What makes a story "good" exactly?

[Ottservia]

This is a topic that's been plaguing me for the past several years. What exactly makes for good story telling? What is story telling? and what are ways we can objectively judge it's qualities? What exactly makes for good criticism? what separates a good story from a bad one? those kinds of questions. Speaking personally, I feel like a story should be judged on the things it's trying to accomplish. You wouldn't criticize a horror movie for not being funny, would you? What are the story's general ideas, themes, and messages and how does it get those things across. When you really take a step back and look at it that's all story telling really is. That's all art really is. A conveyance of an artist's perception of reality. 

When you look at interviews from all kinds of creators from artists, authors, directors, singers, composers, game designers, etc. what's the single most point of commonality in how they describe the method of their craft? They're all trying to convey an idea or message of some kind. Why is the pair up system in awakening? well it's to convey the message of bonds creating strength which is a core theme of awakening's story. Why does Gaius have candy in his artwork? well it's to get across the idea that he likes candy. Everything an artist does in their chosen medium is to convey an idea or message or to get at something they feel within themselves and feel the need to express in some way. At least that's what I've been able to gather from my observations anyway. What makes storytelling what it is and why we can relate to it is because we can understand it. We can understand the ideas and messages at play within it. It's that understanding of those ideas that creates the emotional response we feel with stories. At least from my understanding anyway. I mean how else do stories get us to feel emotions? How else do stories get us to feel for and relate to characters? it's because we can understand their struggles and the conflicts they face. We can relate to it because we can understand it. We understand it because the story conveyed it in a way we could understand it. That's what story telling is from my understanding, a conveyance of ideas based on the author's perception of reality.

So what do you guys think?

Edited May 29, 2020 by Ottservia

[Benice]

The biggest thing for me: Endearing characters. They don't have to be perfect or anything, but they have to have to make me pull for them in some way. I can forgive weird plot contrivances and plot holes for the sake of good characters. Any story with good characters can be good in my books. Obviously, the best do not only have endearing characters, but the only books I've truly disliked were the ones with disinteresting characters.

Aside from that, I like imaginative stories. I feel like people read too much into plotholes and thematic relevance a lot of the time. I'm not saying they're not important, but they are overrated in terms of the quality of a story IMO.

[eclipse]

Stories are subjective.  "Good" is subjective to a degree.  I don't really care what's considered "good", because if I enjoyed a story, then it was worth my time.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

Storytelling is an art form. It is definitely something that authors strive to get better at. We humans, even with our thousands of words, images, and sounds, still struggle daily to convey our exact feelings. But stories are only as good as an audience can relate to them, I figure. That's why the most popular stories cast the widest nets. Blank slate characters that are easy to project onto and empathize with. Antagonists that are easy to justify in hating. Shoehorned romance because that's what studio execs think gets women in the theater seats. And when stories do get turned into commercial products like movies, games, or books, these are the elements that earn them the greenlight to get made in the first place. The things that get rejected are only ever rejected for one reason: it won't sell. So I think when somebody asks what makes a story good on an objective level, they're really asking what makes a story marketable. Anything else just stems from subjective appreciation. Even if you compared stories to other stories, you may think a portrayal of a character is weak and was done better for a similar character in a different story, it's a comparison still based in your personal experiences and biases. 

[Yexin]

an example i always like to show whenever i'm asked this question is NieR:Automata

honestly, that game's story is as dumb as you can get: it makes sense, but it looks like it came directly from a B movie of the '80s

what makes it so powerful and "good", is its writing, how the characters who move the story (and not only them) interact with each other, with the world they're forced to live in and with the situation they must overcome and change for the better (from their point of view, at least)

of course, a story should also be coherent with what it's trying to be, and with the message it's trying to convey, and Automata's story nails these 2 objectives perfectly

so, taking all the things i've said a story requires to be "good" (for me), let's name THE most important requirement: a story should be engaging, and should make the consumer eager to continue and see what happens next, and damn if Automata's story is engaging

if you can't make a story engaging, everything else your product contains is most likely to be wasted

again, this is my personal take on this topic, feel free to disagree

Edited May 29, 2020 by Yexin

[SatsumaFSoysoy]

I once read something (it's been a while, don't remember what exactly it was) that the only thing that can objectively separate good art from bad is intent. When a beginner tries to make a vase intended to be beautiful, but creates a poorly-made one that people view as ugly, then the beginner has failed, and the piece of art is bad. Conversely, if a master intentionally makes a vase that incorporates beginner mistakes to look ugly, and people do find it to be unappealing, then the master has created good art. If the product represents the ideal of the artist, then objectively it is good art. I found that line of thought to be interesting, though ultimately it does not produce a truly objective answer. Regardless, I think it is a useful metric, and by analyzing parts of stories, be it consistency of themes or individual scenes, it's possible to weigh the quality of a story by the good and the bad. How much weight is attached to each aspect of the story enters subjective territory, though.

I guess arguing whether or not Echoes is a good story tends to be a hot button topic on this forum, but it's the best example I have for this. In this interview, Kusakihara describes Echoes as being a story about masculinity and femininity in contrast to each other, both in macro as guiding philosophies of the two countries and in micro as the personalities of Alm and Celica, a theme which I think is actually not bad and worth exploring. However, I tend to argue that this theme was not executed very well in Echoes. The narrative tends to lean more towards Alm's perspective than Celica's. In the balcony scene where Alm explains his ideals while Celica storms off in anger, leaving Alm wondering why. From Alm's point of view, Celica just seemed to get mad for no good reason. As the player, one is able to deduce Celica is mad because of her true identity as a noble, but no time is spent on Celica's inner thoughts as the scene just transitions to her leaving the castle, still upset. It's true that she tends to bottle up her feelings and keep them to herself, but that should be towards other characters, and wouldn't prevent her from having monologues for the audience. There are more examples, but in this case I would say that the Echoes writers did not succeed at creating a balanced view of masculinity and femininity, and lack of balance makes for poor contrast. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine or find out intent for every part of Echoes, so this only goes so far, but perhaps the story is objectively poor in this facet.

[Etrurian emperor]

Its probably easier to describe what makes bad storytelling. Making things boring, breaking the rules of your own universe, having your characters out of character. When a story is bad its always very easy to figure out exactly why that is. Everyone can tell that having your benevolent queen just randomly burn a city and slaughter civilians is bad storytelling. 

But what makes a story good tends to be more subjective. Avoiding the traps that make for a bad story is a good start but that's not all there is to it. Shadow Dragon does very little wrong with its storytelling but its still bad because there barely is any story to speak of, the villains lack any sort of screentime and everyone's a mute. So an absence of bad story material is a start but you also need to include good material.

In contrast FE7 has an abundance of good material. The lead characters are distinct and have a very interesting dynamic between them, they face various factions of villains who are very personal enemies to our heroes and even many minor characters can get their chance to shine. However, FE7's writing is also very messy when you stop and think about it for too long. The same goes for Echoes and Radiant Dawn. A lot of good stuff regarding presentation, worldbuilding and characters but things like the bloodpact or Celica being silly do have a strong negative impact on the plot. 

I feel Birthright has it worst of all. The overall journey of the Heroes is about as dull as that of Shadow Dragon with the plot barely having anything happen in it before Garon's castle but it also has to carry the complete mess that is Fates writing with its cartoon villains, pseudo incest and deeprealm nonsense. Meanwhile Path of Radiance has the best balance of all the stories. Its interesting with just about every location having an important story associated with them, personable villains, good world building and a great cast that plays off each other. It has all these things it does well while also following a standard formula so tightly it never really screws up at any point. 

As a rule I tend to hold the lack of interesting story traits far more against a game then an abundance of bad traits. I can forgive a lot in FE7 and Echoes because those games also gives me a lot, and I can overlook the Blood Pact because RD is so strong on other fronts. Meanwhile I'm far harsher on any flaws I find in Birthright and Shadow Dragons because those games give me nothing that can balance out their flaws. 

[Ertrick36]

To answer objectively, it's a matter of perspective - what qualities one might find appealing.  When critics say something's good or bad, they're talking mostly about what they personally find good or bad - or sometimes, if they're disingenuous they'll speak about what they think is broadly appealing to their listeners.  When a piece of media reaches massive acclaim, it's because it managed to have just the right qualities that it appealed to the broadest spectrum of people, and also because it was well advertised.

In terms of the qualities people find universally appealing, well...  This may sound like I'm talking elementary school literature, but it really comes down to having a conflict, a build-up, a climax, and an ending.  The thing that many writers miss with all four of these elements is that they actually need to function as intended.  A conflict actually needs to be a conflict - it needs to be a challenge that the protagonist has difficulty overcoming, to the point that it actually forces the protagonist to change.  A build-up means raising the audience's interest and excitement gradually - usually by introducing higher and higher stakes as the story goes on.  A climax is where the conflict comes to a head and is either resolved or likely only partially resolved (think Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back - they didn't get the best resolutions out of this climax, but it was a great climax nonetheless, and I'd say that the overall net negative resolutions made it a more interesting story).  And the ending needs to serve as an unwinding point where you see the ultimate results of the climax.

The problem is that amateur writers don't always know how to do all of this - they don't understand that all pieces are needed to complete the puzzle.  Without a build-up, you just have a plateau with a cliff fall; without a climax, the build-up isn't worth it; without a satisfying ending, the climax isn't worth it; and without a proper conflict, none of the pieces work.  The most frequent screw up is with the conflict.  Because they're the ones making the story, they don't know how much of a challenge their characters' conflicts might seem like to the average reader.  Take, for instance, Alm's story in Echoes.  The reason his story didn't quite make the mark for some is because it didn't really feel like he struggled in a way that he had to better himself or adapt.  He fought and he cried, but he never had much issue with actually striking his foes down, nor was the Rudolf revelation all that big a shock to his core character.

There is also the issue of spelling and grammar, but honestly those are secondary because the ultimate purpose of those aspects is enabling the reader to understand what's been written.  That said, there's a lot of... interesting fanfiction where people screw up so horribly in this regard that it actually is difficult to understand the story.

 

As for my personal opinion?  Well, it's changed over the years.  When I first got into FE, it was mainly about characters, and I couldn't care less about the world or even the overall story.  Now... it honestly depends on the story I'm observing.  I need to have the right expectations of a story to appreciate it properly.  It worked for FE because I only wanted good characters at the time, and now that's the only thing FE needs to get right to be appealing to me.

But let's take something like Zelda.  Particularly Breath of the Wild.  What I usually expect from Zelda - and I mean the actual character Zelda - is a girl or woman who usually is supportive of Link and accepts the burden of her destiny.  Even Tetra, the least Zelda-like Zelda, still had these qualities - she supported Link when he needed her and, when she discovered the truth of her hidden identity, she accepted her lot in life.  But in BotW, she's uncooperative with Link and kind of selfish - at least in the memories you observe her in.  And not even in a way that's, IMO, interesting or appealing - she just comes across as a spoiled princess.  Even if that was the intent... I just don't really like that kind of Zelda.  Now, that isn't to say I like female characters that are subservient or helpless.  But with Zelda, I have this expectation that she'll be mature enough to understand the stakes of the conflict and accept her responsibility to Hyrule - not to want to hide away in an ivory tower because she wanted to grow up to be a lawyer or whatever instead of the princess that saves the world from a literal world-ending entity.

Or, for a more recent example, I'll mention Mount and Blade.  The series has a reputation mostly as a sandbox.  So the most that I expected was maybe some worldbuilding, and in M&B2 that's basically what I got, so I was satisfied with the story content it gave me.

[null]

Concerning creative works, I think that what is good within story telling itself is entirely subjective. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when scrolling through another thread I saw someone reference how you think Fates's story is good (and that it removes your credibility when talking about other topics, even though that perspective is wrong). That is your subjective opinion. You may feel that way, but there is also a large part of the FE fanbase that thinks Fates's story is a dumpster fire and "a villain itself." Personally, I think how good or bad Fates's story is depends on the path you choose. I think that Birthright is not bad, just bland and uninteresting. Conquest...is actually pretty bad. And Revelations, while unique, doesn't come together in the way the devs wanted it to. All this is to say that there is no objective way to judge whether story telling is good or bad. It is up to the consumer to decide.

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

There isn't really an objective way to quantify good storytelling. You can objectively measure things like good CGI or camera work but the qualities of the story themselves are pretty much entirely subjective. That's why most papers on stories that you read that deal with symbolism are entirely subjective and opinion based. People will interpret different parts of a story differently based on their own experiences and that will determine what they find "good" or "bad". For me it's mostly character work, followed by story/world building. Good characters can save a bad story but a good story can't always carry bad characters.

[Hawkwing]

Upon giving it some thought, I don't believe there is a universal way to objectively determine if a story is good. The moment anyone puts out a list of rules of what a good story must contain, someone will create a story that functions well while also defying some of said rules. If one states that a good story has to fit in the rules of its genre, then a product that takes elements from other genres to enhance the story shows that rule isn't true. The authors intent is important, yet this does not prevent the audience from forming their own interpretations of a stories Aesop. Some stories are impactful without a single line of dialogue, yet in another tale the conversations and commentary are the most engaging aspects. Some stories are set in unique worlds with rich histories, characters, and creatures, while others benefit from keeping the setting ambiguous. Some plots are driven by its characters, others tell the story of a place instead of a people, and some focus on the similarities and distinctions between cultures. In some stories the lesson is spelled out, while others let only actions speak. I could go on, but the point is that stories are versatile, and there is a time and place for each of them. A "good" story cannot be determined by a set list of requirements; they are judged, critiqued, and praised on several merits and perspectives that are far from universal.

And this isn't even getting into other aspects that can affect a story. There are countless examples of dialogue, scenes, and even entire plots that on their own can come off as rather silly, but the skill of an actor or of actors makes the moment impactful. The opposite can also be the case, where an excellent idea on paper can be bungled by the execution of something unrelated to the writing process. Sometimes special effects and the like come off as gimmicks and flash over substance, while other stories are enhanced by them and even some could only convincingly be pulled off with these enchantments of all kinds. In the realms of games, even the most simplistic of stories can provide context and interest in the rules and mechanics. They don't always align with each other, and these moments can be laughed off as an endearing absurdity in some cases while in others these contradictions can harm the integrity of the fictional world. Likewise, story and gameplay going hand in hand can make for an engaging experience just as easily as it can make for an annoying or frustrating one.

There are a multitude of factors that can affect the final story, not all of them in the writers control. As I stated earlier, stories are versatile, and what makes one "good" and another "bad" can't always be determined by a clean list of rules. I can only give general advice that if one wishes to tell a good story, then it is wise to know what kind of story you wish to tell, how you wish to tell it, the strengths and weakness of both and how you can use that to your advantage, and accepting that not everything will be in your control. I know not every single tale worthy of hearing, reading, or watching follows that advice, but that's the beauty of stories. There is no one way to tell a story, nor is there only one story to tell. They are limitless.

[dafish2124]

For me, there are three major things that make a good story: good characters, a sensible plot, and payoffs. Good characters, in my opinion, should always stay in character throughout the story. They also need to be endearing and relatable. An exception to this rule are villains. Villains don't always need to be relatable or endearing, but sometimes it's better for them. A sensible plot means that the plot works when thinking logically. Things don't happen just for the sake of plot convenience, shock value, etc. The end of the story must have a good payoff. A good payoff is consistent with the themes of the story and with the personality of the character. Games can subvert expectations, but this is harder to execute properly.