To add to what you are saying timp123123, will anyone be playing any of our great games right now in 50 years like we are still telling anyone who is interested in fantasy books that you have got to read The Lord of the Rings?

You fail. It's not fact, it's opinion.

Do we need good graphics for games to be great? No.

Does having good graphics and sound decide how much we enjoy them? No.

We don't need these things, just like we don't need a good story to enjoy a game. My point is that such things can make a game better under certain circumstances. Just because you feel dissatisfied with current efforts at storytelling in games doesn't mean that others feel the same way. It doesn't make it fact. This isn't to say I disagree with the notion that there's still untapped potential for story telling in games, I just believe there are some people out there who are satisfied with the current efforts.

Now, you can have your discussion. After all, I guess I'm caught up in semantics here, eh?

EDIT:

"Why games fail at storytelling" ---> The title of the article.

This is why you fail.

In the end I can only conclude that games are meant to tell stories through their gameplay. You read a book, watch a movie, and play a game.

I can agree with that. That's not to say there can't be the 'mixed bag' games. It just means that we have yet to find a separate identity for storytelling in gaming.

Why does video games have to have only one way to tell a story?  Movies and books will have the same way to tell their stories forever.  Video games are an interactive medium and shouldn't have to be limited to one storytelling method

That's actually my point. I think video games don't have a separate identity, though, in terms of storytelling. Just like books and movies share similarities, they obviously have their differences. Some books can't be made into movies very well just as how books and movies can't be made into games very well. (Just about anything can be made into a book, though, which only requires a person's imagination)

Yes. Opening with "you fail" is very enlightened and not at all offensive.

Then you go on agreeing with me on just about every point. I find that strange.

I also see you convieniently snipped out the point of my two questions there. The logical third question would have been: Does this mean that the graphics in games today suck compared to CGI graphics? No.
Or at least, 5-10 years ago the answer would have been no. Today, we're getting closer and closer to that. That's partly because that's one of the fields where developers are putting the most amount of research and money. Would it be wrong for developers to put an equal amount of energy and money on the storytelling? I don't know. But I degress.

I do not say that storytelling in todays games are bad. I'm saying it doesn't work, that it is not at all as powerful as it is in other media. In your words, there is a lot of untapped potential. You are right, it is not a fact. It is simply a opinion shared by such an overwhelming part of the people I have ever talked to on the subject that I feel like it's a fact (which is what I meant, but I guess I could have phrased it better).

What I mean this thread, and the article, is about is to analyze why storytelling in games is not as powerful. Comments like: "It's good enough already!", "I don't care about story anyways!", "JRPG's have great storys!" are all valid, but does not at all touch this point.

Myself, I read mystery novels sometimes. The only game that has ever come close to captivating me as much is the Phoenix Wright games. And they have almost zero interactivity. Care to explain why that is? If not, read the article. It at least makes an attempt at reasoning about storytelling in games.

Oh. And ending a post with "You fail" is also very enlightened and polite. Thank you.

Well, if there's one thing I'll apologize about it's thinking you would get my point. Sorry. With that said, I won't be going any further. You clearly won't be able to understand it and I won't be able to convince you.

GGz

P.S. The 'fails' were simply added as a somewhat comical irony... Which in itself failed, apparently.