249 réponses à ce sujet

[infalible]

So I'm one of those people who - for many years - have widely believed Bioware to be the "best storyteller in gaming". Of late however I've been considering the statement: what does it actually mean? Does it mean that Bioware deserve our respect as storytellers? Does it mean that they are standing on the shoulders of giants and telling tales that we will remember as great works of art? Or does it mean that in an industry swathed in the mediocrity of the masses Bioware is just managing to present enough of a narrative for us to not dispare at the lack of creativity in a market dominated by "graphics and gameplay"?

Go to your bookcase and look at your books. I'd say that many of you have books like Harry Potter, Twilight, or books from the Discworld series. Some of you may even have classics like Moby Dick, or Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, or The Count of Monte Cristo. A few may have books like The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, or The Gap Conflict. And then there are the modern classics like A Song of Ice and Fire, and The Wheel of Time. Can you say with confidence that the stories presented by Bioware even vaguely compare to those presented in the greatest (or even average) works of written fiction? I can't. I don't believe it when I say it. I find the notion to be a mockery of my sense. 

And let's look at the themes of Bioware's latest foray into mature story telling: Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2 were supposed to be mature games with mature stories, and yet they shied away from nudity, they presented sexuality behind a protective vale of montages, and the use of language was shallow and pointless (as in swearing was not used to create character, but just used for the sake of swearing). They handeled none of the mature elements of the tale with anything resembling the finese of a proven author, or screen writer. They hid away from a mature narrative and instead delivered a vale of stylised violence and infrequent crudeness and branded it "mature story telling" for the sake of the marketting gimmick. Compare the maturity of Dragon Age to the maturity of Spartacus: Gods of the Arena, or A Song of Ice and Fire, and you find Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2 direly lacking. It's an insult to tasteful and compotent story telling to say that Dragon Age even vaguely manages to present a deep and meaningful tale, let alone a mature one.

And the same is true of all Bioware games.

So now I find myself considering this notion: Bioware ARE NOT compotent story tellers. They are the Stephenie Meyer of the gaming world. Their writers are either not very good at all or barred from actually writing with passion due to corporate interests. Bioware stories are shallow, but intelligence is used in the presentation; a well placed comic character, a drawn out relationship with another character, an infrequent flair that avoids controversy. It avoids the requirement to actually tell a compotent story, and instead cons you into thinking that these fables are worth their weight in gold.

This is just an opinion, and I'd be interested to know what others thing: Are Bioware the story tellers of the gaming industry? Are they worthy of the mantle? Or is it - at this point at least - just a drawn out and laboured marketting ploy that is easily proven false when compared with actual story telling?

No trolls plox. Actual discussion is being prompted.

[whykikyouwhy]

Well...the way I look at it, there are different mediums to tell a story and while there can be greats and not-so-greats within those mediums, making comparisons across mediums is tricky. I don't know that I can compare the writing in BW games to the writing in a novel because the format and the presentation are very different. Not only do we use different senses in immersion with the stories, but we don't get the same big picture view in both. A game may have multiple layers that, in a single playthrough, you may miss, or are intended to miss based on certain choices (class selection, gender or race, etc). While in a novel, it's all there in static print (with various nuances between the lines, yes, but it's pretty much a concrete entity).

Personally, I haven't played a vast number of games to say that BW is better than X, Y or Z company. I can only rate games based on what I know and on the limited scope I have. But I do know that, of the BW games I have played, I have enjoyed myself, I have enjoyed the stories and the characters, and I have wanted to come back for more. That last bit is telling - if I am willing to spend hours of my time going through something again, be it book, film, or game, then it has left an impression and it compelling enough in content to draw me back in. A good story is a good story - it doesn't have to be better than something else, it just has to be good on its own merits.

"They are the Stephenie Meyer of the gaming world." - Your opinion and all, but that's a bit harsh.

Modifié par whykikyouwhy, 10 juillet 2011 - 07:59 .

[Elhanan]

Yes, they is....

Modifié par Elhanan, 10 juillet 2011 - 07:58 .

[OdanUrr]

First, this should be in the Off-Topic section since it's only tangently, at best, related to DA2.

Second, it's pointless to compare "game stories" to "book stories." If we were to start nitpicking away at game stories, it's laughable that you fight as many enemies as you do when, for instance, no single character actually fights or kills that many enemies in the entire LOTR saga. I'll repeat: you can't compare book, game, or even movie stories against one another. They're shaped differently, they're marketed differently, they appeal to our senses differently. You can only compare game stories against other game stories in the same genre. Maybe you can even compare against other titles of the same developer to consider storyline evolution.

[mesmerizedish]

Elhanan wrote...

Yes, they is....

As a collective noun, it's appropriate to pluralize verbs with BioWare, though the convention is chiefly British. Think about it this way: when you replace BioWare with a pronoun, you'd often use "they."

[Elhanan]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

As a collective noun, it's appropriate to pluralize verbs with BioWare, though the convention is chiefly British. Think about it this way: when you replace BioWare with a pronoun, you'd often use "they."

Ain't that something? I will ask my Grammar....

[Darth Death]

Have you seen the requirements in order to work at BioWare? It's no small feat. When a companies reputation is known for constructing an engaging story, I believe they warrant caution upon hiring candidates. Maybe their storytelling isn't your cup of tea, but that shouldn't translate they cannot produce a proper good story. From what I can see they follow a formula, both being presented in ME & DA:O. There's a hero, there's a bad guy, hero rallies up forces to beat the bad guy, bad guy dies thus happy ending. The typical good vs evil story.

I like it, but it can get stale depending on how much this formula used. Do BioWare tell good stories? IMO yes they do. Are BioWare writers good at delivering a good story? IMO yes, they do a very good job. With that said, what draws me in is how believable the worlds are & how much work is put into it. I think to me that's what they're really good at, creating a sense of immersion.

[BeckShort]

I would agree with you to an extent.

Origins was marketed as morally ambiguous and dark, but ended up being tame and rather cliche in spots.

I will always have faith in Dragon Age, however, simply due to what I believe is an incredibly deep and currently unplumbed setting and gameworld. I really enjoy the lore and setting of the games and feel that as long as that foundation exists, the same people who created it have the potential for some truly amazing things.

DA is so morally allegorical to the real world, and there are a lot of great things to come. I actually am in the minority who think DA2 had better writing (I know, I know, let's move on). A lot of this had to do with the terse, sometimes vulgar dialogue. It's impossible to write a game like a novel; you have to approach it like a play. I think DA2 succeeded more in the aspect. But seriously, take the first act: it was set in a grimy, poverty-ridden slum. People were meaner than Origins. It was a more cutthroat atmosphere. When I was approached by thugs in the undercity with my Qunari charge and they called it a "Doglord's b*tch" this had more of a frightening punch than the generic "bandits" outside Lothering.

I guess my point is this: Games like this should be like more of a Frank Miller play than a GRR Martin epic. It fits the medium better, IMO.

[billy the squid]

Gaming and film stories are always likely to fall short of those in books, even those based on a book are likely to suffer to some extent. Regarding games vs games with Bioware I would say yes and no.

Certain types or styles of story, such as save the world, ancient evil etc. I think Bioware does quite well, same with many of the characters in DAO I think they were well done. Something more complicated and mature, mmm not so much. TW2 is probably a better example of a fantasy game with a good politically based plot, and a lot of the factions being amoral entities, rather than suffering from DA2's very A vs B style of conflicts. Mages vs Templars, in particular, i felt, needed more time and space to be covered properly, not crammed into Act 3.

Modifié par billy the squid, 10 juillet 2011 - 08:17 .

[ademska]

i know this is blatantly ignoring the bulk of your post, but i'm distracted, so let me ask you something:

why is your definition of 'mature storytelling' dependent on more blatant sexuality and swearing?

...and anyway, and the swearing in the da franchise is so muted (and a lot of it created in-universe) that i'm not sure where you're getting this 'gratuitous, immature' impression of its usage.

on that note, i'd say i fundamentally disagree with every single thing in your post, but i... oh my gosh, i really don't care enough to get into it with someone who's already dismissed bioware's writing team as the "stephanie meyer" of game writing when the vast majority of game writing is nonexistent. it just reeks of bitterness, SORRY BRO

edit:

BeckShort wrote...

DA is so morally allegorical to the real world, and there are a lot of great things to come. I actually am in the minority who think DA2 had better writing (I know, I know, let's move on). A lot of this had to do with the terse, sometimes vulgar dialogue. It's impossible to write a game like a novel; you have to approach it like a play. I think DA2 succeeded more in the aspect. But seriously, take the first act: it was set in a grimy, poverty-ridden slum. People were meaner than Origins. It was a more cutthroat atmosphere. When I was approached by thugs in
the undercity with my Qunari charge and they called it a "Doglord's b*tch" this had more of a frightening punch than the generic "bandits" outside Lothering.

I guess my point is this: Games like this should be like more of a Frank Miller play than a GRR Martin epic. It fits the medium better, IMO.

ooh, yes, all of these words. a part of why i prefer da2 is the immersion its more basic dialogue afforded. i love claudia black and morrigan, don't get me wrong, but i can't immerse myself in such a long-winded yet voice-acted world. in fact, i think op is completely wrong. the vulgarity in da2 helped evolve the story into something more mature and realistic.

Modifié par ademska, 10 juillet 2011 - 08:19 .

[infalible]

OdanUrr wrote...

First, this should be in the Off-Topic section since it's only tangently, at best, related to DA2.

Second, it's pointless to compare "game stories" to "book stories." If we were to start nitpicking away at game stories, it's laughable that you fight as many enemies as you do when, for instance, no single character actually fights or kills that many enemies in the entire LOTR saga. I'll repeat: you can't compare book, game, or even movie stories against one another. They're shaped differently, they're marketed differently, they appeal to our senses differently. You can only compare game stories against other game stories in the same genre. Maybe you can even compare against other titles of the same developer to consider storyline evolution.

I don't buy into the "you can't compare game stories to book stories" argument at all. People say the same about movies, that you can't compare a film to a book, and then you point out great movies that have presented brilliant stories and they have no idea what to say back to you. If they do, it's generally "I haven't seen that movie" in response.

And that bring me neatly onto my retort to the "you can't compare game stories to book stories" argument: perhaps you can't do that because no one has managed to tell a good enough game story to be compared to a novel? 

All forms of story telling use the same devices to get their points across, to create drama, to make you love a character or hate a character etc etc. And whilst there are of course difference in the mediums, I think it's snobbery to try to claim that those difference totally remove any kind for comparison. I don't think that's true at all. Shakespeare wrote plays and yet his work has had a direct influence on the way novels have been written (outside of the language of course). In school you compare Shakespeare to modern literature as part of your education. By your logic, that's wrong because Shakespeare wrote plays and plays aren't books... so they can't be compared. And yet they are. And they are because story telling, at a fundamental level, is no different depending on the medium. The presentation may be different, the freedom of choice may be different, the way in which a story evolved in a book is clearly different to the way it evolves in a game, but at base when all things are considered the mechanics in use to tell that story outside of the unique elements of the platform are, in all forms of story telling, the same. And you CAN compare that across mediums with great ease.

[Beerfish]

I've never really thought of BioWare as the best storytellers perhaps but they are the best at creating good companions that you can interact with and care about. Their storytelling has been good and not as good at points in their games but comanions are usually a notch above other games that I've played.

[whykikyouwhy]

infalible wrote...
I don't buy into the "you can't compare game stories to book stories" argument at all. People say the same about movies, that you can't compare a film to a book, and then you point out great movies that have presented brilliant stories and they have no idea what to say back to you. If they do, it's generally "I haven't seen that movie" in response.

And that bring me neatly onto my retort to the "you can't compare game stories to book stories" argument: perhaps you can't do that because no one has managed to tell a good enough game story to be compared to a novel? 

All forms of story telling use the same devices to get their points across, to create drama, to make you love a character or hate a character etc etc. And whilst there are of course difference in the mediums, I think it's snobbery to try to claim that those difference totally remove any kind for comparison. I don't think that's true at all. Shakespeare wrote plays and yet his work has had a direct influence on the way novels have been written (outside of the language of course). In school you compare Shakespeare to modern literature as part of your education. By your logic, that's wrong because Shakespeare wrote plays and plays aren't books... so they can't be compared. And yet they are. And they are because story telling, at a fundamental level, is no different depending on the medium. The presentation may be different, the freedom of choice may be different, the way in which a story evolved in a book is clearly different to the way it evolves in a game, but at base when all things are considered the mechanics in use to tell that story outside of the unique elements of the platform are, in all forms of story telling, the same. And you CAN compare that across mediums with great ease.

Yes, you can compare across mediums. I personally don't think it's an easy thing to do (and therefore, for myself, try not to).

There will always be points that defy comparison. In a movie, you have visual cues. There are no actual visual cues in a book. In a movie, you have a score, audible tone in the delivery of lines. In a book, no such actual audio. The sensory devices, and our sensory reactions, are different. A movie can be wonderful in its application of lighting, sound, direction, cinematography, etc - the same holds true with a game. The immersion factor is provided to you on a specific level.

A book will make more demands of its audience. With just text, a person has to imagine the sights, sounds, smells, tone, etc. It can be immersive, yes, but it forces the reader to do more, to participate in a certain way. A movie or game will hand a bit more to the viewer/player - you walk into the arena with more in your hands, and then are left to your own devices to progress through the story. This isn't to say that a movie or game are weaker in their story-telling. It's just different...hence my belief that going across the mediums is tricky.

[infalible]

ademska wrote...

i know this is blatantly ignoring the bulk of your post, but i'm distracted, so let me ask you something:

why is your definition of 'mature storytelling' dependent on more blatant sexuality and swearing?

...and anyway, and the swearing in the da franchise is so muted (and a lot of it created in-universe) that i'm not sure where you're getting this 'gratuitous, immature' impression of its usage.

on that note, i'd say i fundamentally disagree with every single thing in your post, but i... oh my gosh, i really don't care enough to get into it with someone who's already dismissed bioware's writing team as the "stephanie meyer" of game writing when the vast majority of game writing is nonexistent. it just reeks of bitterness, SORRY BRO

Bitterness? I'm not bitter at all. I'm just trying to spark debate of an interesting and fulfilling nature. I've played every Bioware game that has been released since Baldur's Gate. I'm hardly the sort to be bitter.... Also I clearly requested that the trolls be absent, and you still tried to troll. So thanks for stooping. BRO.

Anyway I never stated that the use of swearing was gratuitous, so I don't know where that came from. I also never used the word immature. I used a lot of other words that you could have quoted, but you didn't. I also never said that swearing and nudity should be more blatant, or that I require them to be more blatant, just that I feel Bioware handeled them poorly. They were examples of things that Bioware avoided portraying for whatever reason (and it's true that the medium is quite conservative, but that should be questioned not adhered to, when pretty much every other medium is pushing things forward). What I said was that the use of swearing wasn't character building. It didn't lend to the development of any of the characters in the game. It didn't inspire me in any way. It was just swearing. Case in point: In Spartacus: Gods of the Arena, Batiatus swears all the time in a vile way but the character is developed by the use of foul language. It quickly emerges with little other prompt that he is, in fact, a foul character and the swearing is used symbolically to represent that aspect of his character, whilst the actual dialogue he speaks makes him out to be benevolent in nature. It's used as a mechanic to further the character, not just "as swearing". That was my point, because I don't think that's true of the swearing presented in any Bioware game, but in this discussion that's true of Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2.

[AtreiyaN7]

Having recently suffered through the Twilight movies, plus an excerpt of Meyer's actual writing, I disagree with you 100% about equating BW writing with that dreck. The BW writers are competent in my opinion, but writing for games isn't as flexible as writing your own novel. I imagine that the writers have to work with having a playable game in mind and the constraints of the technology itself, along with the issue of "maturity" and game ratings - things that that airhead Meyer certainly doesn't have to contend with.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 10 juillet 2011 - 08:36 .

[Romantiq]

Fine enough for a video game. Nothing special other than that.

[Funkjoker]

infalible wrote...
And let's look at the themes of Bioware's latest foray into mature story telling: Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2 were supposed to be mature games with mature stories, and yet they shied away from nudity, they presented sexuality behind a protective vale of montages, and the use of language was shallow and pointless (as in swearing was not used to create character, but just used for the sake of swearing). They handeled none of the mature elements of the tale with anything resembling the finese of a proven author, or screen writer. They hid away from a mature narrative and instead delivered a vale of stylised violence and infrequent crudeness and branded it "mature story telling" for the sake of the marketting gimmick. Compare the maturity of Dragon Age to the maturity of Spartacus: Gods of the Arena, or A Song of Ice and Fire, and you find Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2 direly lacking. It's an insult to tasteful and compotent story telling to say that Dragon Age even vaguely manages to present a deep and meaningful tale, let alone a mature one.

And the same is true of all Bioware games.

Yes. You are absolutely correct.

If you want a far better approach to "mature" gaming, then play The Witcher. The Polish do not shy away when confronted with real political affairs, nudity, racism, swearing, etc.

DAO does one thing really great: Combat finishing moves and overall the gore: It's not exaggerated.

Modifié par Jean-Funk Van Damme, 10 juillet 2011 - 08:39 .

[ademska]

infalible wrote...
Bitterness? I'm not bitter at all. I'm just trying to spark debate of an interesting and fulfilling nature. I've played every Bioware game that has been released since Baldur's Gate. I'm hardly the sort to be bitter.... Also I clearly requested that the trolls be absent, and you still tried to troll. So thanks for stooping. BRO.

i didn't troll you, i actively engaged in discussion. abrasively, sure, but not trollishly.

glad you're not bitter. you'll forgive me for assuming, since stephanie meyer is one of if not the most polarizing figure in contemporary writing. comparisons to twilight are almost always extremely negative.

Anyway I never stated that the use of swearing was gratuitous, so I don't know where that came from. I also never used the word immature. I used a lot of other words that you could have quoted, but you didn't. I also never said that swearing and nudity should be more blatant, or that I require them to be more blatant, just that I feel Bioware handeled them poorly. They were examples of things that Bioware avoided portraying for whatever reason (and it's true that the medium is quite conservative, but that should be questioned not adhered to, when pretty much every other medium is pushing things forward). What I said was that the use of swearing wasn't character building. It didn't lend to the development of any of the characters in the game. It didn't inspire me in any way. It was just swearing.

you never stated it outright, no, but if you don't believe swearing was handled maturely, there's really only one other option. it's an implicit statement. ditto on the sexuality. if you think it's a sign of writing weakness or lack of maturity that bioware avoided portraying sex, it logically follows you would prefer they not avoid it. perhaps i shouldn't have used the word 'blatant', as it has a stigma to it, but what exactly are you looking for sex-wise in a 'mature' medium?

Case in point: In Spartacus: Gods of the Arena, Batiatus swears all the time in a vile way but the character is developed by the use of foul language. It quickly emerges with little other prompt that he is, in fact, a foul character and the swearing is used symbolically to represent that aspect of his character, whilst the actual dialogue he speaks makes him out to be benevolent in nature. It's used as a mechanic to further the character, not just "as swearing". That was my point, because I don't think that's true of the swearing presented in any Bioware game, but in this discussion that's true of Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2.

you have an... interesting and incredibly arbitrary perspective on what makes swearing in a medium mature or not. in dao vs da2, as @BeckShort mentioned, swearing was used in dialogue to present kirkwall in a more dingy light and ground the narrative down from high fantasy and into the streets. ditto in the entire mass effect series - observe the speech pattern differences in omega and the citadel presidium. this is a deliberate atmospheric choice. how does this not fit your criteria for productive use of language?

Modifié par ademska, 10 juillet 2011 - 08:49 .

[OdanUrr]

infalible wrote...

And that bring me neatly onto my retort to the "you can't compare game stories to book stories" argument: perhaps you can't do that because no one has managed to tell a good enough game story to be compared to a novel? 

Funny, I can't answer that question without conceding that game stories can be compared to book stories. For the sake of argument I'll concede the point and add that "Arcanum: Of Steamworks & Magick Obscura" is such a game. Compared to Arcanum, I regret to say that even DAO falls short.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 10 juillet 2011 - 08:55 .

[Remmirath]

Okay, here are some reasons that telling a story in a roleplaying game (not any other kind of game!) is harder than a movie or book.

Telling a story in an RPG is harder than telling one in a book or a movie, for the simple reason that what the player does has to be taken into account and you have to have branching paths and account for the character not always being or acting the same. It is, I expect, a lot like writing a pen-and-paper roleplaying campaign (except that you can't possibly improvise around the player's choices and all must be set in stone ahead of time) - you have what you want to have happen, and you have to make sure that there are at least a few different ways the player can get there.

You cannot just write one path through the game unless you want to railroad the players on it. It does not make it impossible to tell a good story, certainly - but to claim it doesn't add challenge is somewhat illogical, as it obviously does add some extra challenge to it.

The tighter the story gets, the less control the player ends up with. It's a balancing point, and what I (at least in the past) have liked about BioWare in particular is that they tend to hit the balance point reasonably well. The story still holds together and makes sense, you have choices, and you make your own character(s). There are definitely RPGs with better stories - but they have less player/character choices. There are also definitely RPGs with worse stories, and sometimes they have more player/character choices.

Unfortunately (to me, at least) they seem to be trying to tilt the balance point more towards 'tighter story' of late, and that starts eroding the choices end.
Now, having both would obviously be ideal - but is much harder, because you would have to have a good deal more game and more writing. Why? Because if you want the story to remain as tight and make as much sense with more choices, you have to spend more time on each choice, make sure there are enough of them, and not skimp on any of the possible paths. You do not have to do any of that for a book or a movie... well, unless it's a Choose Your Own Adventure type book, in which case you do to a varying extent (and most of those don't let you create your own character or make any actual roleplaying choices, either).
The more choices and different paths you accumulate over the course of the game, the harder it is to keep track of them and tie them all together adequately at the ending, keep them all bug-free, et cetera.

infalible wrote...
And let's look at the themes of Bioware's
latest foray into mature story telling: Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2 were
supposed to be mature games with mature stories, and yet they shied
away from nudity, they presented sexuality behind a protective vale of
montages, and the use of language was shallow and pointless (as in
swearing was not used to create character, but just used for the sake of
swearing). They handeled none of the mature elements of the tale with
anything resembling the finese of a proven author, or screen writer.

I don't believe that they necessarily did shy away from nudity. Can you name some places where it would have helped the story if there had been nudity? I would, personally, argue that it is in fact immature to toss nudity in just for the sake of it when it does not help the story.  (We can all assume people get naked when having one of the romance cutscenes, for instance - it's not necessary to actually show it, and would just make for a rather dull cutscene. Fade to black is quite adequate, and I think it should be the dialogue that matters there.) 
Same goes for sexuality, which has the added complication of... well, it's a roleplaying game. If it involves your character and you have no control over it, some people are going to be sitting there thinking 'but my character wouldn't do that!', and if you do add control it gets dodgy at best.

I think it's hard to prove whether or not swearing is used to create character - and also that is not the only valid use for it. Yeah, you can have a character where one of their defining features is swearing - but you don't have to do that to have including swearing be mature, I think. It should be there where it makes sense to be there. It didn't seem out of place and gratuitous to me, so I would say it was probably handled in a reasonably mature way in DA II.

There are things I thought were a bit immature, but not those things, and all in all it did better than many games out there. They did great on female armour (for the PC), for instance - at least all the pieces I encountered looked essentially the same on either, and weren't ridiculously sculpted or revealing or anything. Note that I never played a mage, so those could be bad for all I know.
Some NPC outfits, on the other hand, could've used a lot of work.

[spirosz]

In my perspective it's not really their stories that captivates me, but how well written their characters tend to be, most of the time. In my opinion, most of their stories are pretty generic, with some surprises, but what really get's me intertwined in the lore of whichever game, is the characters they bring out. For example, Bastila and Revan, some of my favourites characters in any game, the story was very good, but if it wasn't for those 2 characters and what and who they influenced throughout the game.

For me, it all comes to the individuals taste, sure I love Bioware's stories, but for me, it's their characters that make their games stand out

[hoorayforicecream]

infalible wrote...

And that bring me neatly onto my retort to the "you can't compare game stories to book stories" argument: perhaps you can't do that because no one has managed to tell a good enough game story to be compared to a novel? 

By this token, are there any films or theater productions you consider on par or better than the novels you think are good?

[TheMadCat]

I agree with the general point, though not quite the way you support it. The bar for story quality in video games is held drastically lower than the bar for other entertainment mediums. If you took BioWare into the world of novels and cinema than they'd get lost in mediocrity and I believe that point is backed up by the novels put out by BioWare writers involving their respective IP's. They served their purpose in expanding the characters and universe, but in terms of actual novels no one is going to lump them in with the quality works seen in the Sci-Fi and Fantasy genres throughout history. I mean The Calling isn't going to be cracking many Top 100 lists. 

I do believe they are competent storytellers however and the majority do find most their stories entertaining which means there is some level of quality there. They are pound for pound the best storytellers in the video game industry, though that's a bit like giving an out of shape couch potato a Gold Medal because he won the 100m in the Special Olympics.

[infalible]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

infalible wrote...

And that bring me neatly onto my retort to the "you can't compare game stories to book stories" argument: perhaps you can't do that because no one has managed to tell a good enough game story to be compared to a novel? 

By this token, are there any films or theater productions you consider on par or better than the novels you think are good?

Yes. I would say that 2001: A Space Odyssey tells the story as well as a film as it does as a book. Tis a singular example, but I think it's potent enough to stand on its own.