Is there an MST video of people riffing on the cut scenes? There should be.

You can unlock if Samus disobey Adam's orders.

I realise that I'm now leaving the topic completely, but I figure that's when the most interesting discussions usually start.

I  disagree with you on your views on story in video games. You seem to be taking the same stance as Nintendo generally has: A deep story has nothing to do in videogames. And you know what? Many of their games are lesser for it.

The Fire Emblem franchise is a good example of this. With the GBA entries, the story was mainly a way to let you play the game. The story was there to give you a reason to play the maps. With the SNES entries (which were prior to the GBA entries, but made by completely different people), there was a far larger focus on story. Both FE4 and FE5 had multiple plot twists, and the story played as large a part - if not a larger one - than the gameplay. I was deeply moved by Fire Emblem 4.

Now, if you look at the maps, both Fire Emblem 4 and Fire Emblem 5 were at times hurt from the story. To fit into the story, the maps sometimes ended up being a bit odd, and making you have to move your army from one place to another, which was rather dull. The story hurt the gameplay.

If you ask pretty much any person who has played both Fire Emblem 4 and Fire Emblem 7/8, he'll prefer Fire Emblem 4. Fire Emblem 4's gameplay isn't really better than Fire Emblem 7/8s - they both have advantages and disadvantages over each other - but the story makes the game a completely different experience.

Fire Emblem 4 is a masterpiece. Fire Emblem 8 is a game.

I'd say Nintendo made some of the same mistake with Twilight Princess. It's definitely the least story intense 3D console Zelda, and I think that hurt it. It's a good game, but the story part is essentially a non-fleshed out version of Ocarina of Time's story. As a result, many people wondered exactly why they were going through all of these temples in Twilight Princess, there really isn't much reason beyond "go there".

And that's part of what makes Ocarina of Time great. You have a reason to go to every temple. In fact, you always have at least two reasons to go to each temple. Both for the main quest, and for some separate reason, whether thats Saria, Ruto or the Gerudos. There's a reason for why you do everything.

I suppose that might have been what you meant. Ocarina of Time isn't a hugely story intense game, so you might just be interested in that level of story. However, I think Twilight Princess went below the amount of story a 3D Zelda should have. You don't really care about what happens to the people of Hyrule. In both Ocarina of Time and Okami, you do. Twilight Princess has better gameplay, better graphics and equally good music as the other two, but the lack of reason for doing what you do makes it an inferior game (while still being great).

If you extend the view to non-Nintendo games, I'd like to point out Bethesda. What makes Mass Effect a fantastic game? The fighting system is good, but it's not a horse's head ahead of other games. The difference is the story. Dragon Age is an even better example, but as I'm not sure if you've played these games, I won't bother expanding a lot on this.

I'd be as bold as to say that Nintendo makes the games with the best gameplay in the industry. I'd also be as bold as to say that they have the best music. And yet, their games aren't always the best games. I'd say the reason for that is Nintendo's view on story. They're limiting their games to being just games, and by doing that, they're crippling them.

"I  disagree with you on your views on story in video games. You seem to be taking the same stance as Nintendo generally has: A deep story has nothing to do in videogames. And you know what? Many of their games are lesser for it."

No, the stance is that stories in games are ineplty told. There is a difference.

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!

no its a fine story, just maybe not a good Metroid story

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.

Similarly with 9. The two most touching moments in that game for me were running up the Ike-Soren and Jill-Lethe supports. The only point of 10 that is inferior

I completely disagree.  Just because a concept or item can conceivably improve a product, it does not logically follow that adding that concept or item must improve that product; the creator's execution of the concept/item might be so terrible that it does in fact damage the end product, making it worse than it would have been had that concept/item never been inserted in the first place.

Let me begin with an imperfect analogy.  A singer begins to sing a song without any instrumental accompaniment.  The singer's voice is good enough that he is pleasant to listen to as-is, but the song he is singing was meant to be accompanied by a guitar. 

What you are saying is essentially that adding the guitar to the song can make the product so much better that it is worth having someone in the audience pick up a guitar and start strumming some notes, even though they have repeatedly proven themselves terrible musicians.  What I am saying is that because the vast majority of the audience has repeatedly proven that it has little clue how to play a musical instrument, it is better to let the singer continue a capella than to have the singer's performance be ruined by someone playing dischordant noise throughout the song. 

If you need some audio example of this hypothetical, try streaming this acapella website, then add this youtube clip. 

If you'd like another analogy, imagine a cook who has access to an entire pantry full of spices and no idea what to do with them, and who opts to empty out the tumeric and saffron jars into the small pot of soup.  Spices make food better, but when the cook has no idea how to use them it's best to utilize self-restraint!

That is, essentially, what we are getting from game developers: they can come up with good gameplay, but because they're often too inept to come up with a good story to go with it (but are increasingly insistent about laying the story on pretty thick) they detract from the final product. 

There are exceptions, of course, and sometimes the reciprocal occurs instead (as someone who loves adventure games, I can name plenty of games with enjoyable story but terrible gameplay: for instance, I'm playing 999 right now, and it seems to fit into this mold to a T).  But I feel comfortable saying that, when it comes to story in games, the hits are far outweighed by the misses, sometimes to such a degree that the story detracts from the overall game. 

Does this mean that developers as a whole should abandon story entirely?  Not at all: as we've both pointed out by now, a good, or even decent, story can improve the game.  But should most developers acknowledge their severe shortcomings as storytellers, and like the amateur cook above consequently curve their eagerness to deluge us with the spices?  I think the answer here is unquestionably "yes."  I'd even argue that this would help them to improve their storytelling, since like any amateur who is undertaking a new craft it lets them small and thus gradually learn what works and what doesn't, all in manageable doses as opposed to drowning in a sea of overwhelming detail.  After all, a musician must learn his chords before he can compose a symphony.

First, before I begin, Other M is a terrible story. I don't think I could find a redeming part of it and it just ruins Samus as a character. The conversation should be "Yep, let's kill Sakamoto for runing one of the best female characters in gaming."

Fact is, story isn't really good in games. In a game, you are the hero. So you can't make a game where the hero is distant from the player. The player and the hero are one in the same, so it must be the player's actions. What happens when you seperate them is you end up with a cinamatic fest.

Consider a platforming game. It is no doubt you control the characters action. If you are not skilled enough, the princess is never freed. So naturally, it is you who controls the story. The type of story you all want is like that of a movie, but that wont work in a game because then the player is dragged along on the character's journy, not his own. This takes them player out of the game and makes them game feel forced and boring. This is the reason games are declining. It is also why story games can't compair to Wii Sports, World of Warcraft and New Super Mario Bros. The player has complete control.