Octavianus
Banned
Most video game stories are horrid so I mostly agree.
I'd rather have great gameplay and no story than the reverse, any day.
No reason they cannot coexist, but make a game first and foremost.
The best Austin Walker also bringing it in a good response piece:
Basically what I'm saying is Waypoint is pretty great.
This is absolutely correct.
You can always have a great game without a great story. You (literally) cannot have a great game if it's devoid of great gameplay.
But at no point has it needed to be a one-or-the-other situation - the nature of games as a medium have never necessitated that, and outright-amazing experiential things can be done when you make the story told primarily through the gameplay of a game.
Yes because what you want is what everyone else wants....yes x100. the less story that is pushed on me, the better my experience.
This is absolutely correct.
You can always have a great game without a great story. You (literally) cannot have a great game if it's devoid of great gameplay.
But at no point has it needed to be a one-or-the-other situation - the nature of games as a medium have never necessitated that, and outright-amazing experiential things can be done when you make the story told primarily through the gameplay of a game.
What makes interactive stories so great is that you become more emotionally invested in your character because you are controlling them, making decisions. They become an avatar for yourself. Not whether the game is 20% interactive of 80% interactive.
Gaming has the potential to be a much better story telling medium than books or movies, if the writing was better.
Trying to work against this so every game is Tetris is dumb.
This is absolutely correct.
You can always have a great game without a great story. You (literally) cannot have a great game if it's devoid of great gameplay.
But at no point has it needed to be a one-or-the-other situation - the nature of games as a medium have never necessitated that, and outright-amazing experiential things can be done when you make the story told primarily through the gameplay of a game.
Not true at all. Stories can provide context, stories can motivate, stories can create meaning. Just throwing a character into a world and say "do stuff" isn't necessarily any more imaginative than giving a focused story. Majora's Mask wouldn't be what it is if not for the 3-day story giving context & motivation, it also provides a very imaginative way of structuring gameplay, the world & all the interactions.stories limit imagination. zelda has been doing this with their recent iteration.
Third-person looter games are not known for their stories. Most players experienced the plot of Diablo II once, and on their numerous subsequent playthroughs they just clicked past the dialogs and hurried on to the looting and leveling. The same probably goes for games like World of Warcraft. But the story is as much a part of the world as the scenery and music. You couldnt just cull the entire Diablo plot and backstory without damaging the game. Even when players are hanging around town, swapping items and griping about lag, that story layer is still there underneath everything, lending a certain credibility and purpose to the gameworld. Players want to inhabit an interesting story, even when they arent immersed or in character.
my 70+ hours in persona 5 say otherwise.
Lack of story works for some games, but to say one approach is objectively better or that one should be eliminated is wrong.
Article
A lot more article at the link. A decent chunk references Edith Finch, a game I haven't yet played.
I'd strongly encourage reading the article before posting. I disagree with a lot of points, but that last quote I believe is directionally correct.
What really sets games apart are their ability to create unique stories for everyone who plays them. Emergent gameplay, as a term, is kind of beaten to death, but it's probably the easiest one to use to identify what makes games special.
Thoughts?
Did a quick search and didn't see this posted. Lock if old.
I am baffled by those who think story is the most important part of a game. No it isn't. You can have the best story in the world, but if your game is shitty? Well too bad. I won't be playing it. I'll just watch the story on a let's play channel.
Pretty much what I was going to sayThe entire "why does this have to be a game, it could just be another form of storytelling, the neat technical aspects of the game engine aren't storytelling," comes off like saying, "Why did Welles make Citizen Kane a movie instead of a stage production, all of the fancy cinematography is just technical wizardry, not artistic expression."
Why have interactive elements in a game when you could have an animated film.
Why show off your fancy props and actors with a play when you could have a tapestry.
Why show off your pens and pencils a graphic novel when you could have orally transmitted stories around the hearth.
Why does this story need to be told as a video game?...
...Yes, sure, you can tell a story in a game. But what a lot of work that is, when its so much easier to watch television, or to read.
Man. No one tell this dude about visual novels.
I am baffled by those who think story is the most important part of a game. No it isn't.
I am baffled by those who think story is the most important part of a game. No it isn't. You can have the best story in the world, but if your game is shitty? Well too bad. I won't be playing it. I'll just watch the story on a let's play channel.
This article is shitty of course since TLOU would be worse without a story, but alot of games don't need stories.
That's your opinion and your taste. Not all games need to fit what you like.
He is on point.