noname2200 said:
On the contrary, as I stated I don't think story, even cinematic ones, are bad for videogames per se. My issue is that precious few have produced stories that aren't generally amateurish (which they have always been), and that improved cinematic tools have meant that the terrible quality of those stories is emphasized and further exposed. I meant the hypothetical example of the SNES vs. current JRPG: the latter rarely tells a story that's any worse than those found in the former, but because of the creator's greater access to storytelling tools the story ends up getting shoved into the player's face to a greater degree than ever before. My stance is that, since few developers can tell a story worth telling in-depth, and since just as few have demonstrated a willingness and ability to resist the temptation to try and go Hollywood, I think it's best that they refrain as much as possible. Other M is one Nintendo-centric example: a good story/storytelling method may well improve the game dramatically, but the terrible story/storytelling is actively keeping me away from a series and game whose gameplay I find intriguing! |
There's always a chance that elements will be offputting to some players. But what you're proposing is really pretty similar to what Intelligent Systems did; they decided that they had no brilliant idea for a Fire Emblem story, and just refrained from telling a story. As a result, you have a practically storyless Fire Emblem game (8).
My stance is essentially that a good story can make a game so much better that it's worth the risk. By leaving story out of the game, you're virtually ensuring that your game won't be a masterpiece. If it manages to be a masterpiece without a story, it most likely could have been even more marvelous had it had a story (although there are exceptions to this).
Making games from the idea that what you put in might be offputting will prevent you from putting in a lot of stuff that should be there.
