Gameplay vs Story+

[milkyjoe]

happydolphin said:

milkyjoe said:

Is there a particular reason why you keep jumping back to Mario? I'm not even focusing on Mario. I made the point that hundreds of games share the same basic story elements. Yet they are separated by how well they play, not how they tell the story. Which is why the first Assassin's Creed (which I've played to completion, by the way), isn't regarded as a classic. It had the world, it had the story, but endlessly pickpocketing, eavesdropping, etc, stop it from ever joining the ranks of Half Life or other games that have all of the elements.

Assassin's Creed II (which I've also played to completion) is infinitely better. The world is just as immersive, the story is still there, but they fixed the gameplay. It was much less repetitive due to the introduction of proper individual mission based gameplay, but they didn't totally alleviate that complaint.

You lost me mj. I was talking about story/worlds and now we're just talking about gameplay.

If AC wasn't known for its story, is it possible that its story wasn't that amazing against, say, Final Fantasy X?

The OP talks about games with AMAZING story, not ok story. If you think AC has an OK story, well okay. But I'm not talking about games that you think had an okay story/world, I'm talking about games that had an amazing story/world. There are few.

Anyways think about one and come back to me, because saying all games tell like Mario isn't something I can agree with.

I've said twice now that AC had the story/world done just as well as (if not better than) many other classic games. I didn't say it was just okay, but the gaming world in the first AC isn't enough to make what you do in the act of playing the game anything brilliant.

The game is structured in a simple way. There are the three main cities each separated into different areas. Each area has an assassination target, and to unlock the assassination you merely complete the same handful of objectives over, and over, and over again. Those being pickpocketing, eavesdropping, tailing an informant and interrogating, and then you move on to the assassination, and that's basically it. When you start playing the game, you don't mind those simplistic tasks because you expect more depth as the game evolves, but it never does. Moving around the cities while free running is great, but that's not enough for a truly great game.

In the sequel, the world is again beautifully realised, the story progresses, but the act of playing the game is improved by structuring what you're actually doing in a much better way. There is a lot more variety in how each sequence is set-up. You aren't just pickpocketing a couple of people, doing a bit of eavesdropping and moving on any more. There's also much more optional content, like exploring Templar lairs, or finding hidden glyphs which slowly unlock a rather strange cinematic. There's the upgrade system, which doesn't just upgrade your personal arsenal, but other things within the game world as well. The game is dramatically improved through all of those gameplay additions (and others) while the world remains consistently good between the two games...

With regards to the last sentence, I didn't actually say that. Mario is just one example of the good vs evil stereotype. I've been focusing on other games entirely that share that stereotype, but I didn't specifically say that.