Flower, Sun and Rain absolutely needed story because without it, it had zero value. The gameplay was awful. That is an example of story not being able to save a game with poor gameplay. Yes it has merit but is it enjoyable? No. Games are supposed to be enjoyable. I enjoyed reading someone's analytical essay on the game more than playing the actual game. I don't think it's fair to force the end-user to go through 10 hours (or however long it was) of crappy gameplay just to communicate a message to them. I don't care how much e-cred I lose by saying that Suda51 can't hide behind artistic merit as an excuse for poor gameplay design. Games are supposed to be fun. Otherwise, don't waste our time. Flower, Sun and Rain would have made a great essay, light novel, anime or movie. The video game medium isn't suited for it. Suda51 would fit right in at the Sundance movie festival.

That game is no doubt one of Suda's weaker games

games dont NEED stories, but they should've have them to make them good value and more fun.
Imagine inFAMOUS, Uncharted or GoW III without a story,
it would just be the start screen. How fun.

inFamous could still be a good game without its really good story but Uncharted and GoWIII would suffer without their stories.  Uncharted is loved because of its cinematic experience and God of War wouldn't be the same without its story.

They aren't "needed." It's kind of like good graphics.

For me, it all depends on what the game is trying to accomplish. I call "video games" these days interactive entertainment. It's a bit more encompassing.

I tend to gravitate toward jRPGs and games like Uncharted, which are story-intensive. But I do like platformers like Mario that don't have too much story. Zelda is fairly simplistic also.

Games that completely revolve around online play just don't do it for me - aka, 95% of FPS's this gen.

I say we close this thread because I think he said it best.

This thread could morph into one into a discussion of what exactly makes for a good story, and how to use the medium of games as a story.  Or, maybe not use this thread for it, but if someone wants to take that idea (or another one spawn by this thread) and start another one (and post a link in this thread to it in that one) then maybe that would be a way to go.

For the most part, everyone has said every major counter-point to your original statement.  So, not to be rude, but it doesn't really matter what is said from here on out because if we stick to being 'on topic' we'll just be repeating the same things.  I'm already seeing people repeating the same tihngs over again, just in their own words and bringing up examples of various games.

I'd say the general consensus from gamers and critics is the gameplay in Flower was anything but awful.  The game may not have appealed to you personally, but the game mechanics worked fine and I certainly found it fun to play - in fact I still do and will re-play levels just for the fun they give me.

I'm going to make one last post in this thread.

Today, I don't think you can so narrowly define videogames as to say the shouldn't have stories, should have stories, graphics don't matter, graphics do matter, etc.

The variety of videogames today is very, very broad, and so far as I can see if you are trying to state things in black and white you are very likely arguing from a flawed position.

Myself, though I hate to generalise, see the following four as representing the basic grouping of games with regards to story and gameplay:

1 - pure game - no story needed and graphics not that much of an issue - Tetris, Wii Sports, etc.

2 - game with a setting - minimal story for 'context' and to drive the gameplay objectives and graphics while more important not a showstopper - Super Mario Galaxy for example

3 - game with a setting and some basic 'themes', graphics becoming important to sell the setting and characters - ICO, SOTC, Half Life 1 & 2

4 - game with a strong narrative, focus is on story balanced with gameplay, graphics help sell the characters and their 'acting' - Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, etc.

RPGs I think lie somewhere between 3 and 4 depending upon the theme and story being told. Also, while in classic jRPGs I think graphics were less important as many key character scenes were handled with cut-scenes, games looking to remain 'in-game' like Heavy Rain will need very good graphics to constantly 'sell' the character and their reactions.

I can understand perfectly that someone might really only like games in categories 1) and 2) but for other games you simply couldn't take out the story - you'd be fundamentally weakening the experience and really changing the game from one thing to something else.

From what I've seen Heavy Rain in particular (and more recently Uncharted 2 although it's context is obviously 'lighter') is going to be testing out the market for true mature games - i.e. themes and content vs simple guns and gore. Key to the experience its going to offer, which seems more akin to watching a serious drama vs Star Wars, is going to be character animation, dialogue and narrative structure.

I guess some might wonder if it's even a videogame, but I'd argue it is, or at least what I see as the expanded scope of videogames. Perhaps as others have stated we should change the basic description to something like Interactive Entertainment, within which we could more easily accept a broader set of genres and approaches.

Anyway, that's it for me. I know some videogames today really do need stories now, and well written dialogue, while of course others don't need more than Bowser 'stealing' Princess Peach for the 177th time.