Writing in videogames is something we've been discussing with industry figures for a while. Chris Avellone says it's important, but not that important. Dragon Age writer David Gaider agrees. However, fellow BioWare member Mike Laidlaw, lead designer of Dragon Age: Origins, has a different take. He believes that good writing is "essential."
"I think good writing is honestly essential, because as we see the technology curve start to slow down, we're kind of past that exponential two-year gain that we used to have ... we're wrestling more with the uncanny valley than the number of pixels," argues Mike. "I think a good story is what makes [a game] linger.
"So in terms of how important it is I'd say it's vital, and I think where certainly there's been huge successes are games that embrace the understanding that ultimately the gaming medium is defined by interactivity and reactivity, as opposed to narrative. A game that forces me down a single path and has no options or any sense that I'm actually affecting the world leaves me a little bit colder than a game that actually has some sort of interaction.
"... Maybe there's only one path to do that ... That's where I see a game like Splinter Cell succeeding. Sam Fisher's got a got a cool, strong character but at the same time he's also pulled in to do stuff that no one else can do, and as the player I get to adopt some of that coolness and what I'm doing is guiding how he achieves his objectives. The story itself can be linear, yet I'm still immersed in the gameplay."
So, it's Mike Laidlaw's belief that story needs to be relied on now because graphics are hitting a ceiling. By the same token, however, a story needs to take advantage of the interactive medium to make sure players feel like they're part of the story, so that even a linear plot gives the illusion of the gamer driving the narrative forward.
Fair enough, I say, but it's very interesting that Dragon Age's lead designer thinks this, when the actual writer doesn't think writing is that crucial. Where do you guys fall in this debate?
Contest:
10:40 AM on 09.08.2009
| 
I get how graphics technology are hitting its limits, but what about gameplay technology? I'm pretty sure gameplay technology still has plenty of potential left.
I think for RPGs it is important and I think the best RPGs linger because of their story. Gameplay is important for RPGs too but people still talk about Baldur's Gate, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy VI (screw VII) today because of the memorable story and characters. There's no doubt that all these titles and more had solid gameplay but 10 years from now Fable will be a footnote and those others will still be legends because while Fable was fun and I enjoyed it, those other games had stories that just stick with you. The verdict is still out on Dragon Age but if it hope to join the rank of those other amazing RPGs it'll need a solid story to do it, but I admit that doesn't necessarily mean you need such a story to make a great game. Fable 2 was a great game, just a more forgettable one.
It's really dependent on the balance between system and story, and unfortunately striking that balance in the end is very much a "we'll know it when we see it" proposition.
Some games have poorly written stories where there is a lack of character depth or a lack or background story(which can in some cases be a god thing if your going for the dark and mysterious archetype, but I don't mean in those cases).
The other issue is where the gameplay doesn't meld itself with the story. Where it's generic FPS and you happen to be in space and the mythology is at all affected by it being a game, it mine as well be a book or movie.
A good example of a game getting this right is Chrono Cross, where the inter-dimensional and time travel made sense with the plot and both were intertwined to make a complete "game story".
That being said, some of my most memorable gaming experiences included exceptional writing, dialogue, or story. I'm a huge fan of quality wordsmithing and it's something I'd like to see done better on a more regular basis. But it's just one quality out of many.
Certainly, there are some games where you don't need a good story. Some films don't need a good story either, and can just dazzle you with the effects. But a good story will always add something. It's the difference between a standard Doom clone and Bioshock.
I also believe that as the target demographic of games grows with us, the gamers, the demand for more solid writing will grow as well. Things I played as a teen simply for their action no longer are satisfying. I demand a more mature story - not in content but in development and depth - to be drawn into a game. I believe that this trend will only continue to show itself as the core of gaming matures more and more.
I also believe that as the target demographic of games grows with us, the gamers, the demand for more solid writing will grow as well. Things I played as a teen simply for their action no longer are satisfying. I demand a more mature story - not in content but in development and depth - to be drawn into a game. I believe that this trend will only continue to show itself as the core of gaming matures more and more.
I think what he mean by uncanny valley is dialog and plot are still kind of rooted in the hope that gamers will see past some unrealistic chatter and reactions between two characters (for example GTA's pedestrian chatter although beneficial to GTA isn't particularly "real") just because it' a video game.
I hope I explained that well. I have the concept in my head but not the words to describe it.
Anyway I've always thought the writing in story centric games has been lacking for a while. I think if you have a story centric title than duh you'll need good writing. I think if a game has solid gameplay and good writing graphics and fancy doo-dads are far less important.
Look at F.E.A.R. Very basic FPS but with a solid enough gameplay and interesting writing to maintain a steady fanbase. Same for GTA IV. Stripped a lot of the old stuff from San Andreas and Vice City but tightened up the core gameplay and put in a (arguably) captivating plot with great dialog and superb acting.
A good story is not always essential, a competent story may be always essential but no, a good story is not always needed even to stand the test of time.
In terms of legendary games that stand the test of time and be spoke about decades after they are released, story IS going to be a deciding factor (if the genre of the game is story driven). However, gameplay is going to be required as well and more often than not GREAT gameplay.
I don't ever recall anyone speaking in reverant tones about that awsome game they played 5 years ago that had the amazing story, but the gameplay was shit...doesn't happen.
In order to make an emotional connection with the player, there must be a task or (a series of) events that cause the moment of singularity between the player and the playable to stick and burn into the conscious memory.
Take two examples, for instance:
Resurrecting Chrono in Chrono Trigger (sorry, but 10 years is TWICE my statute of limitations on spoilers) is, first and foremost, entirely optional. You have to go on a completely separate side-journey just to reclaim the life of not just a comrade, but the titular protagonist that you as the player are meant to embody. The emotional connection is based on your level of invested attachment to the character, and by sheer virtue of you actually CHOOSING to undertake the challenge, you cash in on that investment as an immediate return. The story benefits from this choice, of course, because it benefits not only you but the character you are meant to imbue with your own narrative voice (as such, Chrono is yet another completely mute protagonist). It goes without saying that the story engages the player, as the choice to save yourself (in a sense) lies completely in your own hand, and your investment in the tale is evidinced by your willingness to go that extra mile to bring him back (also, it should be noted that the game itself is named for this exact part in the overall storyline).
Metal Gear Solid (One, PSX) had its most memorable moment (to me) with Psycho Mantis. The player has absolutely zero control over the conversation or the events that unfold during the pre-boss fight exposition, but that lack of control is capitalized on with the game playing itself (basically) during the cutscenes. Everyone that knows MGS knows about the memcard read and controller motor manipulation, and while it offers no real interactivity on the part of the player's direct control, it does offer immersion via the relinquishment of control to the actual machine that is there solely to entertain YOU. It sticks in the mind not only because it was the first game to feature rumble tricks or cutscenes combined, but rather involved the player without having to actually play, making the event a free investment with a massive return gained from the initial experience.
I guess me point is this, broken down to the brass tacks: story in games really isn't necessary (see: Ikaruga) and sometimes even downright unwelcome (see: Ninja Gaiden), but as God said in an episode of Futurama, "When you do something right, sometimes it seems as if you've done nothing at all."
Konnichiwa, bitchez.
Nintendo proves writing can be made irrelivant by making a fun game. At the same time, writing can be made irrelivant by mechanics so horrid as to make a game unplayable.
The heart and soul of a game is the player's interaction with the in game world. Everything else is fluff.
You're partially right when you bring up the fact that horrid mechanics can make the game unplayable, meaning the writing is irrelevant, but I don't see the mechanics as the 'heart and soul' of a game. Rather, it's basic building block which you put the great stuff on.
Now, really good mechanics can appeal, just as really good CGI, photography or direction can appeal, but increasingly, we're expecting those as a minimum level of quality. Good writing is what pushes a standard FPS into Bioshock levels or turns a standard NPC into Alyx Vance.
The mechanical side of gaming is what lets us play good games, but it's the writing and story that gets us playing and gives us a reason to play.
OF COURSE writing isn't important in a minigame collection. How does that point prove anything?
I think it would be understood by most that writing is only important when it is utilized in a game in the first place. The existence of minigame collections does nothing to disprove the necessity of good writing in other types of games.
I don't, however, want every game to be MGS-esque depth, sometimes I do just want to blow shit up - if I'm doing it for a compelling reason, all the better, else your explosion graphics'd better be nice :)
Games used to rely a lot more on story. Before Halo, Bungie's games had complicated stories with mystery and history. Myth. I know, I'll never shut up about Myth. Marathon is a fully mature Halo story, without the cliches.
A great story can never hurt a game developer. I'm with guahanweb on this one. Part of the fun and wonder of a game is being able to dive into its mysteries.
Game developers should put some faith in good writers. Writers can repair and prevent holes in both gaming and story logic, and they can provide a game a freshness to set it apart from the rest of crap.
For example, Super Paper Mario had excellent dialog, although it was by no means best-selling-novel worthy like Mass Effect (just an exaggerated comparison, don't look too far into this). But in SPM, the writing is hilarious, and it makes the game that much more entertaining. Same goes for the Devil May Cry series. Nero/Dante are full of witty, asshole-ish comments that they spit at everyone they fight. Sure, their comments have all the sophistication of a preteen, but it doesn't matter because it adds to the atmosphere. If Nero/Dante spoke elegantly and metaphorically, it would conflict with the interactive part of the game and just make everything awkward.
So...tl;dr version: Writing makes all the difference, in any genre of game made by any developer.
That said, no game has matched the amazing writing quality of older games like Planescape and Fallout. While console games have increased in story quality over the years, PC games have decreased... it's kind of odd.
This is why development houses should be allowed to release games "when they're done.". The quality practically assures a purchase: immediate, delayed or otherwise.
*When a budget requires cuts to be made, producers will cut writing before they cut features or other gameplay elements (understandably).
*When everything needs VO, but you can only afford a few actors, you often get less dialogue as a result. Or if you can only afford to get them in the studio once, then there's no time to rewrite stuff that sounds bad.
*When evaluating writing or hiring writers, often it is up to producers and engineering staff who are not good judges of writing.
*Publishers will try to appeal to the widest range (lowest common denominator) of audience, so you'll see anything that might be offensive, dark, or even just slightly weird, get stripped out to make way for plucky boy heroes and generic war stories. And when those things sell well, then they'll want to just do the exact same thing.
Quality of writing just isn't something that can be easily tracked on a spreadsheet, and because that's how games get made, sadly it gets overlooked all the time. We have to do what we can to talk about, think about, and buy games with good writing -- to show publishers that we want games that "stick with us," which is a quality they can't see, by supporting them with $ and internet noise, which they CAN see.
If gameplay is anything but central to a game, you are no longer making a game. Maybe your making a movie or an interactive comic book, but game and gameplay are inseperable by the definition of the words. Gameplay even has the word "game" in it due to how especially closely linked the two are.
Now seriously, if you need a good story to keep you motivated to play a game, the game designers are simply horrible. Mario games never, ever rely on story to make them worth playing - you keep playing because the game is fun and you want to play it. That is the mark of a game that deserves to be played. What I've seen of Dragon age, it has the mark of a story that deserves to be enjoyed, but it is not a game that deserves to be played - the gameplay simply isn't good enough to warrent making a game out of it.