We Can't Keep Making Video Game Stories for Players Who aren't Paying Attention

[Zed Clampet]

We can't keep making videogame stories for players who aren't paying attention to them

Let me get lost, I promise it's okay.

www.pcgamer.com

This article has more comments on it than any PCG article I've seen in awhile, so it gets its own thread.

I once stopped reading a novel after the first paragraph. In that paragraph, two characters were engaging in friendly banter. Then the author wrote, "They were engaging in friendly banter." I immediately closed the book and put it away forever. This type of terrible writing is very common in fantasy/sci-fi, blockbuster movies and games. And most people, to be honest, don't seem to care. For instance, the book I quit was written by Terry Brooks, someone I'd already identified as a miserable hack of a writer (this book had been a gift). Terry Brooks was widely enjoyed by many fantasy fans, but just because the average consumer enjoys low quality products doesn't mean that this is what you should shoot for. Just because someone is fine with shoddy work doesn't mean that they wouldn't get more enjoyment from something of higher quality.

 

[Alm]

One of the reasons I stopped reading novels many years ago is that I just didn't enjoy the writing or stories. There have been only a handful of books that have gripped me to the end.

 

[Pifanjr]

I definitely enjoy stories that contain a bunch of mysteries a lot more that straightforward stories where everything is explained as soon as it might become confusing.

We can't keep making videogame stories for players who aren't paying attention to them

Let me get lost, I promise it's okay.

www.pcgamer.com

This article has more comments on it than any PCG article I've seen in awhile, so it gets its own thread.

I once stopped reading a novel after the first paragraph. In that paragraph, two characters were engaging in friendly banter. Then the author wrote, "They were engaging in friendly banter." I immediately closed the book and put it away forever. This type of terrible writing is very common in fantasy/sci-fi, blockbuster movies and games. And most people, to be honest, don't seem to care. For instance, the book I quit was written by Terry Brooks, someone I'd already identified as a miserable hack of a writer (this book had been a gift). Terry Brooks was widely enjoyed by many fantasy fans, but just because the average consumer enjoys low quality products doesn't mean that this is what you should shoot for. Just because someone is fine with shoddy work doesn't mean that they wouldn't get more enjoyment from something of higher quality.

I liked Terry Brooks' Shannara series, though the first book I read was extremely generic fantasy and I only got invested by the second book. I did feel like the writing wasn't at the same level as other fantasy series I'd read, but I don't think I could've explained why it was worse.

 

[Aldarion]

We can't keep making videogame stories for players who aren't paying attention to them

Let me get lost, I promise it's okay.

www.pcgamer.com

This article has more comments on it than any PCG article I've seen in awhile, so it gets its own thread.

I once stopped reading a novel after the first paragraph. In that paragraph, two characters were engaging in friendly banter. Then the author wrote, "They were engaging in friendly banter." I immediately closed the book and put it away forever. This type of terrible writing is very common in fantasy/sci-fi, blockbuster movies and games. And most people, to be honest, don't seem to care. For instance, the book I quit was written by Terry Brooks, someone I'd already identified as a miserable hack of a writer (this book had been a gift). Terry Brooks was widely enjoyed by many fantasy fans, but just because the average consumer enjoys low quality products doesn't mean that this is what you should shoot for. Just because someone is fine with shoddy work doesn't mean that they wouldn't get more enjoyment from something of higher quality.

Thing is that what many people enjoy in fantasy is the world itself. George Martin is a terrible writer when it comes to quality of his prose, but he has engaging characters and engaging (if shoddily built) world, and so many readers are more than willing to overlook the terrible writing.

 

[Zed Clampet]

Thing is that what many people enjoy in fantasy is the world itself. George Martin is a terrible writer when it comes to quality of his prose, but he has engaging characters and engaging (if shoddily built) world, and so many readers are more than willing to overlook the terrible writing.

It's been a long time since I read anything by Martin. My impression was that his prose was serviceable. In my experience, he was better than the average fantasy author, and significantly better than someone like Brooks, but also significantly behind someone like Stephan Donaldson.

 

[Zed Clampet]

I definitely enjoy stories that contain a bunch of mysteries a lot more that straightforward stories where everything is explained as soon as it might become confusing.



I liked Terry Brooks' Shannara series, though the first book I read was extremely generic fantasy and I only got invested by the second book. I did feel like the writing wasn't at the same level as other fantasy series I'd read, but I don't think I could've explained why it was worse.

Some of the things that bother me the most, most people wouldn't notice. They are things that are widely agreed upon in the literary world as being bad, but they don't necessarily cause the average reader any concern. Perhaps the biggest problem is that I know you aren't supposed to do them

 

[Zloth]

I like what the article is saying about games following general media trends. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it just doesn't apply to the medium. Character animations are often terribly exaggerated, for instance. Old games had to do that because character faces couldn't move, but today's mo-cap is a very different story. They seem to be playing like they are on a movie screen.

Bad writing: I don't see all that much bad writing in games. I see some, though it isn't always easy to disentangle it from bad voice acting. If I get what the authors are trying to tell me, I'm probably fine. If they make me feel strong emotion, I might like it even more.

Confusion is fine when it comes to the story, but I think I would rather just have a pop-up clarify things if the writers want to give me a basic understanding of the world. My characters have suffered from amnesia far too many times. Or, better yet, do what Xenosaga did and put it in some screens behind menu items that I can simply read when I feel like it.

Bad writing examples, let's see.... oh, yeah, Pacific Rim. "Hey, you know I have this condition so that, if I pilot a mech, I'll die." No, I didn't know that. And he's piloting a mech about 10 minutes later, of course. Xenosaga pulled that a lot, too, come to think of it. But Pacific Rim had great action and Xenosaga had a really interesting universe, so I still go back to them.

 

[Aldarion]

It's been a long time since I read anything by Martin. My impression was that his prose was serviceable. In my experience, he was better than the average fantasy author, and significantly better than someone like Brooks, but also significantly behind someone like Stephan Donaldson.

Eh, I don't know. My impression is that he is long-winded, repetitive, and uses certain (catch)phrases way too often.

He is definitely better than many, but he is way behind e.g. Tolkien or Hemmingway.

So yeah, maybe I shouldn't have said he was "terrible", but frankly, getting through his prose is a slog, and I don't want a book I'm reading for fun to feel like full-time work.

 

[Colif]

Videogames—with some exceptions in genre, like idlers—aren't played as second screen activities.

Not sure that is accurate. I have heard its quiet normal for kids to play and watch videos at the same time.

Some players will skip every cutscene, glaze over every dialogue entry, and hammer their skip button 'till the face button's worn out. And I have no qualm with these people—they simply value a different set of things from me.

Oh look, he mentioned me.

For this player, a story that's impossible to ignore will barely register for them. If anything, it might backfire—making them feel coddled or pushed into situations they don't care about. And for me, dialogue that's written for people who aren't paying attention makes my brain want to crawl out of my skull and autonomously go do anything else.

Yup. Its enough for me to reject those games without buying them.

Really, devs need to stop trying to make everyone happy. Make a game for an audience, don't try to get everyone. That way you can make the audience happy

 

[Frindis]

The reason I often skip a cutscene is the lack of quality, or I play the game for completely other reasons, like I couldn't care less about the story in Diablo 4. If I play a game like Planescape Torment, I play it while reading thousands of lines because the quality is high and it is what I want to do. The average gamer is also OLD, so if developers keep making filler cutscenes, then obviously the majority is going to ship that crap.

Another factor is making money. Companies (especially AAA(A)) make money for the masses, not for the individuals! If making RPGs into some 'Netflixiness'. makes them a ton of money, that is exactly what they are going to be doing. Why should they care about what a small group of RPG nerds thinks? That's not going to make them money. It's not like any of these larger studios are going to be visiting these sites in the first place to hear our thoughts.

I mean, does this picture not give an extremely good example of just that? They do it because they know they can make money from it, because the majority of people playing video games either A: Don't care enough or at all, or B: Don't mind spending extra money because of A.

 

[Colif]

I played Sacred 2 for years and still have no idea what the story was. Sacred 2 only had a story to split up zones. I guess its hard to sell a game without something...
I know Diablo has a story but it was never why I played the games. Same goes for wow.
Torchlight 2 had a story in theory as well.

ARPG really don't need indepth stories as its not why you play them.

 

[Zuruchon]

We can't keep making videogame stories for players who aren't paying attention to them

Let me get lost, I promise it's okay.

www.pcgamer.com

This article has more comments on it than any PCG article I've seen in awhile, so it gets its own thread.

I once stopped reading a novel after the first paragraph. In that paragraph, two characters were engaging in friendly banter. Then the author wrote, "They were engaging in friendly banter." I immediately closed the book and put it away forever. This type of terrible writing is very common in fantasy/sci-fi, blockbuster movies and games. And most people, to be honest, don't seem to care. For instance, the book I quit was written by Terry Brooks, someone I'd already identified as a miserable hack of a writer (this book had been a gift). Terry Brooks was widely enjoyed by many fantasy fans, but just because the average consumer enjoys low quality products doesn't mean that this is what you should shoot for. Just because someone is fine with shoddy work doesn't mean that they wouldn't get more enjoyment from something of higher quality.

The world is becoming a place where people want to be spoon-fed. They want this to be easily understood and don't want to engage in any form of thinking to understand a scene or plot.

I don't really blame some of these authors for coming up with this low-quality work. They need to make money from their work, so they end up with products that are in high demand. Works that contain confusing elements and questions to answer are seen as complicated.

Young readers, who are the major target of writers and game developers, want to be told where the story is heading ( they want to avoid any form of confusion). Writers, to get a large chunk of the market, would have to give them what they want.

That is why I cherish old works because they were designed for people who want to think and discover things by themselves.

 

[BeardyHat]

Since we're bringing up writers: Ernest Cline is a f***ing hack. How Ready Player One got so popular, I'll never know, aside from your average reader thinking "hurr, durr, videogames and 80's". People I like and respect like this book and I just cannot fathom why.

Anyway, this stuff does bother me and you can 100% see it in Netflix offerings. That said, I haven't noticed this in games to be quite honest, but that is likely because I don't play a ton of AAA games, especially ones with heavy story. The last ones being Kingdom Come 2 (which I still haven't finished) and Cyberpunk, both widely considered "good ones" amongst the slop.

That said, popular culture has always been that: slop, in any medium. You get gems here and there, but by and large most things fade into obscurity, destined to be forgotten because they were never meant to last in the first place. They were always meant to generate a quick buck for the shareholder and then be discarded. How many of these films, not on the top 10, are still remembered? Now let's do musical albums.

The good stuff is always to be found in the fringes, almost never the mainstream. I've played a good number of games released in the past 5-years that do stick with me story wise (at least, as much as I can actually remember them, but that's on me, not them) and almost none of them (Kingdom Come pretty much) were mainstream, AAA releases. Mainstream AAA releases aren't for me, they're for the person that buys a PS5 because they've got nothing better to do with their downtime. They buy one game a year (Immortals of Aveum) and were sold on because the "Graphics are insane, bro!" We're the weirdos here, the ones that play hundreds of hours of Satisfactory, Grocery Store Simulator, Doom WADS, Monster Train, Transport Fever 2, etc, etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: It doesn't matter. These games aren't for us, we're not going to play them anyway and there's still lots of good stuff out there for freaks like us.

 

[Pifanjr]

I guess what I'm trying to say is: It doesn't matter. These games aren't for us, we're not going to play them anyway and there's still lots of good stuff out there for freaks like us.

I don't agree entirely that it doesn't matter. I agree that there are games that are just not targeted to us, but there are also games that would've been for us if the top executives hadn't decided to meddle. And they might not be reading articles on PCGamer, but some people in the industry will and hopefully that message eventually travels upwards or inspires developers to start their own, independent studio.

 

[Frindis]

The world is becoming a place where people want to be spoon-fed. They want this to be easily understood and don't want to engage in any form of thinking to understand a scene or plot.

Interestingly enough, even if it is slightly off topic (at least here in Norway), there has been a shift in the educational system in elementary/high schools from let say the 90's, where before you could just memorize pages and do well, but now you have to do more critical thinking. I find this kind of interesting paired with how people are also using more stuff like Wikis, Chat GPT and other resources to either enhance upon that critical thinking or perhaps just annihilate it in the first place.

Since we're bringing up writers: Ernest Cline is a f***ing hack. How Ready Player One got so popular, I'll never know, aside from your average reader thinking "hurr, durr, videogames and 80's". People I like and respect like this book and I just cannot fathom why.

Not read the book, but I did enjoy the movie. It's a cozy movie, if that makes sense, very straightforward with some cool effects and layered with some nostalgia and perhaps a hope for some similar futuristic game to destroy our brains I'd play that sht!

That said, popular culture has always been that: slop, in any medium. You get gems here and there, but by and large most things fade into obscurity, destined to be forgotten because they were never meant to last in the first place. They were always meant to generate a quick buck for the shareholder and then be discarded. How many of these films, not on the top 10, are still remembered? Now let's do musical albums.

I would disagree a bit here, not just because of "another man's treasure aspect", but because if what you say is true, then why would companies ever consider doing remakes, sequels, prequels and the like? Nostalgia sells probably more than anything else, regardless of it being a shitty Steven Segal movie or Home Alone.

 

[BeardyHat]

I don't agree entirely that it doesn't matter. I agree that there are games that are just not targeted to us, but there are also games that would've been for us if the top executives hadn't decided to meddle. And they might not be reading articles on PCGamer, but some people in the industry will and hopefully that message eventually travels upwards or inspires developers to start their own, independent studio.

Right, well I don't think an article on PC Gamer is necessarily going to change one's mind about how the games industry does thing. Seems to me that simply existing within the games industry and undergoing layoffs, executive meddling and creative bankruptcy is enough to drive a developer to go and create a new studio. That's a tale as old as time; we wouldn't have id or had Looking Glass or Ion Storm without Richard Garriott and Origin Systems.

Further on, I struggle to muster any desire for even more games. My libraries are already overflowing with interesting games, interesting games I haven't even bothered to play, let alone install; I could stop buying games today and still not be able to get through my vast library before I'm dead. I just cannot care if Dragon Age; Veilgard is for me when I have the likes of Felvidek or SKALD: Against the Black Priory. I cannot care if Gran Turismo 7 isn't for me if I already have Snowrunner.

It's not that I don't enjoy AAA games, they can be fun, but I find myself unphased if they come out and are full of obvious executive meddling and microtransactions, I already have a heap of stuff to play, so they're just saving me my money for something better. I didn't buy Monster Hunter Wilds, which left me with $10 to spend on Vomitoreum, which was a fantastic little experience; I don't feel that I'm actually missing anything here. Obviously opinions differ on the matter, but we're so spoilt for choice these days, I'm a little confused as to being upset that the newest AAA game isn't for us.

I would disagree a bit here, not just because of "another man's treasure aspect", but because if what you say is true, then why would companies ever consider doing remakes, sequels, prequels and the like? Nostalgia sells probably more than anything else, regardless of it being a shitty Steven Segal movie or Home Alone.

I guess I'm a little confused by what you mean.

A game can still be popular and a best seller, even if it isn't for me. By all accounts, Dragon Age: Veilgard sold and did quite well for itself, in spite of all the complaints I saw about it. Just because a game isn't for me doesn't mean it won't be successful in the mainstream; again, most mainstream normal people who just buy one game a year and don't think about games beyond that are pretty happy with something pretty basic. In all cases, these games might be due for a sequel or a remake that might appeal to me, but that's the exception rather than the rule and I'm not going to be heartbroken if the next game again isn't for me. Again, I have so much to play aleady and ever more released each year.

 

[Frindis]

I guess I'm a little confused by what you mean.

That's ok, I'm often confused about what I mean also

 

[Zuruchon]

Interestingly enough, even if it is slightly off topic (at least here in Norway), there has been a shift in the educational system in elementary/high schools from let say the 90's, where before you could just memorize pages and do well, but now you have to do more critical thinking. I find this kind of interesting paired with how people are also using more stuff like Wikis, Chat GPT and other resources to either enhance upon that critical thinking or perhaps just annihilate it in the first place.

Norway is generally known around the globe as having one of the best educational systems.

But I also think that ChatGPT is reducing the ability for students to think and solve problems by themselves. I have nothing against the AI technology because it has made learning simple but has also contributed to the problems.

These tools are almost spoonfeeding students, maybe forcing authors to take similar steps.

 

[Pifanjr]

Right, well I don't think an article on PC Gamer is necessarily going to change one's mind about how the games industry does thing. Seems to me that simply existing within the games industry and undergoing layoffs, executive meddling and creative bankruptcy is enough to drive a developer to go and create a new studio. That's a tale as old as time; we wouldn't have id or had Looking Glass or Ion Storm without Richard Garriott and Origin Systems.

Further on, I struggle to muster any desire for even more games. My libraries are already overflowing with interesting games, interesting games I haven't even bothered to play, let alone install; I could stop buying games today and still not be able to get through my vast library before I'm dead. I just cannot care if Dragon Age; Veilgard is for me when I have the likes of Felvidek or SKALD: Against the Black Priory. I cannot care if Gran Turismo 7 isn't for me if I already have Snowrunner.

It's not that I don't enjoy AAA games, they can be fun, but I find myself unphased if they come out and are full of obvious executive meddling and microtransactions, I already have a heap of stuff to play, so they're just saving me my money for something better. I didn't buy Monster Hunter Wilds, which left me with $10 to spend on Vomitoreum, which was a fantastic little experience; I don't feel that I'm actually missing anything here. Obviously opinions differ on the matter, but we're so spoilt for choice these days, I'm a little confused as to being upset that the newest AAA game isn't for us.

I get your point, but just because you're spoiled for choice doesn't mean everyone else is, so I'm not sure how that diminishes the point of the article.

 

[BeardyHat]

I get your point, but just because you're spoiled for choice doesn't mean everyone else is, so I'm not sure how that diminishes the point of the article.

It's more that I find the focus on AAA gaming, almost to exclusivity, frustrating and obnoxious. How often is PC Gamer running articles about how expensive hardware is? How much of their focus in the Games section is on AAA, Free-To-Play or big budget?

The point I'm trying to make (not concisely, I grant) is that PC gaming is so much more than expensive hardware and graphical fidelity or bad storytelling in AAA games. My favorite games of the last 5 years would run on integrated graphics from 10-years ago and all those games cost a fraction of a single AAA game that is also stuffed with MTX.

Obviously, PC Gamer needs to talk about the AAA stuff, because that's the popular thing people want to click on, but it pushes this narrative that AAA-gaming is the only valid style of gaming. Meaning, it doesn't matter if a AAA game has bad writing, poor gameplay or is stuffed with microtransactions. Rather than dropping $80 on that new AAA game, spend your $80 on two, three, four, five, six smaller games that are outdoing that AAA game in everything but graphics.

If you have a PC, you're spoilt for choice. Doesn't matter if you're me or anyone else.

Why does it matter if a AAA-game for the masses has clumsy storytelling?

 

[dxchase]

Everyone picks and chooses what story they want to pay attention to vs just wanting to blast through because of reasons, so a game shouldnt omit this because some of its players dont want to pay attention. So you really cant do this unless youre ready to have players who prefer a story to not playing your game at all.

 

[Pifanjr]

It's more that I find the focus on AAA gaming, almost to exclusivity, frustrating and obnoxious. How often is PC Gamer running articles about how expensive hardware is? How much of their focus in the Games section is on AAA, Free-To-Play or big budget?

The point I'm trying to make (not concisely, I grant) is that PC gaming is so much more than expensive hardware and graphical fidelity or bad storytelling in AAA games. My favorite games of the last 5 years would run on integrated graphics from 10-years ago and all those games cost a fraction of a single AAA game that is also stuffed with MTX.

Obviously, PC Gamer needs to talk about the AAA stuff, because that's the popular thing people want to click on, but it pushes this narrative that AAA-gaming is the only valid style of gaming. Meaning, it doesn't matter if a AAA game has bad writing, poor gameplay or is stuffed with microtransactions. Rather than dropping $80 on that new AAA game, spend your $80 on two, three, four, five, six smaller games that are outdoing that AAA game in everything but graphics.

If you have a PC, you're spoilt for choice. Doesn't matter if you're me or anyone else.

Why does it matter if a AAA-game for the masses has clumsy storytelling?

Whether you're spoiled for choice really depends on which genre(s) you're interested in. There are quite a few AAA games/series that don't have any real indie alternatives and quite some more where the indie alternatives are just way behind in quality.

For example, for Dragon Age: Veilguard, there are quite a few alternatives, like Pathfinder: Kingmaker, Tyranny, Pillars of Eternity 1 & 2 or Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, but none of those are indie games and all of them are at least 5 years old, if not way older. The only well rated indie cRPG with pausable real-time combat I found after a bit of searching was Tower of Time, which is also well over 5 years old.

Also, I don't think PCGamer ignores indie games, they cover them quite extensively if they're popular or seem promising.

 

[Zloth]

The only well rated indie cRPG with pausable real-time combat I found after a bit of searching was Tower of Time, which is also well over 5 years old.

And that one has a rather funky real-time-with-pause that also allows for slowing the time down. (I don't think it originally had a pause option at all.)

Also, I don't think PCGamer ignores indie games, they cover them quite extensively if they're popular or seem promising.

Yeah, they review lots of them. However, LOTS AND LOTS of them are created, so getting reviewed is almost like winning the lottery.

 

[Pifanjr]

Yeah, they review lots of them. However, LOTS AND LOTS of them are created, so getting reviewed is almost like winning the lottery.

Lots and lots of them are also just plain bad or at most fairly unremarkable. I think there have only been a handful of indie games that were "discovered" months or years after their release and blew up in popularity. If hidden gems were common I'd expect that to happen far more often.