CD Projekt RED - Making a complex story more accessible

I am guessing you love Tetris for its purity and consider it the pinnacle of gaming then ?

We'll just have to disagree on whether story has a place in games or not

(and I'll just continue to enjoy whatever story and complexity I find in games before they devolve to a constant clicking of the awesome button that will be the inevitable conclusion by your reasoning btw)

So they are saying that you will need to "dig" to get a deep game while for the casuals it will be just another shooter ? if they do it right no problem .
The second Witcher should be every confusing for those who didn't played the first , just think all of those names, kingdoms, locations, relations etc not to mention of the "great hunt" which i still don't know how it translates in my mother tongue.
Also if we don't like what they release CDPR has a history of listening to their customers , remember the issue with Geralt's face ?

I think where Witcher 2 lost me was the start of act 2, going with the human story arc. That was where you were suddently thrown in with a whole bunch of major characters that you had never me before (in the game at least), and it wasn't that I couldn't understand it, it's just that I didn't care about any of them, because I'd never seen them before. It was like suddenly being thrown into someone else's story.

One of the important rules of story telling is show me, don't tell me. If your going to introduce me to a bunch of crazy characters that I have to keep track of, don't just have them all show up at once in a camp and tell me their life stories. I should be able to meet them in context, so that I can see who they are and why they are important, not just have it told to me. This was something that Witcher 1 did a great job at.

JonNik said:

I am guessing you love Tetris for its purity and consider it the pinnacle of gaming then ?

We'll just have to disagree on whether story has a place in games or not

Click to expand...

Notice that I did not state that stories should have a place in a game. I stated that focus should be moved from story to gameplay.
Story has a place in a video game, simply not as a primary goal, a reason to be of the game.
Many players today no longer want to play a game. They want to be told a story, which is concerning because as studios have not found the ways to deliver a story (good or bad) through a video game.

(and I'll just continue to enjoy whatever story and complexity I find in games before they devolve to a constant clicking of the awesome button that will be the inevitable conclusion by your reasoning btw)

Click to expand...

Expanding on this point could be interesting because one cause I found of the empoverishment of the gameplay is that players have put such an emphasis on the story the gameplay has grown secondary, tertiary.

Developpers can less and less allow the gameplay to get into the way of the storytelling, of the narration so they reduce it as much as possible in favour of the storytelling.

Cant edit the previous one so

should read:


Notice that I did not state that stories should have no place in a game. I stated that focus should be moved from story to gameplay.
They want to be told a story first.
It is story telling that leads to the one button approach, not a gameplay focused approach.

Well, I never argued that story should be the main focus of a game. There are games though that being story centric suits them well (some examples I mentioned).

I definitely don't want one type of game to exist out there. I do i.e. enjoy adventures now and again still. Remove the story from them and they devolve in simple puzzle solving. Still fun but not really engaging at any real length…

You seemed to be arguing that simply because story in games can never achieve novel status it was hopeless and developers should stop trying to tell stories…. You actually used as an argument the impossibility of all users experiencing the same content… That is actually the main differentiator (narration wise) between novels/games imo not to mention one of the strong points of the Witchers actually… Being able (within reason) to shape your experience (and thus your "story") you know…

Story and strong writing has a very valuable role in RPGs in my opinion. Creating a setting fleshing it out with some lore and populating it with strong characters is part of what I enjoy in these games and what helps me suspend disbelief and get in the atmosphere, also quest design… It does have to deliver on the gameplay too of course

I am not sure I agree that the demand for story is what is harming gameplay. It seems to me that the mentality that everything should be approachable digestible and easy to get to without investing time and effort (that you said it is an inevitability , or did you mean just the story? I did say other areas…) is what is harming (dumbing down) gameplay… Imo always… I hope I covered you regarding my views on the matter

I know words like these freaking out many hardcore RPGers today. But he’s talking about the story in the game, not combat, character development, exploration or such. So it makes sense to make it more accessible. Story must be told to the players slowly at the beginning. Some RPGs trying to give the player a long history lesson at the beginning. Not all players are patient like some hardcore gamers.

Accessible? It's CDPR, so I will trust them and forget I read this. That is one scary word though.

I applaud them for realizing the story in their games could be more accessible. RPGs in general should be more accessible. Why limit your potential audience to strictly hardcore gamers? As long as the actual content doesn't suffer, let's try to open up the game to a wider audience so more people can have fun with it. As the guy said, they should ease them into a story in a game. Ease the user into the content.

Skyrim proves you can make a great RPG and still have it be accessible to millions of people. There's no reason why these obscure game companies should be content with only reaching a niche audience. They should be shooting for the stars.

Fluent said:

I applaud them for realizing the story in their games could be more accessible. RPGs in general should be more accessible. Why limit your potential audience to strictly hardcore gamers? As long as the actual content doesn't suffer, let's try to open up the game to a wider audience so more people can have fun with it. As the guy said, they should ease them into a story in a game. Ease the user into the content.

Skyrim proves you can make a great RPG and still have it be accessible to millions of people. There's no reason why these obscure game companies should be content with only reaching a niche audience. They should be shooting for the stars.

Click to expand...

Here is the problem making games more accessible often ruins more games than helps. Sure there are a few games that find a balance like Skyrim. Skyrim still has it's own faults it's not perfect either. I don't want every game to be like Skyrim.

Why don't we ask Bioware how there DA series became more accessible? I have faith they may find a balance but I have doubts also. Shoot for the stars all you want but don't try to hard you might get burned.

DArtagnan said:

Tolkien is a good example of what I consider top quality material, and that's not something you "grasp" linearly as you read it. You kinda have to reflect on a lot of things to really get at the whole thing, and then you're richly rewarded - because the person who wrote the story cared - with all of his heart - about everything in it.

Click to expand...

Tolkien was an amazing world builder, great linguist, had fantastic passion for detail and was obsessive compulsive about it all, but was a terrible story teller. His stories don't flow too well, are convoluted, and, basically, boring to read. So I don't agree with you at all here. The reward comes from the world building, grasp of language, etc. but it could have been many times better if he were a good story teller, too.

Go CD Projekt for finding ways to improve your story telling. Nothing wrong with easing your reader into a complex story.

Thaurin's right. Tolkien was building a mythology - the stories he then sets in that mythology, or form part of how he envisions the mythology being shared, are badly told and they really aren't the main point of it. One should really *study* middle earth texts, not read them

Now there is scope for games to be used for that purpose as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are some indie games that do exactly that, but that's not what CDPR are doing - the mythology is someone else's already.

Again, I think people are getting way to hung up on the word accessible and assigning meaning to it which is inaccurate, thanks to misuse of the word by bad developments. Substitute it with 'coherent' or 'self-contained' and you get a different feeling, while I expect it's still what CDPR are going for.

Tolkien was an amazing world builder, great linguist, had fantastic passion for detail and was obsessive compulsive about it all, but was a terrible story teller. His stories don't flow too well, are convoluted, and, basically, boring to read. So I don't agree with you at all here. The reward comes from the world building, grasp of language, etc. but it could have been many times better if he were a good story teller, too.

Click to expand...

Oh, we don't have to agree that he was a great story teller

But, one should consider that people might enjoy different ways of having stories told, and they might even enjoy more than one way of having a story told.

Personally, I don't think there's a rigid and useful definition of a "good" way to tell a story. It's all down to what you like and how you want to be entertained.

I can fully appreciate why some people (a LOT, even) consider Tolkien a "terrible" story-teller, but they're not really going to have much success trying to make it anything but a subjective response to his work.

Reading Tolkien does require more of an investment on the part of the reader, and if one isn't willing to invest in his world/characters - he can easily come off as boring.

It's actually very much the same with games and how people respond to challenging/complex gameplay as opposed to accessible/casual gameplay. The former will seem boring to some because they're not engaged and eager to invest, and that's very understandable.

Now, I realise that it's possible to tell a complex and interesting story without doing it like Tolkien does - and I suppose R.R. Martin is as good of an example as any.

I think Martin is a great writer in his own right, and I can be entertained by his material. But it doesn't resonate with me like Tolkien, and way too much of it is obvious and "for effect" for my tastes. Case in point, I think Tyrion is a "for effect" character that's far too obvious in what he's there for - and implausibly appealing given his background. He's well-written, certainly, but I can't say I buy his personality for a second.

In fact, I don't think much of Martin's plot structure or world building. I've only read the first of his famous books - and it seems to me that 90% of the story is about characters doing variations of a tiny handful of typical human behavior extremeties when faced with harsh circumstances. I can only stay engaged in variations on a theme for so long - and an interesting over-arching plot with rock-solid underpinning is as vital to me, as a strong main quest is when I play a game.

I do think that everybody has a brain and that every one of those brains has some characteristics in common that cause them to respond roughly the same to certain stimuli. Therefore, rules exists, based on studies in psychology, that have been shown to work on the majority of people, if not everyone.

Like story structure, introducing a setting and environment, pacing, use of language, length, etc. And sure enough, some people like to exert themselves and invest themselves. I was that way then reading Tolkien, especially The Silmarillion; I relished in the complex sentence structure and detailed descriptions of environment, history, events and characters. But that doesn't make it well-written at all, just overly complex and as it turns out, some people like overly complex things.

With regards to Tolkien - it's an acquired taste. I first read the hobbit when I was a kid and I loved it. I then tried LotR - and enjoyed it, but it was 'ponderous'. And then the Silmarillion :-o However…I subsequently read the books as an adult and I thought they were brilliant. I enjoyed the prose, the chraracters, the world, even the pace and structure. So, really, it depends on how your approach them. They weren't all whizz-bang and fast-paced gloop which seems to be what people want served up these days. I was prepared to invest the time to read and understand them - and it was well worth the effort. My fondest wish is that some developer explores the earlier ages of Middle Earth through a good cRPG - but I doubt we'll ever see that (or it would turn out to be an overly commercialized abortion)

Thaurin said:

I do think that everybody has a brain and that every one of those brains has some characteristics in common that cause them to respond roughly the same to certain stimuli. Therefore, rules exists, based on studies in psychology, that have been shown to work on the majority of people, if not everyone.

Click to expand...

So, do you have a link that demonstrates exactly what makes a story-teller good?

By all means - believe you can establish quality of storytelling through some vague notion of psychological theories dealing with how we all respond similarly to stimuli, but can you back it up with anything concrete?

Like story structure, introducing a setting and environment, pacing, use of language, length, etc. And sure enough, some people like to exert themselves and invest themselves. I was that way then reading Tolkien, especially The Silmarillion; I relished in the complex sentence structure and detailed descriptions of environment, history, events and characters. But that doesn't make it well-written at all, just overly complex and as it turns out, some people like overly complex things.

Click to expand...

I haven't read the Silmarillion - as it doesn't appeal to me. It's mostly unfinished background lore gathered by his son who also edited the material, AFAIK.

I'm primarily talking about Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.

Now, I don't really relish in complex sentence structure - and it's one of the reasons I love LotR - because it's NOT complex. Tolkien knows how to articulate things in a way that's both beautiful and economical. I MUCH prefer that to "overly complex" crap that so many writers love to indulge in.

However, if you feel justified in calling him a bad storyteller based on "psychological" studies of brain characteristics and whatever, that's on you.

Personally, I can only talk about what I like about Tolkien - and I can only argue why I think he's an amazing storyteller.

Sometimes, it's ok to dislike something without it being objectively of poor quality.

JonNik said:

Well, I never argued that story should be the main focus of a game. There are games though that being story centric suits them well (some examples I mentioned).

Click to expand...

I did not state you did.

I definitely don't want one type of game to exist out there. I do i.e. enjoy adventures now and again still. Remove the story from them and they devolve in simple puzzle solving. Still fun but not really engaging at any real length…

Click to expand...

It is not about removing stories. It is about not making them the primary goal.

You seemed to be arguing that simply because story in games can never achieve novel status it was hopeless and developers should stop trying to tell stories…

Click to expand...

Not really. Video games problem is structural and belongs to video games. It does not depend on movies or novels.

Any writer once decided for video games has a medium to convey a story has to put up with the problem of the proportion of the story known to the players.

As video games cant structurally deliver properly a story, it is useless to expect video games to deliver properly stories. Hence the illusion of pressing for stories in a video game.

You actually used as an argument the impossibility of all users experiencing the same content… That is actually the main differentiator (narration wise) between novels/games imo not to mention one of the strong points of the Witchers actually… Being able (within reason) to shape your experience (and thus your "story") you know…

Click to expand...

If it is a strong point of video games, it comes at the expense of the delivery of a story.
Anyone who sees it as a strong point must welcome CD projekt decision to make the most of the instrument they have in hand. Not blame them.

Story and strong writing has a very valuable role in RPGs in my opinion. Creating a setting fleshing it out with some lore and populating it with strong characters is part of what I enjoy in these games and what helps me suspend disbelief and get in the atmosphere, also quest design… It does have to deliver on the gameplay too of course

Click to expand...

The main reason for a story to be in a roleplaying game is to provide situations to roleplay his/her character.
Stories are non essential in a role playing game. Role playing can happen without storytelling, without narration. All it takes is that the game universe provides the player with situations to roleplay.

I am not sure I agree that the demand for story is what is harming gameplay. It seems to me that the mentality that everything should be approachable digestible and easy to get to without investing time and effort (that you said it is an inevitability , or did you mean just the story? I did say other areas…) is what is harming (dumbing down) gameplay… Imo always… I hope I covered you regarding my views on the matter

Click to expand...

Not the mentality displayed. CDP simply took into account that video games can not properly deliver a story.

It is not about dumbing down, it is about harming. Story focus harms the gameplay.

Narration comes with requirements like pace, rythm etc Narration is about flow. And this is linked to time. And another feature that escapes the control of a writer.

Therefore gaming events between two narrative events have to be thought relatively to the pace of the story.

If, to take strength, two narrative events have to be delivered close one to another, the gaming event between the two must be made accessible enough to allow the average player to cruise through it (hence the one button approach)

Many other things like being actively told a story ( when you fight a huge battle, the story tells a huge battle) and being passively told a story (depiction of situation)
Narration comes at the expense of timed quests following this opposition between active and passive. Sense of emergency is created through depictive means while active means relay infinite amount of time to solve quests or a story. The story of emergency is here, the gameplay is not. Most games have dropped timed quests for these reasons, because it introduces factors that the writer can not control.

Following, the narration has also imposed the reduction of failures. It makes failure hard to handle as to narrate, you must progress from one narrative event to another.
Cant control really where the player will fail so it is better to control that the player wont fail, cant fail with no consequence etc… so that the story progresses.

When the story is made primary, the gameplay is thought in regard with the story, coming with constraints that reduces the gameplay.

DArtagnan said:

I haven't read the Silmarillion - as it doesn't appeal to me. It's mostly unfinished background lore gathered by his son who also edited the material, AFAIK.

Click to expand...

You're ill-informed. The lore is as finished as it's meant to be. Remember Tolkien is creating a mythology, completely with different tellings and fragments, not a definitive 'it definitely happened like this'.

ChienAboyeur said:

It is not about removing stories. It is about not making them the primary goal.

Click to expand...

I got that, I was just pointing out that you initially (I did say) seemed to take a rather strong position. And now if you will allow me, since we both had our say and agreed to disagree (not to mention we don't seem to understand each other all that well)… cheers..

--- strange double post ----