Why are most AAA stories so... awful?

[Mister K]

I thinks that is so because, for the most part, AAA titles are like summer blockbuster movies: they are made with an idea to show as many special effects and as global plot (not story, plot) as they can to create 3-6 hours long fun ride.

Good stories are left for classics that survived the test of time and those spring/autumn flicks with moderate budget (AA games).

 

[Mister K]

The Writer Will Do Something [http://mrwasteland.itch.io/twwds] can illustrate this much better than I ever can, but in short:

It's because the story almost always comes second to the gameplay. With the exception of say, a Bioware game, the story is usually the last thing created. Which means that the writers have to write around the gameplay, art style and quite possibly levels that have already been completed. And there is no way all that work will be scrapped for something as unimportant as good writing.
On top of that is the fact that in many projects, they don't even hire a dedicated writer. It's usually just some guy(s) from the pre-existing team. For example, the early Ratchet & Clank games were writting by a couple of animators. And that's one of the good stories.

It's off topic, but I must say that the story you've posted a link to is great.

 

[Cowabungaa]

snip

All that that illustrates is that there's different ways to do story in videogames, and that not all ways are effective for everyone, and that there's more to story and world building in videogames than straight-up exposition through cutscenes. That's all very true, but not relevant.

Do note as well that the examples I gave were not of the "fuck your journey here's our story" variety. Neither is that, rather nebulous, approach of storytelling (and approach it indeed is, as you say), and the examples of Dishonored and Deus Ex that go with it, relevant for the point I was trying to make. That point being that videogames can be a perfect medium for an author to tell his audience a story and that he can do so in novel ways that aren't available in other mediums. Videogames have strengths besides those wonderful emergent moments you describe, not instead of.

That doesn't mean that developers can't fuck up and completely misjudge the medium they're working with and end up with an approach to storytelling that doesn't really work, it's even the OP's question. Lord knows that happens often enough. But one shouldn't confuse certain methods of storytelling with storytelling as such. From the statement that storytelling isn't always done well it doesn't follow that storytelling can't be done at all. And to say that storytelling as such doesn't belong in videogames, well, that's just a wrongful waste of potential.

It's not an either/or kind of deal. Just like movies, videogames are becoming more and more plural. There's more than one way to do videogames.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

So games are good in talking about themselves, at least that's what passes for daring these (i.e. the past 20 years) days. I don't think that, presently, most games have anything interesting to offer on any other subject - chief among them the human condition and its spiritual unrest, which has always been the subject matter of all the great Literary Classics. Antigone. The Divine Comedy. Paradise Lost. Hamlet. Moby-Dick. Ulysses. Crime and Punishment. War and Peace. One Hundred Years of Solitude. Blood Meridian.

The last couple of years has seen one of the biggest booms of games about the human condition; Spec-Ops: The Line, Bioshock: Infinite, The Last of Us. Whether you think these games succeed at adressing their subject matter is debateable, but they do adress it. They're not just 'look how quirky we are about games as a medium', which seems to be mostly an indie thing.

And comparing games to books is an unfair one. The writing in most highly acclaimed movies can't even compare favorably to books, since writing is all a book consists of. That doesn't mean all movies suck narratively. A game like Journey doesn't even have any writing or dialoge at all, and it still had me reflect on myself and the human condition. And all of this through gameplay, music, and visuals.

I agree with everything you've said. But the question *is* why do stories in games tend to suck. And the answer is that games simply don't have the ambition, unlike other narrative-based mediums, which I'm assuming is the thing we're comparing them to when we complain they suck (as opposed to what?).

 

[Casual Shinji]

I agree with everything you've said. But the question *is* why do stories in games tend to suck. And the answer is that games simply don't have the ambition, unlike other narrative-based mediums, which I'm assuming is the thing we're comparing them to when we complain they suck (as opposed to what?).

I think there's a bit more to it then that. To take the 'books > movies > games' comparison... The reason books tend to work best when it comes to writing is because a) that's all it needs to focus on and b) the creator is one person (most of the time). The more people you have working on any sort of narrative, the more you need to spread out your resources. A book has the undivided attention of a single mind, a movie has an entire team of people all working on different things, and with a game it gets even more complicated as it's an interactive medium.

Stories in games tend to "suck" because it's yet another cog in a giant complicated machine. First of all it needs to be well written, well acted, and well paced. Something a lot of movies can't even achieve. And on top of all that it needs to work well along with the gameplay, it needs to not overstep its bounds and bore the people who just want to play, but still try to engage the people who want to have some investment in the story and characters.

And just as movies can afford to sacrifice a bit of the writing compared to books for the sake of visual storytelling, so too can games compared to movies for the sake of interactive storytelling. You take one of your favourite movies and just experience it in script form, and it's probably not going to stand up too well. I'll fully admit that the story in the inFAMOUS games is pretty shallow, but the fact that I'm playing it makes me feel more connected to the story and characters then I would otherwise. Something like Shadow of the Colossus barely has any story at all, and the characters are paper thin when taken on their own. But because of the gameplay it becomes one of the more emotional stories that I've experienced. This is the main reason movies based on games don't work.

 

[Cowabungaa]

That... sounds exactly like an Extra Credits video.
But I've heard you. Your take is that games can be a great medium to tell stories.
My point is that they shouldn't.
Or at least they shouldn't focus on the story in an old tried and true 3-act structure ages old way. There is something to games that I believe does not have a name yet, that is better than telling a story. There's a thing that is sufficiently different to exist on its own merits. And that where all the focus should be for a game to be better, than what we have today.
But these are different discussions to have. We can both keep are points because they don't exactly contradict.

Interesting. I'm not quite sure what kind of thing you mean, and going back to the things you've already said I'm not sure if that nebulous concept has nothing to do with stories.

Naturally, telling a good story through a videogame does not play (hah) by the same rules as it does in a movie. Undertale is an excellent example of storytelling that can't be done outside of a videogame. The author tells a story with the player. It's a completely new kind of indirect dialogue. Maybe dialogue is the term you're looking for? That at least is indeed vastly different from what most of are traditionally thinking of when we hear "telling a story." Because when we hear "telling a story" it implies a one-way street, that there is an audience and there is a narrator. But in a videogame those lines blur, the audience becomes the narrator together with the author. In the best kind of story-driven videogames we see this melding of audience and narrator.

To go even deeper, we don't just steer the protagonist through the story as if it's simply a film in which we need permission to watch the next scene, though a lot of games do that. We can become the protagonist even, or better yet especially if that protagonist is not a representation of ourselves. No other medium could enable us to be so close to becoming someone else, to experience not just something we couldn't experience as our own person but also from a viewpoint we could otherwise not inhibit.

That's why I'm so passionate about this medium, as no other has the ability to grant us such, almost existential, experiences. Videogames can be extremely profound that way like nothing else really can. And yeah, maybe "story telling" is not the right term for that. It does turn our conception of what makes a story on its head. Whether I want to make the value judgement that such 'viewpoint shifts' are objectively better than more typical stories I don't know, but perhaps they do have the possibility to touch us on a deeper, more fundamental level.

They certainly are different. And different is good, because pluralism is good for us as a society.

[small]Did I just argue for videogames as a portal for existential metamorphosis? Exam season must be really rubbing off on me...[/small]

 

[Cowabungaa]

Yes, perhaps the dialogue would be the right word for it.
It's like the difference between an author telling a story and a Dungeon Master leading a D&D game. What they do and how they do it is similar yet different. It is benefitial for a DM to be good at telling stories, and an author could benefit from DM-ing, but a good game should be more than just a story, and a good story ought to be more that just a game written down.

Tabletop RPG's offer a decent enough analogy I suppose. The most interesting bit in this post I think is your last phrase, that a good story ought to be more than a game written down. That's the crux of the matter I feel. Because of the transformative aspect of videogames, the actions of the player (even in linear games) have a profound impact on how a game comes across. The same goes for film, in which the story is more than just dialogue, more than just the script written down. It's that plus cinematography, sound design, nonverbal communication, etc etc. But that doesn't really mean that a good game or film is more than just a story, it's just that all those other parts are also part of the story.

Like in tabletop RPG's, the story isn't a separate thing, it's a pervasive entity that rests within everything that is involved. Even the consequences of the dice, when they inevitably fuck things up. Like when one of my Shadowrun players thinks it's a totally legit idea to rush four guards with Tasers after he sees them bring down his Troll buddy without breaking a sweat. It was going so well guys...

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Because its not the priority and its still a young industry. Writers have a greater challenge involved with interactivity, but that isnt impossible to overcome or you could just make your game a railroad. I think its just going to slowly get better. I wonder what early cinema was like, i know theres classic black and white films out there, but you can cherry pick games with good stoy too. As a whole i mean

 

[RedRockRun]

The same reason that minivans are awful: They're made for everyone.

 

[Bad Jim]

It's a combination of two facts:
-a good story isn't necessary to have a good game
-90% of everything is terrible

In movies, books and tv, most stories are terrible, but since the stories are more important in those media, works with really good stories have a much better chance of being considered classics, and people ignore the rubbish. Games, on the other hand, can be considered classics regardless of the story, so 90% of those games will have terrible stories. And 90% of games with decent stories will be terrible gameplay-wise, which will sap the patience of those playing them for the story, so they won't be considered classics.

 

[CaitSeith]

Well, I think Yahtzee wrote something about the Mary Sue thing in videogames. *searches for the article* Ah! Here it is [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/extra-punctuation/14499-Mary-Sue-Characters-in-Video-Games]. The authors of videogame stories can get away with Mary Sue characters more easily because the players are supposed to be (or relate to) the character. An idealized fictional character, a young or low-rank person who saves the day through unrealistic abilities, is easier to fit in a videogame than a more rounded but flawed one.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Most developers would rather focus on gameplay for a videogame. Shocking, I know.

Certainly not AAA developers. Their definition of gameplay is "the means of slaying everything in sight".

 

[MercurySteam]

I think it has to do mainly with AAA games trying to appeal to a wide audience and typically go for clich? storyline or one that doesn't involve the player thinking too much. What really gets me is that some games will get to their third or second installment and will decide to start appealing to a wider audience all of a sudden, which involves screwing over loyal fans of a series and often taking complexity out of story (and also gameplay on certain occasions) all in the name of making $$$

 

[Dalisclock]

As others here have said, It breaks down along two lines.

1. Most stories,regardless of medium, aren't particularly creative or good. For every great book that is remembered there's a thousand or so that everyone forgets ever existed.

2. Writing a good story is hard, even in a medium, like Movies, TV or Literature where the story is expected to be linear. Writing a good story for videogames, where player input is expected and the ability to affect things is prized, is even harder. You're either forced to write a linear story and railroad the player along the plotline or you have to do a lot more work to write a story that is compelling and works with the ability of the player to affect the game world. This is a lot easier in games that put a significantly higher priority on story and branches then games that put a lot more emphasis on presentation. Mechanics can work either way, depending on how they work.

Not to mention you need to have everyone on board with what they want and how to do it with enough resources to make it happen, which rarely happens. Indie games seem to do better with this a lot of times due to having a small team and the ability to set their own expectations to match their resources, as opposed to AAA games which are created by large corporations which are more then likely managing from on high. That doesn't mean AAA can't have good stories(because they occasionally do) but it becomes much harder when the corporation is telling you that THIS GAME MUST BE OUT FOR CHRISTMAS, even if that means rushing it and putting out a broken, incoherent mess(looking at you KOTOR2)

 

[Trunkage]

I was playing Fallout 4 when it came out and switched to playing the Witcher 3 recently when I bought it on sale. I don't think I'll be able to go back to FO4 afterwards, the story, characters and world just feel so utterly mediocre compared to what CD Project Red has made. Granted, TW3 is based on novels, but that shouldn't be an excuse for other studios not to try and flesh out their games some more.

I played them the other way around, and I got the same response about exploration. Witcher 3 has none. A massive world with nothing interesting to see. Which is funny because Novigrad is a fun place to visit but there is nothing memorable about it. Where I loved the Glowing Sea, Quincy ruins, the Constitution, Corvega plant from Fallout. I remember the ironworks with the gunner's junkyard next door having pot shots at each other with Fatmans while I'm trying to snipe them and not draw too much attention.

Finishing Fallout 4 made me realise how much they blew endings to both game. The Witcher 3 has pretty much 3 endings. I only did two quests to change the results. All other quests didn't really matter. The same with Fallout 4. I know war never changes but you have to work hard to have more than one of the main factions survive.

Now the ending of quest lines seemed separate from the game ending in Witcher 3. I think they did a better job. Especially the Baron's.

 

[Bat Vader]

I've found that point and click and/or adventure games have the best stories. Most times games like those have to rely on the story and puzzles since gameplay is a non-thing in most of them. The Syberia series has to be one of my favorites for the writing and the different unique settings. Pretty much everything Telltale does either makes me laugh or feel depressed for the characters. I love The Cat Lady. One of my favorite adventure games.

 

[Something Amyss]

Fast-paced, easy to digest, unprovocative stories are generally the ones that are easiest to get mainstream appeal with. Sure, they won't be very memorable, but they're also unlikely to be so terrible that people will hate it. It'll be accepted as the videogame version as a popcorn flick and that's good enough for most studios.

The major problem is, people are content to praise games that are still popcorn flicks as though they are masterpieces. I mean, people fawned over Final Fantasy VII's amazing narrative, or the depth of Red Dead Redemption's story, and they even argue story before gameplay when they excuse GTA's still shitty controls (seriously, Rockstar?). And as hilarious as "big American titties" is the 500th time you've heard it, the narratives in these games should be considered B-movies or popcorn flicks. But we, as a collective, actively praise them.