tropes it was still interesting because I enjoyed the worldbuilding and how the main character opened up to others. Also because I was reading it many years after release and was told the deus ex machina ending would be explained later.

The second book on the other hand: despite trying to be tricksy and subversive you still know exactly how every single detail will play out after the first chapter or so, and the entire thing is such a predictable slog that I had to force myself to get through it. But maybe I'm just a nerd who's read and seen too many stories so picked up on the less-than-subtle plot hooks quicker than expected.

So yeah, at least in my eyes, it all comes down to execution and what constitutes the story in question.

(For the record, I thought the third Mistborn was somewhere in between.)

Edited June 7, 2023 by DefyingFates

[Jotari]

9 hours ago, Saint Rubenio said:

Yeah, that's true, but the one I was talking about just feels off in general. It feels less like a story and more like a tired Doyle taking his anger out on the character.

Both great stories as well - Yellow Face in particular was also one of my favorites, and Bohemia is a classic for a reason - but I had Five Orange Pips in mind, myself. Holmes's failure there leads to terrible consequences, and the man's reaction to it is quite interesting.

There's actually a fair amount of stories where the good detective fails on some level. More than you'd first expect, when you really stop to think about it.

Ah yes the one where Holmes is intimidated by the KKK!

8 hours ago, lenticular said:

Well, let that be a lesson to me, then, not to use examples from works I'm not too familiar with. I read LotR decades ago, and kept falling asleep in The Two Towers when I tried watching the movies. It is difficult to come up with good examples though, because there are so few works that are universally known. And even when people think they know them, a portion of them are actually misremembering. I'd be able to talk more usefully about the books that I read last month, but then probably nobody else would know what I was talking about. (To Say Nothing of the Dog had a great ending. But I didn't like Sourcery's ending at all. And while Imogen Obviously's ending was entirely predictable, it was the right sort of predictable. All of which is probably meaningless to most if not all the people reading this.) But yeah, I really should be more careful with the examples I choose.

Sourcery's issue is that it was about the wrong character. Coin should have been the main character. But people wanted more Rincewind and Prachett himself was going through a bit of a Conan Doyle phase himself in regards to not wanting to write it.

8 hours ago, lenticular said:

I'm not a big fan of nor an expert on Sherlock Holmes, but from memory, both Five Orange Pips and Scandal In Bohemia both ended with exposition on what actually happened though, right? Yes, the expectations are subverted slightly by having the great detective fail to solve the crime, but they're also met by having an ending that fully explains the mystery. Which I think is the more important part. Mystery readers typically want to understand the mystery, and having the detective solve the crime is a convenient way to reach that point, but not the only one. You can only subvert expectations so much before a story just stops working.

Metroid Other M is by no means a masterpiece of storytelling, but one of the more novel aspects of it, I found, was that Samus never gets confirmation as to who the sleeper assassin is that's killing everyone off. But if you go back and watch the scenes you can notice details that make it very obvious which one of the marines it is. So the player can gleam information that the character cannot.

7 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

It feels weird being indirectly referenced like this in a brand new topic.

I knew it was in either the Engage or Three Houses topic but I wasn't going to go hunting for it.

7 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

If you write that there's a bomb in a room full of characters and it blows up, the audience has ten seconds of shock. If the audience is shown that there's a bomb in that room and it will blow up in ten minutes, the audience has ten minutes of suspense. I think this analogy does a good job summing up what this kind of prequel can do really well.

Yeah that's from Hitchcock, and while I see his point, I don't think it's unilaterally true. There's definitely merit to surprising the audience with a sudden bomb. That ten seconds of shock just need to have higher value. To give the first example off the top of my head, at the end of the movie The Departed a character is killed very suddenly and unexpectedly. It leaves you feeling shocked and surprised for ten seconds, but it also resonated with the themes of the film in how brutal and deadly and even pointless the lives of the people in the movie are. If we had a slow elongated dead scene with the surprise killer's movements being tracked over multiple shots then it wouldn't have the same impact.

7 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

 

I think prequel video games have a greater advantage than other forms of media in this regard, as the audience isn't just seeing the events unfold; they're experiencing the events as the player character. There's a reason why a lot of these prequels, such as Halo Reach and Final Fantasy Crisis Core, usually end on an unwinnable mission that's usually the player character's last stand; if any other type of game ended on an unwinnable last stand where the player character fights until they run out of health, it wouldn't really work, but in this type of prequel, not only does the player know going in that it's going to happen, but everything is leading up to it, so it works.

I was considering bringing up Crisis Core as I think it's a great example of how prequels often have to invent their own stories to tell. All that stuff with Genesis while related to the backstory of VII wasn't in VII. In other words they had to invent a conflict for Zach to be involved in. And while that's certainly better than just rethreading old events, it can come across a bit forced. Genesis turning up in Nebelheim to be the cause of Sephiroth turn to darkness in particular I didn't like (but then if Genesis didn't show up somewhere in that section of the story then the story would feel disconnected from itself).

44 minutes ago, DefyingFates said:

On topic, I don't think there's anything wrong with a predictable story as long as the journey to get there is interesting: the specific path taken to that ending for example, or an interesting character arc )

That's the prevailing opinion, but it begs the question, what makes an interesting story? Can a story still be interesting if every plot beat is predictable? Saying it's the journey and not the destination basically boils down the predictably discussion down to the ending. And as said "the good guys win" is entirely fine as a predictable ending, but what about the much longer middle of the story?

[vanguard333]

37 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I knew it was in either the Engage or Three Houses topic but I wasn't going to go hunting for it.

Understandable.

 

37 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Yeah that's from Hitchcock, and while I see his point, I don't think it's unilaterally true. There's definitely merit to surprising the audience with a sudden bomb. That ten seconds of shock just need to have higher value. To give the first example off the top of my head, at the end of the movie The Departed a character is killed very suddenly and unexpectedly. It leaves you feeling shocked and surprised for ten seconds, but it also resonated with the themes of the film in how brutal and deadly and even pointless the lives of the people in the movie are. If we had a slow elongated dead scene with the surprise killer's movements being tracked over multiple shots then it wouldn't have the same impact.

I don't think the idea was that there's no value in surprising the audience; just that there is also value in knowing about the event in advance.

Incidentally, I learned about Hitchcock's analogy from this video that was a very interesting discussion about plot twists and "subverting expectations (i.e. trying to surprise the audience)":

 

Quote

I was considering bringing up Crisis Core as I think it's a great example of how prequels often have to invent their own stories to tell. All that stuff with Genesis while related to the backstory of VII wasn't in VII. In other words they had to invent a conflict for Zach to be involved in. And while that's certainly better than just rethreading old events, it can come across a bit forced. Genesis turning up in Nebelheim to be the cause of Sephiroth turn to darkness in particular I didn't like (but then if Genesis didn't show up somewhere in that section of the story then the story would feel disconnected from itself).

…Okay; my point remains that moments like Zack's last stand wouldn't have been nearly as effective if the game had been an entirely new, unpredictable, story and not a game about the events leading up to Zack's death. As far as I know, most people who play Crisis Core don't play it for the stuff about Genesis; they play it for moments like Zack's last stand.

Edited June 7, 2023 by vanguard333

[Armagon]

I think a predictable but well executed story is better than an unpredictable but messy one.

22 hours ago, Jotari said:

And I cite Xenoblade 2's DLC Torna as a masterclass example of this.

12 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

I disagree; I think that a prequel that explores events we already know can work very well, as there can be value in seeing how the pieces moved into place for those events to happen.

To cite the Torna example here, Torna is about an event that happens before Xenoblade 2. However, Torna is not just about that event. The actual event in question isn't until like the tail end of the game really, everything else is just exploring how the world was at that point in time, something the main plot doesn't really tell you.

Another example, Clone Wars. When you watch Clone Wars, you know how it ends. There is only one way it can end: Revenge of the Sith. And yet Clone Wars not only goes into new territory set within those three years but also tells some really good stories despite it only being able to end one way. There's a story arc where a Clone Trooper discovers the Order 66 plot. The audience knows he won't succeed in warning the Jedi, because that's how the story goes, but it doesn't stop the struggle, the suspense and everything else from being damn well executed.

In general, i do think that's the key with prequels. You gotta show that other stuff happened during this time, not just the Big Event.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Armagon said:

I think a predictable but well executed story is better than an unpredictable but messy one.

To cite the Torna example here, Torna is about an event that happens before Xenoblade 2. However, Torna is not just about that event. The actual event in question isn't until like the tail end of the game really, everything else is just exploring how the world was at that point in time, something the main plot doesn't really tell you.

If that was the intention then it certainly explains gating the main story behind an arbitrary number of side missions completed. But I don't think it really did do enough to show off the world as significantly different enough from the main game.

[lenticular]

12 hours ago, Jotari said:

That's the prevailing opinion, but it begs the question, what makes an interesting story? Can a story still be interesting if every plot beat is predictable? Saying it's the journey and not the destination basically boils down the predictably discussion down to the ending. And as said "the good guys win" is entirely fine as a predictable ending, but what about the much longer middle of the story?

I'm going to say that yes, a story can still be interesting even if it's entirely predictable. Or possibly "interesting" isn't the right word here. A story can still have merit? Still be worth engaging with? Or let's frame it the other way: being entirely predictable at every stage does not make a story worthless. My logic here is based on rereading/rewatching/replaying favourite stories. Let's say I decide to rewatch The Princess Bride. It's a personal favourite of mine and I have lost count of the number of times that I have seen it. Absolutely nothing that happens in it would be even a little bit surprising. But I would still enjoy it.

(Aside: The Princess Bride is also a good example of a story that literally tells you what's going to happen before it happens, by way of its framing story with the boy and his grandfather.)

If I'm still able to enjoy a story when I know it inside-out, then it's obviously not just the surprise and unpredictability that I'm enjoying. It's fun to get swept up into another world, to watch delightfully over-choreographed sword fights, to hear the way the actors deliver their lines, to cheer for the heroes and boo the villains (and to boo the hero that one time too), to listen to the score, and so on and so forth.

And yes, sometimes there's even value in predictability and familiarity. Sometimes, we're just in the mood for something tropey and cliched and cheesy. Sometimes I want a story that's full of twists and turns that will keep me on my toes and make me think, but sometimes I want something where I can just turn my brain off and go along for a ride.

I think that the vast majority of people like to have a mixture of new and familiar experiences. The exact balance between the two varies a lot from person to person, but I don't think I've ever met anyone who falls completely at either end of the spectrum. And it's the same for stories too. Some people are going to value unpredictability more than others, and are going to favour certain stories as a result, but everyone is going to get some value out of both unpredictability and familiarity.

12 hours ago, Jotari said:

Sourcery's issue is that it was about the wrong character. Coin should have been the main character. But people wanted more Rincewind and Prachett himself was going through a bit of a Conan Doyle phase himself in regards to not wanting to write it.

21 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

I love that story's take on time travel. Thanks for reminding me a great little read, although I unfortunately don't recognize the others you mentioned.

Not going to go in depth here since I don't want to go off-topic, but it makes me happy that at least one person was familiar with each of these, and I agree with both of these takes.

[Jotari]

21 minutes ago, lenticular said:

I'm going to say that yes, a story can still be interesting even if it's entirely predictable. Or possibly "interesting" isn't the right word here. A story can still have merit? Still be worth engaging with? Or let's frame it the other way: being entirely predictable at every stage does not make a story worthless. My logic here is based on rereading/rewatching/replaying favourite stories. Let's say I decide to rewatch The Princess Bride. It's a personal favourite of mine and I have lost count of the number of times that I have seen it. Absolutely nothing that happens in it would be even a little bit surprising. But I would still enjoy it.

(Aside: The Princess Bride is also a good example of a story that literally tells you what's going to happen before it happens, by way of its framing story with the boy and his grandfather.)

If I'm still able to enjoy a story when I know it inside-out, then it's obviously not just the surprise and unpredictability that I'm enjoying. It's fun to get swept up into another world, to watch delightfully over-choreographed sword fights, to hear the way the actors deliver their lines, to cheer for the heroes and boo the villains (and to boo the hero that one time too), to listen to the score, and so on and so forth.

And yes, sometimes there's even value in predictability and familiarity. Sometimes, we're just in the mood for something tropey and cliched and cheesy. Sometimes I want a story that's full of twists and turns that will keep me on my toes and make me think, but sometimes I want something where I can just turn my brain off and go along for a ride.

I think that the vast majority of people like to have a mixture of new and familiar experiences. The exact balance between the two varies a lot from person to person, but I don't think I've ever met anyone who falls completely at either end of the spectrum. And it's the same for stories too. Some people are going to value unpredictability more than others, and are going to favour certain stories as a result, but everyone is going to get some value out of both unpredictability and familiarity.

Not going to go in depth here since I don't want to go off-topic, but it makes me happy that at least one person was familiar with each of these, and I agree with both of these takes.

I'm mostly going Devil's Advocate here, but one could argue that rewatching a story isn't the same as a predictable story. As rewatching ties into nostalgia and how it made you feel the first time you experienced it. In other words, knowing it inside out isn't the same as having the capacity to be predictable as you're ability to predict isn't based on the story's creativity, uniqueness or level of formula, but from a metaphorical psychic ability to know what's going on via having experienced it before....maybe I'm rambling a bit there. As I said, Devi's Advocate.

[vanguard333]

9 hours ago, Armagon said:

Another example, Clone Wars. When you watch Clone Wars, you know how it ends. There is only one way it can end: Revenge of the Sith. And yet Clone Wars not only goes into new territory set within those three years but also tells some really good stories despite it only being able to end one way. There's a story arc where a Clone Trooper discovers the Order 66 plot. The audience knows he won't succeed in warning the Jedi, because that's how the story goes, but it doesn't stop the struggle, the suspense and everything else from being damn well executed.

Yeah; Clone Wars was good. It was especially interesting to see General Grievous as a genuinely scary villain.

Wait; "Clone Trooper discovers the Order 66 plot"? That wasn't in the micro-series. …Oh; you're talking about The Clone Wars: the 2008 cartoon, not Clone Wars: the 2003 micro-series. Never mind.

Incidentally, I would say that both are good shows and good prequels, albeit in different ways.

[lenticular]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I'm mostly going Devil's Advocate here, but one could argue that rewatching a story isn't the same as a predictable story. As rewatching ties into nostalgia and how it made you feel the first time you experienced it. In other words, knowing it inside out isn't the same as having the capacity to be predictable as you're ability to predict isn't based on the story's creativity, uniqueness or level of formula, but from a metaphorical psychic ability to know what's going on via having experienced it before....maybe I'm rambling a bit there. As I said, Devi's Advocate.

I'd say it's a difference of degree, not a difference of kind. There's a whole continuum of familiarity, with "rewatching exactly the same thing" falling at one end of it. Consider:

• Rewatching a movie I've seen before.
• Rewatching a movie, except I've only seen it on VHS and now I'm watching it on blu-ray.
• Rewatching a movie, except I've only seen it in black and white on VHS, and now I'm watching it in a cinema.
• Listening to the audiobook of a book that I've only ever read in print before.
• Watching a different production of a play that I've seen before.
• Watching a movie adaptation of a play I've seen before.
• Watching a TV show adaptation of a book that I've seen before.
• Reading a book that is a retelling or reimagining of a story I've read before.
• Watching a TV show that is a spiritual successor to one I've seen before.
• Playing a video game series that reuses many of the same tropes in all its entries.
• Reading a book that is heavily inspired by three other books, all of which I've read.
• Watching a science fiction TV show that leans heavily on the tropes of the genre.
• Watching a movie that uses storytelling techniques honed over thousands of years of literary tradition.

There's no single obvious breakpoint between the two extremes.

[DefyingFates]

23 hours ago, vanguard333 said:

that was a very interesting discussion about plot twists and "subverting expectations (i.e. trying to surprise the audience)":

This is an important point too: I'd rather have a predictable plot that's still cohesive and fun than something that tries to be clever and makes a mess of itself at every step.

23 hours ago, Jotari said:

That's the prevailing opinion, but it begs the question, what makes an interesting story? Can a story still be interesting if every plot beat is predictable? Saying it's the journey and not the destination basically boils down the predictably discussion down to the ending. And as said "the good guys win" is entirely fine as a predictable ending, but what about the much longer middle of the story?

That's fair. I think that just comes down to personal opinion. I think it goes hand in hand with execution? If a story flows well, if the characters are realistic and the plot makes sense, then hopefully you'd still get invested and find the story "interesting" even if you've seen stuff like it before.

Of course, you could just like how a given story chooses to tell a familiar plot regardless of complexity too (e.g. everyone who likes Engage's plot - such as myself), though I think that's straying away from your question.

[vanguard333]

1 hour ago, DefyingFates said:

This is an important point too: I'd rather have a predictable plot that's still cohesive and fun than something that tries to be clever and makes a mess of itself at every step.

I agree. Incidentally, what did you think of the video?

 

[SnowFire]

Does anyone have a link to the context?  Which writer, talking about which game?  Because "your story shouldn't be predictable" is true, trivially, in that writing a story where everything is known up front can be a bit trickier (Romeo & Juliet spoils the end, sure, but doesn't tell you the details of how you'll get there).  But this doesn't have to mean "wildly radical ending nobody could have guessed", it can just mean "be sure to include a mystery somewhere in your plot."  For a trivial example, Fates Revelation includes a murder mystery whodunnit in the back half.  It's not a very well-done mystery, but the idea is fine - spice things up with something like that.  But as others have noted, going radically off expectations can be a bold artistic choice, but is more often a mistake.  Having a murder mystery that doesn't get solved, even to the reader (the killer getting away in setting is different), is very jarring.  That said, the only example I can think of of FE really going off the map is FE4 if you authentically believed this was going to be a short game and somehow didn't know about Generation 2....  although even then, Dragon Quest 3 had already done a "but wait there's more" plot earlier.

I'll just say I was definitely assuming people were talking about "The Five Orange Pips" earlier, too.  (Which does mostly work, although oddly enough, it doesn't seem to make clear if Mr. Exile's guilt was whether he felt guilty about being a former member of the KKK (good!) or if he felt guilty about betraying the KKK (bad!).)

[lenticular]

35 minutes ago, SnowFire said:

Does anyone have a link to the context?  Which writer, talking about which game?

It was Toshiyuki Kusakihara talking about Three Houses, and specifically about

Spoiler

the decision to have your house leader defect in the middle of the story if you're playing as Black Eagles.

It's from this interview as discussed in this thread.

Personally, I think that I would generally lean further into predictability for video game stories than stories in other media, because the story typically has to serve the gameplay as well as standing on its own merit. It's always frustrating in games to land in a situation where you screw yourself over because you weren't able to see something coming, so having plot twists with gameplay ramifications seems like something that has potential to alienate players.