Games don't need stories.

[theprof00]

richardhutnik said:

theprof00 said:

richardhutnik said:

theprof00 said:
ok fine, games don't need a story. Next time you find yourself in a thread dedicated to a story driven game, do yourself a favor and stay out of the conversation.

Did I once say I didn't like games that had stories?  I am just saying that gameplay matters, and not all games need stories.  I was also commenting on how maybe what we considered "games" may not be games.

You're getting into a gray area, because it opens up debate for whether or not a game has gameplay enough. From the tone of the thread I've seen thus far, games that have great gameplay do not have stories. I'm not sure what games may not be games either.

 

I was proposing that it is the gameplay that makes games great, not the story.  A game can have a great story, but it isn't what makes it great.  Beyond this, I will say there are games which the story lends to the experience, and make it special.  But, unless it plays well, no amount of great story will compensate.

Well if thats what you were proposing you should have titled this "gameplay is more important than story", and left it at that.

OR

You could have said "All games dont need stories"

-on a side note-

Let me take for example, your list of top sellers.

more than half of the top 15 are bundled games, and 3 of them have stories. Even looking at the entire chart, many of those games have very good storylines.

This is beside the fact that sales=/=quality.

Of course, it's been a big push to discredit reviewers recently because people think sales should equal quality, and so, if I dare post metacritic, we can see how much that is dominated by story driven games. The difference I would point out, is point of view. Game reviewers tend to come from a traditional video gaming background, and the people who are most upset about these reviewers also come from a traditional video gaming background (hence why they are upset about something someone writes on the internet) However, the people who buy most of those games on that list are not from a traditional video gaming background. They are newer gamers (who might use those games to create a video gaming background), or they are people who prefer the "use" aspect of "digital entertainment" such as wii fit and brain age.

Here is my point. All games are games. Games are different from each other. Some games have stories, which a lot of people love. Some games do not have stories, and people love those as well. Just as I would never be one to seriously say that all games NEED a strong story to be good, it should not likewise be said that games NEED strong gameplay to be good. Games only need strong controls and a modicum of gameplay to pass as a decent game. Whether story is on top of that, is optional, but it has in many instances, improved the game dramatically. You want to look at what a lot of involved gamers think is the best game of all time, they'll often give you a game that has a story. You want to look at what a lot of casual gamers think is the best game of all time, they'll often give you one with no story.

This is because both audiences are looking for different things. Just like in movies, some people want to be moved, and some people want to be entertained.

You belong to one audience, apparently, so stop trying to tell the other side what is best. I'm not even going to mention how many games now have gameplay elements within the story elements, like multiple ending features.

 

 

 

The best result that this thread can have, for you, besides being a huge vg$ cash cow, is that you can make a distinction and name each side, because there are clearly two distinct sides and proponents.