Gaming

Yeah, I'm gonna say this person doesn't hate to keep knocking on Veilguard, because that seems to be the one example they can bring up. I mean, there's a cursory name check of Dawntrail, but otherwise... yeah, not sure what games this is talking about other than Dragon Age.

Clair Obscur didn't do that. It went to absolute pains to not do that, in fact, to the point where I find the deceptive twist-building a bit over the top, in retrospect. I wouldn't accuse the CDPR games of going that route. Baldur's Gate does overexplain often, but in their defense the game has a million characters, plot points you go through out of order and a runtime in the hundreds of hours, so I wouldn't change that.

What else is even doing this? I feel like we're back in "AAA sucks" territory where AAA stands in for "this one game I didn't like". Writing in games runs the gamut. I would struggle to find a single defining thing to praise or criticise across the board.

Exposition != story.

A good story can be (and usually is) told with minimal exposition. AAA games being exposition-fests is a result of game executives and writers infantilising players in the name of "widest audience appeal".

I wanna blame the writers more for this but honestly, I think a lot of Netflix writers know their audience is just on their phone. I have people in my life that just watch their phone, notice they missed something, then REWIND THE SCENE so I get to watch twice. It really is bad, it happens with people older and younger than me.

Devil's Advocate: This is for the adult gamer set who only have a prescribed amount of time they can spend on gaming. They get a chance for a few hours every few weeks. Their lives are overwhelming with details and information they need to remember regarding every day life. They simply don't have the mental capacity to remember all the details from a game they spend two to three hours on once every few weeks, not when their mental focus is given to you know, real fucking life.

While I understand the frustration with such writing, because it bothers me as well... I don't have a job where I work 60 hours a week nor do I have children. I'm kind of the exception to the rule when it comes to being able to give a game my full attention. Further, I have always had an incredibly good memory and attention to detail. Most people I have met in my life simply... do not have incredibly good memories or attention to detail. That doesn't make them bad people who are living life wrong, it just means their brains work differently or they're putting that mental energy to different things.

If we want people to pay attention to these stories, well, we've got to change fucking society from the ground up so they have the free time to actually be able to do so. Whinging about it like this isn't going to magically make people pay better attention when they have to split their time with taking care of their children, which obviously should take priority over a fucking video game.

People act like the Netflixication is because people are all busy staring at their phones... I posit that it's actually people cooking meals, doing dishes, doing laundry, ironing clothes, and a thousand other tedious daily activities where they're trying to squeeze in some entertainment while also paying attention to something else entirely.

I mean, good creators don't? There are still AA and indie devs pouring their heart into stories they want to tell?

This article is basically just bemoaning that AAA develops for the lowest common denominator, which I can understand as a gripe, but it's a very old gripe. If you start really digging into AAA, you'll get other similar ones like "Why are these gameplay loops made for people who don't like gameplay" or "How come perfectly serviceable story focused games get mandatory crafting systems added onto them." When you're trying to make something to broadly appeal to as many people as possible, you stop making art, so I don't know why people keep expecting AAA to produce artistic experiences.

I love story based games, and the story is my favorite thing about a game, usually. Unfortunately, so many games try to tell you a story like a movie would or like a book would. They intersperse cutscenes between gameplay to tell you what you did or are doing. That's... boring at best. Video games can tell stories in a unique way that other mediums can't, because they're interactive. DDLC is my favorite example, that game has a story that can only hit as hard as it does because you the player are an active participant in the story. Or Dark Souls, where the story exists for you to find, or not... everyone has a different understanding of what the story of that game is after their first playthrough, and the deeper you look the better your understanding is. Tell interesting stories in a way that uses the medium to the fullest and you'll gain an audience. Recite a screenplay every 10 minutes between spurts of unrelated gameplay, and people won't care about your story.

This concept of a second screen show is so unbelievably fucking moronic... It's your own damn fault if you're not paying attention!

I have a second monitor that I play things on, and it's either a stream of someone playing something similar or the same game, or it's a show I've already watched and know the story of.

If I'm watching something new, then I'm watching it. To have stories dumbed down, or just butchered to suit tictok brainrotted people completely devoid of attention spans is so freaking depressing and only exacerbates the issue. But in the end I guess I get it, you're out for a profit and it hurts to have a plethora of idiots rate you poorly because they weren't paying attention and didn't understand the story... Ughh...

To me it feels like there is a fundamental dissonance in the video game industry. Where major publishers and studios can’t seem to internalize that there are two things that people might come to a game for; Video games as experiences, narratives, things to be explored; and video games as … well games, a set of mechanics to be interacted with, to be challenged by. This isn’t to say a game can’t be good at both, but many games are weighted one way or another.

Factorio is a truly absorbing gameplay experience, but it doesn’t really have a story beyond what is needed to frame and flavor the gameplay.

“Vampire the masquerade: bloodlines” is a classic of atmosphere, character interaction and role play, but just about everyone who played it will tell you the combat is serviceable at best, and there is one level in particular that most people just remove with a mod because it’s just combat, with no dialog or interactions with other characters.

So many major studios and publishers seem to routinely focus on the wrong elements of previously successful games. Taking the wrong lessons and misunderstanding what made previous title’s a huge success.

People are not coming to your story based RPG to play it mindlessly while listening to a podcast or audio book. If people are doing that, then clearly they’re not coming to it for the story, and the solution to that issue is to write a better story or refocus around what ever they are coming for.

Maybe make dialogue between "Find the dwemer puzzle box, it's... uhhh... somewhere" and "GO [fast travel] TO PLACE X, KILL Y IN ROOM NUMBER 6 AND DONT FORGET TO COME BACK WITH THE EVIL SWORD OF DARKNESS [automatically picked up by your character] [a yellow marker appears on your minimap and field of view, with a magic trail leading you to the quest location]"

I agree with the article. Why cater games towards a crowd that doesnt want the game. Just stop it. Fuck EA and fuck companies like Activision/blizzard for dumbing down RPGs so Normie's might like them. You're ruining the experience for people who want to an RPG and making it "tolerable" for people who dont. The end result will always be a mixed bag, a mixed bag of shit.

Just let them play call of duty or FIFA and let the people who enjoy RPGs play RPGs with good story and RPG elements. You're not doing anyone a favor by making an unenjoyable mediocre bag of shit.

"What you need to know about your audience here is that they will watch the show, perhaps on their mobile phone, or on a second or third screen while doing something else and talking to their friends, so you need to both show and tell, you need to say much more than you would normally say."

This is so baffling to me. So you've discovered your audience has a limited attention span. I can see that. But for the love of all that is holy, if you know this, why even make a game with a story in the first place? The thing with videogames is that stories can be minimalistic as all hell, or even optional. Just let the gameplay speak for itself and have the story be "defeat the bad guy on the mountain" or something.

I go back and forth on this a lot. I've been gaming since the Atari 2600 and I agree this happens in games, but personally disagree that Veilguard was a clear example. I really enjoyed that title and platnum'ed it. I think it's more likely, that just like music, movies and tv, expensive studios tend to use the most profit / least risk model. So if a game is appealing for age 1 to age 80 it gives them the least risk and the widest demographic. To further minimize that risk, every game has to have the same stupid Hollywood pitch lines of "Oh this game is but with a different Y and a new Z" in order to get traction from investors. Boring and dull are side effects of it. The fact it started to spread in the RPG genre is just another level of degradation.

I feel like stories have never been my go to. I always find myself playing games with excellent gameplay, rather than story (Mindustry, Balatro, Galaga, etc). I love a good story don't get me wrong, but gameplay is my main attraction to games, and I feel thats where games started. If you look at retro games like Dig Dug or Adventure, or even modern indie titles like Balatro the attraction is basically 90% gameplay