@ Famine

I think you me have misunderstood me a little, so I'll try clarify.

Indeed I was talking about gameplay in my post, but I was also talking story and how it relates to gameplay. There are many ways to tell a story, because of books and movies people often think of characters, dialougue and plot as the first. But stories can be told in endless ways, and experience a story throguh gameplay is what gaming is all about.

I know its the same out story with mario rescuing the princess. But i think it would be impossible for someone to go through SMG and all its bizzare and imaginative locations and think, "I've been here and done all this before".

Really there is alot of great and origingal ideas in this game, and thats what makes a good story.

This topic reminds me of a discussion i had about wether or not Pulp Fiction has a deeper meaning in the same way as Schindlers List has. I argued pulp fiction, like SMG HAD to have deeper meaning or people wouldn't enjoy it, as without meaning entertainment fails to be entertaining. I think this meaning can someitmes be hard to find when it is an internal and emotional thing, but it still noetheless exists.

What's with you and these ridiculous posts?

In GoW, Kratos, the narrator (Gia), and Athena (Who dies in the 2nd one) only return. Also, can you tell me a story where a Spartan kills the son of Zeus, and declares war on the gods on Mount Olympus with the titans? Also, I'm not to sure if a Spartan actually killed so many Greek figures as he has. 

Also, I can say that someone being kidnapped has also been mimicked to death.

When you get Mario, Princess Peach, Bowser, and the same plot, you don't think it starts to get redundant? Like I said earlier, they could try a mix with Bowser and Wario, have the victim be, which would be an eye-opener, Luigi, Mario's partner. They could even make a game where Bowser seems to be in trouble and have Mario try to save him, which would mean introducing new characters, and not to disappoint fans, have Bowser lead Mario into a trap.

A lot of people make it seem like changing the story is an impossibilty, when it really is not.

The jealousy is really transparent here. Its really sad although not as pathetic as Insomniacs criticism of SMG for having spherical worlds.

All this looks like to me is "I don't like this apple because it doesn't taste like an orange."

But isn't the same true about all games? Had a lot of games taken place in the same local and kept the same game mechanic (Insert Mega Man here), then wouldn't most people get a feeling of repetition?

True, the story is crappy and way to childish. But who the F cares? Its all about the platforming and getting the stars. I cold care less about Peach beyond that I get to play Bowsers final level 20 times until I finally get to him and then another 4 tries until I finally beat his big dino ars.

Sorry but I'll take a game like SMG's crappy story and nearly perfect gameplay over a game like Bioshock's excellent story and good gameplay.

 insomniac didn't criticise SMG, they thought that somehow that they had influenced the idea behind it

 They're meant to be ridiculous on purposeto prove a point, the story of Kratos seems nothing more than a mix of greek myths, like killing his own family, sounds like Hercules, battles between the titans and the gods is a major theme of the myths as is gods and humans battling, heck in that Hercules and Xena TV show they even had them kill the greek gods, sounds like the game just mixed other stories.  Hence why its boring.

 Also they have had changes, Super princess Peach and Luigis' mansion for example, yet people prefer the ones that follow the same old formula, seems that the story isn't such a concern.

See that's the difference , GoW, tries to present itself as being a great story, which its not, mario doesn't try to fake it, it admits its story is silly, even making fun of it, but it has great gameplay

 So you do find issue with it simply being the same names?  That's pretty shallow, IMO.  However, I pose a question.  Which would be worse?  Fighting the same villian in a new way (like Bowser in SMB1, SM64, SM Galaxy) or fighting new villains the same way? (Like most Final Fantasies where the villains are different but you still simply choose "fight" out of a menu and hope you win)  And I daresay how is this better than God of War's (main topic comes flying back in), with such unheard of enemies as Ares, the Hydra, Medusa, et al?  The nomenclature changed so desired in Mario is prevalent in God of War, where they simply rip out Hercules and insert Kratos.  It's different now, right?

Are you missing my points on purpose?  If you think SMB1 and Super Mario Galaxy are the same type of "sandwich," you're mad.  Do you not see the PLANETS Mario is jumping between?  Are you sure you see no difference?  Is concept separate from plot?  The only time when video game plots succeed movie or book plots is when the interactivity melds with the gameplay, such as the visceral feeling of flying through the galaxy and the elements of wonder therein.  When the game keeps the plot and game separate, through cutscenes and points where the player is removed from the equations, the story feels more dictated than experienced.  In that case, just go see Die Hard.

Also, no. The experiential story does not befall every game.  People in awe of Super Mario Galaxy due to the whole experience of playing the game telling their friends and colleagues of the experience is not the same as "did you see that one cutscene yet?" or "remember when that guy said...?"  In that instance the player is merely repeating who someone else said.  But when you describe the feeling of Playing Mario Galaxy, few words can suffice, and each new attempt to describe it is a story in itself, as well as the personal experience of just playing it for fun.  To have to be "motivated" for any other reason than that to play the game is, well, kinda sad for a media built upon fun.

And it reverts back to personal opinion, which is personal yes, but subject to judgement and evaluation of others when revealed.  Some agree with Mr. Barlog, even to go so far as to say he is flatly "right."  However more people and more talented designers and developers than Mr. Barlog have sung Mario's praises, even some for its storyline removed from the gameplay as a throwback to simpler times in gaming, before all games had to seem deep with angsty heroes and political or social commentary.  Others note the simplicity of the plot but extoll it's connection to the gameplay as brilliant concept.  Is it possible that he's the odd man out, the one who doesn't understand?  I think so.

He's a relative industry newbie taking on one of the icons.  One of the timeless figures (that being Mario.)  If he has a grievance, it had best be undisputed and highly supported.  And as squarely evidenced and even freely admitted by Mr. Barlog himself, he is almost alone in his assertion.  He might be able to learn how a little bit less complex story and a little more integration of it with the gameplay could make for games that could one day rival those that he criticizes.  Or he can pout about how everybody loves Mario and everybody seems to have forgotten God of War.  His choice.

I think that SMG demonstrates that too many games use story as a crutch, and I think that this can be mystifying for someone inside of the industry who hasn't been making games since before all of this happened.

He's simply asking the wrong questions. Why does Mario want to collect all of these stars? No one cares. Why do I want to collect all of these stars? It's a lot of fun. He can't seem to get past the fact that he doesn't have a compelling in-universe reason for caring about the game, and assumes that this means that there's no reason to want to play the game, when an in-universe reason is clearly secondary to a real-world reason.

Story only exists in games at all because many games wouldn't pass muster without getting players emotionally attached to the characters. Who would play through an RPG simply to experience the battle system and shopping? Would God of War have been at all interesting without all of the Greek myth? If these games could stand on their merits, they wouldn't need to try to be interactive movies. This is what sets games apart - no one reads books for the pleasure of seeing words organized on a page (well, almost nobody), and very few people watch movies primarily to appreciate good direction or acting, regardless of content, but most people play games because of the mechanics of the game. This is why the most popular games are virtually devoid of story - Mario, Smash Bros, Gran Turismo, Mario Kart, Guitar Hero, Wii Sports, Madden, and the bits of shooters that people spend most of their time on (the multiplayer). I'd argue that no one's playing Grand Theft Auto for the story, though they do play for the setting. It's really only a tiny minority of people that will put up with or enjoy games that try to compensate for lacking mechanics with a (semi)serious plot.