Don't video games actually need a plot?

I've been recently thinking about the claim about how "Video games are about the gameplay, not the story." But, the more I think about it, the more I realize that this claim is completely and utterly false. Outside of the stuff that already exists in real life, I cannot think of a single game that lacks a plot. And, before someone brings up the earliest of FPS games or platformers or arcade titles saying, "Look, no plot!", you should know that you're missing something very obvious.

To use one of the most overused example in FPS gaming, look at Doom (No, not nuDoom). The setup of the game is that you're a space marine fighting demons. There's your plot. Why are you fighting demons? Why are you a space marine? Are you playing this game because you feel awesome taking down targets while sliding across a floor, or are you playing this game to take down demons? If it's the former, would you still play the game if you were fighting, say, killer bears? If you're really playing Doom for the "gameplay, then why aren't you taking up skeet or 3 gun shooting, or even just play one of the mechanical duck shooting galleries one can find at an arcade?

Then, to move onto another overused example, there's Super Mario Bros.. Everything in that game is designed to have a seamless plot that you just…accept, and people are holding it up as an example of how games do not need a plot. That game is just a shiny obstacle course. If they replaced any one of the items for something more barebones and/or "realistic" (To put it one way), you wouldn't want to be playing it.

Pac-Man is just a mix of CTF and tag. RPGs are just the story one tells about their experiences in life. Survival Horror titles are just the flipside of those experiences and the dangers that some men have faced. Beat 'em Ups and Hack & Slash titles are just people getting into fisticuffs (Optionally, with a weapon).

So, to get to the initial point I'm trying to make, you guys are sending a woefully inaccurate message when you're saying "I don't want a story in my games." When you send that message across, you're (Ironically) saying "I want to live real life." and essentially removing yourself from being a player of video games, and these companies can (And, probably have, to manipulative stakes for some) interpreted that as saying that your no longer their target demographic.

Now, to answer the question, here is what can be done about it. We have to rephrase the entire argument about what it is that we want from our games. From what I've observed, people don't want a lack of plot, and they don't want the game to be about the plot either. If I may suggest, can we starting pushing a message, to companies, saying, "I want a game that explains what I am doing, what I am here to do, and that is it." You can reword that to however you want to best suite your needs, but we have to stop barking up the wrong tree about how we don't want a plot in vide games.

And, the problem is that if we don't. we will be losing this battle every single time.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.fo/XPjoF
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Depends on the length. If it's a game like pacman, then not really.
If it's something modern, and lasts longer, then sure. You need to give the player a reason to play and explore, that's how you make them release dopamine after giving them the illusion of progress. If you don't give them that illusion, then they won't feel very motivated to keep playing and get bored. That's one of the issues I had with BOTW personally, the fighting system was awesome, so was the weapons, aside from some issues about weapons break (If you accidentally hit the ground or a tree for example) but it was another "Link is the hero, save Zelda, kill Ganon" kind of thing.

It's funny, the Zelda's I've enjoyed the most didn't have ganon (Minish Cap), or had him at the very end (Like AlttP, TP).
I still question the name choice of "Calamity Ganon" and not "Chaos Ganon" or "Catastrophe Ganon" or "Callous Ganon"

nice flag and reddit pics

Is this shit in 60fps?

People are not arguing that games don't need a plot at all when they say that dumb ass. Jesus the fact that you completely misunderstood that simple phrase and over analyzed it this much really shows your autism.

Okay first of all that is not chromosome hoarder spacing, and second of all it's filtered because Mark is a filthy hook-nosed kike.

No I'm saying I want games with enjoyable gameplay you projecting ass hat.
Go kill yourself.

top lel
so the term leddit spacing is even more leddit now

But I've never said I don't want a story. In fact, there's only a very small body of autists that ever suggest that. I'd go so far as to say that most people are completely ambivalent, perhaps even more in the story direction.

The issue with story in games has nothing to do with it being there, but rather how it is integrated. There are a lot of "games" coming out in the modern era, like Gone Home or Telltale Games, which intend to tell a "story" that has a very limited set of boundaries. The result is that you end up with something that has no gameplay value at all, and simply isn't fun. Indeed, the only reason it's a "game" at all is because some hack writer found it easier to tell a story that way than to just write a book - because, surprise surprise, he's not actually a good writer.

Doom has a story about a marine in space who massacres the servants of Hell. There are a lot of chances for him to failure, which gives fail states to the game. There is a lot of action and excitement. The story of the game blends into the gameplay with no issue. The same goes for Mario - you're a plumber saving a princess. The game is set up in a certain way, with a certain world, that allows there to be a "win" state - saving the princess - but which is still fun to go through.

Some games have actually gotten smarter about this, and allow the gameplay and story to be integrated together. Your character gets beat the fuck up in-story and has his shit stolen? Now he has no gear. Now you've added a degree of complexity, or forced the player to use new mechanics. Other times, you can use simple matters like difficulty to tell something. You're going for the Holy Grail to save England, and things are going to shit everywhere. To claim your prize, you need to defeat a killer rabbit, and then use the Grail to take down [some asshole]. The killer rabbit just might be the hardest fight in the game, whereas [some asshole] is basically a trash mob at the end of a series of trash mobs once you have the Grail in hand. Here the game switches the normal position of the "hardest enemy" from the very end to just beforehand, so you can revel in victory.

In short:

How is someone else suppose to know that? You know that and I know that because we play games, talk about them here, and we see where things are heading based off of the current trends. But, how is someone else outside of the gaming sphere suppose to interpret that phrase?

Also, what's to prevent someone from twisting that phrase to say that "Gamers are dead"?