Storytelling in RPGs - what makes a "good" story.

[alice_ashpool]

"Game is ok but writing is bad."

A classic steam review. But what does "writing is bad" mean? It is often provided unqualified, but it must resonate with some people because it is considered a perfectly acceptable thing to say - perhaps even totemic.

I think undoubtably, most video game writing is bad - from an aesthetic empirical critique. But there is very little actual analysis of what it is about the writing that makes it "bad". My first thoughts from Pillars of Eternity are that a major criticism is a lack of any sort of meaningful call to arms/adventure. Instead you get multiple which instead of calling you harder, actually calls you less.

1) you are sick with something unknown, you need to find a cure
2) You are "moving house" as a settler to some area the player knows little about. This is particularly weak but seems strangely front and center. it is left to the player to make meaning from this in the early stage.
3) All the people you are travelling with are killed
4) There is a mysterious storm you need to flee from
5) You are forced by circumstances to explore forbidden ruins
6) You witness a strange ritual which kills your last remaining companions. This is initiated by a mysterious figure who speaks some cryptic bullshit words.
7) The storm/ritual awakens some sort of strange ability to interact with strange figures called "Kickstarter Backer NPCs". This is bad.
8) All the children are being born without souls
9) There is a baron? he's hanging people on a big tree? He says you can't live here....?

The point of this is that there is a near fatal whiplash effect immediately. Any one of these: the Storm, the Sickness, the Forbidden Ritual, the Flight From Danger, the Soulless Child is strong enough of a Call to Adventure to initiate the story - instead I'm in a story where the writer seems to hit you with constant and then!s. What am I, the player meant to focus on? Contrast that to perhaps Baldur's Gate: Bad man murders your father, his assassins are hunting you! It's tighter, more immediate and understandable. Icewind dale 2: the town is under attack! Baldur's Gate 2: Escape from the bad man prison! Tyranny: Deliver this letter. Morrowind: Deliver this letter. Fallout new vegas: deliver this letter. Neverwinter nights 2: bad man kills your friend. Wrath of the Righteous: Escape the underground. Kingmaker: kill man 2 become baron.

In PoE in contrast I am left with cognitive overload - what should I be doing, what is important? So many things to care about that instead I feel lost and confused, why should I care about anything? And why is the prioritisation that the baron wont let you have a house because his child is dead? What's all that about? Who is meant to care about this? Why do I want to live here!?

You can see what I mean. The more "shit" you throw at the wall in the hope that it all sticks, the more it feels like the writer had lots of ideas and instead of picking one to focus on felt too attached to all of them and put them all in regardless. It feels like a middle school story because of the unwillingness to wield the editorial knife.

So it makes me think, what makes good writing in video games - especially those where a front and centre story is prioritised by genre conventions - like cRPGs.

 

[alice_ashpool]

Here's a good example:

As there is no reason to actually want to stay here and many reason not to, the player goes "Yes. that's absolutely fine your village has a tree festooned with corpses. I also think I should leave." And yet I think you are actually supposed to care about wanting to own a 3 bed semi with good views of the corpse tree.

 

[m7600]

Personally, I think that nothing beats Planescape: Torment as far as storytelling goes. But that game is in a category of its own, which is why I don't expect other video games to reach that level. I can definitely settle for much less when I play other games.

That being said, I'm not entirely sure what makes good storytelling in video games. It's hard to say, largely due to the peculiarities of the medium, which has been far less studied from an academic point of view than, for example, literature or cinema.

All I can resort to are my own personal tastes, which of course are entirely subjective. What I like the most is probably new spins on old ideas. Take for example Pathfinder: Kingmaker. In principle, Harrim could have been entirely like Gimli from LoTR: an axe-wielding brute whose main purpose is being the comic relief of the story. Instead of that, we get a sort of mopey, emo dwarf who is sort of loosing his mind. That was unexpected, and awesome, because it's so far removed from the tropey dwarves that we're all used to by this point. Same goes for Jaethal, she could have been a female Legolas, but she's the complete opposite. Octavia and Regongar as a couple was really cool too. What I liked about that is that both of them are chaotic. Sure, one of them is Chaotic Good and the other one is Chaotic Evil, but they're both chaotic nonetheless. That was a really clever move from the developers. I was like "Ha!... I see what you did there".

So, those are my 2 cents for now.

 

[alice_ashpool]

That being said, I'm not entirely sure what makes good storytelling in video games. It's hard to say, largely due to the peculiarities of the medium,

Deffo agree with this - there's so much potential, but little understanding of what to use it for! At the risk of overpraising a very popular game: dark souls manages to mesh the peculiarities of the medium: trying, failing, "reloading", trying again, into the story of the game. You only go hollow when you give up. You only lose when you stop trying. How very meta, but also effective.

 

[alice_ashpool]

Very nicely put.
It hadn't occurred to me before, but what you sum up in your first post actually explains why I had difficulties "identifying" with the story in PoE. I mean, I don't have to feel that I'm playing myself in a game, but at least the story must catch my interest with something that keeps me going. Usually of course that's something dreadful happening to the protagonist or their family or surroundings, and at first I thought PoE's beginning was just too generic.
Now that you put it into words, it makes sense that they're indeed just throwing so many things at you.

It's a bit like cooking, I guess. You know which ingredients taste good and are part of a nice meal, but that doesn't mean throwing all of them together will result in something delicious. You also need to know what to combine, how much, when to put it in, for how long you let it simmer until you add the spices, etc, and when it's ready to be served. Also, when to stop putting in more things!

I don't think there's only one recipe for a good story out there, of course, and sometimes the best stories are those that don't know or care about any recipe.

Specifically about Pillars of Eternity, I must add that I never got further than killing that baron, and getting the stronghold above the Endless Paths of Od Nua (which I tried to do in one session and got really frustrated after a few levels down there), so I can't really judge the story, perhaps it all makes sense in the end.

Perhaps with PoE it could have been slimmed down: You are a refugee, fleeing the Soulless Baby Plague. A regular storm forces you to take refuge in some ruins, you witness a strange cult activity which kills all your companions except you. Instead it makes you sick with something related to the soulless baby plague. This is genuinely bad (with some sort of in game effect beyond the pain of Backer NPCs) and you need a way to fix it - which very not coincidentally is linked to fixing the Soulless Baby Plague. That provides the double hook which is present in most of these games: Selfish hook (u sick); Selfless hook (babies dying). Also It should not have been the Barons child which introduces you to this, since you are immediately predisposed not to give 2 Fs due to the baron hanging tree and asshole minion harassing you.

But like you say, there are a million ways to tell an effective story; but the process of hooking the reader/gamer/view has to have something that actually does that. Passive consumer of someone else's wiki (with no editor rights) seems to be what they (inadvertently) went for here. Not a sense of the dialectic of struggle and helplessness in a world of shit (i.e. the "you cant save everyone so do you still try?"), but a sense of why even bother leaving the tavern.

 

[m7600]

@alice_ashpool That kind of reminds me of the occasions when I'm trying to explain PS:T to folks that haven't played it. The first question that I usually get is "What do you mean you can't die?" And I'm like "Your character can't die, that's part of the story". And they're like "But where's the fun in that? You can't even lose!"

 

[Cahir]

This is a great thread. Lots to discuss. What I think is important for me personally is to separate story from writing. I ended up playing games with great writing, but dull story and games with decent story, but bad writing. I was thinking how to approach this replay and I think the best way is to put some examples:

Personally, I think that nothing beats Planescape: Torment as far as storytelling goes. But that game is in a category of its own, which is why I don't expect other video games to reach that level. I can definitely settle for much less when I play other games.

1. Fully agree - Planescape Torment is the game where everything ticked for me - story, writing, NPCs, music, world building. Everything. There is no game with massive wall of texts out there that made me read every single word with passion. What *I think* made the story particularly interesting is the beginning. You wake up in the morgue, approached by a talking skull. I mean, WTF? I was sold the minute Morte opened his jaw (granted, the Polish version is a masterpiece, but that only spiced things up).

In PoE in contrast I am left with cognitive overload - what should I be doing, what is important? So many things to care about that instead I feel lost and confused, why should I care about anything? And why is the prioritisation that the baron wont let you have a house because his child is dead? What's all that about? Who is meant to care about this? Why do I want to live here!?

2. I fully agree with your assessment of PoE story. It started slow, even if there are quite a few angles to start with, none of it hits you with the punch. My main gripe with the story is the world exhibition, You learned most of the details about the setting from the in game encyclopedia, the game itself does a bad job introducing you to the inns and outs of the world. I find more attached to the story when the protagonist has more personal reason to follow the story. And also the Kickstarter backer NPCs are just horrific. I And what's worse, the world without them feels awfully empty. Having said all that, I do think the quality of writing is excellent.

3. Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen - I tried this game because of some good reviews I read. While I think the story may be decent (even if the beginning seems a bit generic fantasy), the writing is just atrocious. It almost looks like the game was written in different language (probably in Japanese) and was translated to English by some not necessarily competent translator. Unfortunately, the poor quality of writing made me stop playing it. It was a real showstopper for me.

4. Skyrim - this game does a lot of things great, unfortunately storytelling and writing is not among those things. Maybe the writing is no necessarily that bad (it's a usual Bethesda level, maybe even a bit beyond that level), but the story it's something Bethesda have done poorly in this game. While some side stories and DLC stories are decent enough, the main story is boring as hell. There is no personal attachment to the main story at all. The same goes to NPCs.

5. Fallout 4 - while this is still not above the usual Bethesda quality of writing, it's significantly better than in Skyrim. There was a moment in the game that I thought deeply which faction should I join and what will be the consequences for the world around me.

6. Pathfinder: Kingmaker and Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous - I put these two games together, because this is a great example of a thin line that distinct the story that I love (WoTR) from a story that I got bored with (P:K). What I think makes the key here is how the story started. In P:K it all started slow, very slow and for the most part you don't really know what's going on and where the story leads you. In WoTR you know the bad guy from the very start and the intensity of the prologue is huge. This is kind of fascinating that two very similar games gave different impressions to me.

7. Torment: Tides of Numenera - this is another interesting case. On paper, everything looks right. The style, the art, the music and the feel looks similar to Planescape: Torment, but everything somehow is inferior. I think it's because of protagonist and NPcs, which both are much less compelling than in PST.

8. Mass Effect: Legendary Edition - I have a soft spot for this game, its story, dialogue, world and NPCs. Granted, I have modded the ending in ME3, so can't judge it fully as it is, but nevertheless I find the story and the writing a pinnacle of what Bioware has done so far (along with Dragon Age: Origins). I find reminiscent the story from time to time, even know.

9. Cyberpunk 2077 - I have a bit of the problem with the story in CP2077. It's fantastic, with impeccable writing, some of the most fun NPCs out there, but I have a feeling, it could be better. There is a feeling that in some places, the story was rushed, some scenes could be directed better. Like it lacks of this final touch. Still, one of the best writing I have ever experienced.

10. Red Dead Redemption 2 - I was thinking if I should put the game here, because as some of you know I find it the best game I have ever played (yes, right after PST), but I decided the post would not be concluded without it. There are some aspects of the game that may not suit to all, I can agree with that. But I think the story should not be considered one of those things. I find it one of the most emotional, sad and fun experience I have ever experienced in my computer gaming time. I cried, laughed, was shocked, made numerous WTF and awe moments. I grew fond with some of NPCs, hated the others. I actually loved the animal in game for the first time, cared for it, talked to it (both in game and in real). The writing, the voice acting is for me simply the best that has ever been produced in gaming history. Sadly, I don't think I'd experience something like that ever again.

 

[O_Bruce]

I do disagree with the arguments that were laid out against the Pillars of Eternity. The start of the game is actually very simple: something bad happens to you, shortly after that, you find out that the offer you received is actually quite terrible one (this is intentional: the offer initially was described as great, only for player to see for their own eyes that it is not the case), so you have no reason to stay in Gilded Vale. Since you are starting to have weird visions, you're seeing souls and talking to the dead, it is logical you'll be quite willing to find out what happened to you and what to do about it. That's your reason to go with the game's plot right there.

Additionally, before the freak accident, you are able to talk with some people and through the dialogue say something about yourself. This is notable because your character's biography actually is being added to in-game. So this secion doesn't seem like a waste of time for me.

This setup looks a lot better for me than, for example, setup in which you are literal nbody, a no one without connections, without backstory. Without anything.

If I have to criticize the story of PoE, it would be for the sequel. Not only I personally dislike it, it is short and feels very unfulfilling to the point your character could not be involved at all and nearly nothing would change in the end.

 

[alice_ashpool]

This is one instance that I found discombobulating. The wiki-lore dump approach. This is an early bit in PoE where you find an injured NPC slumped against a pillar:

And the equivalent moment at the beginning of Tyranny:

 

[m7600]

Not to sound like a broken record, but PS:T has such memorable dialogues, in addition to the overall story. I still remember the first time I talked to Vhailor, that ghostly suit of armor. At one point I asked him if his powers increase if his opponent commits an injustice. His response was: "There is nothing in all the planes that can stop the hand of Justice. It may unmake armies. It may sunder the thrones of gods. Know that for all that betray Justice, I am their fate. And fate carries an executioner's axe."

 

[O_Bruce]

This is one instance that I found discombobulating. The wiki-lore dump approach. This is an early bit in PoE where you find an injured NPC slumped against a pillar:

You know, the funny thing is the info dump you see here is the result of your own choice in making NPC elaborate to you. You asked NPC to go on with an explanation and that's what you get. With a comparison to Tyranny, I really can't judge that because I haven't played it, and for all I know the circumstances in which you meet these two characters could be vastly different.

 

[alice_ashpool]

You know, the funny thing is the info dump you see here is the result of your own choice in making NPC elaborate to you. You asked NPC to go on with an explanation and that's what you get. With a comparison to Tyranny, I really can't judge that because I haven't played it, and for all I know the circumstances in which you meet these two characters could be vastly different.

But why is the game presented to the player in this fashion? Why is encountering an injured NPC written like this in PoE? These dialogue trees exist.

The NPC is written to say X and leave on a cliff-hanger - hence the "better luck with what" and "go on". They're written to provide you with a large amount of information. My question is why was that necessary here, when it is so jarring?

 

[alice_ashpool]

I had the impression that it was their attempt to explain the lore of the world to you. Better make an NPC tell you some stuff than force you to read a ton of codex entries, which isn't the worst principle, but again, it needs to make sense in the context.
So if you run into a priest weeding the graveyard, or sitting in the inn staring sadly into his 5th mug of ale, such a conversation wouldn't feel out of place. From my (relatively broad) experience with injured people, they're usually not in a mood for long lecutres about theology or history.

I get the impression, because it was a new IP that they were both very "into" "the lore", and were worried about players being able to figure things out for themselves (perhaps rightly?) so they went entirely the other way and had everyone introduce themselves as a talking encyclopaedia like you're an isekai protagonist. Tyranny has huge amounts of text that you can access but there is a lot of "unreliable narrator" stuff since concealment of information is one of the main narrative themes. I wouldn't be able to sift that stuff in PoE as because there is just so much of it. Different lead writers for PoE and Tyranny afaict.

 

[m7600]

I agree with @Cahir in distinguishing the story from the writing. The best example that I can think of is King's Quest 6. The story is.... I wanna say, limited. There's not much to it. You're Prince Alexander, you're in love with Princess Cassima and she's in love with you, and you have to find a way to be together, since she's locked up in a castle. A rather trite fairy-tale. However, the writing itself is of an amazing quality. There's one scene in particular where you travel to the Land of the Dead. Your objective is to talk to Death itself, and convince it to resurrect Cassima's parents. Here's the dialogue, it's in a number of websites:

Ghost 1: He has the gauntlet!

Ghost 2: Impossible!

Ghost 1: He challenges Death!

Death: Who are you to challenge Death?

Alexander: A man of flesh is all I need to be, my lord.

Death: And what is it that you seek with this challenge? The soul of some dead maiden?

Alexander: I seek the souls of King Caliphim and Queen Allaria of the Land of the Green Isles.

Death: You would save two human souls AND emerge alive from this realm yourself? That shall be a difficult challenge indeed. The tomb does not open its doors lightly.

Alexander: Either all three of us leave, or none go.

Death: Very well. Then let me think of an appropriate task. Ahhh. Yes. I have it now. Your challenge is this: For thousands of years I have sat upon this throne. I have heard every sad tale that can be told by human lips. I have seen tragedies that ended empires, injustices that defy reason, love that would light the very stars turn cold and hard. I have seen torments that cannot possibly be borne and yet must be--for centuries. This thing I have never done; I have never shed a tear. Make me cry, thou 'man of flesh'. THAT is my challenge."

Ghost 1: Make DEATH cry?

Ghost 2: Sooner could he turn sea to stone!

Ghost 1: Or fire to ice!

Alexander: Perhaps, a tale of my love?

Death: There is nothing you can say of love that will make me cry, mortal. I have had Cleopatra and Helen of Troy stand before me, and they moved me not. Your common desires mean nothing to me.

Alexander looks through his bag, and grabs the Mirror of Truth.

Alexander: If your existence has been all that you say it has, then truth alone shall be my sword.

Alexander reaches for the Mirror of Truth, and holds it for Death to look at. The mirror's surface swirls with darkness for a moment, then fills with images even blacker. Reflections of despair, of wailing souls, of shackles colder and more immutable than any forged by man, of a world of thirsts that can never be quenched. Alexander feels the mirror tremble in his grasp and is glad that he cannot see its face, but the Lord of the Dead is transfixed to the mirror, to the screening of his life. Things long forgotten are once more uncovered: his enslavement to this throne while still a man; the years of watching misery and horror and growing ever more numb to it; the seep of his own humanity; the slow growth of a new thing altogether which became that which he is now. His is an existence that has no possibility of redemption, no end. The surrounding spirits draw away in pain. The truth is so sharp, it stabs; so intense, it sears.

Ghost 1: AEIIII!

Ghost 2: Take it away! Make it stop!

The mirror of truth cracks from the strain.... And Death sheds a single, gray tear.

Death: Truth is, indeed, a terrible thing... I have worn this mantle for so long, I had forgotten its dreadful weight. You shall take the souls and leave, as I agreed. You have been granted a stay from this inevitable reality. I almost...envy you. Find the souls he has claimed and bring them to me.

 

[alice_ashpool]

^^ I like that as an example of using dialogue to show you the story.

 

[alice_ashpool]

I find decent critique of storytelling in video games really hard to come by but after a long search a few months ago I did find a couple of "video essay" do-ers who had some interesting things to say. Pretty much the most brutal dunk on Obsidian's Outer Worlds from someone who did some decent things. Mileage may vary.

He goes into the failures of Outer World's storytelling in the video game medium. And the lack of standards in storytelling in general.

Every time I think about storytelling in video games I keep coming back to a ironic statement I read somewhere I can't remember, just the post remains, seared into my memory: "What if the best video game stories of our generation sucked complete ass?"

 

[Antimatter]

About Obsidian games:

Poor Obsidian, they got some real criticism in this thread Probably, deserved. I definitely agree with the take on Outer Worlds from that video and I also see things that could be done in PoE differently and better. Both from the gameplay and storytelling perspectives.

While it's totally valid, and I do that myself, to criticize the storytelling I see when I just start the game or spend the first 20-30 hours in it (after all, without any good hook there is little sense in continuing the game), I think the overall story should be judged only when I finish the whole product. ME 1-3 provides NPCs who are among the best in gaming, the game is full of emotions and memorable scenes, some missions are very nicely done, but the ending there doesn't respect what you've been doing the rest 99.9% of the game, harming the experience substantially. PoE eventually, at the very end, explains all ins and outs to the player, and asks them a philosophical question or two (actual, deep questions), but it happens so late, that only a bit of the player base actually saw it.

I would name Dragon Age: Origins' background stories for player characters as something that was extremely well-done (but it was so expensive to create, basically, 6 preludes to the game that nobody repeated that). Those initial stories immediately created a connection between the player and the new world they were just about to explore. The fact it followed with an epic arc about the fight vs the Darkspawns' army which included heroism and treachery, helped the new player to settle in. Then they slowly allowed you to start exploring the world (at first, only Lothering, then the story about 3 big locations, then added new smaller locations on top of that). I would say this introduction to the new universe was done better than in PoE. Origins didn't try to explain all stories and concepts to the player during one prelude, or one game even. It was just the first game in the new universe, and actually, a lot more concepts were explored in later games. Origins focused on the Darkspawn and the Archdemon. Dragon Age: Inquisition might not have the best gameplay, but it was very fun for me to explore and learn about the lore there, including Fade, Templars vs Mages, and old Elven stories.

So, as you can see, I partially agree with the criticism of PoE, yet I can't ignore that the game eventually answers all questions and ends well. That's why I think their next games will be key for me: whether I see an improvement, or not. I'm looking forward to Pentiment (releasing this November) based on the information available about this game: that it is being created with total creative freedom, with Josh Sawyer not feeling any pressure from a publisher or a Kickstarter campaign. Avowed will be a soft reboot of the Eora lore and world, let's see if they manage to find a balance between lore dumps and meaningful stories there.

Games with good writing (Antimatter recommends):

I would definitely name Disco Elysium, The Witcher 3, and Cyberpunk 2077 among the games that made a long-lasting impression on me with the stories they told. These 3 games include the best writing I saw in video games, but this writing is not essentially a story aka the main quest in each of those games. Disco Elysium stands out because it's isometric, it doesn't have any combat, and it's such a great and unique experience. It explores topics I personally am interested in, and does them justice. The Witcher 3 is full of surprises wherever you go. I never knew what kind of story I would encounter in this village, that town, or meeting this traveller. Sad, funny, brutal, and cruel, it all resembled a real world with fantasy elements and made me empathize with the people in the game. CP2077 tells a more personal story, much more focused, and has one of the most real NPCs I ever encountered in gaming, with a few moments where my heart rate couldn't hide my deep feelings for this or that character.

Does the story in a game mean a lot to me?

I admit that I still haven't played a game where I could say, wow, this story is mind-breaking, it's genius, never read anything better. Maybe that's the high standards I imagine. But games are not just books or movies, you interact with them, you explore the world yourself, you make choices, and you interact with characters. So in the majority of cases, if the gameplay is fun, the story doesn't mean that much. E.g. Hades is a game where everything depends on the gameplay, its story was simple but still very fun to go through for me.

And that is me saying that, while I actually usually cherish story bits the most in almost any game I play. It's hard to say what's more important: gameplay or storytelling, for me personally. There must be a combination of them that leads to subjective fun.

When it's not an isometric game or a game with primitive graphics, such elements as environmental storytelling, being able to tell about characters' emotions just by looking at them, and interacting with the world, make a big difference. Getting immersed in the world is much easier for me if it's 3D, and immersion often leads to a bigger impression a game leaves on me. For example, even while, overall, Assassin's Creed: Odyssey doesn't have amazing writing, some of the stories I had there were memorable and I still remember them and think about them with good, warm feelings.

Isometric games are more about gameplay, for me personally (again, I'm not saying gameplay doesn't matter in 3D first/third-person games though, it does). However, the example of Disco Elysium shows there can always be an exception. If something is done right, the genre or the look of the game doesn't matter. Good storytelling can be present even in a fast and action-based shooter.

 

[O_Bruce]

Something I'd like to notify about storytelling in general, that also definitely applies to games as well is: the execution of the story is more important than the content or idea behind the story. If you think about it, many stories presented in media through the years are silly in concept - but the execution is so well that the initial silliness is negated.

I think it can be also applied to intellectual vs emotional aspects of the story. If the intellectual aspect is great, but the story fails to capture you, then the story and the intellectual aspect suffer because of it. The movie Bladerunner comes to mind: it fails to get me emotionally invested, and so what the movie wants to say isn't effective.

Back to videogames, I think I can quote two Diablo games as examples of good concept/bad execution and silly concept/great execution. Diablo II would be the later - and objectively so, I might add, because the communication between gameplay and story departments during production was nearly nonexistent. That's why in Diablo 2 the story is basically "you are chasing after a demon lord, but you're always too late". That's why there are gameplay and story contradictions. That's why act 2 and 3 recycle some ideas. But everything is presented well: the game has a fitting art style, music, excellent cinematics, and so on. So none of those shortcomings matter.

Compare and contrast this to Diablo 3: even though the plot has more interesting turns, the game explores the lore of the universe, its characters and creatures much more and there are some interesting themes, the game presents all of these extremely poorly. Artstyle doesn't suit what the game wants to present, the music is worse than in D2. The cinematics aren't that investing. The in-game cutscenes are poor and more often than not fail do deliver, especially in case of story-important characters dying. Dialogues are poor, which is really important because some information required to understand the stakes are behind optional dialogues with NPCs and so on. D3 had some interesting ideas, but the execution is poor - hence the story is considered bad.

Lastly about storytelling in general, there is one aspect that can screw up everything, but in order to keep the discussion civil, I think it is best to not elaborate on this.

 

[Fandraxx]

The issue with video game storytelling (in my opinion) will always be the fact that it's essentially a plane without a pilot. Whatever narrative the writers come up with is being driven, not by a well-thought-out, deep character and those around them, but the player. A guy or gal who just got off work, put the kids to bed, or needs to blow of steam is making the decisions. This forces a simultaneous need to account for both every type of player, but every effect that it could have on the world that the narrative takes place in, as well.

I think that's pretty clear in the previously discussed Pillars of Eternity. I found that I quite enjoyed that game, but I think the walls of text are largely a symptom of the fact that the writers felt the need to present everything to every possible viewpoint. When an author writes a novel, they know exactly how everything is going to happen and how their characters are going to act.

I was writing a portion of a short-story earlier today which focuses on a siege in a keep. As it went on, I knew that the point-of-view character was going to end up in one of the keep's towers, locked in combat with a particularly nasty member of the opposition.

I also knew that he was going to win that battle via nearly punching the enemy's head clean off his body.

I didn't have to write anything for what might happen if he were to run down to stables first to check on the horses, or to the gate to try and stop the battering ram from blowing the doors open. It's not a factor that could happen. Everything was allowed to be in its proper place at the right times.

I think what's necessary to make an engaging, cohesive and worthwhile narrative is complete control over what is happening, an aspect of video games that is inherently absent. That doesn't mean that every book is amazing or that every game has a horrible story, but its a massive difference in how the stories for each are written. Games like Planescape are a rare, rare exception where everything works juuuust right that it can manage to bring everything together in a way that makes sense, while staying engaging.

 

[alice_ashpool]

The issue with video game storytelling (in my opinion) will always be the fact that it's essentially a plane without a pilot. Whatever narrative the writers come up with is being driven, not by a well-thought-out, deep character and those around them, but the player. A guy or gal who just got off work, put the kids to bed, or needs to blow of steam is making the decisions. This forces a simultaneous need to account for both every type of player, but every effect that it could have on the world that the narrative takes place in, as well.

I think that's pretty clear in the previously discussed Pillars of Eternity. I found that I quite enjoyed that game, but I think the walls of text are largely a symptom of the fact that the writers felt the need to present everything to every possible viewpoint. When an author writes a novel, they know exactly how everything is going to happen and how their characters are going to act.

I would say then that this is a deficiency in 1) the the stylistic approach to storytelling in videogames by Obsidian in this case. They took a particular approach to dealing with a perceived problem and imo it did not work out. Other very Lore Heavy stories manage to deal with this in ways that feel much more effective than the approach taken in PoE: like Tyranny (obsidian) which puts conflicting motivations and emotions of NPCs front and center, Morrowind (Berthesda) which has the Unreliable Narrator as a major theme (so there is lots of information, but it is very clear that much of it is incorrect), Dark souls with its tantalising "item descriptions" (not going to go into whether this is actually good storytelling at an objective level but in 1 it certainly worked - its effectiveness in e.g. elden ring is debatable and iirc Hidetaka Miyazaki is on record saying the item description approach was a budgetary one and he wrote them himself to save his staff time) Baldur's Gate (Black Isle) which is a mystery-revenge-whodunnit+why story in which you are attempting to uncover what is going on (in this way similar to PoE but just much tighter). A question being when do you introduce a player to certain information? Do you introduce a piece of information if it is structurally irrelevant? and if you do, how do you do so?

And 2) A much more general point: I think you are right to recognise that the player can do lots and that writing effectively in a branching narrative is very difficult. It is time consuming. It is absolutely a craft. It needs resources, planning plotting, threading linking, and it needs an overall director who can delegate tasks. It needs to be recognised that storytelling in certain forms of game is much more technical and time consuming that writing in other media. Very often though storytelling is an after though. Certainly in "AAA" games it is very obvious that similar to a marvel movie (sorry 2 the fans) or other cgi based creation the script is often written to fit the special effects and set pieces which have been produce already, not the other way round. Writing is secondary when it should be both primary and properly resourced in many games which seem to deserve it. I would be curious about the work-hours given to storytelling vs other things in different video games.