On Remakes and Nostalgia

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

HUBILUB:
I guess Yahtzee can get away with religious comments like that simply because nobody dares question him. Or because he is in fact, God.

No, he gets away with it because people just let him. I just bawl crocodile tears all over my keyboard and forget it.

Thanks for reminding me. [bawls]

DrDeath3191:

Gindil:

DrDeath3191:
The reason Mario is versatile is because nothing has truly been set in stone about the character besides the fact that he saves the Princess. I have no problem with this. With regards to RPGs, stories are nice, but in the end not necessary.

And I take it you refuse to count Brain Age, Wii Sports, and Endless Ocean under new Nintendo IPs?

Isn't it the story that keeps most people wanting to fight the Big Bad in the end? I'm pretty sure you don't slog through RPGs because of some need for open exploration. Rather, they're for getting enough experience to tell a story in a medium much closer than a movie or a book could do.

I find all of those odd choices in looking at Nintendo's IPs. Brain Age is Sudoku on steroids, Wii Sports is fairly similar to the old school Track and Field on Nintendo, and Endless Ocean I didn't hear about until your post. Granted, they may be "new" IPs. But I was looking more in the direction of taking an established character such as Donkey Kong and expanding on his mythos. For example, why not have a game where he and Bowser are fighting to kidnap the Princess? Better yet, use the other Kongs and expand on that.

Another option is to create a few new characters, which they did with Wario and Waluigi. There are a lot of options in a large company such as Nintendo. But as I see it, and Yahtzee has correctly surmised, they are averse to risk. Hence why we have Mario's regression in his newest game.

It really shouldn't be your motivation. If the game itself cannot hold your interest enough for you to advance, the game fails. The story in RPGs is to compensate for gameplay that is less than stellar. As I said earlier, RPGs minus the story become a huge math equation. But even in these instances a minimalist plot can be found and greatly appreciated: see Pokemon and the Mario RPGs.

Despite the fact you consider them odd, that does not revoke them of their status as Nintendo IPs; and quite popular ones at that. Regarding the whole 'expansion of the mythos' thing: there really isn't much to stretch out. Besides, DK has no interest in the Princess: he wants Pauline.

Nintendo has created new characters: the Miis. While they may not be deep in any sense of the word, they still have a sense of personality. That and the majority of their games are actually fun.

Incidentally, if you want a Mario game where DK is the villain, you might want to check out the March of the Minis games, one of which should be appearing (if it hasn't already appeared) on the DSi downloadable service. You can also check out the GCN offering, which is actually a damned fine game if I recall correctly.

I never revoked them as IPs. I gave you that point. I know that both of us are stretching these out a little far in regards to the minimalist approach: putting a game down for the genre it represents. I understand that gameplay is one part of the equation. I do like a good story, which fills in another part of said equation. It's just that similar to how Yahtzee describes L4D2 as a sandwich, it gives a game a lot more filling when there's a little more to digest.

I don't think Miis necessarily count however. They're more player avatars than something that Nintendo is creating. It's almost as if saying I made the race in Dragon Age without filling any background history. It's there for me to interpret.

Speaking of which, where HAS Pauline gone off to? It'd be great if she would come back.

I thought March of the Minis was on the GBA or DS?

K_Dub:
Yahtzee makes a valid point in this article. Many gamers worship Mario as if he were a god. But my question is "Why?" Why is it that people worship Mario as if he were the creator of the wheel in a prehistoric society (New game idea for next Mario game)? What is so appealing about Mario that people will buy remakes of the same game several times? I could understand parents buying the games for their children, but what about the consumers that know who Mario is, and own all of his games? It really confounds me.

Your question answered. Yes, it is pretty valid. Take what you can but it fairly explains your question.

Gindil:

DrDeath3191:

Gindil:

DrDeath3191:
The reason Mario is versatile is because nothing has truly been set in stone about the character besides the fact that he saves the Princess. I have no problem with this. With regards to RPGs, stories are nice, but in the end not necessary.

And I take it you refuse to count Brain Age, Wii Sports, and Endless Ocean under new Nintendo IPs?

Isn't it the story that keeps most people wanting to fight the Big Bad in the end? I'm pretty sure you don't slog through RPGs because of some need for open exploration. Rather, they're for getting enough experience to tell a story in a medium much closer than a movie or a book could do.

I find all of those odd choices in looking at Nintendo's IPs. Brain Age is Sudoku on steroids, Wii Sports is fairly similar to the old school Track and Field on Nintendo, and Endless Ocean I didn't hear about until your post. Granted, they may be "new" IPs. But I was looking more in the direction of taking an established character such as Donkey Kong and expanding on his mythos. For example, why not have a game where he and Bowser are fighting to kidnap the Princess? Better yet, use the other Kongs and expand on that.

Another option is to create a few new characters, which they did with Wario and Waluigi. There are a lot of options in a large company such as Nintendo. But as I see it, and Yahtzee has correctly surmised, they are averse to risk. Hence why we have Mario's regression in his newest game.

It really shouldn't be your motivation. If the game itself cannot hold your interest enough for you to advance, the game fails. The story in RPGs is to compensate for gameplay that is less than stellar. As I said earlier, RPGs minus the story become a huge math equation. But even in these instances a minimalist plot can be found and greatly appreciated: see Pokemon and the Mario RPGs.

Despite the fact you consider them odd, that does not revoke them of their status as Nintendo IPs; and quite popular ones at that. Regarding the whole 'expansion of the mythos' thing: there really isn't much to stretch out. Besides, DK has no interest in the Princess: he wants Pauline.

Nintendo has created new characters: the Miis. While they may not be deep in any sense of the word, they still have a sense of personality. That and the majority of their games are actually fun.

Incidentally, if you want a Mario game where DK is the villain, you might want to check out the March of the Minis games, one of which should be appearing (if it hasn't already appeared) on the DSi downloadable service. You can also check out the GCN offering, which is actually a damned fine game if I recall correctly.

I never revoked them as IPs. I gave you that point. I know that both of us are stretching these out a little far in regards to the minimalist approach: putting a game down for the genre it represents. I understand that gameplay is one part of the equation. I do like a good story, which fills in another part of said equation. It's just that similar to how Yahtzee describes L4D2 as a sandwich, it gives a game a lot more filling when there's a little more to digest.

I don't think Miis necessarily count however. They're more player avatars than something that Nintendo is creating. It's almost as if saying I made the race in Dragon Age without filling any background history. It's there for me to interpret.

Speaking of which, where HAS Pauline gone off to? It'd be great if she would come back.

I thought March of the Minis was on the GBA or DS?

While stories are nice, I sill think they should have nowhere near the level of attention that gameplay does. Yahtzee suggesting an equal focus is a foolish way to design games, and in the end I think a volatile one.

I'm not certain about that argument about Miis not being characters. Nintendo technically made all Miis possible by giving us the tools to do so. To many, the Miis are becoming the face of the console.

Pauline is in every version of March and the Minis as Mario's co-CEO of a toy company. And there was a GCN version as well to my recollection.

This quote from the article kind of bothers me.

Story is and remains equally as important as gameplay. Left 4 Dead never really had a story - it had a setting, and strong characters, but it didn't have a plot. Nothing wrong with that, there are plenty of games that get by on pure gameplay, but they don't have the lastability, and they'll never be anything more than a quick bit of fun.

... Left 4 Dead is a piece of toast, and that's fine. But Left 4 Dead 2 is just another piece of toast from a different loaf of bread. With a sprig of parsley.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet but the L4D series definitely has a storyline. The games seem to have a pretty simple plot, however there is a ton of back story. It's told similarly to the way the Half-Life games are told; through the environment and through conversations, not cutscenes. In a way L4D's story does give it some replay value. You'll notice things you didn't see in your first play through such as, graffiti messages in more hidden areas, and characters comments on certain areas. One thing I found that was particularly interesting is that in one level there are piles of dead bodies of people who are NOT infected. Through careful examination you can learn more about the infected, CEDA, the military, and the survivors.

I think the storytelling L4D is fantastic. If I were in a zombie apocalypse no would tell me what was going on through cutscenes. It's a multiplayer game and it's meant to be played many times, so cutscenes would be annoying. The story is there for the people that are interested and does not impede the gameplay at all.

Imagine a grilled sandwich. The gameplay is the bread and the story is the filling. Separate the two elements and they're both still fine to eat alone, they're just not as good as they are together.

I agree that a story is important and can greatly enhance a game, but what if the story just stinks? I don't think games should try to attempt a storyline if they can't pull it off. A piece of toast is much tastier than a sandwich with crap smeared all over it. Just imagine having to be forced to watch the storybook segments in Mario Galaxy. A good story line can improve a game but a bad one can hurt it as well.

Hardcore_gamer:

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...

That makes no sense. How do you give someone a reason to kill things if you don't have a story, a motivation, even a basic one? Everything from Serious Sam to Mario has a plot. They're not Tolkien sagas but they are at least present. The only games that do not have a basic plot are those quick little arcade games like Bejeweled etc, because its not required, and yet some of them still have a backstory.

Hardcore_gamer:

But if they just HAD to make a story for the game then they should at least have done it properly.

http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_3
For Doom 3 id Software employed a professional science-fiction writer.../quote

How much more "properly" can you make a Sci-Fi Horror FPS game than by hiring a professional writer?

Hardcore_gamer:

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.

http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_3
The story of Doom 3 surrounds the discovery of ancient ruins underneath Martian soil. Tablets found at these sites record how an ancient Martian race developed a form of teleporter technology. They realized an important fact all too late, as the route the teleporter took passed through Hell. Quickly invaded by demons, this alien race created and sacrificed themselves to a weapon known as the Soul Cube. This cube, powered by the souls of almost every being of this alien race, was used by their strongest warrior to defeat the demons and contain them in Hell.

Having done so, the remainder of the alien race constructed warnings to any who visited Mars, warning them not to recreate this technology; to avoid opening another gate to Hell. They then teleported to an unknown location, fleeing Mars; there are hints that at least some of them fled to Earth, and that humans descended from them. It's stated that the demons once inhabited Earth in an unknown context, but lost possession of it due to an unknown cause. Consequently, the demons want to reclaim Earth. /quote

A plot hole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot... - Where are the plot holes in this story?

Hardcore_gamer:

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!

Mate, I was playing DOOM after release in '93 at age 10. At what point do games become old for you?

Hardcore_gamer:
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.

insert image here> Jackie Chan "My Brain is full of fuck"

Hardcore_gamer:
The game did not have any real story on purpose, it was suppose to be a brainless slaughter fest and it did that wonderfully.

For levels and gameplay design, with the technology available - yes, it was a mindless slaughterfest.

But it still had a story. It fit on one page in the manual but it was still there - http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom

I think you're getting confused with little story vs no story. Games like Tetris, Space Invaders, Pac Man, etc and any number of arcade-type games have little to no story, because there's no reason for it - it does not add to gameplay. Other games, or re-makes of games, benefit from backstory, and even then, only for those people who like backstory.

Hardcore_gamer:

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.

This is wrong. DOOM has its following because of:
1)Deathmatch
2)Player created content
http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom

There's a lot more to it regarding DOOM, but we would need a new thread to discuss in detail how it has affected videogaming.

Hardcore_gamer:

Byers:

Just because I loved the shit out of something when I was 13 doesn't make it groundbreaking 15 years later

So only 13 year old's played Doom and loved it because they did not know any better? Doom was played by people of all ages, and still is. Recently one of the greatest mappers/user made level designer for Doom died from cancer and he was over 40 years old.

Whether you're 13 years old or are a 40 year old with a very limited exposure to computer games, your love for games like Doom were inspired by the fact that you hadn't yet seen anything quite like it before. If Doom had been released today, after games like Half-Life and Portal, it would have been looked at for about 5 seconds. Doom 3 proved that, even with the huge name attached to it, it fell quite quickly into obscurity and had overall tepid reviews.
As for a 40 year old Doom modder, I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove. There are 40 year olds spending their time collecting empty tin cans and bottles in my local shopping mall too, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the most worthwhile use of their time.

As for not begin groundbreaking, do you know anything about early 90's games? Doom was groundbreaking in almost every way you can think of. It was the first game where you could move around in a 3D world and walk up and downs stairs making it the first game ever to have a believable world the player get immersed in. It was the first game to have a lighting system where each room could have many different kinds of lighting and flickering lights. It was the first game shooter to have moving floors and elevators, it was the first first person shooter ever besides Wolfenstein (and that game was made by the same company). Doom was new in almost every way and did shitloads of things no other game had ever done before it.

You're aware that you're just proving my point now, I assume.

Doom did do all those things, and it was a giant leap forward in game design. That makes it an important game, and a vital part of gaming history, but not necessarily a great game 15-20 years later.

Byers:
The fact that people choose to cling on to something for far longer than it deserves tells me something about the lack of worthwhile things they have to spend their time on

And who are you to say that the game no longer deserves to be played? And the reason for why there are still people who play the game is because they simply don't have anything better to do? Do you actually mean that or are you just one of those stupid 12 year old's who insists that only recent game are worth anything and that playing old games is stupid "because there old"?

If I was 13 years old 15 years ago, how can I be 12 now? And you call me stupid.

Almost all of my top fav games are old.

Worms.
GTA 2.
Half-life 1.
Crash Team Racing on the PS1.
Ace Combat 3 on the PS1.
Doom.
Doom 2.
Quake.
Quake 2.
Super Mario Brothers 1 and 3.
Super Mario 64.
Star Fox 64.

There are games that age well and games that do not. Games like the original Mario games and Worms belong to more or less dead genres, or genres that's been sufficiently altered by the leap to 3D that they bear little similarity to their "evolved" counterparts.
You can't go out and buy a good Worms game in 3D. The gameplay of Mario games has remained more or less static the last 15 years.

Furthermore, if there's one genre that has aged terribly, it's the early 3D games of the Quake era. On top of primitive gameplay and non-existent story, you also have murky brown textures, blocky models and environments, non-interactive static objects and all that goes with a primitive 3D engine of yesteryear. Many old 2D games age far better, unless they're faux-3D games like Doom.

I could go on and on like this forever, and all of these games are either 2 console generations old or older (and some are much older). Am i some stupid fanboy who has nothing better to do because i consider these games better then most tittles that are pumped out today? And this is coming from someone who bought both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 in order to enjoy all of this generations best offerings.

If you genuinely think Doom and Quake are better games than Half-Life 2 and Portal, then yes, absolutely so.

Cocamaster:

squid5580:
It supports both actually You just want to call it a different word saying "setting" instead of "story". What do you think gives you said goals? Would a game be very much fun if you do what you have to do for no other reason that the dev said so? No! You need something more to hold the game together.

Bollocks.

No story holds Tetris together; you form lines to make them disappear. The game plainly says that is your goal without further ado and, you know what? It's fun, challenging and timeless. So is Chess.

So there goes your argument:

A game where there is a goal without a story can be fun.
A game does NOT need a story to have goals. And...
A game's developer can define said goals without compromising the fun of the game's design.

And a "Story" has a flow and a narrative that moves forward. A setting is static, unchanged and unaffected by your actions. You can play all 50 levels of Pacman and the setting won't change; no story has been told, no narrative advanced.

Stories and settings may enhance the experience, but they are not required, let alone equally important to gameplay.

So there: gameplay = required; story = not required.

Those games have SETTINGS, not STORIES. Arkanoid is a Breakout clone with a "story", and that's not even the reason why it's better. Most people don't even know that Arkanoid even HAS a story; that's how pointless it is in that game.

I keep on forgetting back in those days we combined our imaginations with the game. What was I thinking? And I guess you missed the other post where I explained about Tetris, Peggle and games like that.

Mr. Shoggoth:
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.

He hasn't actually reviewed one, but he's made passing comments about them. In one of his reviews, he mentions that all FPSs for consoles will always be hindered by their lacking the precision of a mouse, but good consoles FPSs (then shows a picture of Metroid Prime's box cover art) make up for this insufficiency with innovative mechanics like lock-on ability and other compensatory techniques. I know it's not a full-on review, but I'd say it's a pretty shining endorsement.

Byers:

If you genuinely think Doom and Quake are better games than Half-Life 2 and Portal, then yes, absolutely so.

Why? Because you think they are shit and i don't? There is this thing called taste, not everybody shares your and there is nothing wrong with it. And i also don't recall ever saying Doom and Quake were better then Half-life 2 or portal. I said i liked them more and that is not the same thing, trying to compare Half-life 2 to Quake or Doom is fairly pointless considering how different the core gameplay for each game is.

I really like the Half-life series, but as for the amount of time i have actually spent playing these games Doom has consumed much more of my free time then Half-life 2 has thanks to user made content for the game.

Anoctris:

This is wrong. DOOM has its following because of:
1)Deathmatch
2)Player created content
http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom

I fail to see how this is relevant. It doesn't matter why people still have Doom community's, just the fact that they do proves my point of people still loving the game for gameplay reasons.

And about Id hiring a pro-writer to write the story:

So? If i were to hire a very talented engineer to build a skyscraper and tell him to build it out of toothpicks then the fact he is a talented engineer would probably not save the building from collapsing.

Doom 3's story about some old civilization begin attacked in the past was both boring and bland, and finding out about all of it by browsing through PDA messages was less then exiting. There were also no important character in the story besides Dr.Betruger and even he was as bland as it gets when it comes to character design. The other 2 guys (Swan and his protector) only appear exist in the game to give the game an excuse to have more the 2 characters in the game and to give the player the BFG 9000 later in the game in case he can't find the code that allows him to find the first one. I don't actually hate this game, i actually bought it for both the PC and the Xbox just so that i could won both versions and i still think the story is worth shit.

Multi-Kill:
After space, where the hell are you supposed to go? And don't say Alternate Dimensions and cross overs please.

Maybe...time travel?

But in terms of "where", that's essentially the wrong question. You can't just slap another setting onto a game and call it a legitimately progressive sequel; AS2, for example, wasn't just Assassin's Creed BUT IN ITALY, it genuinely improved the gameplay. And I think if Nintendo isn't up to that with Mario, they should let it die, but I assume that with all that money and talent they should be able to do something new even if it happens to stick with the Mario paradigm. Look at Okami. Nintendo isn't completely useless.

Game-talk aside, I really want to find somewhere here in Seattle that sells Branston Pickle. Then I'll finally be able to grasp Yahtzee's judgement of a good game design element compared to how good Branston Pickle is.

Unless I hate it, in which case that may muck up how I view videogames (and Yahtzee, I suppose.)

As for the games mentioned, Mario is a mascot and he'll live on as long as Nintendo is making games whether new, rehashes, or simply using Mario character faces in place of gems in some sort of Bejeweled clone.

And I have yet to play LFD1 so I can't comment on LFD2, really, but I'm fine with zombie killing in whatever format it takes. Sure, a story is better than none (having recently played through HotD: Overkill I do enjoy a good zombie tale) but, really, isn't a zombie game really just about killing frickin' zombies? How much story can one really expect or need?

as much as I like Valve, I wasn't a big fan of L4D2, it just got old and in the first game when the horde was alerted it was like "ohhhhhh shit", in this game it's like "oh goodie, more zombies [in a very indifferent tone]" but I can't fault them completely, they do Team Fortress 2...well unless you're on 360 where it's just ass

I must agree that Nintendo has over used some of there characters like Mario (mainly mario). They should bring back some of the old games from the super nintendo and Nintendo 64. Some of those games are better than the current ones now for the Wii.

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.

What are you talking about? Doom had an awesome story.

"No. You will be KILL BY DEMONS!"

DrDeath3191:
To take your Mass Effect and Bioshock examples from eariler, yes they had good stories. But they were also good games. They were actually fun to play. That's why I played through them multiple times: they were fun.

I wont argue that Bioshock had good gameplay, but Mass Effect? No, the gameplay in that one was mediocre at best. The combat was bad, the vehicle missions were bad, and yet it was still a really good game, mainly because of the expansive story and how Bioware drew the player in and made the player really feel part of the events.

Cocamaster:

7ru7h:

You can't try to compare board games and video games, the gap is too wide there. Sure they can be fun, but its usually because of the people you play with. Try playing monopoly by yourself. Still fun? No, because you lose out on what makes them fun.

I found this comment to be very ironic, considering the extreme popularity of online deathmatch games which, traditionally, feature no story or narrative whatsoever. Fighting games are the same when it comes to Vs matches. The story becomes irrelevant.

For the last time, I AM NOT saying storyless games aren't popular, I'm saying they don't tend to last. Sure, you can bring up games that don't agree with what I'm saying, but can you honestly see some of the games we consider classics lasting if they had their stories removed? After all, what's a LoZ game without the "Save the princess/world" story? A collection of fetch quests and boss fights with no discernible purpose.

Seriously, does anyone honestly believe people bought Modern Warfare 2 for its story?

I do, but that's because I'm stupid and tend to hang around with people who would rather play a game for its content instead of the end-game material. Almost all of the people I have talked to that have played MW2 (both at work and my friends) talk about the story much more than the multiplayer.

7ru7h:

Cocamaster:

7ru7h:

You can't try to compare board games and video games, the gap is too wide there. Sure they can be fun, but its usually because of the people you play with. Try playing monopoly by yourself. Still fun? No, because you lose out on what makes them fun.

I found this comment to be very ironic, considering the extreme popularity of online deathmatch games which, traditionally, feature no story or narrative whatsoever. Fighting games are the same when it comes to Vs matches. The story becomes irrelevant.

For the last time, I AM NOT saying storyless games aren't popular, I'm saying they don't tend to last. Sure, you can bring up games that don't agree with what I'm saying, but can you honestly see some of the games we consider classics lasting if they had their stories removed? After all, what's a LoZ game without the "Save the princess/world" story? A collection of fetch quests and boss fights with no discernible purpose.

Thats not the slightest bit true, not even close. In fact most storyless games I know of have lasted longer than any games with story's. The story's in Zelda and Mario doesn't even matter really, it's not like they put any real thought into it. None of these game story's are original or clever, they are mostly just action movie story's.

Also I disagree with you Yahtzee, the gameplay is the tasty filling in your bun, gameplay is always going to be the most important.

"Time Team ... Tony Robinson" Oh yeah, we had that here in the Netherlands as well.
Don't think lots of people know what the heck you're talking about, but as I always think when you start about Tex Avery or stuff: "Yayyyyyyyyyyyy! Nostalgia plus humour makes for the laugh-ey times!" Then my mind goes blank and after wiping some bucket of saliva off my shirt I rewatch Zero Punctuation again... "Duhrrr ?"

Oh yeah, Post Scriptum yall;
All games have SOME story, maybe not a lot...
"Shootz them demons from Mars back to Hellz!!!111!!111"
Was the full background story from Doom 1, and it's almost the same story as Gears 2, only that one has an arbitrary backstory stapled to it's back, as unnecessary as nailing your beer glass to your hand with some two inch nails in case you'd drop it.

Anyways, if you are drunk enough to laugh at the above, please ask your also drunk friends to actually nail your glass or mug to your hand! It'll be a joke on your mom the next day!

She'll laugh and make you more cookies! *

* "Anyone stupid enough to do anything I said or didn't say does this on their own accord, and this is a nearly funny disclaimer!"

Nazulu:

7ru7h:

Cocamaster:

7ru7h:

You can't try to compare board games and video games, the gap is too wide there. Sure they can be fun, but its usually because of the people you play with. Try playing monopoly by yourself. Still fun? No, because you lose out on what makes them fun.

I found this comment to be very ironic, considering the extreme popularity of online deathmatch games which, traditionally, feature no story or narrative whatsoever. Fighting games are the same when it comes to Vs matches. The story becomes irrelevant.

For the last time, I AM NOT saying storyless games aren't popular, I'm saying they don't tend to last. Sure, you can bring up games that don't agree with what I'm saying, but can you honestly see some of the games we consider classics lasting if they had their stories removed? After all, what's a LoZ game without the "Save the princess/world" story? A collection of fetch quests and boss fights with no discernible purpose.

Thats not the slightest bit true, not even close. In fact most storyless games I know of have lasted longer than any games with story's. The story's in Zelda and Mario doesn't even matter really, it's not like they put any real thought into it. None of these game story's are original or clever, they are mostly just action movie story's.

Also I disagree with you Yahtzee, the gameplay is the tasty filling in your bun, gameplay is always going to be the most important.

Of course you can name storyless games that have lasted longer than storied ones, because originally thats all there was. Back here in the present, storyless games don't go nearly as far. As for the zelda and mario bit, I will disagree with you on zelda, since mario's story has always been the same. If it wasn't for the story in LoZ, most people wouldn't have played it through to the end more than once.

7ru7h:

Nazulu:

7ru7h:

Cocamaster:

7ru7h:

You can't try to compare board games and video games, the gap is too wide there. Sure they can be fun, but its usually because of the people you play with. Try playing monopoly by yourself. Still fun? No, because you lose out on what makes them fun.

I found this comment to be very ironic, considering the extreme popularity of online deathmatch games which, traditionally, feature no story or narrative whatsoever. Fighting games are the same when it comes to Vs matches. The story becomes irrelevant.

For the last time, I AM NOT saying storyless games aren't popular, I'm saying they don't tend to last. Sure, you can bring up games that don't agree with what I'm saying, but can you honestly see some of the games we consider classics lasting if they had their stories removed? After all, what's a LoZ game without the "Save the princess/world" story? A collection of fetch quests and boss fights with no discernible purpose.

Thats not the slightest bit true, not even close. In fact most storyless games I know of have lasted longer than any games with story's. The story's in Zelda and Mario doesn't even matter really, it's not like they put any real thought into it. None of these game story's are original or clever, they are mostly just action movie story's.

Also I disagree with you Yahtzee, the gameplay is the tasty filling in your bun, gameplay is always going to be the most important.

Of course you can name storyless games that have lasted longer than storied ones, because originally thats all there was. Back here in the present, storyless games don't go nearly as far. As for the zelda and mario bit, I will disagree with you on zelda, since mario's story has always been the same. If it wasn't for the story in LoZ, most people wouldn't have played it through to the end more than once.

Thats still a load of crock! In fact my favourite game doesn't have any story at all and it was released not that long ago.

You can disagree with me all you want with Zelda but the story in Zelda has got shit all story in it, you could fit it all in one paragraph. I played the game for the game, not the story and that will go for just about everyone. If the game is fun, the game is fun, thats all there is to it.

Nazulu:

7ru7h:

Nazulu:

7ru7h:

Cocamaster:

7ru7h:

You can't try to compare board games and video games, the gap is too wide there. Sure they can be fun, but its usually because of the people you play with. Try playing monopoly by yourself. Still fun? No, because you lose out on what makes them fun.

I found this comment to be very ironic, considering the extreme popularity of online deathmatch games which, traditionally, feature no story or narrative whatsoever. Fighting games are the same when it comes to Vs matches. The story becomes irrelevant.

For the last time, I AM NOT saying storyless games aren't popular, I'm saying they don't tend to last. Sure, you can bring up games that don't agree with what I'm saying, but can you honestly see some of the games we consider classics lasting if they had their stories removed? After all, what's a LoZ game without the "Save the princess/world" story? A collection of fetch quests and boss fights with no discernible purpose.

Thats not the slightest bit true, not even close. In fact most storyless games I know of have lasted longer than any games with story's. The story's in Zelda and Mario doesn't even matter really, it's not like they put any real thought into it. None of these game story's are original or clever, they are mostly just action movie story's.

Also I disagree with you Yahtzee, the gameplay is the tasty filling in your bun, gameplay is always going to be the most important.

Of course you can name storyless games that have lasted longer than storied ones, because originally thats all there was. Back here in the present, storyless games don't go nearly as far. As for the zelda and mario bit, I will disagree with you on zelda, since mario's story has always been the same. If it wasn't for the story in LoZ, most people wouldn't have played it through to the end more than once.

Thats still a load of crock! In fact my favourite game doesn't have any story at all and it was released not that long ago.

You can disagree with me all you want with Zelda but the story in Zelda has got shit all story in it, you could fit it all in one paragraph. I played the game for the game, not the story and that will go for just about everyone. If the game is fun, the game is fun, thats all there is to it.

Bullshit. Maybe the story for LoZ or AoL could fit into a paragraph, but most any game after that has had more than a paragraph's worth of story to it. Unless you are using ridiculously long paragraphs or only giving the barest of details, in either case the argument is invalid.

At this point, I really am wondering what the point of continuing this discussion, because you seem to be ignoring my points at every turn. Yes, the storyless game is your favorite now, but will it still be the same in 1/5/7/10 years? I have said before that I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SHORT RUN POPULARITY, since any game can have that, but the ability for a game to remain popular and evolve into a "clasic".

Anyway, I'm sick of beating my head against a wall to try to get a simple point across that you eschew in your responses. Have fun with your generic games, I'm done.

TL;DR - Story telling should be considered at least as important as gameplay. It may not be mandatory, but it can take a mediocre game and make it awesome (ME/Diablo 2).

liked the god reference.. (*G*od?)
nintendo should seriously start something new
like.. zelda in space..

7ru7h:
Bullshit. Maybe the story for LoZ or AoL could fit into a paragraph, but most any game after that has had more than a paragraph's worth of story to it. Unless you are using ridiculously long paragraphs or only giving the barest of details, in either case the argument is invalid.

Well that just proves my point doesn't it. And once again there have been many games after that with out story's, some of them turning out great so I don't go spurting shit about games with out story's don't go so well these days!

7ru7h:
At this point, I really am wondering what the point of continuing this discussion, because you seem to be ignoring my points at every turn. Yes, the storyless game is your favorite now, but will it still be the same in 1/5/7/10 years? I have said before that I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SHORT RUN POPULARITY, since any game can have that, but the ability for a game to remain popular and evolve into a "clasic".

Ignoring? You keep repeating yourself with the whole "story games last longer in popularity" and I will keep saying that is bogus shit!

Also I can't believe you said that. Yes, games I really enjoyed will remain favourites till I die, I remember having a good time with them and one day I will play 'em again. Thats how nostalgia works.

7ru7h:
Anyway, I'm sick of beating my head against a wall to try to get a simple point across that you eschew in your responses. Have fun with your generic games, I'm done.

TL;DR - Story telling should be considered at least as important as gameplay. It may not be mandatory, but it can take a mediocre game and make it awesome (ME/Diablo 2).

Did you just turn thick in the last couple of hours? Have fun with your generic games you say, you don't even know what the fuck I am playing! You wouldn't know what generic is even if it punches you in the face!

You haven't proven anything to me, just that you have no proof and you can't help yourself and remain ignorant. Game play is the core of games, the heart, the brain, all the important parts and story is the apendix or something, nice to have but not a big loss when you don't have it.

So if your respond to this, instead of getting impatient and insulting me, get some proof because there are many storyless games out there and they have done fairly well. Oh, and originality is what makes a classic, not some action story.

The sandwich analogy was brilliant. Would your opinion be changed if the Mario games had a palette swap? I mean like if they're the same games but the characters were changed?

While I do not object to the comparison of Christianity to a game franchise; the way Yahtzeeh put it made it out to be his own ideology is automatically correct. Whether you believe in God or not nobody reads Yahtzeeh's blog for his views on religion or the metaphysical. Still there was some unintentional hilarity to be had that like a typical unhappy and disgruntled atheist he has a neurological need to mock the religious. Not that all atheists are unhappy and disgruntled, though.

Nazulu:

Ignoring? You keep repeating yourself with the whole "story games last longer in popularity" and I will keep saying that is bogus shit!

Also I can't believe you said that. Yes, games I really enjoyed will remain favourites till I die, I remember having a good time with them and one day I will play 'em again. Thats how nostalgia works.

7ru7h:
Anyway, I'm sick of beating my head against a wall to try to get a simple point across that you eschew in your responses. Have fun with your generic games, I'm done.

TL;DR - Story telling should be considered at least as important as gameplay. It may not be mandatory, but it can take a mediocre game and make it awesome (ME/Diablo 2).

Did you just turn thick in the last couple of hours? Have fun with your generic games you say, you don't even know what the fuck I am playing! You wouldn't know what generic is even if it punches you in the face!

You haven't proven anything to me, just that you have no proof and you can't help yourself and remain ignorant. Game play is the core of games, the heart, the brain, all the important parts and story is the apendix or something, nice to have but not a big loss when you don't have it.

So if your respond to this, instead of getting impatient and insulting me, get some proof because there are many storyless games out there and they have done fairly well. Oh, and originality is what makes a classic, not some action story.

TBH to both opinions, there are a few story games that support him. I can think of Myst, The Secret of Monkey Island, and Riven, that all of their gameplay features were told through the story involved. It's not prevalent but these were popular games while others were playing Secret of Evermore or Shadowrun. Let's also not forget Psychonauts or anything Tim Schafer related that really pushed the boundaries (even if some of them didn't sell well)

Gindil:
TBH to both opinions, there are a few story games that support him. I can think of Myst, The Secret of Monkey Island, and Riven, that all of their gameplay features were told through the story involved. It's not prevalent but these were popular games while others were playing Secret of Evermore or Shadowrun. Let's also not forget Psychonauts or anything Tim Schafer related that really pushed the boundaries (even if some of them didn't sell well)

Whats TBH? Anyway it's not like I said there are no great story games because I would have been very wrong.

7ru7h is saying storyless games that are released 'these days' would not remain popular over time like story games and I am saying that is a load of barnnicles.

No no no.

Left 4 Dead was a grilled cheese sandwich. It was tasty and awesome.

Now, Left 4 Dead 2 is a grilled cheese sandwich (using the same bread) with the tuna slapped all over cheese. Now, some people were disapointed that they had had to buy whole new sandwich to taste tuna and it still had cheese in it (like in the last one), or why they couldnt get tuna separately to put it in cheese sandwich they already have.

But bollocks I say ! Cheese-Tuna sandwich is awesome, it has that flavor we all know but tuna adds much more then anyone expected.

a DELICIOUSLY good read.
Some mario bashing....and now I'm hungry
HOO RAAA.

Nazulu:

Gindil:
TBH to both opinions, there are a few story games that support him. I can think of Myst, The Secret of Monkey Island, and Riven, that all of their gameplay features were told through the story involved. It's not prevalent but these were popular games while others were playing Secret of Evermore or Shadowrun. Let's also not forget Psychonauts or anything Tim Schafer related that really pushed the boundaries (even if some of them didn't sell well)

Whats TBH? Anyway it's not like I said there are no great story games because I would have been very wrong.

7ru7h is saying storyless games that are released 'these days' would not remain popular over time like story games and I am saying that is a load of barnnicles.

It means "To Be Honest".

I'd say that there are a lot more games with story than there are games that are all about the gameplay. Usually, they are simple algorithms to wile away the time. Tetris, Boom Blox, Pac Man... All of these are pretty simple. Even then, if Joseph Campbell is to be believed, what usually happens is people add their own stories to this simple gameplay.

Ex:

Tetris - The cold war has continued. America has constantly been at our door about their capitalism and need for change. Comrade, we need material. We are giving money for you to make the lines for the Wall. For every four lines, it is a bonus to commission. Only you, comrade, can save us.

;)

squid5580:
I keep on forgetting back in those days we combined our imaginations with the game.

You obviously did, because last time I checked, our imaginations weren't part of the "story" of the games.

And I did read you comments on Peggle and Tetris; I just found them ridiculous and unfounded, considering they are some of the most popular games still played today. Using them as examples of story-less games having no staying power is extremely ironic. Comparing them to Sunday strips is just shortsighted. Chances are there are more people playing Peggle and Zuma, and will play for a lot longer, than people playing Dragon Age Origins.

In other words, the claim that games need a story to last longer is still ridiculous.

7ru7h:

For the last time, I AM NOT saying storyless games aren't popular, I'm saying they don't tend to last. Sure, you can bring up games that don't agree with what I'm saying, but can you honestly see some of the games we consider classics lasting if they had their stories removed?

Multiplayer games are very popular, agreed?

I already stated this, but it's worth repeating:

Every fighting game played in Vs mode strips away the story. You don't pick a fighter and think "what's his motivation for fight?" You want to beat the other player, regardless of what the story might tell you their interactions should be.

...same with First Person Shooter Deathmatches.

So the idea that story-less games don't last is not supported by reality. On the contrary, most story-driven games are played only ONCE by the big majority of people; that's the sole reason we don't see many single player only FPS games anymore.

Also, I don't think anyone is saying that a good game can't benefit from a good story; it's true that some of the best games out there combine them well.

It's the notion that the story is somehow REQUIRED that's in contention here. We don't agree because history disagrees. You need to have a GOOD GAME as basis for a GOOD STORY to have any sort of lasting impact, and in it's most fundamental form, a videogame does not need a story.

HUBILUB:
I guess Yahtzee can get away with religious comments like that simply because nobody dares question him. Or because he is in fact, God.

I'd like to see him make a jab like that at Muslims.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Other than that:
Mario wont ever be retired because he's the fucking Nintendo mascot

L4D2 is better than the first one. They fixed the problems they had with the first one (Verses mode for an example) but what they should have done was expand the story. They have bits and pieces of the story laying around (e.x maps in the hotel first room on the right) but you need to look for it. Its a lot like Portal in that respect.

Donrad:
liked the god reference.. (*G*od?)
nintendo should seriously start something new
like.. zelda in space..

I'd like to see him make a Jab at Islam like that. (I open to bashing any Religion though but I like the irony of the "Religion of Peace" burning effigies and threatening to stone people to death)
------------
As long as Mario is the mascot of Nintendo Mario will live.

Its like the Hoosiers making football games and all of a sudden you kill the Hoosier and replace it with the Bullwevel mascot. Why would you do that? If your making money, and the formula works why stop?

One of my favourite game critics just referenced one of my favourite hosts from one of my favourite tv shows. AND THEY WERE IN THE SAME ROOM! Sorry for that outburst there but I totally agree, companies should stop remaking or continuing old franchises and just come up with some new bloody ideas. Ooh haven't got the man power or the creativity well look at companies such as Valve or Bungie who listen to what their audience wants (Even if those audiences consist entirely of fanboys, but at least they're making somewhat original games from the community suggestions).

K, saying that L4D had a setting and characters and atmostphere.. but that the lack of story line makes it "a mere piece of toast", i.e. a thing that is inferior to a "proper" story sandwich - Absolute rubbish. Many books, films and gallery art peices draw their value entirely from setting, and atmostphere alone. This idea of story line being the sole indicator of an artistic soul (eh!), is so antiquated and shallow. L4D had a bigger impact on me, art-wise, than any final fantasy or Tim Schafer game i've played so far.

Stories are more than joined up plot points. It's the way you tell them that is the hard thing. You can have deep and complex plot based enterprises that are utter shite due to bad story telling. Or you can have relatively static settings, with little plot progression, but that are truely epic because of the way they're portrayed.

Narrative is also something you interject at your own discretion, onto anything. Tetris has a narrative according to some people. This isn't to say they're wrong, so long as you can narrate the actions of a game in someway; it will have narrative potential. But to say that this is a special feature of games, which should be considered on the same level as good gameplay design... sorry, no agreement here. TF2 has no story line, other than the one which you get by reading the comics on their website, or which players themselves impose onto the characters. Still is one of the best games out there imo.

N shut up about the God thing! It isn't funny! It will only ever make people wryly smile or nervously laugh, cos those you offend are only trying to cover up their annoyance with you. And those who agree with you will sink into a "yea! yea, heh!" kinda state, and have the rest of their focus taken up with making the leap to the bandwagon.. which is so crowded that people cant tell the wheels from the rolling piles of stale old corpses.

Gindil:

Nazulu:

Gindil:
TBH to both opinions, there are a few story games that support him. I can think of Myst, The Secret of Monkey Island, and Riven, that all of their gameplay features were told through the story involved. It's not prevalent but these were popular games while others were playing Secret of Evermore or Shadowrun. Let's also not forget Psychonauts or anything Tim Schafer related that really pushed the boundaries (even if some of them didn't sell well)

Whats TBH? Anyway it's not like I said there are no great story games because I would have been very wrong.

7ru7h is saying storyless games that are released 'these days' would not remain popular over time like story games and I am saying that is a load of barnnicles.

It means "To Be Honest".

I'd say that there are a lot more games with story than there are games that are all about the gameplay. Usually, they are simple algorithms to wile away the time. Tetris, Boom Blox, Pac Man... All of these are pretty simple. Even then, if Joseph Campbell is to be believed, what usually happens is people add their own stories to this simple gameplay.

Ex:

Tetris - The cold war has continued. America has constantly been at our door about their capitalism and need for change. Comrade, we need material. We are giving money for you to make the lines for the Wall. For every four lines, it is a bonus to commission. Only you, comrade, can save us.

;)

KK but I disagree and people making up there own story for a game thats in their head doesn't include really. Also all of these game story's are nothing special at all to remember them by compared to the great movies everybody knows and loves. Thats what 7ru7h is saying, that story games are more likely to become classics because it has a story but I am saying none of these story's are nothing original or special to really make them that interesting.

Oh, and there are 10 times more storyless games than story ones. Most games we see advertise now will have some average story to it but if we are including all the old classics from the ol' NES and Sega then you have no hope.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here