squid5580:

Story is and remains equally as important as gameplay

This line deserves a round of applause. You sir are my new internet hero.

I think the idea of the story begin as important as the gameplay to be a load of crap. If it were, then the original Doom games (the games story is almost none) would not have an active community even 16 years after it's release.

Liked the comment about Mario and god...lol, I can see the logic in it though...despite I bet the nervous faces that followed the comment.

I agree with most of the article though. Nintendo proving with the new wii game, of an old game, that originality is really scraping the bottom of a barrel

Multi-Kill:

Yay! He's as as irrelevant as the rest us!

Absolutelly, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Yahtzee:
.... making films out of 80s cartoon serials that no one liked except the nostalgia-blinded dipshit internet nerds who have all the disposable income.

This reminded me of MovieBob's review of Transformers 2.

I saw Teknoman when I was in the middle of high school, and I thought it rocked. I got it off ebay about 10 months ago, and I can't bring myself to finish it - it's destroying my fond memories with its actual shittyness.

Also, on the whole subject of sequels and remaking things I had similar thoughts when contemplating what happens when muscians/singers run out of new music/songs to create? You can only remix/re-create something so many times.

I think thats when the lamb opens the 7th seal.

SikOseph:
The comment 'talking to [Mario fanboys] is like talking to people who believe in God' is spot on. It is true of all fanboys, and God fanboys have been doing it longest - not subjecting your beliefs to rational scrutiny. Analogy win. Hope you didn't apologise.

Quoted for Truth.

DrDeath3191:

And you're really going to emphasize story and gameplay on the same level of importance? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy narrative in games as well. However, you should remember the medium we're discussing. We're not talking about movies, novels, or plays. We're talking about games. Therefore, the gameplay must always take full position of importance. Following shortly thereafter should be level-design that compliments the gameplay, not the story. In fact, narratives in games are rather unimportant in the whole scheme of things. Yes, they may give you a compelling reason to continue playing. But if the game itself is not enjoyable to play, then what's the fucking point?

I will politely disagree. With the exception of one game (Shatter, because the music was so awesome) I have yet to find any game with no story to be enjoyable for more than 30 minutes, regardless of the gameplay quality. I am also perfectly able to deal with slightly flawed (but not broken) gameplay for good narrative. With the exception of platformers, most single player component of games live or die by their narrative. In most genres gameplay and story goes hand in hand. I think it's wrong to say that narratives aren't important when there's an entire genre of games based on it's narrative.

I'm beginning to enjoy these Extra Punctuations on the same level as the Zero Punctuation videos they're in conjunction with- if not more.

Just can't get better when you have more great content. Especially when you don't always agree with the author on every note. (this one was pretty spot on though)

yourbeliefs:

samaritan.squirrel:
I really can't understand this antipathy towards this new Mario game. Hasn't every Zelda game follwed what is essentially the same formula as it's predecessors with a new gimmick or two?
Even with the transition into three dimensions, they kept the core gameplay, and those games would have worked in the old top-down format.
Look at the DS iterations of Zelda. Quite similar to the SNES/Gameboy era. Utilizing the stylus, but essentially unchanged.
Adding new elements to a much-loved formula is okay.

What I'm worried about is Mario Galaxy 2. Couldn't they think of a new setting?

I understand your Zelda comparison, but I think Yahtzee's big beef with it (as well as mine) is that this is basically the first new console side scrolling Mario game in over 14 years, but this game really brings NOTHING new to the Mario series in terms of innovation or new gameplay. This game should have at LEAST been more robust than SMB3, but it isn't. There's less suit powers, many of the levels blatantly rip off elements of previous Mario games, and the additions of Wii waggles, Toad escort missions, and multiplayer seem to degrade the experience more than anything. I mean hell, the plot and mission style is a direct copy of SMB 3. If this game had come out for the N64 or even the Gamecube, these issues would be a bit more tolerable. But in this day and age, it just seems to come across as lazy and falling back on "Nostalgia" as an excuse to not try and make any real improvements to the formula, which the Mario series is in DIRE need of.

I'd say the multiplayer is quite a nice addition. Unless that's been done before [GBC remake of Super Mario with the link-cable doesn't really count]. And, inverting the space-arguement, where can they go with two dimensional platforming?
I suppose adding a Braid-ish element may have worked. Some new mechanic. being able to alter the way the scenery reacts or somesuch.

Still. The game seems to be treated with undue derision.

Pingieking:

SikOseph:
The comment 'talking to [Mario fanboys] is like talking to people who believe in God' is spot on. It is true of all fanboys, and God fanboys have been doing it longest - not subjecting your beliefs to rational scrutiny. Analogy win. Hope you didn't apologise.

Quoted for Truth.

DrDeath3191:

And you're really going to emphasize story and gameplay on the same level of importance? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy narrative in games as well. However, you should remember the medium we're discussing. We're not talking about movies, novels, or plays. We're talking about games. Therefore, the gameplay must always take full position of importance. Following shortly thereafter should be level-design that compliments the gameplay, not the story. In fact, narratives in games are rather unimportant in the whole scheme of things. Yes, they may give you a compelling reason to continue playing. But if the game itself is not enjoyable to play, then what's the fucking point?

I will politely disagree. With the exception of one game (Shatter, because the music was so awesome) I have yet to find any game with no story to be enjoyable for more than 30 minutes, regardless of the gameplay quality. I am also perfectly able to deal with slightly flawed (but not broken) gameplay for good narrative. With the exception of platformers, most single player component of games live or die by their narrative. In most genres gameplay and story goes hand in hand. I think it's wrong to say that narratives aren't important when there's an entire genre of games based on it's narrative.

Not always. Most 'stories' are nothing more than mere excuses for a player to enter different firefights, or what have you. The reason that these stories seem good is because the gameplay it leads you to is good. Almost the entire FPS genre is a good example of this. Then there are puzzle games. The narratives for these, even when present, tend to be lacking at best. But people still play them. Why? Because they're fun. And who says you have to play more than 30 minutes at once at all? Hell, I rarely do that even when a good story is present. As I said, I have no real problems with narrative in games, but if the narrative overshadows or even approaches the level of focus that gameplay does, then the game as a whole suffers.

Hardcore_gamer:

squid5580:

Story is and remains equally as important as gameplay

This line deserves a round of applause. You sir are my new internet hero.

I think the idea of the story begin as important as the gameplay to be a load of crap. If it were, then the original Doom games (the games story is almost none) would not have an active community even 16 years after it's release.

Actually, DOOM's premise and the paperbacks that came out later were half-decent stories (not based in reality at all, but its Sci-Fi, c'mon).

The story was simplistic because it didn't need a convoluted plot at the time. DOOM3 was virtually a carbon copy of the original game storyline, with slight tweaks that were necessary so it would fit with the changes to the eneimes and the environment.

What you should be asking is why they didn't use the same plot for the DOOM film, which basically ended up somehow as Resident Evil in Space. Interdimensional Hell Demons are much more interesting than those zombie snoozefests.

Space is a big thing and anything you try after space is just going to be not moving forward but shuffling sideways, if not outright stepping backwards. And it seems Nintendo agreed, and have decided not to let it bother them.

Surely it's admirable of Nintendo to make the best of a bad situation (granted, one they created for themselves) by revisting what made the Mario franchise good in the first place instead of rehashing Galaxy?

Oh wait...

OMFG, RAGE....!

Thundercats is way cooler than He-Man.... only an idiot would suggest otherwise! Gawd...!

DrDeath3191:
Not always. Most 'stories' are nothing more than mere excuses for a player to enter different firefights, or what have you. The reason that these stories seem good is because the gameplay it leads you to is good. Almost the entire FPS genre is a good example of this. Then there are puzzle games. The narratives for these, even when present, tend to be lacking at best. But people still play them. Why? Because they're fun. And who says you have to play more than 30 minutes at once at all? Hell, I rarely do that even when a good story is present. As I said, I have no real problems with narrative in games, but if the narrative overshadows or even approaches the level of focus that gameplay does, then the game as a whole suffers.

And now we encounter the biggest problem that lies within both of our positions; games are too big of a medium to be generalized the way that we are attempting to do so.

I don't enjoy most FPS games because there's no sense of achievement for coming out of that crazy firefight. If I'm not interested in the progression of the story then I see no reason to bother with shooting that guy in the face. You, being a different sort of gamer than I am, are perfectly happy shooting guys in the face for no reason other than the fact that the mechanics to do so is well designed and brings you joy.

Games are not inherently good or bad if the developers choose to focus on the gameplay or story aspect of the game; the main problem is how they are presented. An RPG can have the most polished gameplay in the history of the universe, and yet still suck if the story is crappy (just imagine playing Final Fantasy using the narrative of L4D). A puzzle game can have no story what-so-ever, and is still great because the gameplay is awesome. On the other side of the coin, an RPG is capable of hiding flawed gameplay behind a great narrative. A puzzle game with great gameplay can certainly be improved with the addition of great narrative. The importance of each one is completely dependant on what the developers want their games to be. You can hardly make an interactive movie with no story, nor can you make a good platformer without properly implementing the jumping mechanics.

EDIT: About the 30 minutes playtime thing, I was referring to total playtime, not one sitting. The most I've ever gone was probably about 30~40 on Plants VS Zombies and Pixel Junk Monsters. Both of which have great gameplay, but I just find them to be boring because I know that there's nothing more than a number waiting for me at the end.

Hardcore_gamer:

squid5580:

Story is and remains equally as important as gameplay

This line deserves a round of applause. You sir are my new internet hero.

I think the idea of the story begin as important as the gameplay to be a load of crap. If it were, then the original Doom games (the games story is almost none) would not have an active community even 16 years after it's release.

Doom was popular because it defined the FPS genre, and pushed the envelope of what could be done in gaming.

It's like one of those experimental prog rock records from the 60s that inspired countless musicians and came to be a defining influence of some truly great bands, but judged musically on its own isn't all that good.

Pingieking:

DrDeath3191:
Not always. Most 'stories' are nothing more than mere excuses for a player to enter different firefights, or what have you. The reason that these stories seem good is because the gameplay it leads you to is good. Almost the entire FPS genre is a good example of this. Then there are puzzle games. The narratives for these, even when present, tend to be lacking at best. But people still play them. Why? Because they're fun. And who says you have to play more than 30 minutes at once at all? Hell, I rarely do that even when a good story is present. As I said, I have no real problems with narrative in games, but if the narrative overshadows or even approaches the level of focus that gameplay does, then the game as a whole suffers.

And now we encounter the biggest problem that lies within both of our positions; games are too big of a medium to be generalized the way that we are attempting to do so.

I don't enjoy most FPS games because there's no sense of achievement for coming out of that crazy firefight. If I'm not interested in the progression of the story then I see no reason to bother with shooting that guy in the face. You, being a different sort of gamer than I am, are perfectly happy shooting guys in the face for no reason other than the fact that the mechanics to do so is well designed and brings you joy.

Games are not inherently good or bad if the developers choose to focus on the gameplay or story aspect of the game; the main problem is how they are presented. An RPG can have the most polished gameplay in the history of the universe, and yet still suck if the story is crappy (just imagine playing Final Fantasy using the narrative of L4D). A puzzle game can have no story what-so-ever, and is still great because the gameplay is awesome. On the other side of the coin, an RPG is capable of hiding flawed gameplay behind a great narrative. A puzzle game with great gameplay can certainly be improved with the addition of great narrative. The importance of each one is completely dependant on what the developers want their games to be. You can hardly make an interactive movie with no story, nor can you make a good platformer without properly implementing the jumping mechanics.

In regards to the RPG, why is the Mario RPG franchise so popular? The story is hardly rivetting (though it is funny at times). It certainly wouldn't win a Pulitzer. So why are they heralded as some of the best RPGs ever made? Gameplay. The game is actually fun to play, not necessarily to watch. Stories are fine, but if the underlying interactivity of the game is flawed, the game fails. Because that is what makes games what they are: gameplay. Otherwise, you could very easily have made that a book or a movie.

oh good his voice is back 2 normal - anyway,
mario, ur only good for cheap handheld shit so long as something actually changes each time
(come on nintendo, I want to be a fan but don't try my patience)
never been a big fan of zombie gamesso I can't really coment but how different is it from any other crazy shoot up the hoards game?

The weird thing is I do not like the nostalgia train on old franchises, I do not mind it as well. The practice is much older than we think. back in the Victorian era, the practice for a writer was to write the book in a serialized form, kind of like how certain comic books are done nowadays. Then 6 months after the last chapter was complete, the serials are collected and turn into a novel. It is also common practice for writers to come back to their works and constantly update them. Charles Dickens, in addition to releasing pretty much the same story over and over again, would also make changes to the ones he already had. He did this for nothing more than making a quick buck on the nostalgia of his readers.

How do historians and literary critics handle these reissues: they consider the last version that the original author made to be the most definitive version of it. Like it or not, when historians look at Star Wars in the future, most will consider the version where Greedo fired first to be superior to the one from the 70's. It is also a good thing: The Richard Donner cut of Superman 2 will be given more weight than the theatrical release. There are exceptions, like most consider the 1819 version of Frankenstein the last word over the 1831 edition, but the rule generally applies to the most books, movies and so on.

Hell, the movie industry is built around nostalgic memories as well. In the 90's we had nostalgia for 70's, in the 80's, it was the 60's, and so on back down the road. Now we have to go through 80's nostalgia.

This is nothing new. In the future, they will forget about the derivatives and focus on the older stuff instead. That us unless the derivatives are made by the original designers.

Heh, funny. Though I think Yahtzee is a big enough name in the area that people are now aware of how far he'll go.

qbanknight:
breeds fanboyism like it gets going out of style (only it never does).

Here I thought it was never in style in the first place.

I completely disagree about the importance of story in games. On my list it would be maybe around the 6th item of preference in the grand sheme of things.

I think we need some serious reworking of the medium of games. We need someone like Walter Benjamin (as an example) that digs into the core and tries to do or say something radical about gaming. I have almost never read any intelligent discussion or analysis of the state this industry and its development is currently in. Even on the Escapist the discussion almost always remains superficial. What we need are game philosophers. Experiments like the ones about the Elephant level, anything that pushes gaming or challenges a little bit. Really appreciate this column, its probably the most interesting thing to read on this site. Making dick-jokes and sandwich references doesn't really help though.

In my opinion New Super Mario Bros Wii seems to be targeted at the new audience and not serious gamers, (thats why the super guide is there, which inherately is kind of pointless as a feature for us gamers, but for a non-gamer its probably quite handy).
The Mario brand is very strong, and Nintendo probably have already cooked up a new Mario game, (or at least have the initial ideas for it), but are not going to let anyone know about it till they increase their fanbase, (think of how fundementally similar Mario bros 2 (the japanese version) and Super Mario World were to their direct predecessors).

Galaxy 2 however may be suprisingly different, look at what happened with the transisition between Super Mario World and Yoshi's Island. In this day and age a change like that wouldn't really work, time and money are much tighter these days, and the game could end up becoming such an organisational mess, it will be delayed, and then it will be made out of date, (think of the "Duke Nukem Forever" effect!).

I personally don't mind Valve's decision on Left 4 Dead 2, I'd rather have a few slices of toast when I'm hungry, than wait for the cake and starve, (bad joke I know, but you can see what I mean!).

Yeah, I think Nintendo should probably stop making Mario games for a year or two. Super Mario Galaxy is officially the best game in the series, so it's hard to go anywhere after that.

On the other hand, Nintendo knows how to actually innovate, it's just that with Mario they really don't. I mean, look at Metroid. It never jerks off with nostalgia. The series is always moving forward and if it can't come up with anything solid and new, it takes a pause.

That makes me wonder...has Yahtzee ever said anything about Metroid? I don't think so. He has reviewed Mario and Zelda, but not one single Metroid. Maybe that's because the latest Metroid came out in 2007. It'd be really nice to hear what he thinks about the franchise.

DrDeath3191:
In regards to the RPG, why is the Mario RPG franchise so popular? The story is hardly rivetting (though it is funny at times). It certainly wouldn't win a Pulitzer. So why are they heralded as some of the best RPGs ever made? Gameplay. The game is actually fun to play, not necessarily to watch. Stories are fine, but if the underlying interactivity of the game is flawed, the game fails. Because that is what makes games what they are: gameplay. Otherwise, you could very easily have made that a book or a movie.

Sure, a game could easily survive just on gameplay qualities alone, but that doesn't mean that narrative is not important in the medium. Also, I don't even consider Mario RPG to be an RPG. It's a game with gameplay elements usually associated with RPGs, and leave it at that. Same applies to MMORPGs (with the exception of its RP servers). If there's nothing there for me to role-play as, then I don't think it should classify as an RPG.
I still stand by my statement that a game with great narrative can survive despite gameplay flaws. I didn't think that the gameplay of Indego Prophecy/Farenheit was that great, but it's still one of my favorites games. The same will probably apply to Heavy Rain. But if you take the narrative out of Dragon Age: Origins, you basically end up with a game engine tech demo.
Again, the importance of story vs gameplay depends on what the developers want to make. If they wanted to make an interactive movie or interactive book, they can hardly do so without a narrative. If they wanted to make shooter, then the story can be thrown out the window and most people wouldn't miss it.

Byers:

It's like one of those experimental prog rock records from the 60s that inspired countless musicians and came to be a defining influence of some truly great bands, but judged musically on its own isn't all that good.

Then why are people still playing the game and making new MODS and levels for it? And why has the game been ported to almost everything that has a monitor on it during the past 16 years?

If the game weren't that good and only became famous as a result of begin new and interesting at the time then you would have sort of expected people to have abandoned it by now instead of constantly looking for more ways to play the game.....

Anoctris:
Actually, DOOM's premise and the paperbacks that came out later were half-decent stories

If those paperbacks you are talking about just so happen to be the Doom novels i haven't read them. Either way they don't count since they are in fact books and not games.

Anoctris:
The story was simplistic because it didn't need a convoluted plot at the time.

This is not true, Doom may be a old game but it is not THAT OLD! At the time Doom was released there were plenty of games that had deep and complex plots, so Doom's "storyline" was almost non existent even back then. The game did not have any real story on purpose, it was suppose to be a brainless slaughter fest and it did that wonderfully.

Anoctris:
DOOM3 was virtually a carbon copy of the original game storyline

And it shows, because the story sucked. It was still a fun game, but i think the game would have been better off just dumping the story completely and instead focus on just giving the player more reasons to kill things. But if they just HAD to make a story for the game then they should at least have done it properly.

Anoctris:
What you should be asking is why they didn't use the same plot for the DOOM film

For the same reason for why the story in Doom 3 should not have been included in the game: It sucked and was full of plot holes.

....Not that there solution to the problem was any better though.

true its never been in style, but with the massive numbers of them existing, its hard to argue that its not to them

Hardcore_gamer:

squid5580:

Story is and remains equally as important as gameplay

This line deserves a round of applause. You sir are my new internet hero.

I think the idea of the story begin as important as the gameplay to be a load of crap. If it were, then the original Doom games (the games story is almost none) would not have an active community even 16 years after it's release.

Now there are certain games that dont need a story, as you said DOOM is a good example (Painkiller and Serious Sam come to mind as well), but story and gameplay when combined together can be heralded as far more significant that a game with an excellent story and shitte gameply or a fun game with a lousy story. That and it tends to be remembered longer, and most people would rather come back to play that game over and over again

Something you've said before Yahtzee was "why try to fix what's not broken". I'm not a Mario fan myself (and I do think it's time it died) but releasing any sequel that's barely unchanged since the original and keeping it just as good will please anyone who liked the first one. Be totally honest to yourself now: if they made a new Silent Hill that had the same atmosphere, same length, same difficult, same yadda yadda etc, BUT made it just different enough in looks and plot that it's it's own stand-alone title, would you enjoy it?

It's really lazy, in my opinion, to put down any effort to look at the past and revisit old ideas as nostalgia. 2D Mario works very well as a game concept and for the first time in 20 years the core team has got back together to make a new one. Even if Mr. Croshaw doesn't like 2D Mario we can be sure that his criticism of the game will not put off the millions of people who do love that sort of game. Call that "thick headed conservatism" or "insular forum nerd thinking" if you like but I don't really take that too seriously from a guy who made his name as someone who champions a metric shit ton of conservative forum opinions in his videos.

DrDeath3191:
*sigh*

First of all, this is not a retread of any sort. You claim that this game is a remake of Mario 3? Mario is far more maneuverable in this title than he is in that game. He can wall jump, butt-stomp, and pretty much do anything he could in 3D in a 2D plane. You might immediately claim that therefore this must be a carbon-copy of the DS game. Again, no. There are many new levels, some new power-ups, a 4-player versus option, a 4-player versus component, motion controlled areas and the Super Guide. This is not the same game.

And you're really going to emphasize story and gameplay on the same level of importance? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy narrative in games as well. However, you should remember the medium we're discussing. We're not talking about movies, novels, or plays. We're talking about games. Therefore, the gameplay must always take full position of importance. Following shortly thereafter should be level-design that compliments the gameplay, not the story. In fact, narratives in games are rather unimportant in the whole scheme of things. Yes, they may give you a compelling reason to continue playing. But if the game itself is not enjoyable to play, then what's the fucking point?

That's ridiculous to consider that gameplay must take the front for a great game. Great games, the ones that everyone plays and come back to (Uncharted, MW2, Assassin's Creed, GTA, Half-Life, Portal, etc) have a great story with great gameplay. It's not unrealistic to demand in our medium that people make games with great stories. Story is an important centerpiece for many game players, and without it, a game thats fun can be considered good (but not fantastic and deserves retreads).

qbanknight:
It's not unrealistic to demand in our medium that people make games with great stories.

It is, because video games are not the best medium for traditional story telling and a lot of the most enjoyable games have poor stories.

qbanknight:

Now there are certain games that dont need a story, as you said DOOM is a good example (Painkiller and Serious Sam come to mind as well), but story and gameplay when combined together can be heralded as far more significant that a game with an excellent story and shitte gameply or a fun game with a lousy story. That and it tends to be remembered longer, and most people would rather come back to play that game over and over again

Gameplay > story

Hence the name "videoGAME". There can be games without story, but there can't be games without gameplay. Therefore, gameplay is more important than story. Name one game you play JUST for it's story.

But I totally agree with story enhancing the experience, sure, but at the end of the day, we play GAMES not novels.