who is better at story telling? Square Enix or CD Projekt RED

[nukethetuna]

I dunno. The Witcher's based on a book series, so it's not like they crafted the plot, characters, setting and all that from scratch (Admittedly, I do not know how much liberty was taken in the transition, but I imagine the two are somewhat similar). Yeah, they interpreted it well artistically, but they didn't craft it, if you catch my meaning.
All of Square's stories are written, for better or for worse, completely from the ground up.

So if you're asking who makes the better story, it's not really a fair comparison. If you're asking who tells the story better. Eh. I'd say The Witcher is better than most of Square's outings, but a lot of Square's earlier stuff was pioneering when it came to telling video game stories, and they still have quite a few decent ones. Ultimately I'd say Square's best tops CDPR's best, but on average CDPR would be better, even though they only have a couple of games.

 

[Zhukov]

They're both terrible at it.

In particular, both of them rely way too heavily on expositional dialogue, which is made significantly worse by the fact that neither developer can write dialogue to save their lives.

If someone put a gun to my head and made me choose one, I'd have to go with Squeenix. They actually make some effort in the characterization department. While the characters they produce are generally ridiculous, at least they're fairly well defined.

The Witcher 2 has some cracking dialogue, although The Witcher suffered from crap voice acting and some very rough translating (even in the Enhanced Edition). There are a few slip-ups in TW2 with rather blunt instances of exposition.

I'm not sure how you could argue Geralt, Roche, Iorveth, Triss, or even Foltest or the other Kings are poorly defined.

(I'm about to criticise the hell out of a game you presumably like. Please try not to take it too personally, I'm not really in the mood for an argument/debate/flamewar.)

I gave up on Witcher 1 after about an hour (yes, the enhanced edition). The dialogue was just that bad, both in terms of writing and voice acting. I found it actively unpleasant to listen to.

Witcher 2 was a different kettle of fish. I thought the storytelling in the first half of the game (from the start of the prologue to when you leave Flotsam) was actually quite good. Significantly above average. But then Act 2 rolled around and the game promptly dived into a veritable ocean of exposition from which it never emerged. My interest in the story rapidly waned and had well and truly dissipated by the time the game ended.

I do not recall any "cracking dialogue". In fact, it's a struggle to recall any of the dialogue at all. I do remember most of the characters mentioning sex ("ploughing") every five seconds. And I recall a few groan-inducing lines ("Lesbomancy!" "One ring to rule them all..."). No cracking though, I'm afraid.

As for the characters, yes, I would say almost all those you named were poorly defined. Geralt was an off-the-shelf male badass protagonist, I would struggle to describe his personality. Triss was apparently just there to pull T&A duty. Roche was... actually, he was a bit better. Gave the impression of being an amoral ends-justify-means type of guy, but that's about it. The once exception was Iorveth, I thought he came across very well, an utterly world-weary but stolidly determined individual. He was a good character.

 

[atol]

Blizzard. lol. A CONSTANT WAR WAGES BETWEEN DIFFERING RACES, BUT A NEW THREAT HAS EMERGED THAT THREATENS TO DESTROY THEM ALL. THEY MUST BAND TOGETHER... blah blah.

As for the topic, I don't think either are very good at all, so it's hard to say. I'd probably give a slight win to CD Project for being more deliberately immersive/relatable. The only investment I've felt in a Square game is built through sheer time, because the game is so long and arduous. It's almost like stockholm syndrome for when something actually interesting happens.

 

[Woodsey]

They're both terrible at it.

In particular, both of them rely way too heavily on expositional dialogue, which is made significantly worse by the fact that neither developer can write dialogue to save their lives.

If someone put a gun to my head and made me choose one, I'd have to go with Squeenix. They actually make some effort in the characterization department. While the characters they produce are generally ridiculous, at least they're fairly well defined.

The Witcher 2 has some cracking dialogue, although The Witcher suffered from crap voice acting and some very rough translating (even in the Enhanced Edition). There are a few slip-ups in TW2 with rather blunt instances of exposition.

I'm not sure how you could argue Geralt, Roche, Iorveth, Triss, or even Foltest or the other Kings are poorly defined.

(I'm about to criticise the hell out of a game you presumably like. Please try not to take it too personally, I'm not really in the mood for an argument/debate/flamewar.)

I gave up on Witcher 1 after about an hour (yes, the enhanced edition). The dialogue was just that bad, both in terms of writing and voice acting. I found it actively unpleasant to listen to.

Witcher 2 was a different kettle of fish. I thought the storytelling in the first half of the game (from the start of the prologue to when you leave Flotsam) was actually quite good. Significantly above average. But then Act 2 rolled around and the game promptly dived into a veritable ocean of exposition from which it never emerged. My interest in the story rapidly waned and had well and truly dissipated by the time the game ended.

I do not recall any "cracking dialogue". In fact, it's a struggle to recall any of the dialogue at all. I do remember most of the characters mentioning sex ("ploughing") every five seconds. And I recall a few groan-inducing lines ("Lesbomancy!" "One ring to rule them all..."). No cracking though, I'm afraid.

As for the characters, yes, I would say almost all those you named were poorly defined. Geralt was an off-the-shelf male badass protagonist, I would struggle to describe his personality. Triss was apparently just there to pull T&A duty. Roche was... actually, he was a bit better. Gave the impression of being an amoral ends-justify-means type of guy, but that's about it. The once exception was Iorveth, I thought he came across very well, an utterly world-weary but stolidly determined individual. He was a good character.

Why you son of a bi-!

Nah, I have to agree on The Witcher, 5 hours and I couldn't go back. As for Geralt, I can see where you're coming from, but I would disagree on Triss just being for the T & A, she was likable enough for me to the extent that she was my main concern after Act 1.

And whilst some dialogue is rough ("ploughing" must have been a poor translation, its used in place of "fuck" when the "fuck" isn't even related to sex), its often very well written; it often felt real. Other times it was off, but it was much better than a lot of other games - consistently of a higher quality then BioWare often is.

 

[Zhukov]

Other times it was off, but it was much better than a lot of other games - consistently of a higher quality then BioWare often is.

Uh huh...

Spoiler

I think at this juncture I'm just going to agree to disagree. Y'know... subjectivity and all that.

 

[The Madman]

Main problem both deal with is translation as neither developer are native English speakers.

By default Witcher 1 I felt had a good story overall but, let's be honest here, even the enhanced edition suffered from some pretty bad translation in places and the dialogue was hardly one of its strengths. I've been told the original Polish version is much better in terms of narrative and dialogue but obviously I don't speak the language myself so I can't be sure how true that is. It's possible to play the game in the native language and have subtitles but even then you're reading a translation which unfortunately just can't really convey any fancy or clever wordplay that might be going on.

Witcher 2 was much better in that regard but still suffered in places. Still it's obvious they're getting better which is a mark to their credit as a relatively small developer trying to make gains in a foreign market. I liked it. Wasn't brilliant dialogue by any stretch but it got the point across and I never ran into any situations where I was outright left scratching my head trying to figure out what they meant like had happened a few times in The Witcher. Overall good story as well and I look forward to learning more in the inevitable Witcher 3. I want to learn more about the ghostly hunters, I forget their names right now, and the massive southern empire. That I want to learn more is the hallmark of a strong basic story.

That the series is based on a series of novels already helps as well!

As for Square Enix, I've only played a few games of theirs but I never liked em and have never really gotten far in any. I don't like the art design as I'm not big into anime and even their 'realistic' attempts at art design are undeniable anime based. I don't like their stories which tend to go the 'complexity over depth' route with convoluted plots which for all their twists and turns can't make me feel any emotion other than frustration. And I don't like their dialogue which might be better translated but is still the worst sort of annoying tripe in my mind full of cliches and stereotypes.

Not my thing. Obviously a lot of other people disagree, but I don't much like it.

So of those two I'd give it to CDProjket RED. At least they're improving, Witcher 2 is only their second game after all which is damned impressive. Square Enix by contrast just seems to be getting worse. I actually quite liked the earlier Square stuff, I own two copies of Final Fantasy 6 and think it's a fun game. But everything since the PS2 era? No. Just no. Not for me.

Besides the only dedicated rpg developer out there right now that really seems to excell in my mind in terms of dialogue and plot is Obsidian. Mask of the Betrayer was bloody brilliant and for all its flaws Alpha Protocol had probably my favourite dialogue system in any rpg to date. Now if only they'd learn to properly test games before releasing them...

 

[Zhukov]

Other times it was off, but it was much better than a lot of other games - consistently of a higher quality then BioWare often is.

Alright, you wanted to compare Square with Bioware, fine. Let's take FFX and comapre it with Mass Effect, shall we?

Uh... he was comparing Bioware games to The Witcher 2, not Squeenix games.

 

[ResonanceGames]

If this is about CRPGs only, then
since Troika and Black Isle are R.I.P., we're stuck with just Obsidian, who are almost competent at writing dialogue and coming up with new ideas.

Black Isle were great story tellers, but I don't think I could even say Troika was that great. Arcanum and Bloodlines (and even Elemental Evil) were great RPGs (some of the best ever), but they didn't exactly have mind-blowing stories.

Now Torment, on the other hand, is as good as storytelling in gaming gets. That's the current ceiling.

 

[The Madman]

Black Isle were great story tellers, but I don't think I could even say Troika was that great. Arcanum and Bloodlines (and even Elemental Evil) were great RPGs (some of the best ever), but they didn't exactly have mind-blowing stories.

Now Torment, on the other hand, is as good as storytelling in gaming gets. That's the current ceiling.

Black Isle only made a couple games, and while Fallout 2 and Planescape had solid stories neither Icewind Dale 1 and 2 nor Dark Alliance 2 exactly fall into the 'amazing storytelling' category.

As much as I loved Black Isle at the time, they weren't perfect. Besides you're dismissing the amazing job Troika did with dialogue and character work in Bloodlines, good stories aren't just about being complex narratives after all but also about the characters you meet and interact with. Something that Bloodlines did brilliantly despite its other flaws. Some of the most believable and fluid dialogue partnered with some amazing voice acting in the business really brought even the most minor characters to life.

 

[ResonanceGames]

Black Isle were great story tellers, but I don't think I could even say Troika was that great. Arcanum and Bloodlines (and even Elemental Evil) were great RPGs (some of the best ever), but they didn't exactly have mind-blowing stories.

Now Torment, on the other hand, is as good as storytelling in gaming gets. That's the current ceiling.

Black Isle only made a couple games, and while Fallout 2 and Planescape had solid stories neither Icewind Dale 1 and 2 nor Dark Alliance 2 exactly fall into the 'amazing storytelling' category.

As much as I loved Black Isle at the time, they weren't perfect. Besides you're dismissing the amazing job Troika did with dialogue and character work in Bloodlines, good stories aren't just about being complex narratives after all but also about the characters you meet and interact with. Something that Bloodlines did brilliantly despite its other flaws. Some of the most believable and fluid dialogue partnered with some amazing voice acting in the business really brought even the most minor characters to life.

''

I guess I was also counting the Baldur's Gate games, even though they were made by Bioware and just published by Black Isle. I think of them as BI games in my mind for some reason.

Also, I'm not dismissing the great dialogue in Bloodlines at all. But you're broadening out what "story" means in this context. Dialogue is just a small facet of what makes the overall story great. Don't forget that Bloodlines also has a silly, convoluted plot that takes a backseat to the character roleplaying elements. That's part of its appeal, but if you're just talking story and not overall game enjoyment, I wouldn't rank it very highly.

I'd say calling the Torment story "solid" is about as big an understatement as I've ever heard, but that's just me.

 

[Ubermetalhed]

Other times it was off, but it was much better than a lot of other games - consistently of a higher quality then BioWare often is.

Alright, you wanted to compare Square with Bioware, fine. Let's take FFX and comapre it with Mass Effect, shall we?

Bioware: "Human" villain: Elite soldier who's got understandable reasons for being a villain, also, voiceactor sounds like Jeremy Irons, who is Awesome (with capital A).

Square: Human villain: This guy with this hair:

Bioware: Ultimate evil: Lovecraftian horrors.

Square: Ultimate evil: This...

Yeah, I shouldn't even bother, but seriously, I just get so bothered with Seymour's hair that I just can't stop falling for these fucking things.

It's called final FANTASY and you're complaining about aesthetics...

Also really? An elite solider (generic as all hell) as the main villain is better than it being the God of the world? (Also kind of generic but in the context of the plot it is in fact quite clever)

Anyway we should really talk about Squaresoft not Square enix which is just a publisher like Activision, they hardly develop these days. I haven't played the witcher although I have been recommended it on numerous occasions. So I have to go with Squaresoft.

Their strength imo is in the creativity of the worlds they bring to life and quite possibly how they do romantic development. Even though it doesn't have endless dialogue trees like in Bioware games it is arguably for the better. Bioware games are over stuffed full of bland, useless dialogue whereas Squaresoft will have a few characters which will be plot related and have purpose to what they are saying. The other npcs flesh out the worlds and add extra insights into the events that are occurring and all in the space of a single comment or two.

I'm not saying they're perfect at story telling in fact they can be a little hit and miss some of the time. But I've never had too much of an issue with the story telling, it's always kept me interested from beginning to end unlike games like Mass Effect. I'd say Atlus do the best story telling, the Persona games are brilliant. Oh and Obsidians work on Alpha Protocol is fantastic.

 

[The Madman]

I guess I was also counting the Baldur's Gate games, even though they were made by Bioware and just published by Black Isle. I think of them as BI games in my mind for some reason.

Also, I'm not dismissing the great dialogue in Bloodlines at all. But you're broadening out what "story" means in this context. Dialogue is just a small facet of what makes the overall story great. Don't forget that Bloodlines also has a silly, convoluted plot that takes a backseat to the character roleplaying elements. That's part of its appeal, but if you're just talking story and not overall game enjoyment, I wouldn't rank it very highly.

I'd say calling the Torment story "solid" is about as big an understatement as I've ever heard, but that's just me.

'Story' especially in games is a pretty broad term itself. Besides I'm of a mind that in games especially, possibly more than any other story-telling method, *how* the story is told is often just as important as the main story arc itself at times. You can have the most labyrinth and complex plot out there, one with twists and turns that would leave even a hardened readers head spinning in amazement and wonder, but if it's told poorly then it's all for nothing as it'll just have the player in this case confused rather than impressed. And dialogue plays a big part in that! Possibly the biggest part in most games, though in others like Shadow of the Colossus for example art and sound tend to take bigger roles. But we're talking rpg here, dialogue is a huge element.

And I like Planescape: Torment as much as the next classic PC gamer. I thought it was fantastic and it does indeed deal with a lot of subject matter most other games wouldn't even dare go near, nevermind do nearly as well. But it ain't perfect!

Meanwhile Bloodlines might not be perfect either, but I can't help but feel it's still a damned lot better than most games out there. Most rpg even. Don't see how the story is particularly convoluted either, seems pretty simple to me: Lacroix wants sarcophagus. Whats in the sarcophagus, well, that's left mostly to mystery and I wont spoil any surprises for people who haven't played the game themselves or gotten that particular ending. But that's the general gist of it. That makes it memorable are the characters met along the way! I like that.

 

[JasonKaotic]

Just so you know, Final Fantasy X was made by Squaresoft, not Square Enix. Final Fantasy completely changed when Square merged with Enix.
For me at least, Squaresoft Final Fantasies are good, Enix ones are bad. So try out the middle-generation ones (VII - X, maybe VI if you can handle the graphics) if you loved X.
But I've never played any CD Projekt RED games, so I'm going to reluctantly go with Squeenix.

 

[RagTagBand]

Honestly, OP, thats like asking whether i'd like to eat a brown turd or a green turd.

They're both shit at story telling, the only saving grace of Square Enix is that they used to make brilliant games (before, of course, they were square enix) to distract you from their obtuse, superfluous, preachy story telling. The Witcher games have never been fun to play, but on story telling they're both about equal - IE their deficiencies in story telling bore me.

 

[gideonkain]

Valve Software knows how to tell a story, Final Fantasy games have been too angsty for well over a decade, and Witcher 2 while a tremendously great game was more like a history lesson than an actual story.

 

[Axolotl]

I don't think either really is all that great to be honest. Now they're both probably in the upper half of developers as story goes but given the quality of video game stories that's not saying much. Square, at least with the just keeps on having fairly flat characters in a convoluted overblown plot with simplistic themes and a self-indulgent world.

As for Bioware which people keep mentioning, they aren't much better. Sure they can add some depth to their main characters but their backed up by bland setting and cliche tensionless plots with villans that don't even qualify as two dimensional.

I'd say Black Isle is worth mentioning just for Planescape Torment, sure it drowns you with text but if you can wade through that then it has brilliant writing, a wide cast of deep multi-layered characters, a unique and interesting setting and a main plot that avoids all the old tired cliches and does a great job of draging you into it. Their other games however are less stellar, while I love the original Fallouts their stories aren't great if only becasue of the way the game plays leaving them very minimalistic. And the less said about the rest the better.

However beyond this I just can't think of any really great developers ofr story, I can thinkof lots of great stories in indivdual games but not many developers. Valve are pretty darn good but while Half-Life has great storytelling the story itself isn't very special. Obsidian are just way too variable, sure they made Mask of the Betrayer but to do that they first had to make Neverwinter Nights 2 and that was awful.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Your all in the wrong medium if you want good stories.

But I would go with CD project... Why? Because I felt like it.

 

[Babitz]

Obsidian are the only good writers nowadays. Others are "meh" or just a laughing stock. Square never knew how to write dialogues and Bioware is just copying the same story and characters over and over again.

 

[tobi the good boy]

Let's face it guys, WRPGs just don't hold up to well in the story department, the only way Mass Effect does is because it's more JRPG with Gears of War thrown in for good measure.

You're going to have to explain this one to me because I'm just not seeing it.

OT: I'm unsure. I've played a bit of the witcher and found it to be quite enjoyable but aside form that I've not touched anything by CD.

However I've played games by Square Enix and recieved mixed results. I love "The World Ends With You" and I cannot stand FF, there are more examples but I'm being brief.

Ultimately I cannot decide rendering this post useless MUHAHAHHA