Just to defend the advantage of not having much in the way of a story for a second. Ambiguity is a great thing in art. I've been ranting a raving about Quake 1 recently after rediscovering (Yet again) how awesome it is. To my mind it's single player has aged so so much better than, for example, quake 2 and half-life.

It's continued greatness could be attributed to its atmosphere, exploration based gameplay, the high speed, solid yet unrealistic, stylised gameplay mechanics, a great arsenal of weapons, well designed interesting monsters and the incredible level design. But it's worth noting that, unlike some retro games, cheesy acting and plot don't get in the way of the atmosphere one bit. But what if it had a good fleshed out plot and strong acting?

The plot in Quake 1 is about as minimal as it comes. There's no dialogue or cut-scenes. You can read the basics of what's going on if you want, but even then the exact events are largely left to your imagination. Not having a complete picture, you're thrown into an amazing, dark and hellish world and your imagination can try to fill the answers.

Could a great fleshed out plot have been added? Personally I think any more detailed explanation would have taken away from the atmosphere it has. If it was awesome the plot might have made something new and great in its own right, but it would have still lost what it has and what it has is ambiguous and beautiful.

Is there any other? ;)

I agree that certain games would be ruined with a more detailed plot. I'm simply saying that the stigma that story-based games have terrible gameplay is wrong. A game with zero story & just gameplay can be awesome. Yet, so can a game like Heavy Rain. (Haven't played it, just an example)

The games which get both right are usually the best. Play any God Of War, Uncharted or BioShock game and you'll know what I mean

But games with average stories but awesome gameplay can be really fun too. A good example is GTA V, which doesn't have a story which makes sense (but its humorous) but has excellent gameplay.

Games which only have a good story but average gameplay aren't really fun to play. An example is Heavy Rain, which I couldn't play for long. So overall, I think games having both good gameplay and stories or just having good gameplay are worth playing, but those not having good gameplay are not worth it.

I understand where you're coming from, wanting to give many different genres and philosophies the benefit of the doubt. Great games can emerge from almost anywhere, I agree.

But I do think the OP is oversimplifying things a bit. Sure, cinematic games heavy on story can be great, but games anchored in interesting mechanics, rules, and gameplay scenarios are much more likely to be great. All games have a chance for greatness but some, by virtue of their design, have a much better chance.

In short, I think it boils down to this, as others have said: a great-looking game with an amazing story and poor gameplay is, ultimately, a poor game; an ugly game with no story and great gameplay is, in the end, still a great game.

//////THREAD

Xeno series, that is all I should have to say.

I completely agree with you