Bioshock Writer Fed Up With Industry

[Parakeettheprawn]

So... She admits she has the skills, but doesn't want to do the work to help make the medium better and wants to apply those skills elsewhere...

Pathetic.

*glances the games said writer has worked on*

How the fuck do you even say that? That's like saying the found of the Red Cross wasn't very charitable because she didn't donate enough money to a different charity. The woman's done work, fantastic work at times. Writing in the game industry gets no respect despite that, and she spends years working as a game writer, can get anywhere, and it's her somehow her fault for getting tired of it? There's a reason writers are tired of the David Jaffes of game development.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

It could be she is writing stories for the wrong games too. If she is having a problem trying to justify in the story why the player has to shoot enemies and keep the game moving she could try her hand at point and click adventure games. Personally, I feel some point and click games have some of the best game stories like the Syberia games which I absolutely love.

At the same time though it does sound like she wants games to have better stories but doesn't want to be the one responsible in making the stories better.

Eh, I dunno. I do agree that the almighty FPS genre is a bit of a serious hurdle to cross for most game scenarios, seeing as justifying and responding to the ages-old question of "Why do I have to shoot shit?" is more important than most gamers even realize - but I don't think the technical hurdles are that large.

This is a purely personal opinion, of course, but what seems to me like it's holding the medium back is the design culture, like she said. Look at how id Software barely even cared to supply us with a backdrop for RAGE. You could tell Carmack was somewhere in the metaphorical background, muttering "Oh, whatevs. Here's John Goodman and a pistol. Go shoot shit. I'm bored, now."

If it's not that, we're holding ourselves back because our games are apparently supposed and required by some sort of sacrosanct law to be empowerment fantasies. What if I genuinely want to play a deadbeat who can't catch a break *without* falling back on Bullet Time and bullet sponge mechanics so the end result is supposedly gritty? Why can't most devs think of player engagement beyond putting things in pine boxes for an early burial? I know killing something is pretty much the Alpha and Omega in terms of empowerment (you're taking freaking lives, I'd say that's pretty empowering as it is), but the real draw usually involves saving the world or solving some over-arching problem.

Why can't we focus on that, instead? I'm asking that knowing that adventure games do solve that question. Indie devs pushing adventure-type content aren't really part of the problem. I don't have to kill anything in Minecraft if I'm skilled enough and really commit to a no-kill project.

 

[Bat Vader]

It could be she is writing stories for the wrong games too. If she is having a problem trying to justify in the story why the player has to shoot enemies and keep the game moving she could try her hand at point and click adventure games. Personally, I feel some point and click games have some of the best game stories like the Syberia games which I absolutely love.

At the same time though it does sound like she wants games to have better stories but doesn't want to be the one responsible in making the stories better.

Eh, I dunno. I do agree that the almighty FPS genre is a bit of a serious hurdle to cross for most game scenarios, seeing as justifying and responding to the ages-old question of "Why do I have to shoot shit?" is more important than most gamers even realize - but I don't think the technical hurdles are that large.

This is a purely personal opinion, of course, but what seems to me like it's holding the medium back is the design culture, like she said. Look at how id Software barely even cared to supply us with a backdrop for RAGE. You could tell Carmack was somewhere in the metaphorical background, muttering "Oh, whatevs. Here's John Goodman and a pistol. Go shoot shit. I'm bored, now."

If it's not that, we're holding ourselves back because our games are apparently supposed and required by some sort of sacrosanct law to be empowerment fantasies. What if I genuinely want to play a deadbeat who can't catch a break *without* falling back on Bullet Time and bullet sponge mechanics so the end result is supposedly gritty? Why can't most devs think of player engagement beyond putting things in pine boxes for an early burial? I know killing something is pretty much the Alpha and Omega in terms of empowerment (you're taking freaking lives, I'd say that's pretty empowering as it is), but the real draw usually involves saving the world or solving some over-arching problem.

Why can't we focus on that, instead? I'm asking that knowing that adventure games do solve that question. Indie devs pushing adventure-type content aren't really part of the problem. I don't have to kill anything in Minecraft if I'm skilled enough and really commit to a no-kill project.

I understand what you're saying. There have been many a time where I have asked myself why do I have to shoot these guys to progress the story. Yeah, I do get sick of empowerment fantasies when all I want to do is have my character be a regular citizen in the world.

One of the things I hated about Dante's Inferno was the fact that I had to fight. I think it would have worked well as an adventure game instead of an action game.

Personally, I think she should try and see if she could open her own game development studio, go to Valve, or try and kickstart her own game where she tries to break the mold and do what she has talked about.

 

[Erttheking]

I feel like i can just namedrop Bioware and win this argument, but someone probably already has.

Bioware a paragon of good writing? Maybe once upon a happier time that I personally would love to go back to but...sadly that's in the past.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I feel like i can just namedrop Bioware and win this argument, but someone probably already has.

Bioware a paragon of good writing? Maybe once upon a happier time that I personally would love to go back to but...sadly that's in the past.

If "good" is understood to mean "decent", then yeah, they're good writers. Like I told Bat Vader, though, they've set themselves in the RPG standards by which the protagonist has to be empowered. In an RPG, Western or Japanese, you're supposed to make a difference, or perhaps even change the world or save it. Typical empowerment stuff. That means you're stuck with specific tropes or story beats you have to hit, game after game after game. Mass Effect, to name just one, is almost a textbook case of the Hero with a Thousand Faces, with the only difference being that Shepard doesn't deny the Call to Adventure at the onset. He/She is a commander, a decorated vet at the onset, so it didn't make much sense to have that character dither around before taking control of the Normandy.

If they could break free from that mould and stop going for a paint-by-numbers story structure, they'd be great writers. Drew Karpyshyn puts pretty good lore together, his primary constraints involved predetermined squad members, romance subplots and your usual multi-part and overarching quest. If he'd been free to play with the game's structure, the end result would have been epic.

Problem is, BioWare knows what fans are expecting of them by now:

1. customizable protagonists
2. rich backdrops and incidental lore that always includes a looming threat
3. team-building narrative concerns (because these extra characters have to come in from somewhere, right?)
4. interpersonal relationships
5. "meaningful" choices. As in, you know, not really all that meaningful. Just enough to throw the occasional curveball.

Check that list and you can design a BioWare RPG with your eyes closed. If they'd break free of that, they could do a heck of a lot more. Despite the sheer and awful mess Alpha Protocol was, the murky nature of character relationships broke up that structure and frequently threw you in for a loop. Paint-by-numbers loyalty missions are less enlightening and revealing than another good chunk of nebulous yarn.

 

[El_Ganso]

I dunno, I can understand her frustration, but from the way she speaks it seems to me that when she set out to be a writer she wanted to be a novelist but had to "settle" with writing for video games. I mean, maybe she had to go through the grinder to polish her skill and she is ready to move on.

But when someone complains that story takes a back seat to mechanics when talking about Video Games, I have to say "no shit!"

Story and characterization are important in video games, but game play will always be king. Look at the most played video game in the current market, League of Legends, and you'll see a game with awesome mechanics and probably the shittiest and most contrived cast of characters duct-taped together for the sake of the "lore, lolz!".

 

[marurder]

Unfortunately even though stories are in many games an important feature, ultimately the mechanics of the game need to be made. And some stories can't fit the games mechanics. So what do you do? Change the story (easier) or change the mechanics (which is longer and costs more)?

99.9% of developers choose option 2

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

So... She admits she has the skills, but doesn't want to do the work to help make the medium better and wants to apply those skills elsewhere...

Pathetic.

Really? Pathetic? I think it's perfectly reasonable. Writers can write a story that's as good as anything, but there'll still have to be massive sections of the game where the player kills hundreds of people. They don't have creative control over the entire game so they can't do much about it. If they don't want to write a story in which people are slaughtered, there's pretty much fuck all they can do about it. She already has used her skills to make the medium better and feels she can't do any more.

 

[Xisin]

Oh for christ sake. They're games, can you really be so dense as to be surprised when the GAMEplay of the GAME take more precedence over story?

And why are we so concerned about being compared to other media? Games have different rules to films and books, and by trying to make games more like them, you cheapen the medium.

If this is the kind of person we have writing games, I'm glad she's gone.

This, because...

Speaking with Gameological, she explained that game stories are so often an afterthought, providing only enough effort to keep the player moving from one level to the next.

and I'm saying this as a writer myself, but the bolded part is all videogames really need as far as story goes.

You know the thing about the all time classic games? Games like Mario and Tetris? Or Pac Man? Even more recent titles like Angry Birds? They have squat for storytelling and yet they're the biggest names in the industry.

Does anyone really care that much about the stories behind Halo, Gears of War, Starcraft, World of Warcraft, League of Legends, or others compared to what they're getting out of the gameplay? If the gameplay stayed the same, does anyone really think the number of players of each would change all that much based on how much more or less work was put into the story?

Can anyone tell me what the story of the current industry juggernaut known as Minecraft is? Does anyone really care what the story of Minecraft is?

Frankly, the story doesn't matter worth a hill of beans if you don't have a game worthy playing. THAT'S why story comes second to gameplay.

Your comment and a lot of the others in this thread scare the crap out of me. Sure Minecraft thrives without a story, but what would Silent Hill 2 be without one? Could you imagine Mass Effect with just game play or Journey? The entire horror genre relies heavily on story with game play that often leans towards the terrible or restricting, to re-enforce the narrative.

Frankly this industry needs every ounce of diversity it can get. I love League of Legends and sometimes I just want to throw bombs at people with Ziggs. Other times, I want to play as a band of thieves masquerading as a theater group, in order to kidnap the princess of Alexandria. Why should I be limited to just one thing, when I enjoy both. I dislike butter, bread and milk; doesn't mean I can't understand why another person might like them.

This woman wrote the scene of a man, with his dying breath, saying, "A man chooses, a slave obeys;" as the player beats him to death with a driver. The player takes every swing, merging game play and story seamlessly; creating a moment that every person in this thread knows of. To throw that under the bus and to say that it doesn't matter is a travesty.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

snip

snip

I did make that point knowing it was flawed, but couldn't pass up a joke. So what she really wants is less gameplay/story segregation and for people to realise that the game doesn't have to be action from beginning to end, which I can get behind.

 

[Revolutionary]

Well the reason stories get left till last is because..well that's the least important bit to some studio's. Just look at Music games, they invest little/no effort in story because the story is less important than the games core mechanics. The same is true for other genre's of games to varying extents, some of the most popular games have arse story-lines. Look at call of duty...the story is...America is in trouble and....guns. If you take issue with that then I suggest trying to get work at Bioware, Bethesda, Square Enix or something.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Oh for christ sake. They're games, can you really be so dense as to be surprised when the GAMEplay of the GAME take more precedence over story?

And why are we so concerned about being compared to other media? Games have different rules to films and books, and by trying to make games more like them, you cheapen the medium.

If this is the kind of person we have writing games, I'm glad she's gone.

having good game play is no excuse for not having an at least decent story, especially now. Besides, you think most these devs care if they're 'cheapening the medium'? For that to even cross there minds they'd need to see it as an art-form, more Okami/SotC/Dust less Madden/CoD/Gears if you will, but we all know which are more likely to get green lit now don't we

Oh what? CoD and Gears aren't art? I though all games were art, or were they not just not pretentious enough to deserve that label?

In fact, keep the label. Gears of War and Call of Duty are art. Want to know why? Because the developers devoted all their time to making the games fun. Remember that? Fun? What gaming used to be about before it got too mainstream for us?

 

[Lunar Templar]

Oh for christ sake. They're games, can you really be so dense as to be surprised when the GAMEplay of the GAME take more precedence over story?

And why are we so concerned about being compared to other media? Games have different rules to films and books, and by trying to make games more like them, you cheapen the medium.

If this is the kind of person we have writing games, I'm glad she's gone.

having good game play is no excuse for not having an at least decent story, especially now. Besides, you think most these devs care if they're 'cheapening the medium'? For that to even cross there minds they'd need to see it as an art-form, more Okami/SotC/Dust less Madden/CoD/Gears if you will, but we all know which are more likely to get green lit now don't we

Oh what? CoD and Gears aren't art? I though all games were art, or were they not just not pretentious enough to deserve that label?

In fact, keep the label. Gears of War and Call of Duty are art. Want to know why? Because the developers devoted all their time to making the games fun. Remember that? Fun? What gaming used to be about before it got too mainstream for us?

I know of fun very well, probably better then you, and if you think 'fun' excuses Gears or CoD of they're faults you are mistaken. hiding behind a wall and being lead by the nose down a linear corridor is not 'fun', and as a personally note, staring down the side of a gun is just as dull.

Okami is fun, there is a sense of wonder to exploring that world, Shadow of the Colossus is fun, the satisfaction of bringing a Colossi down can not be matched by all but the most elaborate of kills in CoDs MP, Dust [http://bulk2.destructoid.com/ul/229151-dusthead.jpg] is as close to 'the perfect' game as I have seen in some time. You wanna talk about some one 'pouring all they're effort' in to making a game fun, you'll find few better examples then Dust.

that's not getting into the games I play that I wouldn't consider art, but are fun regardless, such as Devil May Cry or Darksiders.

funny thing is, even those have better storys then CoD or Gears, hell Halo has a better story then ether of those games, and its an FPS like CoD.

so

what's the excuse again?

 

[immortalfrieza]

No. Wrong. Just... wrong. This woman couldn't be more wrong if she tried. I have been playing video games my entire life, and I have never seen stories as deep, as moving, as just plain good in any other media that I have seen in dozens of video games, while still managing to have excellent gameplay at the same time. While the pickings have been slim lately, there's still plenty that evoke feelings that reading just the words of a book or sitting there watching a movie/TV show could never do. It's not about the medium, books, TV shows, and so forth have their own set of restraints to them that limit them that this arrogant woman would have to deal with as well if she went on to work in any other industry. If Susan thinks that video games are weak in story, she doesn't deserve to call herself a writer to begin with much less a video game writer.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Super frustrated with the way she ends this article. Games (at the risk of sounding Neanderthal) are for playing. If you want to add story to the play, then the game could be better. But if the game sucks with the story in it, the game will suck. If the story is great, the game needs to be better.

I think women these days feel this way about gaming because it was primarily a male dominated thing. I know someone who is a writer, she's got a husband and a kid, but she loves Mass Effect. I got on my soap box about gameplay and skill. She didn't understand. Her husband had to explain it.

There are certainly women who enjoy the "sport" aspect of gaming, but I find them few and far between. It's like gaming bores them unless there's emotional attachment through story. Me - I like when the gameplay tells stories. Dragon's Dogma does this in grand fashion. Just roam around the forest for a while and bump into a large enemy.

 

[Grabehn]

V

snip

I think that Half Life 2 would be a really forgettable game with no story. Shooters with really strong stories, like Half Life, Bioshock, Mass Effect, FEAR would all be either terrible or boring as shit with a weak ass story tacked on to move the player from level to level. Also it's not just shooters. Zelda games, RPGs, Stealth games (Dishonored) are all things vastly improved with a strong story. A context-less romp around a dungeon may be fun but you would care after you're done.

Yeah but there's a difference there. Which was exactly what I was trying to say, why do you kill headcrab guys in Half Life 2? Cuz they're attacking you whie you're escaping that city. In Zelda you're talking about wild monsters or bad guys, But is there any reason why you'd need to explain that? Not really. In Fear you're entering a facility full of hostiles in order to reach a person. All those already have a reason for why you're killing what you're killing (scientist that already went throu crazy shit, all-time hero and soldier).

The problem begins with things like the last Tomb Raider, which had a girl that was sort of afflicted by killing one guy, but then procceded to kill 40 more, and what annoyed me quite a bit was that in the next part she acted like she hadn't killed any other than the first one. Which if I remember correctly was what one of the writers said, "If it followed the script directly, you'd be only killing 4-5 guys through the entire story", which wasn't the case.

 

[A Curious Fellow]

I feel like i can just namedrop Bioware and win this argument, but someone probably already has.

Bioware a paragon of good writing? Maybe once upon a happier time that I personally would love to go back to but...sadly that's in the past.

Well, I admit I haven't played The Old Republic, but nobody can bat a thousand forever.

 

[Serrenitei]

Some of the responses here amount to, "She's just not looking in the right place, look at X!" I think that while some games have good stories, I don't think we've had a game with great stories. I whole-heartedly with her assessment. Currently, most video game stories revolve around "Evil guy is evil because reasons. Here's a gun and about 10,000 people standing in a line between you him. Go."

I also think its really hard to abstract gameplay from story. In a lot of ways, words are to books as gameplay is to games when it comes to telling a story--its the element that carries us through the story. You can't have gameplay withtout story, and you can't have story in games without gameplay. To say that gameplay is more important in games than story is like saying the words of a book are more important than the story. Both gameplay and story are equally important.

I really think that games have the capacity to tell a depth of story beyond even that of books or movies because of the interactive element, but right now we are stuck in the story-telling equivalent of playing cowboys and indians in the back yard with sticks. Most games (the operant word is most) don't have any depth of narrative and character. BioShock Infinite was a great game -- but how much better could it have been if Booker had just taken a moment to reflect on all the people he was slaughter for reasons. Even in BioShock, there are thousands of people who rush headlong to their deaths with seemingly no regard for themselves or others.

Our characters don't evolve, they don't grow, they don't change. They get better guns and that's the primary story telling mechanism.

There will always be a place for the shoot'em'up blow em up Michael Bay-esque action game. I don't think anyone wants them to go away -- but I think there's so much potential for more than what we have.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Oh for christ sake. They're games, can you really be so dense as to be surprised when the GAMEplay of the GAME take more precedence over story?

And why are we so concerned about being compared to other media? Games have different rules to films and books, and by trying to make games more like them, you cheapen the medium.

If this is the kind of person we have writing games, I'm glad she's gone.

having good game play is no excuse for not having an at least decent story, especially now. Besides, you think most these devs care if they're 'cheapening the medium'? For that to even cross there minds they'd need to see it as an art-form, more Okami/SotC/Dust less Madden/CoD/Gears if you will, but we all know which are more likely to get green lit now don't we

Oh what? CoD and Gears aren't art? I though all games were art, or were they not just not pretentious enough to deserve that label?

In fact, keep the label. Gears of War and Call of Duty are art. Want to know why? Because the developers devoted all their time to making the games fun. Remember that? Fun? What gaming used to be about before it got too mainstream for us?

I know of fun very well, probably better then you, and if you think 'fun' excuses Gears or CoD of they're faults you are mistaken. hiding behind a wall and being lead by the nose down a linear corridor is not 'fun', and as a personally note, staring down the side of a gun is just as dull.

Okami is fun, there is a sense of wonder to exploring that world, Shadow of the Colossus is fun, the satisfaction of bringing a Colossi down can not be matched by all but the most elaborate of kills in CoDs MP, Dust [http://bulk2.destructoid.com/ul/229151-dusthead.jpg] is as close to 'the perfect' game as I have seen in some time. You wanna talk about some one 'pouring all they're effort' in to making a game fun, you'll find few better examples then Dust.

that's not getting into the games I play that I wouldn't consider art, but are fun regardless, such as Devil May Cry or Darksiders.

funny thing is, even those have better storys then CoD or Gears, hell Halo has a better story then ether of those games, and its an FPS like CoD.

so

what's the excuse again?

Clearly, I'm just an uneducated plebeian who happens to find the simple act of shooting things and blowing shit up enjoyable. So please, oh wise one, tell me more about how I'm OBVIOUSLY wrong and you're OBVIOUSLY right, because you enjoy artsy fartsy games and I don't.

[Do I Even need to /SARCASM ?]

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Spoiler: your good points

Some of the responses here amount to, "She's just not looking in the right place, look at X!" I think that while some games have good stories, I don't think we've had a game with great stories. I whole-heartedly with her assessment. Currently, most video game stories revolve around "Evil guy is evil because reasons. Here's a gun and about 10,000 people standing in a line between you him. Go."

I also think its really hard to abstract gameplay from story. In a lot of ways, words are to books as gameplay is to games when it comes to telling a story--its the element that carries us through the story. You can't have gameplay withtout story, and you can't have story in games without gameplay. To say that gameplay is more important in games than story is like saying the words of a book are more important than the story. Both gameplay and story are equally important.

I really think that games have the capacity to tell a depth of story beyond even that of books or movies because of the interactive element, but right now we are stuck in the story-telling equivalent of playing cowboys and indians in the back yard with sticks. Most games (the operant word is most) don't have any depth of narrative and character. BioShock Infinite was a great game -- but how much better could it have been if Booker had just taken a moment to reflect on all the people he was slaughter for reasons. Even in BioShock, there are thousands of people who rush headlong to their deaths with seemingly no regard for themselves or others.

Our characters don't evolve, they don't grow, they don't change. They get better guns and that's the primary story telling mechanism.

There will always be a place for the shoot'em'up blow em up Michael Bay-esque action game. I don't think anyone wants them to go away -- but I think there's so much potential for more than what we have.

Yes - the gameplay is what should be telling the story. We've made the mistake of investing too heavily in movie-like games, which has left games feeling less than what they should be. I've never been opposed to good storytelling, but it's just a part of what makes a great game (as you've said). I have a major issue with the way story has been taken apart diagnostically as if it was THE piece of the puzzle. Michael Bay would be terrible at designing a game. There is special kind of quality that "shoot'em'up, blow'em'up" games need to have, and he wouldn't get that at all. Those games are far from mindless.

I'm saying it's as if someone has declared that gameplay isn't enough. This woman seems to be saying that story is the main issue, but we've had a generation of games that were trying to tell good stories while the gameplay is mediocre.
There needs to be more of a balance so that people who want to discuss story can do so over a solid game.