DELETED

[DeltaEdge]

I think that in general, there are about 3 universal qualifiers that can be used to identify whether or not a game has good writing, with the rest being completely subjective.

1. The writing must lack plot-holes. The more of these, I think it's safe to say the more objectively worse the writing is, because regardless of the content, if there are plot-holes, then it just means they are failing to rectify their mistakes.

(two and three kind of go together)
2. The writing must identify a target audience. You can't write to everyone, and expect every person to relate and understand/enjoy what you are writing. You need to identify your target audience, for example, targeting people who enjoyed aspect x of movie Z, versus people who enjoy aspect y of the same movie, and making sure that you understand what kind of emotional response aspect x invoked in said audience.

3. Writing your story so that all the elements are composed to evoke aforementioned feeling x to the target audience. Basically, I'd still call a story badly written if the story is written so vaguely that the target audience doesn't particularly enjoy it, while people who don't enjoy element x at all end up enjoying it because there were too many unintentional inclusions of elements y or z.

For me, this is how far I feel the objectivity of qualifying writing as good or bad goes. And someone who cannot comprehend what the writing conveys has no business reviewing said piece, because they won't understand it on a fundamental level, well unless they are reviewing it specifically for their peers who share the same views as they do, but it wouldn't work as a general review.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Same as every other form of writing and storytelling, it invokes different emotions in the viewer and the content is thought provoking. That's as simple as I want to put it because there's plenty of ways to accomplish this. A story can be as simple and short as For sale: baby shoes, never worn or a huge in depth epic like Lord of the Rings. In the context of video games, its much more important for the player to feel connected to the character they're playing as

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.

I think you need to word your definition of "sense" a little better. Apocalypse Now doesn't exactly "make sense" but it uses that to convey its message or messages. But if you follow the movie, the viewer can "make sense" out of the events that happen in it on their own. Obviously, what I'm describing is different from a movie that just doesn't work or is shit

 

[Westaway]

No video game has good writing. Video games can only have good writing when compared to other video games. That said, video games should strive less to be like film (Call of Duty, Walking Dead, etc) and more like Dark Souls (if there is to be no interaction with the plot) or like Alpha Protocol if there is.

 

[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.

I think you need to word your definition of "sense" a little better. Apocalypse Now doesn't exactly "make sense" but it uses that to convey its message or messages. But if you follow the movie, the viewer can "make sense" out of the events that happen in it on their own. Obviously, what I'm describing is different from a movie that just doesn't work or is shit

The plot of Apocalypse Now does make perfect sense though. The reason it's hard to follow isn't because the plot doesn't make sense, but because it's presented in a way that doesn't make sense. So it's not the plot that doesn't make sense, but rather the way the viewer is forced to see it. That's not about whether the writing makes sense, and more about whether the directing does.

 

[TheDoctor455]

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.

I would say it should be taken as a case-by-case basis.

That is, I don't think there is one formula or one focus that makes for great writing.

There are great character-focused stories and great plot-focused stories...

and great atmosphere-focused stories...

and then there are the rare few that are focused on all of those elements.

But one element that I think well-written games should always try to incorporate: gameplay.

I.e. don't have the story contradicted by the gameplay (oh no, tragic death scene... why aren't my resurrection potions working now?)...

and ideally, USE the gameplay to help tell your story. (see, Bastion, Limbo, and most of what Obsidian/Troika/Black Isle have ever done)

 

[Rebel_Raven]

It helps to take a path less taken.

Settings that stand out be it rarely treaded, or a fresher retelling.
Red Dead Redemption produced an admirable wild west meets industrialization world, IMO. This would be the former.
The Latter? Koei, IMO. 8 Dynasty Warriors plus their expansions plus the Romance of the Three Kingdoms series that have over 11 game entries and yet I'm not tired of them retreading the era Romance of the Three Kingdoms the book is set in. New scenarios, new maps, new characters, a slow, but steady evolution in gameplay, and modes, and such, though some may not appreciate it, has kept the series alive for me.

Characters that don't rely on tropes. Characters that defy them, that stand out in spite of them, that are memorable, these traits help. Clever writing helps a great deal.
The list is kinda numerous here, though not as numerous as it should be. I'm sure everyone reading this thread has a character in mind that has been a surprise. A stand out among the rest. Maybe even several.

The world is a character, or should be. Similar to charcters in general before, I add that the more you want to live there, or at least vacation there, the better since that's what you're doing. Basically the more you appreciate the world, the more you want to see more of it, and/or the more you can believe in it the better. It's not necessary, but I find a well built world always worth it.
Despite the flaws the game had in general, I look at Remember Me as a game having such a world. From the sewers to the city to the prison, the world was imaginative, colorful, and felt alive even if it was linear. The game is thick with lore on events, places, and persons. It felt like a solid change from the overly grey, gritty "realistic" worlds.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. To this day we still have fans of Final Fantasy 7 be it Tifa Cosplayers in the original outfit style, or people running around with huge swords and white hair calling themselves some variation of Sephiroth.
That points to standing the test of time, imo.
The imitation, however, doesn't really apply to similar works. If someone copied heavily off of FF7 to make a game, it wouldn't be the same. Capturing the hearts and minds of the consumer should be the goal, not trying to bank off the work of those that already have.

I like newer, fresher, rarer eperiences. I like doing almost everything under the sun as far as games go, so variety. Diversity. I appreciate these experiences more, if not a bit too much at times. If a a game can deliver on this, then it's pretty well written to me.

Basically if variety is added when it was made, and/or it stands the test of time, then that's good writing.

 

[Fireaxe]

Adding onto what people have said about story and gameplay tying together; a key element of this is that it shouldn't feel crow-barred in, a good example of the tying together done well is when you get access to the Tauren in Warcraft 3 (the Tauren warriors come to help the Orcs to repay the Orcs for helping their tribe escape the open plains where they were being attacked by Centaurs), a bad example would be virtually every unit in Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty (where with a few exceptions it feels like the game is just holding certain units away from you to keep it interesting).

 

[LAGG]

Delivering an interesting backstory (or in other words: everything that happens before the player starts playing) in an interesting world with interesting NPCs.

 

[Vegosiux]

Technically, a good writer is what makes good writing. But that's just me being a smartass.

Good writing must maintain the willing suspension of disbelief and needs to be mostly subtle. Of course, there are exceptions to that, as in, parody.

Characters that don't rely on tropes. Characters that defy them, that stand out in spite of them, that are memorable, these traits help. Clever writing helps a great deal.
The list is kinda numerous here, though not as numerous as it should be. I'm sure everyone reading this thread has a character in mind that has been a surprise. A stand out among the rest. Maybe even several.

Again, me being a smartass, but defying a trope is its own trope, and tropes can be justified, too. Tropes are tools [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools] after all.

Of course I agree with you that tropes being played with are much more fun than tropes being played straight to the point of becoming so-called "Dead horse tropes". Subversions are way better.

 

[Xdeser2]

Whenever you enjoy it.

This is, and can never be, a universal standard for subjective things.

 

[veloper]

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.

You're supposed to explore the map, dodge the enemies, pick up everything that isn't nailed down, all the usual videogame stuff. I don't need a plot for that.
I'd rather have a no story than a bad story. Many great videogames do just that: great gameplay on just a basic premise.

You're allowed to have a different opinion, but bad dialogues everywhere do more harm to the overal experience than a plot that falls apart. With the crappy plot, atleast each scene when viewed seperately, can still convey a sense of urgency or danger.
Terrible dialogues will ruin each scene. You may still have your coherent plot, but it will be like a fresh, round dog turd: unbroken, smooth, but still looks and smells like shit.

 

[Vegosiux]

You're supposed to explore the map, dodge the enemies, pick up everything that isn't nailed down, get a crowbar and return for the stuff what was nailed down and take it; and take the nails too, all the usual videogame stuff. I don't need a plot for that.

Sorry, I had to.

I'd rather have a no story than a bad story.

Agreed, it's a bit like sex in that regard. If a game couldn't whip up a good story, it should at least let me have my mindless fun without the cringeworthy "story" interruptions.

 

[veloper]

You're supposed to explore the map, dodge the enemies, pick up everything that isn't nailed down, get a crowbar and return for the stuff what was nailed down and take it; and take the nails too, all the usual videogame stuff. I don't need a plot for that.

Sorry, I had to.

Heh. That's okay. I'm glad to see that you have a funny bone too. The religion and politics section can turn people too serious and sometimes angry too. More fun and games I say.