I disagree, take something like GTA5, there is just so much story and dialogue. Many hours of it even. They have huge budgets too that even sometimes put TV shows to shame. So there is really no excuse for it not at least being as good as an episode of The Shield or something like that. All the things that make a show work, the subtle stuff and the build up etc, can all still be done in a game, especially one that is story focused and has so much time spent on it as a lot of games do today.
I haven't played GTA5, so maybe I'm wrong, but I think you're way, way, way off. I loved The Shield, and I see no way you could translate it into a game. Among other things:
(1) Episodes relied heavily on cutting between perspectives to build tension (leaving one arc on a mini-cliffhanger then cutting to another character). Impossible in a game.
(2) A huge amount of the drama consists of watching how Vic Mackey (or other focal characters)
react to what is happening, rather than watching them
act and seeing the effect of their actions on others. But in a game, seeing how your character reacts is dumb; your character's reaction might not be your reaction, so it widens the player-character gap. Furthermore, games should be about doing, not passively seeing reactions.
(3) The Shield's overall narrative arc is about how the combination of pressure and human frailty cause someone with ostensibly noble goals to pursue an increasingly corrupt path. But in a video game, the player doesn't suffer from pressure or human frailties. It's never hard for a player to react politely to his wife, no matter how dramatic the game's scenario is. Thus, the likelihood that a player would ever
choose to play as Vic Mackey is very, very slight. (Consider Bioware's data on how few people play as bad guys.) Even in a game like AOD, which goes very far in the direction of forcing the player to make hard choices, players tend not to make decisions because they've lost control of their emotions.
(4) In fact, essentially every good drama relies heavily on the protagonists' inability to metagame -- the dramatic tension arises because the character fails to take account of the long-term consequences of some impulsive or narrow-focused action. It is very hard to get the player to behave that way in a game, so you can't tell the same kind of narrative in that sense.
I mean, we could go on and on...
Also it has come pretty close once or twice. The Bloody Baron in Witcher 3 had good enough writing and good enough voice acting (and animation) that for the first time in maybe ever, I felt like the gap between TV and game stories had shrunk down to almost nothing. The problem is that it was just one small part of the game and it was sat amongst hours of filler.
I haven't played it, but I'm (1) skeptical that in fact that gap was that narrow and (2) skeptical that we would want it to be narrow. People say that PS:T is novelistic, but if you compare it to even a mid-tier novel, it is trite, overwritten, poorly paced, its characters have uninteresting and predictable arcs, etc. PS:T is sublime. But it is sublime
as a game. Because video game fans are insecure, we tend to want to analogize to respected media. Saying PS:T is like a great novel is basically just a cry for acceptance from artistic authorities. They will never accept video games (literary critics wouldn't even accept Gene Wolfe till he was dead, you think they're going to accept a Dungeon & Dragon's murder simulator??), and it's a bad analogy. Second, if The Wild Hunt actually did wind up being like a good TV show (i.e., where rather than feeling the thrill of doing you felt the thrill of watching), that would be sad.
Every indie game I play today has mountains of text that tries so hard to be funny or clever or interesting or fantasy-ish, and it not only always fails (from my point of view at least) but it also really annoys me because it forces itself upon me, and it is so unnecessary. Focus on gameplay! Only add story if you somehow manage to get something truly exceptional.
Nope. It turns out that adding stories to games massively enhances the experience
even if the story is terrible. Now, letting the story become so obtrusive that it harms the gameplay (for instance, with endless walls of text or long, unskippable cutscenes) is almost certainly a bad idea (no matter how good the story is!). But, yeah, having the exact same space shooter game, only in one instance, between each level you have a screen of text like:
[Before Level 1]
The Space Emperor Gurthrax has set his eyes on Earth...
No race has ever stopped his armadas before,
and the galaxy is filled with ashen, lifeless planets
and enslaved billions of aliens
all a testament to Gurthrax's might.
Now, you are the only thing standing between the aliens
and the Blue Planet.
Take to your Starfighter and save the planet!
[Before Level 2]
Your destruction of the vanguard of Gurthrax's armada
has only inflamed the Space Emperor's wrath.
Images of the wrecked corvettes and shattered Battle-Cruiser
have inspired him to direct a new deadly threat your way...
Etc. etc.
Cliche, stupid, overwritten. It doesn't matter. If you put that shit between each level, the player will have significantly more fun with the
exact same game. The market (and fandom) has proven that fact. What's even more amazing, is that at least 10% of the players who play Planet Defender Starfighter! will post on Reddit about how there should be a Planet Defender Starfighter! cartoon show, or at least a manga, and 1% will suggest that it should be made into a movie "which would be at least as good as Star Wars." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The miracle of games.
It may be that you are in a tiny minority of players who actively dislikes dumb stories, but sadly, your rights will be trampled by the market power of the majority.
