Telling a Good Story Is All That Matters... But Video Game Makers and Some Media Producers Seem To Forget Or Ignore That

[Bamax]

I once said I think here on the forums once that the best fiction not only entertains but also teaches a lesson or shares a profound message.

I was also a different person back then (highly indoctrinated from an isolationist religious doomsday group whose beliefs I have have since abandoned for the last few years).

Nowadays though... after watching video game and media sales literally crash and burn after trying to present a "message" as the highlight of their work, I tend to think telling a good story is all that really matters.

I mean for goodness sakes, chances are not every reader will even agree with the "message" anyway so the story should matter more. And the issue with the "message" they have been putting out is that it caters to a small segment of the population at best.

So now I think telling a good story is all that should matter... indoctrination can die for all I care.

And any lesson or profound truth should be a byproduct of a good story, not the main goal, and it should be one the majority of the population can appreciate.

Yes there is a difference between indoctrination and simply teaching a lesson or sharing a profound truth.

Indoctrination can be sneaky and subtle, but teaching and sharing lessons or profound truths anyone can appreciate (even if it depends on being old enough to understand) never be that way in my opinion.

[Arioch]

Any story is going to have a point of view, and the best stories have deep and important themes, but ideally these come through in the natural telling of the story, at times unconsciously instead of overtly. In the best cases, the author may not even be aware of the deep truth that comes across in the telling of the story. And, different audiences may take different lessons from the same story.

However, when the message becomes primary and the story becomes secondary, then at some point the work stops being art and starts being propaganda. Parables can be entertaining for children, I suppose, but I think that increasingly sophisticated audiences resent being overtly instructed or preached to. For myself I find it rather insulting when a writer believes that he or she is smarter or more morally pure than I am, to the point where he or she has the right to tell me what to think or do. I don't pay for media that insults me.

All that said, I think that a very skilled writer can deliberately weave message into a story, but it takes a very light hand, talent and expertise... which it seems a lot of writers in modern media don't have. I think that the biggest problem with storytelling over the last few years has been less that it has a message, and more that the stories are being told by incompetent writers who seem to have been hired for their political views instead of their writing ability and wouldn't know good storytelling if it bit their noses off.

[Bamax]

What is worse is that merely stating your opinion will get you an infraction or even banned from social media nowadays.

Unless you are deemed important enough not to cancel, which then can still morph into a witchhunt with them trying to wreck or destroy a well known person in other ways.

[Urist]

I would argue that a good story is somewhat akin to a pyramid, with multiple levels stacked atop one another: the story can certainly have a message, but that message must be supported by a good plot/character arc(s), which in turn must be supported by a consistent or plausible universe/setting. If either of the lower two levels is missing or substandard, the message (however subtle or overt, or agreeable/disagreeable to the reader) will fall apart.

The most important layer (IMO) is thus the 'plausibility/consistency' of the setting. Yes, even for works of fantasy/sci-fi: the elements of the setting must feel like they believably derive from one another. The technology/magic of the setting should logically inform and constrain the beliefs of characters and institutions within the setting. If one (or more) of the latter has been clearly inserted just because the author thought they were cool, and makes no sense within the universe of the setting, then that ruins reader immersion. A common example of this is having staunchly atheist characters existing in a setting where divine/supernatural entities are commonplace and well-verified (think Dungeons & Dragons, Warhammer, etc.); it strains belief to have a character insist "God(s) aren't real!" in a world where they can literally walk into any temple and hold a direct face-to-face conversation with an actual god. The inverse would also be true: in a sci-fi setting where time-travel was easy and commonplace, it would be strange to find a devoutly-religious believer if they could just hop in a time-machine and go have a face-to-face chat with the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, or walk up the mountain with Moses to inspect the burning bush yourself.

The second layer, resting atop the first, is that of good character arcs or plots. Does the starting point of both make sense within the setting, and does the resolution also logically follow from the rules of the universe? For example, if you have a post-scarcity setting where any material want can be had with the press of a button at zero cost, it would be hard to justify a "the main character starts as a poor orphan starving and living on the streets" character arc or plot. Likewise, if the setting is a post-apocalyptic Mad Max knockoff, you'd have a lot of explaining to do if the main character is a well-educated but somewhat soft fellow straight out of the modern day (there's a reason so many similar stories like Fallout use the "Your character awakes from suspended animation to find that the world is very different" framing device).

Only if those two layers are well-crafted can a message be set atop them. To use a few examples (that I don't think have been tried by actual media, thankfully), while many people would agree with "Violence is bad" as a moral message, it would be hard to put that into a story set among Polish resistance fighters in Nazi-occupied Warsaw. The rules of the setting (there are violent people coming to kill you, and there's no chance of you talking them into going away) clash with the intended message. Likewise, a message of "The environment is important and we should not pollute it" is hard to mesh with a post-apocalyptic setting where people are struggling just to stay warm & fed. They're going to burn any kind of heating fuel that they can get their grubby hands on, or they're going to die.

Now, for a fun example using Outsider! Imagine if Arioch had watched too many reruns of Blackadder Goes Forth before he set down to start this webcomic that we all know, and went to work with the idea of embedding a message of "Military commanders wedded to outdated concepts can turn any war into an endless stalemate with no regard for the lives of their own soldiers" into the story. In this timeline, the comic focuses on condemning Lashret Stillstorm and Kikitik-27 as they slam fleet after fleet into each other head-on, turning the Charred Steppes into a blasted and blood-soaked no-alien's-land just as bleak as any Flanders field.

Now, that's not a bad message for a story to have. "Don't hold on to your old ideas of how the world should work, if real life shows that they're outdated" is a good point to make. But it would clash with the established (sci-fi) rules of the Outsider setting: the nature of the FTL drives (very limited range, slow travel speed, jump routes known to both sides) very closely mimics the conditions on WW1's western front which led to the grinding near-stalemate of that war. So there would be no plausible way within the rules of Outsider for commanders on either side to "just say no" to the ongoing bloodbath, any more than a general during WW1 could simply decide "No trenches today, lads, we're going back to maneuver warfare just because I said so!" The fact that the leaders of the Union and Hierarchy alike have been shown as trying to break the stalemate much like in WW1 (flanking maneuvers through Belgium Tithric space, or a 'war winning strike into the enemy's soft underbelly that surely won't turn into a horrible slaughter and defeat' at Gallipoli the Semoset Offensive salient) would also undermine such an intended message.

Those are the (IMO) main errors of a lot of modern movies/shows/books. They start with a message (many of which are laudable and universally agreed-upon, hardly controversial)... but then utterly fail to make it fit into the setting they've bought the license to. So they either try to run the message anyways, which makes it obvious that the setting 'disproves' it, or they try to change the (already established) setting to support the new message, which both alienates the fans of that setting and often makes the setting non-plausible or non-consistent with itself, thus destabilizing the entire frame of that setting.

To be fair, this isn't entirely a new problem. To use a well-documented (and politically neutral) example, consider the infamous wreck that is Plan 9 From Outer Space. The director has always maintained that he did not intend to make a farce, but rather a serious film with the message copied from The Day the Earth Stood Still "Humanity is moving in a direction that is self-destructive and dangerous, and wiser aliens have come to warn us of our folly." That's not necessarily a bad message; the original TDtESS pulled it off well enough. But P9FOS is such a weirdly-made and farcical film with essentially every character involved (especially the purportedly-'wise' aliens) being shown to be such a moron that the film turns into an absurdist comedy, if anything. The result of which is that the intended message becomes a target of laughter, nothing more. (My sister and I still giggle every time we quote one of the final lines of the film, 'Truly, they are wiser than us.' said by a human observer watching an alien UFO crash in flames because its pilot ripped a control console apart to use as a club to beat another person in a fit of irrational fury.)

</author_nerd_rant>

[Bamax]

I would argue that a good story is somewhat akin to a pyramid, with multiple levels stacked atop one another: the story can certainly have a message, but that message must be supported by a good plot/character arc(s), which in turn must be supported by a consistent or plausible universe/setting. If either of the lower two levels is missing or substandard, the message (however subtle or overt, or agreeable/disagreeable to the reader) will fall apart.

The most important layer (IMO) is thus the 'plausibility/consistency' of the setting. Yes, even for works of fantasy/sci-fi: the elements of the setting must feel like they believably derive from one another. The technology/magic of the setting should logically inform and constrain the beliefs of characters and institutions within the setting. If one (or more) of the latter has been clearly inserted just because the author thought they were cool, and makes no sense within the universe of the setting, then that ruins reader immersion. A common example of this is having staunchly atheist characters existing in a setting where divine/supernatural entities are commonplace and well-verified (think Dungeons & Dragons, Warhammer, etc.); it strains belief to have a character insist "God(s) aren't real!" in a world where they can literally walk into any temple and hold a direct face-to-face conversation with an actual god. The inverse would also be true: in a sci-fi setting where time-travel was easy and commonplace, it would be strange to find a devoutly-religious believer if they could just hop in a time-machine and go have a face-to-face chat with the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, or walk up the mountain with Moses to inspect the burning bush yourself.

The second layer, resting atop the first, is that of good character arcs or plots. Does the starting point of both make sense within the setting, and does the resolution also logically follow from the rules of the universe? For example, if you have a post-scarcity setting where any material want can be had with the press of a button at zero cost, it would be hard to justify a "the main character starts as a poor orphan starving and living on the streets" character arc or plot. Likewise, if the setting is a post-apocalyptic Mad Max knockoff, you'd have a lot of explaining to do if the main character is a well-educated but somewhat soft fellow straight out of the modern day (there's a reason so many similar stories like Fallout use the "Your character awakes from suspended animation to find that the world is very different" framing device).

Only if those two layers are well-crafted can a message be set atop them. To use a few examples (that I don't think have been tried by actual media, thankfully), while many people would agree with "Violence is bad" as a moral message, it would be hard to put that into a story set among Polish resistance fighters in Nazi-occupied Warsaw. The rules of the setting (there are violent people coming to kill you, and there's no chance of you talking them into going away) clash with the intended message. Likewise, a message of "The environment is important and we should not pollute it" is hard to mesh with a post-apocalyptic setting where people are struggling just to stay warm & fed. They're going to burn any kind of heating fuel that they can get their grubby hands on, or they're going to die.

Now, for a fun example using Outsider! Imagine if Arioch had watched too many reruns of Blackadder Goes Forth before he set down to start this webcomic that we all know, and went to work with the idea of embedding a message of "Military commanders wedded to outdated concepts can turn any war into an endless stalemate with no regard for the lives of their own soldiers" into the story. In this timeline, the comic focuses on condemning Lashret Stillstorm and Kikitik-27 as they slam fleet after fleet into each other head-on, turning the Charred Steppes into a blasted and blood-soaked no-alien's-land just as bleak as any Flanders field.

Now, that's not a bad message for a story to have. "Don't hold on to your old ideas of how the world should work, if real life shows that they're outdated" is a good point to make. But it would clash with the established (sci-fi) rules of the Outsider setting: the nature of the FTL drives (very limited range, slow travel speed, jump routes known to both sides) very closely mimics the conditions on WW1's western front which led to the grinding near-stalemate of that war. So there would be no plausible way within the rules of Outsider for commanders on either side to "just say no" to the ongoing bloodbath, any more than a general during WW1 could simply decide "No trenches today, lads, we're going back to maneuver warfare just because I said so!" The fact that the leaders of the Union and Hierarchy alike have been shown as trying to break the stalemate much like in WW1 (flanking maneuvers through Belgium Tithric space, or a 'war winning strike into the enemy's soft underbelly that surely won't turn into a horrible slaughter and defeat' at Gallipoli the Semoset Offensive salient) would also undermine such an intended message.

Those are the (IMO) main errors of a lot of modern movies/shows/books. They start with a message (many of which are laudable and universally agreed-upon, hardly controversial)... but then utterly fail to make it fit into the setting they've bought the license to. So they either try to run the message anyways, which makes it obvious that the setting 'disproves' it, or they try to change the (already established) setting to support the new message, which both alienates the fans of that setting and often makes the setting non-plausible or non-consistent with itself, thus destabilizing the entire frame of that setting.

To be fair, this isn't entirely a new problem. To use a well-documented (and politically neutral) example, consider the infamous wreck that is Plan 9 From Outer Space. The director has always maintained that he did not intend to make a farce, but rather a serious film with the message copied from The Day the Earth Stood Still "Humanity is moving in a direction that is self-destructive and dangerous, and wiser aliens have come to warn us of our folly." That's not necessarily a bad message; the original TDtESS pulled it off well enough. But P9FOS is such a weirdly-made and farcical film with essentially every character involved (especially the purportedly-'wise' aliens) being shown to be such a moron that the film turns into an absurdist comedy, if anything. The result of which is that the intended message becomes a target of laughter, nothing more. (My sister and I still giggle every time we quote one of the final lines of the film, 'Truly, they are wiser than us.' said by a human observer watching an alien UFO crash in flames because its pilot ripped a control console apart to use as a club to beat another person in a fit of irrational fury.)

</author_nerd_rant>

Interestingly comic Supergirl (2005-2011 before the DC universe New 52 reboot because of Flashpoint) was an atheist from childhood on and stayed so even after the destruction of Krypton. Despite seeing and experiencing some fantastic interactions via time travel and god-like beings as Supergirl. Part of this is no doubt due to Kara's mom being a cold and aloof scientist, it must have had an influence.

I almost cannot blame Kara for being an atheist since she could argue Krypton's gods don't exist because they let Krypton blow up.

Nonetheless Supergirl becomes something of a open minded agnostic when she meets a kryptonian god face to face during the New Krypton story arc where 100,000 of her people return to Earth.

She admits to her kryptonian friend while shedding tears that if Kryptonian gods are real maybe her father is in a better place too (kryptonian afterlife), since he was murdered trying to protect her.

[SaintofM]

When it comes to having a message in a story, it needs to be done well so it doesn't feel like you are being hit in the side of the head with a baseball bat labeled "the point." Yes, sometimes you need to be blunt with your point and sometimes as subtle as a hurricane, but if the story you are telling has problems, the "Moral" can feel forced or hollow. Its one of the big issiues with most of the religious films made by and for religious people: They are more worried about the message and less about making decent art to make that message palitable. As a theist, I find this particularly sad as every form of art out there has been used by just about every religion out there to convey its messages in ways that are easy for the common person to understand be it stain glass windows in a Church or song and poetry. The same applies to more secular minded works as well.



Lindsy Elis' look at live action Dumbo and Beauty and the Beast come to mind where its so half hazard put together, thus insulting the viewer's intelligence is a great excample of this, go look them up on her youtube or Nebula page. As fo other excamples:

A large part of this I think is there is a disconnect with the showing and the telling in the story. For those that never heard the term, its a writing adage. Telling is strait up saying what is going on in a scene, while showing is using metaphor, simile, or more impactful words with the same meaning to get the audience emotionally invested.

Examples and minor spoilers for Arcane, at one point Jinx tries to flip someone off but she forgot she is missing that finger on that hand. Later on we see he flip someone off with a mechanical replacement. The first time, her state of mine had no more "fucks" to give. Later on, she has a reason to fight again and plenty to give.

Some excamples where the Showing and the Telling do not match up:
Amber from the streaming adaption of Invincible. We are TOLD she is the second coming of Princess Diana with how kind and good hearted she is. We are instead SHOWN she is an angry, shrieking harpy that is verbally and emotionally taxing and abusive to Mark.

We are told a Environmental message from Avitar. We are Shown they don't care about it considering the McDonald's toy tie ins that inevitably find their way in a land fill.

Other times its such a narrative mess that it doesn't even know the message its trying to convey.

Linkara did an old video covering a Postapocalyptic superman story where one of the things is trying to do the anti gun and anti violence talk but shows off cool guns and over the top action.

Or Live action Mulan, which tries to do the girl power thing but gets Chinese culture so wrong it inspired Xiran Jay Zhao to start their Youtube career by ripping the film apart.

Or it gives you an entirely differnt message than what they were trying to say. The thing I got out of the Russel Crow Noa film was that Humanity was a mistake and we all deserved to die horribly by drowning. I don't know if that was the intent, but it felt like 20 minutes strait that was the point they were beating into my skull.

Or its so bad it doesn't matter what the message is. Spec Ops: The Line was trying to get a story about war, war crimes, PTSD, and the overall horrors of war. its gameplay made it so most players wanted to throw their controller through a wall.

Other times you have a company that does a story with moral or message A, B, and C, and ends up doing everything but that, which really skews the point. Disney, Activision-Blizard, The Weinsteins, Nintendo, Blare the Illuminauty, Neal Gaiman, and so on and so on have done a lot of good things and have done alot of stories that are nothing short of inspirational. However they are all guilty of some heinous things that are often the opposite of the morals of their stories or the image they are trying to project. For a specific example that won't make me super sad, One of the big criticism for Sausage party was its a story about how organize religion horrifically exploits people, only to have one of the main creators of it horrifically exploit their production team.

Or you get heavy Virtue Signaling. Disney has done alot to court the LGBTQAI+ community, but then you find out they hampered Owl House because they thought it was becoming "too gay." Or the infamous "Don't Say Gay" law in Florida that pretty much caused a major revolt from the disposable employee at the pop up stores to the Share Holders who the CEOs have to perfect brown nosing and boot licking to get into their good graces.

And its not like we don't have easy examples of ones that are done well.

The Land Before time does a better anti racism and prejudice story and is more mature about it than alot of film that tackled the topic head on in the last 20 years, and its literally about baby dinosaurs.

you have the first dragon age which handles its dark material extremely well, tackling racism, religious persecution, zealotry, classism, and more while making a largely still enjoyable RPG.

Godzilla has been everything from a warning to nuclear testing, a metaphor for climate change, a critique on how people choose to forget its warcrimes or the soldiers sent off to die for a bad cause, to a scathing look at how bad the bureaucracy in Japan is.


Halo incormporates religous themes into its story, down to Master Cheif's name, John 117, being a scriptural reference.