This is not correct nowadays (it was surely so 15+ years ago, very roughly before the introduction of walking simulators and/or the expansion of the indie market).
Regardless, games that are strongly centered on narrative (writing) don't require a huge investment, so I think you'll mostly (or even exclusively) find them in the indie area; action/RPG games also are not the best in this department.
I suggest to start with "What remains of Edith Finch" - you won't be disappointed, assuming you don't necessarily look for action/RPGs.
edit: Just remembered that Planescape Torment was created by Black Isle, the studio that also worked on the first two Fallout games. Black Isle later dissolved, but the key players later formed Obsidian, the studio that developed New Vegas on Bethesda's behalf. I imagine it's very likely you've already played FNV (in which case, I'd love to hear how your experience aligns with mine), but if not, it's probably up your alley.
Decent writing, for a game, but the isometric view isn't great and the gameplay is clunky. Plot and theme-wise it holds together better than Fallout 3 -- which has plot holes so big you can drive a bus through them -- but FO3 was a lot more fun to play, at least the first 2-3 playthroughs, and has so many freakin mods it's a different game.
Give Disco Elysium a go. The writing's good, but how it uses Gameplay to explore that writing is what makes it great. Similar Amnesic setup to Planescape with interesting dialogue mechanics.
My favorites in terms of writing: Newish:
- Spider and Web
- Babel
- Photopia
- Superluminal Vagrant Twin
- Harmonia
- The Dreamhold
Oldish: - Trinity
- A Mind Forever VoyagingOver the last several years of very occasionally playing interactive fiction, I've been particularly impressed by:
- Cactus Blue Motel, by Astrid Dalmady. 2016. A coming-of-age story with a bit of magical realism, written in Twine. Highly accessible, and it takes just minutes to give the game a try: http://astriddalmady.com/cactusblue.html
- Chlorophyll, by Steph Cherrywell. 2015. Also a coming-of-age story, but mostly a rip-roaring scifi adventure. Could well make a good introduction to the more modern views on interactive fiction.
- Coloratura, by Lynnea Glasser. 2013. Carpenterian horror from an unusual perspective. Swept the awards in the IF community when it came out.
- Eat Me, by Chandler Groover. 2017. A twisted fairytale that's thoroughly obsessed with food - the richer and the more varied, the better. A great showing of how much a writer who's willing to go far enough with it can do with prose style.
Maybe I can recommend games with a strong atmosphere instead. Like Morrowind, Deadly Premonition, Sleeping Dogs, Kentucky Route Zero, Silent Hill 2/3. Nier Automata if you like anime (which I don’t, so I didn’t find it as thrilling as many game reviewers seemed to).
The games you mention all seem to be games with options for dialog which if you think about it is hard to write for, games are the only medium where you're essentially choosing your own adventure and the writing has to be able to account for any/all choices and still end up leading you towards some kind of conclusion that makes some sense.
The second one though, didn't really click with me, and I stopped playing the series there.
Maybe with EA games being on Steam now, I could give the third one a try.
ME3? Failure from start to finish. The opening scene just basically says “the last two games were completely irrelevant”. The ending is not only unsatisfying, it relies on stuff that was barely established even in the first game and not even mentioned in the others. It’s a textbook case of failing to stick the landing.
(And the less said about “choose your favourite primary colour” as an ending the better. Should have just had one ending and made it a good one.)
There are some sequences that felt tedious but the story is definitely the best part overall.
ME2 is definitely the apex of the series by modern standards.
Also you forgot to mention ME:A. Maybe your face was tired? ;)
Funny, that difference is exactly what I most disliked about ME2.
It is optimized for two things, Battlefield and FIFA, and it is even cumbersome for that (see: BFV's lifecycle and the numerous long-standing bugs that plagued it). It was never designed for an RPG and things like inventory systems and facial animation did not exist and had to be invented (badly). But EA is all-in on the "everything has to run frostbite company-wide".
Having worked on multiple Frostbite and multiple Unreal games, both engines are capable of building a wide variety of games. The discrepancies in my experience aren’t technical but organizational. It is hard to compete with the scale of Epic’s developer support organization and the wider industry inertia around their technology.
I really enjoyed the first Mass Effect and its three-way balance between storytelling, exploration and combat.
I was really looking forward to playing Mass Effect 2, but its storytelling didn't seem as good as the first game and exploration was almost non-existent. ME2 is more focused on combat, which seems to be what most people want (ME2 gets fantastic reviews), but to me that's the least interesting part of a game.
I never played Mass Effect 3, but I hear it is even more combat-focused.
But by the time you get to Mass Effect 2, that world is already built. So ME2 instead spends its time telling a more contained story in that world. It's a valid choice, even if not your cup of tea.
ME2's story works because it's a relatively well executed Seven Samurai-style plot. We've seen this story many times before. It's a classic. Sci-fi stuff threatens the galaxy, assemble the crew, watch them love/hate each other through tough challenges, some don't make it through the epic conclusion, etc. Standard. For a lot of people, it's fun to relive those story beats in an interesting new world (Mass Effect) in a novel format (video games).
I think of ME2 as a smart and enduring example of video game writing craft. They were juggling a lot of different requirements: player choices affecting the story (including from the first game); a huge, complicated new setting; making the story accessible to new players without needing to play the first game; developing interesting characters; supporting multiple protagonists (male/female, paragon/renegade) and varied character interactions based on those attributes; supporting high production values (all lines voiced by real actors); fast development timeline; on and on. Hanging all of that on a familiar plot structure probably brought a lot of structure to what was otherwise a pretty chaotic project. Furthermore, what ME2 does better than other games in the series is let characters drive the action, rather than dragging characters from event to event. The writers did an amazing job on ME2 in context.
It really is.
It's a tremendous shame that ME 3 ruins it.
The game just feels like a chore. For one thing, the environments are too big. There's a lot of walking to get from one plot-point/action-sequence to the next. Second, the combat is bad. AI, controls, weapons that don't shoot where you point them until you level up several times to upgrade the skill. The conversation trees often feel like I'm just going through the paces of uncovering Codex entries for XP, and the long, pregnant pauses between dialog portions as the game loads up the animations for your responses is super annoying. It's an exercise in frustration and it really harms the storytelling aspect. I just never feel like I'm in any kind of flow of hearing the story. It feels dragged out (and I even have bug-fixing and fast-elevator mods installed).
I'm a fairly middling FPS player, and by that I mean I usually rank in the middle of online matches against humans, and I can usually finish single-player campaigns on "hard", if I have the patience for it on those days. But ME1 has been so consistently frustrating me that I've about decided to quit.
What changes in ME2 made the combat vastly better than ME1?
The second game used ammo clips and that made combat far easier.
I also keep hearing ME1’s combat described as “clunky” and ME2’s as “smoother”. Without much experience with this type of game, I think I just don’t have the skills to feel the difference.
Thanks for reminding me of it! I loved it. I didn't finish it though and might come back to it.
Direct narrative in games is very tricky, because it can conflict with player agency.
I think people forgot that Last of Us 1 wasn't a satisfying ending either, aside from being able to empathize with why people did what they did.
In that light, Last of Us 2 really doubles down on making you feel dissatisfied, and I like that such a possibility mirrors real life: irrational, striving for redemption, but not necessarily getting it.
I hate that I had/choose to experience this in someone else's shoes. I love that they choose to portray it. The feeling is almost analogous to watching The Road if it ended with the adult's perspective, or how Children of Men kept me entertained, on the edge of my seat and able to admire the technical prowess of the intense long scenes with no camera cuts, but not sure if the resolution was a resolution at all. And how that's life.
I found the story of the game to be very nihilistic, and that just doesn't make for something that feels good, but portraying that took real effort which I can appreciate.
My litmus test is asking myself "If this game had a different name and wasn't part of a franchise I liked, would I appreciate it" and the answer is yes, a resounding yes.
In a similar sci-fi vein I've just started on Detroit: Beyond Human, which I've got high hopes for, story-wise.
Tie Fighter. If I had any doubts fighting for the Empire, they were all gone in just five of six missions. After that, I wanted to blast as many traitorous rebel scum from the space as I could!
Betrayal at Krondor. One of the best RPGs I ever played. Writers could challenge R. Feist himself!
Full Throttle. The finest LucasArts quest ever, with great characters and story.
Hyperdimension Neptunia games made after 2013.
I would love to see games with emotionally involving improvisational acting with A.I. characters but we're not yet there yet.
Social interactions in virtual reality can can you into an intense places: characters can invade your personal space (to the point of causing an adrenaline dump) or make you feel uncomfortable by keeping too far away. Will we see something that is halfway between "Frog Blender" and "Ender's Game?"
Beneath a steel sky
Psychonauts
Ico (I don't think there was much of an explicitly stated story, it's mostly atmosphere)
The Shadowrun RPG setting is very 90s but if you like that sort of thing the Dragonfall game a couple years back was quite well written - I had no prior experience with the RPG world but enjoyed it because of the story.
But I agree with you, it's very difficult to find really well written games. Otherwise games that are closer to the old point and click adventure game genre have generally better writing: Gone Home, To the moon, The Book of Unwritten Tales, Overclocked an history of violence to name a few.
Not sure if "worldbuilding" and "writing" are the same, or whether resources invested in the former leads to shortcuts in narrative, etc.
For Mass Effect, the main storyline seemed to be beholden to Video Game "Boss" requirements, but the side stories and character stories allowed whomever was assigned to those, to shine...
ToDo's on my list: - The Last of us 2 - Ghost of Tsushima
Each MGS game is essentially an epic interactive movie[^], with individual cutscenes lasting up to an hour.
Granted not everyone likes Kojimas style, but those who do won't regret their time. Best played sequentially from MGS2.
[^] MGS5 is a notable exception as an open-world style game and an abrubt ending, ultimately leading to Kojima leaving Konami. Still good fun and brings some of the stories from earlier games together.
As for "Kojima's style", it's basically "AAA Japanese Game Studio Style", which is "tell a coherent story through the first half, then go completely off the rails in the second."
You might look at it and think "Robot dinosaurs in a post-apocalyptic world where humans hunt them with bows and arrows? Sounds like good dumb fun, even if the writing is preachy and nonsensical." Thing is, the writing isn't preachy and nonsensical. It's unexpectedly excellent. They did something unusual:
1. hired a good writer 2. early in development 3. listened to him
and the results are phenomenal. No caveats necessary -- the story has none of the Mass Effect "strong limbs, weak backbone" issues.
Also, while HZD used to be a PS exclusive it will be on steam in a few weeks.
---
Disclaimer: I'm not a person to dwell too much in the specific wordings in games, mostly valuing worldbuilding and the immersive aspects of storytelling, but I do pay some attention to it.
Divinity Original Sin 2 has some excellent world building, and while the overarching story might be a bit cliché "chosen one"/"zero to hero" type deal, the moment to moment narratives are pretty well made, and the quest lines are very well tied, not only giving you stuff to do, but giving opportunities to learn more about the world.
And also perhaps anything made by Supergiant is a good pick, in your case I would specially recommend giving Pyre a try. I held from playing it for the longest time because I was skeptical about the in-story "sport" gameplay, but it is very well made and perfectly enhances the narrative.
To start it off, Kingdom Come: Deliverance was a big deal for me (though not sure if I especially liked the story or just that it didn't get in the way), and Planescape: Torment is a favorite too (still remember the wonder with which I explored it the first time).