eric5h5: They obviously do work for him, since he's been in business since the 90s. Not exactly lots of other indie game companies that have been around that long.
Well, no, that's exactly what they're commonly known for: bad graphics but good writing.
Crosmando: I've played Geneforge and a few of the old Avernums and I would call the writing competent but still nothing amazing.
This is basically what I meant.
He has a lot of text in his games, and maybe it is decent writing. But, nothing memorable. At least not for me.
To be honest, I feel that he has probably been around for that long for a couple of reasons, mostly not for the writing:
1. Nostalgia. As I said, I bought the games for nostalgia's sake, because I could remember playing one of them IN the 90s, and it brings back memories. I am sure a lot of other people did the same.
2. The style of game play. At the time, there were few 'open world' games, so having a huge world to explore and decent gameplay and storyline would bring people in, and let them leave satisfied. Which again leads to nostalgia, of players coming back and wanting more of his types of games, simply to remember 'their first time' playing his other games. Again, not really much to do with his writing, except to say, it didn't stink enough to be memorable. Then again, it wasn't brilliant enough to be memorable.
3. Some of the game choices. Geneforge was a relatively novel idea, with being able to summon creatures that were unlike anything before, and having choices at the end on how to 'finish' the game. Most games around that timee were fairly linear and it was either 'you finish the game or you don't' and not a lot of choice in *how* the game ended.
Basically, I probably should have said his *stated* formulae isn't what made his games 'work', but rather a variety of different factors, one of which wasn't necessarily good writing.
Which is what I think he misses.
1. When I say a game has a good story, I mean the game has a good story. When I look for a game, I tend to go for games with characters I can relate to, a story line that keeps me coming back for more, and a satisfying ending that leaves me feeling I have accomplished something (which is a rarity these days sadly...). A 'good story', to me, is just that. It is basically the same thing if I were to pick up a book or movie. If I say that movie/book had a good story, I mean it had a good story, and the same for games.
Games don't necessarily need a *story* to work, look at doom and the games like that. But to say that players are so, can't think of the word I want to use here, I guess, 'unintelligent' will have to work for now, that to them any game that has a story has a 'good story' is really insulting gamers. It implies that they have no ability to discern nuances nor ability to decide what is a good story.
2. This is both true and not. Sometimes a story can be more limiting than the players want. Oh, you would never break into a house? but all the good loot is inside houses, making the player go against the story. Sometimes it is better that a game DOES force the player to follow the story (oh, you are a pacifist, well you only get non-lethal weapons). it all depends on the game play and where the story wants to end up.
3. Shoot, even Ultima Underworld: the Stygian abyss broke this mould. 'Hey you, you say you are the avatar, well, when you arrived, something bad happened. Fix it, and we believe you are the avatar, don't fix it, and we won't have to worry, because you will never be seen again'. Yeah, ultimately it had a 'bad guy' to kill, but honestly, most stories fall into the 'protagonist triumphs over the antagonist' plotline, and games are no different. Doesn't mean they are *bad*. As said by others, this also pretty much dismisses 99% of all the stories out there, no matter the media, because that is what the basic plotline is.
4. I sort of have to agree. If I have to be up on the latest internet humor, or if have to know the developers personally to get half the humor of the game, then I will probably not like it very much. I tend to prefer 'dry' humor or subtle humor. For the trick endings, it depends. Sometimes a 'wacky' trick ending, with proper foreshadowing, can be fun.
5. Oh, I don't know :P Bad writers can potentially be cheaper than a good writer who knows it, so it could cost more to have a good story.
6. Good writing comes from people who like writing and who are good at it. What is good writing can also be very much up to the person reading. I have seen people who get upset because a story is 'too long'. I tend to get upset with too short of stories (I want more darnit!). People can get upset when they can't relate to a character. People can get upset when they percieve a character does something they dislike. and so on. Does it mean the story is 'badly written', no, just that people didn't like certain aspects of it.
But, unless you are coming from an academic standpoint with a checklist of things a story has, in order to induct it into the 'this is a classic' hall of fame, most players don't care about what someone else considers 'good writing', they only care if *they* consider it good writing.
I mean look at the people in this thread, some feel BG had good writing, others don't. Some feel like Jeff Vogel's bames had good writing, others don't.
So to say that you will mainly get it in indie games, again, boils it down way to much.
Basically, I feel that the article is trying to shoehorn gamers into one singular profile. But gamers aren't. Thus games can't be boiled down to a singular aspect, nor can any aspect of the games be boiled down.
Some gamers want political storylines that fall in with their personal views. I try to avoid games that shove a political narrative on me. Some want choices in how the game turns out, sort of a 'choose your own adventure' type deal, others like following a more linear model.
Some gamers want the storyline and gameplay to go hand in hand, others want to be able to 'divorce' the game play from the story so they can just enjoy the game play.
For some, a bad story can be a breaking point for them with games. For others, bad gameplay is the breaking point. For yet others, they want both story and gameplay to at least be adequate.
So, I tend to avoid people who try to say 'this is how something should work' because they often try to boil things down too far, and forget that they are talking about a media that has a multitude of players, all who bring their own experiences to the game, and thus have their own sets of likes and dislikes. What works for one game won't work for another, and what works for one gamer won't work for another gamer.
