I think one of the mistakes that games like Skyrim make, is that it dumps quite a lot of lore on you, but largely, it's all just chewy and has no real flavor.

When you look at the third game in the series, however, Morrowind, the devil was in the details.

The game threw quite a lot more lore at you, but it did so in a way where it fit the local flavor, and it really tied into the game itself.

The trick is really, not to tell your player your story so much as suck them into it. You can tell your story all day long, but it takes an audience to invest themselves in it to really feel it.

I think, at the end of the day, it's better to find ways to get players into your story by letting them put the pieces together. Leave bits and pieces of it around, give them hints and clues, but never really tell the story in a distinct narrative.

Exactly what these two have posted.

A good story will have a ton of lore behind it, but it won't present all of that lore, only hints.

For the prime example, look at Lord of the Rings. Tolkien has a HUGE (no, bigger than that) log of history of the world those books are set in. Much of which has never been published. The man went so far as to develop several full languages (three of which belong only to the elves). Middle-Earth also has a full history/timeline, from its creation, right up through the end of the LoTR trilogy.

But the LoTR books almost never include more than brief glimpses into that lore. We're taken to ruins of days long past, but not beat over the head with the full story behind them. You just *feel* the weight of history, though. And you develop a longing to dive into that history (of course, with Tolkien, in many instances you *can* dive into that history; but only through supplemental books)

There's a reason that LoTR is so highly regarded.

I am often guilty of skipping the reading in games like the elder scrolls. It makes me feel like I am taking time away from playing the actual game. However, if the writing style and quality is good enough then I might read a bit. I think I read more in Tyrian 2000 (which was quirky and humorous), than I did in Morrowind (which had bits of humor but mostly just bland writing, IMO).

So I say good writing is a nice bonus, but integrating the story into the gameplay is the best.

Ter13 wrote:

I think one of the mistakes that games like Skyrim make, is that it dumps quite a lot of lore on you, but largely, it's all just chewy and has no real flavor.

When you look at the third game in the series, however, Morrowind, the devil was in the details.

The game threw quite a lot more lore at you, but it did so in a way where it fit the local flavor, and it really tied into the game itself.

The trick is really, not to tell your player your story so much as suck them into it. You can tell your story all day long, but it takes an audience to invest themselves in it to really feel it.

I think, at the end of the day, it's better to find ways to get players into your story by letting them put the pieces together. Leave bits and pieces of it around, give them hints and clues, but never really tell the story in a distinct narrative.

I disagree. I can't stand it when I'm thrown into the game world not understanding ANYTHING about what's going on. It's really infuriating having this sense of ignorance, because it makes me worried, that, as a player, I'm not paying enough attention to the world I'm in. (Which is very likely for people who already have enough trouble paying attention to anything, like me)