Would you say he is correct Holla Forums?

Seeing as game developers suck at making stories, yes. 10 out of 10 times the story in any video game is cringy as fuck

So what the fuck do you do? Just jack off to the same fucking sex shit over and over again?

Where's the setup? How do I get involved in knowing if the woman is a dirty whore? How can I get off if it's just meat slapping together without any sense?

What is wrong with you people?

Only hentai has good story. NTR is especially interesting because it's like a political thriller.

You're confusing "story" with "premise".

Yes, it's very similiar, but it's not the same thing, you're jacking off to the idea of a situation, a premise, it's not exactly a story.

100% correct, do you call a book with its story told in illustration a fucking book? No, it's a damn comic book, see, comparable to real books in a number of immediately obvious ways.

Yes. This is true for all genres of game - even Adventure and RPG.
The only time a story is anything more than just fluff is when gameplay is used to tell it and allows for manipulation of it through player choice. At that point, story is used to contextualize the actions of the player in the game. Even then, without a story framing things you could still frame those choices as abstract instruction and with results and consequences shown.

The only real benefit of a games story is that it makes games more accessible and engaging for people not purely motivated to play games for gameplay.

Branching paths are a gameplay element. The story and "worldbuilding" are there just to contextualize it and get you more engaged then a simple abstract choice would.

You only "cherish" Fallout 2 for it's story because people are naturally more attracted to storytelling more than games. The game would be exactly the same with or without story to frame it's choices and world.

ITT: Miyamoto

...

Depends on the type of game.

Super Mario? Who cares.

Baldurs Gate/Fallout? Damn right I care!

Lords of the Locker Room had the best story I've seen in years

Kevin Bruner pls go

That statement is 100% true. Only Shittydog fanboys think otherwise.

Yes, make game. It's rare someone accidentally finds a good writer.

Damn son. really? Maybe you should've shortened it to "has a story".

On a base level sure.
However I think we're at the stage that there is no reason not to put story elements in your game towards the end of development unless you're really struggling for the release date.

I disagree, if you shove in story at the latter stages it's when it looks half assed and forced. Like Overwatch's lore.

Depends on the game. In RPGs, the story can give you a reason to continue playing, or help you make choices. In something like Morrowind, paying attention to the world, plot, and backstory (all a part of the 'story') gives you a better experience, and reveals more about the game compared to just scraping the surface by passing all the story elements

Games can be used to tell some fascinating and thrilling stories, for example Ghost Trick, while being hard to translate into any other medium, as the story is told best with some player agency

I wouldn't say the porn, story and gameplay aspects of MGQ aren't all that cohesive tbh.

You could make it more like a VN, and you could have interesting dialogue trees instead of annoying fights. You could make it more like a game, and the fights would be less repetitive. You could make it more like porn and some of the filler might be higher quality.

Okay you've got a point there. I was trying to say 'use top down design', but quite frankly if you want a story you do need to start with both from the ground up.
It's not an easy issue that can be simplified like OP has.

I am not Anthony Burch, but I think you may be

It was correct at the time and for the games he wanted to make and the games people could make with the tech, and even now it certainly applies to fps. Story isn't inherently bad in a game but when it becomes the prime concern of producing the game and gameplay elements are sacrificed then its poisonous.

...

Story>Gameplay

But that's just a theory, [spoiler]a game theory

I'd say he's half right.
The story is either there to check a box, or absolutely important to the game.
Because why the fuck would you play a turn based RPG if the story was bad? The gameplay could still be fantastic, but if the story is boring or non-existent, then you're just left with an empty experience of scrolling through menus.

The idea of whether games should have stories or not is irrelevant, it's rather how relevant the story itself is to the gameplay and player.

Oh boy, you knew you were going to get spicy responses for saying anything positive about NTR, but I can understand where you're coming from.

NTR is meant to provoke powerful emotional responses, but negative ones and most non-fetishists don't want anything to do with it, myself included.

There was next to no storytelling.

The story told itself as I played.

The bread and butter of the game was dialogue plus (mostly) non-combat PC interaction, consciously patterned into stories. It was integral part of the gameplay (talking as playing, where the combat and equipment mechanics serve the context, rather than vice versa) and wouldn't be fun as random garbage happening for no reason.

You're literally shitting yourself into a corner where a good rpg becomes impossible.

*NPC

Absolutely. A game can be good by virtue of just having good gameplay, content, music and acceptable visuals and fuck any obnoxiously high standard faggots who think otherwise.

Kingdom Hearts is comically well known for having a ridiculous albeit entertaining plot hard to take seriously, but it still has all that, doesn't it?

It isn't. You get good story in a game or even porn? Good for you. Doesn't mean the rest of either industry should be held to the same standard. Whether for pressing buttons to do fun or just a fap they're for entertainment and nothing more.

What a pleasant surprise. NTRshit is now directly associated with edge and cucks.

I dont care what people say about me. I still believe Zuckerberg had him killed.

Depends on the genre we're talking about. Personally I agree with him.

He is absolutely incorrect. He's assuming the story is limited to an explicit narrative or plot, but story includes next to all the context for a game's gameplay, which in most cases would be dull as fuck absent all that motivating context.

You're wrong, buddy. Branching paths are a gameplay element, but the paths themselves are a story element. You can't just separate the two as easily as you're trying to.

Fallout 2 without a story is Fallout without its dialogue, its characters, and its setting. Its squares against circles on a black void.

Depends on the genre. Shooters? Yes. RPGs? Definitely not.

He made that quote way before "cinematic masterpieces" were a thing.

RPGs or grand scale adventures in general, not sandbox, are when a story actually matters as they aim to deliver an experience.

Only a dumbass would think fighting, shooters or racing games need any quality of storytelling when the gameplay is the entire reason for wanting it the first place.

Holy shit, nigger, are you utterly retarded? You're trying to split a game comprised of story and mechanics into just mechanics and say it's the same thing. I loved the old Fallouts, but I'd shit all over them if they had badly written dialogues or retarded story, and call it a bad, shitty game.

Only kinda. Depends on what you're going for. A game with good gameplay and shit story can be forgiven. A game with an incredible story and meh gameplay can be forgiven. But if a game is trying to sell itself on story, either the gameplay has to be serviceable enough to make it work (great gameplay to match is even better), but if you can't accomplish that much, your story better be really fucking good.

Gameplay>Story, but a story can salvage a game if its good enough. Its why some visual novels are good.

MGQ's story is atrocious and so is most of its porn.

This user gets it.

Have you considered that you may not like RPGs for their gameplay and need a story to get you actually engaged in it? Your comment about menus also makes me curious to how you feel about 4x games.

A story is told regardless of whether it was told by the devs or by the player's actions, and people are naturally drawn to that more than gameplay. Typically when people reflect on games they've played, they'll think about it in a storied way rather than in the language of the game mechanics.
The NPC interactions in Fallout are more tied to the gameplay than the story - it presents the player with choices that affect game state and their chances of success. The story and character it's all wrapped in is just there to be more appealing than some abstract game decisions.

Maybe if you don't play games to actually play games. The game itself would be unchanged, it would just be less interesting to people who need that extra motivation.
If the only effect the branch has is on the story, then they would just be story elements. However, any effect on the game makes them primarily a gameplay element.

Considering that story is not an absolute necessity to any game, yes, it's practically the same thing.
>a game would be shitty if it has a shitty story, irregardless of gameplay changing or not
Reassess why you actually play and enjoy games.

TOEE

Great combat gameplay, but I still had to force myself to finish it, dropping and resuming several times, simply because there was no context to anything.

For a PRG, story is central. The worldbuilding and your interaction with it are central.

In RPGs, story is right up there with the gameplay itself. This is absolutely right.

That's why I don't play a lot of turn-based RPGs now, because I find the gameplay fairly boring in most cases. Stuff like The Last Remnant or Chrono Trigger, or any Tales of game, are generally what I go toward because they offer more than just menus, have some sort of tactics or something more real time.
For turn based stuff, there needs to be a really good story or a really goofy story, otherwise it is boring, because there isn't much going on. A story is absolutely necessary there.
Civilization is the nearest thing to a 4X I play, and even that I don't play much of. They're fine, but not really my interest. And 4X games have more than just scrolling through menus, since there is some level of strategy required to progress. Knowing what you're doing, how best to take over territory and control the field. You're not just pressing up on your d-pad, then a, then a again, then watching a flashy series of CGs, and repeating.

I had absolutely no clue what the hell the story was in Digital Devil Saga or Nocturne yet I had lots of fun in them regardless. Good story isn't necessary at all, not even in RPGs.

Maybe that's just you. Maybe you just don't like the gameplay enough. I've been engrossed by several RPGs with bad or underdeveloped stories because I liked the gameplay enough.
In a game? No, story is never central. If you're trying to make story central to your game - in place of the gameplay - then you're failing to make a game. Story may be central to one's experience of a game, but only if they make it so.
Worldbuilding? No, that just serves to contextualize your actions into something more appealing than strict gameplay decisions.
Your interaction is with the game. The world portrayed reacts to the choices made in the game. Of course, if you're interaction is solely with the story (ie, choices in the game that have no affect on the game besides what is portrayed in the story) then no, it's not central at all.

And so do turn-based RPGs. The character building and the choices you make in different scenarios (combat, NPC interaction, etc.) based off of that are the core of the gameplay, scrolling through menus is just how you make those decisions.
You're either making a very reductive description of the gameplay or you've just played a lot of bad RPGs.

Only good NTR involve orcs inpregnating women AND sissifying men, keeping both of them like family. If not it is just crap.

Depends on the game.

People like you are why that cancer spread to Paper Mario.

He is right.
But I still played through MGQ for story.

But he is right.
Its about giving context to your actions and give you a idea of why its happening without taking the focus of the action in general at any stance. Doom 1&2 show this in practice.

I might sound crazy for this. But the dialogue in FO 1&2 were a gameplay element by itself not just a story exposition, a meta revolving over your decsions and charisma+speech stats to get the desired or expected outcome.
The scenario is explained in the intro and manual book, without getting in the middle of the action.
Thats just my humble opinion.

A story, and the way the player influences it can be part of the gameplay too.

For the gameplay?

If that's what the gameplay is to you why do you even play it. Sounds like you don't even enjoy the gameplay.

I would say no since you can have a good game even without a story. It sure as shit isn't an excuse to have a poorly written story though. If you're going to have a story at all, don't half-ass it. Having a good story is a significant bonus too, but it's only a contributing factor to a game's quality and not a sufficient condition.

Not necessarily. Some games don't need a story to be fun, like fighting games or racing games, or things that have fun gameplay but incomprehensible stories, like Kingdom Hearts.

But there are some games where the game quality is whatever but the story itself is amazing, or has a lot of variety/options/endings, and for games like those story is important. Something like Tactics Ogre: LUCT, it looks like a SNES game and the gameplay is nothing new or special really but the story is well written.

The gameplay is the entire reason you should be wanting any game besides a VN in the first place.

Carmack is talking from a game design standpoint, as a game designer. Even Shigeru Miyamoto said in an interview story comes as last priority even in Zelda games

If you can get a game with a good story, then great, good for you..
But don't let it have priority over the most important aspects like Gameplay

That's what Carmack was trying to say

Sounds like he's never played an rpg.

Protip; when you play an RPG, you play it more for the RPG elements themselves like character customization, and the games world than for the story itself.

Story is a nice bonus, while a good story makes a game better gameplay, visuals and audio are more important.

Of course. Unfortunately today's generation of dumbasses are the very cancer that's completely ruined the west.

I'm just waiting for western gaming as an industry to crash and burn. The kind of people who make dedicated modding communities will resurrect it without any of the Jewry or overly cinematic bullshit that pollutes it today and infinitely more creativity and soul.

No because a porn movie is just that. A genre of movie, just like different genres of games have strengths in different areas than others. Gameplay is most important in stuff like action games/hack n slash but story is more important in say an rpg/point n click type game.

mah nigga

...

No. Fuck you.

Give me everything, or you won't get so much as two thumbs up your ass.

that quote is about 20 years old, the industry was different, the technology was different. You need fuckin context OP, most retards here will think that's recent news.

Yes that sentence was mostly true 20 years ago, nowadays is not that much true anymore.

If you want to focus on gameplay, do it and keep the story at minimum, but if you want to focus on story and keep the gameplay minimal, then you story needs to be fuckin good to make up for it.

Very well put.
Too bad most gamedevs dismiss this tip and shit games with forced cut scenes or nearly irrelevant shit mid-game, to remember the player about the existence of a story that everybody doesnt give a fuck.

These are the people that Sony brought into the industry with their god awful movie games.

The point is this shit should never be prioritized over actual gameplay in the first fucking place. Naughty Dog needs to burn.

Yes, the game with the best atmosphere have minimal story or tell them in minimalistic ways. Any that disagrees with Carmack on this is fucking cancer.

Story matters in RPGs. Gameplay is always a op priority and the kind of retards who buy shitty "cinematic experiences" don't understand that little.

Goddamn, modern gaming has made me hostile.

Why so mad? I don't like, I don't buy. It's not like there's nothing else to play

You will see what kind of people are posting here if you look at the DooMed general, plus it shows what 8 years of fuckery in the industry can do, since DooMed have "deep" story and lore plus cutscenes.

This, I refuse to masturbate to anything that doesn't have a well crafted plot and significant character development.

CODEMONKEY

Porn is for masturbation, nothing else needs to be there besides the sex.
Remember when Gone Home was released and everyone complained that there was no game to it?

Was he wrong?

Ov vey goyim, of course gameplay is more important then story. Now slide that VR set on and watch some nigger fuck your wife, now remember, story isnt important! :^)

Holla Forumskiddies are fucking morons.
John Whorehack is a sell out, cant design games worth shit and is a fucking poster boy.
Do some fucking research, he stole like 90% of his work from other people.
HUR DUR lets kill nazis and demons to sell our walking simulator with guns.

What a fucking joke.

The only games I have any interest in at the moment are Kirby: Planet Robobot and Monster Hunter Generations. Otherwise, I might just save up for a cheap laptop, so I can try and make something 2D, but not retro hipster shit.

Recently American McGee had an AMA with Holla Forums and said John Carmack wrote better code than the other programmers at ID in 3 hours than they could in 3 months. If you're going to tell people to "do some fucking research" and make an outrageous claim, you better bring that fuckin' research with you.

Fuck off, retard.

No. It makes he thinks that since he worked on doom. But he is wrong.

He isn't. For the majority of genres story doesn't mean shit. Get over it.

That would be like saying all films have to tell their story only in images and never with dialogue or a combination.

There's more than one way to tell a story.

...

Story is important depending on what game you are making. MGS without story would have good gameplay but it wouldn't be remembered without the story. If only gameplay mattered then all games would be cubes and circles or would have no art attached, just empty wireframes with some white textures.

Are you saying that Gone Home is for masturbation?
That…. actually kind of makes sense

no passivity in video-

GAMES

not a difficult thing to grasp but for AAA publishers it is.

Isn't there some Japanese fighting gamr that people play for the story, bazblue i cant remember thathe correct spellng or it might be something else.

The point is that for a majority it's only necessary for the setting and should never come before gameplay.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Thats cause id was full of fucking morons.
Story is as important to a game as gameplay, in context of the game.
I would rather play tetris over Doom cause I am not some fucking faggot edgelord who hasnt left his moms basement.

Now go back to playig COD and CsGo, fucking Holla Forumsmckids

You play racing game to race and you play fighting games to beat digital characters up.

BlazBlue's fandom doesn't mean shit.

Retards will destroy their own arguments. I told you to fuck off.

...

I agree with him. But there are games I've really enjoyed due to the story and character interactions. Like Paper Mario games. Actually those games just have simple stories and charming characters. The gameplay is icing on the cake.

Saying that most games and genres I play require no story or barely put any time into one. Shmup, roguelike, fighter, dungeon crawler, action adventure, platformer. Barely any require a story. But I also like visual novels and adventure games despite many of them lacking gameplay or gameplay being very simplistic.

Overall, it depends on the genre and there are many ways to make a game. But for most genres, stories aren't needed.

...

No. Not quite. Story along with setting, art direction, theme, sound design, music, etc. are all important. Gameplay is prime; It is the first order of importance. That doesn't mean that all those other things aren't also important, just that they are important at a lesser degree to gameplay. Of course in some kinds of games story and gameplay are much more tightly linked (such as RPGs) or are synonymous (text adventures, VN, renai) and are of equal or nearly equal importance. Similarly in rhythm games both gameplay and sound design/music are or equal importance.

Only because people grow more attached to stories than game interactions - they're inherently more relatable. The game itself, however, is not affected by the presence or quality of the story.
Story does not dictate every extraneous element in a game - the game's visuals, sounds, and setting can exist without a story tying them together. But even if it did, that wouldn't really change the quality of the gameplay whatsoever if the mechanics, elements, and their interactions were as distinct and identifiable without the backdrop of a story to frame it all. Story is just there to get people investing in something more than the game itself.

It has been so long since I've seen this picture…

Todd I know that's you!

72d8fa, with your logic, Metal Gear Solid should just be about Snake randomly running around a facility for no reason.

What are you talking about? NTR is literally anime cuckshit

Yes. Tetris never needed a story to be good, because the gameplay is good.
Same as any board game, you build your own story by playing not by getting shit shoved down the throat.

Another sign of autism is the inability to comprehend jokes, irony and sarcasm.

Kinda.
You're making the history of the game as you play it.
Every action you do, every reaction the world does to you, they're all parts of the story.

The tricky part is getting to tell an specific story, and the industry have this wrong belief that all you need to do is simply to force the player to follow the story they written at an autistic point where they want to control from where you will shoot, but all this does is to tell a story about an actor that lost his script trying to act the best he can by getting cues from the stage.

And this is aggravated even more when backtrack leads to an "empty stage" and there are logicless invisible walls/ warnings of keeping yourself on the combat zone.
On the last case is basically the film director screaming to you go back to the set and not ruin his masterpiece.

To actually work, the story must revolve around the interaction of the player with the story, rather than trying to force the player to play your story.

Importance is overrated. It simply means the important factor has an affect to the agent it's important to. Dirt is important to your entire fucking house, but saying shit like "story is important!" doesn't give many people the correct idea, because the chuclefucks are so used to everything being constant hypebole they don't even learn word meanings anymore.

Probably also why they can't git gud or even just concentrate on gameplay over all the pretty colors and cinematics. Why they won't even care to.

If only The Jew hadn't bought the technology…

America McGee also said he was working on another title, America McGee's Your Mom.
It sounds good.

If a game does not have a story there is nothing in it for you to care about it, there is nothing to motivate you. The reason Doom is good is because it was novel for its time, the game mechanics, design and theme were very interesting and you didn't really care about the story. Besides, even then there was a story through level design and the endings at the end of the episodes.

But the circumstances and condition for the above are getting rarer and rarer with each passing year, if not nearly-impossible for them to happen again in traditional gaming (VR is another story). All the genres today CAN'T stand on their own without story, the reason Overwatch is a success is because there is a story, it's in the background, but there is one and people care about the game because of it.

Carmack is right, story in a game is not necessary for it to have fun gameplay, but for it to be a successful and beloved game? You better have a good story or your game will be nothing, but the flavor of the month.

good* story is not necessary

He literally said it just wasn't that important. The story for most kinds of games only matters as far as establishing the setting and why it has the gameplay it does.

Things like dramatic cutscenes explaining motivations or deep character development have no business being in certain games when they cause them to suffer solely for the sake of the plot. This exact shit happened with Doom of all games and it's absolutely disgusting to see unskippable cutscenes for muh lore.

Humanity fucked up doing research on Mars and opened the gate to Hell. It's full of very bad and mean literal demons, so you have to kill them and the nameless manly protagonist is more than happy to with his bare fists if possible.

Fuck Bethesda.

Read the above. I'm not condemning MGS, I'm condemning the kind of shit mentality of today where everything seemingly needs to have some kind of "deep" or "epic" narrative in the west. It's obnoxious and anyone who wants more "cinematic experiences" is nothing more than cancer.

We didn't used to have shit like Nathan Drake representing Sony. It used to be action platforming mascots that used their colorful worlds and what much lore they had as the reason for their gameplay and the occasional cutscene for exposition.

story in video games was a mistake
why the fuck are they still forcing stories into video games in Current year?
FUCKING STORIES IN VIDEO GAME ENDS NOW
fucking neo/v/ and reddit defend stories in video games

The majority of the thread agrees with Carmack. Just skim it.

Story in videogames are not a mistake.
Just a really really awful implementation of it.
Think on a movie where the director is so incompetent, he films all the boring walking part, but when ANY action or dialogue happens on this movie, it gets replaced by a boring text explaining it, and sometimes they make the text wiggle and have awful fonts just to force you to pay attention to it.

When treated properly (cutscenes, skippable, decent-quality writing/voice acting/animation, never interrupt game for more than a few minutes at a time between levels/areas/missions/etc.), a story can enhance the player's experience by humanizing elements of the game and motivate the player by allowing them to see more of the story by performing adequately in the game.

If done poorly (long, unskippable cutscenes or story sequences that interrupt the game's flow with bad writing/acting/animation), the story can be a massive annoyance that has the potential to severely harm the player's enjoyment of the game.

How about playing a game because it's fun?
Are you for real?
You mean the "today" of games where good gameplay comes at dead last for development, where the games rely on their story and marketing to draw people in because they know their games can't stand on the merits of their own gameplay?
False, the reverse of that is true. An appealing story in a 'mediocre 'game'' just makes it another flavor of the month for casual players. You can replay a good game because you know it's still fun, but a bad game is a bad game, regardless of how good the story was to draw you in the first time - it would be better just to watch it online to experience the story than to deal with the gameplay again.

The fact that cardicks compared porn to video games shows how huge of a faggot he always was.

Story is importantt for video games such Rpgs, Adventure point n clicks, Some fps games.
There are faggots who play Dota2 for million of dollars, no one gives a shit about you or the video games you like.
Story is as important as Gameplay, get the fuck over it.

...

Literally kill yourself. Your opinion doesn't mean shit.

Yes.

Are you stupid?

holly shit son you have cancer like this on 8/v/ and you think everything is OK?
oostbh

You're really acting like an idiot.

Novel for ITS TIME, as in not today, but when it came out, when its game mechanics were fucking new you retard.

Where? Tell me in which fucking game does the gameplay come last? The story is always fucking LAST, if you haven't noticed stories in games the last decade have been utter shit and some wrecked old series completely, even fucking Starcraft was ruined because Blizzard didn't give a single fuck about the story.

The Witcher series is one of the few games that I can think about that give a shit about story today. I'll give you that gameplay in games has become shit today (the new Thief comes to mind), but the same goes for story in games and the latter has been going on for longer and is much more rarer for it to be good today.

Oh please, tell me what are those good old games with uninteresting story that you are talking about? Legacy of Kain series had mediocre gameplay, but I would play all of the series's games anyway for the amazing story.

Oh man, I love when reddit faggots just off themselves in a thread.
Listen up you fucking dugeon pig moron. Story is important in the context of the game, Kikemack is wrong, get the fuck over it.

I also love when some.faggot declares THIS WHAT ALL OF Holla Forums THINKS. Go back to gole you came out of you circle jerking sjw faggots.

Not that guy, but saying story is -as- important as gameplay is fucking retarded. Go read a book if you want a touching artistic story ya filthy bernie sanders supporter

You're just making yourself look retarded. All he said was that it wasn't that important and stupid faggots like you are throwing a bitch fit because of it. But by all means, make this easier for me.

Which is why nearly all modern games market themselves on story and how "cinematic" they are, right?
Kill yourself.
Mario 3 is a game still beloved despite practically no story and having little novelty to it at all - it was just a really good game and people remember it for that.

Story Emphasis =/= Good Story
Dark Souls has a good story, story does not depend on cutscenes, it does not even have to be expressed in words, what matters is presentation, consistency and believability (as in not something pulled out the ass out of nowhere).

So? Yeah, Mario 3 did it great, what about the other games that were similar to it? Nobody remembers them, there is only so many times you can reuse such fun game mechanics become standard and you start searching for something else in the game. Nostalgia does not help this case at all as well.

Don't you self insert as the person fucking the Wife? Do people rely insert as the the husband?

before they become standard*

What people mean by "story" is THE EXPERIENCE

That is, gameplay, story, music, graphics all tied together to make perfection. "an experience"

This is what corporate machines try to recreate but fail every time, because they think it means heavy story focus, but that isn't the case.

MGS is a great example, the gameplay is basically MG2 reboot. But all the stuff like the codec, great music, great atmosphere, details etc made it something different. Hard to explain, but people try to copy the formula, but they only copy the effects of it, rather than mastering the art. (setpieces, immersive and other corporate buzzwords is what I'm getting at)

Also "cinematic experience", the original Call of Duty actually got this down correct, cool moments happen whilst you try to survive under the hail of german fire, to sum it up quickly. Modern games go for the route of "first person cutscenes" which is a total misunderstanding of the original concept.

this minus the cuck shit, some doujins are pretty good writing wise. but only like one or two I could see it being a really good medium for comedy, drama, or romance. read the new issue jerk off then finish maybe get a few laughs or feels.

Depends on the kind of game.
I love GTA for the gameplay, but the large portion of the fanbase obsessed about the story makes me facepalm. I don't mind having a gripping story but it shouldn't eclipse the gameplay.
Also a good game with shit story can still be enjoyable. If you have a game with shit gameplay, you have a shit game.

...

I frequently read them and half the time I'm laughing at the lines or the expressions, but I fap almost exclusively to kancolle these days and the naval puns etc. really crack me up.

Some have good romance too and give me heart boners.

Uh do you have any examples?

A sense of progression and a game that at the bare minimum makes some sort of sense are what's important.

A perfect game has at least both of those things, from shit like DooM to Deus Ex to Thief. Some form of plot/message would be really great, but ultimately not necessary, since the whole point of a good game is the damn game itself.

No, broad statements like that rarely are. Especially concerning games, one of the more flexible pieces of media. Guy should just stick with coding instead of whatever the fuck he has been trying these past few years

The McLaren F1 is a supercar designed and manufactured by McLaren Automotive. It was originally a concept conceived by Gordon Murray with backing from Ron Dennis and design work by Peter Stevens for the car's exterior. Production began in 1992 and ended in 1998 with a total of 106 units with some variations in the design. The car was notable for the drivers' seat being placed on the centre with two passenger seats beside, making it a three-seater.The British car magazine Autocar stated during a road test in 1994 that "The McLaren F1 is the finest driving machine yet built for the public road" and that "The F1 will be remembered as one of the great events in the history of the car, and it may possibly be the fastest production road car the world will ever see." The McLaren F1 was the first road car from the company which until then had its focus solely on motorsports, especially in Formula One. It was the world's fastest production car until the Bugatti Veyron 16.4 entered production.

Kill yourself.

Alright, so to get to the point; What's more interesting to you in this post? The description of the car, or actually watching it in action? I used footage from NFS: Hot Pursuit, so it's technically not real footage of the vehicle in action, but that's besides the point. I think it's safe to say that most people would only be interested in watching how the car performs, and wouldn't care so much about its history. Not everyone will agree; some people will think to themselves, "well that's bullshit, I care to know about the car's history and various bits of knowledge surrounding the people who created it" and that's fine. However, you're probably in the minority, an enthusiast whose interest goes beyond the average "casual".

There's a reason for this, too. You have to use the scroll bar to read the entire thing. This makes simply reading the description more of a chore than it should be. If the car itself represents gameplay, then the history behind the car represents a story, and the scroll bar represents what happens when you try to use interactivity as a vehicle for telling a story. Most people don't give a shit about your god damned story, especially when it's pointless fluff that stands in the way of an interesting gameplay experience. However, what's worse is when you use interactivity to force feed your audience tid-bits of information that they may not give a shit about.

Story should inform and support the game, not overwhelm the gameplay

He's probably right but I really like story in both my games and porn

Pointless generalization. Importance of story is totally dependent on the individual game. I haven't read this thread, but unless it stopped talking about the Carmack quote, it's probably really stupid.

I get off to some pretty gross shit but you are irredeemable filth

I do.

The pain means you really love her.

MGQ is trash, you know that right?

No, that was the old men still at Nintendo fucking shit up, Miyamoto and Tanabe in that case.

I consider story like a sauce; more often than not it boosts the quality of the food, but some foods don't really need it (going as far as becoming worse if you put any type of sauce in them), and sometimes a really bad sauce or excess of sauce can make an otherwise decent dish become distasteful. Likewise, some types of food pretty much require sauce to be good.

MGS4 would be an example of what happens when you put way too much sauce on steak. You would have probably enjoyed Kojimbo's fine cuisine much more if he hadn't literally flooded a soup dish with wine sauce. The steak would have likely been much better with a bit of that sauce on top, but now it's soaked so hard in it it is almost disgusting, but both the sauce and the steak taste good so you keep eating it.

Tetris (the most abstract game to this date, absolutely lacking any kind of context whatsoever) would be like soup. Ever heard of putting marinara on a soup? Or any other sauce? It really does seem like a bad idea.

.hack or most FF would be some overcooked tuna piece that would be boring enough to be left in the plate in regular conditions, but the chef put some exotic mango sauce on top of it that combines very well and the dish is now almost salvageable. You will eat the fish just to keep savoring that motherfucking sauce.

In case an RPG or any game is too dependent on the story to be enjoyable, you could draw parallels to fried tofu, as it tastes great but the entirety of its flavour comes from the sauce. I will also add that getting fried tofu right is very hard, just like these games.

Any gameplay-light RPG or VN would be like salmorejo. While salmorejo can be used as a sauce, it can also be eaten standalone, like in this case; the little gameplay elements are like little toasted breadcrumb toppings: not really necessary (which means you could actually make a book out of that "game" and still be as good), but enjoyable.

Doom would be like a piece of steak with some chateau sauce floritures on the border of the plate. They provide some contrast to the steak, and some nice aroma, but most people assume it is in there for decoration purposes and barely touch it. Those who do touch it report that the sauce barely gets in the way of the steak's flavour. Everybody seems to agree that the presentation of the plate would have been much different if they had put a piece of meat in the middle of the plate and call it a day; it would have still tasted well, but it would not be quite the same (which is basically what Carmack said in that picture).

Rhythm games are a special case: you can put sauce on them, but it isn't really necessary. It alters the flavour of the main dish, but it's more of a sidegrade than an actual upgrade. It is up to the chef to add a little bit of sauce or not. However, they put a lot of thought into the textures (music), and basically, the game can't exist without those textures. In some way, they are like spring rolls.

However, like in gastronomy, most foods can be easily improved with a little bit of sauce. Sure, there are other ways to improve them, but only in some really specific cases (like the above mentioned) you can really say story is either superfluous or harmful. Story is more often than not necessary for a regular game to feel right, but you better be doing some crazy shit to make your food stand out without any kind of sauce.

Saying story in videogames is bad or unnecessary is almost like saying story in movies is bad or unnecessary. Sure, you can make a movie with only images that don't really tell any story on their own, but if you try to imply this is what cinema is supposed to be and act like it's something more than a glorified slideshow you will be probably called a pretentious asshole by everybody that is not a pretentious asshole such as yourself.

Funnily enough, cinema did start as a bunch of contextless images (Lumiere movies), just like games (Tetris). Given they are not the quite the same thing, nobody acts as if slideshows are the "true cinema", nor imply that it is superior to common cinema because it isn't.

He is correct, that's exactly the reason doom is great (except doom 3 but let's pretend that never happened).

However, you can implement a good story in good ways, and by that I mean offer the player exposition without taking control away from him or without creating a glorified on-rails shooter, or without locking them in a room for 30 minutes.

OR

The story COULD be there, but not as "in-your-face" as CoD or other glorified on-rail shooters, kinda how dark souls does. You find out the story and lore by reading on item descriptions or other stuff.

Well the creator of blazblue wanted it to be a RPG, but he didn't have the resources.

Story should only be important enough to be occasionally noticed, but not the focus of the game.

This is if the story is actually good.
If it's a shitty story, the player is going to notice it more than they would if it wasn't shitty.

But MGS4 is a masterpiece.

At least the dude seems to genuinely enjoying taking care of THEIR kids.

Yeah. I just wish there weren't 45 minutes of cutscenes for every 30 minutes of gameplay.

Why would the car represent gameplay? If people were just into games like that for the gameplay, they wouldn't mind moving squares along a simple, yet varied line, so long as the speed, handling, and track shape were the same. The player is getting context (ie. not gameplay) by driving this bright orange McLaren down the highway as it makes vroom vroom sounds spitting out nitro. The player can take in the detail about the three-seater from your "story" abstraction just by looking at the car. None of that is gameplay.

What's the point of comparing the two if you're going to call everything but the words the player has to read gameplay?

He is.

It should be at the creators discretion.

I guess Catacomb 3-D and Wolfenstein 3D don't exist.
Pretty much every AAA "cinematic experience" and the assorted indie-clique "games". Sub-par, uninspired, often rehashed gameplay hyped up by the story it's wrapped up in.
Then why are they at the forefront of marketing? Yeah, they're mostly shit, but they're still the clear focus of development and attention.
Starcraft being ruined had a hell of a lot more to do with the awful gameplay than the damn story.
Pretty much every id shooter up until Doom 3.
Half-Life 1 had a rather minimal story that wasn't anything special.
The entire Super Mario series, nearly all the Zelda games - hell, nearly all first-party Nintendo titles in general are regarded more for their gameplay than the quality of their stories, which are for the most part are either mediocre or practically nonexistent.
Most Castlevania's (both Classic and Metroidvania) have very simple plots of little note.
The vast majority of noteworthy fighting games, SHUMPs, racing games, and rhythm games rarely have a story of note.

I'm finding it harder to actually think of games with good (or at least "well recieved" stories) but with mediocre/bad gameplay that are well regarded beyond being flavor of the month titles - unlike everything out of Naughty Dog since Uncharted, Bioshock Infinite, etc.

From a design perspective, absolutely. Gameplay needs to come first and foremost in order to ensure the game is actually both playable and enjoyable.

He is not wrong, but, he is looking at it from a purely engineering perspective. Video games are a mixture of engineering and art in order to make an interactive experience.

While a game can forego having a story and go with a simplistic art, adding more elaborate additions tends to augment playing a game to make playing it feel more involving.

Do all games need that? No. It really depends on what the developers are attempting to achieve.

Depends on the genre

Any other answer is wrong

...

only if you for some reason self insert as the one being cucked instead of the one stealing the bitch.

and nobody would do that, right?

I have to watch porn with the volume off so I don't know.

Use some fucking headphones user, come on didn't you figure this shit out when you were 12

I didn't watched porn with sound until I was fully alone in the house or I was absolutely sure that everyone was asleep.

No man then I can't hear the noises I'm making or anything else

Just keep one fucking ear off. This shit aint rocket science.

Are you made of stupid?

Pretty much.

It can be nice to have, but it is only essential if you are making an RPG.

no, what a nigger thing to say

For most games, absolutely. It depends on the genre though. I mean you can't do that with an RPG.

Marathon and Unreal did storytelling in FPS just right

Story is the method to elaborate on the abstract nature of the gameplay in a game in a way that is easier for the audience to digest, it isn't unimportant but it is not the driver.

The video represents gameplay. The video is a raw and visceral experience. Forget that you are watching and not controlling it. That's not the point. The question was, "would you rather watch the car in action, or read a description of it?" If the video represents gameplay, a raw and visceral experience, then the description of the car itself represents a story that gives context to the object of the video.
Yes, it is true that this game, and most racing games, are essentially "tracing simlulators". That is, you control a block that can accelerate and decelerate, that you must use to navigate a series of courses wrought out into various shapes. The fun is to be had in this experience. I agree wholeheartedly that you don't need context in order to enjoy the gameplay.
You've missed the point. Go back and reread my second post. The point was that the description of the car is TEDIOUS to read because it is placed in code brackets, which means that you have to scroll to read what is a very brief description. The description of the car represents the car's story, and the act of scrolling through the text represents a sort of mundane interaction whose only purpose is to gain information. This mundane interactivity is supposed to represent "gameplay" in heavily story focued games, i.e. the Gone Home type bullshit that is increasingly becoming prevalent.
The point was that most people would rather just watch the fucking video of the car if they had to choose between watching or reading a description that was tedious to read for whatever reason. You can draw an analogy between the two choices;
A:The video represents gameplay/interactivity
B:The description represents a story
C:The act of scrolling through the code bracket to read the story ALSO represents gameplay/interactivity, although this is tedious and unnecessary.

Car, video, the argument's the same.

No, they both represent different stories told different ways. That's why this comparison is so biased in one direction. You say to forget that you're watching it and not controlling it, but think about that for a second. Both are conveying information that is wholly unnecessary to the core mechanic of "move object down a line while controlling its speed and direction."

No, you missed the point. I know what you're getting at, but the comparison is inherently flawed. Of course it's tedious to read a description of a car compared to just seeing the car itself. Neither of those are gameplay. They're just different ways to convey information, one of which enhances gameplay, the other impeding it.

Why are you so adamant that story can only be conveyed through blocks of text? Music, art, setting; again, those things aren't gameplay. They're story, different ways to convey information to contextualize gameplay and make it better. So yes, story is very important; it's just that many games don't know how to properly convey it seamlessly into the experience.

Argument? What argument exactly?
No, they don't. I'm telling you that my post is an analogy, and you are deliberately refusing to see the point that I am trying to make. You can't tell me what I meant by my own post.
There is no bias in my analogy, although I personally admit that I don't give a shit about story in games nearly as much as gameplay.
Any extraneous information that you derive from the video is secondary to the information that you receive that pertains to the "core mechanic". What, you want a video where someone removes the background scenery, the soundtrack, the deliberately crafted models that represent specific types of car so you can see the game as it would operate without those things? Sure, that would be interesting, but just because you don't get that from the video I posted, doesn't mean that you aren't getting meaningful information in regards to how this game plays.

All of this is besides the point, though, because the video itself, not its contents, is meant to represent gameplay. The act of clicking on the video and watching it to consume its contents is supposed to represent the relationship between the audience and a direct experience. This is analogous to gameplay, and the description in the code brackets is meant to contrast this. You're supposed to watch the video, read the description, and then answer the question I posed in the second post I made. Simple. This analogy is meant to emphasize that most people would rather simply interact directly with the content itself than read some history book about it. This is the same when it comes to video games. Most people would rather play a game and become familiar with its control scheme and mechanics before they even give a shit about the story. You can bring up a number of examples to support this, like DMC4, but the point is that a game's primary loop is its one saving grace. It's the entire reason people play, and no matter how many dipshits want to say otherwise, story will always be secondary to this. You don't have to agree with me but this is what I believe.

How is the comparison inherently flawed? You misunderstand, yet again, because I wasn't comparing the difference between reading about a car and seeing it. I was drawing a comparison between reading about a car and driving it. How am I going to get you to drive a car on a damned image board? The act of clicking on the video is supposed to be analogous to driving the car, which is, again, analogous to gameplay.
I never suggested that story could only be conveyed through text. I never said story isn't important. I was making an analogy between gameplay and story. Many games, especially story driven nonsense like whatever David Cage shits out, try to emphasize their stories over any meaningful gameplay mechanics. These are akin to movies that you sometimes interact with. The act of scrolling through the description of the car is meant to reflect this type of boring, tedious, interactivity; things like QTEs and scripted sequences where you are just pulled through a segment by the game and are expected to take things in like a movie, or monotonous games like Gone Home that use walking as its primary mode of play. These are considered by most people to be garbage because they don't adequately use the medium to its advantage. Things like this might as well just be fucking movies. This is the point I was trying to make.

Sorry, user, I don't get your argument. I don't feel like there's a reason to be confrontational, either, so maybe just tell me how you feel about story. Do you think story is ever more important than gameplay? Why?

He is, more or less.

A game with a good story and shit gameplay is no good while a game with a shit story and good gameplay always wins out.

However, a game with a good story and good gameplay is always good none the less.

In this day in age, no.

He is not right, but saying this doesn't really explain why he is not right so bare with me here as I try to collect my thoughts.

Story is important in every game, but how different games go about doing it is very different from genre to genre.

As an example Morrowind is a horribly designed game, laughably so. But the story, lore, and the world keeps you interested. In an rpg because of it's setting you will have numerous different plot points, characters, history, and events that (hopefully) create context and immerse you in the world. DOOM is completely different in it's approach. There is a story in DOOM, and it's YOU the player that writes it with your actions. This is the true in every game, but in DOOM it takes center stage. The bad guys want to enact their evil plan, and only you can stop them. Everything they do is a reaction to you the only thing capable of putting the brakes on their master plan. Likewise if there are any good guys they to are always reacting to you because only you can stop the evil guys.

TL;DR DOOM has a story and it's you the player that writes it

I said the car represented gameplay, you said the video itself represented gameplay. For what I went over, nothing really changes if you switch them.

I'm not telling you what you meant, I'm telling you what you conveyed. I know what you meant by using those two examples for gameplay and story (you even said as much), but my point was that you weren't comparing like for like. It was an unfair analogy that was heavily balanced in one direction, hence the air of bias. It's like asking someone if they'd prefer to eat a three course meal featuring a steak cooked to perfection or a dead cow. I mean, hey, they both use the same meat.

In order to have the analogy slightly more balanced, yes. And instead of the paragraph of text, you'd have a video of a car on a race track. This is why the analogy is so off in the first place, since the video itself is supposed to represent the non-interactive aspects of a game (the story/context the player gets in the game), yet you're using it to represent gameplay. That's also why I say it's an unfair comparison.

It was suggested by your distillation of "story" into a block of text you click through, rather than as a visual environment the player isn't even necessarily aware they're parsing.

And that's the wrong way to do it. Yoshi's Island has a wonderful story, and I'm not talking about the cutscenes. The crayon style, the music, the personalities conveyed through animation, the wrapping of gameplay mechanics in natural and intuitive cartoon logic all convey a story that elevates the basic mechanics of moving, jumping, and throwing projectiles. David Cage tries to wrap his story in basic gameplay mechanics to elevate the story (if at all) when it should be the other way around.

Right. The action reflects that, but it's attached to text. Again, it'd be more akin to clicking play to watch a video (since that's still "interaction").

No, it's never more important since game mechanics are inherently necessary, but it's not less important, especially to the degree of the "porn story" analogy. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about plot, I'm talking about the story - the context for gameplay told by any extraneous elements that aren't strictly game mechanics - art, music, ambiance, scenario. Story is necessary to couple with gameplay for anything more involved than Tetris or Pong (which actually has the story/context of a ping pong or tennis match) in order to make gameplay enjoyable for more than five minutes.

Certain games do nothing to mask the mechanic of the QTE, the player is made aware of how little input they have, and the games are thus reduced to those mechanics. Other games (i.e. rhythm games) mask the exact same Simon Says mechanic successfully and are all the better for it. It's all about context.

You're talking about netori.

Actually I'd say it proved him right, especially since Monster Girl Quest is garbage

All of the above is essentially an explanation on why you take umbrage with my analogy. Alright, user. I get it, you don't like my analogy. That's fine, you don't have to like it, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I'm not going to continue to address this because it will just be a retread of everything I've said up until this point, and that would be futile. Suffice it to say that we should simply agree to disagree, though I would ask you to come up with a similar analogy if you think you can do better. I am interested in examining any analogy you come up with.
I didn't suggest a thing, you're making inferences and coming to conclusions based on your on assumptions.

I don't know, I'd call the everything you've mentioned about Yoshi's Island elements of the aesthetic that lend themselves to atmosphere, or setting a specific tone in the world. A sense of uniformity that communicates various overtones and layers of basic human emotion; the cute, childlike art style can at times compliment a darker backdrop, like what you'd find in the Ghost Houses, for example, without losing the initial childlike appeal. Enemies can look sinister and intimidating despite that they mostly conform to the cartoonish style. None of this is story. These things all aid the story, to be sure, but a story is a basic expression of events that occur from beginning to end with perhaps some deviation to some degree. The basic premise of Yoshi's Island is, "Baby Mario is separated from his parents, and it's up to the Yoshis to help him find his way home!" There's obviously more to it than that, and that's where story comes in. If you care about the literary elements of a game, then the premise is meant to hook you, make you interested, and the story is meant to keep your attention. The point is, you've described various elements of other mediums that aid story, and not story itself.

Why is it a problem that it's attached to text? For generations, the majority of widely published stories were conveyed through text alone.
If nothing else, its good that we can agree that David Cage doesn't know what the fuck he's doing. Two points, though; first, context is meant to supplement the information you've already gathered. Take the video clip included in this post as an example. In it, you clearly see this woman watching what sounds like porn with a look of deep interest. You can't see what she's doing below the neck, but you can clearly see that her body is moving. A few moments later you see her expression change, and she looks at the camera with a sense of shock, like perhaps she wasn't aware that she was being recorded. So what? You take this information and may come to the conclusion that she was caught masturbating on stream without realizing it and someone made a clip so they could remember it, savor it, and share. In the current webm thread, someone pointed out that this clip is doctored, and that the girl therein was simply shaking her knee up and down without realizing it and someone in the stream asked her what she was doing, which then prompted the change in her facial expression. Given this context, you may then come to the conclusion that the sounds of sex you head in the background were edited in.

You talk about non-gameplay elements as though they give some context to the gameplay itself. Why? You don't need to know why your character is doing what he's doing in order to pick up the controller and do it. Doom is proof of this, and there are plenty of other games that you could use as examples to bolster this argument. Yes, Doom has an art style and an aesthetic that provide atmosphere, but there is no additional context. You're Doom guy, you shoot monsters to stay alive. It could have been eldritch abominations, it could have been zombies, it could have been anything under the sun and the objective will still be the same. Secondly, I don't agree with you when you say that you need these things to make gameplay enjoyable for more than five minutes. These things are all icing on the cake that is gameplay. Sure, they matter, and they definitely enhance a gameplay experience, but they're secondary to gameplay itself.

Did you know he made a couple of rpgs right? Orcs and Elves is pretty nifty. Give it a try.

Well most cakes taste better with some frosting right? Nobody really likes it when the frosting overwhelms the shit out of the cake, but plain cake is just ok for some people.

I feel that story is the same for video games. Some nice story to get you connected with the events will make you enjoy the game more. people who eat frosting by the tubeful are degenerate

He is right, but there are exceptions.

If you consider visual novels a genre of games then they are the exception.

Personally I don't even think RPGs should be excepted from this, even though they are the one genre that has been successful with shitty gameplay and interesting stories. Ultimately RPGs should still be fun games apart from the story. Strategy RPGs have a firm grasp on this, as the games themselves can still be good games with shitty writing(FE fates is a good example of this)

The analogy works because shitty games can have good stories, and are still shitty games, but good games with bad stories are still good games.

Just like in porn movies you can have a great story, but who cares if the content is awful.

I only don't like your analogy because of it not comparing like for like, as mentioned. The only way to do it would be to compare gameplay/interaction vs. non-gameplay (a video you can pause and play vs. a video that plays on a loop without your input) or sensory information vs. expositional information (a picture vs. a description of what's in the picture). If you want to compare pure gameplay vs. pure story, the closest analogy I can think of would be to have a block of random letters you manually scroll through vs. a coherent block of text you have no control over. That's about as abstract I think I can make the two while keeping the comparison accurate.

I didn't say you suggested it, I said "it was" suggested; much more vague.

Yeah, right. The world you inhabit is part of the story. Is that inaccurate? If so, how?

You're right, but the "story" of a game is much more than the premise of its plot or a narrow storyline of events. The aesthetic, tone, and world shape couch that premise and explore it visually. When you say that those things aren't considered "story," that's where I get the idea that you think you can't tell a story through art, despite the fact that you're getting all sorts of exposition from it and then accurately describing it.

I think I kind of answered this with my suggested analogy, but again, it's a problem because both examples use the "click to interact" action, but lead to vastly different and ultimately unrelated outcomes, making the comparison lose much of its practical purpose.

In the spirit of honesty, I'll admit I did enjoy the first half of Fahrenheit (at least before I realized how little variation there actually was for player choice and consequence and everything devolved into an incoherent mess).

I mean, sure, context supplements; but it doesn't have to supplement something you already know. If you told me the sounds were edited in before I watched the video, then the context is the video itself. I'm not really sure I understand this point.

I talk about it like that because they do. You don't "need" to know, but they make playing games within the same genre infinitely more palatable. There's only so many variations you can stomach when the gameplay is exactly the same and there are no aesthetic differences. Sounds like sacrilege, but it's largely true.

That's all the context you need, and it's all unnecessary to the pure gameplay mechanic of "turn and click to make objects disappear." The player character doesn't need to exist, the guns don't need to exist, and the objects don't need to be any more detailed than squares to leave the gameplay completely unchanged. Sure, the experience is different, but the objective is still the same. In that state (absent any aesthetic context/fluff), I'd have a hard time playing for hours on end, but to be fair, there are some people that could. I just doubt that every person saying story is unnecessary would all be in that group of people that could.

By nature of the medium, gameplay has to be at the core. But I've been arguing that story isn't its retarded adopted cousin, twice removed that the people in this thread like to think it is. Rather, it's a symbiotic relationship where gameplay needs story (context) in order to work practically beyond a purely functional level, the level most of these people enjoy it at.

Why would you expect there to be story in a porn movie?

Orson never played sungoku rance it's not a movie but it is a masterpiece that is pornograpic

Good RPG is all about the worldbuilding. It's like seeing the world around you. Everyone's got their own story and mind their own businesses. Story means all the sequences must be interconnected. Not in RPG. The story is something you define by yourself, just like porn.

all porn is NTR porn because you're jacking off to someone else doing someone else

You self insert as a grill

Not made for you to self insert to

Alicesoft does a pretty good job of debunking the idea that story doesn't matter in games or porn.

Well, considering that how story driven games and devs focusing on story over gameplay are one of the leading causes that's killing the industry i'd have to agree.

If you had the choice between two videos, one that you had to click to watch, but that you could start and stop, and one that would automatically play itself, why would you ever choose the one you need to interact with? It's a matter of convenience. Maybe the video is long, so you'd want the ability to pause it so you can take breaks in between segments, or maybe you want to skim through it by seeking different times to find some specific point. I don't understand how this would draw an analogy between gameplay and story. As for the second example, I've been saying this whole time that I've done exactly what you described; I've given you the option between experiencing the car first hand (sensory information) or reading a tidbit about the car's history (expositional information). You say the comparison is unfair or biased in some way, but I'm just not seeing it. Finally, explain how reading through a block of random letters - [ghdrtnhdnjtrsghrsdhrhrsdhjdrt] for example - is meant to represent gameplay. I don't understand that at all. Even without fancy skins, a beautiful environment, an immersive soundtrack and other such world building elements, you can still gain context through the gameplay itself. If you control a dot on a screen, and you press a button which then prompts your dot to fire a smaller dot outside of its center, then you have been given information. You acted in some way, and something happened as a result of your actions. As you explore the possible barren environment, eventually you may come across another dot. You try to move into it, and your dot begins to violently shake as it makes contact. A bar in the bottom left hand corner of the screen was once full but has now lost a small percentage of its color or solidity. You've taken damage. This information will then tell you to avoid other dots in the immediate area. You might then explore other options, like using your smaller dot projectile to try and damage the dots that damage you. Suddenly there is a system in place, and you're given all the context you need to traverse this world, along with an up to date feedback system that is designed to let you know if you're failing or not.

Alright, fine, you can infer what you will, but I feel it's only fair that I defend myself by pointing out that I value how a story can enhance a gameplay experience and that I never meant to imply that story is unwanted.

The world you inhabit is indeed apart of the story, only to some degree. It's mostly for flavor or "lore". Obviously you know that the setting isn't as important to a story as the events that happen within the setting. In some cases the setting is pertinent to some plot point, but that type of information is usually conveyed through some literary technique like expositional dialogue. The things you were talking about - the art style, the music, how these things are used to convey character personality - are not story. It's important to make the distinction between a story and the literary elements that may support it.

Alright, take Guts from Berserk for example. Examine his character design. Just the facts about this character: He's muscular, he's clad in armor, he wields a gigantic sword, he looks somewhat young, and he's got observable scars on various parts of the body. Are these things story? No. They certainly allow for any type of inference - he's muscular and wields a large sword, he must be overconfident or incredibly strong given his size, and clearly he's seen battle before, given the scars on his body - but inference is based on incomplete information. The more complex something can be, the harder it's going to be to infer accurate assumptions unless we're talking about very specific things that are being looked at by an expert in those things (i.e. he's got scars but that doesn't necessarily mean he's been in battle, maybe there's some other explanation that your limited experience isn't allowing you to consider), or the inference itself is so obvious that you'd have to be daft to miss it. So, the point is, you can tell "a story" of sorts through visual means, but this isn't the same thing as hitting a series of plot beats and coming to a series of scenarios that have stakes, a climax, and resolutions.

I must have missed this. I can sort of see what you're saying. You click the video and you gain a totally different experience than you would if you read through the description. That was sort of the point. I was trying to illustrate that using a interactivity as a means to funnel the audience into a story, for the sake of a story, may end up being much less rewarding for those involved than when you do it the other way around because not everyone may care about the story itself.

I've never played a David Cage game and I don't intend on it any time soon. I've seen footage of Heavy Rain and Beyond Two Souls and both games look like they play like garbage. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they would at the very least be worth a single playthough, but I doubt it.

All I can say is that this hatred of story driven games, and the industry trends that push them to the forefront of distribution, is a set of symptoms that are indicative of some larger problem. Lack of interesting gameplay mechanics?
Fair enough, user. I'm not like you. I can play anything for its own sake, or at least I think I could. This isn't to say that I don't value story, art style, aesthetics, music, and various other elements that go into building an interesting and lively world, it's just I don't think I need them.

I wish 8/v/ would go back to being good again.

The game itself better be good because from what I'm seeing the porn looks like shit

here's your reply

It depends. You can make good games with a not innovative gameplay but great story and viceversa. But the two components must be coherent with themselves.

I like how DRPGs like Etrian Odyssey go about the story. I love that feeling of discovery with the lens of my party.

Holy shit, I always thought he was overrated and only interested in the tech aspect of games but if he keeps going like this I'll be building a secret Carmack love lair soon.

Yes, gameplay ALWAYS comes first.

Considering that the story in a typical porno is better than the action. Does this mean that porno writers are better story tellers than game writers?

Gettin a good fap comes first but it's a real pleasure when you finish reading just to see how the story concludes.

Who has this kind of autism?

Retards will destroy their own arguments.