Lol i feel like you, me and couple other posters do this song and dance every time someone has really narrow and short sighted view on video game stories
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Do you trust any reviewer when it comes to judging a game's story/writing?
- Thread starter BossAttack
- Start date
Of course. 99% of movie stories are also subpar.
It most certainly is a high bar, however I don't come to games for story, so games that mostly pin themselves on story are all a no by me.
A few I do, but on large not at all. Many reviewers have shown they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about with stuff like Heavy Rain getting touted as having an incredible story.Look at the reception to the Ratchet and Clank film. It has a 29 on metacritic. The game is even worse in this regard, yet it was rarely brought up in reviews.
Even when a reviewer does seem to recognize it, its often dismissed for one reason or another. The story not being the reason to play is a good justification. If a game is dedicating time to time story, like say BotW with its cutscenes, then its a part of the game and deserves to be criticized. It doesn't matter if you don't expect a Zelda game to have a good story.
Even when a reviewer does seem to recognize it, its often dismissed for one reason or another. The story not being the reason to play is a good justification. If a game is dedicating time to time story, like say BotW with its cutscenes, then its a part of the game and deserves to be criticized. It doesn't matter if you don't expect a Zelda game to have a good story.
It depends on the outlet and reviewer. Would I trust someplace like IGN on what makes a truly good story? No. But someplaces like Waypoint and occasionally Giant Bomb are reliable. I find I take most of my video games criticism via podcasts that poke and prod at the game. It gives me a better idea of both the game and the way its impacted the people who played it than a mere written review would.
OP
OP
Uncharted? No. They are not wholesale rip offs of Indiana Jones. They actually are fairly well written for their genre and present a different take than Indy.
However, the Housers are basically known for just lifting crime movies and making them games, often missing the subtext of those films. GTA 3 is basically Goodfellas, Vice City is Carlito's Way and Scarface, San Andreas is Boyz in Da Hood, Training Day, and any other 90's gangsta fim, and Max Payne 3 is literally just Man on Fire. RDR1 is the only story that seemed to try to be more than a rip off.
Agreed.
I have a problem with this assumption. You seem to be saying, by watching these films, reviewers gain some kind of automatic expertise? That they are a source of authority because they, like millions of others, have seen these films?
Criticism as a field is about much more than knowledge of a subject matter. It's about applying art, philosophy, holistic study, literary criticism and a healthy dose of opinion and taste to a subject.
And Games as a storytelling device! What a wonderful topic! The story cannot be separated from its medium. The way games communicate stories is so different to film. They can communicate it through text, gameplay, movement, environment and plot. Through sound, through the rumble of a controller and of course writing.
So do I trust game journos on this subject? The bigger and more thoughtful sites (Kotaku, Polygon, Eurogamer), yes. Do I always agree with them? No. But do I respect the criticism of the reviewer? Absolutely.
I have a few people I trust when it comes to judging the quality of writing or the way a story is told and crafted. None is primarily a video game journalist but journalists who work in the Feuilleton or Culture and Art sections of big media outlets, primarily are literary critics and who occasionally write about games when one comes along they deem important enough.
To analyze a story in-depth above a surface, subconscious level you need some background in literary writing techniques and narratology involving models and functions etc. so no, I don't think the vast majority of reviewers can be trusted in this. Then again, most of the time you don't strictly need an academic level analysis to tell if something is good or bad, even if some elements fly over your head.
Besides that, if you're an avid reader most of the tropes and storylines featured in pretty much anything from games to TV shows and movies can look like an amalgamation or revision of something you've read before so you become more demanding in your search for new experiences.
Besides that, if you're an avid reader most of the tropes and storylines featured in pretty much anything from games to TV shows and movies can look like an amalgamation or revision of something you've read before so you become more demanding in your search for new experiences.
I don't trust game reviewers, but I'm not sure I "trust" film reviewers either. I mean they can be interesting, but they tend to have a particular perspective I don't necessarily share. Or fandom, to be honest. Its really something where I think personal preferences are king.
Hell, most of you probably think I'm crazy because (for example) I think Bethesda generally writes better than Obsidian, but I don't really care because I'm buying games for me, not anyone else.
Hell, most of you probably think I'm crazy because (for example) I think Bethesda generally writes better than Obsidian, but I don't really care because I'm buying games for me, not anyone else.
I don't trust reviewers' takes on story and writing, and I get paid to do it. The thing is that story is rarely going to make or break a game. If a review is focused on a game's story, it's really not doing me any good. Even if it's a critical analysis. I need to know how the game is conveying meaning through action and mechanics. That's a thousand times more important.
people like things so radically different from me, its impossible for me to take critical reviews of story seriously without actually playing it for myself. Im the opposite from you, in that i actively seek out games with story and narrative purpose and structure. I take it very seriously and will give higher points to games which may be mediocre mechanically but have great atmosphere, characters and engaging story/plotting. I can play and enjoy games without those things, but its one of my most important points for what i gravitate toward
OP
OP
I will take a bit of issue with your TLOU example. I don't think the opening is "poor," even if it didn't even elicit a single watery eye from me. The "kill the dog/kid/parent/spouse" trope to have the audience immediately empathize with a protagonist at the start of a story isn't bad, its become a trope because it's so effective. Star Trek 09' had my eyes watering with its cheap ass opening, it ma be cheap but its effective. The problem is that movies are REALLY good at getting the audience to empathize and feel emotions in a very short time frame. UP can have you crying in under 2 minutes. But, for some reason, games aren't really capable of the same, at least to me.
I think the interactive nature of games makes it harder to more readily empathize with a character at the start. You often need more time with a character before you're ready to cry for and/or with them. I think had TLOU been a movie that opening might've gotten my eyes watery, but as a game it did nothing for me. Still, I don't think the attempt was faulty or "bad."
What new narrative techniques did TLOU bring to gaming? What new gameplay techniques? Did it uniquely change the dynamic between cinematics and gameplay? Did it create whole new camera techniques in conveying narrative? If not, then it ain't the Citizen Kane of gaming.
Those things takes time to get right. It deserves discussions, arguments, back-and-forth. All those things are stripped away in a review, so what you get ends up being almost irrelevant and uninteresting to what comes after.
Going to have to disagree. Yes, all those games are very heavily influenced by those movies, but none of them are rip-offs. They all have very different stories from those movies
Like you say that Max Payne 3 is literally just Man on Fire. Have you seen Man of Fire recently? The only things the game and movie share are the atmosphere, some of the visual elements like the stylized text, and the basic premise of an American working security in Brazil and getting revenge (and even then, getting revenge eventually because Max's main motivation during the game is not revenge like it is Creasy's, he's acting as a hired gun for most of the game). Everything else - protagonist, antagonist, plot, why the protagonist is doing what he's doing - is completely different
Last edited:
Nah not at all in anything when it comes to Games in general.
I might like different stories than them and when it comes to mechanical things i wouldn't trust them either.
These days its all about twitch for Singleplayer Games and highskilled streamers for certain Multiplayer Games if you didn't get to play a Beta yourself.
Make yourself a picture especially with games from big AAA Publishers and if it is Multiplayer focused.
I might like different stories than them and when it comes to mechanical things i wouldn't trust them either.
These days its all about twitch for Singleplayer Games and highskilled streamers for certain Multiplayer Games if you didn't get to play a Beta yourself.
Make yourself a picture especially with games from big AAA Publishers and if it is Multiplayer focused.
A considerable amount of nerd culture has incredibly bad taste.
Game reviewers are far less qualified to talk about music/OST tbh. It's funny, there's dedicated critics in other mediums but game reviewers always have a crack at reviewing the quality of music.
What usually happens is if a game is good then so is the soundtrack and vice versa.
Game reviewers are far less qualified to talk about music/OST tbh. It's funny, there's dedicated critics in other mediums but game reviewers always have a crack at reviewing the quality of music.
What usually happens is if a game is good then so is the soundtrack and vice versa.
No.
There are so many derivative stories and clumsy attempts at symbolism or commentary that are lauded by the games press because they have such limited exposure to literature and film.
I don't expect a masters in English literature or a film critic, but I would like the healthy rounded opinion of someone that has picked up a book since High School or watched a movie recently that took place outside the Marvel cinematic universe.
There are so many derivative stories and clumsy attempts at symbolism or commentary that are lauded by the games press because they have such limited exposure to literature and film.
I don't expect a masters in English literature or a film critic, but I would like the healthy rounded opinion of someone that has picked up a book since High School or watched a movie recently that took place outside the Marvel cinematic universe.
Bioshock Infinite and the Last of us are terrible
This is one of the ridiculous statements I've ever seen. You think that because someone is reviewing games, then they have a "limited exposure to literature and film"?
Entertainment is subjective so you have to choose reviewers you trust. This is why shitting on one outlet or another for a bad reviews (or good one) is a waste of time. Even though these people represent the outlet they do not represent the opinion of each and everyone there. Find a reviewer (not just an outlet) that you think your taste align with and go by that. Sometimes you may even disagree with that person but that's okay, it's called being human.
Hahahahaha this is harsh AF but also totally true. The big reason for this IMO is that video games are STILL stuck in a culture of geek fandom, which is actively anti-literary. The people writing reviews, making games and playing games are still, a lot of the time, the sort of people who genuinely think Star Wars is a cinematic masterpiece rather than fun kitsch fluff. So the emotional, political and subtextual simplicity of comic book culture becomes the high watermark for narrative in general, supported by the sort of people who only read sci-fi novels and think Better Call Saul is absolutely incredible TV rather than endless exposition (I do actually like BCS, but come on, these are actors, they can embody characters rather say exactly what they're thinking all the time).
This is how you get people saying that Nier Automata gave them 'feels' or whatever, when it's just simplistic cliches that have been explored in millions of other mediocre sci-fi narratives. Because a lot of game culture/geek culture is SO insular, people don't know or care about anything outside its simplistic confines. The depressing thing is, we're not just talking about really obscure, difficult foreign language cinema/literature/theatre here. We're also talking about huge American classics- Rosemary's Baby, Easy Rider, Badlands, Chinatown, all those 60s and 70s New Hollywood films which anyone can watch and enjoy.
But alongside this you also have the strange indie game obsession with David Lynch, especially Twin Peaks. None of these indie games really take anything other than aesthetics from Lynch- again, a shallow response to much more complex work.
I think a big thing is that video game narratives can feel much, much more intense than cinematic narratives. Theatre can have this effect too. You're so immersed, so active, that the smallest thing can have a much bigger impact. I was blown away by TLOU's story, not because it was original or literary or subtextual, but because I'd actually BEEN those characters. Same with games like Life is Strange, Firewatch, Oxenfree- it was cliched but I didn't care, because I was actively invested. It's similar to the way that romance is always so soppy and sickly until it happens to you.
But I don't think that means we need to continue to set the bar so low when it comes to video game narratives. We need higher standards, and we need narrative to be more than a means to an end, more than simply something to drives games forward. "Games just aren't a narrative art form" isn't an excuse, or true. If music, the most inherently abstract of all art forms, can be incredibly narrative, from song lyrics to operas to soundtracks, then video games can definitely achieve that, in a more satisfying and intellectually engaged way than they currently do.
Great post. I mean, this is a result of our aggressively anti-intellectual culture which prioritised instant gratification and online fandom over everything else. But it's also because we (in the UK and US) don't teach cinema at school. Great cinema should have equal priority to literature in education. It would allow people to actually see what the art form really is, rather than simply 'entertainment'.
my interpretation:
It is a game that will pass the test of time, and years from now it will remain enjoyable to play. It may not invented things like Citizen kane did ( <3 ), but people will look and say "man, what a game".
Wait, is this seriously a thing, given the comments that followed that post? People seriously think that game reviewers and game devs are like narrow-minded nerds who only like Star Wars and Marvel and don't expose themselves to diverse film and fiction?
I don't trust game reviews period anymore. There's way too many example of 90+ rated games where my personal review would be the lowest on metacrtic. I have Red Dead preloaded and am excited to play it but seeing it get glowing reviews doesn't get me hyped up like I would have done years ago because for example GTAV got the same reception and to me game was nothing special.
Best reason I can think of for this is that outlets typically end up assigning a game to people who are already fans of the series or developer and therefore a lot more predisposed to liking it.
Best reason I can think of for this is that outlets typically end up assigning a game to people who are already fans of the series or developer and therefore a lot more predisposed to liking it.
OP
OP
Those are fighting words, Sir! The Empire Strikes Back IS a cinematic masterpiece.
But yes, I pretty much agree with everything else you've said.
So then not the Citizen Kane of gaming, more like the Titanic or the Predator of gaming.
Review aren't there to validate your opinions. Why are you expecting reviews to align with your personal tastes?
In terms of story reviewers are incredibly easy to impress. I really don't expect any kind of in depth look at a games themes from a day one review but the fact that a game can just like mention some incredibly basic philosophical concept and have every critic going "This is the most important game of our age" is kinda embarrassing.
Ok I'm being hyperbolic, but most of the time the story in games that impress me most are those told through the gameplay, Undertale and The Last Guardian being some of my favourite example in the last few years. Those stories can stay with me for so much longer when they understand the methods of storytelling that only games can take advantage of and it feels like many review don't really reflect that so much.
Ok I'm being hyperbolic, but most of the time the story in games that impress me most are those told through the gameplay, Undertale and The Last Guardian being some of my favourite example in the last few years. Those stories can stay with me for so much longer when they understand the methods of storytelling that only games can take advantage of and it feels like many review don't really reflect that so much.
I totally agree with your overall point, but I will say that TLOU did more seamlessly weave dialogue into gameplay, especially in exploration sections, than any game I have ever played.
The dialogue itself wasn't very good, but at times it really did create the illusion of continuous, seamless conversation between Joel and Ellie, and I found that really impressive. Much better than stuff like GTA V's 'characters talk to each other while driving somewhere' approach to exposition.
That isn't even close to what I said.
When a game is praised for its story and that story is clearly either derivative of one or more stories in film or literature and the reviewer doesn't evaluate the story in that context — or at least make reference to it — then that is indicative of the myopic critique I'm talking about.
You're making the assumption that a story being derivative of, or heavily influenced by, other stories from film or literature is inherently a flaw to be critiqued
A story can be excellent and still be utterly derivative of other stories in other medium. Simply being a well-trodden or familiar plot doesn't make a story bad or means it's a flawed narrative
It's interesting to see that most examples are from western games.
Visual Novels were mostly proeminent in Japanese games and those rely solely on writing to entice players. I review games and I'm no literature specialist, so I wonder what kind of japanese games would be considered with good writing.
Visual Novels were mostly proeminent in Japanese games and those rely solely on writing to entice players. I review games and I'm no literature specialist, so I wonder what kind of japanese games would be considered with good writing.
User Warned - Conspiracy Theories & Vilifying Journalism
Nope, they are mostly paid or sponsored by said game company
I love that film, and really like Star Wars in general (and Rogue One was unexpectedly the most socialist Hollywood film since the 70s). But like, I also get that it's not really in the same league as a lot of other cinema. It's when educated people really think Star Wars is the absolute peak of what cinema can be, that's what winds me up.
Kirk Hamilton at Kotaku is very, very good at this. He was a professional musician before moving into games journalism, and he's one of the only games journalists who really analyses the music and sound design of games. I'm hoping he does some sort of podcast or something just dedicated to games soundtracks at some point.
Maybe, but more "citizen kane" because it has a good story haha
OP
OP
I won't take issue with that.
Really, it's because Empire is such a masterpiece that Star Wars has remained in such conversations, the series has been chasing that high ever since.
Looking at Utawarerumono's aggregate scores is depressing.
Maybe, just maybe, those educated people are specifically talking about Star Wars as the cinematic peak of what it represents and not of all cinema? I imagine that's what "educated people" would say, not meaning that Star Wars is as narratively and thematically complex as Lawrence of Arabia