You can like whatever you want obviously, but there is such a thing as good writing, and consequently there is also bad writing. I'll post on this later if I find time. Now I just want to comment on Bobo's post, or rather the screen he posted.
Dry feeding the player information isn't "writing style" you like or dislike…it's a video game, they are there to enjoy stories, not to memorize trivial fictional facts. Why is this being discussed?
The other problem is "overly descriptive" narrative…to me it definitely seemed amateurish, but that indeed falls more into a matter of more personal taste.
Right at the start:
Wagons "grope blindly"? In the next sentence, the writer three times in a row attempts to instill similar impression.
There are far too many examples like this. From what little I played, Tyranny is more poorly written, but feels far less "cluttered".
This is an example of bad writing. There are a number of reasons for that, some admittedly fall in a gray area as there is some room for style, but it is overall bad for the primary reason that it is poorly structured and not internally consistent.
The 'grope blindly' falls in a gray area in my opinion. I wouldn't use it, but some might. That's ok.
But then there is a transition from five wagons to 'their master' - who is this master (perhaps not important at this point, as he might be intended as an unknown character, so fine; I haven't payed the game as mentioned), but where is this master? First wagon? And why the use of the word master? It doesn't mean much in this context. It is a clumsy transition, judging from this text alone.
We are also told it's a starless night. And then the master glances up at the sky for guidance. You do that if you want to navigate following the stars, but apparently there are no stars. Had it been written so that he glanced up out of habit, but noticed, or remembered, that there were no stars that night, it would have been fine. But no, he glances 'ever upward' for assurance that he is on the right path, which does not work. Shouldn't he by now have noticed there are no stars? A starless sky can not give you assurance, so this does not work.
We are then told that he has a dim light as protection from the 'encroaching darkness'. This would suggest late in the evening or dusk. And this after we are previously told that it is in the night. So which one is it?
And then the text suddenly circle back to the sky and the master presumably looking up at it. This is redundant. It has already been mentioned above that the sky is starless. You can then argue that this refers to the comment of him glancing upwards for assurance, but it is poorly structured (also see my above comments).
A better way would be to move the part about the dim light up before the comment of him glancing up, then cut the comment about the sky being starless, which is not interesting at that point. Write it so that looks to the sky for guidance, but then notices there are no stars to guide him. I would also have used one line to mention his wagon (presumably), to contextualise the presence of the master within this group of wagons, and then mention the light (attached to his wagon, I presume?)
