Yes, we all know Yahtzee loves good stories in his games, and most tend to agree. Some of the greatest games I've ever played have had great narratives. But on the subject of stories being as important to gameplay, I feel like Yahtzee stops reviewing for the everyman, and instead puts his own personal preferences, which people can disagree with without being stupid, in the way of general opinion. To make it easier to read, the following discourse can be read in a few points.
Point 1: Story is great. Great stories make for compelling gameplay. It is unlikely that a game will ever be on your top ten list without some degree of coherent and interesting tale behind it. Half life 2, Bioshock, stuff like that. Many see these as film-esque games and the epitome of what gaming is capable of doing, and I definitely agree. The best games do have good story, BUT, this is not essential to have a good game.
Point 2: Games do not need story: The point that the story is just as essential as gameplay strikes me as not well thought out. It is important to note that video games are much like other forms of activity, such as board games, or sports, in that they provide a steadily increasing challenge in a format of structured rules and boundaries, which provide fun and entertainment. Based on the idea that story is just as important gameplay, that equates a game with no story to only being 50% of a game. For most people, 50% counts as an F, so in this case we can call that a failed game. Looking at games such as chess, I do not get the impression that chess would be incredibly augmented by story, nor that chess fails because it has none. And yes, chess is a video game, you can play it on your computer. Becoming a bit more modern, games like Team Fortress 2, Unreal Tournament 2004, and Civilization, none of which have any significant degree of story, can be excellent games if one cares to play them. Tightly focused and well tuned gameplay drives many exceptional games without the use of story, but it shouldn't be noted that these games, along with many others, offer no real attempt to give you coherent story.
Point 3: Why games with bad story fail: Turning completely around, I want to make the case that games with bad story fail, and heres why; It depends on what the game is trying to accomplish. Games have goals, and the degree to which it succeeds at these goals when delivered to a player makes or breaks it. If the goal of your game is to deliver a challenging puzzle adventure with a clever narrative, and portal is the result, then well done, you've succeeded in every way possible. However, if you attempt to do so again and you get, say mirrors edge, then you've essentially tried and failed to incorporate story as a significant element of your game. Everyone has their own personal preferences about games, but that doesn't make the other person's preference bad. It is all about what makes a game FUN for you. For some, thats a clever story with coherent gameplay, that drives you to complete and master it. For others, its perfected gameplay with a complete absence of story, cause they don't care, and never will, about non-real characters on a screen. You can still have bad versions of each, and I think what Yahtzee, and many others are getting at is games that attempt to do both, and don't particularly succeed in either area, creating a bland half hearted result.
Point 4: Gameplay is still more important: Ask yourself, would you play a game consisting only of gameplay, and no story? Most people would, or have in some form, assuming it does the gameplay aspect well. Now take the inverse, would you play a game that has next to no competent gameplay and fantastic story? Probably not, though i know some will digress. That is for movies, people, not games. I cannot prove this, but I get the impression that people will always weigh gameplay over story, so in short, gameplay and story are not equal. Important both are, but one carries more weight.
Cheers, hope this doesn't offend anyone.
On a additional note: please be aware I am not calling for the end of story in games, I just think gameplay is more important. Try not to be so polarized.
Point 1: Story is great. Great stories make for compelling gameplay. It is unlikely that a game will ever be on your top ten list without some degree of coherent and interesting tale behind it. Half life 2, Bioshock, stuff like that. Many see these as film-esque games and the epitome of what gaming is capable of doing, and I definitely agree. The best games do have good story, BUT, this is not essential to have a good game.
Point 2: Games do not need story: The point that the story is just as essential as gameplay strikes me as not well thought out. It is important to note that video games are much like other forms of activity, such as board games, or sports, in that they provide a steadily increasing challenge in a format of structured rules and boundaries, which provide fun and entertainment. Based on the idea that story is just as important gameplay, that equates a game with no story to only being 50% of a game. For most people, 50% counts as an F, so in this case we can call that a failed game. Looking at games such as chess, I do not get the impression that chess would be incredibly augmented by story, nor that chess fails because it has none. And yes, chess is a video game, you can play it on your computer. Becoming a bit more modern, games like Team Fortress 2, Unreal Tournament 2004, and Civilization, none of which have any significant degree of story, can be excellent games if one cares to play them. Tightly focused and well tuned gameplay drives many exceptional games without the use of story, but it shouldn't be noted that these games, along with many others, offer no real attempt to give you coherent story.
Point 3: Why games with bad story fail: Turning completely around, I want to make the case that games with bad story fail, and heres why; It depends on what the game is trying to accomplish. Games have goals, and the degree to which it succeeds at these goals when delivered to a player makes or breaks it. If the goal of your game is to deliver a challenging puzzle adventure with a clever narrative, and portal is the result, then well done, you've succeeded in every way possible. However, if you attempt to do so again and you get, say mirrors edge, then you've essentially tried and failed to incorporate story as a significant element of your game. Everyone has their own personal preferences about games, but that doesn't make the other person's preference bad. It is all about what makes a game FUN for you. For some, thats a clever story with coherent gameplay, that drives you to complete and master it. For others, its perfected gameplay with a complete absence of story, cause they don't care, and never will, about non-real characters on a screen. You can still have bad versions of each, and I think what Yahtzee, and many others are getting at is games that attempt to do both, and don't particularly succeed in either area, creating a bland half hearted result.
Point 4: Gameplay is still more important: Ask yourself, would you play a game consisting only of gameplay, and no story? Most people would, or have in some form, assuming it does the gameplay aspect well. Now take the inverse, would you play a game that has next to no competent gameplay and fantastic story? Probably not, though i know some will digress. That is for movies, people, not games. I cannot prove this, but I get the impression that people will always weigh gameplay over story, so in short, gameplay and story are not equal. Important both are, but one carries more weight.
Cheers, hope this doesn't offend anyone.
On a additional note: please be aware I am not calling for the end of story in games, I just think gameplay is more important. Try not to be so polarized.
