Games are funner if there's a stake in them. A bet, pride, real people, etc.

For single player, there's no such thing. Having a story and engrossing people into the game gives them a feeling that they have stake in the objective and goal.

That isn't to say that single player games can't be good without a story, but I'm going to make a risky assumption that every one of you have felt more fun when you guys played a game that was multiplayer (and was of equal quality as a single player game, game mechanics wise), had a good story, had some bet or money at stake, etc.

MGS4 is hyped up as "best game eva" because people find the plot to be awesome, and the fans of it consider Kojima a genius because he created such detailed and moving plots.  One can also say GTA now fits into that also.  I would say Bioshock also gave concern to the plot also.

Yes I understand what you say... but the story is mostly the reason why I will come back and try it again...

This was a major problem for me when I played KZ2 campaign... great env, great sfx, great whatever. But it feels shallow...

IRL, everything has a story, a background, a reason why it behaves/was shaped like that.

IMO, even with a very flexible game where you can influence the env, a background story is necessary. The FABLE series is the best example.

You're right. Not all games need stories.

Hell, not all movies need stories either. Look at Eraserhead.

But the fact that we created genres that are based on narrative shouldn't make anyone sad or mad. It's more variety. Video games could always use more variety.

Do you also hate choose your own story adventure books?

I believe we probably started to see a drift from the classic view of what a game is, when RPGs came along.  They started to add a storyteller (GM) into the mix, and players who would be actors in a story, and do improve.  The GM would evaluate things, and they got put in with other forms of traditional games.  Then we go to the area of videogames, which then started to add single player play to them.  Also thrown in text adventures into the mix, and all this form of structured play (play in a rules-governed system) got added as "games".  Then the next step was that games that added increase production value, such as FMV, voice actors and so on, ended up getting more sales.  And then the movie industry starts to notice and how these increased mix of movie and game is catching on, and now the lines are very blurred.

Throw in also puzzle games like Tetris to, and it goes on.  The term is blurred in the concept of games now.  In the analog (board and cardgame side) of things, the lines are clearer.

I am additionally senstive to all this, because I am spending my time (when not job hunting) on a non-profit that promotes abstract strategy games, so categorization is important to me.  And abstract strategy games are the embodiment of things that DON'T have stories to them, and are not puzzles or anything else like that.  They are boardgames meet sports, with the winning and losing being nearly and completely determined by what the players do.  Exception would be for the potential allowing of dice involved, in games like backgammon.  And they are independent of theme, so they don't even have a themed environment they are based on.  They are just pure mental competition.  And from this, you can get a story out of what happens.

The term "interactive fiction" is one of the terms used to label such games.  That came up, because it was observed that they didn't fit the classic definition of what a game is.  I happen to use the term "interactive fiction" and look to extend it to cover a wider array of things that are considered games now.

Well the problem there is that while MGS4 had a lot of story, it was terrible.

L4D having a story wouldn't change my enjoyment at all.  It's really a non factor for me.  I could care less why I'm enjoying some awesome platforming in a Mario game.  Honestly, the game could just have a level select screen and the levels themselves and it wouldn't change my opinion of them.  My issue has always been that, while it's certainly possible to create an engaging story that could add to one's enjoyment, there's never been a story in a game anywhere near good enough to do that.  Anyone who thinks there are some awesome stories in video games needs to read more literature or watch more cinema.  Thus, give me a barebones backdrop (e.g. Save the Princess!) and I'm good.  It's all about having fun. 

It isn't a case of myself hating them.  I like games that tell stories, and I have an interest in the use of games for this purpose.  However, I believe that a greatness of game doesn't come from the narrative applied on the game by the designer, but the narrative players can come up with from playing it.   I would say it is also a very rare person who excels at both creating systems (games are this) that interactive with players, and narratives that are compelling.

In regards to the need for a backstory (separate post), I don't see the backstory for a game like Civlization, which I consider one of the best games ever made.  The game generates a very rich narrative when playing, but it is dynamically generated.

Some games tell stories. But I don't want storytelling games to be 100% of the quality games I could buy, since it is possible for great games to not have any plot beyond a paragraph for setting the scene in the manual (Mario, F-Zero etc.). I want developers to be able to make games without feeling they need a story beyond that, but the trend is in the opposite direction. Zelda has gone from paragraph-in-the-manual with Zelda I [my favourite] to Aonuma believing the story defines the game and the gameplay's existence is subservient to that in Twilight Princess. Mario Galaxy's one weakness was having a plot, though they managed to keep it out of the way for the levels.