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.

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?

I rejected his point because of how he presented it.

"I made the point that hundreds of games share the same basic story elements."

In that sentence, I saw NSMB versus AC, rather than AC1 vs AC2. It was only in his later post that I understood what that original sentence and the post containing it fully meant.

That's why they're video games and not movies, and I understand now that his posts are trying to say that good gameplay can bring a good story and world to life, but going back to your question I originally had difficulty accepting his point because of his basic premise "I made the point that hundreds of games share the same basic story elements." That's something I didn't agree with and threw me off.

But to get back on where we agree, certainly great gameplay can take an excellent story and vibrant world, and enhance it to gaming greatness. Yes, I agree with both of you there, hence why gameplay and story are so tightly knit.

However, I believe the ultimate goal is greatness. So a game that isn't repetitive but has basic gameplay yet an amazing story/world (maybe Journey, I never played it) can offer the player an experience like never before.

But a game with purely excellent gameplay but a basic story/world, would that be able to achieve greatness? I would seriously doubt it.

How is that not true though? Good guy beats bad guy to save the world (and perhaps get the girl) is arguably the most common basic story idea in every type of entertainment, not just gaming.

Some do it very simply, others expand and make it complex. Jack Bauer trying to stop a terrorist plot and Carrie Mathison trying to stop a terrorist plot are similar stories told in different ways. 24 was more focused on the action, Homeland was more about the people involved.

You must've never watched Game of Thrones....

No, here's where you totally lose me. I just get the sense that you have no appreciation in the variances that worlds which are deeply and intricately constructed offer in terms of discovery, newness and surprise. It's like trying to tell a blind person what blue looks like, that's how it feels.

well this is an interesting question, both are very important to a good game. but then you think about arcade style games (dodonpachi, dead or alive, mushihimesama) they don't have particularly 'bad' stories, just not really deep stories, but the games are still excellent titles.

but coming to think about it, I really haven't played a game with an amazing story that didn't have good gameplay, so I think i'll go ahead and say gameplay lol

Game of Thrones is actually one of my favourite shows. Stop assuming things and arguing points that aren't even there.

Well then what the hell are you talking about. How does game of Thrones fit the "save the princess" description you gave earlier? It doesn't.

So if you don't want me to confuse you, start making sense.