I think the bad writing, especially for AAA games is an industry brand/growth problem.
How many more people would play video games now if they could really see them as non-linear interactive Scorsese movies instead of more akin to the plots their kids are watching in cartoons?
Also -- maybe there's some problem with how we think about traditional stories/writing where the author fully guides the reader and interactive experiences like video games.
The best video game stories I have as an avid lifelong gamer are from the emergent story games like Dwarf Fortress Rimworld caves of qud, kenshi, etc where I really feel ownership of the story and its not the same as everyone else's story who played the same game.
If the story quality in an 50 hour more story driven video game was higher though, I might still devote time to do that stuff these days, but as it is I almost never play story driven games except a few indie titles a year.
I think the writing in Baldur's Gate 3 is successful for what it is. It's roughly Marvel movie quality, i.e. dumb but fun, big emotions etc. It's not particularly interesting, and tbh I find the result far less immersive than games with less dialogue but more exploration - at least then I can think my own character's thoughts, instead of being this dumb mute in all the heavy dialogue trees of BG3.
>When I finally played it I couldn't believe that this was what people were holding up as being a master class of game writing.
Interesting. What games in your mind is a master class of game writing?
For a fantasy adventure story taking place in the setting of the forgotten realms the writing can't actually get better imo.
I guess your thinking of something like Last of us? Is last of us or last of us 2 truly better than BG3 in terms of writing? I would say it's equivalent. It's just a different genre. If you want deep compelling character studies with the backdrop of a typical YA setting then Last of us, Planescape torment or disco elysium is right up your alley.
These are just different genres. People often conflate good writing with the genre. It's why science fiction rarely if ever has won the pulitzer prize.
Most likely you have a genre preference in the same away the academy awards have a genre preference.
My genre preference is exactly the genre Baldur's Gate 3 is, I've played dozens of CRPGs and that's why I'm so convinced it's not anything special.
I'm also fairly convinced that the hype for it is largely from people who aren't familiar with the genre and think games are still only FPS games. Hopefully they will discover that there exists a wealth of other CRPGs out there for them to experience. Better ones.
No. Even among the existing fare the best which is Planescape torment and Disco Elysium. Baldurs gate 3 is nearly the top. I think it's better than fallout 1 and 2.
Haven't had the chance to play Disco Elysium yet, but Planescape Torment, Fallout 1 and 2 are definitely in my top 5 ever. I'm genuinely curious to see what kind of games the OP is thinking of (besides BG1/2, probably?).
I was hesitant to share my own picks because I feel that it's only inviting criticism, but I decided to assume good faith and trust that you are genuinely curious and not just looking for ammunition to nitpick me.
I will freely admit that most of these don't have the most incredible stories either. But they are all CRPGs I enjoyed vastly more than Baldur's Gate 3.
Yeah that's not a common list. Planescape torment is frequently listed as the best (in terms of writing only). No criticism here but your preferences are different enough that I would say your definitions of good and bad are outside the shared reality people usually talk about when they refer to what's the best crpgs.
The writing is not anything special. What is special is the nonlinear nature of the gameplay and how the story stays coherent around it. It's not perfect but there is not really anything else like it.
This is another absolutely baffling statement people keep making about Baldurs Gate 3.
CRPGs have done nonlinear gameplay narratives for decades at least.
Hell, even Larian's previous games do exactly this same thing. Baldur's Gate 3 has a ton of the same story beats and gameplay structure as Divinity Original Sin 2, even down to starting the game in a shipwreck!
The idea that there's not really anything else like it is just plain wrong.
Look I'm glad that so many people got their first exposure to CRPGs with Baldur's Gate 3 and think they've experienced something amazing.
I think I just finally understand how my Dad felt when my sister was trying to tell him about this amazing band called "The Beatles"
There's nothing else like it in terms of quality. Most CRPGs don't have full voice overs and animations for EVERY conversation option. Many don't allow you to just kill every single key character and still maintain narrative flow.
The writing is excellent. The plot is generic. A generic plot isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Some of the best movies follow a generic arc, Star wars the MCU are all good because of the genericness. A lot of people are just snobbish. Not you, but I feel that's where a lot of the judgement comes from.
> Most CRPGs don't have full voice overs and animations for EVERY conversation option
Dragon age had this a decade ago
> Many don't allow you to just kill every single key character and still maintain narrative flow
I am skeptical that Baldur's Gate 3's scripting is actually this resilient. Regardless, games like Fallout had this sort of behavior two decades ago.
> The writing is excellent. The plot is generic
The writing will wind up seeming better depending on how you play.
Spoiler ahead:
For example, Shadowheart has a big decision to kill or not kill an enemy of Shar at the end of act 2. My friend loved this moment because he let her choose and she chose to abandon Shar because she felt it was wrong, despite all of her firm claims to be absolutely devout. He felt it made Shadowheart nuanced and like she knew the right thing to do despite her indoctrination.
I rolled persuasion to convince her not to kill the person, and it made her seem absolutely player-centric and super easy to convince to turn her back on Shar. It was terrible writing.
But I didn't want her to kill the person. And I was honestly surprised that was her default action if you let her choose.
Vastly different experiences, one seems like good writing, one seems bad.
Fine maybe not the only one. But very very few are like it.
>I am skeptical that Baldur's Gate 3's scripting is actually this resilient. Regardless, games like Fallout had this sort of behavior two decades ago.
No fallout doesn't come close. Fallout is structured so you can't kill critical main characters until it's time. They structure the script in a way where it's impossible. This is way better than putting up invulnerability guards the way most games do.
Bg 3 solves the issue by using replacement characters. You kill off a critical person to early another person will take his place and fulfill his role.
I suspect the developers have some sort of plot hole static checker similar to type checkers that allow them to fill every possible hole.
> Vastly different experiences, one seems like good writing, one seems bad.
You are conflating bad writing with personal preference. Whether a character makes one choice or the other the writers narrate both options the quality of the narration is not what you're commenting on. You're commenting on your preferred choice. Not agreeing with a choice or even not agreeing with writing is not bad writing. For example, I wouldn't call the mien Kampf poorly written even though I disagree with it.
I mean read what you wrote. Where in any of your paragraphs was writing actually commented on? You are commenting more on plot and choices.
> You are conflating bad writing with personal preference
Seems like a silly thing to say. Of course what is good or bad writing is a matter of personal taste. I'm not conflating anything.
> No fallout doesn't come close. Fallout is structured so you can't kill critical main characters until it's time. They structure the script in a way where it's impossible.
> Bg 3 solves the issue by using replacement characters. You kill off a critical person to early another person will take his place and fulfill his role.
That's effectively the same thing. One just feels more video-gamey, but the game's linearity
What happens if you kill the replacement? Does it generate a new person to continue? Seems silly to me.
> This is way better than putting up invulnerability guards the way most games do.
That's just, like, your opinion man.
> I mean read what you wrote. Where in any of your paragraphs was writing actually commented on? You are commenting more on plot and choices.
Plot and choices are part of writing, no? This seems seriously nitpicky.
Writing isn't just "the act of putting words into a sentence", it's all of the decisions that led to that sentence existing.
If I complained that the dialogue often sounded like it came from a high school student (Karlach doing fist pumps and shouting "Hell Yeah" whenever she likes something, for example) would you similarly complain that I'm not talking about the "writing" but the "prose"?
By the way, I didn't disagree when Shadowheart seemed so easily swayed. I just thought she was a poorly written character to have her strong convictions overruled so easily.
Same with Lae'zel when she turned on the Gith queen basically because I told her to.
Two characters that never once expressed any doubts about their divine missions, both turned away from them based on a single choice I made.
>Seems like a silly thing to say. Of course what is good or bad writing is a matter of personal taste. I'm not conflating anything.
It's not silly because there's no point in talking about writing quality if 100% of it was opinion based and wildly different among everyone. Obviously we're talking about a common shared opinion on what good writing is. What I'm saying, again, obviously, is that your opinion, is NOT part of the shared opinion. But do I really need to spell it out? No. This is pedantry. Details only alluded in response to your mechanical retorts. You're fully aware of what I'm saying here but likely were unaware of what you're doing. It's fine I'm redirecting the conversation back on course.
>That's effectively the same thing. One just feels more video-gamey, but the game's linearity
Of course it's effectively the same thing. It's like saying python is the same as rust if the program output is the same. As for the linearity, there's more branches in the BG3 version, but less branches in the fallout version. Generally though the branches for both games converge on a single ending. But even BG3 here as many many more permutations on that ending. It's uncountable I believe.
>That's just, like, your opinion man.
No it's the shared opinion. Which your opinion is not a part of. Man.
>Plot and choices are part of writing, no? This seems seriously nitpicky.
Nope it's not nitpicky. You can have good writing for a shit plot and bad writing for a great plot. Bad writing includes things like grammar, poor word choice, miss-spellings poor descriptions. Plots can be made without writing. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIPV1iwzrzg This is an example of a plot with no writing.
>Writing isn't just "the act of putting words into a sentence", it's all of the decisions that led to that sentence existing.
Those decisions don't have to lead to writing. See above. writing is about conveying the intent. The act of conveyance is complex and nuanced. It can mask and influence the intent. For example the English translation of popular wushu novels just don't carry the same weight in the US as they do in China.
>If I complained that the dialogue often sounded like it came from a high school student (Karlach doing fist pumps and shouting "Hell Yeah" whenever she likes something, for example) would you similarly complain that I'm not talking about the "writing" but the "prose"?
Prose is part of writing. But prose refers to like the "flavor" more. Writing in general also encompasses structure, detail, descriptions outside of the flavor. Like for example imagine you have chatGPT generate a picture of a flower. Then you have chatGPT generate the same picture of that flower but as a water color paining. Two different flavors. But the angle of the camera and the time of day of capture and the details in the foreground or the background would be the "writing". Plot requires a middle beginning and end which most pictures don't have but some pictures can have an aspect of it.
>By the way, I didn't disagree when Shadowheart seemed so easily swayed. I just thought she was a poorly written character to have her strong convictions overruled so easily.
It was probably by design. They wanted a feel good story where she ended up taking the redemption route. In that case I would say the plot was also excellently designed. I think although they allow for the existence of alternate paths, they have the choices designed in a way where you are a bit funneled down a most probable path. That path is shadowheart being redeemed. It just wasn't designed for the kind of high brow ultra realistic character studies you seem to like. If you want something catered to your tastes try Disco Elysium if you haven't already.
>Same with Lae'zel when she turned on the Gith queen basically because I told her to.
It's done purposefully as I said. There's still randomness here. I only got all the characters to do what I want because I was save scumming like a mad man. The save scumming is permitted which is ALSO a design choice. The plot is engineered well, but likely not for you.
>Two characters that never once expressed any doubts about their divine missions, both turned away from them based on a single choice I made.
I believe most people were supposed to Fail that persuasion check with shadow heart. I saved scummed it like crazy so I got passed it like you did. But the algorithm wanted to bend the path in that direction anyway. You COULD convince her to kill, but you might have to save scum that too. It depends.
No problem. Apologies that it got heated and I hope you aren't leaving because of that.
To explain I only raised the temperature because you said what I said was silly and because you mocked me with the whole, "man" thing. Did not appreciate that all and I thought it was fucking rude. Wasn't that offended by it though, but I did raise the temperature in kind.
Just saying all this in case you're leaving because of that. I wanted to explain my side. If you're not leaving because of that please ignore. Good day to you too either way.
I didn't call you silly. I said I thought you said something silly.
There is a difference, and it's important. If you think someone is silly, then you won't respect anything they say. You can respect someone's opinion and still think they say some silly things.
I do not think you are silly. I apologize if you got that impression.
I do think you have a very different perspective of what makes for good writing than I do though, and I don't think there's any point continuing to discuss the matter. That's all.
> CRPGs have done nonlinear gameplay narratives for decades at least.
CRPGs have done the illusion of nonlinear gameplay narratives for decades. Baldur's Gate 3 simply has a vastly more polished version of it, rather than paying lip service like recent, mainline RPGs - anything from Bethesda for example.
It's something I've been saying for years honestly. Most game writing is bad. This has always been the case. The result is that gamers have very low expectations for the writing. And for many people now, their primary exposure to writing is through videogames and blockbuster movies, so they don't have any other baseline for comparing against. I also think that the quality of the execution matters more than the actual story. A lot of games have basically the same stories but one will be praised and the other not, because one executes the story better.
Anyways, my main point is that standards for game writing is so low that really mediocre stuff gets a lot of praise by comparison to even worse stuff.
D&D players too; your campaign will be a combination of improv and the writing of your friend who is DMing. Everyone is doing it for fun and nobody is a professional, the “writing” expectations are not super high.
The lore for D&D is extremely well done. Better than even a novel. The reason is because the game is all about lore, so the focus was on world building. While for a story the lore is their only to serve the story.
If there was some sort of writing Pulitzer prize just for world building, D&D would be up there.
I'm not talking about the novels. I'm talking about the dungeons and dragons setting which is part of the game.
Forgotten realms is just one "region" in the setting. It is one universe in a multiverse of regions. This multiverse is called Planescape. All d&d games that I know about utilize that setting. In Planescape any arch way or opening can be a potential portal to another realm. You just need the right key. The key could be an object, a leaf, or a childhood memory or a song that can take you to another world when you walk through the archway of which there are an infinite amount. The forgotten realms is one of these places. But I'm repeating myself. You played torment so you know this as it takes place in the city of sigil the city that lies at the nexus of the multiverse.
I mean there are books dedicated to just describing the d&d setting and if they gave out awards for settings, these books would win. The novels aren't part of this. That's what I'm saying.
It is a good setting for running a game in, in the sense that it is an everything-setting where you can justify access to any planes. It produces a framework where you can throw ideas at the wall and they stick pretty well.
I don’t think this sort of flexibility indicates great writing in the literary sense. It is like a better thought out version of Marvel’s multiverse stuff: a really functional way of giving somebody working in a setting the latitude to select parts of that setting as needed. It is designed by an organization to achieve a goal for the game system, not to be great art.
The goal for the game system is created to facilitate great stories. It's art, and no other piece of fantasy lore matches it in depth, breadth and consistency to my knowledge.
The amount of artists and writers who created it makes it art in my eyes. There's no other utility for it other than story telling either. If that's not art, what is it? The snobs at the Pulitzer who haven't even awarded a win to sci Fi novel may think otherwise but to each their own. In terms of the topic at hand, fantasy lore, there's few that can rival d&d.
Let's be real too. Baldurs gate and torment weren't made because of the great d&d gameplay system... The creators wanted to utilize the lore.
Planescape is a good omni-setting for telling whatever type of story in whatever type of genre you want. Other systems benefit from being more focused. Glorantha is better if you want a Bronze Age sword and sandals setting, IMO, but if you want to do funky multiverse stuff it has basically nothing for you.
Anyway, I think the reason literary organizations don’t award settings is because they are generally interested in stores, and settings are just a component of that. I’m sure you could find some industry awards for setting development, and I bet Planescape stuff does well there. They are just not as interesting to outsiders.
Also I want to push back on your “the topic at hand.” I was talking about the stories themselves. You’ve changed the topic to settings. I’m not sure I want to come along on a tangent where we talk about setting in-and-of-themselves. The article was about why game writing is often bad. I think it is not settings, games often have great settings, but poor stories.
The Pulitzer never awarded a sci Fi so it tells you what they think. It's obvious why settings don't get awards it's because world building is sorta niche. Not popular enough to be considered "serious".
Agreed on your last part. Games have great setting and not as good stories.
But my point was d&d is great for what it is: settings for stories rather then the stories themselves. I think you disagree with this, and you think the setting is more subservient to the gameplay but I'll reference Warhammer then. Warhammer clearly has a focus on setting at many times over gameplay. And my argument is that d&d is largely similar.
I mean, I doubt you are in any position to judge the writing of PS:T just based on descriptions of it.
The writing of PS:T is vastly better than an “Adventures of Drizzt Do’urden, part 153” YA fantasy novel or what have you. Perhaps it wouldn’t win a Pulitzer if it were a book, but for a computer game the writing is incredibly good.
But what’s really shocking about the writing is
1. How much of it there is
2. How well it showcases the utter weirdness of Planescape compared to your standard D&D settings like Forgotten Realms
3. How it subverts, inverts, lampshades or in any other way plays with every major high fantasy and D&D trope that you can think of. Whatever you have heard of the writing, there’s nothing generically “D&D” about it.
The pulitzer prize is a genre award. Don't rely on that. They conflate genre with good writing in the sense that only books about deep character studies or books about racism and things of that deep nature ever win.
PS:T can win a Hugo. The Hugo award is something that gets it right. They can admit they're awarding stuff to a narrow genre while the Pulitzer is deceptive in the sense they don't ever admit to the narrowness of their decisions. I don't think a Sci Fi has ever won a Pulitzer.
That attitude is representative of a lot of what's going on in this thread. This sort of snobbishness where people mistake good writing and bad writing for what is in actuality genre preferences.
I also wouldn't advertise the setting of PS:T too much. Yes it's unique, but that's only a small part of the reason why it's good. Torment's informal sequel: Tides of Numenera had the same unique setting but wasn't nearly as good because it lacked the core. Torment was good because it was compelling and haunting. The setting is just icing on the cake.
No. Planescape torment is significantly better than a YA novel. This isn't Harry Potter.
Torment can win a hugo if it was a book. It's that good. Better than a lot of hugo winners too.
I get where you're coming from though. Planescape has elements of a YA novel, it's designed to be a page turner and the like. The setting is also very unique and fantastical and that gives it a bit of a YA novel flavor because people conflate this for the reason for why it's good in their "rave reviews". Like "wow! such an imaginative setting for an adventure!" and that kind of thing.
But make no mistake the game is haunting. When you finish it you're different. It's def not just some typical adventure story in some wildly fantastical setting. Read this review, (the first part before she gets in to deep into the fantasy elements and side characters) she couldn't have put it better:
"If computer games developers ever hope to stake their claim in the mature artistic mainstream alongside painting, music and literature, it won’t happen by coming up with ever more capable engines, sweeter eye candy or addictive gameplay, though it won’t happen without them either. It will happen by drafting all of the above into the service of compelling characters such as these, characters who make you care about them, characters who send you pawing for the reload command because you simply cannot possibly conceive of moving another inch without them. Planescape Torment accomplishes all this and more, capturing the player’s heart and intellect, taking him on a long, fraught journey through one of the most unique settings I’ve experienced in any medium and wrapping it up in a stunning, jaw-dropping finale."
"Don’t approach this CRPG too lightly. It’s the gaming equivalent of War and Peace, slow to start, frustratingly obscure at times, yet once that great narrative engine finally revs up, it moves the player along with breathtaking authority. I’ve only played it once so far. Usually I play a game twice before sitting down to review it, but I’m not ready to reenter the world of Planescape Torment just yet. There’s something about this game. It’s disturbing, haunting and heavy. I’ve never seen anything quite like it."
Like her I was never able to play it twice. I was left in something of a state of awe when I finished the game, but not really... I can't describe it.. It's that same feeling when you finish a really good book.
It's unfortunate that it's wrapped up in the skin of a YA novel. But in actuality the skin only adds to it and makes it better, but at it's core it stands above that. Way above that.
BG3 is what I dreamed about videogames being like when I was a kid. It's the only one to ever live up to that dream but it did it fully and perfectly.
The writing is good, especially for a fantasy video game, and the story branches and voice acting is incredible, but the entire game is just absolutely unbelievably amazing.
I loved how when it released a lot of game studios were putting out news stories trying to lower the public's expectation for other games.
I feel more like it was just one of the few games where they really made it for the users -- and like you say all the data even said they wouldn't make that much money. Everything now not even just in video games is just about how to leech more money or attention out of people, and I think that's part of why it stood out too.
Disco Elysium is amazing because it's a story that is told in a way possible only in videogames. Your "skills" just create voices in your head that let you know things, giving you more information or dialogue choices.
You: What's a "contact microphone"?
Acele: A contact mic records sounds from inside things. Like this ice.
Encyclopedia: Your mangled brain would like you to know that there is a boxer called Contact Mike.
You: Yeah? Any news on my wife's name? How about my mother?
Encyclopedia: Nope. You're welcome.
--
Inland Empire: What if you only appear as a large singular body, but are actually a congregation of tiny organisms working in unison?
Physical Instrument: Get out of here, dreamer! Don't you think we'd know about it?
Volition: If it were true those organisms would not be working in unison.
Endurance: That's because some of them just don't have the best interests of the colony in mind.
Electrochemistry: Hey, maybe if the rest of you took a chill-pill every now and then, they'd be more motivated?
Perception: Shut up, we can't hear what he's saying!
I did and played it most of the way through and enjoyed it. Also played BG3 and loved it so it's not that I never play them but it has to be masterpiece level
Game writing in particular is particularly hard because games are interactive.
In a movie or a novel, the authors have full control of the story, every choice the characters do can be set to best advance the story, to create dramatic tension, etc... Same thing for how skilled the character is, the outcome of fights, etc...
In a game, at least some aspects are decided by player actions, all of them need to be taken into account. So authors essentially needs to write much more than it is seen, and some of them may be hard to make exciting. Of course, games use all sorts of tricks to give the illusion of choice so that the story is going the way the authors want while at the same time the player thinks he is doing something. But it also adds to difficulty.
And not only that, when you are reading a book, you are expected to read, when watching a movie, you are expected to sit down and watch, but when playing a game, especially an action game, you are supposed to play, and reading lots of text and watching long cutscenes is annoying to many players. So you have to either integrate the story to the action or pack a lot of information in as little as possible dialogue or short cutscenes. Again, it adds to the difficulty of story writing.
Several solutions here. Either you go the visual novel route. Some are games in name only, where the player has effectively no agency. And unsurprisingly, with that pesky player out of the way, the good ones make for the best stories. Some games focus on agency, making your choices matter, but often the story and other aspects of the game are limited. It can also result in really expensive games, which matters because when you are making an expensive game, you have investors who want a return on their investment, and you usually have to play it safe and can't really try wild ideas that may fail commercially. And there is the "Doom" approach, where there is a "story", but it is designed to be as unobtrusive as possible not to distract from the main objective of the game, that is shooting stuff.
Has it ever been good across the industry? I'm not a big gamer but have been playing lots of retro games lately, including old text adventures, and most of it reads like really terrible fan fiction. Back when CD drives were still new tech, there were many experimental attempts at creating interactive games that were more story telling of the "Choose Your Own Adventure" type than video games with a unifying plot. Not that most of those stories were great but it did seem like for them it was story first, perhaps because the tech was still primitive enough that the story had to make up for it.
There are a handful of have with notable writing from
Back in the day but most that I replay have writing along the lines of “ninjas have kidnapped the president” (a real example)
A lot of well-written, high-budget games are detested by the gaming community because the themes or conclusions the game centers on are anathema to them. Final Fantasy XVI and Bioshock: Infinite come to mind. Many developers correctly ascertain that focusing on the quality of the writing is a waste of time and effort if they're not targeting a particular audience, rather than aiming for sales in the multi-millions.
Good writing is often challenging, and pairing that intellectual challenge with the tactical/strategic/visceral challenge of gameplay can be overwhelming. Spec Ops: The Line is a good example of this: players work their way through a grueling gauntlet only to be asked to deeply question their efforts, and even their enjoyment of the game itself. You just expended a massive amount of effort to do what the game told you to do, and now the game is telling you, the player, off for it. If art is a matter of curation of experience, then such an approach is maximalism that's bound to turn some off.
Because the people who buy them don’t think it’s terrible, or at least not enough of a problem to get them to not buy them. And anyway it’s subjective, it’s a form with tropes and some people just love a game (or movie, or tv show) that delivers on that even if it’s “bad writing.” And there’s nothing wrong with that.
I’m one of those people who skips all the cutscenes. Very few games have stories interesting enough to pay attention to outside of what they show you through gameplay. If I want a good story I’ll watch a movie or read a book. To me games are for the interactivity.
I didn't used to be a person who skipped cutscenes, and I thought they were ridiculous. In my old age with time ever at more of a premium, I just don't care anymore.
If you want to tell the story, tell it in engine in an interactive exciting way. You're in an interactive medium.
Having a cutscene in a game is like having a text scroll in a movie. It's lazy, it's awkward, and it's a step down the media ladder that screams we had something we wanted to say but didn't want to pay to do it right.
If I have to sit and watch a movie just to get back to the game at large, that's not fun. Tell the story through important missions, in-game dialogue.
Heck, at the very least Metal Gear Solid 4 let me adjust the camera during cutscenes so I could zoom in and look at things, look for things off screen. That kept my attention. Do anything other than just making me just watch a movie.
Even the much maligned QTEs at least manage to keep my eyes off my phone.
If I wanted a non-interactive medium I've got plenty of better options.
> I didn't used to be a person who skipped cutscenes, and I thought they were ridiculous.
Amusingly, I didn't used to be a person who defended games with elaborate non-interactive cutscenes, and I thought they were ridiculous. In my old age, I realize that on the infinite parameter-space of artistic expression, there's a wide spectrum between "100% passively-consumed movie" and "100% interactive game". There's no reason to put interactivity on a pedestal; works of art (yes, I'm being generous by blanket-describing games as works of art, but it's true) are free to express themselves in a wide variety of ways, and while I think it's still folly for AAA gamedevs to chase Hollywood out of a lack of creativity, I no longer believe that cutscenes are inherently a bad thing.
It's also the case that cutscenes have become much more numerous, and much longer. This makes me avoid a lot of mainstream modern games, which feel more like an interactive marvel film -- which neither makes for a very good movie, nor a very good game.
I'm the same way with 90% of games and that's how I can tell a well written game: if I watch the cutscenes. The most striking example of this was TLOU where I expected a fun zombie shooter and ended up completely enamored by the story, atmosphere, and characters.
I don’t like cutscenes because they ruin the story.
I’m playing a game as my own character, who goes around doing things, and has the reactions I do. It is not a story that would be a good book, but books are a different medium. The main character is mostly a bloodthirsty maniac, but there are also quiet moments enjoying a view or puzzling out ambient storytelling. It is great when you come across a story built into the scenery: a camp site containing an open cage, dead guards scattered about, hunters patrolling the woods, and blood streaks heading toward a cave. Who needs a cutscene?
The you get a little movie about a different character who has your character’s face, but is for some reason thrown into moral turmoil by the decision to kill the big bad who’s been tormenting them for ages. After butchering their way through innocent guards. OK game, sure, which button skips?
I don’t play it! I refunded Jedi Fallen Order for this reason. The plot was so boring but the game seemed not to know it. At this point I just don’t play too many AAA games so it’s not a big problem for me.
Along the same line of questioning: Why are so much movie and TV show scripts so bad?
I keep asking myself, are these companies hiring 15yo children to write content for their Billion dollar projects? Because everyone is talking like they are teenagers.
What about books? Pick up the median book released on Amazon in January and I guarantee it’s at best unreadable. These arguments always assume that books are all Dostoyevsky and movies are all Kubrick when they are the outliers
Because they’re designed for a common denominator audience.
It takes exceptional skill to make a multi-layered script that talks at various levels. It’s rare enough that we’re shocked when we encounter it - perhaps in older kids movies, maybe in things like the Lego movie.
It’s much easier to rewrite various similar stories with various tropes mixed in. Not to say these are not enjoyable! Many times you just want to see the same story different this time.
Think of all the romance novels pumped out that have the same basic plot, but the people who read them demand more and more.
Looking at New Tales from the Borderlands, possibly one of greatest writing disasters in recent video game history[0], the company openly admitted that the game was meant to be "like a sitcom"[1]. I don't know who thought that this was the right format for a game in a lore-heavy universe with very dedicated fanbase, but that didn't go well. Since then I often wonder how many companies are making similar decisions - to forcefully turn a possibly decent story into a (bad) comedy, in misguided attempt to perhaps make characters more likable (more alike to the player?), or in hopes that one of the memes will go viral.
I’ve often wondered if the sheer volume of TV and films being produced has led to a drop in writing standards. Then, it isn’t comparatively worse than anything else being churned out.
But probably this also means more opportunities overall, even if there isn’t as much harsh selection at the top end?
No, I’ve studied cinema history and the vast majority of films have always been bad.
The idea older movies were better is just selection bias.
Pauline Kael said: “If you love movies you must love trash because most movies are trash” (I’m paraphrasing).
There are “golden times” when a lot of good directors and writers were allowed to make great work - often because their work was profitable - and then times where the corporate machine took over. But that’s geofenced. Hollywood was creatively strong in the 70s and oppressive in the 80s, but Honk Kong was killing it in the 1980s.
Folks also complain about modern movies being bad while only being aware of like 1% of fairly major ones that came out in the most recent year. There are so many likely-to-be-good movies every year that I can’t keep up, personally. Or they have very narrow tastes, and it’s like… ok yes since you dismiss 95% of all film for one reason or another (“I don’t like subtitles”, “I don’t like horror”, “this is too artsy”, et c), that only left a couple good movies for you this year.
Yes the general public often complains about lack of diversity then refuses to watch anything that doesn’t have a Hollywood star-actor.
It is what it is.
People will watch 1960s French movies and praise them “How wonderful etc”, “they don’t make movies like that anymore!” but if you tell them to watch French movies of the 2020s or more famously Korean movies and TV shows a lot of people won’t budge, even though Korea is clearly the alternative powerhouse in the industry right now and the “equivalent” let’s say to the French New Wave.
The mean which captures the most eyes is probably a plot that teens find interesting. Too basic and adults tune out. Too advanced and teens, young adults, and less intelligent or committed adults will turn it off.
I feel in the last decade they've been really good in terms of writing. Shows like game of thrones and the flash are great examples of exemplary writing.
I was joking a bit. Flash is part of DC. The writing on that series is atrocious. I didn't really comment on marvel.
MCU is good writing. Tony Stark especially is just well written.
The movies are obviously not works of literature. Super heros are a genre and within that genre the writing is excellent. The writers fulfilled the role well.
I think a lot of the time game acting and character modeling is actually worse than the writing itself. To me, there was an uncanny valley when voice acting became the standard. A lot of performances degrade the script itself, whatever you think of the script. It also makes me think of Harrison Ford's line about the Star Wars movies. "George! You can type this shit, but you sure can't say it! Move your mouth when you're typing!"
This isn't quite what Harrison Ford meant, but it feels like a lot of writing feels worse when it has to be acted and performed. When I just read it, my mind fills in the blanks, so to speak, and the "performance" feels more natural.
This is also a bit of an aside, but I also find it incredibly distracting when people in some made-up fantasy world happen to emote and speak just like trendy people today. "Oh, these hardened warriors, who have had a life wholly unlike anything I've ever experienced speak just like American actors in a movie made after 2020."
Oh, god, a million times yes. To me it’s the same with almost anything by Disney. It’s too over the top and old fashioned to me.
Also, as a foreigner, it’s funny when I watch dubbed movies that have an actor from my country: either the actor does the dub and it sticks like a sore thumb (or rather, makes the others sound fake), or they get a “pro” that doesn’t sound like a normal person (and being familiar with the actor makes it harder to watch).
I have some mixed feelings. I thoroughly loved and was heavily invested in horizon zero dawn. But I don't know if I would describe it as great writing. Many of the characters were pretty one-dimensional and forgettable. Aloy herself is just another chosen one story. The antagonists are by and large cartoonish in their manner. I do want to emphasize I really enjoyed the game and felt the way it was laid out to be way more enjoyable than, say, Skyrim.
I don't know about the Witcher 3: it basically opened with softcore porn and I was immediately too turned off to continue with it. Several people who are huge fans of it later told me the wank bank material is pretty much an essential part of the Witcher experience, so I filed it away as a similar cache of any number of romance books on Amazon. Which, to be clear, makes a ton of money, isn't easy to pull off consistently as a product, etc etc. I just don't know if I would consider it great literature.
Regarding HZD: Have you gone around and read the little notes and the tidbits spread around the world? Those told the real story much better than the characters.
Personally I don't give games much credit for having decent writing in little tidbits spread around the world that you collect like busywork.
If you can't tell me the story well in the actual engine then I don't really care to count it.
But I also do think this might explain a lot about people's different opinions on videogame writing. The people who run around getting 100% of the lore tidbits and piece it together will often think the writing is much better than the people who are just trying to experience it through gameplay
While I'm also not a huge fan of this way of writing, it works very well as a supporting device for me. You have a lot of room there for world building, and the people interested in it read or listen to all the scraps and everyone else can skip them if they don't care.
Games can put a lot of world building into optional areas or pieces of content that e.g. would never fit into a movie or even a TV series.
Yes, I've read the little notes and tidbits. But trivia is not a story. If your defining, plot-pushing characters are cardboard, no amount of trivia will make up for this, for me.
Like an average HBO series, then. Open with a bunch of sex, maybe tell a good story after (with, occasionally, more sex, sometimes with plot mixed into it).
I also don't think "average HBO series" and "excellent writing" are in the same significance though, don't you agree? [Unless you're saying that HBO productions are so consistently good that their average series is excellent?] That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying they're bad. I just have mixed feelings if they should be considered "excellent".
Oh, no, lots of them aren’t great. A few are (The Wire…) and some more are at least pretty good.
[edit] also I think there are a lot of different definitions of “good” in this thread. The average HBO show probably does have better writing than 99% of narrative-presenting video games.
Game storytelling is different from movie storytelling and that’s fine. Most of your time with a character in a game is not spent performing the actions written in the script. The character doesn’t mostly live in the script, they mostly live in the gameplay and the environment interactions. It is a different type of storytelling, just like movies and books are different.
Yes the writing is often an afterthought and besides the point, but most of the games people are listing here are kind of proving the author's point, especially BG3. Games with great stories sell better and have a longer shelf life than games with bad stories, so there's no reason not to invest in quality writing. Look at what's happening with Starfield.
When my tentacle friend showed up with his shirt off and tried to seduce me, the latest in a long line of everyone I met trying to bang me, I knew I was in the presence of greatness. Kidding aside I wouldn’t say bg3 was any better than pulp dnd books I read as a kid. They did that style well, and I enjoyed it, and I think it’s more or less what the audience wanted. It’s no Kubrick or Scorsese tier story, though, let’s be real.
It was a pretty horny game, no question, but I think when people say BG3 has a great story, they mean that the combination of non-linear story, huge cast of oddball characters, lively and interesting settings, little side story beats sprinkled around which makes your playthrough a little different from your friends, vocal performances, mood, animation, sound design and the actual gameplay mechanics all came together into an experience that people really really connected with. It doesn't have to be Kubrick, but I think the author's point is that narrative AAA games disproportionately suffer from bad writing which harms the perception of the games' overall quality, and that writing is actually a worthwhile investment.
I liked the game, it was a lot of fun. It really came together like playing out one of those pulp Forgotten Realms books I had, which was really cool. I guess all I was trying to say is that those weren’t necessarily great writing, even though I loved them.
Gameplay problems aside, part of why I stopped playing Square Enix games is because of how incredibly awful the dialog can be in many of their titles. Kingdom Hearts is gibberish on repeat for 30+ hours and Final Fantasy is usually sexist and or racist gibberish for 70+ hours. Not worth it.
Rather annoying title that tries to make opinion come off as fact and a whole lot of paragraphs just to make their opinion seem 'right'. Many will simply disagree and they are even making successful TV adaptations of games now, the current prime example being The Last of Us.
Just would like to say that actually the other way happened. Litrpg is a new book genre based on game mechanics. Very dynamic community with lots of amateurs. I would connect it with the pulp fiction movement of the XX century.
Big problem for me with LitRPG I have read, mostly Korean and Chinese is that the system they have wouldn't actually work in games... Game mechanics are there, but they really aren't believable as games would be. In sense that these games would never have the popularity among the average players. Maybe worst tropes is one of the kind hero classes... With massive investment in them. What if one of those players simply quits or gets in accident? All the effort gone?
They are not playing the right games. RPG games like pillars of eternity, dragon age, baldurs gate, mass-effect, etc have excellent story-lines. Your first person shooter demographic does not care about writing and hence neither will the publisher.
I was so happy when I saw update on his YouTube channel after a long, long while. Then I realize it was his funeral. Man the gut punch hurt me physically.
I remember reading this while it was coming out and feeling like Shamus was writing words I had in my heart but could not articulate with my head.
This series genuinely changed how I look at videogame writing and while I still enjoy games like Mass Effect 2, I don't think I would ever try and defend their writing.
I find FPS writing is often a lot better, probably because there is a lot less of it. Yes, RPGs have a more narrative focus so more nuance to characters or whatever but you're asking a committee of 1-5 usually mid-tier writers to pump out 2-10 novels worth of text within a year under often radically changing requirements. The actual writing is usually hot garbage.
Games are not books or movies either. Usually the best stories are inferred by the player from well designed systems in the game. Just ask any 10 year old about their stories from their Minecraft world and they’ll never stop talking. None of that was written by a “writer” at mojang
Pokémon (most of them) have pretty good writing. Planescape Torment has ok “endcap of the airport bookstore fantasy shelf” writing. You’re making exactly the mistake I’m talking about.
(Even narrative-heavy FPSs like Bioshock have an order of magnitude less writing than most RPGs.)
You've got to be joking. Pokemon has better writing then planescape torment or "endcap of airport fantasy shelf" writing?
This isn't a mistake I'm making. Less writing isn't better writing and more writing isn't better writing either. I think you're one of those people who just likes things extremely plain. Basic text that's less wordy is usually an example of bad writing imo. This kind of writing is good for research papers but for stories it's not a good thing.
Anyway here's an example of the "good writing" you're talking about in pokemon:
Most people would disagree with you and agree with me. All the writing in there is pure garbage. I don't understand how you can call that "good" other then if you have a preference for simple sentences.
>You appear to have linked to an anime. We’re discussing video games.
The anime is called Pokemon. This is the source material for which all the Pokemon games are derived from and strive to imitate in style.
Any writing in a video game on Pokemon is equivalent (or worse) in quality and style to the original anime which all Pokemon games are based on.
>Simple sentences are great for simple ideas. Most video games, including most RPGs, only have simple ideas.
Writing isn't only about ideas. That's what research is about. Presenting facts, figures, results and ideas. For stories there needs to more irrational fluff. The writing needs to be immersive, emotive and vivid, eloquent, etc. Most people would agree with me on this matter.
I would say you're the one who has a different preference here.
Pokemon is an anime. Video games and the card game are derivatives of the anime.
I linked to the anime as an example of the writing to prove you wrong. The anime is childish and the games reflect that in the writing.
Maybe you're too young to know this. The anime just had its last episode 2023. It's been around for 25 years. Or maybe you're trolling. Pikachu is literally in that video. The information is quite obvious.
We have to ban accounts that keep breaking HN's rules like this. I don't want to ban you, so if you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the intended spirit, we'd be grateful.
Unfortunately the site in general has gotten increasingly unhinged lately. One of those is a literal "well, actually" defending torture!
I wish you'd stop playing this "I don't want to ban you, but I will ban you if you don't follow the rules, which I also set" game. Do it or don't but jesus christ, this obsession with tone over meaning is so 2010.
If you're referring to some comment that should have been moderated but wasn't, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. If you want to link to it, I can take a look.
"The site in general has gotten increasingly $FOO lately" is the sort of thing people have been saying for 15 years. Such perceptions are notoriously unreliable for a lot of reasons—one is that it's human nature to overgeneralize from randomness, and another is nostalgia bias. It's hard to extract signal. Most likely what you're observing is random fluctuation, but of course I can't be sure.
When I say I don't want to ban you I mean it! You're a good user generally. I'd rather persuade you to follow HN's rules, such as not attacking other users, and it's my preference to try for a long time before giving up on someone.
I'm fine. A bit rude to ask that it implies as if something is wrong with me.
If it's trivially disproveable then just trivially write out the proof. No need to comment on the fact.
>Well, yes, but childish isn’t a synonym for poor quality.
At a pedantic level yes they aren't synonyms. But any reasonable person knows writing is dumbed down and made worse in order for children to understand and follow. It's not just the writing, but the plot line and everything else is made worse and simplistic.
This is your thing. You equate simplistic to good writing. Most people would consider this completely orthogonal to good writing. A simplistic plot can be expressed in a silent film with absolutely no writing. See those Pixar shorts. But in those cases writing doesn't even exist, writing isn't even part of the equation, but I feel that is what you label as "good writing" and what your main point is about.
Because the people making them have absolutely nothing to say. The writing is a pretentious sideshow to wrap the game with, like the plot in a movie musical (or in a porno.) To get around vice laws, they used to have naked women paint themselves like Roman statues and strike poses on stage, or read Shakespeare. Alcoholic drinks were sold by the gallon as "health tonics."
It's a sign of the decadence we find ourselves in that the pretense becomes honestly mistaken for the actual purpose, rather than something that merchants say and customers smirk at. Even worse, since the vast bulk of the information we have about the past comes from marketing material of various sorts, we simply assume that the world was populated by rubes who just slurped it up.
They weren't as shrewd as we are, wondering why the plots of video games are stupid. I can't wait until generative AI eliminates the entire narrative industry: "Alexa, tell me a story about the war that glorifies the EU and also implies that the CIA is the shadowy unappreciated force that is holding together an unruly human race." "Cortana, make me a zombie video game that's really about depression, but offers no answers."
This is just simply not true. Whatever you may think of their efforts, there are many people trying to say deep and profound things via the medium of games. I don't particularly like some of the heavy-handed messages in a lot of indie games. But it's clear that the creators really have specific and deep ideas they're intending to convey. Same with something mainstream like the new God of War game. Again, it's not something I particularly enjoyed. But the writers clearly put a lot of time and effort into it, and wanted to convey specific themes and ideas.
At this point, it's a settled question whether people are putting effort into games as art, and the only real question is "which games succeed?"
How many more people would play video games now if they could really see them as non-linear interactive Scorsese movies instead of more akin to the plots their kids are watching in cartoons?
Also -- maybe there's some problem with how we think about traditional stories/writing where the author fully guides the reader and interactive experiences like video games.
The best video game stories I have as an avid lifelong gamer are from the emergent story games like Dwarf Fortress Rimworld caves of qud, kenshi, etc where I really feel ownership of the story and its not the same as everyone else's story who played the same game.
If the story quality in an 50 hour more story driven video game was higher though, I might still devote time to do that stuff these days, but as it is I almost never play story driven games except a few indie titles a year.