Support NeoGAF

[Saruhashi]

So I was reading this: https://www.vg247.com/2019/01/02/diversity-important-video-game-much-gameplay/

"There’s no limit to where video games can take us."

Grrr.

OK, so here's a thing that really grinds my gears. I utterly despise when people come out with shite like "there’s no limit to where video games can take us." or "video games can change the world" or some other similar sentiment that sounds like it's lifted from a starry eyed kids high school essay on his favorite hobbies.

Sure, we all love games here, I hope. Sure, games can help us all through hard times. I think the same could be said about movies or sports or many other hobbies, interests and pastimes. Fuckin, maybe angry ranting can change the world too. Hurrah!

I'm kind of sick of this idea that games need to be something more than just entertainment or play or fun. Like if you just like old school Mario or Metroid for what it is then somehow you are holding back games and, by extension, maybe even society itself.

The context of the article is that diversity is as important as gameplay and I think that this ties to the idea that games can "take us anywhere".

I think that what the writers of these kind of articles are getting at is that they believe that games can actually force changes in the consumer in ways that a movie or a book cannot. I think they correctly see that you can watch a movie and just tune out and ignore the "lessons" the movie is trying to impart. With a game, however, they imagine that since the player is forced to interact with the game they are therefore forced to absorb the message the game is sending out.

It's like the inverse of GTA and "games cause violence". If games can cause violence and sexism in the real world then couldn't they also "convert" people in other ways that we would actually want?

The problem with this, of course, is that you need to break down the idea that games are being played for fun or relaxation etc.

"Simply being ‘fun’ often isn’t enough."
"there are still people who push back, pining for the days when ‘gameplay’ was king"
"For me, ‘gameplay’ means all the interactive parts: the running, jumping, driving, and shooting. It means the verbs."
"These snippets of flavour are what makes games more than a toy. "

I personally feel like there is plenty of room on people's PS hard drive or Switch sd card for games of all different types but I get the impression from reading articles like this that games that exist just to be fun are seen as "lesser".

They want games that they imagine you'll play with tears streaming down your face as you sob "oh-- m-my g-gosh golly gosh this is what it feels like to be a woman in Trumps America". Fuck off.

I'm not saying it's wrong for games to be emotionally driver or story driven. Hell, I think it's even great if someone wanted to make a total Art-House video game that isn't fun and is totally impenetrable.

I just hate this fucking preachy "games can do anything if we all just have a bit more empathy" bullshite.

I understand as well that probably the most memorable games for many people are those that have some kind of emotional backbone in their narrative. That's fine.

I just don't think it supersedes fun and enjoyable gameplay.

"You can count on one hand how many games feature an Arabic protagonist or a disabled hero."

Look, I'm not trying to be an asshole here but if the game was "Wheelchair Racing" and it was fast and fun and a good laugh to play then I am all on board. Hell maybe you could have a story mode that showed a real positive outlook on life for people who were dealt a fucking raw deal. That could be grand.

If I'm to be subjected to some preachy "edutainment" bullshit about the challenges of disability then I don't really give a crap if I'm "holding games back". I'm just not going to be into that.

"Now, more than ever, we need games to let us be someone we’re not. We need to spend a while in someone else’s skin. Let’s start 2019 with a little more empathy. "

No. No we don't need to spend a while in someone else's skin.
Sure, as a society we could probably do a lot more when it comes to having more empathy for others.

I just don't think that you can force this by assuming that if Basement Bob the 40 year old incel plays "The Blue Haired Adventures of Pussy Hat Penny" for long enough he'll be voting Democrat for sure in 2020.

This is why i think gameplay is STILL king when it comes to gaming. The best you can hope for with a video game is that the player enjoys the thing so much that they forget about their own shitty life for a few hours after work.

Escapism beats Forced Diversity every single time, in my eyes.

Plus what do you REALLY learn if you play as a woman for a few rounds of BattleField V?

Like if I were to ask the wife to tell me her 5 most prominent difficulties that she thinks are directly linked with her being a women then how many of those would be addressed by playing Uncharted: Lost Legacy or Dishonored: Death of the Outsider? Probably none.

"You might be the only agent of change in many games, but you are not the protagonist of reality."

Fuck. Off.


Sorry, for the rant. Thoughts on the article?
How many folks would actually rather play an preachy game that will teach you valuable political lessons?
How many would just rather do a few rounds of Smash Bros for fun?
Or is the "sweet spot" somewhere between those two?

 

[LegendOfKage]

You hate an article, so you make a thread about it and link to it, leading to ad revenue, and page hits, and more incentive to write more articles like this one.

Maybe don't do that.

They want games that they imagine you'll play with tears streaming down your face as you sob "oh-- m-my g-gosh golly gosh this is what it feels like to be a woman in Trumps America". Fuck off.

The sad thing is I don't think that's an exaggeration of what they do want. When you ask normal people "what's your dream game" they say things like "I'd like a new Elder Scrolls, but with really good combat that maybe uses a 3rd person camera. Oh, and co-op so I can play with a few of my friends. And some really good lengthy side quests for things like the magic guild and the dark brotherhood." Or maybe they come up with an IP and pair it with a developer. But I have to think for ideologues like this, they'd gladly give up any of that for what you just described above.

 

[mckmas8808]

You hate an article, so you make a thread about it and link to it, leading to ad revenue, and page hits, and more incentive to write more articles like this one.

Maybe don't do that.



The sad thing is I don't think that's an exaggeration of what they do want. When you ask normal people "what's your dream game" they say things like "I'd like a new Elder Scrolls, but with really good combat that maybe uses a 3rd person camera. Oh, and co-op so I can play with a few of my friends. And some really good lengthy side quests for things like the magic guild and the dark brotherhood." Or maybe they come up with an IP and pair it with a developer. But I have to think for ideologues like this, they'd gladly give up any of that for what you just described above.

And that's 0% wrong with that. It's okay for people to want a game that speaks to issues within our society. Why do you two guys want to limit what games are and can be? They can be all these things.

 

[Saruhashi]

And that's 0% wrong with that. It's okay for people to want a game that speaks to issues within our society. Why do you two guys want to limit what games are and can be? They can be all these things.

That's a good point.

Which is why I said this:
I personally feel like there is plenty of room on people's PS hard drive or Switch sd card for games of all different types but I get the impression from reading articles like this that games that exist just to be fun are seen as "lesser".

And then I said this:
I'm not saying it's wrong for games to be emotionally driver or story driven. Hell, I think it's even great if someone wanted to make a total Art-House video game that isn't fun and is totally impenetrable.

I agree with your point entirely but your reading comprehension is fucking woeful.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Videogame writers and game journalists on the whole are mediocre. Full stop. That is the source of 80% of the problem, and so it's an apolitical issue, at the core.

Videogames are not a good vehicle for a traditional movie-like or book-like narrative. The best games let you "write your own story" through the experiences. I know people love stories in games. I do too, but story is the medium's weakest facet, especially when story is conveyed through a ton of voice acting and dialogue and cutscenes.

As a result, all the "writers" in the industry resort to poor and/or lazy writing tropes to shock and awe the lowest common denominators of the audience. The hero is a strong woman? And she's a lesbian? All along I was learning about depression? OMG OMG OMG

This would be shocking if it appeared in a Saturday morning cartoon circa 2007, but it's insanely derivative as fiction consumed by adults. Even so, it brings in the clicks and the attention (for now).

There are religious movies and religious books. Even if someone is staunchly opposed to religion and its doctrines, that doesn't prevent you from walking into a Barnes & Nobles, does it? No, and one reason is because Barnes & Nobles doesn't artificially signal boost entire categories of books and shove it into your face. You could go to Family Christian Bookstore for that. In B&N you are greeted by a cookie-cutter store that pushes no ideology or politics or standpoint on you.

That is how a market should operate.

In videogames, we have journalists and a very narrow caste of game developers/writers who are pushing an ideology pretty hard and who aren't hesitant to artificially signal boost it. This is the opposite to how a market should operate. Even Hollywood -- the most sanctimonious secular artifice of the modern age -- releases kids movies and religious movies and family movies and political movies alongside the Summer blockbusters and Oscar-bait.

If we had better writers -- or at least writers who understood the medium better instead of trying to ape Hollywood -- then the political preaching would vanish into the background static, just like entire genres of books that hold no interest for you vanish into the background static of the store's layout.

 

[Saruhashi]

You hate an article, so you make a thread about it and link to it, leading to ad revenue, and page hits, and more incentive to write more articles like this one.

Maybe don't do that.

The sad thing is I don't think that's an exaggeration of what they do want. When you ask normal people "what's your dream game" they say things like "I'd like a new Elder Scrolls, but with really good combat that maybe uses a 3rd person camera. Oh, and co-op so I can play with a few of my friends. And some really good lengthy side quests for things like the magic guild and the dark brotherhood." Or maybe they come up with an IP and pair it with a developer. But I have to think for ideologues like this, they'd gladly give up any of that for what you just described above.

Ah, I don't care if they get the ad revenue. They are welcome to it.
I disagree with the article but I am cool with them writing it and getting paid for it.

I am always reminded of Christian rock music when this kind of things comes along.
They understand the inherent value and the social "coolness" of rock music but they need it to be sort of prescriptive.
They need entertainment that serves their underlying goals and it certainly cannot go against them.

Same deal here. A kid having mindless fun with Mario Kart or Pac-Man is a kid that isn't hearing the "good word".

As much as it makes me mad it is also kind of fascinating to watch it play out.

 

[Alexios]

I agree with the sentiment that there's no limit, I don't see a problem with it. VR was a revelation, it works for both the fun and the immersion and raised the skies further (without making non VR obsolete).

Now if that sentiment is translated as games of this or that style (whether that's "fun" or "cinematic") being objectively inferior or whatever, that's a whole different thing and I'd never agree.

Fight the specific translation chosen by specific people, not the sentiment and statement which can apply just as well to all kinds of games just the same as far as I'm concerned.

 

[sublimit]

The phrase itself could include both game-centric games like the ones the OP likes as well as more experimental ones (both good and unique as well as pretendious ones).And i think the medium itself really offers a lot of capabilities but not in the hands of the industry as it is now.

The problem is that with the way this industry works the all-powerful marketing and trend-makers people will use this phrase and make it viral to the mainstream sheeps while promoting the most pretendious,"artsy-fartsy" game with the help of the "intelectual" influentials who are either paid to speak positive about it, or they pretend they like what they don't understand simply because they don't want to be considered as peasants.

Meanwhile trully unique games that don't use the same marketing practises are usually left to positive word of mouth for any hopes of success.

Maybe someday the average gamer will become more mature and more self-reliant in terms of judgement and taste and then i think that phrase will start having true merit in a much more bigger scale than it currently has.

 

[mckmas8808]

That's a good point.

Which is why I said this:
I personally feel like there is plenty of room on people's PS hard drive or Switch sd card for games of all different types but I get the impression from reading articles like this that games that exist just to be fun are seen as "lesser".

And then I said this:
I'm not saying it's wrong for games to be emotionally driver or story driven. Hell, I think it's even great if someone wanted to make a total Art-House video game that isn't fun and is totally impenetrable.

I agree with your point entirely but your reading comprehension is fucking woeful.

To be fair.......you wrote alot of words and it's super early in the morning here. At some point it just all became a huge wall of text.

 

[mckmas8808]

Videogame writers and game journalists on the whole are mediocre. Full stop. That is the source of 80% of the problem, and so it's an apolitical issue, at the core.

Videogames are not a good vehicle for a traditional movie-like or book-like narrative. The best games let you "write your own story" through the experiences. I know people love stories in games. I do too, but story is the medium's weakest facet, especially when story is conveyed through a ton of voice acting and dialogue and cutscenes.

As a result, all the "writers" in the industry resort to poor and/or lazy writing tropes to shock and awe the lowest common denominators of the audience. The hero is a strong woman? And she's a lesbian? All along I was learning about depression? OMG OMG OMG

This would be shocking if it appeared in a Saturday morning cartoon circa 2007, but it's insanely derivative as fiction consumed by adults. Even so, it brings in the clicks and the attention (for now).

There are religious movies and religious books. Even if someone is staunchly opposed to religion and its doctrines, that doesn't prevent you from walking into a Barnes & Nobles, does it? No, and one reason is because Barnes & Nobles doesn't artificially signal boost entire categories of books and shove it into your face. You could go to Family Christian Bookstore for that. In B&N you are greeted by a cookie-cutter store that pushes no ideology or politics or standpoint on you.

That is how a market should operate.

In videogames, we have journalists and a very narrow caste of game developers/writers who are pushing an ideology pretty hard and who aren't hesitant to artificially signal boost it. This is the opposite to how a market should operate. Even Hollywood -- the most sanctimonious secular artifice of the modern age -- releases kids movies and religious movies and family movies and political movies alongside the Summer blockbusters and Oscar-bait.

If we had better writers -- or at least writers who understood the medium better instead of trying to ape Hollywood -- then the political preaching would vanish into the background static, just like entire genres of books that hold no interest for you vanish into the background static of the store's layout.

Everything you wrote here is your bias speaking. And it's speaking very loudly. Because that "signal boost" is just your ears or eyes only seeing and hearing certain people talk. Clearly you are talking about TLOU2 and a game like Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. Nobody is saying those games are the only games that people should care about. They didn't get their "signals" boosted over a game like The Breath of the Wild (which is the total opposite type of from HellBlade).

Hell, I'd even say more people spoke about The Breath of the Wild, than they did The Last of Us. At least leading up to release anyways.

 

[Panajev2001a]

And that's 0% wrong with that. It's okay for people to want a game that speaks to issues within our society. Why do you two guys want to limit what games are and can be? They can be all these things.

Completely agree. The only thing Infind disingenuous is when someone says for example “no, I am not hating this because I do not want sexualised images ever, I am just upset about what I see as everything always being sexual” and the proceed to do this for every single sexualised image they find... but it is kind of OT here, so I will leave it at that .

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Everything you wrote here is your bias speaking. And it's speaking very loudly. Because that "signal boost" is just your ears or eyes only seeing and hearing certain people talk. Clearly you are talking about TLOU2 and a game like Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. Nobody is saying those games are the only games that people should care about. They didn't get their "signals" boosted over a game like The Breath of the Wild (which is the total opposite type of from HellBlade).

Hell, I'd even say more people spoke about The Breath of the Wild, than they did The Last of Us. At least leading up to release anyways.

No, I think you're ascribing something to me that I didn't say.

Right at the top, I point out that 80% of the issue is apolitical : videogames are infested with bad writing.

As a result, there is a growing segment of videogame writing that shocks or offends or stirs up controversy to get more attention than it normally would. Whether that is a game like Gone Home or a game like Hatred, it's all the same. It's lowest-common-denominator sort of entertainment which will always be a part of any medium that has ever existed anywhere.

The only reason why people think games have "deep stories" is because they haven't made the conscious decision to expose themselves to anything resembling a deep story. For goodness' sake, Kingdom Hearts has a fanbase that cares about the story.

Naturally, this trickles into the journalism that covers this industry.

Pining for the days when "all people can be equally represented in games" and saying that "there's no limit to where videogames can take us" (with no mention of the technology or design behind the games) is bad writing and bad journalism and has nothing to do with videogames. Yet, this is the sort of journalism that is increasing and being pasted on the front page of websites. The core issue is that gaming is sorely lacking in good writers and thinkers, in large part because your typical review-reader doesn't have the taste or worldview to contradict what is written. They just go along.

If you think I'm pointing out the political slant of these writers and taking issue specifically with their politics, you are mistaken. Their writing is just as crappy as the endless "Top 20 Whatever" videos and articles that we got ad nauseam a decade ago. That wasn't pulling in the viewers quite as much anymore, so the crappy journalists have moved on to other crappy writing tricks to grab the readers. Today, that means writing about social issues that are barely related to gaming. Tomorrow, the topic might be about how playing videogames on a large screen can give your pets PTSD and therefore you should sell your TV. In either case, it's crappy journalism.

 

[Paracelsus]

It has nothing to do with change. Videogaming business was infested with people who would rather be anywhere but working around videogames, because they most likely were never fans of the medium, so they're attaching themselves to bigger causes (like social issues) and writing convoluted garbage to build videogaming into something it has never been and never will be.
"Videogames are art" doesn't come from a profound love for videogames, it comes from people appalled and embarrassed to be associated with toys for children, repackaging them to look more mature than they actually are.
Videogame journalists are below the bottom of the barrel, they're glorified advertisers paid to shill Fortnite, it's no wonder they feel the way they do.

 

[rabbity-thing]

I agree with your point entirely but your reading comprehension is fucking woeful.

Awful nice sentiment from a guy who just wrote a wall of text to defend his desire to keep gaming's head in the sand. Let's take a look at some of it:

"Now, more than ever, we need games to let us be someone we’re not. We need to spend a while in someone else’s skin. Let’s start 2019 with a little more empathy. "

No. No we don't need to spend a while in someone else's skin.
Sure, as a society we could probably do a lot more when it comes to having more empathy for others.

I just don't think that you can force this by assuming that if Basement Bob the 40 year old incel plays "The Blue Haired Adventures of Pussy Hat Penny" for long enough he'll be voting Democrat for sure in 2020.

That's funny. On the one hand, we DO need more empathy, but on the other hand, gaming can't be a tool to help aid in this even though gaming is literally a medium whereby a user spends time in another person's shoes. Then again, your amazing evidence that gaming can't help in that is hard to discredit (read: sarcasm).

This is why i think gameplay is STILL king when it comes to gaming. The best you can hope for with a video game is that the player enjoys the thing so much that they forget about their own shitty life for a few hours after work.

If the "best" that a game can hope for is that it makes the user forget about their terrible life for a few hours after work, then, no joke, that's a really low bar for the "best" a game can hope for.

Also, it's not like a game with a motive other than "be fun" can't also be wicked fun. Like it or not, many games now have strong mature narratives and such narratives (in any medium) tend to have motives and/or messages.

Escapism beats Forced Diversity every single time, in my eyes.

And that's the rub. I wonder if it would bother you to consider that the "forced diversity" you see isn't actually being forced. We live in a diverse society and it's about time gaming reflected that reality. What you're seeing is actual diversity and it's butting heads with all the forced lack-of-diversity that became the status quo.

Plus what do you REALLY learn if you play as a woman for a few rounds of BattleField V?

Like if I were to ask the wife to tell me her 5 most prominent difficulties that she thinks are directly linked with her being a women then how many of those would be addressed by playing Uncharted: Lost Legacy or Dishonored: Death of the Outsider? Probably none.

I'd be curious to hear what your wife actually has to say on the matter. My wife and I have actually discussed this before. One of the things that she thinks is difficult about being a woman, specifically a gamer woman, is that there are very few games where she gets to play as a woman. That's what we call under representation. Remember, women make up half of the population. Realistically, they should make up half of the gaming protagonists. Remember that when you cry foul of "forced diversity."

As for whether that's addressed by playing games with female protagonists, yeah, of course it is. Bullseye levels of gratification. She plays all sorts of games, obviously, but she really appreciates the chance to play games with fully realized female protagonists. Heck, I think it's half the reason she's playing Assassin's Creed Odyssey right now.

Anyway, I think I'm guilty now, too, of the wall of text thing. Just something to think about, I guess. And, hey, you could always just say that none of it matters because I couldn't correctly comprehend what you were going for.

...meh. Seriously, all this needs to stop. Change is inevitable. Your hobby is changing. The user-base is changing. The developers and producers are changing. The writers are changing. Accept what you like and don't buy what you don't. If you truly are correct about how gaming should be, then the market will eventually push gaming backwards and you will be fine. Then again, maybe your post is the result of a growing fear that you are wrong.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

You guys have to realize that game "journalists" are not specialists in the media anymore. These are guys and girls who come from other sections like "culture" or "technology", read a bit about videogames and believe they can write an eassy on it, inserting their own political or ideological agenda, as well.

So, don't take them seriously, they don't deserve it. Even if you make fun of the crap they write you are giving them a voice and that feeds the troll.

 

[Chozofication_]

Basically they're hoping games can brainwash you in being a dogmatic husk like they are lol

 

[Thiagosc777]

That's funny. On the one hand, we DO need more empathy, but on the other hand, gaming can't be a tool to help aid in this even though gaming is literally a medium whereby a user spends time in another person's shoes. Then again, your amazing evidence that gaming can't help in that is hard to discredit (read: sarcasm).

You should try harder to blend in with real humans.

Empathy is a basic human function, just like fear or hunger. It's not something to boast about or having more of.

So it's very suspicious when people push this, almost as if they are trying to hide something about themselves. Like abusers pretending to be feminists.

This is why the NPC meme exists.

 

[Thiagosc777]

You guys have to realize that game "journalists" are not specialists in the media anymore. These are guys and girls who come from other sections like "culture" or "technology", read a bit about videogames and believe they can write an eassy on it, inserting their own political or ideological agenda, as well.

That's why we need to identify who is who:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/gamer-credibility-why-do-we-need-it.1470336/

 

[Barsinister]

Video game enthusiasts should be placed on the same level as model train enthusiasts. Normal people who look in my game room always have a sideways glance, seeing shelves devoted to this hobby. Gamers already trend to the unsociable, what person would rather be cooped up in a room instead of going outside. Power fantasies and working out systems is a masculine pastime, it isn't surprising that the avatars are mostly male.

What the heck is a fully realized female protagonist?

 

[Paracelsus]

Awful nice sentiment from a guy who just wrote a wall of text to defend his desire to keep gaming's head in the sand. Let's take a look at some of it:

That's funny. On the one hand, we DO need more empathy, but on the other hand, gaming can't be a tool to help aid in this even though gaming is literally a medium whereby a user spends time in another person's shoes. Then again, your amazing evidence that gaming can't help in that is hard to discredit (read: sarcasm).

So you're admitting you're weaponizing games for political purposes.

If the "best" that a game can hope for is that it makes the user forget about their terrible life for a few hours after work, then, no joke, that's a really low bar for the "best" a game can hope for.

No, it's the second highest. The highest is that it helps them forget and leaves them a lasting impression about everything, including story and characters. Plus, most games going for bigger messages are usually terrible games.

Also, it's not like a game with a motive other than "be fun" can't also be wicked fun. Like it or not, many games now have strong mature narratives and such narratives (in any medium) tend to have motives and/or messages.

Mature messages from immature people.

And that's the rub. I wonder if it would bother you to consider that the "forced diversity" you see isn't actually being forced. We live in a diverse society and it's about time gaming reflected that reality. What you're seeing is actual diversity and it's butting heads with all the forced lack-of-diversity that became the status quo.

Society doesn't equal gaming audience.

[quoteI'd be curious to hear what your wife actually has to say on the matter. My wife and I have actually discussed this before. One of the things that she thinks is difficult about being a woman, specifically a gamer woman, is that there are very few games where she gets to play as a woman. That's what we call under representation. Remember, women make up half of the population. Realistically, they should make up half of the gaming protagonists. Remember that when you cry foul of "forced diversity."[/quote]

Finger, moon. Does your wife need those women characters to look bad and act according to social agendas?

Anyway, I think I'm guilty now, too, of the wall of text thing. Just something to think about, I guess. And, hey, you could always just say that none of it matters because I couldn't correctly comprehend what you were going for.

Change is inevitable. Your hobby is changing.

For the worse, like any other medium, fully backed by pseudo-journalists not in the hobby.

The user-base is changing.

Vocal minority fallacy.

The developers and producers are changing. The writers are changing.

And we can see it from the sharp decline of the product combined with the marketing machine behind journalism faking 95% Metacritic where there's none. These people could never work for Reuters because they're sellouts, literally so.

If you truly are correct about how gaming should be, then the market will eventually push gaming backwards and you will be fine. Then again, maybe your post is the result of a growing fear that you are wrong

Market will eventually collapse, it already is, but it won't go back to the way it was before, because those who actually made it good are long gone.
Once again, wrestling is the best tool of comparison: they're doing the same thing, and it's working about as well.

Video game enthusiasts should be placed on the same level as model train enthusiasts. Normal people who look in my game room always have a sideways glance, seeing shelves devoted to this hobby. Gamers already trend to the unsociable, what person would rather be cooped up in a room instead of going outside. Power fantasies and working out systems is a masculine pastime, it isn't surprising that the avatars are mostly male.

What the heck is a fully realized female protagonist?

Anita has a trope for it, it's called "Ms. Male", basically Kassandra from Assassin's Creed.

 

[Barsinister]

Anita has a trope for it, it's called "Ms. Male", basically Kassandra from Assassin's Creed.

I only played the first and the pirate one. From what I have seen, it seems the dialogue choices are the same for the male and female characters. Is that a fully realized female protagonist?

 

[mckmas8808]

No, I think you're ascribing something to me that I didn't say.

Right at the top, I point out that 80% of the issue is apolitical : videogames are infested with bad writing.

As a result, there is a growing segment of videogame writing that shocks or offends or stirs up controversy to get more attention than it normally would. Whether that is a game like Gone Home or a game like Hatred, it's all the same. It's lowest-common-denominator sort of entertainment which will always be a part of any medium that has ever existed anywhere.

The only reason why people think games have "deep stories" is because they haven't made the conscious decision to expose themselves to anything resembling a deep story. For goodness' sake, Kingdom Hearts has a fanbase that cares about the story.

Naturally, this trickles into the journalism that covers this industry.

Pining for the days when "all people can be equally represented in games" and saying that "there's no limit to where videogames can take us" (with no mention of the technology or design behind the games) is bad writing and bad journalism and has nothing to do with videogames. Yet, this is the sort of journalism that is increasing and being pasted on the front page of websites. The core issue is that gaming is sorely lacking in good writers and thinkers, in large part because your typical review-reader doesn't have the taste or worldview to contradict what is written. They just go along.

If you think I'm pointing out the political slant of these writers and taking issue specifically with their politics, you are mistaken. Their writing is just as crappy as the endless "Top 20 Whatever" videos and articles that we got ad nauseam a decade ago. That wasn't pulling in the viewers quite as much anymore, so the crappy journalists have moved on to other crappy writing tricks to grab the readers. Today, that means writing about social issues that are barely related to gaming. Tomorrow, the topic might be about how playing videogames on a large screen can give your pets PTSD and therefore you should sell your TV. In either case, it's crappy journalism.

Yeah I see where we may be talking pass each other, because I didn't think you were attacking these writer's politics. When I was talking about you bias, I was saying your bias to thinking videogames are a bad medium for story-telling. I think like all mediums, storytelling is best served when it does it in a way that's natural for that specific medium. Storytelling in books has to be done differently, then when writing for a movie. And so is writing a story for a video game. Heck, writing for a TV show needs to be different than writing a story for a movie. In a book naturally the reader is laid back and willing to read 1000s of words per hour. But sense there's no visuals, the author has to overly describe the scene, the smell in the air, the color of the women's clothes, the look that the oncoming man gives to her in great detail. When writing for a movie, non of that has to be written, because it's on the Director to display those small ques.

To me story telling in games needs to be equally different. The pacing will always be different when it comes to telling a story for a game then when telling it in a movie due to the interaction. Of course opinions may vary of "how" to tell your story in a video game. But since the medium in interactive, the range through which the story can be told is so much wider in this medium that almost any other. I personally liked the story in "What Remains of Edith Fitch" and "Gone Home". They are similar in ways in how they tell the story, but also different in other ways. But those two games to me display how wonderful storytelling in games can be.

And then you include games like The Last of Us, God of War, and The Witcher 3.........whoa! Game storytelling has gotten so much better. Yet the worst thing any of us can do is directly compare it to movies or TV shows. That's stupid. It's as stupid as when people say "the story was better in the book". NO FREAKING DUH! The book was 300 pages of just words! Isn't that the point of a book? There's no audio or video, just words. The story SHOULD always be better in the book. Doesn't mean a company shouldn't make a movie of (Example Book A) of it.

 

[Helios]

Just another example of VG247 being awful. There are plenty of good writers on that site but it's tarnished by a few journalists that can't hold their boner for virtue-signaling. Coupled with click-bait articles, it just became one of those sites that it's best to avoid. And the people in charge of that site are happy with it, probably since they bring a lot of clicks from both side of the spectrum.

 

[mckmas8808]

You should try harder to blend in with real humans.

Empathy is a basic human function, just like fear or hunger. It's not something to boast about or having more of.

So it's very suspicious when people push this, almost as if they are trying to hide something about themselves. Like abusers pretending to be feminists.

This is why the NPC meme exists.

This is a ridiculous statement. No reasonable person actually thinks empathy is as basic a human function as fear or hunger. Asking people to be more empathic of something is simply asking a person to think about that other person's situation a little and not only care about your situation. It's just simply asking for kindness and respect. Why would anyone think asking for empathy is a bad thing, unless you don't want certain people to get empathy from society.

 

[Thiagosc777]

This is a ridiculous statement. Now reasonable person actually thinks empathy is as basic a human function as fear or hunger. Asking people to be more empathic of something is simply asking a person to think about that other person's situation a little and not only care about your situation. It's just simply asking for kindness and respect. Why would anyone think asking for empathy is a bad thing, unless you don't want certain people to get empathy from society.

People naturally do that. That's why it is suspicious when someone says something like that, it is either pure virtue signaling or a sociopath who doesn't understand human emotions.

Typical virtue signaling like: "I am so pure and noble, so let me tell you lowly beings how to behave properly. <waits for compliments and applause from other NPCs>"

 

[Luffytubby]

For the thread; Nobody in that article is saying that every game has to be politically analyzed or interpreted as such. It's just that SOME games are more than their gameplay. Games that are political and non-political can co-exist just like other forms of entertainment. There will be people who will interpret everything as something. Why are you getting your panties in a twist over that? Let them do whatever the fuck they want. It doesn't hurt anyone that they can get more out of video games. Nobody is stopping you from enjoying video games on whatever level you want.
More and different interactive experiences that nuances the scope of what a video game can and should be is good for the industry. Current conventions of games are not the end-game of what games can be. In my mind storytelling techniques in current video games are abysmal, and most video game developers are bad storytellers. So fuck em. I am ready for new people to come in and actually try and tell interactive stories beyond "Press F to pay respect" while the games industry still claps its hands to the current trends of TPS cutscene-followed-by-gameplay-followed-by-cutscene. We need new ideas. There has been an abscene of good ideas among AAA tier games for a long time, and I am bored by a lot of the output in recent years.

To me, many of the most interesting games coming out are the indie games with unique storytelling, characters and worlds that break the mold from the big publishers. And while there is a lot of indie trash and shovelware, I can certainly say that the majority of my enjoyment in recent years has come from indie games, who are at the forefront of making games as experiences that go beyond what we traditional see as gameplay.

That's a good point.

Which is why I said this:
I personally feel like there is plenty of room on people's PS hard drive or Switch sd card for games of all different types but I get the impression from reading articles like this that games that exist just to be fun are seen as "lesser".

And then I said this:
I'm not saying it's wrong for games to be emotionally driver or story driven. Hell, I think it's even great if someone wanted to make a total Art-House video game that isn't fun and is totally impenetrable.

I agree with your point entirely but your reading comprehension is fucking woeful.

It's easy for anyone to make a shallow comparison like saying that the falsehood of video game violence equating to real-world violence is as problematic as pulling out political topics out of games with no politics in them. You didn't specify concrete examples and you treat the article you are criticizing as being an article (and opinion) that thinks that all games should be more than its gameplay. Obviously, this only goes for certain games. Just like political analysis also only goes for certain books/movies/paintings/music. I think you know this, but from the wording of your post, I just get a sense that you want to ignore that fact to paint the article as being singular and extremist.
The article asks the question of what constitutes "gameplay" in and of itself. And the author makes a compelling point that immersion also is gameplay. This is not really a controversial idea as mood-based games where atmosphere and exploration are king, have been around for a long time. These are the type of "games" experiences that try to make people feel rather than subjecting them to a difficult gameplay loop to master. My suspicion is that there is a large audience for these types of games.

Where I disagree with the article is the argument the author makes for Battlefield 5. It seems like a logical fallacy to me, to state that just because a person would find female soldiers immersion breaking, that then everything else that ain't 100% realistic should also be removed (citing 1-shot kill from a rifle headbutt attack). Obviously, immersion breaking elements are not created equally, and in a game where the fantasy is historical battles, I don't find it a compelling argument.
I believe female soldiers, soldiers of colour and so on, should be included as playable options, but I also think there should be a toggle to turn on historical realism, along with disabling other unrealistic features like HUD, Map, Status indicators, English-voices for non-english factions and so on. A cosmetic choice is a good thing as it does not impeach on gameplay. And I think that goes for lore-breaking elements like the debacle with no-helmet stormtroopers in Battlefront. Let players decide on their end.

Inclusion and historical realism is a balancing act, but it does not have to be hard when we are dealing with multiplayer create-a-character features.

 

[Barsinister]

"The Last of Us" had two things going for it. It had a good hook. What will happen? It had a good, cathartic ending. The story was neither original or well told. "God of War" (The first one) did something similar with Kratos having to "protect" his wife and child, giving up his health to keep them alive. It triggered a protective impulse in the player. Both were clever and evocative. I would argue that without the ending bit, "The Last of Us" would not be as highly regarded.

 

[Three]

That's a good point.

Which is why I said this:
I personally feel like there is plenty of room on people's PS hard drive or Switch sd card for games of all different types but I get the impression from reading articles like this that games that exist just to be fun are seen as "lesser".

And then I said this:
I'm not saying it's wrong for games to be emotionally driver or story driven. Hell, I think it's even great if someone wanted to make a total Art-House video game that isn't fun and is totally impenetrable.

I agree with your point entirely but your reading comprehension is fucking woeful.

The question is what gives you the idea that games built just to be fun are treated as 'lesser'? Has somebody gone into a Mario thread and said where are the lesbians this game sucks or something?

If anything I have seen the complete opposite. Games that include these things are somehow seen as 'lesser' lo and behold by the people that don't like diversity not liking diversity in the type of games being made.

 

[mckmas8808]

People naturally do that. That's why it is suspicious when someone says something like that, it is either pure virtue signaling or a sociopath who doesn't understand human emotions.

Typical virtue signaling like: "I am so pure and noble, so let me tell you lowly beings how to behave properly. <waits for compliments and applause from other NPCs>"

Okay, I see where you're going. So how do you explain the entire existence of society in America pre-1965? What was natural about any of that?

"The Last of Us" had two things going for it. It had a good hook. What will happen? It had a good, cathartic ending. The story was neither original or well told. "God of War" (The first one) did something similar with Kratos having to "protect" his wife and child, giving up his health to keep them alive. It triggered a protective impulse in the player. Both were clever and evocative. I would argue that without the ending bit, "The Last of Us" would not be as highly regarded.

Well....that's not fair lol!!! That's like saying...well that soccer player didn't have a good game if you take out the first goal he scored at the 5th minute and that goal at the 89th minute of regulation of play and then scoring the last penalty kick in Extra Time.

 

[Thiagosc777]

Okay, I see where you're going. So how do you explain the entire existence of society in America pre-1965? What was natural about any of that?

What is there to explain? Are you suggesting that prior to 1965 people were empathy-less? And only after activists appeared and "educated" them, they developed empathy?

Evolution, how does it work?

 

[mckmas8808]

What is there to explain? Are you suggesting that prior to 1965 people were empathy-less? And only after activists appeared and "educated" them, they developed empathy?

Evolution, how does it work?

Actually yes lol! That's exactly what I'm saying. I do believe people were less empathic to black people between 1776 - 1965, than they are today. It took 1000s of people on the outside of the majority to speak and reach out to them to explain and show them why the current way of things was wrong. And reasonable after some time, those in the majority got to realize that "those people" aren't so bad. And in some cases, they even realized that they are awesome for the greater society and it worked.

 

[Thiagosc777]

Actually yes lol! That's exactly what I'm saying. I do believe people were less empathic to black people between 1776 - 1965, than they are today. It took 1000s of people on the outside of the majority to speak and reach out to them to explain and show them why the current way of things was wrong. And reasonable after some time, those in the majority got to realize that "those people" aren't so bad. And in some cases, they even realized that they are awesome for the greater society and it worked.

Any substantial change to humans would take millions of years. It's impossible for any real change to have occurred in the last thousands of years, let alone decades. That's why the human today is the same, as far as intelligence and "empathy" goes, as the one from antiquity.

The reality is the people alive today are the same as they have always been. Your "empathy" argument is nothing, but fiction.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yeah I see where we may be talking pass each other, because I didn't think you were attacking these writer's politics. When I was talking about you bias, I was saying your bias to thinking videogames are a bad medium for story-telling. I think like all mediums, storytelling is best served when it does it in a way that's natural for that specific medium. Storytelling in books has to be done differently, then when writing for a movie. And so is writing a story for a video game. Heck, writing for a TV show needs to be different than writing a story for a movie. In a book naturally the reader is laid back and willing to read 1000s of words per hour. But sense there's no visuals, the author has to overly describe the scene, the smell in the air, the color of the women's clothes, the look that the oncoming man gives to her in great detail. When writing for a movie, non of that has to be written, because it's on the Director to display those small ques.

To me story telling in games needs to be equally different. The pacing will always be different when it comes to telling a story for a game then when telling it in a movie due to the interaction. Of course opinions may vary of "how" to tell your story in a video game. But since the medium in interactive, the range through which the story can be told is so much wider in this medium that almost any other. I personally liked the story in "What Remains of Edith Fitch" and "Gone Home". They are similar in ways in how they tell the story, but also different in other ways. But those two games to me display how wonderful storytelling in games can be.

And then you include games like The Last of Us, God of War, and The Witcher 3.........whoa! Game storytelling has gotten so much better. Yet the worst thing any of us can do is directly compare it to movies or TV shows. That's stupid. It's as stupid as when people say "the story was better in the book". NO FREAKING DUH! The book was 300 pages of just words! Isn't that the point of a book? There's no audio or video, just words. The story SHOULD always be better in the book. Doesn't mean a company shouldn't make a movie of (Example Book A) of it.

An example of a great videogame story -- in my opinion -- is Bloodborne. There isn't a lot of dialogue, nor are there a ton of cutscenes. The written material is minimal compared to a full-blown RPG like Skyrim or Witcher. Most of it is conveyed visually and through the player's own actions. Most importantly, the "story" never gets in the way of the player's own endeavors.

Videogames aren't a bad medium for storytelling as long as the story is told with the strengths and weaknesses of the medium in mind. Cutscenes and tons of voiced dialogue are bad methods of telling a story in a videogame because you can't help but compare them to other mediums. Should they be completely avoided? No. Do they constitute "good" storytelling? Well, let's compare them to similar material and see...

If you use written text in a game, there is nothing unnatural about comparing that to literature. If you use voice-acting in a game, there is nothing unnatural about comparing that to TV shows and movies. And when these comparisons are made, videogames fall short 99% of the time. It tells me that we need better writers or we need a different focus. Videogames shine when they push their particular method of storytelling, which I think is what you're getting at. It's not the content of the story that matters as much when the execution matches the medium.

 

[mckmas8808]

An example of a great videogame story -- in my opinion -- is Bloodborne. There isn't a lot of dialogue, nor are there a ton of cutscenes. The written material is minimal compared to a full-blown RPG like Skyrim or Witcher. Most of it is conveyed visually and through the player's own actions. Most importantly, the "story" never gets in the way of the player's own endeavors.

Videogames aren't a bad medium for storytelling as long as the story is told with the strengths and weaknesses of the medium in mind. Cutscenes and tons of voiced dialogue are bad methods of telling a story in a videogame because you can't help but compare them to other mediums. Should they be completely avoided? No. Do they constitute "good" storytelling? Well, let's compare them to similar material and see...

If you use written text in a game, there is nothing unnatural about comparing that to literature. If you use voice-acting in a game, there is nothing unnatural about comparing that to TV shows and movies. And when these comparisons are made, videogames fall short 99% of the time. It tells me that we need better writers or we need a different focus. Videogames shine when they push their particular method of storytelling, which I think is what you're getting at. It's not the content of the story that matters as much when the execution matches the medium.

Now I see the difference on where me and you are coming from. See I personally don't like to compare the "quality" of a story across mediums. I don't like to compare the quality of a story in a book to the story told in a movie. It's not fair to either medium to me.

You can't compare text written in a game to text written in a book. They serve two different purposes. At some point, you will need to move the character in the game in order to read more text about something else in that game. That already destroys the comparison for me to a book. The author of a book doesn't have to compensate for what the reader has to do between pages. They just turn the page. But a writer for a game has to compensate for level designers, animators, artist, etc. The comparison just gets messy for me.

The 2nd bolded part of your post is EXACTLY what I'm saying. You got it!

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Now I see the difference on where me and you are coming from. See I personally don't like to compare the "quality" of a story across mediums. I don't like to compare the quality of a story in a book to the story told in a movie. It's not fair to either medium to me.

You can't compare text written in a game to text written in a book. They serve two different purposes. At some point, you will need to move the character in the game in order to read more text about something else in that game. That already destroys the comparison for me to a book. The author of a book doesn't have to compensate for what the reader has to do between pages. They just turn the page. But a writer for a game has to compensate for level designers, animators, artist, etc. The comparison just gets messy for me.

The 2nd bolded part of your post is EXACTLY what I'm saying. You got it!

My stance is that videogames shouldn't be relying on the same forms of delivering story. Silent films relied on intertitles to convey what was occurring on the screen because voiced dialogue had not yet been incorporated into film. After it was, that method of telling story became totally unnecessary. Videogames once used text to convey story because everything was conveyed in ASCII. Nowadays, a lot of information is communicated through iconographics (like your HUD) instead of spelling it out in a tutorial or in a story.

I'm not advocating for us to cut out all text and all cutscenes. I just think it's an inferior way of conveying story in this medium. The magic of videogames is that every game is my story. I am the player. Even if I'm playing through an avatar with its own personality, backstory, and mission, the best stories are those that engage the player's own choices instead of telling the player "this is what occurred" via text and cutscene.

I'm not comparing a game to a book. I'm comparing the text in games to the text in books. I'm not expecting everything to be Shakespeare, I just don't want it to be crap. And most text in videogames is crap. Same with most voice acting. The various systems in a videogame don't suddenly make crap voice acting good, which is why the comparison can be made. You can critique the spoken dialogue of a movie for the same reasons: tone and quality are characteristics of voice acting, but the words themselves can be compared against written dialogue.

I understand the sentiment of not wanting to compare mediums. That's not what I'm attempting to do. I'm only focusing on the facets of videogaming that are pulled wholesale from other mediums. These elements can be compared -- and should be compared -- if you want gaming stories to improve.

 

[nkarafo]

I'm with you OP. I also hate preaching and virtual signaling in games. Especially when there is absolutely no subtlety about it. But hey, at least i don't have to buy them. Just ignore them and buy the games you want. In the end, the market will decide if they are worth existing or not.

Also, ignore game journalists. I stopped reading gaming sites and my sanity improved a lot. Just follow a few youtubers that you like and a couple of gaming forums and you should be set for life.

 

[Thiagosc777]

I'm with you OP. I also hate preaching and virtual signaling in games. Especially when there is absolutely no subtlety about it. But hey, at least i don't have to buy them. Just ignore them and buy the games you want. In the end, the market will decide if they are worth existing or not.

Also, ignore game journalists. I stopped reading gaming sites and my sanity improved a lot. Just follow a few youtubers that you like and a couple of gaming forums and you should be set for life.

I agree partially. Obviously, don't buy their games. But being silent about it gives the wrong impression, that everyone thinks that way. That's why pointing out their mistakes is necessary.

 

[mckmas8808]

Any substantial change to humans would take millions of years. It's impossible for any real change to have occurred in the last thousands of years, let alone decades. That's why the human today is the same, as far as intelligence and "empathy" goes, as the one from antiquity.

The reality is the people alive today are the same as they have always been. Your "empathy" argument is nothing, but fiction.

I'm sorry bro but this is 100% false. I don't think you understand how society's work. Anybody that knows a little bit about Western society within the last 50 years (I'm not sure how old you are), knows that technology has totally changed the way people interact and how people develop and maintain relationships due to technology that's been created over the last 50 years.

Just within the last 15 years, Western society has changed due to social media. How reporters and journalist write has changed due to social media. How people react to big moments in history has changed due to social media. It has really changed how we are as a species.

 

[Thiagosc777]

I'm sorry bro but this is 100% false. I don't think you understand how society's work. Anybody that knows a little bit about Western society within the last 50 years (I'm not sure how old you are), knows that technology has totally changed the way people interact and how people develop and maintain relationships due to technology that's been created over the last 50 years.

Just within the last 15 years, Western society has changed due to social media. How reporters and journalist write has changed due to social media. How people react to big moments in history has changed due to social media. It has really changed how we are as a species.

Not enough time has passed for any fundamental function of the brain to have changed. Evolutionary pressure will certainly drive humanity into a certain direction, but it is measure in millions of years, not decades.

 

[Airola]

I pretty much feel the same about anything that gets taken too seriously.
There is good emotional reaction about things and then there is the corny emotional reaction about things.

 

[nkarafo]

An example of a great videogame story -- in my opinion -- is Bloodborne. There isn't a lot of dialogue, nor are there a ton of cutscenes. The written material is minimal compared to a full-blown RPG like Skyrim or Witcher. Most of it is conveyed visually and through the player's own actions. Most importantly, the "story" never gets in the way of the player's own endeavors.

Unfortunately, these ways of storytelling, the subtle ways, are not geared to the lowest common denominator. The average joe likes his spoon feeding of exposition and emotions through bombastic or pretentious, overly dramatic cutsenes.

It's not a coincidence that all the "woke" developers are never subtle with their storytelling. They always go for the overdramatic shit i just described.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Unfortunately, these ways of storytelling, the subtle ways, are not geared to the lowest common denominator. The average joe likes his spoon feeding of exposition and emotions through bombastic or pretentious, overly dramatic cutsenes.

It's not a coincidence that all the "woke" developers are never subtle with their storytelling. They always go for the overdramatic shit i just described.

Back in the day gamers did play games for the cutscenes and the in-game text. It was cool to beat a level and then see a top-notch CGI video. Games like Final Fantasy 7, Wing Commander, Metal Gear Solid, and Myst were on the cutting edge. Written material was pretty cool too because it was a marvel to see how much they'd crammed into the game. All the dialogue choices and optional books, scrolls, etc that a player could find was definitely neat in its own way.

But that doesn't mean those methods of storytelling were good. They were just novel for the time, just like Mad Dog McCree, Crime Patrol, Sewer Shark, and other live FMV games were once considered cutting edge.

This was long before the era of Pixar and CGI animated everything. Now cutscenes and tons of written text is no longer a reward. It's just... a thing that takes control away from the player.

 

[Danjin44]

An example of a great videogame story -- in my opinion -- is Bloodborne. There isn't a lot of dialogue, nor are there a ton of cutscenes. The written material is minimal compared to a full-blown RPG like Skyrim or Witcher. Most of it is conveyed visually and through the player's own actions. Most importantly, the "story" never gets in the way of the player's own endeavors.

I enjoyed Bloodborne but I personally don't want all games to have that type of story telling. I personally still enjoy cutscenes in games and you still can have cutscenes and still tell story in unique way that only can be told through video games, just look at NieR Automata.

 

[joe_zazen]

Teaching other people the proper way to think and behave is why we strated telling stories in the first place, and it has been a constant theme ever since. You know, like the Old Testament and such. People really like making that sort of thing, so I dont think it is going anywhere.

It is part of why I like certain Buddhist teachers, the ones who flat out say their words are meaningless and that looking for gurus a big mistake.

Edit: we also have a habit of doing things like breaking people on the wheel or using Mao’s death by a thousand cuts for punishing wrongthink. So yeah, making some didactic videogsmes to satiate that hunger is a good thing given the alternatives.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I enjoyed Bloodborne but I personally don't want all games to have that type of story telling. I personally still enjoy cutscenes in games and you still can have cutscenes and still tell story in unique way that only can be told through video games, just look at NieR Automata.

I'm not an all-or-nothing person. I wouldn't all of my games to be told like Bloodborne either. It was merely an example.

The ideal form of storytelling in a videogame is through the player's own actions. Like I said above, the main reason why people loved cutscenes and those bulks of decently-written text back in the day was because it was novel. However, these methods aren't ideal and shouldn't be overused. Does that mean any inclusion of text and/or cutscenes is inferior? No, of course not. I would simply like less of it when possible.

 

[SlashBringingHasher]

i play video games for fun. idc about anything else.

 

[mckmas8808]

Not enough time has passed for any fundamental function of the brain to have changed. Evolutionary pressure will certainly drive humanity into a certain direction, but it is measure in millions of years, not decades.

You're talking about physical evolution. We are talking about social evolution. It's two different things.

 

[GenericUser]

tl;dr

 

[mckmas8808]

The ideal form of storytelling in a videogame is through the player's own actions. Like I said above, the main reason why people loved cutscenes and those bulks of decently-written text back in the day was because it was novel. However, these methods aren't ideal and shouldn't be overused. Does that mean any inclusion of text and/or cutscenes is inferior? No, of course not. I would simply like less of it when possible.

I disagree. The bolded totally depends on the type of person the gamer is. Sometimes I like when a developer makes a game where I'm not the "player" per say. Like in Uncharted, I'm playing Nathan Drake's story. The story isn't about my specific actions. So it really depends on the game. To me, the storytelling in Bloodborne nor Uncharted is the ideal way. Both can work equally as long as the execution is good (which in this case it is).

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I disagree. The bolded totally depends on the type of person the gamer is. Sometimes I like when a developer makes a game where I'm not the "player" per say. Like in Uncharted, I'm playing Nathan Drake's story. The story isn't about my specific actions. So it really depends on the game. To me, the storytelling in Bloodborne nor Uncharted is the ideal way. Both can work equally as long as the execution is good (which in this case it is).

Let's stick with Uncharted because it contains examples of both types of storytelling.

If I'm climbing through an area or exploring ruins and engaging with the game and Drake or [companion] are talking out loud, that's great. It is a better version of scattering convenient "journal entries" and audio-tapes everywhere.

If I'm racing through the crowded streets of a city, ducking and dodging and vaulting over object in real time, that's great. It is a better version of watching a cutscene.

But if I'm watching a 3-minute cutscene between Drake and [companion] to show emotion, that's not good videogame storytelling, in my opinion. Especially nowadays where so much emotion can be conveyed by a quick facial expression, most of the exposition is unnecessary. The developer in question is obviously capable of this type of subtlety:

I won't begrudge anyone who wants to "play their movies" or "play their books" (I only use those phrases because we don't have a better descriptor). But I don't consider those good storytelling methods in the context of videogames, just like I don't think pictures are a good storytelling method in books nor do I think written text is a good storytelling method in movies. It has its place but should be used minimally in favor of methods that actually fit the medium.