Do you think games should have stories?
In an interview, Shigeru Miyamoto said that: “These younger game creators, they want to be recognized. They want to tell stories that will touch people’s hearts. And while I understand that desire, the trend worries me. It should be the experience, that is touching. What I strive for is to make the person playing the game the director. All I do is help them feel that, by playing, they’re creating something that only they could create.”
Personally, I think stories in video games are great. It doesn't matter if they're dull or complex, but it should be the gameplay that matters and not the stupid scripted events every minute (I'm looking at you CoD and MGS).
I think story is important, and a lot of the games I love most are story driven (albeit with some pretty decent gameplay), but I think nintendo games will always hold a special place in my heart because it really is the experience that drives it. the games are so replayable simply because the gameplay is quality and the story is often just enough to get you from one level to the next.
I was playing the captain toad demo at best buy yesterday. fuck if I even know who or why captain toad is, but I had a blast figuring out the little puzzles.
I see their points of view, but why is he always talking like he's doing it right?
I know, gameplay > story , but since all your games are literally the same, how can you say that in a fresh way
That's like saying movies should be all style and no substance visual flair
because if i wanted to read a book id read a book
Games can and should have good stories, they just shouldn't compromise the gameplay to do it, which would be easy if AAA devs had any understanding of narrative anything
Nintendo is easily the most innovative game maker in the industry right now. They know that they have to keep a balance of games that have worked and try innovative games. That way, the games that work finance the potential failure of innovations.
That's true because Nintendo games tend to just simply do away with the story.
That's fine, but I feel like their opinion would change if they actually did a decent job at making an interesting story.
Well somebody mentioned Links Awakening. I think that's a great example of a game with good gameplay and a good story as well. It's not even complicated, but its one of the few things where "it was all a dream" is actually a big part of the story.
But yeah, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But then again, I've grown tired of their gameplay since that doesn't change much between iterations of their games as well.
Video games as a whole has become increasingly stale to me lately so I understand where you're coming from.
I cant with a good conscience buy a PS4 or Xbone because I cant justify paying for internet I already pay for nor do I give a shit about the garbage games they throw out. And at the same time the Wii U games that have come out have been enjoyable but not longlasting
I like my games with a good story, otherwise I don't feel motivated to keep playing them.
I love VELOCITY's gameplay for example, fast focused, lots of replayability, but after a while I just feel like doing a menial task, so I only play it from time to time and real quick, which is great, it's a great game to pass the time.
However, when I'm playing a game with an interesting story, god damn it do I invest myself truly in it, Inmerse myself, and try my best to play and understand the game.
That was what got me into smash actually, Subspace emissary, the gameplay was kinda repetitive, but god damn those cutscenes, That's why I love brawl.
All in all, games aren't the same to one another.
Some games shine because of their story, some others don't even need one.
Usually people's favourite games tend to be because of what happens in the game, explained through the gameplay mechanics, I've yet to meet someone with a favourite game that has a shit or no story at all, and isn't because of nostalgia googles.
I like games with story and think good stories are important, no story is fine as long as gameplay is good.
A game with a good story, but bad gameplay is a movie split between shitty interactive tasks before moving on to the next plot piece.
A game with a bad story, but good gameplay keeps you entertained with good interaction, interrupted occasionally by cinematics you can ignore.
Which one sounds better off?
Now, I'd like to start off by saying those are both subjectively tasteful opinions.
But the fact of the matter is that there isn't quite one game formula that is objectively the best and only way.
For instance, story and gameplay are sometimes reliant on each other.
Take Mirror's edge for example. The gameplay's solid- you play as a parkour ninja in the concrete jungle. While the story isn't all that great, I realized that the game's novelty would begin to wear thin if it was just a parkour sandbox. I feel that the story is needed to guide you towards a greater objective, lest you get bored of it within an hour of playing.
If bad gameplay means, simple, and the story is really good, I'd play it for the story, because you say its good, I might like it and remember how good a story it was.
If its a game with great gameplay, but lets say, no story at all you'd have something like tetris, and I'd play it, but I wouldn't really pay much attention to it and forget it until I get bored and have nothing new to play.
Could you provide examples?
Story is there to guide the gameplay and enhance it and make it more fun
Its not there so I can play 5 minutes of gameplay to get interrupted with 30 minutes of cutscene
Not that anon, but he said the opposite I beleive
He didnt state that games always should have the story guiding the gameplay, it said sometimes the gameplay guides the story too.
Best games are when these are codependant.
Twilight Princess I could see, but Majora's Mask is only complex if buy into the fan theories, and those are ambiguous
anyways, I can't get into any game's story these days. They're always really dumb and take themselves way too seriously. I find myself getting more and more critical of gameplay, and now even small problems bother the shit out of me. I seem to be the minority, though, as most people seem to be able to stomach flawed gameplay if it means getting a decent story. Frankly, I just want a game that I can play for 50 hours and still think its fun, but instead devs want to focus on ripping off Last of Us or Gone Home. It's maddening.
>Tfw Borderlands is one of my favorite games
I love it so much because it nails the atmosphere perfectly in my opinion. Sure there's not much of a story but in a game where you're just a Vault Hunter, I'd say it's pretty straight forward. Say what you will about the gameplay (Even though I do like it) but it's so simple and just works in my opinion. It's hard to put it into words for me.
Hate how the writing team went full retard with 2 and Pre-Sequel, seriously pisses me off.
I think you should be able to experience the story and explore it how you like. Makes me think of the scanning feature in Metroid Prime and how you learn about the environment. You learn what happened to the area and possibly what happened to the people who lived there.
I see what you're saying, but a game without story is not necessarily a sandbox. A game can be driven by goals with no real story, it just depends on how well your gameplay is fleshed out and how good level design can keep players engaged. Mario is the textbook example of this.
I think it's really just another means to drive the player forward that doesn't rely heavily on level design or well-rounded game mechanics. I respect a game that can keep me engaged with good mechanics and good level design more than I respect one with decent mechanics and great story. I don't think story can ever salvage a game that's terrible in another respect, but a game can have a bad story or even no story and still be considered a quality product if it can balance the elements that make up its gameplay.
But I felt that gameplay got a little annoyingly tedious later on. Nothing fucking dies. Having to face millions of bullet sponges is fun. 20x so for bosses, it takes 15+ minutes to fight those fuckers alone.
The stories presented in a lot of indie titles are obscure, vague, and reliant upon their atmosphere; whatever great story lurks beneath the surface is there for whatever perceptions the viewer brings to it.
I'm not praising this. I think it's mediocre and a cop-out, and to achieve the same sort of accolades within literature that this tactic achieves within videogame reviews you'd need to exhibit a lot more subtlety, nuance, and finesse.
I see nothing wrong with stories in games. There's no one perfect way to design and create a game. But I do think there's something to be said about an overall solid player controlled experience
A game should have an objective. Super Mario Bros., go save the princess from Bowser. That's it.
And yet people praise the game. Same can be applied for a lot of other Mario titles. Story isn't needed unless you have an RPG.
And while atmosphere can be something really awesome in a game, they don't have the artistic(ironically)talent or style to do such a thing, very rarely do you see it.
I think it's silly to rank story, gameplay, experience etc against each in an unchanging, concrete list. Depending on the aim and vision of a game, story may or may not be a major emphasis.
As long as the story isn't somehow inhibiting a potentially greater experience, then I will appreciate and enjoy story-oriented games.
Story doesn't have to be complex to be considered good either. The plot of Ocarina of Time isn't hard to follow; it's quite a typical legendary tale. But it is enormously affective. I think it's unfair to cite this as an example of a game where the story is unimportant or secondary. The story contributes to the emotion of and connection with the game.
I don't think he was saying stories don't belong in games, I think he was actually criticizing how most devs tend to have so much emphasis on the story that it hampers the gameplay. GTA is a good example of balancing story and gameplay because you can do a lot of shit in GTA games but you'll have to progress the story in order to get to do more in the game, not to mention that there are also things that you can do on the side that you may never see and can choose not to see (In San Andreas for example, you don't have to do Zero or Driving School and shit, they're optional but the game introduces you to those if you want).
They're not mutually exclusive things you know?
But anyway, it depends on what your narrative objective is with the mechanics of the game.
Is the story a reward? Something to be earned after certain challenges have been completed, and make players strive for?
Is the story a means to flesh out the game world, and therefore make it more immersive?
Is the story there simply to pace the gameplay, and give it a definite beginning, middle and end?
Do we even need story in this game at all?
Those are the more common ways games use narrative, and neither of them is wrong, they're just different experiences, different genres, just like Pulp Fiction is not that same as watching Mulholland Dr
>thinks people don't play tetris
Of all the things you could have used as an example, you had to pick tetris, the one casual game that's immensely popular worldwide which even the most pimply, jaded, bitter nerd o well is usually fine with.
>tfw Koizumi will never ever be in charge of giving the Mario characters some depth and characterization as long as Shiggy is around
We all know what happens to a series when story supersedes gameplay.
>simple as that and people who have been interested in games since before 2007 know this.
Lots of timeless PC classics from the late 90s are loved for amazing stories and atmosphere even though they have weak gameplay.
Lots are loved for great gameplay as well, of course.
Gameplay is in general more important but that doesn't mean that you can't have a story.
And a bad story can ruin good gameplay.
Also: Miyamoto hasn't made a good game for ages. The japanese Peter Molyneux.
Miyamoto wants every game in the world to have no story like Mario.
I don't agree with him. Gameplay comes first, but that doesn't mean story can't be a major factor.
They never should be more or even nearly as important as gameplay. The moment the story comes close to taking precedence over gameplay is the moment a developer needs to to genuinely wonder why he bothered making games in the first place.
I prefer the way Koizumi operates, makes great gameplay and puts in a little story, like Mario Galaxy. Shiggy has an overzealous hatred for story in games, to the point of throwing chairs.
I think the most telling difference would be DMC and "DmC".
In the latter, a cutscene shows you where you have to go in the room to acquire your next power while classic DMC left you on your own (you could even miss a weapon entirely).
Seems like this new generation of gamers have a short attention span heh
Before anyone blows up his point of view, niggers must realize this man thinks gameplay comes first, that to build a game it should be build around it's gameplay and that is true.
Gameplay is the cake and story should by the icing.
>I want to play Ace Attorney for the story, not the gameplay
That's almost half and half for me. It's honestly fun as hell cutting through testimonies and watching them gradually lose their shit, almost as fun as the reveals.
I think a game can be good with shitty gameplay but a good story.
Keep in mind this doesn't mean something like Dear Esther, since that has zero gameplay and some guy narrating an actually very simple series of events in spaced portions is hardly a story.
Come on now, saying that is absurd because look at the games of today...almost all of them have stories that take precedence over game play.
Surely they're not reconsidering their career.
I never said no one likes tetris, nor did I ever imply its bad.
I play it now and then, but its no big deal, yes its a fun game, but it doesn't feel much of an acomplishment.
Why are you twisting my words huh? Why don't you come up with propper examples then.
A lot of people around here say that games=movies=shit and gameplay=god and stuff like that. Honestly none of that matters, how the player experiences a game is all that matters. That's why you have people hating well made games with lots of money put into them, and people loving shallow, low-budget, ultra simple games.
It sounds like a fake answer, but the honest truth is that what makes a game good or bad is entirely subjective. There is no such thing as a good game.
Like what? If you're talking about point & click as "weak gameplay" then that's a value judgement. As far as those types of games go, most classics were superb in their respective gameplay category as well.
>There is no such thing as a good game.
There is such thing as a good game, but it is different for everyone, with certain traits being a lot more widespread than others.
The whole reason I'm poking fun of you is because claimed games with no story and good gameplay suffer from being forgettable while picking what is possibly the worst example to support it. Don't be so butt blasted, nerd.