Gameplay vs Story+

[TruckOSaurus]

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.

Why do you reject milkyjoe'S point? In short, he's saying the first AC had immersive world and compelling story but the repetitive gameplay prevented it from reaching greatness. That's exactly what your thread is about, why reject his point and ask for another example?