We then get to a few sentences explaining that game stories are poor right now because they began with tiny teams of people writing text – a flimsy argument that completely falls apart when up against any scrutiny at all. It assumes that good stories are somehow easier or more amateur-friendly when conveyed in text, which is wrong. The idea that game stories couldn’t “keep up” with the increasingly cinematic nature of games supposes that cinema always means good story, although most people who have been to the movies recently know is not always the case. Good stories, well told, are still achievements in their own right in any medium. And that is completely independent of the resources and technologies associated with that medium.

The publisher-side producer, meanwhile, goes on to claim that the publisher-side producer should be the one to pass judgment upon a game’s story and “put his foot down” if it fails to meet some kind of imaginary quality bar. The author of the article completely buys this line of thought (perhaps because he didn’t speak to anyone else, except another game journalist). I can’t think of many people in the game industry, except maybe a few publisher-side producers, who would actually agree with this. If anything, what usually happens is that a publisher-side producer (or marketer) actually dumbs down a more complex or interesting story proposed by a developer. But this fact is never uncovered by the reporter, even though simply speaking to someone who actually works at a game studio would probably have done the trick.

Articles like these are part of the problem. As an industry, we can’t expect to gain the respect and interest of “real” writers when our own internal discourse is at such a shoddy level. If poor game writing is truly a problem, then lead by example and begin writing well.