I guess I am not a typical gamer. (rant about games)

[Minjoltr]

Real boobs > Digital boobs.

I think sometimes a plot isn't necessarily important. Things like Braid and Portal could probably have stood up on gameplay alone, not that the plot doesn't make them 100 times better (Although look at what happened to Sonic when he tried plot). Plotless games can be good for catharsis, sometimes all you want to do is frag monsters with your buddies and plot limits that somewhat; there's an ultimate limit to how long you can play and quests and plot chapters may push you to play longer than you might otherwise want to. Essentially, they're pick-up, put-down casual games which you can play for as long as you want to rather than as long as they want you to. People often complain about the rash of casual games blighting the gamer's market but aren't games like Halo essentially a frat-boy variation on that? It's just a pity that this seems to have become the norm.

Besides, plot costs money and these games already make masses of that. Why waste production money on something which won't shift more units?

 

[veloper]

Dear friends of the Escapist,

When did graphics and gameplay out-weigh plot?

Since the beginning of gaming! Where have you been?
Games have NEVER had good stories. Planescape Torment was *decent* though.

what's important:

gameplay > gfx, sfx, just about everything except > plot

 

[pyrosaw]

Not to sound like a giant jerk,( I really am not) but plot should always be second compared to gameplay. You ever notice that in the phrase " Video Game", The word "Game" is in there? Thats because it's a video game. Not a video book. I don't hate story, But gameplay must be exactly as good, or better than, the plot.

 

[Arehexes]

Dear friends of the Escapist,

When did graphics and gameplay out-weigh plot?

I'm sorry I most have missed the NES and SNES days when most games outside of adventure and rpg didn't have a plot and needed good gameplay to survive the market ;P.

 

[Burningsok]

Agreed, the spectacle has taken over. Fun is non-existent anymore. A game is fun mostly by accident these days. Realism or over the top action is the focus of most games, but that means that games that go against the curve are quite a lot better by comparison (GTA4 vs Saints Row 2, GTA4 tries to be realistic, and fails at being fun while SR2 is very unrealistic and is very fun).
Also being 20, I grew up with a Genesis. Those games were hard and fun. Golden Axe is one of my favorite beat 'em ups, and to this day I have only managed to beat it 2 times (it is neigh impossible without being extremly cheap and having a 2nd player). Games need to be hard, but not impossible. Ghosts and Goblins for example is way too hard.

In a way your right, but your version of fun is different then mine and many others. I like GTA 4 a lot. It's realism immersed me, and I couldn't stop playing, but after several hours of playing the game it got boring because the effect of the realism wore off. There was still the good gameplay afterwards that kept me playing for a little while, but that wore off eventually. Idk I haven't played SR2 nearly as much. I guess a new game came along and stole me away from it early. SR2's gameplay is a little better, but it's realism barely even exists... which doesn't matter. Even after beating the game there was still a lot to do. Finding hidden places, doing all the activities, finding easter eggs (there's a good amount of them.), re-customizing your character in weird ways, ect. GTA 4 only had a few things afterward. The multiplayer for GTA was somewhat disappointing. When you think about it there are so many cool things you can do with your friends, but once you play it it doesn't seem as cool as when you thought of it. For instance, like you want to raid a police station with your friends in GTA 4 and so you decide to join a group of 6 friends. At the beginning of raiding the place you suddenly realize it just doesn't seem all that intense or life like, and it totally destroys the immersion. It's the little things I guess. Oh just remembered, RDR. There is a DLC coming out that will let the gambling mini games be available in multiplayer like poker, blackjack, and so on. Now idk about you, but the little things like that make the multiplayer so much more fun because of the variety of things to do. With SR2's multiplayer it had everything in it from the single player. This made the multiplayer so much fun. My brother would play it online with one of his best friends and there would be times where I couldn't stop laughing at how ridiculous things would get. Hell one would try and fly a plane, and the other would drive a truck. They both would work together to try and get the plane to land on top of the moving truck lol. It's creativeness and randomness like that that is missing from sandbox multiplayers.

lol sry that I went a bit off track, but I hope you understand what I'm saying

 

[old account]

Oh, and the FF7 thing, "it recycles ideas from loads of stories plus the steampunk".

In the several millennia since we started telling stories we've pretty much told every possible story. What you mean is that the 'hero battling a villain', 'rebel against authority', 'tragic love' and 'finding acceptance' have been used in other things.

Try an experiment: how many elements in a Shakespeare play are also in the Iliad? How many elements of 'Macbeth' are the same as the countless stories of ambition and hubris told the world over?

You know why the story wasn't "Cloud and Sephiroth have a party, the cake comes to like and eats them, then they meet a Walrus king and then it was all a dream"?

Because that's not a fucking story, a story needs to be linear and tell a story with progress. If you ever read into stories and mythmaking you'll find out there are a few archetypical story structures that arise in all cultures seemingly independently. The fact that it came up with a story that was a composite of archetypes means that the story was as original as any story can be (and incidentally also has pretty much the same structure as every other FF game, it's just that 7 is more trendy to bash) and that it is as worthy of recognition as an 'original story' as anything Dickens has written.

Oh I know. I'm in college for literature arts, taking classes for creative writing. And agree, stories are to be linear. But if you played FF6, which I'm sure you have, you'd understand the similarities. Even Aries' Theme is an orchestrated segment of Celes' Opera Scene. And yes, I've read mostly every Shakespeare play, and it sickness me when I see a recent movie in theaters and go 'Wow' in under disbelief that directors have no creativity anymore while everyone else in the theater is saying how that was the best thing ever. Okay, so games need to have a linear plot, but does it mean that you should follow every step another game, or story has done. Linear plot: Good guy vs Bad guy, now think of something original to go in between. And not every FF was the same. 1,2, and 3, were not really 'structured' games. You could play around with class and what not. FF4 dealt with the crystals, and FF5 was a copy of that (with the added class abilities). FF6 dealt with the more technological take over of a world power, FF7 was mainly the same, down to the destruction of the world (except Kefka actually did it). FF8 just purely suck for so many reasons. FF9 was the most original story with great action and even some comedic scenes. When FFX came out, I lost faith in Square Enix and washed my hands of any new Final Fantasy games.

 

[nuba km]

snip

the answer to your first few questions are always most games used to not have a story save the princess, got to catch em all. how many games have been released in the past several thousands how many to we remember and hold up as icons of the past being better maybe a hundred how many years are in the past of video games 50 how many years are in the current genre of game 3 yet we have classics like mass effect, dragon age, portal, bioshock team fortress a game with no story yet some of the best video games characters there are. video games have all the same problems as movies we only remember the pearls of the past and say that is the reason why the past is better but we always had these problems at least now we have got to the peak of graphics meaning that game programmers can know concentrate on story more. also its not a bad thing for a game to just have an ok story because they can then make a FUN game a good story is something enjoyable but its not the core of a game the core of a game should be making it fun. think about it is the reason you play mario over and over again because of the story or because its fun to you play doom because it's deeply psychological or because you like painting walls blood red with a gun that could level a city. to I play borderlands because the characters are heart warming no its because I have a shotgun that shoots smilies. now I'm not saying a story doesn't matter i but i would rather play a mindlessly fun game over and over again than a game with well written characters because that's why I watch movies (I followed the movie easily I don't know why people are worried that some people won't get it) like inception. look up bullet storm it is being made by the same people who made pain killer that is a game that I would buy any day over ANY final fantasy game.

 

[V8 Ninja]

I can smell it. *Sniff* Ah, such sweet nostalgia.

 

[MasterMongoose0]

I like people who badmouth the Halo franchise because they doesn't afraid of anything. Even when they have no idea what they're talking about.

(blanket opinion) The "Halo" series has a rich universe that I still love to explore. There's books, games, comics, cartoons, everything.

And LOL at Metal Gear Solid being good writing. I love Metal Gear Solid (3 comes to mind), but most of the games in the series are so badly written- at least in the English versions, the Japanese ones are probably better.

From my point of view, it sounds like you don't care if the game actually HAS an in-depth story or characters, you just want them to make it convoluted for the sake of being complicated. Final Fantasy 6 was an amazing game, but to say that that's the only example you can come up with isn't very supportive. What about Prince of Persia (the last-gen trilogy), Assassin's Creed 2, Red Dead Redemption, or Mass Effect?

 

[old account]

I tried reading it, but I couldn't bring myself to. Your complaint seems to be that video games are getting the Michael Bay treatment, to which I reply: disregarding the fact that it's hardly a unique opinion... who the hell cares? As long as they remain fun, I'm not going to be a goddamn snob about the games I play. Gears of War is a series with a ton of blood, explosions, utterly gorgeous graphics, a general absence of exposition, and most importantly, solid-ass gameplay. The last part is really all that matters, and because it's fun, it's a really good game. The Call of Duty series? Same thing, the story is just an excuse to throw awesome crap at me, but the gunplay is solid and blowing heads off is satisfying. That's really all that is required.

Hell, that's all games are supposed to be: fun to play. I don't care if there's a convoluted plot to wrap my head around, or a simple-yet-solid story arc that serves no purpose other than to ferry me from awesome setpiece to even awesome-er setpiece; if I enjoy the ride, the game has served its purpose.

I made a big rant about video game-related elitism in another thread, but I can't be arsed to track it down, and nobody would read it anyway.

Obviously you didn't understand what I was typing. It had really nothing to do with the Michael Bay comment, that was a witty expression used to make a connection of what I was saying. And you obviously don't even understand Gears of War, because that has a story, therefore my post was not directed at that game. And I don't know how people can immerse themselves in a game by direct action. Not saying that it's a bad thing, just saying that it isn't me.
I need games that give me a purpose to do something. I'm not going to play a game in which I level a character for hours on end to do pointless tasks; that's why I quit WoW. But a good story would be nice.

 

[HK_01]

I have to say that games have improved overall, or at least not become worse over time. But this is just the way things are: People always claim that everything was better in the past when they grow older. A perfect example of this is that many people think that life was cheaper in their childhood when in fact it can be proven that it takes less of your income nowadays to buy the necessities for life such as food than it did 30 or 40 years ago.

 

[VegetaPrinceofSaiyans]

But I'm not really attacking anyone, and I'm not saying that I'm better because I like MGS, I'm just saying that if Bungie would have put some time in developing a story, in my opinion Halo could have been a great game without the 'need' for a multiplayer option instead of having the multiplayer make the game. You see I'm one of those indie guys who love to drown myself in story and history, and it made me sad when Bungie, a group a college kids made a game with the bare amount of anything besides explosive mechanics. I just would have thought it would have been better.

You just did it again right there. Attacking Bungie. They made great games and a huge amount of backstory and media and you call them college kids.

Stop putting other people down and acting so superior. I love story too, I freaking loved Metro 2033 and the book, I also love everything Warhammer 40,000 because of the immense amount of detail put into it. Halo has a huge backstory in books and comics. If you don't like it fine just don't act so superior because you don't like it.

While Halo may have a quite expansive backstory, (I see it as being expansive in the same way that a Olympic sized swimming pool could be considered expansive, granted that this pool is only about 2ft deep.) What I am trying to say is that, while there is a lot of Halo backstory, it can basically be watered down to the various Spartan projects and Human vs. Covenant war. Both and rather straightforward and shallow.

OT: I completely agree with your post OP. I view story as the most integral aspect of the game. I am a huge Bioware fanboy, and while I absolutely love their games, the gameplay tends to be a bit buggy at times, but the amazing story going on around me causes me to accept these bugs and basically ignore them.

 

[mjc0961]

When did graphics and gameplay out-weigh plot?

When did gameplay outweigh plot? Since we decided they were video games, and that playing them was the important bit. I'm not going to play a game with awful controls and all sorts of nasty bugs, no matter how good the plot may be.

Gameplay should always outweigh everything else. There is always other forms of media, such as books and movies, if someone would like to tell a story without there being this annoying game thing they have to build for people to play.

 

[crazypsyko666]

I generally agree with you. I'll generally take gameplay over story, though. If a game has an awful gameplay but a wonderful story, chances are I'll just read it. If a game has poor story but incredible gameplay, however, (a la Modern Warfare 2) I could play for a few hours, but chances are I'll just get pissed and quit. It seems that we need to take these techniques of fun gameplay and put them into more interesting stories. We shouldn't sacrifice one for the other, though. Respawning keeps people from getting too tense, but some people like a more realistic experience. I think all games could use a 'hardcore' mode when it applies (and it certainly wouldn't apply to something like peggle.)

 

[Tim_Buoy]

while i agree with you to a degree gameplay graphics and story. theese are elements needed in every game its just finding the right balance in each and truly great games have that balance

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Snotty condescension? Oh, you're asking for it.

Obviously you didn't understand what I was typing.

See, that's the exact attitude that incensed me enough to bother replying. When I refuse to acknowledge your pretenses to refinement and being more intellectual, you immediately claim that I don't understand. If you're looking for a place to have your ego stroked, you'll not find this place very accommodating.

It had really nothing to do with the Michael Bay comment, that was a witty expression used to make a connection of what I was saying.

I didn't even see the words "Michael Bay" in your post, because I didn't read it. It's a connection I was able to make on my own. Know why? Because I didn't have to. I immediately knew that this was going to be another rant on how your views are special, and your insight grants you a special take on gaming that the rest of the ignorant, unwashed masses couldn't possibly grasp, and therefore, you're better than them (and don't try to play off all the your deliberate snarkiness and derision regarding games you simply don't like as "I was just kidding, you're taking it too seriously/out of context. I'm not an idiot). Elitism doesn't work for games the same way that it does for movies or music, because it's an interactive medium, so the qualifications you measure other forms of media by are largely inconsequential when it comes to gaming. A movie has to be watchable, music has to be listenable, and a game has to be playable. That's it. To say that a game is crap without an exceptional story is to say that Rob Zombie doesn't make "real" music because the lyrics make no damned sense, when all that really matters is whether or not anybody would want to listen to it.

However, I did go back and spitefully read the entire thing, just so you wouldn't be able to dismiss my rebuttal as making baseless accusations. You know the funniest thing? I had this entire thing typed out before I read it, and the only thing I had to change was adding this paragraph.

And you obviously don't even understand Gears of War, because that has a story, therefore my post was not directed at that game.

I've played both games and got next to no exposition from either of them, so I had to read the comics. But hey, thanks for setting me straight on what I'm qualified to say I understand, professor. Seems to me like you came to this forum, saw a few Halo-bashing threads, and said "Golly, if I post one, they'll love me," and now you're completely taken aback by the thoughtfully contrary responses you're receiving.

And I don't know how people can immerse themselves in a game by direct action. Not saying that it's a bad thing, just saying that it isn't me.

Let me get this straight: the fact that you're part of a minority demographic when video games are part of the entertainment industry (which has to target the majority in order to rack up sales), means that you're qualified to dictate to the rest of us what "wrong" with gaming, just because you're not happy with what seems to work for everybody else. Your original post would've been much more reasonable if it was just "I don't get it, but I guess it just isn't me", instead of an enormous rant on why your taste in video games has survived some sort of imaginary corrosion that the rest of us have fallen victim to.

I need games that give me a purpose to do something. I'm not going to play a game in which I level a character for hours on end to do pointless tasks; that's why I quit WoW. But a good story would be nice.

So, you're telling me that I don't understand Gears of War because it has a story outside of the game itself, yet the massive, similarly segregated stories behind Halo and WoW... those are disqualified? They just don't count? Or are you making special exceptions for the sake of being able to contradict people that don't agree with you?