Well, I wouldn't say it's not a downside, I'd say the usually great gameplay makes it not matter.

Like you said, games are about progression. And I recognize that Nintendo makes games where gameplay alone makes us want to play. And I do agree with you too, that overly complex stories can kill games.

But a decent story (more than, say, go rescue the princess) that is presented well (better than, say, scan artifacts that you may or may not find for a total of like 20 lines of story) will certainly make a game more enjoyable. Like Uncharted, it was a nice story, not overly simplified, maybe not too original but at least not too cliché.

I disagree with megaman79 though, that trying to earn more stars counts as a narrative. It's definitely motivation to keep playing, but it doesn't really tell you anything as a story should, and so I dont think it should count as a narrative.

is that i briefcase i here opening.

my money hatting sensor is tingling

This thread is full of fail. It asks the wrong question (i'm surprised nobody picked that up).
The thread should ask: Do games get a free pass from gameplay because of story.

The assumption in the OP is, that games are developed around story, meaning that's their primary purpose, which is a false assumption as proven by history. Games have born around interaction, which leads us to the next problem around story; games are an interactive medium, you're supposed to interact the game by using your character, you can move objects, destroy them, kill enemies etc. and even the environments can be interacted too. This is one of things that fascinate people in GTA, is the freedom to interact.
But, there's one aspect you can't interact with in most of the games, which is story. What you do in games today, is follow a passive story and try to advance in it.
And when the keyword in games is interaction, the passive story is secondary. Until we have interactive storytelling, the story wil stay as secondary.

The reason why some games get point deduction about story, is because of their focus on it. If your game is clearly focused on one aspect and it sucks, it's going to cause deductions.

And as for the Zelda story, they are always somehow linked to the previous Zeldas. AOL was a direct sequel to LOZ (in similar fashion that MM to OOT), and LTTP was a prequel to LOZ. Seventh Harry Potter book didn't include the first six, it was only linked to the previous books, if you wanted to know what happened previously, you should have read the other six too. It's kind of the same thing with Zeldas, you need to play the games to get the full story.

If you are implying that Nintendo money hats reviewers then I would be seeing Wii Fit, Wii Sports, and Wii Play with AAA review.

Whoa I never said games are developed around story. I think RPGs are the only genre that comes close. My question is exactly what I said it was, "Do you think Nintendo gets more leeway than other developers when it comes to story," and "Has Nintendo earned that right with consistently great gameplay."

As for the focus on story, that may or may not be true. It's probably true for some games, but definitely not all. Some games get deducted for story on top of whatever deduction from gameplay. Gamespot didn't like Ratchet and Clank Future: TOD, citing story as 1 of 3 main concerns. TOD from what I've seen and heard, is much more focused on gameplay with all those different weapons than the story.

I have two things to say.

1. Gameplay goes before story. That's just it, for a game. If you value story over gameplay you shouldn't be playing games, you should be reading books. I'm not saying games can't have good stories, but I'm saying that they don't have to.

2. Just because a story is simple doesn't mean it's bad.

without reading through all the posts (with the exeption of the first few) ill say there is a double standard. And i really think a lot of the "good" nintendo games lack it. A story don't conflict with a game, they add to it.

Games dont have to have good stories, but great, amazing ones should be great and amazing in all categories. A game with great gameplay but a shitty story is still flawed, and shouldn't deserve as high a review score as a game with equal gameplay but a better story.

So story does indeed factor into the review score, and that's what we're discussing.

You do have a valid point on 2) though. Simple =/= bad. But it does mean there's room for improvement.

@chenguo: Your basic assumption is still flawed. "Getting a free pass" would mean that the game lacks something that's supposed to be there by default. Which isn't the case with story. Games focus on the interaction. One of the basic definitions for games, i believe, would be "interactive entertainment". When you take the "intenactive" part away, we aren't talking about games anymore and by lessening the interaction, we are lessening the games value as a game. Storywise heavy games would be "less games" than games that focus purely to interaction. Online play in games is popular because of the focus to interaction, whether it is direct or indirect interaction.

I haven't played TOD, so i can't really say was the points deduction from lack of story justified. Besides, there are various ways of telling a story. For example OOT did it extremely well.
There's nothing wrong with a story when it's well told, but it shouldn't be a games main focus, as it is in many games.

Look at it this way:
1. Does the game work without the story?
2. Does the story work without the game?
If "no" to "1", the game fails.
If "yes" to "2" the game fails again.

The most important thing is gameplay.

The second most important thing is pacing.

Everything else is fluff.

This fluff is welcome when used correctly (to enhance the gameplay and the pacing), but is not necessary and should not be expected in every game.  It's like saying any movie made after Terminator 2 that doesn't have amazing morphing effects should be reviewed poorly because T-2 raised the bar.  I'd rather play a game with absolutely no story, or just a bit of a story to keep the gameplay moving along, than to play a game with a bad story tacked on as an afterthought, which is sadly the case 99% of the time.  And that other 1% of the time, we got the Oscar-worthy dialogue of GTA4.  Games can be a storytelling medium, but they don't have to be, and most games that try are written by retarded monkeys anyway.

Games can be fun without graphics or stories.

Games with great graphics and great stories but bad gameplay... should have been great movies instead of shitty games.

Which of these 2 games is more FUN?