Regularly, I get asked to help someone with their game art and story. They usually send a word doc with anywhere from a couple to dozens of pages, or even several documents of varying lengths. I always evaluate them from the basics: character, conflict, setting and circumstance, pacing and ensemble, and then really, I realize that frankly, after a ton of work filling in what somebody who is not a writer did not think to include, that really in the story design sense, I am still at the first floor. How do you evaluate and rewrite other people''s game concepts, and, how do you work with them in convincing them their story is woefully incomplete? What constitutes the ''bar'' and how do you sell them on the idea? Oftentimes, it is not the amount of work that needs to be done, as we writers know, but getting them to accept that is where it needs to get before they really have a game? Addy

are you talking about rewriting correcting someone else who is not supposed to be a writer, in the same manner that a tattoo artist would redraw a customer''s design ? Or are you talking about teaching people to get better, and give them what they need, not what they want ?

From what you say, after you try and fix whatever was "broken" in the material you are given for comment, you usually realise that what you added was in fact the basic ingredients that should structure and support any decent work.
Why not then, simply say it so ?
When my students come and ask me to correct their work, I usually point out at some facts that they have overlooked, or say something like "Here!" pointing at a line... usually, if the student is good enough, they''ll make the classical face of one who is struck by the lightning of inspiration, and be thankful that I let them figure it out by themselves. Plus it shows me that they *are* actually getting better.
For some, unfortunately, it seems that doing it for them is the only way, but in such a case I make a point of doing it step by step with them next to me so they can see the whole process I go through. I.e. I am really doing a practical application of the fundamentals they should have known all along. But as they say, practice makes perfect.
The key point in such an involved act, is that I do it *with* the student, not *for* them (although I tend to do the typing so that they are not distracted by their lack of typing skills...)

Of course, this is a pretty exhausting process. But it''s the way I think it should be done. I dont do it because it''s the best way to do things, I do it because I *believe* it''s my duty to do so, because I like what I am doing, and because, well, it''s a passion
Just because you are good at something doesnt mean you are good at teaching it, sadly. Nor does it mean than helping those who seek your wisdom is pleasurable, rewarding, or easy.

In the case of something as artistic and, inherently, personal as writing (or painting, or any other medium of expression), the real problem is that you have to always (IMHO) remind the student (pupil, disciple, little grasshopper, whatever) that this is *your* way of seeing things, that it would be a good idea to fish around for other point of views, opinions, experiences.
I mean, if Picasso would comment on my work, I would listen, but who says I would agree on what he says ? I think that there are two levels, in art. The technical, and the artistic (emotional, personal, I am not sure of the word, there).
Any person with a bit of experience can guide you in your exploration of a particular technique, can show you and train you and correct you and do all those things that a teacher do.
But at some point, technical mastery has to be left behind, and as they say, the teacher can only show the way, not walk it for you. And that''s where your role of teacher stops, and mentor begins.

Maybe if you are clearer about the role you want to play for those who seek your help, you can answer your own questions ?
Or maybe you simply explain them this ?

Or maybe I have totally gone off topic and made a fool of myself ? Ah well

ps : I realise this post you made is the shortest I have ever seen you make ! possibly ''cause it''s a question ?

Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !

Ah yes, beta-editing... oddly enough I have never been asked to do this for a game, only fanfiction and original fiction. Not sure why. But anyway the principle is the same, and I wholeheartedly agree that it can be a ton of work and really exhausting if what they hand you isn''t good to start with. Basically I read what they give me, imagine what it would be like after I poured my effort into it, and if I still don''t like the result I have to politely decline, because it''s not worth investing my time in. So that''s what constitutes ''the bar'' for me. Yes it''s virtuous and our communal duty to teach others to improve their craft, but if they don''t have basic writing skills and good instincts I can''t really help them, and I''ve found the same applies with drawing and music (only with music I''m the one who doesn''t have the instincts to be able to learn it).

On the other hand, I''ve had the privelage to beta-edit some _really_ _good_ stories, and it''s exhilirating to find that I am learning more about the structure of good fiction, and the story the writer and I produce together is better than either of us could have done alone. (And of course the writer learned things in the process too.)

quote: Original post by ahw
are you talking about rewriting correcting someone else who is not supposed to be a writer, in the same manner that a tattoo artist would redraw a customer''s design ? Or are you talking about teaching people to get better, and give them what they need, not what they want ?

The former.

quote:
From what you say, after you try and fix whatever was "broken" in the material you are given for comment, you usually realise that what you added was in fact the basic ingredients that should structure and support any decent work.
Why not then, simply say it so ?

I think there are a few answers. One of them is that a properly designed story structure, which as you know can have tremendous positive impact on other aspects of the overall design, such as art, music and interactivity and overall productiveness, often takes away some creative control from the primary creative director or lead designer or programmer of a project, and it''s just not ''in the politics.'' How many times have we seen mediocre results in games from mediocre pre-visualization and concept construction/proofing. In screenwriting, we have a saying, "Anybody with a typewriter who knows the alphabet thinks they can bang out a studio level screenplay."

Of course, this kind of lack of acceptance reaction is the mark of the rank amateur, however, in nearly twenty years of writing for other people professionally in diverse genres as well as markets, it includes the vast majority of professionals as well in my experience.

Another reason I think is that with all the other aspects of development in terms of workload, this kind of work is traditionally given short shrift because if you really give a story structure it''s full due, it bears remarkable similarity to debugging for weeks and weeks.

Two, developing this aspect of the project fully can add a lot of work to other areas of art and code, and that may just be more work than somebody wants to do.

quote:
When my students come and ask me to correct their work, I usually point out at some facts that they have overlooked, or say something like "Here!" pointing at a line... usually, if the student is good enough, they''ll make the classical face of one who is struck by the lightning of inspiration, and be thankful that I let them figure it out by themselves. Plus it shows me that they *are* actually getting better.
For some, unfortunately, it seems that doing it for them is the only way

Exactly, human nature and the writing process collide.

quote:
The key point in such an involved act, is that I do it *with* the student, not *for* them

This is great for school, and I am sure they benefit tremendously from it, but here in California, they don''t want to be bothered, they are paying somebody to do it for them; they just know they are happy when they read what they want to see.

quote:
Just because you are good at something doesnt mean you are good at teaching it, sadly. Nor does it mean than helping those who seek your wisdom is pleasurable, rewarding, or easy.

Insert appropiate eclesiastical enthusiastic.

quote:
Maybe if you are clearer about the role you want to play for those who seek your help, you can answer your own questions ?
Or maybe you simply explain them this ?

Here I think you hit the nail on the head for me. I have not had to do much of this in screenwriting. One simply figures out all the strenghts, weaknesses and interesting tangents of the story structure macro and micro, and argue the merits of all POV''s and prepare for ''notes'' on rationales to the contrary in advance. You are usually only working with one collaberator, the director. Here in game design at the preponderant level of the game with so many informal teams of ppl pulling together mostly focused on codebase, either nobody will be decisive enough to make story structure calls cause the heirarchy is seen as one level and it is hard to make everyone happy, or the person who is the decisive team leader is not decisive enough because they do want to rock the boat amongst the other teammembers, whom are hard enough to keep rowing in the same direction in harmony as it is.

You really hit an important point, and I am going to change the way I qualify my collaberations in this new medium. Directors trust me because of my track record and they know I am intelligent enough not to paint myself into a logically or dramatically flawed corner. Coders don''t really know me at all, so the answer is as you said, asserting the role and taking a little bit more of the lead.

It was for this reason that I started my own gameco, so that the buck would stop here, and I could rely on my strongest design and writing skills to ensure the critical pre-production phase of development got the kind of attention a blockbuster needs. I mean, the Wachowski brother wrote for two years together before they went into production for a 2003 double release.

quote:
ps : I realise this post you made is the shortest I have ever seen you make ! possibly ''cause it''s a question ?

LOL, thanks ahw for your insights. I appreciate them.

Addy