RolStoppable said:
It just gets on my nerves when I hear people throw around terms like "actual games", "true games" or "real games", usually to criticize games that don't have elaborate storylines. As if video games need to have them, because otherwise they aren't games apparently. In these situations I like to remind these people that winning and losing are the most common traits of games and these traits are heavily pronounced in the very games they find fault with. Board games and card games are the same at their core. Sports as well. Football is a game and in the end it's all about winning or losing. My point isn't that something like KEY, Bioshock or Braid isn't an actual game, but that games with little to no story are actual games as well and if anything, even moreso than the aforementioned. |
Ok, I get you. I agree that a game doesn't necessarily need an epic story to be enjoyable. However, it depends on what style of game you want to make. Monster Hunter makes sense with limited story.
However, Zelda is a different story. Honestly imagine if Nintendo released the next Zelda game with no storyline. They plopped you into the middle of a forest with no exposition, no intro, and no direction. Regardless of whether or not you personally would enjoy such a game, how do you think this would turn out for Nintendo? How would fans who enjoy the series as it is now react?
