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

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

I've never played any games by CD-Projekt, but they seem to know what they're doing. And square has IMO gone down hill in terms of story telling. But if I was allowed to choice any dev I wanted, I would have to choose Irrational or Bioware, or valve for best story tellers.

 

[Stall]

CD Projekt Red. Anyone who picks them over Square just has no taste, or is just trying to bait PC gamers. CD Projekt is honestly one of the few studios left that actually know how to right.

Them, Obsidian, and Larian are the only ones I consider to be good at writing, with Larian probably being the best.

OT: Bioware.

That's even funnier than someone saying Blizzard!! Bioware hasn't had a well written game since KotOR!

Oh god, how hilarious. Bioware writing nowadays is on the level of a 14 year old writing slash fanfic. It's just absolutely pathetic, and a total shell of its former glory.

 

[veloper]

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.

Madman said just about everything I wanted to say about it.

I'll just add that dialogue to me, is the most important part of storytelling. I can ignore a poor unoriginal plot within a game, but poor dialogue is immediate and can ruin the atmosphere and whatever interest you had in following the plot.
The same goes for the lack of an original theme or message. The atmosphere in a game doesn't depend on it.

 

[ScrubberDucky]

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.

I wasn't going to post in this thread initially, but your opinion on the matter seems to sum up my own very succinctly. I agree.

Actually, I wouldn't have agreed with Squeenix if forced, but upon recollection, recalling the two.. yeah, maybe I was wrong.

 

[Woodsey]

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.

I did not once mention FF in the entirety of that post, learn to fucking read.

 

[Manji187]

Heh...one can only hold that videogames are really great at storytelling and character development if one doesn't know any better. Books...that's where the real action is.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

Haven't played the witcher yet but still voting for them cos I hate Squenix.

 

[sumanoskae]

If you ask me, neither if those games have GREAT storytelling, and FF doesn't even have good storytelling.

The Witcher 1 had some interesting choices and some standout moments, but it's commitment to gritty "Realism" stopped it from having any grand climax of themes. It doesn't seem to have a point to make other then "People are shit because they just are".

It also has a problem with characterization. None of the characters ever get the chance to develop, because you only ever meet up with them when you need their help, you rarely ever get to see them just be human.

Garelt hits the uncanny valley of protagonists for me. He's not characterized enough for me to care about him(Niko Bellic, John Marston, Ezio), but he's not blank enough for me to imagine over him(The Warden, The Exile). He ends up having no personality at all, because he always has to remain neutral enough to act like a greedy prick or a starry eyed idealist.

The Witcher 2 had all of those problems and also felt much to short, despite it being a 30 hour game. Gameplay was much better though.

I suppose it would be cheating to say Atlas and Bioware are better writers in the same genres, so I'll go with CD Projekt Red. They have a long way to go, but at least they can write an interesting story, if not an enthralling one.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

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.

Much as I like Witcher 2, I have to agree with you on this. I fucking loved the first act of the game, but the Kaedwin Camp in the second act was just so boring. Letho drops off the map, and you have to go searching for square coins while having people scream ODRIN! at you so much.

I haven't touched the game for a few months. Maybe the 2.0 update made it better?

 

[xvbones]

So i hand it to you with your personal experiences who do you think is the better story teller?

Between these two?

There is no contest. Square has not told a good story since FF3.

 

[GigaHz]

the fact that you think Seymour is human says it all, hes a Guado-Human half breed

this topic is kinda pointless, its comparing apples and oranges

Not to be "that guy" who argues semantics, but since you did it first...

He said Human in air quotes, and the villain for Mass Effect isn't human either.

OT: Both are equally terrible.

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.

Ninja'd. Summed up my thoughts exactly.

 

[xvbones]

Much as I like Witcher 2, I have to agree with you on this. I fucking loved the first act of the game, but the Kaedwin Camp in the second act was just so boring. Letho drops off the map, and you have to go searching for square coins while having people scream ODRIN! at you so much.

I haven't touched the game for a few months. Maybe the 2.0 update made it better?

Well, next time go with the Elf Terrorist instead of the Royal Spy for Act 2.

 

[poleboy]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and claim that the only game I have ever played with a truly interesting story is Planescape: Torment. Ironic, since it begins with that most cliché of all CRPG clichés, a main character with amnesia.

I love a lot of other games for reasons that come close, but are not quite "the story". I love the Final Fantasy games and the Metal Gear Solid series for its characters and setting, but the stories/plots are often either overdone or too predictable. I liked the Witcher's morally ambiguous choices and characters, but again, it's not the story per se that drew me in. I love the rich and open world of the Elder Scrolls series, but the plot is only there as a loose guiding line for your fun and exploration.

Torment has interesting and deep characters, it has a large and bizarre world to interact with, but all of that pales in comparison to the protagonist and his story, which is the driving focus for eveything that happens in the game. The Nameless One's story is rich and fascinating, but at the same time you as the player has a large hand in shaping his legacy and, more importantly, his final fate.
Bioware has taken up that idea several times in later games such as the Knights of the Old Republic series, where other characters are drawn into your path because you are supposed to be special in some way, and your choices define the main character and the ultimate fate of the people around him, but I don't think anyone did it as well as Black Isle did with Torment.
The Planescape setting probably has a large hand in this, since it allows almost endless creativity and genre cross-overs, but a good setting can't do this alone.

EDIT:
I forgot to mention Bioshock. It fooled me at first into thinking it had a great story, but I later realized it was mostly driven by good (and scary) characters and an interesting setting. The story as such is rather pedestrian.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

How has everyone forgotten already? Square was involved in making Deus Ex: HR. That game told a lot of story through visuals as opposed to dialogue.

I for one got a real sense of paranoia from your apartment. I found something like 5 assault rifles stashed in various places.

Honestly, most video games are pretty bad at telling stories. For a media that can rely on visuals, they focus a lot on dialogue when it comes to story.

 

[Zhukov]

How has everyone forgotten already? Square was involved in making Deus Ex: HR. That game told a lot of story through visuals as opposed to dialogue.

No, Squeenix didn't make it. They published it.

That means they provided the funding, handled the promotion and managed distribution. (I wouldn't be surprised if they were behind those lovely trailers, so props to Square for that.)

They didn't create the game's actual content though. Credit for that goes to Eidos Montreal and whoever they outsourced to.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

How has everyone forgotten already? Square was involved in making Deus Ex: HR. That game told a lot of story through visuals as opposed to dialogue.

No, Squeenix didn't make it. They published it.

That means they provided the funding, handled the promotion and managed distribution. (I wouldn't be surprised if they were behind those lovely trailers, so props to Square for that.)

They didn't create the game's actual content though. Credit for that goes to Eidos Montreal and whoever they outsourced to.

I was under the impression that producers and publishers in the games industry were similar to the music industry: they can influence the product if they so choose and often do to maximize sales.

 

[poleboy]

I was under the impression that producers and publishers in the games industry were similar to the music industry: they can influence the product if they so choose and often do to maximize sales.

Probaly true to some extent, but it's pretty hard to argue for or against unless you have intimate knowledge of the higher workings of the video game industry... and it's probably also very different from game to game (as well as from one publisher to another) how much the publisher decides to mess with it.