This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This is based off a comment I made to a group of friends, and it was suggested I post it here; I've edited it to be more approachable but please forgive any poorly explained references.
I am continuously boggled by how bad the drop off in video game writing has been. Inversely, it’s shocking how passable and even good it is coming from (mostly text based) games in the 90s and early 2000s. The people making those stories were often programmers with no creative history, so it’s surprising to me that they were able to put out such quality writing with any level of consistency.
Take the Mac game Marathon. There are definitely duds in the writing, mostly Durandal (a recently gone-insane AI) being wacky, but the majority of the writing is pretty good. Even the “computer being crazy” was a somewhat fresher concept, so I’ll excuse the missteps. More than that, the writers Jason Jones and Greg Kirkpatrick were still in/barely out of college when they made Marathon. That’s just astounding to me given the quality of some of the terminals.
The other example is Ares, another 90s Mac game (guess when and how I grew up). It's a much smaller game, with a less sprawling story, but what is there is pretty good quality. It’s not Marathon level writing, but its development was even smaller scale - basically a one man show. One guy was able to code an entire game, write the music, and write the story, and it’s all passable at absolute worst. Even more than the overall story, the quality of the writing on a basal level is quite good.
My question is how did this happen? Thinking on it has given me three main possibilities:
The first is just that the people making games - and particularly their stories - have changed. As the coding and graphics and scale get more complex, you can’t juggle everything as the project lead and reasonably be able to produce anything above indie level. I definitely think this is the majority of it. But I also think culture has an effect on this, and my second and third theories touch on that.
Second is that I think it’s an indicator of the quality of education, and especially higher education, falling significantly. I have no evidence for this, but the amount of knowledge the creators of old had in their back pockets to make their stories feel genuinely vast and deep, not entirely myopic.
That leads me into my third theory, which is nerd culture at large falling apart completely. This isn’t a new idea, but it used to be that being a nerd required you to be immersed in whatever passion you had, often alone. Greg Kirkpatrick admitted he read a ton of sci-fi and played a ton of DnD, and he drew on both of those for Marathon. As a personal anecdote, my recently deceased grandfather is universally considered to have had Asperger’s. The breadth of how he lived is astounding, though. He built a house, engineered rockets, became computer literate on his own (well past when he'd have been expected to do so), raced bikes, and played music. Absolutely a renaissance man in every way. In all I don’t see nerds and the autistic (they’re correlated) having near as comprehensive an upbringing. Maybe it’s the death of reading, maybe it’s being terminally online. It's all just sadly lacking. I don't think I have to illustrate that the barrier of entry to "being a nerd" is basically just saying you are. On that note, there's a trend of “nerds” that are just English majors who played games, which might explain how a lot of dedicated professional AAA video game writers are so bad.
As a counterpoint, Prey 2017 had its story written by its lead developer, as well as some of the music. I think the fact that it’s so good is a testament to the need for a game to have its own solid vision, even as the scale increases. Maybe that’s the root cause more than anything else.
Some additional considerations (and my responses to them):
Deus Ex released in May 2000 with memorable writing, interesting choices, and a deliriously complicated setting. Between the cool factor and the memes, it’s remained relevant for decades.
Daikatana also released in May 2000, featuring…none of these things. It’s best known today for its questionable marketing.
I don’t take this as evidence of a trend in game writing or production. Our impressions are formed by outliers rather than the mean or median or even modal game for a year. We still get vivid, cohesive experiences from developers with a vision. Have you played Disco Elysium yet?
Realistically, how am I to extract any sort of statistical average from the games released in a single year? The amount of games released is staggering, and even if I played them full-time I could not hit all of them - and if you're getting genuinely mathematical, you'd have to include all of them.
I could play all the AAA titles. Maybe all the AA titles, too (even though that's a shrinking category of games - something I'll get into another time). But once you drop to studios of 10 or fewer people, the amount of games published each year numbers in the thousands. As I mentioned with music, the signal to noise ratio is just huge (which also precludes me simply taking a random sample and then extrapolating - because at this point the amount of shovelware games is, once again, staggering). To your question, I have never even heard of Disco Elysium before reading your message. That's the perfect example of what I'm talking about. I'm not as avid a gamer now that I'm older, but I still do play games from time to time, so it's not like I haven't heard of any new games.
And even then, how am I to give something that can quantitatively measure their quality in a way that I can compare it? I can only give my opinions on games that I have played, and see how the newer ones compare to the old ones.
As I noted in my original post, I posited a modified thesis, that it's "seemingly impossible for games at the highest level of production and scale to have quality stories". Such a thesis, as I said, is theoretically something I could explore, if I were retired and had endless funds. Neither is true, so I can only cherry pick the games which have caught my eye in one way or another. To compare apples to apples:
Halo is a series that is widely regarded to have fallen completely apart with every installment after Bungie stopped working on it, or even before (Reach sucks, sorry). The original Halo games had serviceable at worst and damn interesting at best stories, which were elevated by slick gameplay and unique music and sound design.* Whereas the following games (4, 5, and Infinite) all had serious narrative problems. These, of course, come after Halo had been elevated to a legendary status, and Microsoft could easily afford to hire damn near anyone they wanted. Of these, 4 is actually my favorite, because it at least has a personal attachment to the lead writer. It unfortunately still lands flat. Infinite had Joe Staten (Halo's original lead writer) attached, but had so much chaff that apart from one or two very good cutscenes it was even less compelling. 5 is universally considered awful.
Destiny is actually an interesting example to me, because it's an example of what I mentioned earlier: that text-based writing seems to be easier to execute on than voiced dialogue or cutscenes. That or the people used for both were separate (which is true in this case; the Books of Sorrow from Destiny's Taken King expansion are widely considered some of the story's best, and it's never put in game, and funnily enough, the people who wrote it were let go shortly after). Moreover, I found every time a character from the Grimoire (the written story) was realized in game, I simply hated them. They were awful with marvel-like lines and no reference to the interesting ideas raised in some of their written dialogue. Note that this also got worse as the series went on. It went from having a barebones story that I could forgive (because I could fill it in with the written lore) to one that was constantly undermining its own tension and breaking the tone with awful jokes.
Call of Duty isn't even on a bell curve with its quality - it's more like a sine wave. The first three games are just direct ripoffs of famous WWII properties like Band of Brothers and Enemy at the Gates. Then you get to Call of Duty 4 and you suddenly have a game that feels like a 90s war thriller, tying two separate plotlines together cohesively and effectively. Then you have the two sequels, which make no sense at all but are still kind of fun. Then you get to something like Call of Duty Vanguard, ham-fistedly inserting very modern political perspectives into World War II. I'll honestly write this off because it's so inconsistent, but in my eyes the series peaked long ago.
Dead Space may actually be the best example. It's the newest IP that had quality (Destiny was essentially never good). The first two games are excellent to me, giving compelling explorations of the worlds they're set in and the people that inhabit them. The third I skipped due to its universally negative response, and I feel justified having watched some clips of the story online. Then you get to Dead Space: Remake. A game I could write a whole post on, because it is so fascinating in that the people who made it very obviously love and care for making a Dead Space game. This stands in contrast with Halo, where 343 Industries was very vocal about wanting to change and make their own mark on the series. For Dead Space, they executed just about perfectly in its atmosphere, art, and gameplay, but genuinely could not write the characters. The voice acting is bad; the lines are needlessly made worse; the characterizations are butchered; several people have their races swapped or are made openly bisexual (note that having gay or bisexual characters isn't a problem to me, but they rewrote established characters lamenting old boyfriends coming back to life - a strangely hypersexual comment given that this crew was only established for this mission and had only been there for a few weeks). These people were creative and to my eyes had to subversive agenda. I genuinely think they saw it as a more natural story to have everyone look like southern Californian hip creatives. That aside, someone like Isaac Clarke is just written completely differently from how he was in the other games. EA put a lot of work into this game, and yet the story was consistently weaker, even though it was supposed to be exactly the same as the original game but expanded.
These are my off the cuff examples of games that I have played. A couple videos that make similar points to what I've talked about today, that may illustrate some of my qualms, are the one on millennial writing (https://youtube.com/watch?v=FyHG8EfcA5c) and one breaking down some specifically bad examples of newer Destiny (https://youtube.com/watch?v=NKYlL6ZGvBQ). This definitely doesn't encompass all of my thoughts on this, but most of it is also in the OP and other responses. I could get into more but this comment is long enough and it would require extensive editing, so I'll leave it at that.
*Note that I do consider how I "feel" about a game to be a complement or detriment to its writing. I'm a proponent of the sentiment that plenty of plots have holes - it's only once you're so disengaged that you notice them that it becomes a problem. I will use an art game like Limbo as an extreme example. The story of that game is essentially incomprehensible and almost inconsequential apart from the fact that it is a backdrop for the imagery and atmosphere it conjures. To dial it back, a simply serviceable story presented well (which I consider something like Halo 1 to be) is more than palatable to me, though I will always applaud depth if it works.
I think Modern Warfare 2’s story is somewhat underrated. It’s objectively ridiculous in the broad scope: It reads like a nightmare Tom Clancy would have when he was in bed with a high fever. But it totally nails the queasy off-balance feeling that spiraling geopolitical crises in the 21st century would have, which makes it feel prescient. It also manages to (perhaps unintentionally) smuggle in some interesting commentary about 9/11 and the subsequent US response.
Are you talking about the series as a whole or Call of Duty 4 (also known as "Modern Warfare 1, The First One from 2007 and not 2019, No I'm Not Playing The New One")? Because I felt Call of Duty 4 was mostly "realistic" in that I could see
Obviously not all of it is realistic, but the broad strokes feel pretty plausible. Meanwhile, Modern Warfare 2 has James Bond level contrivances and Red Dawn-esque fantasies of Russian military prowess.
I’m talking specifically about MW2 (2009). Modern Warfare 1 was reasonably realistic.
Then definitely agreed. I lump the Black Ops series in with post CoD4 Modern Warfare. Very fun games, completely nonsensical if you apply even the most basic thought to them. And it's sort of indicative of my larger point - the second these games got big and intricate it seemed almost impossible to put a compelling, interesting, logically consistent story in them. Only the lightning in a bottle original game managed to do so, even though MW2 was made by the exact same people (up until the original studio leads quit, which was after its release).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link