I play games for the gameplay,I tried to play through ff13 for the story but I dont get how someone can love a game that gets to play more than you do.

That's another thing. From what I've heard, the main story barely explains anything, and almost all the exposition, the stuff that lets you know about the world and the characters, is in text you have to unlock.

That was a major turn off for me, and just bad storytelling. And it's another thing I shouldn't have to play the game to know is bad storytelling. There is a big difference between exposition and backstory.

A lot of your argument is based around comparing video games to movies, but then you don't add in all the advantages that game's have over movies when offering an interactive experience. 

Your also relying on what you've read or watched about the game. Game's are meant to be played, so no matter what your argument is, your view point will always be one of a over the shoulder viewer.

'That's another thing. From what I've heard, the main story barely explains anything, and almost all the exposition, the stuff that lets you know about the world and the characters, is in text you have to unlock.

That was a major turn off for me, and just bad storytelling. And it's another thing I shouldn't have to play the game to know is bad storytelling. There is a big difference between exposition and backstory.'

You have no experience with the game, so I don't blame you for not knowing that the game isn't based on a linear storey, but one that changes depending on the character involved. I think it's an intelligent and realistic design that I don't know what happen's on one side of town if I'm playing with a character on the other side of town. If I allow all the character's to live, then I will get a fuller and more robust story, if all but one character dies, then it's understandable that what ever would have happened to those dead character's would stay a secret because no one would know what would happen to a dead character.

The game isn't playing out like a movie, it's playing out like a 'Choose your own Adventure' book. If you wanted to know everything about the game, then you can replay it as many times as you want and cause different scenarios to occur, this will allow you to fill more gap's that you found in the first play through. Stop comparing a game to a movie or a normal novel, because it's not what it is. Game's are much more flexible in what they can do and how they can interact with you, this is something that limit's other form's of media.

Well I remember "Choose Your Own Adventure books". Heck, they weren't even the only series like that. I also remember "Find Your Fate Adventure" books which were mainly licensed properties like Indiana Jones and James Bond. There was another series I unfortunately can't remember the name.

The point there is that the writing on all of them wasn't that good. It wasn't meant to be, but that doesn't change the quality of the story just because you can choose how the story unfolds.

And even if I'm judging the story over the shoulder, does that make what looks like a poorly written scene any different? It doesn't matter if a game is meant to be played, the story cannot be presented in a way that changes the quality depending on whether you are playing or watching it.

It doesn't matter if I choose the paths of a story. If path A has a plot hole, and path B does not have one, path A will still have a plot hole no matter what happens, no matter how I play the game, no matter what paths I choose.

And I'm not comparing the game to a movie. I'm comparing the story of the game to a movie. There is a difference. Heck, many of these stories try to present themselves in a "cinematic" manner, so if they are trying to look like movies, they sure as hell fall under those quality standards, and become something that can be judged by observing.

The idea that the generation of kids (my generation) who found games like Final Fantasy VI and later Baldur's Gate to be incredible and novel storytelling experiences would have loved the stories just as much if the games had simply been videotaped and released on VHS is pretty funny to me.

(I know you're not saying this, but I think the implications of what you're saying can pretty easily lead to this kind of absurdity if you're not careful.)

And by the way, the whole point of a story will always be the way it makes you feel, and inextricably, what it makes you think -- and feeling, like you've said, is completely tied to the medium the story is told within.  No storyteller on earth would worry about plot holes, awkward lines, or grammer, if ignoring these things meant they could pen a story that inspires the world or makes them and their characters immortal.  Those ideas (plot consistancy, tone, etc.) are just basic guidelines for how to craft a story that sparks people's imaginations.  You're analyzing the tools and skipping the experience.

    Not that there's anything wrong with just analyzing the tools, as long you don't somehow fool yourself into thinking you're talking about the overall experience of the story along the way.

1. Well there was the Shenmue DVD putting all the major cut scenes of the first game. But otherwise, a lot of these are a matter of pacing, so just putting them in another medium would require careful adaptation.

2. But the best storytellers did think about those, or at least made sure to avoid them. But letting them pass if they felt it would help the story is understandable, but the problem is that too many of those turn a plot into an idot plot.

3. I didn't claim I was discussing the overall experience of a story. I'm discussing why a story can still be judged without having to play a game with that story directly. The reason being that the story will not be better or worse if I do. In short, the tools will not change if I am playing the game or not.

The Shenmue DVD is a great real life example of my idea of a game videotape.  It was a really awkward way to deal with a sequel's exposition.  Do you think as many people who watched the video came to love the story of the first game as much as those who actually played it?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say you want to "judge only the story."  Are you talking about the technical merits of the story, or the actual emotional power it has?  When a writer or a filmaker (or a game developer?) says a story "works," they're not talking about whether or not it has plot holes.  They're talking about whether or not it works -- it doesn't get more elemental than that.

Yes, you do. Stories are judged qualitatively, and need to be experienced in a proper contxt to have judgment passed on them.

Your just talking rubbish now. I'll make it simpler, you should never contrast and compare between two totally different form's of interactivity. I don't compare the impression I get from an album to the impression I get from a book, because they are two totally different thing's. The same goes for game 'stories' and movies. 

The Path A and B thing show's you missed my point (which may have been my fault), if there is a plot hole in the game, it's because you missed it on your personal play through. If Ethan Mars dies, then whatever happens to Ethan Mars is thrown out the window, the story changes and is focused back on to the three remaining characters. This mean's that a whole chunk of the plot is gone by your choice. It play's out like it would in real life, if a person I've never met dies, then I wouldn't know anything about them or what was going to happen to them because it never happened.

You can not judge anything based on an extract, which is what your doing, if I went and read one random chapter in a book, I don't I think should be qualified to judge that book based on one chapter out of thirty. Hell, if I watched one shitty part of the Shawshank Redemption and then went on to a movie board and started ranting based on 3 minutes of film, I would be verbally crucified.

Your view on video games seems to be extremely narrow, I'd recommend playing more of the game's you enjoy bashing and then come to a thread and discuss it's negatives and positives.

@ Alic0004: "Are you talking about the technical merits of the story, or the actual emotional power it has?"

A story isn't really technical, but I'm not judging the emotional parts, since those can affect different people different ways. But a flaw in a story is still a flaw no matter how you feel about them.

@ Khuutra:"Yes, you do. Stories are judged qualitatively, and need to be experienced in a proper contxt to have judgment passed on them."

If something in a game seems nonsensical to someone, but you can explain it to that person without that person playing the game, that is still context. If you can't, then it's still going to be nonsensical even if that person plays it.

@ Doobie_wop:"The Path A and B thing show's you missed my point (which may have been my fault), if there is a plot hole in the game, it's because you missed it on your personal play through. If Ethan Mars dies, then whatever happens to Ethan Mars is thrown out the window, the story changes and is focused back on to the three remaining characters."

A character dying and throwing the story in a different direction is not what a plot hole is. A plot hole is breaking the internal logic of the story. If Ethan dies prematurely, it actually makes sense for the direction to change. Now if, hypothetically, Norman were to have some information he was told by Ethan, and in this hypothetical scenario where Ethan dies too soon, and Norman still knows the information, that would be a plot hole.

But the biggest actual plot hole is the notion that the police have no clues, even though the families of the victims clearly have them. So either the police are total idiots for not asking about them, or all those people have been withholding evidence from the police, for no reason. Even if the notes told them not to go to the police, there was no reason to follow that after their sons were killed. So either idiots, or liars.

So answer me this: How in the hell can that possibly make no sense when not playing the game, but magically make sense just because I'm playing the game?

That is the only valid response to that plot hole. The rules of plot holes do not change just because it's a video game, because even games have internal logic, no matter how f'ed up it can seem. Heck, games that break their internal logic in regards to gameplay can seem ridiculous, and become games you see on the Angry Video Game Nerd.

So story does not get to be exempt from following internal logic, or being judged by that, just because it's a video game. It's not a quantum thing, where the logic of the story suddenly changes depending on the observer.