Are story, plot and character necessary to make a good video game?

[Nazulu]

Sorry to havewasted your time, I should have been more clear but I'm only talking a definite story and character. Not death to every inch of narrative, just what the OP was talking about.

Even the dialogue in the intro could be replaced with just action scenes while keeping the same music. Don't need the small Metroid to befriend you, doesn't add much to the game, as well every small part that adds to the definite story.

The OP was talking about narrative, I spent some small amount of time explaining what exactly constitutes the narrative of a game. Do not apologize for wasting anyone's time but your own.

I don't think he was talking about what you were talking about though and neither was I.

I don't find it prevailing at all, all my friends went nuts for this game and it was one of the most discussed games in the 2000s. Tournaments are still going around the world as well and the pros have gotten much better.

Unless you are proposing that the majority of gamers on earth still take part in Smash Bros. Melee tournaments then your point is untenable. The game, whatever strengths it once had, is now mostly forgotten for its successor.

Your whole argument is untenable, I'm getting sick of you talking to me like that. Tell me, when the fuck did games enjoyed by a majority just suddenly become great? Look at the movie and music scene and tell me the majority knows whats best.

The game was released in 2001 and was extremely popular at it's release like many mainstream games, and even now with it's crappy successor which I would hardly call a successor since it wasn't as successful as they thought it would be, Melee is still played world wide. The game had great game play, allowing you to do just about anything, that's what I meant by depth. Brawl on the other hand was simplified to appeal to a wider audience, it's arguably a different game altogether they watered it down so much.

 

[Heathrow]

I don't think he was talking about what you were talking about though and neither was I.

Apparently you have nothing to say at all. If you had no interest in what I was talking about then why did you solicit my thoughts in the first place? Regardless, narrative elements do not stop being narrative elements simply because someone does not know that's what they are.

Your whole argument is untenable, I'm getting sick of you talking to me like that. Tell me, when the fuck did games enjoyed by a majority just suddenly become great? Look at the movie and music scene and tell me the majority knows whats best.

The game was released in 2001 and was extremely popular at it's release like many mainstream games, and even now with it's crappy successor which I would hardly call a successor since it wasn't as successful as they thought it would be, Melee is still played world wide. The game had great game play, allowing you to do just about anything, that's what I meant by depth. Brawl on the other hand was simplified to appeal to a wider audience, it's arguably a different game altogether they watered it down so much.

I am not unsympathetic to your opinions on pop culture. However, just because some popular things are terrible it does not necessarily follow that anything which is unpopular is great.

You assert lofty things about SSBM without building sturdy foundations. I only claim it was average and more memorable in its own time.

 

[Spitfire]

Of course not. Some games put a lot of emphasis on the narrative, others are all about the gameplay. Good gameplay is a necessity; good narrative is a commodity, and a rarity. But games are no less an artistic medium than film is. You probably wouldn't complain about an action movie for having an engaging plot, rather than just being dudes shooting each other for an hour and a half. Games can get away with the latter, but they can also be much more than that, and viewing them strictly as puzzle solving exercises is greatly limiting.

You mentioned Yahtzee's focus on narrative in games, but he never seriously criticized a game's story or characters if the game wasn't story-driven. In fact, most of his favorite titles seem to be games that are not particularly strong in that aspect, but are simply fun to play, like Painkiller, or Saint's Row 2.

 

[Reishadowen]

I've watched a few videos on The Escapist by Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, and he seems especially focused on what a game's story is, and the disposition of the characters. A video game-loving friend of mine feels the same way, and argues that games are artistic and emotionally edifying because of their stories and characters.

I've always felt that video games are more of a purely technical, problem-solving exercise, with stories thrown in for the sake of some bonus amusement; "Narratives" serve as distractions to the pure gameplay, and "characters" only have the personality of whoever is controlling them.

I thought I'd weigh in on an online forum inhabited by video game lovers of all ages and stripes: How valuable is a story to a video game? Are they integral or extraneous? Regardless of how much you may like a story or a character in a game, are they the one thing that makes the game worthwhile?

Are you kidding? That's like asking if the ice cream in a sundae is important.

Sure you could have some fun without them, but only if they aren't required to play the game, like Asteroids, or Tetris. However, if you want your game to be anything more than a short time-spending toy, you'll be needing those things...

 

[Nazulu]

I don't think he was talking about what you were talking about though and neither was I.

Apparently you have nothing to say at all. If you had no interest in what I was talking about then why did you solicit my thoughts in the first place? Regardless, narrative elements do not stop being narrative elements simply because someone does not know that's what they are.

That's why I said sorry cause you brought up something completely different. So can we drop it now?

Your whole argument is untenable, I'm getting sick of you talking to me like that. Tell me, when the fuck did games enjoyed by a majority just suddenly become great? Look at the movie and music scene and tell me the majority knows whats best.

The game was released in 2001 and was extremely popular at it's release like many mainstream games, and even now with it's crappy successor which I would hardly call a successor since it wasn't as successful as they thought it would be, Melee is still played world wide. The game had great game play, allowing you to do just about anything, that's what I meant by depth. Brawl on the other hand was simplified to appeal to a wider audience, it's arguably a different game altogether they watered it down so much.

I am not unsympathetic to your opinions on pop culture. However, just because some popular things are terrible it does not necessarily follow that anything which is unpopular is great.

You assert lofty things about SSBM without building sturdy foundations. I only claim it was average and more memorable in its own time.

I reckon it's pretty sturdy. Melee literally let you move in any direction and allowed a lot more free use of the battle field and weapons. Especially with so many types of challenges to test your skills, it has a lot of re-playability. I reckon future generations could easily get into it as well, and I bet the tournaments will be around for a long time.

Also, I never said unpopular things are great even though Melee was very popular so I don't know why you brought that up. Your the one that was saying that because it wasn't popular it wasn't anything special, basing it of the lack of tournaments and calling my point untenable.

Can we just agree to disagree? This is going nowhere.

 

[Heathrow]

That's why I said sorry cause you brought up something completely different. So can we drop it now?

Not different, a closer examination. It is rather impolite to open an avenue of discussion and then, without critically thinking, dismiss it as irrelevant when it is explored.

I reckon it's pretty sturdy. Melee literally let you move in any direction and allowed a lot more free use of the battle field and weapons. Especially with so many types of challenges to test your skills, it has a lot of re-playability. I reckon future generations could easily get into it as well, and I bet the tournaments will be around for a long time.

Also, I never said unpopular things are great even though Melee was very popular so I don't know why you brought that up. Your the one that was saying that because it wasn't popular it wasn't anything special, basing it of the lack of tournaments and calling my point untenable.

Can we just agree to disagree? This is going nowhere.

Melee was a reiteration of vanilla, likewise Brawl is another iteration on the same theme. The next game will be self-similar even as it inevitably changes. This inexorable march will continue as long as Nintendo deems it profitable, but the key question you must ask is what will distinguish Melee when your grandchildren are enjoying the intricately well realized gameplay of Super Smash Bros. XXI Scuffle?

You can end the discussion whenever you like, I don't imagine I am holding you in any way.

 

[Jonsbax]

I've watched a few videos on The Escapist by Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, and he seems especially focused on what a game's story is, and the disposition of the characters. A video game-loving friend of mine feels the same way, and argues that games are artistic and emotionally edifying because of their stories and characters.

I've always felt that video games are more of a purely technical, problem-solving exercise, with stories thrown in for the sake of some bonus amusement; "Narratives" serve as distractions to the pure gameplay, and "characters" only have the personality of whoever is controlling them.

I thought I'd weigh in on an online forum inhabited by video game lovers of all ages and stripes: How valuable is a story to a video game? Are they integral or extraneous? Regardless of how much you may like a story or a character in a game, are they the one thing that makes the game worthwhile?

Many gamers seem to go towards extremes these days...

Different games can have different strong points, why does it always have to be one over the other? I play many games just for the gameplay, where the possible good story and characters feel more like a bonus, but then there are games where the gameplay does it's best to make me insane but I still keep returning to them for the story, setting, characters and such, like Silent Hill 4, for example.

You brought Yahtzee up, and even he likes both games that have good story/characters/atmosphere etc. but shit gameplay (Silent Hill 2), and games that have no other value than the fun gameplay itself (Painkiller, Just Cause 2, Dead Rising 2, the list goes on). He probably just complaints a lot about the stories in gaming because they mostly suck, and thus should be complained about.

 

[legendp]

I've watched a few videos on The Escapist by Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, and he seems especially focused on what a game's story is, and the disposition of the characters. A video game-loving friend of mine feels the same way, and argues that games are artistic and emotionally edifying because of their stories and characters.

I've always felt that video games are more of a purely technical, problem-solving exercise, with stories thrown in for the sake of some bonus amusement; "Narratives" serve as distractions to the pure gameplay, and "characters" only have the personality of whoever is controlling them.

I thought I'd weigh in on an online forum inhabited by video game lovers of all ages and stripes: How valuable is a story to a video game? Are they integral or extraneous? Regardless of how much you may like a story or a character in a game, are they the one thing that makes the game worthwhile?

I would much rather have a good story than the same old multiplayer seen in every other game .left 4 dead has some great game mechanics but without a story and if you play it alone it feels really pointless after 20 minutes. just have a look at the mass effect series which is essentially nothing but story. I find multiplayer get's boring after 30 min but a co-op game with a strong story can last for many hours. the story does not have to be amazing. but is it really that hard to put at least 15minutes of good story in a game. borderlands is a excellent example, reasonably good gameplay but terrible story so I found that it felt as pointless as playing 3 hours of cod (whoop ti do da, I can go to prestige for a new emblem so awsome, that is sarcasm BTW). Bioshock is a good example of story, but a game has to also have atmosphere for a good story (crysis on low will feel like a mediocre experience but on high it will feel like an epic sci fi adventure with some awesome gameplay). In order for a game to be truly great I believe it must have gameplay, story and look good (or at least good enough). don't say graphics don't count because if you have to choose between doom and doom 3 then I know wich one I would pick (doom 3). Admittedly however I could never turn down a round of nazi zombies with a friend but playing nazi zombies alone is really boring. and my internet connection is too slow most the time to play online so I usually only have single player (BTW I live in Australia and it has slow internet everywhere almost)

 

[Addicted Muffin]

its all about what you like OP, i for one, enjoy a good story... but hate multiplayer, so when picking a new game, i usually go for good story reviews and single player games...

i do enjoy multiplayer every now and then, but nothing beats a good story

 

[TornadoFive]

For me, a GOOD game needs a good story, setting etc. But a fun game is all about the gameplay. I'd rather play a fun game with a crap or non-existant story, than a game with an epic story, interesting plot and strong characters but wasn't much fun to play.

 

[supermariner]

necessary? no, look at Minecraft, it's THE perfect example in modern gaming that none of those things are required

BUT they are an absolute must-have for any other genre an FPS with no deailed story, characters or plot would be terrible

 

[Nazulu]

That's why I said sorry cause you brought up something completely different. So can we drop it now?

Not different, a closer examination. It is rather impolite to open an avenue of discussion and then, without critically thinking, dismiss it as irrelevant when it is explored.

We weren't talking about that so quit it already, fuck. I said sorry, get over it. We were talking about a definite story, not nit picking every element that could be considered a narrative. You want to go down that path, fine. I'm not doing this anymore.

Melee was a reiteration of vanilla, likewise Brawl is another iteration on the same theme. The next game will be self-similar even as it inevitably changes. This inexorable march will continue as long as Nintendo deems it profitable, but the key question you must ask is what will distinguish Melee when your grandchildren are enjoying the intricately well realized gameplay of Super Smash Bros. XXI Scuffle?

If they go down the same route as Brawl then fuck yeah! I have no doubt what so ever. Just because a game uses the same theme, doesn't mean it's the same game. If the Smash Brothers franchise keeps goin' then Melee will always be around and I'll still be playing it.

You can end the discussion whenever you like, I don't imagine I am holding you in any way.

You make it difficult but if you make me repeat myself then I quit.

 

[Smertnik]

If the gameplay is good enough, no, not really. Great example: Painkiller. Such a fun game, yet story and character wise it's absolutely horrible.
In the end the gameplay is what makes a game a game.

It's nice to have both things, though.

 

[blacon]

Minecraft is the best modern example of how a game can be amazing without a story.

 

[Kingsnake661]

Tetris, bejewled, minecraft, few different racing games, flight sims, civilation sims, THE sims, my trusty stand by here at work, Freecell, minesweeper, ect.


So no, a game doesn't need a story line, or naritive, or in some cases, even a playable avataer to be really fun and engaging.

Though, i do enjoy the ones that have a good story and likable charaters. They are the type of games i tend to play the most...

And there are a FEW games i just enjoy playing dispite the fact i'm not a huge fan of the story OR charaters in it. The force unleashed springs to mind. I enjoy the combat, i love playing with the force powers, not so much a fan of Starkiller or the whole story behind it...

 

[Addicted Muffin]

i personally believe al three can be summed up in a few words...

A good and orginial one


too bad originality is so 1980s in the gaming world

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Melee was a reiteration of vanilla, likewise Brawl is another iteration on the same theme. The next game will be self-similar even as it inevitably changes. This inexorable march will continue as long as Nintendo deems it profitable, but the key question you must ask is what will distinguish Melee when your grandchildren are enjoying the intricately well realized gameplay of Super Smash Bros. XXI Scuffle?

Considering how enthusiastic Nintendo has shown themselves to be in screwing over competetive aspects of the Smash series in Brawl, it remains unlikely that there will ever be a smash Bros more well realized and intricate than melee unless some big changes occur in Nintendo.

Melee developed into a pretty interesting competetive game, I don't know why you're so eager to underrepresent its importance.

 

[leedwashere]

If a game is story based then it definitely needs to have a well defined set of characters and a good plot to make it engaging... but not all good games need to be story based games. Two of the games I got a heck of a lot of play time out of had no story whatsoever and no characters to speak of. The obvious one is MLB The Show, which is in a genre that would be ruined if it had a scripted story. The other is Star Trek Conquest. That game was far more awesome than it probably had any right to be, and the funny thing is that, because it had no story whatsoever, just campaign modes, it had the best story of any Star Trek game I've ever played XD

 

[Stavros Dimou]

Depending where the game focuses.
Some games like Super Smash Bros or Mortal Kombat doesn't need a story at all.
In these cases story is just an un-needed reason you won't ever think about after 1 or 2 minutes reading the manual.

There are 2 kind of games for me:

1)The games that are only about fun,and focuse on having an addictive gameplay with a variety of modes.

2)Games that are movie wannabes and their developers hire hollywood writers and musicians and other people,that have really good cutscenes and the likes,but are short,lacking modes and variety,and their gameplay is boring,and the main force that is driving gamers to play them is their story.

I like both kind of games.
They offer different expiriences but I like both of them at the right time.