Ok, so my steam list is composed mainly of massively popular retro indie games and I'm starting to see a pattern that I don't really enjoy personally, but seems to be incredibly well-received in general. I'm talking about the inclusion of deep lore with barely any narrative in game stories. Or at least that's what I'm calling it right now since I don't know the actual technical term. What I'm talking about is when instead of showing characters interacting with each other to advance the plot, we have more and more games using notes/collectibles and visual cues to suggest a story rather than straight out telling it to the player. And I'm personally tired of having to go into forums and dig through wikis to understand what happened in the game I just played. Especially when games go out of their way to be as vague as possible (I'm looking at you axiom verge). And I've heard the argument a million times already. "Less is more", "leaving things to the imagination is better". But to be honest, it does get tiring and it feels more lazy than anything. We have more and more games like undertale and FNAF where half of the plot is a huge void of fan theories. I only played the first portal recently and all I got from playing it was the jokes. Even Evoland 2 which is currently my favorite game from my library is basically "You choose what you believe happened in the ending because we ain't explaining it to you". Is it weird to think like this? Am I the only one that gets a little irritated with all this? I just want to actually understand the plot of a game WHILE I play it for a change but it seems like leaving things vague and unexplained is the best option for developers lately. I'd like to know what everyone else's opinions are about this. (By the way, this all came to mind because I started playing FEZ which went from silly level-based puzzler to exactly this vague sort of story telling I'm talking about).