Zelda isn't necessarily story-driven. What's there is a means to an end, a reason for Link to traverse and overworld and crawl around dungeons. EAD knows this and so do Zelda fans - so it's quite alright.

I would welcome an in-depth, expansive story in a Zelda game in a heartbeat... but even that epic tale would take a backseat to the gameplay.

That's what makes them so good. Video game story telling is sad. I mean people actually think Metal Gear Solid has good writing :O

SmokedHostage, I'm not sure I follow?

Kenology: so basically, you answer yes to my question of whether nintendo earned this with gameplay? I lean towards this view, though I'd like to see more story/better presentation still. And I think you'd be totally right about the more expansive story in a Zelda, I'd still be all about collecting those hearts.

 I would love to see the types of rating a Metal Gear Solid movie would get with Kojima's writing.

Um you do know that most Zelda games talk about the previous Heroes of Time right? For example the opening of windwaker was talking about OoT. In twilight princess you have OoT link training you (the wolf guy). So the games do connect, but not as much. I think the main plot is far more important. As for not paying attention to that, well I guess that is your fault. INot Nintendo's, they gave the story and as long as the Gameplay overshadows it most people will miss it. And if teh gameplay doesn't overshadow the story I wouldn't really think of it as a Zelda game. I will say again though. Metroid has and never will be about story. It doesn't matter how you flesh it out story doesn't add to metroid. Just look as Fusion. Samus talks in it and shows emotion to her computer( I cant beleive i forgot his name), yet the gameplay was far to Linear, and on the easy side. The gameplay that makes metroid,metroid was missing because they focused on story. THe atomsphere was also broking, just compare Super Metroid to Metroid Fusion. I'm not saying the game is bad, just that it wasn't want Metroid fans wanted. It got received good though because it was the only new metroid game in years.

Edit: Also if you paid atention to the scans in Metroid Prime you would see that it also reveals things about samus as well.

It's not so much a double standard.  Look at the top 10 games of the generation.

• Is a great game not a great game for lacking innovation, having shitty controls, being dull colored, soundtrack, being full of cliched, or not having a story?

• Is a great movie not great because their is no score, is in black and white, or if there is no scipt.

• Is a great painting not great because it lacks abstract qualities or is only abstract?

The review system is broken, but I do not think being able to appreciate the greatness in spite of (or because of) the flaws is one of those problems.

I started a thread earlier about why I don't like Okami, but I also state later in the thread that I understand the beauty and innovation of the game.  I respect it and I respect those who have different opinions.

The sword training dude is OoT Link? I must've totally missed that.

But I do recall here and there a mention of other Links, but they were all so vague... Though I guess it's pointless to rehash the plot of a game you already played. I might drop the Zelda point though, you make a good argument that gameplay simply overshadows story, and perhaps I should've just been paying more attention.

Arguments about whether the stories are good or bad aside, when Nintendo does slip on the story, do you think they get penalized for it? As much as other developers? That was my original question.

Fire Emblem is an SRPG... so your defense has been broken.

Games that need stories, at least decent ones, are shooters; RPGs; Action/Adventure. R&C shows that platformers can have a story past go here and there, save that, kill that.

So yes there is a double standard here.

Nintendo has been making games for years.  Before a story was an actual requirement for a good game.  I honestly think gameplay is the main ascept of any Nintendo game, as it always has been.  They're just "old school" like that.

That doesn't mean that they can't have a story, but it will be more a supplement to the experience rather than the focus.

EDIT: Most reviewers understand this.

Look at a review for Mario Galaxy from any game site. Do you notice a story category? No  Game Reviewers know that they have to target a certain audience when reviewing a game. I'm pretty sure Mario fans wouldn't care about hte story so they don't mention the story. Same thing goes for a few other series. This is more dependent on who the fans of the game are and what they expect than the developer. Though new ips get this rated by default since they aren't existing. So in a sense yes Nintendo gets their way out, but that is only because nobody expects the story to be great. I'm pretty sure any new Nintendo game would be criticized in the same way as any other.

Edit: Wrong Quote.