Writers, executives, developers discuss whether videogames need writers

Not meaning to make today the day of guest posts, but I wanted to post a really interesting discussion that occurred on an e-mail group I'm a part of that involves gamers and Hollywood types. This one spun out of the infamous "Case against writers in the game industry" posted by Adam Maxwell at GamaSutra.

As a writer myself, you can probably imagine I'm not too sympathetic to Maxwell's argument. In fact, I think I make it a point in my reviews to focus on story, characters, humor and themes, much more than other game reviewers. Perhaps that's why I'm a little more positive in my reviews of titles like "Kane and Lynch" and "The Simpsons Game" and a little harder on "Super Mario Galaxy" and "Rainbow Six Vegas 2" than most other critics.

But let's hear what some other smart people had to say. Everyone involved gave me permission to copy their posts, without identifying information, of course. Some are edited a bit for space, non-pertinent info, etc.:

Michael Strode (writer):

All your base are belong to us.

The article's author clearly prefers sandbox-style games, and that's fine, but even the broadest sandbox game needs a central spine, something to feel like you're achieving a main goal (having finally finished Oblivion after 280 hours, I feel qualified to speak to that).  The author calls Bioshock a "railroaded experience."  Railroaded into a series of fantastic plot twists?  Without the quality writing in Oblivion, would I have felt guilty about acting in a way that led to a minor character's death?  I actually
felt guilty!  Sure, I'm not a fan of interminable cutscenes, but the solution to that is to integrate the plot almost entirely into the gameplay (as with Bioshock), not to ditch the writer who came up with the plot,
characters, and dialogue.

My two cents as non-videogame writer.

Kellee Santiago (video game developer):

I'm a video game designer, and even I think this article is bullshit.

We've pulled in a writer on our current project, and for sure it has made a world of difference. Maybe the term "screenwriter" should revert to its true root: "storyteller," but either way, it's someone who specializes in crafting emotion. I think the games industry hasn't been using writers to their full capacity in simply giving them cut scenes and slots for dialogue to fill in.  Was Portal nominated for Best Writing just because of the voice over during the game? I don't think so. I think it was because of the combination
of the environment design, the voice-over, the signs on the wall, and the weighted companion cube. A writer knew how to pull all of the elements together to craft an experience.

My two cents as a video game designer.

Zach Schiff-Abrams (film development/production executive):

As a film producer I have drawn and quartered many a writer so usually I leap at the chance to jump on any bandwagon that is founded on lynching the writing community. Unfortunately this retard doesn't know his ass from his elbow, so here's my 15 cents:

"When a writer sits down to build a story, they are usually building a plot."  Here's what's inherently wrong with this moron's argument.  Ask any self-respecting writer(and every fucking last one of them motherfuckers are self-respecting) what they do when they sit down to build a story and they'll tell you the first thing (and the most important thing) they do is create characters.  In fact, most good stories in any medium usually come from a landscape where the writer almost obsessively focuses on creating and developing characters in a vacuum that doesn't rely on any plot.  There are no good fucking plots, there are only interesting characters that inform a plot...

What I have been arguing for years upon years is that videogames desperately need more writing.  And now we're finally at a level technologically speaking where we can actually integrate the creation of character into the very fabric of the gameplay experience.  You still argue?  You think GTA is a successful franchise?  Think how much more successful it would actually be if Alvin Sargent or Jonathan Lethem was taking seriously the creation of character in that world?  Then you wouldn't have Fritzy writing about how videogames are challenging movies for the media dollar, then my nerdy friends, then there wouldn't be any more movies.

Instead you have this dweeb and unfortunately way too many of his kind running the videogame industry that think in way too small of a box.   

Justin Marks (screenwriter):

Yeah as a movie and occasional game writer obviously I find these arguments patently absurd, but then I have to realize this is still a business in such a mainstream narrative infancy that critics hail Mass   
Effect for having a great story simply because it has a story at all. Meanwhile, Portal introduces so many narrative innovations it could make a filmmaker's head spin and few people notice (ie, Halo 3 still   
tops most people's lists last year).

The amazing thing to me is the way the gaming press, Mr. Fritz excluded of course, heralds how "emotional" a game like Mass Effect is just because you can visually see emotions on the characters' faces. Basically they're saying that emotional response has a direct correlation to how realistic the graphics are, while missing the point completely that we were way more attached to the Companion Cube or Agro the Horse from Shadow of the Colossus than we will ever be to some hot alien lesbian with a well-rendered face.  And that's all a direct result of story.  Movies learned a long time ago what makes characters sympathetic.  When will games learn that character empathy (ie, turning us into one of the players in the story) is entirely different from sympathy (ie, showing us why we should care about the people we're watching)?

Until then nothing shocks me. I still think there are a lot of developers out there who are starting to get it.  The sad thing is, Maxwell is kind of right.  The way most developers hire writers, they do serve a pointless role.  That's not fault of the writer.  Big publisher-based developers have got to get over the whole practice of throwing a lot of money at a screenwriter and then just having them sit down and write dialogue.  Of course they're going to be useless when they're applied that way.  Nobody plays a game for the dialogue.  Writers don't have a magic touch because they've got to fill in a few story blanks to get you from one boss to another.  They bring what they can to the table as storytellers, and deserve a place next to any game designer.

Anyway, obviously a touchy subject for me, but my two cents from what I've seen.

Comments

[Frank]

Stories rely on controlled, linear structure where every single action/reaction happens exactly in the right spot, down to a millisecond. Be it a book you read or a movie you watch, the pacing has been planned over and over and over again so that when the peak or valley in the story happens, it has the maximum impact.

This is why video games do not and will not have stories. The structure that the story needs is broken up by the player's actions. He ruins the pace. Before the player character hears about his father's dramatic death, the PC has probably spent the last 15 minutes combing the streets, looking for stuff to pick up.

The other side of the coin is, take the interactivity away from the player and just force him to a cut-scene with pre-determined pacing. It works for the story, but it's less of a game. As a Case A: Evidence, I point you to Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit which was taunted as a high pinnacle in video game stories. Was it really? :D

Video games do have interesting background plots in them, like Portal does, but after 25 years of gaming, I haven't seen any stories in video games yet, just interesting plots. If I want to bawl my eyes out or feel suspenseful drama, give me a book or a movie any day over a video game.

Honestly, I feel that at the moment, many people don't really know what a proper story is. Story doesn't happen in real-time. Think about it!