For all the TL/DR whiners out there, here's the jist of it: if you don't like to read, get off the internet. There are plenty of articles out there with 2,3, even 4 pages worth of text and I don't see you TL/DR'ing those.
Lilani said:
And besides, haven't you ever rewatched a movie? Or reread a book?
This was the point that I was going to bring up. The OP makes it sound as though either of the above quoted actions would just be absolutely pointless since you know how the story is going to end, but that's simply not true. If you enjoy a story, movie, or game, you'll likely want to re-experience it numerous times. Hell, to this day I'm still pulling out Portal 2 every now and then for a playthrough. The story never changes (and incidentally neither does the, so that kinda screws up the whole game-web chart
) but I still thoroughly enjoy the characters and the dialogue and the events that occur.
BoogityBoogityMan said:
Most modern video games are very similar to pro wrestling. The story is all written out for you, it is just a matter of you loading it up and acting it out. Press X now. Run from this point to this point now. The games bombard you with compliments in the form of achievements and other meta-rewards for following a linear list of instructions that look a lot like the linear list of instructions pro wrestling actors study and rehearse before a match. Prowrestling has no tension, no suspense; it is pure spectacle and the 'players' are just actors. A real game, like football, can create immense tension, and the outcome is never known before hand. It takes an entirely different set of skills and mental abilities to play a game, then it does to act in a scripted match.
I'm afraid I must point out that this comparison doesn't work, at least not in the way you're wanting it to to support your position, because you're not comparing them on equal terms. The "you" as a player of videogames does not equate to the "you" as a professional wrestler. The Pro Wrestler already knows how the match is going to end, he knows the story. The game player doesn't know how the game is going in, he or she does not know the story. As such, the gamer is actually more equateable to an audience member at a pro wrestling even...the audience member doesn't know what's going to happen, and that's why they go. the WWE has come out and fully admitted that it's all fake, they're all trained professionals, yadda-yadda-yadda, and yet people still keep going. WHy? Because they want to get entertained. They want to see their favorite star powerbomb the biggest jackass wrestler through three tables that have been lit on fire and covered with thumbtacks. Why? Because the jackass is an arrogant prick of a wrestler who everyone hates but he's too good to be ignored, so they cheer for The Rock to go lay the smack down on his candy ass. If there was no story, the wrestlers would have no characters. If the wrestlers had no characters, no one would really care about a bunch of oiled up guys in their underwear fake-slapping each other.
The point? Games /need/ stories. You can only play Asteroids so many times before you utterly get bored with it. Now put an enjoyable story behind that game and you'd find people playing it again just to experience the story again. To borrow a line from Idiocracy: "There was a time in this country when smart people were considered cool.......well, maybe no cool But they did things! They wrote books and movies! Movies that had a point, so you cared whose ass it was, and why it was farting, and I believe that day can come again!"
As for the linearity of a story, I'm afraid that argument falls flat as well. As an English major with a minor in Writing, let me assure you that there are plenty of ways to interpret a story, this would be the same as the game's web-like path. Give multiple people the same story to read and they'll come back with entirely different views on what the story was about. Some might take a look at a story and say "It was the author's commentary on the political strife that was tearing his country apart at the time." to which someone else would argue "No, it was the author's way of speaking out against rapid industrialization and the effects that technology has on our lives." to which a third would argue "Look you crackheads, it's a frickin' book about a frickin' guy and his frickin' dog going hunting." All of them have valid evidence to be found in the story to support their claims, but which one is right? None of them, most likely, but the point is that stories are open to interpretation, all you have to do is reread a story or rewatch a movie with an open mind and you'll find new interpretations to augment your previous ones.
And finally, I must point out that your argument is flawed from the very beginning because your speaking in absolutism. The only absolute in life is that there are no absolutes in life. You're OP is a generalized statement that covers all games and stories. What about games that are heavily based upon their story? That is, experiencing the story is the very point/goal/achievement of the game? I'm speaking of RPGs...that entire genre breaks your argument as they simply cannot exist without their stories.
For that matter, if you want to get really technical about things, for the most part most videogames can't even be considered "games" by your definition, at least not modern ones:
quote="BoogityBoogityMan" post="9.345764.13828822"]So what is a game? A system of rules, that create challenges and competition which the player can then increase their mastery of by playing the game. A good game is simple to learn, but has deep mechanisms whose complexity emerges through play, e.g. chess, scrabble, football, basketball, tag, etc. The events in a good game change every time the game is played, and therefore has infinite replayablity. They teach us important meta-skills like patience, focus, strategy, confidence, adaptability. They show us new ways to look at our own psychology, and that of our opponents They teach us to analyze patterns and abstract them into easy to process bites. They teach us to learn a new set of controls and allow it to become an extension of our own bodies. It is not controversial to say that games exercise the mind in a unique way that no other activity can.[/quote] By that very definition the only part of modern day videogames that can even be qualified as "games" would be games that have competative multiplayer. The thing is competative multiplayer are indeed games in the purest sense of the word, and as such apply to your argument. They have no story other than some shooters saying "You're the Russians, they're the marines, go kill'em." Competative multiplayer games perfectly match your definition of a true game, and thus there is nothing to complain about as far as story getting in the way.
Singleplayer, however, fails your definition of a game. The singleplayer is story driven, not competatively driven. Since your definition of a "game" is that it is something that has a competative nature, no singleplayer (i.e. story modes) can apply to any of your statements since they're not "games" - by your definition - in the first place.
