Left 4 dead 2 is not a game to play for story, because we all know it sucks when you play it on single player, it like most of Valve's game's are all about the multiplayer, and i have no clue why anyone would buy L4D2 for an epic story, the main focus on the game is multiplayer, always been.

Sometimes i love to play games with great stories, but a game with great multiplayer  such as Unreal tournament, does not need a story at all.

RPG's? need great stories, because more than often it will be a single player long experience, and if it has no story, it has no appeal, no multiplayer to back it up, so story is all it has.

That is an incorrect definition of what a video-game is today. If that were actually the definition, I'd agree with you wholeheartedly, but it isn't.

some of them do

It think Yatzee puts it best when he is referring to JRPGs "I like a game where the story and gameplay goes hand in hand. But in JRPGs, the gameplay and story are on the other sides of an iron fence....made of lions."

I prefer games to have something of a background, but many games go too far. My favorite games are the Metroid games, which have a story, but it takes a backseat to gameplay.

Well if thats what you were proposing you should have titled this "gameplay is more important than story", and left it at that.

OR

You could have said "All games dont need stories"

-on a side note-

Let me take for example, your list of top sellers.

more than half of the top 15 are bundled games, and 3 of them have stories. Even looking at the entire chart, many of those games have very good storylines.

This is beside the fact that sales=/=quality.

Of course, it's been a big push to discredit reviewers recently because people think sales should equal quality, and so, if I dare post metacritic, we can see how much that is dominated by story driven games. The difference I would point out, is point of view. Game reviewers tend to come from a traditional video gaming background, and the people who are most upset about these reviewers also come from a traditional video gaming background (hence why they are upset about something someone writes on the internet) However, the people who buy most of those games on that list are not from a traditional video gaming background. They are newer gamers (who might use those games to create a video gaming background), or they are people who prefer the "use" aspect of "digital entertainment" such as wii fit and brain age.

Here is my point. All games are games. Games are different from each other. Some games have stories, which a lot of people love. Some games do not have stories, and people love those as well. Just as I would never be one to seriously say that all games NEED a strong story to be good, it should not likewise be said that games NEED strong gameplay to be good. Games only need strong controls and a modicum of gameplay to pass as a decent game. Whether story is on top of that, is optional, but it has in many instances, improved the game dramatically. You want to look at what a lot of involved gamers think is the best game of all time, they'll often give you a game that has a story. You want to look at what a lot of casual gamers think is the best game of all time, they'll often give you one with no story.

This is because both audiences are looking for different things. Just like in movies, some people want to be moved, and some people want to be entertained.

You belong to one audience, apparently, so stop trying to tell the other side what is best. I'm not even going to mention how many games now have gameplay elements within the story elements, like multiple ending features.

The best result that this thread can have, for you, besides being a huge vg$ cash cow, is that you can make a distinction and name each side, because there are clearly two distinct sides and proponents.

Several reasons why this is going on:

1. There are people who play videogames as a form of fiction they engage in.  It is the closest thing to the Star Trek holodeck for people.  In that case, a story is important.

2. There is debate and discussion regarding the use of games as a tool for telling a story.  The fact that people consider this possible has resulted in about every major movie and TV studio getting involved in the game production business to some degree.  This is particularly true with videogames pushing currently to be the largest entertainment format on the planet, in regards to revenues.

If you look beyond the simple defintion, you do get into an interest discussion on why people play videogames, and the extent videogames can serve as an art form for telling a story.  And that, to me, is interesting.  Well, at least it is better than reading another Pachter prediction thread that is likely to contain yet another prediction by Pachter that will be wrong, or some fanboy rambling on about their videogame system of choice (in this you are told to get out, unless you agree to worship the game system of choice).

My interest in Left 4 Dead single player is because I have an interest in procedurally generated worlds and content in the world.  Yes, it is better multiplayer, but that aspect does pique my interest about L4D (both of them).

it's individual. For me, I enjoy a game much more if it has a story.

Heck, even a poor story is better than no story.

Yeah, that aspect of L4D interests me too.  And if they continue to have offline with bots I'd be curious to see them expand the experience to mix say the story driven SP of Half Life with the procedural generation of enemies and combat - plus perhaps even procedural story experiences.

I think this could be a great way for videogames which do chose to have a series go at story with film and literature.  It's not so much the more basic multiple ending approach as different content and exposition based on progress of the player.

Silent Hill 2 for example interests me because it's multiple endings derive very neatly from player choices throughout the game with some character depth, and I'd love to see Valve expand this.  Not with L4D but with a new IP designed to combine SP with the procedural experience.

Valve seems interested in expanding what L4D has in it.  As they beef up the multiplayer side, it is likely that the single player experience will also be better.  I think now a bit of what is happening with Diablo 3.  Not only are they beefing up the loot generation, but also adding procedurally generated events and map alterations (cave-ins, and so on).   Have a game director that tweaks game experience as you play, is cool.  Doesn't mean you have a precanned script or story, but the game can create its own story content for players, based on how they act in the game.  Imagine world with increased results of consequences of player's actions, that also doesn't care if they are in there or not.  You have a living world, rather than a fixed story, and players create their own stories while playing.  Such a world provides increased replayability.  Fable touches on this, as do MMOs.  One would expect other games to get into this also, as the sandbox genre matures to.