nimrandir said:
The D&D analogy ends this discussion, as far as I am concerned. Some playgroups spend every session crunching numbers and min-maxing their characters, while others can go a whole evening without rolling a die.
Back when I played MECCG [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MECCG], I knew folks who built streamlined tournament decks whose only goal was victory, while I used cards to tell the tale of a group of dwarves rallying Gondor or Radagast transforming Mordor into a big garden. Was I 'playing the game' any less?
And some can do both. In my current Star Wars Saga Edition tabletop game, we're fairly dice-heavy for combat, with very few checks and a lot of roleplaying for non-combat. One of my friends plays a droid, and min-maxes every chance he gets, ignoring a lot of roleplay for combat; my other friend plays a Jedi and is generally not so fussed about stats so much as recurring villains and saving the princess. A third friend really gets into combat AND roleplay, and is still the first person to ask "how much XP do I get?" at the end of every combat encounter. As for me, I'm just there for the experience. And every single viewpoint here exists within the same, physical tabletop game - why can't the same be said for digital games?
I'll concede that in tabletop, things are definitely more flexible. But we all still play by the same rules - regardless of whether the DM hands out results arbitrarily or does everything by dice, as long as the min-maxer feels like his stats mean something, my friends have a constant flow of story and enemies to dispatch and struggle against, and I have a constant flow of action - be it combat or narrative - we're all happy.
Flow is everything. Jonathan Blow's argument is that story and gameplay are confrontational, but this assumes the two are separate - you're either in a gameplay section or a narrative section. I disagree, and state that a large number of games fall back on this in an attempt to fill time and content. Jonathan himself does it in Braid - story occurs at the start and end of each area, and the gameplay in-between is loosely linked to the narrative thematic. I'd argue it's still a good game, but that there would be even less point to the beautiful platforming WITHOUT the simple frame story and the bursts of plot between each level. Were the story linked to the gameplay better, events occurring mid-level, and the level objectives being tied to the plot better, the motivation would be even higher. It's for that very reason I ended up imagining a metaplot to explain the game events! I see it as the main character going back through his memories, time having broken them, and trying to piece together the events that have led to his current situation. Hence the jigsaw pieces, the stylised art, and the use of time as a game mechanic. Each piece is a memory. Perhaps this was not the artist's intent, but by having a frame story with gameplay inbetween, it greatly enhanced the experience for me. Had he directly stated this to be the case, rather than leaving it to my imagination, I suspect I'd have lost a little value, while those who did not imagine such (and just saw a time-manipulation item-collecting platformer) would've appreciated the flavourful story to colour it.
There's an excellent article about this at TVTropes.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameplayAndStorySegregation
It doesn't have to be this way forever! I Have A Dream(cast)! One day, we will be able to understand and master the Gameplay-to-Story ratio [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StoryToGameplayRatio], and everyone will be happy! Or at least, I will. Sandbox games currently come fairly close to the perfect ratio (100% story to 1% story according to the player's wishes) as do games like Portal (100% gameplay supported by constant incoming story that can be assimilated or ignored at the player's wish). Not that they're the only genres capable of it, just that they're the current closest...
TLDR: Blow is wrong and I have some convincing arguments otherwise, including his own work.