Current Events > do ppl care to much about lore in stories

(+) Yeah! (+)

i dont mean major things

i mean little things

like X cant be part of Y group cus of this paragraph in a 1% of the fanbase has read

or

this makes no sense accoring to this piece of media that does not happen for 3 more months in the official time line

Maybe? Give me an example.

MyMainAccount posted...

Maybe? Give me an example.

some ppl complained that the power suits in the fall out tv series where not 100% in line with the games or the brother hood of steel should not have so many members

or that a few events did not 1 for 1 line up with the game timeline

The 40k fandom is like that sometimes. The meltdown some of them had over the whole girl Custodes thing was quite a sight to behold.

I expect teachers to be good at teaching. I expect electricians to be good at electrical work. I expect cooks to be good at cooking. So why can I not expect writers to be good at writing?

LinkDaLunatic posted...

I expect teachers to be good at teaching. I expect electricians to be good at electrical work. I expect cooks to be good at cooking. So why can I not expect writers to be good at writing?

who said anything about bad writing

you're back, nice.

yes even little things can be made big issues of with hardcore fans. Any changes are seen as inferior, well more often than not it's true but usually for bigger changes.

I'm tired of buying hack n slash games and being bombarded with tons of cutscenes and walls of text. just let me beat up bad guys.

AceMos posted...

who said anything about bad writing

If writers can't respect their own lore and settings or timeline (or those same things in a piece of media they are contributing to/adapting, even if not the original writer)... that's bad writing.

I kind of like Lore because it lets us have a main story, and then nerds can go play with the little bits that dont mean a whole lot

Depends on the lore and what's being gained by changing it vs what's being lost.

Personally whenever I see lore complaints about Fallout they come off as pretty nitpicky to me. But I'm sure if someone made a Mass Effect series that treated "L2" and "L3" as proficiency levels of Biotics rather than technological generations for their implants, I'd be annoyed >_>

Nice to see you back, TC, and I agree with you.

When small details of little or no significance become a prison for the writer, that's when you get bad writing.

Can't expand a role or storyline because of something that was introduced in the past? Who exactly is in charge here?

LinkDaLunatic posted...

If writers can't respect their own lore and settings or timeline (or those same things in a piece of media they are contributing to/adapting, even if not the original writer)... that's bad writing.

This 100 fucking percent, with the sole exception of plotholes, outdated/pseudoscience, did-not-age-well bigotry, etc. in the original material. Those usually require fixing. Unless of course you're making a horror movie from a book, in which case most big-box horror movies are full of plotholes and characters acting like dumbasses, anyway.

liquid snake is made of dominant genes
slid snake is made of recessive genes

??????

evilpresident posted...

The 40k fandom is like that sometimes. The meltdown some of them had over the whole girl Custodes thing was quite a sight to behold.

Yeah that was pretty pathetic. For one because 40k lore has been retconned repeatedly in major ways in the past, but also because the small bit of lore they were constantly referencing (about them being the sons of nobles of the imperium) didn't even apply to all of them. Just people being weird and dense for no reason.

Speaking as a writer, I feel it depends on how significant the detail really is. If it's a throwaway line about something that doesn't really come up elsewhere, then I think it's fine to discard it. Better still if it can be spun as something that was misunderstood or misrepresented. But if whole character arcs or major plot events hinge on something being true, it's a problem if that thing is ignored.

Personally, I always try (but don't always succeed) to come back to any little details I might have messed up about and work that error into the story. So, like, if I say at one point that only elves can use a certain kind of magic, then forget all about that and write a dwarf using it, I might then turn around and make it ~a whole thing~ that a dwarf used this supposedly elf-only magic, and what it could mean. I'd go so far as to say that forgetting a lore detail until it's too late to fix it is a great way to add a twist that keeps the story moving~

I don't think they even mentioned Grindelwald in the first movie but he was mentioned in like one sentence in first book.

Depends on the story being told.

LinkDaLunatic posted...

If writers can't respect their own lore and settings or timeline (or those same things in a piece of media they are contributing to/adapting, even if not the original writer)... that's bad writing.

No, it isn't.

SydnieStarlight posted...

Speaking as a writer, I feel it depends on how significant the detail really is. If it's a throwaway line about something that doesn't really come up elsewhere, then I think it's fine to discard it. Better still if it can be spun as something that was misunderstood or misrepresented. But if whole character arcs or major plot events hinge on something being true, it's a problem if that thing is ignored.

Personally, I always try (but don't always succeed) to come back to any little details I might have messed up about and work that error into the story. So, like, if I say at one point that only elves can use a certain kind of magic, then forget all about that and write a dwarf using it, I might then turn around and make it ~a whole thing~ that a dwarf used this supposedly elf-only magic, and what it could mean. I'd go so far as to say that forgetting a lore detail until it's too late to fix it is a great way to add a twist that keeps the story moving~

This is correct.

Yes. One of the best things about Diablo 2 is the flavor.

Edit: I think I misunderstood the topic title.

*looks at Dragon Ball*
People still loves it.

Kim_Seong-a posted...

Depends on the lore and what's being gained by changing it vs what's being lost.

Personally whenever I see lore complaints about Fallout they come off as pretty nitpicky to me. But I'm sure if someone made a Mass Effect series that treated "L2" and "L3" as proficiency levels of Biotics rather than technological generations for their implants, I'd be annoyed >_>

Actually mass effect is a good example for it. In me2, they changed the lore for guns to no longer allow players to have infinite ammo. While it's an alteration for lore, they gave a small explanation for it, even if it's kind of weak (even if thermal clips are stronger, there's no reason to completely abandon the old infinite ammo tech). However, it's clearly lore to compliment the gameplay more than it is a simple retcon for the sake of story.

Me3 changes to the reapers is something that ruffles even the most docile mass effect fan though.

Yes.

Imagine if they had a 6 foot Hobbit.

Lotr fans would rage.

If the lore change contradicts the themes and purpose of the work then it's a bad change. If its a mostly superfluous detail, then it's justified. To use the hobbit example, one of the keys uses of hobbits in the text is the idea of how the smallest and seemingly most insignificant of all creatures winds up being perhaps the most important movers of that era of history. 8 foot tall hobbits ruin this idea. Mind you, I'd argue that the size of hobbits is so important to the plot that its above merely being in the category of lore.

Meanwhile, in 40k, the imperium is an uber fascist hellhole that no sane individual would want to live in. Being more egalitarian in who can join one of their elite military groups doesn't change anything significantly, since its still endless bloody war. The exact shape and colour of some armour from Fallout is similarly unimportant to the overall work.

Narrative (how a story is told) is more important than plot (the content of a story) which is more important than lore (the unimportant flavour text of the plot). Unfortunately, weird nerds, many of whom would be lucky to have their grammatically dodgy fanfiction approved, have got it into their heads that absolute consistency is the highest calling art can aspire to. Like with many subjects, they speak with authority on shit they know nothing about.

If Shakespeare can be heralded as one of the greatest English writers despite straight up deleting characters from the narrative (where did the Fool in King Lear vanish to?) maybe a piddly little retcon like women being allowed in a popular faction should be more tolerated.

People expect to be as fully immersed in the world they're viewing as deeply as possible. Some fans take it too far, but even minute details in lore needs to be carefully considered in writing.

Sometimes. It depends on whether said obscure work was stupid or not, and why you're bringing it up.

For example, the ending to FF7 is ambiguous on some... pretty important details. But then they made a sequel anyway, which resolved a bunch of the ambiguity. Of course, that sequel was a CG movie that was 90% ridiculous stunts and stuff exploding while our characters decided to dress like they're in The Matrix. And yet, whenever people start speculating about the ending of the original game, somebody inevitably shows up and goes "nuh uh because Advent Children." Dude shut up, nobody cares about Advent Children.

But on the other hand, if the question is "Who is your favorite Mega Man X character" and you say Spider, now they're tripping over themselves to tell you Command Mission isn't canon. Dude, who cares. He's still a good character.

It definitely depends. There's an episode of the original Star Trek that heavily implies Starfleet doesn't allow women to captain ships. That's something that was not adhered to in later Star Trek shows for good reason.

I prefer cut scenes myself i will not read lore, if i wanted to reasmd i would puck up a book not play a game, so no i dont care about lore

UnsteadyOwl posted...

It definitely depends. There's an episode of the original Star Trek that heavily implies Starfleet doesn't allow women to captain ships. That's something that was not adhered to in later Star Trek shows for good reason.

I mean, even Starfleet evolves and change...

Foppe posted...

I mean, even Starfleet evolves and change...

we have media set before TOS that has female captains

for me the reason i care about lore contradictions (if theyre noticeable) is becuz it takes me out of it. takes from immersion

AceMos posted...

we have media set before TOS that has female captains

Female captains were allowed, GOPers got the power and banned female captains in time for TOS, they lost the power and female captains were allowed again.

I think more ppl care about lore than we think, but let anyone speak up and some random will tell them how pathetic of a person they for their interests.

evilpresident posted...

The 40k fandom is like that sometimes. The meltdown some of them had over the whole girl Custodes thing was quite a sight to behold.

I see that whole shebang as people seeing it as being performative; which people hate. It'd be like having only men in Star Wars being Jedi in the "Jedi Brotherhood" and then Disney making a female Jedi and then going, "There was always women in the Jedi Brotherhood". You know that hasn't been the case but now suddenly "it always was"? People don't really accept situations where retcons are treated as if they always were the case.

ninjaman44 posted...

Yeah that was pretty pathetic. For one because 40k lore has been retconned repeatedly in major ways in the past, but also because the small bit of lore they were constantly referencing (about them being the sons of nobles of the imperium) didn't even apply to all of them. Just people being weird and dense for no reason.

Bingo. Necrons used to be Chaos Androids, Nids used to have Zoats emissaries/slaves/whatever until they ate em. The lore changes every other minute.

Idk tc

For me I just care about the characters

Kaiser1one posted...

I see that whole shebang as people seeing it as being performative; which people hate. It'd be like having only men in Star Wars being Jedi in the "Jedi Brotherhood" and then Disney making a female Jedi and then going, "There was always women in the Jedi Brotherhood". You know that hasn't been the case but now suddenly "it always was"? People don't really accept situations where retcons are treated as if they always were the case.

Nobody bitches about the Necrons suddenly being their own faction instead of Chaos Androids though.

pazzy posted...

Me3 changes to the reapers is something that ruffles even the most docile mass effect fan though.

What was the MS3 change?

And to answer op, the Brotherhood of Steel really should NOT exist, Bethesda just couldn't help themselves with Fallout 4.

SydnieStarlight posted...

Speaking as a writer, I feel it depends on how significant the detail really is. If it's a throwaway line about something that doesn't really come up elsewhere, then I think it's fine to discard it. Better still if it can be spun as something that was misunderstood or misrepresented. But if whole character arcs or major plot events hinge on something being true, it's a problem if that thing is ignored.

Personally, I always try (but don't always succeed) to come back to any little details I might have messed up about and work that error into the story. So, like, if I say at one point that only elves can use a certain kind of magic, then forget all about that and write a dwarf using it, I might then turn around and make it ~a whole thing~ that a dwarf used this supposedly elf-only magic, and what it could mean. I'd go so far as to say that forgetting a lore detail until it's too late to fix it is a great way to add a twist that keeps the story moving~

i think this is a perfect mentality to have on this. the most hardcore fans will always overreact to anything they view as a departure from the headcanon they have crafted, but the most important thing is just being consistent with the most important core elements of the lore and if something in the future contradicts it there should be a logical explanation.

OudeGeuze posted...

What was the MS3 change?

They changed them from harvesters of organics to trying to save organics from themselves by genociding the most intelligent ones.

The best lore becomes more refined over time. Retcons are a natural result of world building over a long period of time.

I don't mind when things change, or are inconsistent, as long as the changes make the story and world better rather than worse.

I've noticed that it's mostly a millenial thing.

My media teacher in college said that because we were the first generation to grow up with VCRs and syndicated TV we watched things repetitively and got deep into lore as a method to stay entertained.

Generation X focuses on where they were when they consumed the media.

Generation Z focuses on the conditions they were facing when consuming the media, they said. It makes sense because they go through so much content compared to us and they typically binge most of what they watch so lore isn't really a selling point until they reach the end

Games are culturally important.

Do you care about culture?

Not in the example you gave. Fallout is a long-suffering example of that where the company who purchased it does not particularly care about the intentions of the original work and want to make it their own thing. The things people are complaining about might seem little or inconsequential, but people have been pointing out that kind of stuff since FO3 came out.

Now a more recent phenomenon is people using "lore" to refer to vaguely told stories where you have to do a bunch of digging to piece things together, and that is a little annoying. It caught on really big with zoomers when FNAF came out, and companies have been trying to capture that lightning in a bottle over and over again with stuff like Hello Neighbor, Bendy and the Ink Machine, Garten of Banban, etc. And what's more, it seems to work annoyingly well. Bad storytelling as a marketing strategy is really obnoxious but younger people seem to eat it up because putting the pieces together is "fun"

The Dark Knight Trilogy changing Rachel really ruined the romance part of the movie for me. I'm like, Bruce Wayne didn't fall in love with this chick!

In Game of Thrones, Cersei and her ex-husband not being in scenes together despite being on the same side didn't bother me.

The Cosby Show and Always Sunny in Philadelphia added a sister to the cast and that's not a problem because it allowed for more content.

Most stuff that bothers me involves re-shoots and never seeing the original script.

Black Panther 2 is a good example. Without getting into spoilers, the cute lead actress got into an "accident" on set and it changed how the movie was written. The ending of Kill Bill Vol. 2 is another good example. Uma Thurman's car crash ruined parts of that movie.

Foppe posted...

*looks at Dragon Ball*
People still loves it.

Oh, absolutely. We can enjoy shows with bad writing all day, but that doesn't mean the writing is good, it just means we enjoy something with bad writing. Two different things lol

evilpresident posted...

Nobody bitches about the Necrons suddenly being their own faction instead of Chaos Androids though.

When did that change happen? Kinda feels like a cop out, to use a change that happened before the internet. Also, are we talking actual lore for them or some random story before they were established?

AceMos posted...

power suits in the fall out tv series where not 100% in line with the games or the brother hood of steel

why are you writing it like that?
they're one words
it lo oks absol utely fr eaking rid icul ous