DELETED

[deleted139124]

DELETED

 

[IllumInaTIma]

Exactly what makes movie, or TV show, or book writing good. For me it's all about the characters. If I like their personalities, their goals, their struggles, their weaknesses etc, then I will love the writing, despite anything else. That's why I love Persona 3 and 4 so much, despite the fact that both stories had some flaws.

 

[zxvcasdfqwerzxcv]

I think the majority of game writing can be adequate - good characters with engaging dialogue and interest subplots. Games like Mass Effect have done this excellently by creating realistic, not-completely-cliche characters who you really grow affection for, because they feel real. Then there's the overarching plot - this is where I find the majority of games fall down; to deliver, basically, a satisfying beginning, middle and end. It's usually the end that falls down, because it seems often the ending was written in quite late in the development process (again, see Mass Effect series!).

 

[Mikejames]

The same as in any other medium. Pacing, creativity, established characterization, an overarching conflict, etc.

Though unlike other mediums, games also have to account for how player interactivity influences it.

 

[LetalisK]

Exactly what makes movie, or TV show, or book writing good. For me it's all about the characters. If I like their personalities, their goals, their struggles, their weaknesses etc, then I will love the writing, despite anything else. That's why I love Persona 3 and 4 so much, despite the fact that both stories had some flaws.

While I agree mostly with this, I wouldn't say it's exactly the same. I think the interactive aspects of video games act as a sort of ceiling effect for the story. What I mean by that is that you could have an outstanding story, but it doesn't matter if the gameplay is broken or controls are aggravating, for example, as it'll act as a sort of barrier or filter to the story. This is something those other mediums don't have to worry about and why I think making a good story in a video game is much harder to accomplish and more worthy of praise when it does happen.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

There are 5 steps to evaluating if a game has good writing.

1 - Does the plot of the game make sense?
If yes, move on to step 2, if no, then it's terrible writing.

2 - Do the characters act like actual people rather than walking plot devices?
If yes, move on to step 3, if no, it's bad writing.

3 - Are the characters interesting and do they have personality?
If yes, move on to step 4, if no, it's mediocre writing.

4 - Are there consistent themes in the writing, and do those themes have meaning, or have something to say about society, the player, etc?
If yes, move on to step 5, if no, then it's decent writing?

5 - Are the above themes subtle and interestingly presented or are they incredibly in your face and jack-hammered home with absolutely no finesse?
If it's the later it's a good writing, if it's the former, it's a great writing.

Hey look, by my criteria David Cage's writing is terrible at worse and bad at best, who would have guessed?

 

[Racecarlock]

There are 5 steps to evaluating if a game has good writing.

1 - Does the plot of the game make sense?
If yes, move on to step 2, if no, then it's terrible writing.

2 - Do the characters act like actual people rather than walking plot devices?
If yes, move on to step 3, if no, it's bad writing.

3 - Are the characters interesting and do they have personality?
If yes, move on to step 4, if no, it's mediocre writing.

4 - Are there consistent themes in the writing, and do those themes have meaning, or have something to say about society, the player, etc?
If yes, move on to step 5, if no, then it's decent writing?

5 - Are the above themes subtle and interestingly presented or are they incredibly in your face and jack-hammered home with absolutely no finesse?
If it's the later it's a good writing, if it's the former, it's a great writing.

Hey look, by my criteria David Cage's writing is terrible at worse and bad at best, who would have guessed?

We get it, you don't like david cage. Moving on.

I think the majority of game writing can be adequate - good characters with engaging dialogue and interest subplots. Games like Mass Effect have done this excellently by creating realistic, not-completely-cliche characters who you really grow affection for, because they feel real. Then there's the overarching plot - this is where I find the majority of games fall down; to deliver, basically, a satisfying beginning, middle and end. It's usually the end that falls down, because it seems often the ending was written in quite late in the development process (again, see Mass Effect series!).

Pretty much this. Gurren Lagann is a series where you could break every law of science and reality itself simply by having a strong enough willpower. It worked because the characters were really good and all had their own quirks and personalities.

 

[veloper]

There are 5 steps to evaluating if a game has good writing.

1 - Does the plot of the game make sense?
If yes, move on to step 2, if no, then it's terrible writing.

2 - Do the characters act like actual people rather than walking plot devices?
If yes, move on to step 3, if no, it's bad writing.

3 - Are the characters interesting and do they have personality?
If yes, move on to step 4, if no, it's mediocre writing.

4 - Are there consistent themes in the writing, and do those themes have meaning, or have something to say about society, the player, etc?
If yes, move on to step 5, if no, then it's decent writing?

5 - Are the above themes subtle and interestingly presented or are they incredibly in your face and jack-hammered home with absolutely no finesse?
If it's the later it's a good writing, if it's the former, it's a great writing.

Hey look, by my criteria David Cage's writing is terrible at worse and bad at best, who would have guessed?

This would make a nice flowchart, but I'd swap criteria 1 and 2 around. Plot holes and such aren't as immediate as crummy dialogues everywhere you look. You can ignore and not follow the plot. Stupid dialogues, especially with voice-acting, are hard to ingore and can ruin a story in the very first scene.

 

[Bad Jim]

There are 5 steps to evaluating if a game has good writing.

1 - Does the plot of the game make sense?
If yes, move on to step 2, if no, then it's terrible writing.

2 - Do the characters act like actual people rather than walking plot devices?
If yes, move on to step 3, if no, it's bad writing.

3 - Are the characters interesting and do they have personality?
If yes, move on to step 4, if no, it's mediocre writing.

4 - Are there consistent themes in the writing, and do those themes have meaning, or have something to say about society, the player, etc?
If yes, move on to step 5, if no, then it's decent writing?

5 - Are the above themes subtle and interestingly presented or are they incredibly in your face and jack-hammered home with absolutely no finesse?
If it's the later it's a good writing, if it's the former, it's a great writing.

Hey look, by my criteria David Cage's writing is terrible at worse and bad at best, who would have guessed?

This would make a nice flowchart, but I'd swap criteria 1 and 2 around. Plot holes and such aren't as immediate as crummy dialogues everywhere you look. You can ignore and not follow the plot. Stupid dialogues, especially with voice-acting, are hard to ingore and can ruin a story in the very first scene.

Having a serious plot hole is not the same as the story making no sense whatsoever. I enjoyed Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, even though you have to wonder why they are in a race against the clock when they have a time machine. On the other hand, the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey was just plain weird. What the hell was going on? I'd prefer a few "Jill Sandwich" lines to that anyday.

 

[veloper]

There are 5 steps to evaluating if a game has good writing.

1 - Does the plot of the game make sense?
If yes, move on to step 2, if no, then it's terrible writing.

2 - Do the characters act like actual people rather than walking plot devices?
If yes, move on to step 3, if no, it's bad writing.

3 - Are the characters interesting and do they have personality?
If yes, move on to step 4, if no, it's mediocre writing.

4 - Are there consistent themes in the writing, and do those themes have meaning, or have something to say about society, the player, etc?
If yes, move on to step 5, if no, then it's decent writing?

5 - Are the above themes subtle and interestingly presented or are they incredibly in your face and jack-hammered home with absolutely no finesse?
If it's the later it's a good writing, if it's the former, it's a great writing.

Hey look, by my criteria David Cage's writing is terrible at worse and bad at best, who would have guessed?

This would make a nice flowchart, but I'd swap criteria 1 and 2 around. Plot holes and such aren't as immediate as crummy dialogues everywhere you look. You can ignore and not follow the plot. Stupid dialogues, especially with voice-acting, are hard to ingore and can ruin a story in the very first scene.

Having a serious plot hole is not the same as the story making no sense whatsoever. I enjoyed Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, even though you have to wonder why they are in a race against the clock when they have a time machine. On the other hand, the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey was just plain weird. What the hell was going on? I'd prefer a few "Jill Sandwich" lines to that anyday.

I'll take 2001 over the story of Resident Evil. The first one has moments of brilliance, while the latter is just bad, even if it's not hard to follow.

 

[Drummodino]

For me it's all about the characters. They have to feel like real, 3D people, not just one-note cardboard cutouts. They have to act believably within the established rules of the universe. This allows you to form emotional bonds with them so you care that much more when something happens to them.

I can't really express my full thoughts via text. I feel like I need a richer communication channel to fully explain what I feel about this topic. There isn't a definitive answer that is easily stated.

 

[AuronFtw]

How much investment to the story and characters it invokes. Simple.

The language it's written in doesn't matter, the language the characters use doesn't matter. If they're written believably and given personalities we can relate with easily enough, we root for them. The Wire (TV series) featured incredibly deep characters that were majority black gangsters in "the hood," but the way they're presented, characterized and "written" just makes them pure gold. They're totally believable; they're totally relateable. I'm white, and I related to the black drug dealers in that show. That is "good writing."

Another great example; the Krogan/Salarian genophage arc in Mass Effect. You see the conflict unfold, you see how much disaster it's wrought on Tuchanka and how desperate the Krogans have become... but you're also able to see why it was probably necessary, and why Mordin did what he did. Both Mordin and Wrex (and to a lesser extent, Grunt) are hugely popular characters, and the story they're involved in is understandable, relateable, and gut-wrenching. You end up "caring" what happens to both sides, and following the arc closely to bring about the best resolution possible.

Spoiler: Mass Effect (3) spoilarz

The fact that so many people cried when Mordin sacrificed himself is a testament to how well written he was as a character, and how great that whole arc was. Ashley or Kaiden dying? Pffft. Mordin dying? Pass the fucking tissues man!

Good writing is pretty much anything that evokes lots of polygons emotions. So basically take what David Cage does, do the opposite, and you're off to a pretty good start.

 

[RJ 17]

Exactly what makes movie, or TV show, or book writing good.

Pretty much this, at least as a start. Good writing is good writing, no matter what the medium is. And like with most things in life, there are very few universal examples that you can point to and say "That's bad writing" or "That's good writing". Chances are someone out there REALLY loves a story that's considered "bad writing", just as chances are someone out there REALLY hates a story that's considered "good writing".

A perfect example of such a story is actually Mass Effect. There's a LOT of people who hate the writing in the story (at least how it ended) while there's plenty others who absolutely love the writing. So once again it's an issue of personal tastes.

For a more general application, however, all you have to do is experience a story and ask yourself "Was this story engaging? Did I actually care what was going to happen next or was I just going through the motions because I already started reading/watching/playing it? Do these characters appeal to me? Do the themes presented in the story make sense?" Those are the more abstract parts of "what makes a good story". To borrow a line from Idiocracy: "There was a time when smart people wrote things like books and movies, movies that had a point, so you cared whose ass it was and why it was farting!"

The other part of the general equation are all the technical things. "Does the story even make sense? Are the motivations of the characters believable or are they being forced through situations because the author just wants them to do stuff? Is the story riddled with plotholes (small ones every now and then can be forgiven, but huge gaping ones are a sign of "bad writing" in that the author clearly didn't think the story through all the way). Are the themes consistent throughout the story or do they start contradicting one another?"

So yeah, those are just some general tips on "what makes good writing", there's probably more but I've actually gotta get going.

In the end though, it's as I said: you can take a game/book/movie to two different people and have one say "That book/game/movie has excellent writing!" while the other will say "That book/game/movie has terrible writing!" It all boils down to personal tastes, of which everyone has their own.

 

[deathbydeath]

I came up with three qualities that are pretty much essential for all forms of communication, be it non/fiction, visual, language, whatever. I call them the "Three C's": Clear, Concise, and Consistent. They serve as a good way to test whether or not something is bad. If a work cripples itself in one or more of these aspects, then the creators probably didn't give a shit. However, these can be intentionally broken if breaking them serves a purpose (for example, The Stanley Parable is frequently inconsistent with itself, but it does so to prove the point that games are authored by the designer, not the player).

After we establish that something isn't terrible, this is where shit gets relative fast. I usually amalgamate things like character arcs, quality of characters, misc. writing techniques (I'm a sucker for good symbolism and irony), themes, how interesting those themes are, pacing, setting, and the writer's skill at describing things.

 

[Savo]

For the most part, it's the same things that makes writing good in other mediums: Compelling characters that act believably, witty/realistic dialogue, plot-hole free writing, use of atmosphere, etc. Like with other mediums, there is a great deal of subjectivity that comes into play when we determine what's "good" or "bad", but those are the basic rules many of us would agree upon.

Unlike other mediums, games possess the unique quality of drawing in the player by making them the protagonist. The sheer immersion that comes from spending hours in a game's world doing whatever can cover up many holes in the writing, which is why some pretty badly written games get praised by fans for their story. For example, Indigo Prophecy could be used in classrooms to illustrate what happens when you start trying to cram in every cool idea you ever had into one story, but some people love it for the choices and interaction it gave you (even if some of those were pretty shallow).

Overall, video-games are the weakest current medium when it comes to writing, but it doesn't mean that there isn't some fantastic work being produced in the industry. What we have can rarely be compared to the best of film and television, but there's a good many games that would qualify as good or even great writing if you look for them. I can't wait to see what the industry will come up with for story-focused games in coming years as they become more proficient at storytelling.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

The best games don't just tell a good story, they set a good scene. Character have to be interesting, but more than that they have to have sharp dialog, they have to be interesting for us to invest in their story, and the world around them has to have the design to support the character and their motivations. You want the narrative to not only be in the words and the way they are written, but woven into every texture they paint into the world.

When a developer really hits that "just right" note of giving you enough to interest you without bludgeoning you with filler text, when they set up scenarios for your imagination to build upon with rich and interesting characters, and better still character arcs, that's when I call a game well written.

The point I'm trying to get across, and the point others have made more eloquently, is that there is no one thing that needs to be the focus, it has to be a team that are all on the same page driving the same tale. And a director who can keep the team on point and in the same groove.

Honestly, the way games are made these days it's a wonder any of them ever turn out as good as they do. And it's less shocking when so many turn out to be dreck.

 

[II2]

Honestly, for all the words they say, even the experts can't come up with a broadly satisfying qualifier.

As simply as you can boil it down, I reckon:

- Elegance in Writing
- Narrative in Mechanics

 

[Callate]

I basically agree with what has been said so far regarding character, pacing, plotting and so forth. I'd like to add, though, that most of the best writing serves the mechanics of the underlying game without it being obvious that that's all it's there to do. If the hero swerves off character on some course designed entirely to make sure he or she has to engage some sub-boss fight, I'm not going to be happy.

 

[Bad Jim]

I'll take 2001 over the story of Resident Evil. The first one has moments of brilliance, while the latter is just bad, even if it's not hard to follow.

In a video game, it's important to have some idea of what you are supposed to be doing. That's the purpose of a video game plot, to put your actions in context. The "Jill sandwich" line kills the mood somewhat, but you can still follow the plot.

Contrast with say Metal Gear Solid 2, where everything goes completely bananas near the end, especially your boss, and you have no idea who you are, who you are working for or whether you are in the pension scheme.