Support NeoGAF

[cosmicblizzard]

Point'n'click adventures were mostly built around humor not story.

I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream was hilarious.

 

[Noirulus]

A series like Ace Attorney that in my experience became rather worthless for a repeated playthrough, because the game is so heavy on story that if you have a good memory, you really remember most of the game and it becomes more of a drag. Games with weak stories also can get in the way of the game, creating a sense of "get on with it!" or worrying about going back to it, like the Final Fantasy XIII trilogy.

I hold the view that if the gameplay is simply good enough, and potentially better than the narrative, it makes it easy to go back to it. A game with a story shoved in your face that gets in the way of the gameplay has the issue of interfering with that desire. It's far easier for me to get into Super Metroid again than it is to get into Other M, specifically for these kind of reasons.

I may also be a unique case, as my favorite genre of games are platformers.

Yeah, this is definitely true. Story-driven games are mostly one-off experiences where as games with great gameplay that don't rely on a story can be enjoyed many times.

 

[HK-47]

Or they just value different things in a story/have different tastes than you. No need to be condescending about it.

I find many gameplay>story people are often very condescending and sure of themselves. Like sneering in text format.

 

[Schreckstoff]

I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream was hilarious.

My Favourites are the first 2 Monkey Islands and the first 2 Simon the Sorcerer's as well Day of The Tentacle.

 

[BlewHedgehog]

i dunno. Films are supposed to be watched. Sports are to be played. Video games reside in all of the space in between. I'd never honestly say that story is MORE important to me, but it's kind of a bummer to hear people being dismissive of a game because that's where its focus is.

That said, I can enjoy a game with no narrative if it plays well. I can't handle a bad, story-driven game.

 

[Awntawn]

games are like sandwiches. gameplay is the bread and the story is the meat. graphics are cheese.

 

[HK-47]

I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream was hilarious.

I hear The Cat Lady and Scratches are a riot.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

A series like Ace Attorney that in my experience became rather worthless for a repeated playthrough, because the game is so heavy on story that if you have a good memory, you really remember most of the game and it becomes more of a drag. Games with weak stories also can get in the way of the game, creating a sense of "get on with it!" or worrying about going back to it, like the Final Fantasy XIII trilogy.

I hold the view that if the gameplay is simply good enough, and potentially better than the narrative, it makes it easy to go back to it. A game with a story shoved in your face that gets in the way of the gameplay has the issue of interfering with that desire. It's far easier for me to get into Super Metroid again than it is to get into Other M, specifically for these kind of reasons.

I may also be a unique case, as my favorite genre of games are platformers.

Nothing wrong with placing importance on replay value. Linear story-driven games won't appeal much in that instance. Hardly makes you a unique case.

 

[BassForever]

Depends on the game, something like a visual novel or a point and click adventure game needs to have a strong story as the gameplay is mostly a tool to facilitate that story. I will say though that a really compelling story will keep me playing a game more then great gameplay with a mediocre story.

 

[Infinite]

Art style is not a 'feedback system'. Neither are animations or sound effects. And in no way are any of these things free from criticism on an individual basis. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Yes they are. When you press a button and move the joy stick there is preprogrammed animations and sound effects that let's you the player know that that action has successfully been executed. An art style is apart of letting you the player know that you're playing viewtiful joe and not modern warfare. These are aspects of the game that you are experiencing as you interact with it.

I probably didn't articulate myself well with that last bit but I think the premise of this thread is a bit silly since it's implying that gameplay and story are opposites or at odds when they really aren't.

 

[HK-47]

My Favourites are the first 2 Monkey Islands and the first 2 Simon the Sorcerer's as well Day of The Tentacle.

Then you have a very narrow view of the P&C genre as a whole. Grim Fandango, The Dig, Fate of Atlantis. All Lucasarts. They had humor but I would say those are games carried by their stories, not just jokes and visual gags.

 

[Cave Johnson]

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? We should be advocating for games to merge story and gameplay seamlessly as it requires some sort of innovation in that front.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

It depends on the freaking game.

If it's a VN, well duh I want a good story.

Anything else, gameplay.

 

[SkeptiMism]

It's really silly of people to say gameplay > story as a general statement, but likewise it's silly to say on the contrary as a general statement.

One can have preferences and that's completely fine, but don't try to define in general what's the most important. There are games that concentrate more on the story, and that's completely fine. There are also games that concentrate more on the gameplay and that's completely fine.

They're not mutually exclusive either. If a game concentrates on the story, it doesn't mean that the gameplay has to be minimal or sucky. If a game concentrates on the gameplay, it doesn't mean it has to have a minimal or sucky story.

If your game's story is more important than the gameplay, just write a book.

That's incredibly silly, no offense. Don't try to tell other people what to do. If someone wants to create a game with a larger focus on the story, that's their business.

Also, it's a silly equivalence anyway. Creating a game with a story is hardly any similar to writing a book. And again, just because a game might have a stronger focus on the story, it doesn't mean the gameplay has to suck or be minimal.

Just straight up disagree...what am i playing when story>gameplay? Am I holding a video game controller or a tv remote?

Again, that's a really silly equivalence. See above.

Couldn't disagree more.

Chess don't need no freakin' story.
Cards don't need no freakin' story.
Mahjong don't need no freakin' story.
Sports don't need no freakin' story.
And most video games don't need no freakin' story.

Does a good story improve a good game? In most cases, probably. However, sometimes it actually just gets in the way of what you're there to do: play the game. A good example is Duck Tales Remastered, which is constantly interrupted by excessive dialogues.

Another example. Compare the works of Hideo Kojima and David Cage. Both make games that feel like interactive movies, but one of these designers knows how to design a good game, and it really shows. Besides the fact that most games get by on the strength of their gameplay despite having utterly terrible stories.

Those are really silly comparisons.

Otherwise agreed mostly. A story can certainly get in the way if it's not implemented well.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

I hear The Cat Lady and Scratches are a riot.

Reminds me, I need to get to Silence of the Sleep after Dusk Golem compared it to Cat Lady.

 

[Skilletor]

Most of what you do in RPGs is done in order to progress through it though. Things like grinding or doing random side quests (which tell their own stories separate from the main one sometimes) fill in the gaps between the events that transpire. It may seem odd to hear it as an argument but you can't deny that one of the genre's most important aspects is the narrative. If nothing else, it gives context to your actions.

I definitely deny it. Context isn't important of you give zero fucks about what you're doing.

Also, all the technology in the world doesn't mean higher quality writing, or writers.

 

[HK-47]

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? We should be advocating for games to merge story and gameplay seamlessly as it requires some sort of innovation in that front.

Its too bad choice (one of the most interesting and interactive story element you can have) is so expensive. Tabletop RPGs lucked out that their medium runs on the limitless energy engine called imagination.

 

[EGM1966]

Depends on the game. There are no absolutes.

Mostly I'd say gameplay is more important than story as mostly games have minimal focus on narrative.

However with titles like TLOU I'd say story is at least as important to the mix. I simply wouldn't have enjoyed TLOU even with it's very solid gameplay if the story and writing wasn't do good. For games that push narrative to the fore then arguably story/tone is more important than gameplay. Here you've got titles like Gone Home, Dear Esther and Vanishing of Ethan Carter.

So it varies. It always varies.

 

[Inf3cted_b3ast]

A lot of people including myself love Destiny's gameplay but then then the story was........ well idk what the story was lol So my question is If Gamplay > Story which I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, why do so many people feel let down by the game overall. It has IMO solid gameplay right??

 

[Dark_castle]

A good game can have great gameplay and uninteresting story.
A good game can have uninspired gameplay and a gripping story.
But only a great game can have great gameplay and great story.

Many people underestimate how a compelling narrative simply makes gameplay better. Context adds so much to a game, the reasons why gameplay mechanics are the way they are, and character motivations. When was the last time a game with no story or a bad narrative won the lion's share of Game of the Year Awards? It's always games like The Last of Us, Portal 2, Mass Effect 2, Red Dead Redemption, GTA4/V and so on. Games with great gameplay mechanics, coupled with a compelling narrative.

If you're making a truely compelling game these days, you gotta have both. There's really no excuse. You can make a good game without a fine story, but it's unlikely to have a lasting impact.

How do you explain Pokemon and Monster Hunter games then? Do you really think that they have good story? Are they not influential or having deep impact or popularity in gaming? GOTY awards can vary from place to place, NeoGAF's GOTY last year was Bayonetta 2, a game nobody plays for its story.

 

[BouncyFrag]

I'll take both dependent of the game, but I'd put a great soundtrack ahead of them both.

 

[WetTreeLeaf]

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? We should be advocating for games to merge story and gameplay seamlessly as it requires some sort of innovation in that front.

Couldnt agree more, TLoU and Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons wouldnt have been as great as they were if they hadnt mixed the gameplay along with the narrative.

 

[HK-47]

How do you explain Pokemon and Monster Hunter games then? Do you really think that they have good story? Are they not influential or having deep impact or popularity in gaming? GOTY awards can vary from place to place, NeoGAF's GOTY last year was Bayonetta 2, a game nobody plays for its story.

And before that it was games like MGS4, The Last of Us or Mass Effect 2. Games I'm pretty sure werent being played just for there gameplay and certainly when I see them discussed its mostly not about their gameplay.

 

[nextgeneration]

It's really silly of people to say gameplay > story as a general statement, but likewise it's silly to say on the contrary as a general statement

I don't think it's silly at all. For me, personally, I don't care how damn good a story is - if the gameplay (which for me, is the foundation for any game) is weak, then the game fails. A good story can definitely enhance a game and make it stronger, but if the foundation of a game is weak (the gameplay), then the game falls apart.

 

[Shaanyboi]

If the best part of your game is cutscenes, you might have failed on the game design end.

I don't mean to be disparaging towards story heavy games, and there are more ways to tell stories in games than cutscenes, obviously. But it's astonishing how when discussing a game like The Last of Us with other people (a game I really do love), unless I bring it up, all they talk about is dialogue and cutscenes. Never "oh man this level was awesome," or "there was this crazy part where I got out of being cornered by using a bottle and..." etc.

And Shadow of Mordor sure as fuck isn't winning awards for its storytelling. If it is... just... ew.

I'm far more interested when games can tie stories into the actual gameplay. With choice-heavy games like Walking Dead/Wolf Among Us, the design is all about providing enough information to motivate your decisions. Who the game wants you to trust/distrust, what kind of interaction does it want you to have with each character, what situation can they put you in where you'd have difficulty deciding between two points of view, etc. These are both narrative and game design decisions, and I'd call them largely successful. The choices you make is far larger chunk of the gameplay than the physical exploration of areas.

Bioware is in a similar position, though far more of the gameplay choices you make are divorced from the story. However when it comes to alot of the choice moments in their games, they're strongest when you're poised with a choice that isn't dependent on a good/evil bar, but by making you choose between two compelling and viable viewpoints. Even better if this affects your party in a certain way. Like "if I make this choice, I might actually really piss off this member of my team and they may leave. Even worse so considering I've invested a ton of time in making them my main healer' or something. It goes beyond being just story, it affects the way you'll play the game.

Spec Ops: The Line is a fairly unmemorable shooter, but when it uses the gameplay to facilitate choice and tell its story, it's far stronger.

Gone Home isn't a complex game mechanically, but its story by itself isn't what made it interesting. It's the insane level of detail in the environment, the placement of day-to-day items, and what that actually says about your family - that's what makes it interesting. Even if it's not overtly interactive, how the level designers place the breadcrumbs for you to follow is inherently part of the gameplay.


But do I fucking care about the story in Mario? No. I just want the levels to be good. If it's a story-heavy Mario game, like the RPGs, then yeah, it better be good. But the platformers, I just want good challenging levels with fun platforming. It gains nothing by giving you a page of text to read in-between levels.


Gameplay and story don't have to be divorced from eachother as concepts, as if it's one or the other. What designers should be asking is "how do we facilitate the story to improve gameplay?" or vice-versa. It's fine for one to focus more on the other, but when developers do treat them as two separate things, the gameplay better be the thing that stands out.

 

[Mogwai]

Gameplay > Characters > Story (plot)

I usually care more about characters than the story that unfolds. I need interesting/intriguing characters in order to pay any interest in the story.

 

[Plasma]

A great story will never be able to compensate for crappy gameplay.

I don't think that's entirely true I still enjoy playing Alpha Protocol for the story and the choices you make even though the gameplay is garbage.

I think for the most part it depends on the game.

 

[Cipherr]

Bayonetta 2's story is awful. But the gameplay is so damn good that it doesn't matter... at all.

I've yet to play a game where the story is good enough to make up for shitty gameplay.

Gameplay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> story

Truthbombs.

Sure depending on genre, the weight of the two may fluctuate, but even then, the bolded holds true.

Theres also the fact that 99% of writing in gaming is god awful shit from people who couldn't hack it as book/novel writers more than likely. MGS series is a bad example to hold when you are talking about good writing in gaming.

 

[Schreckstoff]

Then you have a very narrow view of the P&C genre as a whole. Grim Fandango, The Dig, Fate of Atlantis. All Lucasarts. They had humor but I would say those are games carried by their stories, not just jokes and visual gags.

I have, I played them as a kid so deep story elements were lost on me.

 

[Dark_castle]

And before that it was games like MGS4, The Last of Us or Mass Effect 2. Games I'm pretty sure werent being played just for there gameplay and certainly when I see them discussed its mostly not about their gameplay.

Well yeah, of course when you have both aspects of story and gameplay nailed down, you're going to do good. I just disagree with your notion that you must have both of the elements nailed down to be considered 'great'. So as an example, I pointed to last year's GOTY, a game many considered great or amazing.

 

[SkeptiMism]

I don't think it's silly at all. For me, personally, I don't care how damn good a story is - if the gameplay (which for me, is the foundation for any game) is weak, then the game fails. A good story can definitely enhance a game and make it stronger, but if the foundation of a game is weak (the gameplay), then the game falls apart.

That's why I said "as a general statement", meaning that if you have such a preference, that's fine, but don't try to make it like it's some universal truth for games.

 

[GenG3000]

Games are about entertainment, and that can be achieved through many ways. For most of the time it was "gameplay", although the term itself is really vague so I'd say what people understand for gameplay is actually a mix of interesting and engaging core mechanics with good stage design that challenges the player to use them to advance

However, there are also short-term, mid-term and long-term goals that strike your curiosity and keep you wondering what's next. That's also entertainment 101 and gameplay, story and atmosphere are all related to that. Wether you want to see what levels, new abilities, plot twists or new towns you find next, all is made towards the same goal: keep you on the game.

So, obviously, there's no real answer. Each game within each genre will give weight to different elements of the game to achieve that entertainment. Even RPGs do not have to either be about story or gameplay to be entertaining. People have to abandon that old fashioned idea about what a game should be, because they are using vague terms to describe a specific type of games.

 

[zma1013]

A lot of people including myself love Destiny's gameplay but then then the story was........ well idk what the story was lol So my question is If Gamplay > Story which I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing, why do so many people feel let down by the game overall. It has IMO solid gameplay right??

Well certainly people are disappointed by it's story since it was hyped up to be this big epic space adventure and their previous titles had that but on the flip side of it, some people are also disappointed by the repetitive missions and enemy designs, a poorly thought out loot and RPG system, and lack of even basic options and modes that Bungie themselves pioneered many, many years ago. Sure it has solid shooting mechanics, but even those could be argued to be at odds with themselves; for example, the game often demands you to dodge, dip, dive, duck, and dodge, but at the same time your accuracy is shit while moving so you gotta slow to a crawl and aim to hit anything.

 

[nextgeneration]

That's why I said "as a general statement", meaning that if you have such a preference, that's fine, but don't try to make it like it's some universal truth for games.

I don't think anyone is saying that as being a universal truth, or at least I don't think or hope anyone is saying that. Bottom line is there is no right/wrong answer here. It all boils down to personal preference is the way I see it.

 

[galvenize]

I'm one of the rare that values story slightly above gameplay.

I'd have a much more positive view of FFXIII had the story been a little bit interesting.

 

[Seanspeed]

Yes they are. When you press a button and move the joy stick there is preprogrammed animations and sound effects that let's you the player know that that action has successfully been executed. An art style is apart of letting you the player know that you're playing viewtiful joe and not modern warfare. These are aspects of the game that you are experiencing as you interact with it.

I think you're a bit confused as to what a 'feedback system' is. Or at least, how the term is conventionally defined when it comes to video games. You're treating the term super literally. And even then, art style still doesn't come under that umbrella. Art style is there, whether I touch my controller or not.

Story can be a feedback system, though.

I probably didn't articulate myself well with that last bit but I think the premise of this thread is a bit silly since it's implying that gameplay and story are opposites or at odds when they really aren't.

Its not that they are opposites, I agree with that, but they are two separate variables that can be distinguished from one another. You can change one variable by way of the other(by playing the game, you can move the story along), but they are still separate entities in the end.

 

[NetMapel]

Nintendo games don't usually have great stories. Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Mario platforms, Donkey Kong have barely any stories but are just so fun to play. Love those games

I am also a huge fan of Phoenix Wright series though. I guess there's a place for everything.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

I agree that games can be good solely because of the story , but the games are designed around it, not any genre (adventure games come to mind), as there can be games that are good solely because other non-specific things. I see postmodernism apply to this medium, as it does in other mediums.

 

[cheezcake]

Eh my favorite stories in games always mesh themselves with gameplay elements, e.g. Bioshock, Portal. The worst stories in game are those which feel like the dev shoehorned gameplay into whats essentially a movie script. e.g. Tomb Raider 2013

 

[patapuf]

A good game can have great gameplay and uninteresting story.
A good game can have uninspired gameplay and a gripping story.
But only a great game can have great gameplay and great story.

Many people underestimate how a compelling narrative simply makes gameplay better. Context adds so much to a game, the reasons why gameplay mechanics are the way they are, and character motivations. When was the last time a game with no story or a bad narrative won the lion's share of Game of the Year Awards? It's always games like The Last of Us, Portal 2, Mass Effect 2, Red Dead Redemption, GTA4/V and so on. Games with great gameplay mechanics, coupled with a compelling narrative.

If you're making a truely compelling game these days, you gotta have both. There's really no excuse. You can make a good game without a fine story, but it's unlikely to have a lasting impact.

That's not true, many (i'd say most) games with lasting impact do very little storytelling themselves. MP games alone disprove that you need anything like context to just play.

All manners of classic puzzle games like tetris get played decades after they came out.

Then there's games where players simply make up their own stuff. Like Minecraft, Skyrim ect.

BTW: i enjoy a well written story and even VN's. They can enhance games. But they are in no way needed.

 

[hobblygobbly]

Gameplay has to matter for me. Stories in games in my opinion are really behind the level in books but if you put an okay story + good gameplay together then it's great, especially when you can influence the story in some way through interaction. But if it's just a bad game with an okay story? Nah. The quality of writing in games isn't that good that it can carry a game on its own, I'd rather just read a book (which I do all the time, I love books). I'm not saying stories are bad in games, but I don't think they are good enough to carry a game on its own IMO. So yeah, gameplay will always matter for me because that's what makes a game enjoyable to me. If it's a bad game but good story then what's the point of it being a video game? It'll probably be more enjoyable as a book to read.

I've yet to play a game where the story holds up the game. I don't think story writing for games are good enough to do that. I think the human experience with the gameplay that might be annoying/frustrating/boring might overshadow a really good story because we are put into controlling a game and that's our immediate interaction. The gameplay is the control, if that's bad then it's a barrier to enjoying the story. You have to be really determined to look past that and just see it as a story itself. The way a game carries itself in general requires that the gameplay be important, it's not like that the other way around, you don't need story to drive a game or make it fun or even be good. Gameplay will always be the most important, what would be the point in playing it then? Wouldn't it be better then for it to exist in another medium if gameplay wasn't important?

 

[Seanspeed]

Sort of defeats the whole role playing thing though.

No, it doesn't. Many of your 'role playing choices' have implications on the gameplay aspects. Choosing to be a knight over a mage is the most blatantly obvious example. Two entirely different playstyles that have nothing to do with the story.

And many RPG's offer little or no 'choices' or anything like that in relation to the story, meaning that you're just along for the ride. The choices you might make have more to do with the spells you pick, the combat skills you pick, the characters you choose to have with you, etc etc. Things that affect gameplay.

What games do you mean specifically, so I can get a better picture. Lord knows I would never play an RPG just for its gameplay (dont say Dark Souls).

There's no specific games this applies to. It applies to them all. You are probably making the mistake of thinking solely of combat when thinking of 'gameplay', when there's a lot more to it than that. For instance, when I am having a great time just wandering about on my own in Skyrim, that is gameplay. I am 'playing' the game there.

 

[Crimson_Justice]

I think games lie on a continuum, like the number line or the gray scale. There are the extremes, like Tetris on one side and Gone Home on the other (thanks whoever that was above for the great examples). And then there is a whole slew of combinations of gameplay and story in the middle. Smash Bros lends itself very heavily to the gameplay side, but with things like Subspace Emissary in Brawl included, it's not completely on the gameplay side. The Tales of games and TLoU are somewhere near the center. And, things like Professor Layton and 999 are far closer to the story side.

This is the beauty of video games. They have so many possibilities (not even limited to my continuum above!), and not one side is "right." It's 100% fine to prefer a certain type of game, but it's unfair and ignorant to say that video games as a whole should be of one type.

Actually, I think the true beauty of video games is the interactivity it offers. But, that's a whole 'nother huge post for a whole 'nother huge thread.

 

[Omega Ultimus]

As a consequence of the medium being driven by the player, I think a game's story relies on the gameplay; the gameplay needs to be either simplistic enough as to not deter the progression and flow of the story (which will have an emphasis on presentation), or, preferably for most, enjoyable in the way it engages the player.

However, the game can get by by being fun in a more sport-like way (more akin to a game of chess), because the gameplay itself doesn't rely upon the story like the story relies upon the gameplay. Only in the rarest of occasions, can the game be worth struggling through poor/non-existent gameplay for a remarkable story.

 

[FindMyFarms]

I mainly play fighting games competitively and have no idea what the hell the stories are in 99% of them. I also dont care. Before that I played RTS games (warcraft/starcraft) and never even touched their campaigns. I guess it just depends on what type of games you're into, and what type of hobbyist you are.

 

[SkeptiMism]

I don't think anyone is saying that as being a universal truth, or at least I don't think or hope anyone is saying that. Bottom line is there is no right/wrong answer here. It all boils down to personal preference is the way I see it.

Sadly, I have debated with people who actually think gameplay is everything that matters. There was also one person who specifically said games shouldn't have any cutscenes at all.
The attitude isn't that common fortunately, but it's definitely there I think.

edit:
And also there's people in this thread saying the old "if you want to design a game with a greater focus on story than gameplay, you should go write a book instead".

 

[-duskdoll-]

I think gameplay comes first but story is also important, why can't games focus on both? Though i am more forgiving of a game with awesome gameplay and mediocre story than the other way around.

 

[Heartfyre]

How do you explain Pokemon and Monster Hunter games then? Do you really think that they have good story? Are they not influential or having deep impact or popularity in gaming? GOTY awards can vary from place to place, NeoGAF's GOTY last year was Bayonetta 2, a game nobody plays for its story.

Not at all. Narratively, Pokemon and Monster Hunter are vacuous from the perspective of narrative, and prove the point well. Pokémon X and Y won plenty of critical and commercial success at launch for their gameplay mechanics, but faded into obscurity since. They were not a big contender for Game of the Year Awards, and discussion on the games widely stopped long before Alpha Ruby and Omega Sapphire came out. Likewise, the Monster Hunter games are quite niche outside of Japan, and meet an often divided reaction on release. I personally find Monster Hunter games extremely boring because of the lack of effort they make from a narrative perspective. And the Monster Hunter games receive the same reception as Pokemon.

Bayonetta 2's plot is pretty uninteresting, but there is a backbone of lore, creating context. Y'know all those collectable journals and text-dumps in the first Bayonetta that nobody reads? I read them. It's a terrible way to present context, and isn't the best in quality, but at least it's something. Lore adds context, and has the same, sometimes better effect than obstructive cutscenes. Likewise, I adore the Souls games. Almost no traditional narrative, but the narrative is there, and it's really engaging to tease it out. You can argue that the Souls games are all gameplay and no narrative, but that'd be an uphill fight. And like The Last of Us and other narrative games, you rarely see a month go by without a new LTTP for these games appear, indicating the amount of discussion these context-heavy games generate.

 

[Oersted]

Miyamoto isn't opposed to story, he's opposed to cutscenes. He wants the player to be in control at all times. But you can still have a lot of story elements without having tons of dialog and cutscenes. Super Metroid and the Portal games are good examples. It's not the type of story that you get in novels or movies, but video games are pretty singular their ability to build a world and make you feel like you're in it. Video games excel at building tone and setting.

I agree with you with visual novels, where the number one most important thing is good writing. But when you really boil it down, visual novels are just value-added books. They aren't really taking advantage of the benefits of their medium.

Yep. That urban myth about Miyamoto is tiresome.

 

[Infinite]

I think you're a bit confused as to what a 'feedback system' is. Or at least, how the term is conventionally defined when it comes to video games. You're treating the term super literally. And even then, art style still doesn't come under that umbrella. Art style is there, whether I touch my controller or not.

Story can be a feedback system, though.

Then at this point it's nothing more than semantics we seem to disagree on. If I replaced "feedback" with "atmosphere" or "experience" I'm sure the same idea would come across. In any case, art style is apart of feedback because it's how the gave visually tells you who it is. That's how I think of it.

IIts not that they are opposites, I agree with that, but they are two separate variables that can be distinguished from one another. You can change one variable by way of the other(by playing the game, you can move the story along), but they are still separate entities in the end.

I think of them more as elements of a larger thing. Like how a food dish is comprised of several different ingredients or how your neogaf account is comprised of your posting history, threads you created, your username and your avatar. I'm not saying it's impossible for you to enjoy a story and loathe the way a game plays or vice versa. I'm saying those two things are apart of a greater whole which is the game in it's entirety. Basically these are aspects that contribute to your enjoyment of the product and the effect it has on you.