Actually, if Ron didnt have an ending for MI2 before starting it, then there is no secrets of Monkey Island. Nobody in the world currently knows how MI3 would end, even Ron doesnt.
And I also know why MI is a bigger success in Germany then in the US (thanks to the linked video). Because if a German plays an English game, they dont notice the cornyness. I mean, who knew what ‘booty island’ is (ok nowadays one knows, but still sounds cool), but ‘dinky island’? Give me a break. I think in the translation, these terms were not translated, so it still sounds cool. But probably not for the native speaker. But then on the other hand potty humour is big in the US.
Sorry to disappoint you, but before MI 1 production ended, I had planned it as a trilogy. Don’t mistake “I didn’t have an ending” with not knowing what the theme of the ending should be and where the overall story needed to go. It’s how it works. Some people will tell you you have to have the ending before you begin, these people are just wrong and aren’t people who create (interesting) stuff. Part of the process of writing is understanding your story. By the time you finish, you realize it’s not the story you started with.
If you want to think that I had the whole MI trilogy in my head from day one, you will be disappointed. I knew large story beats, but that’s it and that’s all I would expect most story tellers to have. Ideas are guides, they are not a hard map to follow. It’s a process called creating. Good idea really come out fully formed.
I think that even a native player might like those terms, if he hypothesizes that they are the result of the silly vocabulary and juvenile humor of a kid.
Could be, but at least in Germany, nobody considered that game juvenile. A cool game for the people interested in tough puzzles. (Also probably the shock of the ending was bigger, because of that).
Ah, interesting, thanks! It confused me a bit that Monkey Island 1 has not an “open” ending.
cough …
Well, to be precise, I say that you should have an ending. In all other cases it is far more difficult to have a consistent, focused and good story. I don’t say that it is impossible.
cough again…
(I don’t say that I create interesting stuff but indeed my critics do - that’s something that still surprises me. )
No, no, I’m not disappointed, that was exactly what I meant: You knew that there will be three parts before you started the work with the first part.
btw: You have never disappointed me!
I know that. Especially if more then one person is involved.
I think it depends what kind of writer you are. In the past when I’ve written stuff with an ending in mind I’ve had a tendency to rush towards it. I also think organic endings can be less predictable (if the writer didn’t see it coming it’s unlikely the reader/audience did!) I suppose it’s a little different with making games, as there’s not just the story to think about, but I sometimes think too much structure can be a hindrance.
I agree, and I think that it depends also on what the author has to write. In some cases I have found that a more spontaneous writing, not necessarily limited by a pre-defined ending, has produced better results (or at least results that very well welcomed by the readers) and other times a more planned kind of writing is necessary to provide a more clear structure.
Are you talking about short stories? These are different beasts.
If we talk about longer stories or books then an ending in your mind keeps you focused on the story (the ending in your mind - I don’t propose to write the ending first, even if J.K. Rowling did that ).
If the writer hasn’t an ending in mind, he tends to focus on the subplots. Details are getting more important, he is “writing around” the story. At the end the whole story gets boring, weird and with no or less suspense.
Simple example: Try to write a “whodunit” crime novel without knowing who the murderer is - until the end. I bet that in most cases it won’t be a good novel.
I agree. But no structure can also be a hindrance. For example in an adventure you need to know the end to construct the puzzle chain that leads to that end.
Stephen King says he discovers where the story is going while he writes it, because he can’t imagine in advance how his characters will react to situations. Writing is a discovery to him, he comes to know his own characters and they surprise him, and lead the story in directions that he did not anticipate. So, usually in his stories the ending is unimportant. Otoh, if you write whodunit, or a story with a twist, you need to have an ending in advance.
PS: That said, Stephen King can write masterpieces (Duma Key) or total crap less good stuff.
And when you find a book which has a clever puzzle in the ending, but it would be a great book even without an ending, just for the characters, then you have a genius. (Appointment with Death, Sad Cypress.)
In that example yes, it’s definitely better to have an ending in mind. I was thinking more about longer texts, where there’s space to veer off on tangents and subplots, and time to tease your reader about what’s going (or not going) to happen. I guess as @LowLevel says it depends on what is being written as well as who’s writing it.
Also not all stories are written to build up to a big ending. For example the author might be working around a main event or turning point that will happen in the middle of the book, and the ending is more of an ‘unwind’ or bit of character reflection, whatever. So in that case the ending doesn’t need to be predetermined.
I actually think short stories are another example where it’s better to have an ending in mind, because their structure is much tighter and condensed - and they usually have some sort of point to make, or moral. (Even subtler ones like There’s a Man in the Habit of Hitting Me on the Head with an Umbrella, which I love.)
Oh definitely by that point - you couldn’t write a puzzle chain without knowing what the solution is. But earlier on during the exposition and building of the story I don’t think it’s necessary to know how the whole thing will end.
I think Mr. Gilbert has the tendency to talk in extremes about the things that work for him or that he likes.
Sure, part of the process of creation may involve figuring out the conclusion of a story as it develops. That is very true.
However, it is also true that there is neverThe One True Way™ of doing things, especially something as subjective and personal as artistic expression and creativity. What works for him may not work for you, and vice versa.
Lots of literary greats (and yes, some not-so greats) start with the ending first…
Here is a list:
It’s one of those lists you have to click through, here are the ones they list (and of course this is just one list, I’m sure there are many others out there):
Edgar Allan Poe
Margaret Mitchell (Gone With the Wind)
John Irving (The Cider House Rules)
Graham Greene (Brighton Rock, The Third Man)
Agatha Christie
J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter)
Mickey Spillane (detective novels)
Richard Peck (A Year Down Yonder)
I suspect it’s very important for authors like Agatha Christie and Mickey Spillane, where things are plotted pretty meticulously when there is a murder plot.
Of course you don’t HAVE to have it first, but I think for some genres or plots it’s a good idea.
