What, exactly, is good writing in videogames?

What, exactly, is good writing in videogames?

Simplistic and integrates gameplay.

No different from good writing in any other media user.

Actually, what the fuck do you think 'media' even means? Why would video games have other standards than any other media?

What pen is that? I have several flex nibs and that looks really fucking cool.

Games with good writing:

Persona 3
Xenoblade
Chrono Trigger
Final Fantasy VI
Bioshock
System Shock
Xenosaga

So, what exactly is good writing?

There's two types in my opinion
The first is the type of writing you personally enjoy, even if you know it's objectively garbage.
The second is the type that most everyone can agree is good writing.

>asking a bunch of neet dropouts what good writing is

This is where you start with the Greeks

>Bioshock
Cheap way to ensure replies, user.

To me it's any game that integrates story with gameplay. Heavy exposition and overly long cutscenes are two things that stick out to me as bad writing.

you mean like metal gear?

Wrong board. Wrong website.

Yes.

Bioshock had great writing though. It's rare for videogames to have unique and memorable settings, and Bioshock had it. Also a great antagonist and of course Andrew Ryan. Little sisters and big daddies were great characters. Everything about the story and lore are interesting and unique.

That's hard to quantify exactly, there are mostly just rules and a long list of do's and don'ts, many of which can also be subverted by skillful writing.

If you'll forgive the food analogy, it's the same as asking what makes a good pie. Obviously it actually needs to be a pie, and having a crust that's just blubber or made of lard makes for a shit pie, filling it with expired fruit also won't help the flavor but it's not as if there's some clear cut list of what is essential for a good pie.

I personally value consistency among the highest qualities in writing, consistency in that what people say and do both align, in that what people say and do have the effect that is consistent with the expectations raised by the writing previously (for example if you establish the existence of real-life physics, don't then have a character defy those physics, subverting them works, defying them is contradictory writing)

Characters also require agency, though this is arguably subjective it's just pointless to read a story about characters that do nothing, that just look on as things happen around them, this is why characters like Booker in Bioshock Infinite are so bad, because they don't act and react based on the world around them, the character sees a sign warning him of danger, he acknowledges the sign but then not the danger it warns him of. That's just jarring to the reader and makes for a bad story.

But I thought everyone on Sup Forums was an engineer on 50k a year

Pleb, I'm up to 75k by now.

Good writing in pretty much the same as in other mediums. Except that it also needs to incorporate the player into each event. You can't really just have a person sitting there watching 20 hours of cutscenes and have a good 'game'. The player has to feel like they are triggering the scenes or interacting with the NPCs or something.

Of course, many games break this rule. And some of them are often cited as having the best writing. But that comes down to your personal opinion.

Another note is that sometimes good writing in a game can be more simplified than writing for another medium. Something that would be called boring to watch as a movie can be engaging as a game. Because a movie has to rely entirely on the story and characters to keep people engaged. While a game can focus on action or even the lack of action to drive the player forward. This is why Resident Evil is a good game but a shitty movie.

According to Sup Forums you find good writing in every book ever written

According to Sup Forums only Chris Avellone knows the answer to this question.

Not even Sup Forums would call Twilight good writing user.

Then again these same people will then suggest Witcher 3 had good writing so I'm not sure if their opinions have any credibility anymore.

Suda games have tippy top tier writing. Nearly every line is memorable as fuck while still contributing to the experience of the fucking video game. Torment was also very aware of itself and knew how much to give.

These sad fucks literally saying bioshock are why every western studio is a pandry tumblr fantasy now.

combination of many things

>interesting plot with unobvious plotwists
>multidimensional characters with believable motivations that play well into the plot
>main character with a character development arc
>a theme that somehow translates the game experience into something that makes you feel like you learned something >about life (or other substantial thing)
>a good usage of building tension and releasing it, especially between scenes
>then there is the actual ability of writing believable, interesting dialogue or narration

those are the big ones

Engaging.

Witcher had amazing writing on videogame standards. Id say the good parts are better written than sapkowskis ciri saga.

>Buzzwords
user please, this isn't making a point this is listing a bunch of platitudes.

What the fuck is an 'interesting plot' and why are twists a requirement?

What the fuck is a multidimensional character and why couldn't you have a well-written one-dimensional character?

Why does a character need to grow or develop? Take detective novels or mysteries for example, a character in those would not have any kind of growth, that shit is almost exclusive to shit like dramas and even then it's not mandatory at all.

I could go on but you get the message, think this shit through next time you decide to post, and don't just parrot third-hand bullshit.

There is no definite list of rules for good writing, no robotic checklist. You can have one-dimensional characters, hokey dialogue, a predictable plot, and still have something the best written game ever. And a game with the complete opposite points could be a boring piece of shit -- in fact I often find that to be the case, they try so hard to get everything right like it's a math equation and forget to enjoy themselves.

The heart of good writing is inciting emotional or intellectual response. Flat statement but so many get this wrong because they're afraid of being called out for "bad writing."

how does witcher 3 not have good writing

Here's your (you).
Don't spend it all in one place.

Its not in novel format.

Okay so think of a bimbo:

>one track mind
>only concerned about one thing
>can't for the life of her figure out why she's constantly getting laid or prompted for sex
>toms of figure and no intellectual substance to match

then you can apply the same metaphor to writing: when the thematic premise is expressed too narrowly or dimly, you end up with a story that just feels underwhelming and expendable.

I don't really care for comparisons to another author user, the writing was terrible.

The story was a patchwork of TV series' cliches where they tried to insert Marie Sue Geralt and did so by having his entire character and personality change based on who he was talking to. The inconsistency is just horrendous, and Geralts interactions with the world are contrived and nonsensical.

Heck, his entire inclusion in the plot comes out of nowhere. Yenn has no presence in the previous games, suddenly the emperor of fucking Novigrad has no one on staff that can track people down and he conveniently needs someone amazing at tracking, Geralt will do! Yenn is suddenly there, despite the fact that she's under some Genie compulsion to always gravitate toward Geralt she never shows up in the literal years he spends running around Temeria.

The story then becomes about finding Ciri, another previously unmentioned character that the reader is given no reason to care about besides 'Geralt cares about her' but the problem then is that Geralt is not a consistent character and his actions and motivations change at the drop of a hat, even when the player is trying to play consistently.

His actions also just don't match his attitude, he's hostile to almost everyone then proceeds to do exactly as told like a good little doggy, it's just jarring as fuck, and the writing is just incredibly lazy and sloppy.

The fact that games frequently have much worse doesn't somehow make this good, just comparatively better. Same shit is said about Bioshock Infinite though, and that is NOT a compliment at all.

It's not his fault you don't understand basic fucking terms.

How about you grab a fucking dictionary before making a thread?

wew buddy. There actually is a point behind all of the points I mentioned, but it would take basically a book to explain each. Yes I was being overly simplistic, and yes not all of those are necessary under all circumstances, such as your detective example. I personally think your average detective novels are shit of the earth, but perhaps that is just me.

>What is interesting plot
A plot during which something and anything happens, rather than a static and uneventful one

>why are twists requirment
Generally speaking, a good story needs at least one twist to set the story going. It usually happens after a small introduction to the setting or the main character. In half-life it would be the part where the test goes wrong.

Wheter more twists are good can be argued on, but take metal gear solid for example. It uses plot twists brilliantly to build interest and tension.

>multidimensional character and why couldn't you have a well-written one-dimensional character?
Have you played Skyrim? That being said, minor characters can be one dimensional usually. But story immersion is easily broken by major characters that lack motivations behind their actions.

>Why does a character need to grow or develop?
You are right about detectives, however in character driven stories this is a definitive must.

>and don't just parrot third-hand bullshit.
I've fully read 6 full-length books on fiction writing, and partially read a few more

Deus Ex
Planescape: Torment
Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines

In video games, it's being able to have lines of dialogue that don't sound like a retarded speak-and-spell.

At its core, good writing facilitates gameplay. Whatever your gameplay is, good writing will play second fiddle to it. In the case of this like CYOA games with things like puzzles to break up text, the puzzles should organically derive from the writing. It would make no sense for your puzzles to involve defusing bombs when your subject matter is historically accurate18th century Poland.

What does this mean then, for games with more involved gameplay? It means that you should be able to tell story through gameplay as much as cutscenes or dialogue sections.

It should be apparent, based on the situation you are dealing with, what kind of character you are. Things like spoken dialogue during these sections help to further underscore points about what's going on.

When the time comes for actual cutscenes and dialogue heavy moments, they should never feel forced or feel like a section that could have been better handled with gameplay.

This requires both a writer that understands what is to be expository among a list of things that could be interactive, and a team that can create the interactive sequences and not defer to cutscenes and infodumps out of laziness, budget, time or a combination thereof.

But really, games have the ability to tell great deals without saying much of anything and without using real life representations, just like film can. All because you can show so much, and in writing showing always trumps telling.

Consider this line when thinking of good writing in games: You could make a cartoon in crayons about a red square that falls in unrequited love with a blue circle, and there wouldn’t be a dry eye in the house if you know how to tell a story.

And you could do the same thing with a game. Really though, this question is heavy and bears more discussion than a single post on Sup Forums.

legacy of kain series is the only good writing i encountered in games.

I dunno but here are some examples
>horrendous writing
Fallout 3, absolutely worst written game of all time
>bad writing
Gothic 1 english translation
>decent writing
New Vegas
>great writing
MGS games on average
>superb writing
FarCry2 jackal tapes

Of course the are all factual statements, anyone disagreeing is wrong

>why couldn't you have a well-written one-dimensional character?

You can't be one dimensional and be considered well-written.

>Y-you just don't get it!
user please, learn to read before you try to write.

>Interesting plot
Again, 'something happens' okay buddy, how is this useful information to anyone? A plot in and of itself requires something to happen, so what makes for an 'interesting' one? You can't just throw stock phrases out there and expect people to nod and agree.

>Generally speaking
You mean 'in my opinion' don't pretend to speak for others when you speak for yourself, even when expressing what you believe is popular opinion. Also your example of a twist is in no way a twist. A twist is where something opposite of the raised expectation happens, in the 6th Sense Bruce Willis being dead is a twist because you expect him to be alive. In HL the experiment going wrong is not a twist because you have no expectation either way.

>Multidimensional
Not going to get into this one, you just asserted that a character needs a motive which has nothing to do with multitudes in dimensions. Luka in MGQ is a one-dimensional character he cares about one thing and that's all he will do and care about, but he's arguably one of the better written protagonists in video games out there.

>It is a definitive must
Except it isn't. A story can also be about how a one dimensional character faces challenges his personality has trouble coping with, and it will be about how he solves his problems based on who he is, rather than adapting who he is to subvert problems. An example here is Yuri Lowell in TLS, who starts the game as a Renegade with a heart of gold, and ends as a Renegade with a heart of gold, he doesn't really grow as a character at all during the events of the game, the only thing that changes are his direct motives based on what he learns. Not every good character driven story needs to be a Ground Hog Day.

>I've read this much
If I get pulled over by the police I don't excuse the errors I have made by saying 'I've been driving for 6 years!'

Circular logic is not a good argument user.

The Resident Evil Remake is a good example of writing done critically well for the sole purpose of good writing. There is no need for a zombie game to have exceptional writing, in any degree, but the Remake manages to maintain itself thematically from start to finish, setting the standard very high without using many literary devices.

basically you can't be autistic and you're good wel written.

Not him, but one dimensional characters are less characters and more devices. It is rather unsatisfying to see an actor on the stage do only one thing in one way, unless by doing so he is acting as a means to draw attention to other characters' faults or strengths. A foil, if you will, but a temporary, unimportant one.

Being one dimensional doesn't make you poorly written, especially if you use the character effectively, but it does limit engagement and turn them into something inorganic.

Except some of the most critically acclaimed characters in writing were heavily autistic, and many more are clearly on the spectrum.

Good meme though, that.

After going to school with inclusive students, I can safely say autism has very little to do with efficacy in writing.

Something that is unique and memorable, but also believable and grounded in the setting

I definitely agree that one-dimensional characters have a great many limitations in what kind of stories they work in, but the argument was that good writing requires multi-dimensional characters, which is simply incorrect.

In fact the challenge of one-dimensional characters can often lead to really great writing, because it allows you to subvert tropes and expectations, be creative and original, since the majority of their occurrences come from frankly shit writers who simply can't write a proper character and their work results in a one-dimensional piece of shit.

When you played through a game's story and didn't think "Wow, that's bullshit."

The phrase one-dimensional is a synonym for archetypal. Most archetypes in stories are driven by one or two motivations and have no critical meaning for existing other than serving some basis of the plot. That's usually what you encounter in Megaman games, where all the characters are squarely archetypal. That doesn't make it bad writing outright, but it does make it genuinely harder for the story to be taken seriously.

It's such a game this game was on an unpopular system, it seriously had some of the best writing, it's the only game to ever make me feel so many times.

Let me think OP...

This meme gets away with murder.

A subtle story that doesn't interfere with gameplay. Thief the Dark Project for example

>interesting plot
Yep, like I said it would take a book to explain this in detail. But novelty is also important part which I left out.

>plot twists
Yes, you are right, the half-life example is actually a plot point, rather than a plot twist, but I wouldn't expect average Sup Forums goer to know the difference so I used that word.

>multidimensional characters
Your understanding of the word when related to fiction writing is (probably?) slightly off. I don't know your example too well, but a villain who just does bad things would be considered one dimensional. A villain who does bad things because he has a good reason to would be two dimensional. And a three dimensional character would be someone whose life experience has driven him to become the kind of person he is, causing him to do the things he does in his way. So in other words, dimensions just means that the characters are fully thought out. Even if someone acts in a one dimensional way, doesn't mean he is one dimensional as a character. Also since dialogue is such a big part of a visual novel, for Luka his dialogue is probably well thought out and supported by his personality, which again is caused by his lifestory that far (I'm guessing?).

>a one dimensional character faces challenges his personality has trouble coping with, and it will be about how he solves his problems based on who he is, rather than adapting who he is to subvert problems.
You just described one kind of a character arc. I never said his whole personality has to change.

>I've read this much
I merely meant that I'm not parroting second hand shit. Honestly though, and please pay attention to this now, it would take a long time to explain the purpose and method of each of the points I mentioned. I was being very simplistic and writing very fast. I simply don't have the patience or time to go deeper into this on an anonymous image board.

Basicly what i'm looking for in a videogame's story is

>quality > quantity
I don't need tons and tons of lines of lore, info or dialog just to get the point of a conversation (i.e: How Silent Hill 2 builds a story heavy on symbolism which you can easily miss unless you pay attention)

When i say quality over quantity, i mean that games can have stories as simple as "Kill the new Overlord of the Week to save the world" and still be amazing, just because a story is complex doesn't necesarily mean it is good

>Story and gameplay integration
AND THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT! The writing won't mean shit to me in a videogame if i can't see both connected (i.e: Again, SH2, does this a lot, another game that does this is Undertale, when Sans says "You are going to have a bad time" it reflects heavily on the game, and makes a simple line of dialog a lot more impactful on the player)

I don't know why, but it is the simpler stories that i find the most memorable

Ah, sorry I didn't read up that far in the chain. Yeah, one dimensional characters can do that. But then, like I said, I'd see them more as inorganic devices than actual characters in that case.

As the other guy I quoted said, you can use archetypes to your advantage by subverting them. But yes, I agree, they do pose a bit of an obstacle of you're not aware of them.

At least there's one writer all of Sup Forums can agree is good.