Endings in video games: Do you really care?

[jesse_custer]

I don't care about video games endings in general. The criticism seems a bit tired to me, mainly because I don't play games for stories or resolutions: I play to have fun.

For me, only a game that pushes you to read the story, like Zelda or an RPG or Hotel Dusk or whatever, requires a good ending.

And speaking of video game stories, they don't concern me, either (unless, of course, it's Hotel Dusk, etc.).

[Mike Pothier]

I just want something other then "The End, Congratulations!" It depends on the game, of course. If its a game where there is a pretty strong story, I want SOME resolution.

I do agree that story is very overrated in games. I lost interest in Final Fantasy after the cutscenes lasted longer then the gameplay.

[Deep_Sleeper]

Some games...yes.

I really wanted to see the endings of both God of War and God of War II.

Same with MGS3 and when I end up playing it, I wanna see how MGS4 ends.

[ocelotrevs]

I do, it's like a big pay off at the end. What you've been working for.

[StoneGold]

Gotta add my vote to the "it's not an either/or" column. For the most part, it doesn't matter too much, unless it contradicts the entire game, or is too obviously a lead-in to the next game. And generally, it's not enough to break the game, but it will knock it down a few points, just because there's nothing worse than "You didn't really beat this, you need to pay another $60 first." I'm looking in Halo 2/God of War 2's direction.



Again, it doesn't really break the game, but it does make it a somewhat less than completely satisfying situation.

MGS2 being the obvious exception to that rule. That ending did kind of break the game. But you're talking about a game there that's as much interactive movie as game, so it's kind of a different thing.

[Serik]

Yes and no.

Most of my gaming time these days is with stuff like Civilization IV and Rome Total War, so there's not much in the way of an ending. Yay, I reached Alpha Centauri for the billionth time :D

Portal's ending is still my favorite of any game, but I don't play many story-driven ones.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

I LIKE story in games, so a bad ending to a story I otherwise enjoyed definately annoys me.

[Alex]

Depends on the game.
If it's heavy on story, yes, the ending is important.
I don't think i thought a game had a good ending until Super Metroid, so i'm sort of used to seeing crap at the end. If the ride up to it is good, i don't get too upset.

[2-4-5_Trioxin]

Yes the ending matters, alot.

If your actually going to put a story element no matter how small people will be interested in that story and the ending is the very last thing you see, if you leave a bad taste in people mouths or half ass it really bad then people will beat the game and last thing they have on their mind is a shitty ending, your supposed to end something to make people glad they went through all the trouble whether it be sitting in a theater for 2 hours, reading a comic for 19 minutes or playing a game for 20 hours.

And if they expect me to pay 60 bucks for something it better have a good ending or else I will just be very turned off at the idea of buying a sequel or anything else from that company.

Very, very, very few games are actually worth paying for and playing over and over again just for the game itself. Almost all the ones whether youll admit it or not you play multiple times you like to play over and over again is because it has interesting characters, cool storyline, or something along those lines. In my 30 years + of gaming at the most Id say I found maybe 8 games that worth multiple playthroughs strictly for the gameplay and nothing else at all.

Only rules to the exception I will make are games back in the atari or colleco days, back then all games had were gameplay and thats it.

Today there is very little excuse to not have a ending that is a well done ending or atleast a complete one and like something that ends in 9 seconds and tells you absolutely nothing at all (yeah Im looking at you fear 2) or a ending that is obviously just a blatant lead in for a sequel. I mean look at portal, the entire game had no real story at all to it but when you beat it it has a great ending to a game that had no real story at all. Hell a decent ending might have even made me like the real thoughtless, boring, cliche and cookie cutter type games like halo or gears of war a little better than just rolling my eyes and putting it back in the box never to be played again.

[Agent Helix]

I'm always amazed when people talk about games and use phrases like "going to the trouble of beating it" and "putting all that work into it".

Last I checked, games were something you played for the fun of it.

[Donald M.]

As others have said, it depends. RPGs, adventure games and any game where the story is a big production, with long cut scenes and major voice actors, you feel a bit let down by a disappointing ending. It doesn't make the time you put into the game feel like a waste unless your playing solely to see how it ends, which is stupid, but if a game has an otherwise good (by game standards) story, you want to see it end well.

Most games, it doesn't matter.

[jdwrocks]

I'm always amazed when people talk about games and use phrases like "going to the trouble of beating it" and "putting all that work into it".

Last I checked, games were something you played for the fun of it.
I agree with your trouble remark. But sometimes "putting all that work" can be fun too. At least in the gamer-pride stand-point.

But as far as endings, RPG's should have a satisfactory ending. Even if you don't agree with it, at least give us one. The "Lord of the Ring" RPG for the PS2 had a zero ending. Basically Game over you won. Real dissapointing after a fun & somewhat challenging RPG.

[$5 Milkshake]

Gotta add my vote to the "it's not an either/or" column. For the most part, it doesn't matter too much, unless it contradicts the entire game, or is too obviously a lead-in to the next game. And generally, it's not enough to break the game, but it will knock it down a few points, just because there's nothing worse than "You didn't really beat this, you need to pay another $60 first." I'm looking in Halo 2/God of War 2's direction.



Again, it doesn't really break the game, but it does make it a somewhat less than completely satisfying situation.

MGS2 being the obvious exception to that rule. That ending did kind of break the game. But you're talking about a game there that's as much interactive movie as game, so it's kind of a different thing.

As per usual, I pretty much agree with StoneGold.

I dont need great cinematics after I've beaten the game. However, the end sequence in the gameplay itself better be awesome, or else the game just feels like sex with no orgasm.

[maidonian]

I have to say that I'm not particuarly bothered about endings for games. Sometimes it can be a bit of a disappointment but to be honest, most the games I play are WW2 games and I know how that ended :D

[Jack]

I'm always amazed when people talk about games and use phrases like "going to the trouble of beating it" and "putting all that work into it".

Last I checked, games were something you played for the fun of it.
Well, I love games, but I'm really bad at finishing them. Bear in mind I am mentally ill, so strange behaviour is very much up my street. I just get up to the end of a game and then.. stop. Actually finishing the game is a big effort for me, because usually I've left it behind for months or years.

[jesse_custer]

I wouldn't say not finishing a game is unusual behavior.

It took me more than a decade to muster up the nerve to beat the original Castlevania.

I would consider myself more sane if I had let that particular beast rest.

[Xero Kaiser]

Yeah, story and endings matter. I played Kingdom Under Fire: Circle of Doom and had no idea what the **** was happening. Absolutely nothing was explained and you were, literally, just dropped into the middle of a field at random. That's just stupid.

A story doesn't have to change my outlook on life but it needs to be as entertaining as the rest of the game. For $60 I not looking for half-assed writing and cutscenes.

[Venom Melendez]

Story is an important part in making a game so a good ending is important too.

[Black Atom]

Don't care too much about story, to be honest. I rarely remember the details of the story by the time I clear the game. I dig endings in general though. In the old days, it was kinda the reward for being good enough to clear a game. But in those days, you were lucky to get any opening animation by waiting at the "start" screen. So the little bonus of a movie or something at the end was a big deal.

My favorite endings were the ones to the old Sonic games, that had medleys of the themes from each stage. That was cool.

[ZachSensei]

Endings are essential (unless it is an Arcade Game) but they don't have to be over the top fantastic.

A video game from begining to end is an artistic vision and therefore the ending should go with the flow of the game. If you are playing Super Mario it is totally acceptable to have the ending be Mario getting a kiss. If you are playing an RPG that has a long story with many twists, turns, and symbolism the ending better be a good conclusion to the story.

Overall the ending better fit in the game like a puzzle piece fits into a greater picture.

You guys just gave me an idea for a future blog post. THANKS!

[JCAll]

I'm always amazed when people talk about games and use phrases like "going to the trouble of beating it" and "putting all that work into it".

Last I checked, games were something you played for the fun of it.

That's because all some games have is the story, and you plow through the horrible game element just because you have to see what's going to happen next. Like the Megal Gear series or anything designed by Suda 51.

To me, story is the most important part of a game. Otherwise you're just pressing buttons and watching 1s and 0s click into place. You have to have characters, you have to have a reason whay you're doing what you're doing. So unless the only point is to beat the high score, there had better be a story, or there's no real feeling like you need to keep playing.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

That's because all some games have is the story, and you plow through the horrible game element just because you have to see what's going to happen next. Like the Megal Gear series or anything designed by Suda 51.



What? The Metal Gear games have GREAT gameplay. MGS4 is one of my favorite stealth games ever.

[Alan2099]

It's the icing on the cake to me. Sure you can have a good cak without icing, like you can have a good game with a bad ending, but a good ending realy enchances the whole thing and makes it special, and it can ruin a game that's just medicore. You go though the game and you're just left feeling, "okay. Is that it? Shouldn't I get some kind of reward for all this?" A sense of satifaction is fine and dandy, but the game actually giving you something in return, your reward for beating it, that just helps make the hole thing even better.

[jdwrocks]

Thinking about it more, I am more concerned about an ending when it is a RPG or any other story driven adventure type game. My gaming interests are either RPG or sports games. In playing sports like MPV baseball or All Star B-Ball I could care less once I win the world series they show me an extended celebration or the like. But when I complete a long RPG adventure with cut scenes, I expect a satisfactory ending to what I've played through.

[JCAll]

What? The Metal Gear games have GREAT gameplay. MGS4 is one of my favorite stealth games ever.

If you say so. I've had bad experiences with the controls of MGS games. I like stealth as much as anyone, but any time I've ever been spotted in the series I've gotten myself dead. Granted I haven't played the 4th yet, but mixing it up isn't exactly MGS's trademark. It's trademark is it's insane story.

[worstblogever]

I wouldn't say not finishing a game is unusual behavior.

It took me more than a decade to muster up the nerve to beat the original Castlevania.

I would consider myself more sane if I had let that particular beast rest.

It took me eighteen damned years (not consecutively, I put it down more than a few times) to even get past that motherf***ing Grim Reaper. And FINALLY, got past him and then all the way through the game while visiting my brother on Thanksgiving of '08, when he asked me to take another crack at the game that we never beat as kids.

Totally worth it.

[jesse_custer]

To me, story is the most important part of a game.

I don't know about everyone else's opinion, but the gameplay is the most important part of any game--the way it controls and how much fun I'm having.

A game could have a great story, but if the game doesn't work or isn't any fun to play, I'm not fooling with it. The reason I play games is very different from the reason I read a book.

It took me eighteen damned years (not consecutively, I put it down more than a few times) to even get past that motherf***ing Grim Reaper. And FINALLY, got past him and then all the way through the game while visiting my brother on Thanksgiving of '08, when he asked me to take another crack at the game that we never beat as kids.

Totally worth it.

The Grim Reaper is by far the hardest boss in the game. That's what kept me at a standstill for a decade.

[Agent Helix]

Most of the games I have the most fun playing don't even HAVE stories. Burnout Paradise, Team Fortress 2, Street Fighter IV (NO I REFUSE TO CALL THAT A STORY), these games don't have "endings". Same with World of Warcraft, though that actually has a pretty good story. I play games for the fun of playing them, not for some cinema at the end.

[ZachSensei]

Story only matters when a video game needs it. In an RPG story matters. IN street fighter who cares about the story. That doesn't make street fighter less of a game. Not every game has everything. The only thing that really matters in gameplay. A game could have the best story ever if the gameplay sucks no one would bother with it.

[Lester C.]

I’m an RPG guy. For me story is everything. RPG games tend to have a much lower presentation value, due to budgetary reasons, than most games but I happily pay full price anyway because of the story. So when I get emotionally invested into forty or more hours of an RPG’s story and the ending is left ambiguous to set up a sequel, which almost never happens, I get annoyed. I used to get angry, but it happens so much that I’ve come to expect it and am pleasantly surprised when a game like Grandia 3 gives me a satisfying ending that closes the story properly.

[Shatterpoint]

The story of a video game is pretty important to me. Granted, there are a few games where I don't care about story (or don't have a story at all) like Rock Band or Tetris but I still consider story to be a strong factor in how good a game is. That being said, yes, I care about a video game's ending.

[angilina]

I do not start to play a game just to end it, but if the game has an interesting story, then yes, I then begin to care a lot about the ending.

For example:

Prince of persia: sand of time [PC] Won best story of year award at gamespot

When I started to paly this gamem I had no idea that the story will be that great. I prsonally have never played a game with such a great story. The game play was fun but at one stage, the story was more important to me than the gameplay.

[4thHorseman]

I think it would be required for RPGs and that's really my only concern with endings. Something more story driven should definately have an ending to wrap up that story in a memorable way.

Though, I hate the endings that last like a half hour. You beat a game, they show an ending, and halfway through you realize you need to be somewhere and you have to turn the game off without seeing the entire thing. *la sigh*

[psychic_therapy]

I don't think the game ending needs to be grand or spectacular, but rewarding... however you define that. I think the game leading up to the endpoint is more valuable.

[TitoJones]

Don't get me wrong I love mindless violence like everyone else, it;'s just that I need to see a purpose to the mindless violence even if it's half-assed. That's why I think I like RPG's the best. It's not cause of the gameplay, but because there's a reason why I'm doing this.

And after I've spent all that time and energy, I want to be rewarded with at least a decent ending (I'm looking at you Assassin's Creed).

[jesse_custer]

When I'm having fun, I'm not thinking about all that time and energy.

I mean, is playing a video game like going to work for you guys? I'm just trying to understand what y'all are talking about. (Note: I understand the case of RPGs, with a few exceptions like Fallout that rely on atmosphere and humor over plot and characterization, and the case of adventures like Hotel Dusk.)

For example, I'm playing Castlevania: Symphony of the Night right now. The character dialogue and voices are laughable, and I'm sure the final ending is going to suck, but I don't care because that's not why the game was made and it's not why I'm playing. I am using time and energy, but the game is so fun and engaging that I'm not focusing on the work and a reward. Playing the game itself is rewarding. If I ever play a game that doesn't have rewarding gameplay, I turn it off.

[Agent Helix]

Yeah, seriously. I mean I'm not saying that the ending to a story shouldn't be satisfying, but if I'm playing a game, I'm playing it because I enjoy it. I can think of a few games that I've played with stories that I might have enjoyed, but I just can't be bothered to reach the conclusion because the game itself bores me. And I can think of other games where the story was laughable and the ending was crap, but the game was great.

[jesse_custer]

Indeed. The best ending in the world can't save clunky gameplay.

[Agent Helix]

I will say that in story based action games, what disappoints me a lot more than a lame ending would be a lame final boss. You can give me a blank screen that says "I DIDDLED YOUR MOM" after I win if the final boss is a great fight.

[Wjowski]

Like everyone else said it pretty much depends. For something like a fighting game or anything else where the focus is on the action the ending's not that important. But for RPGS and such where the story's at least as important as the gameplay the ending can be a fairly important part.

[Kevinroc]

Like everyone else said it pretty much depends. For something like a fighting game or anything else where the focus is on the action the ending's not that important. But for RPGS and such where the story's at least as important as the gameplay the ending can be a fairly important part.

Exactly. We expect a Final Fantasy or a Tales game to have fantastic endings given the amount of time and the depth of the story. For something like Street Fighter, we aren't exactly expecting anything of that caliber.

[Mike Pothier]

I will say that in story based action games, what disappoints me a lot more than a lame ending would be a lame final boss. You can give me a blank screen that says "I DIDDLED YOUR MOM" after I win if the final boss is a great fight.

You know, thats exactly how I expect the Penny Arcade game to end its final episode.

[Darth Joker]

I like video game endings to be definitive and more or less happy. They don't need to be anything incredibly epic (with the possible exception of story-heavy RPGs), but they should at least give you a sense of "Great job, dude! You just beat the game!" and also that the protagonist benefited from your efforts. I personally think that a video game calls for a happy ending moreso than fiction in general, because with a video game, you personally are taking actions - playing the game - in an effort to help the protagonist (basically). So, I'm more invested in getting a happy ending with a video game than I am with something that I'm just watching unfold in front of me.

There was one particular game that I played once (I forget the name of it), and when you beat the game, it just gave you a generic "Game Over" screen (identical to the one you got for dieing in the game), and then reset it back to the start screen. That pissed me off, I must admit.

Still, for most video games, a short straightforward definitive ending is fine for me.

With story-heavy RPGs - some of which could arguably be called "interactive animes" - I expect a good rewarding cutscene ending; for these games, the ending is just as important as it is for an anime series.

[carabas]

Well, it kinda depends on the game. A Silent Hill with an unambigueously happy ending just seems wrong to me.
Or at least it should be very, very hard to get without looking up on the net how to unlock it.

[HectorP]

A fighting game only needs the final boss suffering a flashy death, then the player character having at least a funny/creative image to go with the credits. Or they can go all RPG with it as I hear the Soul Calibur games have been going.

[Len Ikari145]

Pretty much everyone else has said. I expect an RPG to have a satisfying ending considering the energy I put into it. I expect the journey, as fun as it is, to have a good destination; otherwise I'll feel cheated and annoyed. There are fighting games, like DBZ Budokai/Tenkaichi, where I just prefer mindless fun and destruction but for the most part, I like to have a little motivation when I play the game.

Tekken, Soul Calibur and Guilty Gear, while I don't particularly anticipate an epic storyline, I won't settle for a half-assed one either. In fact, these are the most "story-oriented" fighting games of this generation. The game mechanics of these games haven't altered or truly innovativewith each release, so they'd have to have more going for them then the same repetitive gameplay to maintain my interest, which they thankfully do.

[1WEBHEAD]

Games like God of War have perfect endings. They're conclusive and fill the gamer with a grand sense of accomplishment and satisfaction.

Gears 2 had a great ending for a sequel pinned in the middle of a trilogy. Even though the gamer knows the war isn't over, they sure kicked a whole lot of ass.

[JCAll]

I can understand people sayng a game is fun no matter what the story is, but I can't understand not wanting a good ending regardless. I've never seen a case where a good ending hurt a game.

Let's take for example Alter Echo, an obscure action platformer from the last generation, which I'm going to spoil for you. It's okay, because it you haven't played it by now you never will.

The story was rather minimal. You play the hero, who teams up with a sentient planet to take down planet's evil overlord, who's using the planets powers irresponsibly. Along the way you rescue your friends, who all die in front of you, strengthening your resolve so you can take down said overlord. And you leave back into space saddened but triumphant.

The twist comes during the ending when it's revealed that your buddy the planet is actually insane and has teleported your friends away one by one just before their deaths, and he's holding them deep within himself preparing to do horrible things to them, presumably out of revenge for what the aforementioned overlord did to it or possibly just for giggles.

That was frickin' awesome. Alter Echo didn't even need a story at all to be fun, but the ending intrigued me, which always set it apart in my mind over other similar games.

[Aziz Abbasi]

A story in a game directs one how to play; so I actually have a very big interest in the ending. This doesn't mean I don't play for fun, a fun game with a bad ending loses a lot of goodness because of the ending

I despise about the NES games & some NGB games the non-existence of a good ending; especially when they're long like NGB Superman. For older consoles there is no problem with it whatsoever

[Kyle_Ion]

I play games for there stories they have to tell, to me a story for the game is the most important part of the game followed by the controls. The way I am is "If a game doesn't have a story don't bother me" I like games like Command & Conquer and the Red Alert games, Legend of zelda, Mortal Kombat (they have a story to tell) and the tales games.

[jesse_custer]

but I can't understand not wanting a good ending regardless. I've never seen a case where a good ending hurt a game.

Who are you talking to?

[JCAll]

Who are you talking to?

No one specifically, it's jsut that some people are saying that an ending adds nothing to a game, unless it's story heavy from the beginning. I wanted to give an example to the contrary.

Plus, I like bringing up obscure games see if anyone besides me has played them.

[Mike Pothier]

Its not that a good ending is bad, its that for some games, it doesn't matter if the ending is good or not. If you have no vested interest in the characters, why would you care how the game ends?

[Black Atom]

I play games for there stories they have to tell, to me a story for the game is the most important part of the game followed by the controls. The way I am is "If a game doesn't have a story don't bother me" I like games like Command & Conquer and the Red Alert games, Legend of zelda, Mortal Kombat (they have a story to tell) and the tales games.

Playing video games for the story is like going to the movies for the food.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Playing video games for the story is like going to the movies for the food.

That's a terrible analogy. Story is a large part of video games these days. Part of the design itself. A more correct analogy would be "playing video games for the snacks you eat while playing is like going to the movies for the food."

Some video game genres, like RPGs, have the story as one of the main draws in the first place. So I don't know how you can say this. It's perfectly rational to be playing video games for the story, as many are designed and promoted as interactive stories.

That being said, expecting a good story out of every game is silly, not every genre is meant to be plot-driven.

[Mike Pothier]

Storylines in games are the single most overrated part. Its good to have a nice story and all, but not at the sacrifice of the interent gameplay and structure. I've never had a game with great gameplay put me to sleep. Can't say the same with a game that only had its story going for it.

[BloodyBandage]

If you ever played Twisted Metal you will realize a great ending with a great game makes it a classic. Those endings were well done and I still appreciate them (don't remember details) today. A great game with a bad ending is a let down imo.

[GozertheGozarian]

Storylines in games are the single most overrated part. Its good to have a nice story and all, but not at the sacrifice of the interent gameplay and structure. I've never had a game with great gameplay put me to sleep. Can't say the same with a game that only had its story going for it.
Flashy graphics are the most overrated.

[jesse_custer]

That's a terrible analogy. Story is a large part of video games these days. Part of the design itself.

Food is a big part of going to see a movie in the theater. Part of the experience itself.

[sun tzu]

To me, story can make or break a game. Sure, it's possible to make a game without much story...But a good story is a huge plus for me. In particular, I like knowing that I've "made a difference" in the game world.

[Mike Pothier]

Flashy graphics are the most overrated.

Its neck and neck, but based on comments I hear all the time online, I'd put story above graphics in the overrated category. A lot of people recognize that you need more than flashy graphics to make a good game, but I've heard so many people act like story is the only thing truly important in a game, even if everything else gets sacrificed.

I'm not reading books here, I'm playing a game. A well crafted story can elevate a game, just as good graphics and music can as well. Really, everything in a game must be crafted right, but gameplay will always be the most important part.

[jesse_custer]

Yeah, story is more overrated and less important than graphics, unless we are talking about RPGs or games like Hotel Dusk.

I like games with personality, such as Dynamite Headdy or Metal Slug. And what you do in those games ARE the story. That's more powerful than the embarrassing narratives in Gears of War, Devil May Cry, etc. that fans continually demand.

[Agent Helix]

To all the people that constantly say GRAPHICS AREN'T IMPORTANT!!!, how many games do YOU play that you consider to be ugly?

[jesse_custer]

Or how many video games do you play that HAVE NO VIDEO?

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Food is a big part of going to see a movie in the theater. Part of the experience itself.

Food is not part of the design of a movie. Story is part of the design of a game. Food is completely voluntary of the viewer.

Some games are designed with the story as one of the main draws. No movies are designed with theatre food as one of the main draws.

[jesse_custer]

You can't separate a movie in a theater from the theatrical experience, which includes food. You might disagree with Black Atom's philosophy, but the comparison is apt.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

No, it's not. You can not voluntarily remove a story from the game. You can voluntarily not buy food at a theatre. You can also voluntarily not watch it in a theatre, and watch somewhere else. Food and the theatre are only parts of the experience if the viewer chooses to let them be parts.

Story is part of the design and food/theatre is not. That is a simple fact.

The developers contribution to the experience is not the same as the viewer's contribution, or the theatre's contribution. Because the former is the only of the three that is inherently part of the movie itself. A movie can be watched without food, or without the theatre experience entirely, and still be the same movie. A video game that has a story is not the same game if you take the story away. Thus, it's a bad analogy.

[jesse_custer]

Again, the comparison assumes that both (a) the game has a story (even though not all games have stories) and (b) the person in the theater is eating food (even though not everyone eats food in the theater).

[Astonishing X-Fan]

It's still a bad comparison. No one sees a specific movie BECAUSE they want to eat theatre food. The food is not the draw. If it was, a person could easily walk into the theatre, buy the food, and leave. But with some games, people play them BECAUSE of the story. The story can be the draw, or one of the draws. So saying "playing a game for the story is like going to a movie for the food" is a bad comparison...because some games are DESIGNED to be played for the story, while NO movies are designed to be watched for the food.

[GozertheGozarian]

To all the people that constantly say GRAPHICS AREN'T IMPORTANT!!!, how many games do YOU play that you consider to be ugly?
The TSR/SSI gold box series of RPGs, Might and Magic 1 and 2, Colonization, and Civilization 2 are all still on my hard drive and get played.

[jesse_custer]

From my perspective, it is puzzling that someone would play an video game for the story (with the exception of RPGs and stuff like Hotel Dusk), just as it is puzzling that someone would watch a movie in the theater to eat food. You can keep saying the comparison isn't right, but it makes sense to me.

We obviously have differences. There's nothing wrong with playing a video game for the story. But it puzzles me. Perhaps you think it is puzzling that I don't care about video game stories.

And yes, game developers put stories in games as part of the overall design. In terms of customer satisfaction, it makes sense because many people want these stories. However, in terms of overall game quality, the stories strike me as a waste of time.

I admit that occasionally a non-RPG or non-adventure game will have a decent story. Like the original Ninja Gaiden. But it's just not worth it most of the time.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Graphics are important. Video games are a visual medium. It's like saying the art doesn't matter in a comic book. Can a game without good graphics be enjoyed? Sure. But a game with good gameplay AND good graphics is better than one with only one of the two.

Most popular old games DID have good graphics for their times. Graphical upgrades have been a part of gaming since it existed. It's not unrealistic or wrong to expect newer games to look better than older games.

[jesse_custer]

Of course, "better graphics" doesn't mean "more technical" just like "better music" doesn't mean "more notes and scales." (Not saying anyone has said that in this thread.)

Castle Crashers is a perfect example of a game with much better graphics than its predecessors (Battletoads, Double Dragon, Final Fight, Streets of Rage, etc.) while remaining visually simple.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

From my perspective, it is puzzling that someone would play an video game for the story (with the exception of RPGs and stuff like Hotel Dusk), just as it is puzzling that someone would watch a movie in the theater to eat food. You can keep saying the comparison isn't right, but it makes sense to me.

In this very paragraph, you basically admit it's a bad comparison. If an RPG is designed to be played for the story, and people play it for the story, then the comparison with theatre food falls apart.

Bottom line is, I'm not talking about personal preference, I'm talking about developer intent. It doesn't matter if YOU don't enjoy game stories, what makes it a bad comparison is that many games are MADE with stories and are meant to draw interest.

[jesse_custer]

Not all games have stories, just as you don't always have to eat food at a theater.

However, if you're talking about developer intent, we're talking about different things. No harm done, though.

[Darth Joker]

Flashy graphics are the most overrated.

Graphics are important, to an extent. I basically put them into three categories...

1) Pre Final Fantasy VII/VIII era

2) Post Final Fantasy VII/VIII to the best PS2 game graphics-wise (there's some quality variation here, but not a whole lot, imo).

3) Top modern graphics surpassing top PS2 game graphics-wise.


I don't have a significant preference between categories 2 and 3 - once you reach the graphics of category 2, I'm quite comfortable and satisfied with that level of graphics. Anything beyond that is fine, but I honestly don't care that much.

However, I have to admit... going to the level of graphics in older Final Fantasy games, and games with similar graphics, is hard for me. It does take away from the enjoyment of playing the game a bit for me, I must admit.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Advances in graphics also can increase the level of immersion, which can in turn improve the gameplay.

For example, advances in lighting effects have done nothing but good for the stealth and horror genres.

[Black Atom]

That's a terrible analogy. Story is a large part of video games these days. Part of the design itself. A more correct analogy would be "playing video games for the snacks you eat while playing is like going to the movies for the food."

Some video game genres, like RPGs, have the story as one of the main draws in the first place. So I don't know how you can say this. It's perfectly rational to be playing video games for the story, as many are designed and promoted as interactive stories.

That being said, expecting a good story out of every game is silly, not every genre is meant to be plot-driven.

Nah, I'm sticking with my analogy. While it's true that games today are better vehicles for story-telling than they were years ago, they still don't compare to books or movies as story-telling devices because the primary concern is still developing some kind of enjoyable mechanic for the user to interact with, i.e. a game. Any video game survives if you take its story away.

To further clarify the point, yes, a good story can enhance a video game, but from the standpoint of someone who really enjoys a good story, expecting that from a video game is like a food critic expecting a whole lot from the nachos at the local AMC.

[Black Atom]

In this very paragraph, you basically admit it's a bad comparison. If an RPG is designed to be played for the story, and people play it for the story, then the comparison with theatre food falls apart.

Bottom line is, I'm not talking about personal preference, I'm talking about developer intent. It doesn't matter if YOU don't enjoy game stories, what makes it a bad comparison is that many games are MADE with stories and are meant to draw interest.

The developer intends to create a video game. If they were primarily concerned with telling a story, they'd write books or create cartoons or use any of the other media out there for that purpose. The story, like the music, graphics and controls, only serve to enhance the game itself, much like the food at a movie theater. The point is, if you're into stories, you go by a $5 novel, sit on the couch and read. You don't buy a $50 game that plays out over 70 hours, where progression of the story is dependent on your skill-level.

[Agent Helix]

The TSR/SSI gold box series of RPGs, Might and Magic 1 and 2, Colonization, and Civilization 2 are all still on my hard drive and get played.

Those were pretty flashy when they were released.

[JCAll]

It's still a bad comparison. No one sees a specific movie BECAUSE they want to eat theatre food. The food is not the draw. If it was, a person could easily walk into the theatre, buy the food, and leave. But with some games, people play them BECAUSE of the story. The story can be the draw, or one of the draws. So saying "playing a game for the story is like going to a movie for the food" is a bad comparison...because some games are DESIGNED to be played for the story, while NO movies are designed to be watched for the food.

I thinks it's a rather good comparison. I enjoy having popcorn when I go to the theater. I enjoy it a lot. It's part of the experience. I also enjoy stories in games, because it too is part of the experience. Not having either is jarring to the whole experience.

The thing most people don't realize is that virtually no game released since Pong has NO story. Even the most stripped down, arcadey, gameplay heavy games, like say Street Fighter or R-Type, have rather interesting stories running through the series. Yes, sometimes the only ending you get is a "You Win!" and a picture of the characters heading home triumphant, but sometimes that's enough. The ending still matters.

[IamtheRock3]

I kind of like having REAL endings in fighting games

namely multiple one

Make you feel like you accomplish something for each guy
and give you a reason to beat it with each guy

namely if they allow you to replay the endings
feel nice seeing all the endings I gathered

[Astonishing X-Fan]

The developer intends to create a video game. If they were primarily concerned with telling a story, they'd write books or create cartoons or use any of the other media out there for that purpose. The story, like the music, graphics and controls, only serve to enhance the game itself, much like the food at a movie theater. The point is, if you're into stories, you go by a $5 novel, sit on the couch and read. You don't buy a $50 game that plays out over 70 hours, where progression of the story is dependent on your skill-level.

People who are into video game stories buy them because they enjoy playing an interactive story. That is not something you get in a book/movie/etc. No book or movie can give me the same experience as say, the microwave chamber in MGS4, where I'm not just watching the drama unfold, I'm part of it. No book or movie allows me to take on the antagonist myself.

Your view is quite short-sighted. It's not just about the story. Actually playing through and being a part of that story in some way is a draw to some gamers.

The simple fact is some games are interactive stories as much as they are games. They are intended, designed and promoted as this.

[GozertheGozarian]

I thinks it's a rather good comparison. I enjoy having popcorn when I go to the theater. I enjoy it a lot. It's part of the experience. I also enjoy stories in games, because it too is part of the experience. Not having either is jarring to the whole experience.

The thing most people don't realize is that virtually no game released since Pong has NO story. Even the most stripped down, arcadey, gameplay heavy games, like say Street Fighter or R-Type, have rather interesting stories running through the series. Yes, sometimes the only ending you get is a "You Win!" and a picture of the characters heading home triumphant, but sometimes that's enough. The ending still matters.
Replace popcorn with alcahol, and it works for me.

[Mike Pothier]

People who are into video game stories buy them because they enjoy playing an interactive story. That is not something you get in a book/movie/etc. No book or movie can give me the same experience as say, the microwave chamber in MGS4, where I'm not just watching the drama unfold, I'm part of it. No book or movie allows me to take on the antagonist myself.

Your view is quite short-sighted. It's not just about the story. Actually playing through and being a part of that story in some way is a draw to some gamers.

The simple fact is some games are interactive stories as much as they are games. They are intended, designed and promoted as this.

And a lot of them also fail in the gameplay department, and end up forgettable. Would MGS be as good if the actual interaction felt like it was still from the PSX days?

Let me put it this way. Xenogears had an awesome story, and I really wish I could have sat down and read a book version. The game put me to sleep no less then three times.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

And a lot of them also fail in the gameplay department, and end up forgettable. Would MGS be as good if the actual interaction felt like it was still from the PSX days?

Let me put it this way. Xenogears had an awesome story, and I really wish I could have sat down and read a book version. The game put me to sleep no less then three times.

And some people loved the gameplay in Xenogears.

Story is a heavy aspect of some games and genres, and video games offer a different type of story experience than a book or movie. being interested in plot-driven video games is a perfectly valid choice.

Just because someone might want a good story in the games they play doesn't mean they don't want good gameplay too. The whole appeal of a game story over a book or movie story is that you are able to interact with it via the gameplay. So of course, if the two compliment each other, it enhances the whole experience.

There's nothing wrong with playing video games for the story. When plot-driven games are done well, they offer something a book or movie just can't.

[GozertheGozarian]

I play RPG and strategy almost exclusively. A good story is the absolute most important thing to keep me interested. For example, I can't resist playing Fallout 1 and 2. Sure the NPC combat AI is shit, and the graphics were average even at release, but the story is amazing. Every town is a subplot in a great immersing storyline.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

And neither of those games would be the same as a book or a movie, because so much of what happens in the plot and dialogue is dependant not only on the choices you make, but your character attributes and skills.

[GozertheGozarian]

I'm agreeing with you.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

I know. Just figured I'd point that out to people who don't.

One of my favorite recent plot-driven games is The Witcher. It's a shame how little attention it's gotten...it's really well-written, and unlike a lot of games, the choices are very hard ones to make and have long-reaching consequences that can come back to bite you on the ass at any time.

[jesse_custer]

For the record, the combat in the first two Fallout games was amazing.

Yes, sometimes the only ending you get is a "You Win!" and a picture of the characters heading home triumphant, but sometimes that's enough. The ending still matters.

That definition of "story" is very, very liberal.

There are plenty of games after Pong with no story. Dialogue and still frames and messages from the developers--that's not necessarily enough for a story. If you want to call these things stories, they are extremely crappy stories.

The simple fact is some games are interactive stories as much as they are games. They are intended, designed and promoted as this.

I wish game developers would spend less time worrying about story (in the majority of cases) and more time worrying about gameplay and making the game fun.

[Serik]

I think we should make a distinction between story and plot. Team Fortress 2 has a loose story: two teams of corporate mercenaries battling it out in some 1950s reality. But there's no central plot to follow. TF2 is designed like a sports game more than anything.

Likewise, Civilization has a story: you lead an empire through a loose conception of human history. Your actions determine the outcome of this story (one of the many reasons I love the series), but there's not a "gotta save the world" plot or hours of cutscenes or any other device to advance a preconstructed plot.

As far as my gaming preferences go: a narrative ending in a videogame is about as meaningful as a narrative ending in chess: it doesn't matter. But at this point, I only play games that are best described as sport-like, (TF2, Counter-Strike), boardgame-like (Civilization, Total War), or toy-like (SimCity). I stopped purchasing plot-driven games once I realized I'd never play more than an hour of them. Still haven't installed Bioshock, which I snagged for $5 from Steam. One of these days.

[GozertheGozarian]

For the record, the combat in the first two Fallout games was amazing.

You can't deny the AI was moronic. Ian made no attempt not to shoot you in the back of the head.

[jesse_custer]

I didn't have much trouble with Ian after I adjusted his settings.

The AI can be unpredictable and stupid, but I think the developers were going for that for laughs. I certainly laughed.

[GozertheGozarian]

1 doesn't have adjustable combat settings for NPCs. That was added in 2 to address the Ian problem.

[jesse_custer]

I still don't remember having much trouble out of Ian.

[Black Atom]

People who are into video game stories buy them because they enjoy playing an interactive story.That is not something you get in a book/movie/etc. No book or movie can give me the same experience as say, the microwave chamber in MGS4, where I'm not just watching the drama unfold, I'm part of it. No book or movie allows me to take on the antagonist myself.

Your view is quite short-sighted. It's not just about the story. Actually playing through and being a part of that story in some way is a draw to some gamers.

The simple fact is some games are interactive stories as much as they are games. They are intended, designed and promoted as this.

I'm not sure where we're disagreeing. An interactive story is a game. It's the ability to interact--and thereby the mechanic for interaction--that's most important to the end user who has elected to play a game rather than read a book or watch TV.

The main point of my analogy is that you can't really say you're into video games for the stories. I mean, you could, I guess--but there's more and better stories elsewhere. What you're really there for is the ability to interact with the story--which is playing a game.

[jesse_custer]

Black Atom is really getting to the point. As I said earlier, I enjoy games like Dynamite Headdy because it's as if I am creating the story as I go along. Of course, I am not thinking in such tortured terms as I'm playing the game--I'm having a ball! If Dynamite Headdy had included overlong cinemas and lame dialogue, I wouldn't enjoy it as much.

Another thing that would reduce my problem with video game stories is actual good writing. Most video game developers don't know how to write.

Lastly, an incredible final boss is better than an incredible ending almost every time.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

I'm not sure where we're disagreeing. An interactive story is a game. It's the ability to interact--and thereby the mechanic for interaction--that's most important to the end user who has elected to play a game rather than read a book or watch TV.

The main point of my analogy is that you can't really say you're into video games for the stories. I mean, you could, I guess--but there's more and better stories elsewhere. What you're really there for is the ability to interact with the story--which is playing a game.

Except in many cases, I would not be playing the game if the story was not a part of it. Therefore, I am playing the game for the story. The Witcher has good gameplay, but if the story was stripped from it, then when I play the game I would no longer be experiencing the interactive story, which would make the game far less interesting to me.

The "better stories elsewhere" thing just misses the point. Like I said before, no book allows me to defeat the antagonist myself. That kind of feeling isn't just because of the gameplay, it's because of the storytelling medium that video games can be. Video game stories are attractive because the experience is different than the experience other types of stories deliver. Yes, this is because of the relationship between gameplay and story, but in these cases I'm still playing for the story, because the story is enhanced by the gameplay.

The way you seem to see it, is that the gameplay is enhanced by the story. But certain games are really the other way around. There are games with stories, and stories with games. The latter type of video game is appealing to some people, including me. You only seem to be capable of viewing a game's story as something that's an add-on to the gameplay. This is true for a lot of games, but not for all of them. Sometimes, it's the other way around.

The pure fact is that with some games, the driving force behind it, the meat of the game, is the story. You can't say the same thing about movies and theatre food.

[jesse_custer]

The pure fact is that with some games, the driving force behind it, the meat of the game, is the story. You can't say the same thing about movies

WTF.

Seriously.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

WTF.

Seriously.

If you disagree, prove me wrong.

Ever hear of Planescape?

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Wait a second...you might want to read that last line of mine again...the one you quoted. But this time, don't cut out the last three words. Cause cutting them out changes the meaning of the sentence completely.

[jesse_custer]

If you disagree, prove me wrong.

Ever hear of Planescape?

Yes, I have.

What I'm pointing out is that you said the driving force behind movies are not stories. Which is absolutely absurd. If what you said was true, we would only see CGI things being flashy in theaters.

Wait a second...you might want to read that last line of mine again...the one you quoted. But this time, don't cut out the last three words. Cause cutting them out changes the meaning of the sentence completely.

No, I agree that you can't say the same for theater food. I was quoting what I disagreed with.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

No no no...you are misquoting me.

Remember this whole conversation began by comparing the relationship between story and games to the relationship between theatre food and movies.

Now read the quote again and keep that in mind.

I'm saying that theatre food is never the driving force behind movies.

[jesse_custer]

Well, the way you structured the sentence didn't effectively communicate that. My bad.

[jesse_custer]

I wanted to make a quick comment about one quote:

The "better stories elsewhere" thing just misses the point. Like I said before, no book allows me to defeat the antagonist myself.

But that's still not a good story. It might be a good experience, but it's not a good story, unless you share your experience in an entertaining way. And that's not a video game.

I'll admit games like Planescape have good stories, but defeating a boss in Planescape is not part of its good story. That's gameplay (or storyplaying, if you will).

Storyplaying and storytelling are completely different and should be treated as such. My complaints have been directed toward storytelling in gaming, not storyplaying.

Lastly, even in games like Planescape, the story doesn't drive the game. The playing drives the game. If you don't play the game, the story isn't told.

[Donald M.]

I agree with jesse, "better stories elsewhere" isn't missing the point because there are better stories elsewhere.

Games are unique in the ways they can tell a story, ways that other can't replicate, but it is far from being a storytelling medium.

RPGs are usually held up as being the pinnacle of storytelling in gaming, but some of the best RPGs out there, if their stories were presented on their own instead of as part of a game, would read like mediocre z-grade fantasy.

In gaming, story is part of the experience, but it is not and likely will never be the whole experience.

That said, I would never criticize someone for playing a game for the story. To each his own. But for me, I want a good story I read a book or pop in a movie. I play games for other reasons, though naturally I do notice and appreciate when the story that goes along with the experience is a good one.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

I didn't say that made a good story. I said it's things like that that make the storytelling experience different from reading a book. People saying "just go read a book" are missing the point...the appeal of video game storytelling lies in the fact that the story experience is completely different.

And just becasue it's done differently, and involves gameplay, does not mean it isn't a form of storytelling. Saying that games can't be a storytelling medium is just flat-out wrong.

The story in a movie isn't the whole experience either. That doesn't mean it isn't storytelling.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Bottom line is, there's a difference in saying "I don't play games for the story" and "it's wrong to play games for the story". The latter statement is wrong...there are plenty of games designed specifically for people who are looking for an interactive story. That is a cold, hard fact. Saying "I don't think those stories are good" doesn't change that fact.

[Black Atom]

Except in many cases, I would not be playing the game if the story was not a part of it. Therefore, I am playing the game for the story. The Witcher has good gameplay, but if the story was stripped from it, then when I play the game I would no longer be experiencing the interactive story, which would make the game far less interesting to me.

The "better stories elsewhere" thing just misses the point.

No, no. That was the point.

Like I said before, no book allows me to defeat the antagonist myself. That kind of feeling isn't just because of the gameplay, it's because of the storytelling medium that video games can be. Video game stories are attractive because the experience is different than the experience other types of stories deliver. Yes, this is because of the relationship between gameplay and story, but in these cases I'm still playing for the story, because the story is enhanced by the gameplay.

The way you seem to see it, is that the gameplay is enhanced by the story. But certain games are really the other way around. There are games with stories, and stories with games. The latter type of video game is appealing to some people, including me. You only seem to be capable of viewing a game's story as something that's an add-on to the gameplay. This is true for a lot of games, but not for all of them. Sometimes, it's the other way around.

It's not really that my view is limited so much that I see it as splitting hairs. It's either a game or it isn't. Whether it's more game than story or vice-versa is irrelevant (and I can't think of any game off-hand where you could credibly make the argument anyway). They're all games.


The pure fact is that with some games, the driving force behind it, the meat of the game, is the story. You can't say the same thing about movies and theatre food.

You're getting a bit hung up on the comparison and not the point I was making. It was basically a glib way of challenging the idea of playing games strictly for the stories. In effect saying that, really, if stories are what you're looking for there are probably better places to go. What that poster meant, of course, is exactly what you're saying--that he plays for the unique experience of getting to interact with the story.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

And if you're playing for the experience of interacting with the story, then you are playing for the story. Because if the story was not there, you would not be interacting with it, and you would not play it.

[Donald M.]

I didn't say that made a good story.

Welll, as long as you admit that much, I'm happy.

[Agent Helix]

RPGs are usually held up as being the pinnacle of storytelling in gaming, but some of the best RPGs out there, if their stories were presented on their own instead of as part of a game, would read like mediocre z-grade fantasy.


This.

Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiis.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.

[Crowforge]

I play RPG's of course I care.

[StreetFighterRyu]

I don't care about video games endings in general. The criticism seems a bit tired to me, mainly because I don't play games for stories or resolutions: I play to have fun.

For me, only a game that pushes you to read the story, like Zelda or an RPG or Hotel Dusk or whatever, requires a good ending.

And speaking of video game stories, they don't concern me, either (unless, of course, it's Hotel Dusk, etc.).

Hotel Dusk was a great game. The story was good too. I don't care much for story either but I really did like Gears of War and Rainbow Six Vegas. They have good storylines and made me wish from time to time they will make mini series out of them.

[Spidey-kid1]

I LIKE story in games, so a bad ending to a story I otherwise enjoyed definately annoys me.

Me too.

I was freakin pissed when RE5 ended with Chris and Sheva flying off into the sunset together. All that for another sunset send off?

...

RE4 did that part better though. The whole, escape from self-destructing island part added a bit more so I enjoyed it. RE5 just didn't feel complete to me like RE4 did.

[jesse_custer]

I didn't say that made a good story. I said it's things like that that make the storytelling experience different from reading a book. People saying "just go read a book" are missing the point...the appeal of video game storytelling lies in the fact that the story experience is completely different.

That is correct, if you throw out "storytelling."

And just becasue it's done differently, and involves gameplay, does not mean it isn't a form of storytelling. Saying that games can't be a storytelling medium is just flat-out wrong.

Any time it involves gameplay, it isn't storytelling. In order for something to be storytelling, we must be able to simply listen/watch/etc. Gameplay requires interaction. It's storyplaying, not storytelling. It's ridiculous to call it storytelling when it requires skill to get the story.

I also never said games can't use storytelling. But at best, games mix storytelling and storyplaying. Because of this, storytelling never drives a game. Storyplaying does.

Saying "I don't think those stories are good" doesn't change that fact.

Calling gameplay "storytelling" is the only problem I have with your argument. Storytelling explicitly means more passive activity from the consumer.

[Michael P]

Because of this, storytelling never drives a game. Storyplaying does.

I would say that sometimes storytelling *does* drive a game. However, in these cases, what you get is a crappy game.

[Black Atom]

And if you're playing for the experience of interacting with the story, then you are playing for the story. Because if the story was not there, you would not be interacting with it, and you would not play it.

This is getting into semantics, but you are choosing a game based on the story. It's not like you're looking for stories and happen to pick out one that happens to be a game.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

This is getting into semantics, but you are choosing a game based on the story. It's not like you're looking for stories and happen to pick out one that happens to be a game.

Well yeah. And why did I choose to play that game? Because of the story. So I'm playing the game for the story.

I'm not looking for just any story, I'm looking for a story in a video game. In the end, though, the game I choose is chosen becase of the story. So yes, I'm looking for a story. A story that is conveyed to me through a specific medium.

Plenty of people specifically look to movies to enjoy a story and deliberately pass over reading a book. There's nothing wrong with thinking "I enjoy stories told to me through this particular medium, therefore I am going to look at this medium when I look for a story". It's not like when I watch a movie, I'm looking for a story and just happen to pick one that happens to be a movie.

[carabas]

This is getting into semantics, but you are choosing a game based on the story. It's not like you're looking for stories and happen to pick out one that happens to be a game.
When you go to the movies, are you just looking for stories in whatever medium, and happen to finally settle one that's a movie, or do you simply want to see a movie?

[Black Atom]

Well yeah. And why did I choose to play that game? Because of the story. So I'm playing the game for the story.

I'm not looking for just any story, I'm looking for a story in a video game. In the end, though, the game I choose is chosen becase of the story. So yes, I'm looking for a story. A story that is conveyed to me through a specific medium.

Plenty of people specifically look to movies to enjoy a story and deliberately pass over reading a book. There's nothing wrong with thinking "I enjoy stories told to me through this particular medium, therefore I am going to look at this medium when I look for a story". It's not like when I watch a movie, I'm looking for a story and just happen to pick one that happens to be a movie.

At this point we're just bickering about the proper way to get the concept across.. Choosing games based on their stories is clearly not the same as what I interpreted playing video games for the stories to be. I'm not indicating that either is "wrong". I really suspect that no one does the latter thing, which was the point.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Honestly, I don't see any real difference between the two. If you choose to play a game based on it's story, then how are you not playing the game for the story? Both statements mean the same thing: The reason you are playing that particular game is because you are interested in it's story.

EDIT: But I suppose you're right. This is pretty much just going in circles now. I'll drop it.

Back on topic: God I hope The Wticher has a good ending, cause the story and the world have got me hooked. Can't wait to see what the choices I've made lead to. It's refreshing to play a game that has a better moral system than "drown the orphaned kitten or send it to college".

[carabas]

Choosing games based on their stories is clearly not the same as what I interpreted playing video games for the stories to be.
When I replay Silent Hill 2 for the umpteenth time, I'm really not doing it for the 'awesome' gameplay.

[StreetFighterRyu]

I'll admit games like Planescape have good stories, but defeating a boss in Planescape is not part of its good story. That's gameplay (or storyplaying, if you will).

Storyplaying and storytelling are completely different and should be treated as such. My complaints have been directed toward storytelling in gaming, not storyplaying.

Lastly, even in games like Planescape, the story doesn't drive the game. The playing drives the game. If you don't play the game, the story isn't told.

You're playing a video game. So of course you would be "storyplaying". If you want storytelling, then go read a book or watch a movie. The way you're arguing about all this is as if you want all games to be like the MGS series or something. Not all games have to have 90 minutes of cutscenes. Otherwise, they might as well be movies.

[jesse_custer]

No, I am not saying all video games should be like Metal Gear Solid.

I'm saying most video games should stop trying to be like Metal Gear Solid to various extents.

[Agent Helix]

I would like NO games to be like Metal Gear Solid.

[GozertheGozarian]

I would like NO games to be like Metal Gear Solid.
Beaten to it.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

The MGS games have great gameplay though, especially 3 and 4. It's possible to hate the story and still have a good game there.

Me, personally, I LOVE the story. It's just the right brand of cheesy melodrama to get me hooked and entertain me.

[jesse_custer]

I'll admit that Metal Gear Solid 3's attention to detail--camouflage, hunting, eating, no magical radar, dressing wounds, etc.--sucked me in for several hours, but I eventually stopped playing it because the "Wow, this is so stealthy and real" effect wore off, and I'll probably never play it again.

Whereas I would play ANYONE in Super Tecmo Bowl right now. Hell, I would play against the computer for a season.

[Agent Helix]

The MGS games have great gameplay though, especially 3 and 4. It's possible to hate the story and still have a good game there.

Me, personally, I LOVE the story. It's just the right brand of cheesy melodrama to get me hooked and entertain me.

I've always found them clunky and dull, and full of completely artificial challenge.

The story, less said about that pile of nonsense the better. And considering how much it actually intrudes upon what gameplay there is, no, it really isn't possible to hate the story and still have a good game there. Metal Gear WON'T LET YOU.

[jesse_custer]

The first Metal Gear Solid fascinated me. I liked the way it switched up the gameplay, and the story elements, while over-the-top, gave the game a widescreen feel.

But I really dislike how this affected video games. Too many games try to be like bad television movies.

The Metal Gear Solid series, meanwhile, journeyed farther and farther into Kojima's butt.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

I will contend that MGS4 is one of the best stealth games ever.

The story seems to be hate it or love it. Across the series, I was hooked on it. I was emotionally connected to the characters, and desperately wanted to see where things went. Was it super-cheesy? Was it extremely melodramatic? Sure. But that was part of the series' charm for me.

[Agent Helix]

I liked the first Syphon Filter more than I liked Metal Gear Solid as far as stealth action games go. Too bad that series completely wet the bed after that.

But the best stealth game is and always will be Thief.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

Thief 4 was announced. Looking forward to that.

...Are you actually in a wrestling school?

[Agent Helix]

No, it's a joke from a thread a few years ago that I swore never to change.

[jesse_custer]

I liked the first Syphon Filter more than I liked Metal Gear Solid as far as stealth action games go. Too bad that series completely wet the bed after that.

Syphon Filter was fun, but the control was bollocks at times.

If the stealth genre went completely under now, I wouldn't lose any sleep.