Read on Twitter
Why are game writers often brought in late in the #gamedev cycle? There are a lot of historical reasons for this but here are two of the biggest, in my opinion...
1. Video games were originally created by engineers and programmers experimenting with ways of interacting. When the tech was primitive, the play element was foregrounded and narrative was harder to convey at best (or considered irrelevant at worst).
Early video games, like chess, were all about conflict and challenge with a thin veneer of narrative.
Nowadays, video games include the best parts of all the arts: music, art, photography, filmmaking, choreography, writing - but they were lumbered with the label "games" at their inception, we're still dealing with the the fallout of this.
Part of that fallout is the persistent belief that, like a board game, "it just has to have good mechanics, story isn't important." A large part of the damage is also done by the assumption that gameplay and narrative are divisible.
Games have only recently evolved beyond being solely about challenge and mechanics. I think that's partly because they came into the world as purely mechanical. Thus they were lumbered with the label "game," which has limited our vision for their potential.
2. Truly understanding game narrative means being a designer. Game narrative is designed. Interactions tell story. Gameplay mechanics tell story. Music tells the story. Lighting tells the story. Animation tells the story. Props tell the story. Environment tells the story.
Before long you realise that every element of the game conveys narrative. Therefore the vision-holder for the project should be someone who understands how those elements convey story.
The logical conclusion is that the overall creative direction of a modern game requires that the narrative is supported by every element and every team. That is the say, one of the people at the helm needs to be the narrative expert.
Most development studios and publishers aren't ready to permit this yet because they come from an age in which game mechanics were all that was necessary. Video games are seen as a 'technical' field - and one that 'creative' people can't be fully trusted with.
Where narrative is given a seat at the table from a game's inception ( e.g., Naughty Dog games), the results are often a more mature, engaging calibre of story and dialogue. The narrative gives weight to the action and the action supports the narrative.
Games are at their best - I believe - when the pillars of game mechanic and narrative are both priorities and support each other. Where only one of these elements is strong, the game often smacks of squandered potential.
Conclusion: Story shouldn't be tacked on at the end when a game has already been developed. Moreover, it CAN'T be. Every gameplay decision made is a story decision. When the gameplay mechanics have been finalised, the story has already been written.
The story is told with every action the player takes, with every animation, and with every item they collect. Does the protagonist tire and drag their feet? Do they run at full strength at every moment? Do they collect ancient artefacts? Or do they only stop to pick up cash?
Is technology readily available in this world? Is the protagonist well funded? Or do they have to scavenge parts to craft makeshift weapons? Does the protagonist ever try to build relationships? Or do they only rely on combat alone?
Bringing in a writer after these decisions have been made is like trying to change the heading of the Titanic traveling at full speed by giving it a new lick of paint.
