This author seems to have never played a game with an actual good story. You can tell from his comparison of game stories to movies.
How can you compare a 2 hour narrative with a 10-100 hour narrative?
This article grossly overgeneralizes stories in games and ignores the unique storytelling device that is a "game".
A good book doesn't necessarily make for a good movie and a good movie doesn't necessarily make for a good game (and the other way around, as we've seen over and over again).
This article seems like a self-congratulating piece by an indie developer for being an indie developer.
Good for you. That doesn't mean AAA studios can't make a good game story, same as big budget movies can have a compelling story.
I've played many of the author's games and consider them to have better stories than most. I’d have to reach for the likes of Planescape or Disco Elysium to find something I’d consider more compelling.
As you imply, there are many games whose brief summary might sound weird, cheesy or cliche but are actually very well crafted story experiences when played. For me, some would be: Life is Strange, Soma, Deus Ex, Human Revolution, Alpha Centauri, Alan Wake, Control, Quantum Break and Detroit Become Human.
Then there are the Soul Reaver games with middling stories but whose written dialogue and delivery easily put them at the level of great literature for me.
Storywise, some of the author's games would not be out of place if ranked highly amongst such a list. It's like Berkson's paradox, his studio has had staying power but you certainly couldn't point to graphics or unique game mechanics as explanations for why.
>This article seems like a self-congratulating piece
I'd go as far as to argue the author undersells his abilities. His RPG world building and stories are a great deal more entertaining if compared to many fantasy books.
> That doesn't mean AAA studios can't make a good game story,
They could but rarely do. Meanwhile, the majority of those few attempts get workshopped to death (it's easy to tell when a game with potential got derailed in this way). The author isn't saying good game stories don't exist, only that they're rare and most often from smaller studios.
> How can you compare a 2 hour narrative with a 10-100 hour narrative?
Not only the length makes video game stories different. Another huge difference is that in video games you actually get to be the character(s). You don’t just passively experience the story like in a movie or a book, you’re an active part of it. Even better: you can have the player make meaningful choices that affect the plot, which is something unique to games as a medium.
Exactly. And even if you don't have any real choices to make, you still get to experience the story as your story, not a tale.
The author would probably think I'm a lunatic for it, but I consider the original Call of Duty: Modern Warfare trilogy to have a good story. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and unlike with other shooters, and even though it followed multiple characters simultaneously, I was able to suspend disbelief enough to experience it as if it was my story, my world.
The writing of CoD: MW 1-3 would probably be considered a passable military fiction by most critic, if even that. But I bring this particular example up, instead of say Mass Effect trilogy, to highlight the unique aspect of videogames: it can make you live through a story, which neither books nor movies can. It's a distinct kind of experience.
Mass Effect storyline is really nice but if it was put into a movie format it would be a generic scifi flick without emotion. A lot of time is needed to develop the characters and the details possible more than what TV viewers would have patience for but because its a video game it means you get breaks from the narrative because yuou live the story.
> it can make you live through a story, which neither books nor movies can. It's a distinct kind of experience.
SOMA is a great example of this; It could maybe also work as a movie or book, but the FPS perspective fits the story and narrative so good that it elevates the whole thing to its own unique experience.
A VR version could turn this to 11, but sadly any work on that seems to have fizzled out.
In SSX, they broke that wall by referring to the characters as riders we identify with, explicitly challenging the idea of them being characters we pretend to become.
Other titles do that, but that was the first one I noticed the distinction made in an overt way.
I didn't get the same impression as you about the author. Especially later points sound like they played games with good writing and most points are just "many games" points.
Personally, I have seen and played games with 100 hours of playtime - none had a story/narrative of 100 hours (edit: most of it was "filler" aka gameplay without much narrative/story).
I also agree with many parts of the article regarding bad stories overall, despite playing some games with good stories - or stories I felt were good when I had little exposure to video game stories.
> How can you compare a 2 hour narrative with a 10-100 hour narrative?
Larger numbers are better? Let's take as an example the criticaly acclaimed Ghost of Tsushima. If you ask me, it could have been half as long and exactly as good if not better. There was too much identical padding to reach your 100 hour "narrative".
How can you compare a 2 hour narrative with a 10-100 hour narrative?
This article grossly overgeneralizes stories in games and ignores the unique storytelling device that is a "game".
A good book doesn't necessarily make for a good movie and a good movie doesn't necessarily make for a good game (and the other way around, as we've seen over and over again).
This article seems like a self-congratulating piece by an indie developer for being an indie developer.
Good for you. That doesn't mean AAA studios can't make a good game story, same as big budget movies can have a compelling story.