Felt exactly the same way. I loved Bioshock 2 mostly due to minor tweaks such as being able to use plasmids alongside guns and more variety gameplay wise. I hated the original so much. And let's be honest, story wise it wasn't all that different from System Shock 2. The twist was almost exactly the same.Legion said:
Extra Punctuation: Building Sequels Badly
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
This idea may be a bit crazy, but what idea isn't? Could it be that the sequels are actually being "ruined" by the game or games that came before? This is most likely not true for most that are just not made well because the developers are too focused on pleasing the "fans" rather than making the game good. However, in the case of games like Portal 2 could it be that the previous game's success hirts the sequel? You yourself Yahtzee said that no one thought that Portal would be as awesome as it was. So when you campare Portal 2 to Portal you will always be missing that sence of surprise. Like if you went of a blind date with low expectations only to have your date end up being a smok'n hottie with a great personality. Then on the next date your expectations are raised to that level, but you can't ever reach that level because you can't get that surprised. That means you arn't going to get the level of excitement and entertainment as before when you thought nothing was going to be good. So then that means that when you make the sequel you have to keep in mind that you have to include some scence of mystry to keep people guessing at what happens next.Yahtzee Croshaw said:
Or at least thats how I see it.
Maybe the 3rd date will be better?"The stories and characters change each time. This is because stories tend to limit a world and I think by changing these aspects and creating new material for each title, we try to show our full potential." Hironobu Sakaguchi, creator of final fantasy2xDouble said:
I think it's pretty unfair to have XII there, though it was a prequel to tactics in a subtle way it was pretty much a seperate entity. It was a great game that had some flaws, but it's not part of the same trash as what SE have produced this generation. VIII and X can also be criticised just as much for their various flaws, but they're still redeemable and high quality games overall. XIII though an awful game is original so it's irrelevant to this particularly line of thought that sequels should be original. I think FF was one of the games that was best at sequels, along with GTA (even episodes from liberty city, the DLC, have entirely new protagonists, characters and plot).
The problem is the spin offs and dilution of the FF brand. Instead of a great creative and engaging main series, we've now got a half assed main series with individual sequels (IV sequel, X-2 and XIII-2 as well as fabula nova crystallis mythology) with a bunch of half assed portable spin offs (dissidia, crisis core etc.), movies, crystal chronicles and a few actually good spin offs (kingdom hearts, tactics) and lots of other stuff like chocobo racing and so on... The main creative people like kitase and Nomura worked on up to 8 different games during the production of FFXIII, it's no surprise it came out underwhelming. Versus looks like the ying to XIII's yang, and will hopefully offer some actual interactivity of the quality expected from an RPG, but it's still far behind western developers in many key aspects that have been innovated since the FF series stagnated at the start of last decade. Most of the blame should go to Yoichi Wada as the exploitation of the final fantasy brand has been his focus:
"It's very difficult to hit the jackpot, as it were. Once we've hit it, we have to get all the juice possible out of it."
Hmmm, well I tend to disagree with a lot of what is said here. The biggest area is probably the idea that a game explaining itself and the plotline/storyline is a bad thing, and can't ever work out. The problem is that a lot of game developers, or heck developers of media in general, use the whole "we want to be mysterious" thing as a crutch for bad writing and development. Pointing towards how things might lead towards some overarching, sinister truth, while tossing in logical inconsistincies towards people who try and piece it together is a heck of a lot easier than actually developing a solid storyline and then telling it in a mysterious fashion that ultimatly leads to a fulfilling conclusion. The problem is that your dealing with what are basically hack writers shooting themselves in the foot trying to wrap up their work in a sequel. The problem is that almost every video game series that tries to be mysterious winds up being "Lost", oftentimes trying to buy it's way out of the problem by being increasingly more obtuse until they wind up at a point where they can't do that anymore, the series has to come to an end, and they are left facing a mess of their own creation.
To put things into perspective, it's possible to have creepy and mysterious atmosphere that seems to make no sense, but then wraps up in a satisfying conclusion that answers everyone's questions and leaves people thinking "OMG, that was brilliant" rather than wallowing in some kind of odd psychobabble, or revealing the protaganist was crazy all along, or relying on surreal time travel manipulations and "WTF" reveals along with ignoring most of what had been established up until that point. The thing is that we've seen mystery and horror writers do it right on a number of occasions. Agatha Cristie, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Steven King, Dean Koontz, Clive Barker, Michael Slade and others have all become pretty famous and successful by managing to pull this kind of thing off, even though they have had failures along with their successes. A lot of their best work might seen quaint in retrospect, but only because we all know the twist and how it all falls together.
If I had to point a finger at the real masters of this I'd actually give a not to Carolyn Keene, and Frank Dixon (which is actual a pseudonym of a lot of differant writers, similar to how Michael Slade is actually more than one guy). Carolyn Keene and Frak Dixon did "Nancy Drew" and "The Hardy Boys" respectively. I give them the nod because while they write children's literature and young adult fiction, they are masters at taking wierd stuff and impossible events, and then tying it all together at the end. They have done this so well, for so long, that they have been the subject of massive parody, but also arguably inspired a lot of people to use variations on their tricks in more adult drama over the years.
Simply put the problem is that in setting up games, game companies need to actually get writers who know what they are doing, and have them involved in more than a cursory fashion in the entire process of putting the game together. Most games that tout a connection to a famous author have limited involvement by the person in question.
In creating a franchise or ongoing story, the trick is of course to have someone sit down and outline the overall plotline, how, and why things are going to be happening ahead of time.... which rarely happens other than in the most vague sense with video game series. Especially ones based around any kind of mystery or suspense.
The problem with Yahtzee's criticisms here, and in other places, is that he seems to be picking on the institution of sequels, rather than simply saying that game developers are morons who have not evolved along with the medium. 99% of the problems he points out, both here and in other areas, largely comes down to the gaming industry being resistant to change. As a number of sources over the years seem to have been saying, the actual writer of a game winds up taking a back seat to the guys actually doing the development, and/or the artwork. Either that, or the writing is being done around a certain set of gameplay mechanics, such as "we want to make a shooter" or "we want to make a puzzle game with portals" and then making a plot that works around the mechanics they want, which tends to be counter productive when it comes to writing and especially when it comes to trying to extend that story into sequels.
To be brutally honest, when it comes to say "Portal 2" in paticular, the big problem is that they took something that was awesome as a minor little extra in a package and tried to extend it into a full fledged AAA game. Portal kind of worked because on a lot of levels is was a giant tutorial, and a sort of tech demo, showing off what could be done with this kind of physics system. I think it impressed people because it was new, and showed off a possible future for gaming. What Valve SHOULD have done was take the Portal technology and used it as part of other game franchises, as an additional mechanic, as opposed to the theme of a game because of how people liked it to begin with. It's sort of like how they kind of sold people on the idea of a "physics gun" and you see it widely imitated as an idea in things like "Dead Space". The whole "Portal Gun" concept should be intergrated into other titles, rather than trying to hold down a franchise itself. The potential for using portals to line up fancy shots in shooters, or open up doorways to manipulate things with another kind of physics device is rather huge, and has a serious chance of outright creating smarter games for people.
To put things into perspective, it's possible to have creepy and mysterious atmosphere that seems to make no sense, but then wraps up in a satisfying conclusion that answers everyone's questions and leaves people thinking "OMG, that was brilliant" rather than wallowing in some kind of odd psychobabble, or revealing the protaganist was crazy all along, or relying on surreal time travel manipulations and "WTF" reveals along with ignoring most of what had been established up until that point. The thing is that we've seen mystery and horror writers do it right on a number of occasions. Agatha Cristie, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Steven King, Dean Koontz, Clive Barker, Michael Slade and others have all become pretty famous and successful by managing to pull this kind of thing off, even though they have had failures along with their successes. A lot of their best work might seen quaint in retrospect, but only because we all know the twist and how it all falls together.
If I had to point a finger at the real masters of this I'd actually give a not to Carolyn Keene, and Frank Dixon (which is actual a pseudonym of a lot of differant writers, similar to how Michael Slade is actually more than one guy). Carolyn Keene and Frak Dixon did "Nancy Drew" and "The Hardy Boys" respectively. I give them the nod because while they write children's literature and young adult fiction, they are masters at taking wierd stuff and impossible events, and then tying it all together at the end. They have done this so well, for so long, that they have been the subject of massive parody, but also arguably inspired a lot of people to use variations on their tricks in more adult drama over the years.
Simply put the problem is that in setting up games, game companies need to actually get writers who know what they are doing, and have them involved in more than a cursory fashion in the entire process of putting the game together. Most games that tout a connection to a famous author have limited involvement by the person in question.
In creating a franchise or ongoing story, the trick is of course to have someone sit down and outline the overall plotline, how, and why things are going to be happening ahead of time.... which rarely happens other than in the most vague sense with video game series. Especially ones based around any kind of mystery or suspense.
The problem with Yahtzee's criticisms here, and in other places, is that he seems to be picking on the institution of sequels, rather than simply saying that game developers are morons who have not evolved along with the medium. 99% of the problems he points out, both here and in other areas, largely comes down to the gaming industry being resistant to change. As a number of sources over the years seem to have been saying, the actual writer of a game winds up taking a back seat to the guys actually doing the development, and/or the artwork. Either that, or the writing is being done around a certain set of gameplay mechanics, such as "we want to make a shooter" or "we want to make a puzzle game with portals" and then making a plot that works around the mechanics they want, which tends to be counter productive when it comes to writing and especially when it comes to trying to extend that story into sequels.
To be brutally honest, when it comes to say "Portal 2" in paticular, the big problem is that they took something that was awesome as a minor little extra in a package and tried to extend it into a full fledged AAA game. Portal kind of worked because on a lot of levels is was a giant tutorial, and a sort of tech demo, showing off what could be done with this kind of physics system. I think it impressed people because it was new, and showed off a possible future for gaming. What Valve SHOULD have done was take the Portal technology and used it as part of other game franchises, as an additional mechanic, as opposed to the theme of a game because of how people liked it to begin with. It's sort of like how they kind of sold people on the idea of a "physics gun" and you see it widely imitated as an idea in things like "Dead Space". The whole "Portal Gun" concept should be intergrated into other titles, rather than trying to hold down a franchise itself. The potential for using portals to line up fancy shots in shooters, or open up doorways to manipulate things with another kind of physics device is rather huge, and has a serious chance of outright creating smarter games for people.
Everyone has already name one or 2 sequels for "Name me one sequel to a game that wasn't..." challenge and here is mine:
Mortal Kombat 2
It had most of the same cast and is actually the first fighting game ever to have something near a real story. Sure, it's no Shakespeare but it did have some decent backstories and other stuff. Plus the original game didn't have the open end like the crappy hollywood movie.
Mortal Kombat 2
It had most of the same cast and is actually the first fighting game ever to have something near a real story. Sure, it's no Shakespeare but it did have some decent backstories and other stuff. Plus the original game didn't have the open end like the crappy hollywood movie.
A story to a game is like a frame to a painting; it puts everything else into perspective and, done right, can be the perfect finishing touch; equally, done badly it can detract from the final work. It is not, however, anything like as important as the painting itself.Therumancer said:
Your argument is like complaining that people just don't accept carpentry as an important aspect of painting. Of course they don't, it isn't. The writer's job is to create something that works within the planned mechanics, and he will never be as important as the people who create the mechanics in question.
If System Shock was "open ended enough for a sequel" then what ISN'T? SHODAN was dead, the Hacker returned to Earth and got hired by Tri-Op, Citadel Station was destroyed along with the annelid threat...Warachia said:
I could be wrong here, as this was some time ago, but the only way SHODAN survived the original was via a plot device that wasn't even hinted at until SS2, when it was explained in full. So that doesn't count as "being left open" because they basically had to retcon it. The implication at the end of the first game was clearly that SHODAN had been destroyed. Also, there was a multi-year gap between the development cycles, and in its early forms SS2 was not set on being a direct predecessor to System Shock. They were initially planning on making an entirely different game. All this suggests that a sequel wasn't initially planned-for.
Hey Yahtzee... What are your thoughts on the announcement of Max Payne 3???
personally i am veeeeryyyy pesimistic about this and definetly think that Max Payne 2 Ended the story the way it should...
plz mention your thoughts on thin in a extra-Punctuation ...
personally i am veeeeryyyy pesimistic about this and definetly think that Max Payne 2 Ended the story the way it should...
plz mention your thoughts on thin in a extra-Punctuation ...
I absolutely, totally knew someone would say something like that. I also knew exactly what I would say: that there's a difference between "pandering to fans" and "continuing with what is successful". Sometimes, what a company does and what their fans want them to do eclipse a little.stuhacking said:
There's so many Mario games because Mario is such an endearing and occupationally versatile character. He and the world he exists in are like Popeye mixed with Hello Kitty; giving it a huge appeal to both Americans and the Japanese. It's for this reason (and the reason that they consistently have some of the best gameplay--and music--ever) that so many people are Mario fans.
I'm not sure exactly how to explain it. I'll illustrate it like this, Nintendo views their franchises as the following.
We make good game > create fans > we make good game > create fans
Most other developers view their work more like this.
Research what fans want > create fans > fans make game > create fans > fans make game > create fans
But games get pretty stale after a while like this.
Yahtzee, you pose an interesting question about sequel storylines. Let's see if I can answer it.
Hmmmm... a self-contained, critically acclaimed game, with a sequel that many say surpassed it? One that also involves puzzles, a lone hero, and an omniscient but inhuman artificial intelligence?
Gee, I can't THINK what game could possibly meet those criteria.
[Any gamer over the age of twenty who doesn't know I'm referring to "System Shock" here loses five "L33T" points and gets to call me "Daddy" for a month.]
Hmmmm... a self-contained, critically acclaimed game, with a sequel that many say surpassed it? One that also involves puzzles, a lone hero, and an omniscient but inhuman artificial intelligence?
Gee, I can't THINK what game could possibly meet those criteria.
[Any gamer over the age of twenty who doesn't know I'm referring to "System Shock" here loses five "L33T" points and gets to call me "Daddy" for a month.]
Evil Tim said:
... and that is EXACTLY the attitude that is causing the problem in question.
Right now everyone realizes that storytelling is an important aspect of doing games, irregardless of the genere. It's a cornerstone of the whole "games as art" arguement which was just sort of won by the goverment acknowleging them as such (I say 'sort of' because we still have a Supreme Court ruling in the pipe, and by it's nature The Surpreme court overrules everything else and can cause sweeping changes by overturning laws and precedents on a large scale with a single ruling. If it chooses to say that they aren't protected and that the goverment can regulate them for content, by setting and enforcing ratings criminally then it doesn't matter what anyone else has said in the meantime). Indeed it's one of the big things being promoted for games right now, where one of the big "speeches" used to sell "Old Republic Online" was how they considered storyline to be a major part of the game development, being treated equally to other parts of the game... (that speech sticking out because there were accusations of plagerism when another company said almost the same exact thing verbatim)
The thing is that Storytelling had to be given EQUAL time to the game development itself, you basically need to sit the developers and the writers down in a cubicle someplace, and not do anything until they both come up with something they can agree on. If you wind up siding too much with the writers as opposed to the game developers you wind up with trashy interactive movies like "Heavy Rain", and what Bioware and Square Enix both apparently want to turn their "games" into. If you side too much with the game developer, then you wind up with the kinds of problems being talked about where the "plot" will be things like tons of little jokes or mysterious elements being tossed around, without any central narrative, that makes wrapping them up very difficult, never mind expanding on them for sequels that weren't initially planned on.
The thing is that blending storytelling and gameplay together isn't EASY so nobody wants to take the time to do it right. Typically trying to give both equal time usually involves trying to seperate the story and gameplay into their own seperat cosms (a standard JRPG trap) where they have nothing really to do with each other. "Why doesn't Cloud toss a Pheonix Down on that silly bint Aeris like he does every other time she gets killed?" well the reason is that the combat mechanics have nothing to do with the storyline, so despite possessing towering cosmic power in combat, he's still a fairly mortal emo dude when it comes to the actual storytelling... where you know, suddenly the plot forgets that curing death simply amounts to dropping $50 at the local drug store for some feathers and a slingshot to deliver them to the carcass in question.
Simply put gaming isn't incapable of dealing with this kind of problem, it's just that nobody wants to put in the time. Everyone knows where things need to go, people write about it at great length, and game companies talk about it at length in press releases, the problem is actually getting the people to sit down to do it. It's not a matter of "carpentry has nothing to do with painting" so much as the storyline being the paint, and the game design itself being the brush (the mechanical part) used to deliver it. Sure you can just splash paint on there and wind up with say "Heavy Rain" or "Final Fantasy XIII", or you can scrape a dry brush on the canvas and wind up with say "Tetris", but to create an actual modern game, and get the genere to live up to it's full potential you need to get the two working together.
In the end though I think a lot of this actually comes down to money and control. I means having to pay writers a lot more money to do a lot more work than the gaming industry currently goes for, and it also means that the guys actually making the games need to work within the context of what is being set up. Simply put if your going to create a story where permadeath is an option for one of the major characters, then by definition the game developers should not be creating a world where pople actually die in combat and get brought back to life casually by spells and items bought from stores. Rather they should be working around the idea of characters being knocked out, and ensure that the graphics, items, and spell names reflect that reality. That means that the game developers and such might have to restrain their impulse to say put in graphics with major story characters being horribly dismembered as part of the battle animations, because it doesn't work as part of the whole project.
I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but sequels have been around for far longer than games or film. Going back centuries, in fact. They're not a new phenomenon, and they're not ruining entertainment. I get what Yahtzee is trying to say, but abolishing them is quite simply not going to happen. This is, after all, an entertainment industry, and sequels make money.
Yahtzee also seems to be oblivious to the fact that he, himself, is also a fan of the original Portal... and as such, he seems to think that he knows better than the developers what could or should be done with the intellectual property. I frequently agree with him, and even when I don't, I still enjoy his contrarian opinions; however, when it comes to this particular franchise, he's being more than a little hypocritical.
Yahtzee also seems to be oblivious to the fact that he, himself, is also a fan of the original Portal... and as such, he seems to think that he knows better than the developers what could or should be done with the intellectual property. I frequently agree with him, and even when I don't, I still enjoy his contrarian opinions; however, when it comes to this particular franchise, he's being more than a little hypocritical.
I've often held the opinion that there are 2 types of adequate sequels- those that do basically the same thing as their predecessor only better (satisfying the desire for more that you're left with after beating the first game) and those that are basically the same series, but do things in a radically different manner so they don't need to be compared, favourably or unfavourably, to their predecessor.
My all-time favourite example of the former is Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness. Warcraft was a good real time strategy game, but Warcraft II was SO MUCH MORE. Gameplay was fundamentally the same, but there were many more units, most notably including air and sea units. Gameplay was radically improved, from minor tweaks like being able to see actual unit stats and being able to select 9 units at once rather than only 4, to major improvements such as the much faster game speed and unit reaction (in Warcraft I the units seem to be moving through treacle by comparison) and massively improved balance (no more hordes or crossbowmen/spearmen mowing down entire armies one volley at a time). Aesthetically the game was miles ahead, with beautifully clear graphics, a fantastic soundtrack, more interesting units like Elven Archers, Troll Axethrowers, Dwarven Demo Teams, Two Headed Ogres and Death Knights replacing the all-human and all-orc armies of the first game. In every way, Warcraft II surpassed its predecessor.
One of the best examples of the latter is Resident Evil 4. This requires little explanation; the series had always been reasonably well-regarded but had been becoming stale. Resident Evil 4 basically threw the entire series before it out- it brought back Leon Kennedy and Ada Wong but otherwise discarded everything that had come before. The fixed camera perspective, the simple slot-based inventory, typewriter ribbons, hell, even the ZOMBIES. It was completely different to every other game in the Resident Evil series to that point and was received as one of the greatest action games ever made. (By contrast, Resi 5 basically rehashed Resi 4 only not as well and was comparatively panned.)
The worst sequels are the ones that do the same thing as their predecessor but can't say they're actually BETTER. This is why a lot of people think Smash Bros Brawl was disappointing- although there was a lot more content (more characters, more game modes, more stages, more items) the gameplay was simultaneously too similar to Melee's while at the same time being generally consider simply NOT AS GOOD. While it was largely a matter of opinion, it was generally accepted that the control was floatier, the character balance was shot to hell and the "tripping" mechanic (where your character would randomly fall over for no reason) was spawned from the nether negions of Satan. The same applies to Bioshock 2 and Modern Warfare 2- basically the same game as the predecessor with a few tweaks, but can you say it's actually BETTER? No, probably not.
My all-time favourite example of the former is Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness. Warcraft was a good real time strategy game, but Warcraft II was SO MUCH MORE. Gameplay was fundamentally the same, but there were many more units, most notably including air and sea units. Gameplay was radically improved, from minor tweaks like being able to see actual unit stats and being able to select 9 units at once rather than only 4, to major improvements such as the much faster game speed and unit reaction (in Warcraft I the units seem to be moving through treacle by comparison) and massively improved balance (no more hordes or crossbowmen/spearmen mowing down entire armies one volley at a time). Aesthetically the game was miles ahead, with beautifully clear graphics, a fantastic soundtrack, more interesting units like Elven Archers, Troll Axethrowers, Dwarven Demo Teams, Two Headed Ogres and Death Knights replacing the all-human and all-orc armies of the first game. In every way, Warcraft II surpassed its predecessor.
One of the best examples of the latter is Resident Evil 4. This requires little explanation; the series had always been reasonably well-regarded but had been becoming stale. Resident Evil 4 basically threw the entire series before it out- it brought back Leon Kennedy and Ada Wong but otherwise discarded everything that had come before. The fixed camera perspective, the simple slot-based inventory, typewriter ribbons, hell, even the ZOMBIES. It was completely different to every other game in the Resident Evil series to that point and was received as one of the greatest action games ever made. (By contrast, Resi 5 basically rehashed Resi 4 only not as well and was comparatively panned.)
The worst sequels are the ones that do the same thing as their predecessor but can't say they're actually BETTER. This is why a lot of people think Smash Bros Brawl was disappointing- although there was a lot more content (more characters, more game modes, more stages, more items) the gameplay was simultaneously too similar to Melee's while at the same time being generally consider simply NOT AS GOOD. While it was largely a matter of opinion, it was generally accepted that the control was floatier, the character balance was shot to hell and the "tripping" mechanic (where your character would randomly fall over for no reason) was spawned from the nether negions of Satan. The same applies to Bioshock 2 and Modern Warfare 2- basically the same game as the predecessor with a few tweaks, but can you say it's actually BETTER? No, probably not.
Using the word "irregardless" is a good way to make people ignore everything else you have to say, being as it's a pretentious word that actually contradicts itself on closer inspection (ir-regardless? So, we're with regard?).Therumancer said:
There is a difference between games being a form of art and games being a form of art where storytelling is an important element. Architecture is a form of art too, that doesn't mean you have to stuff a fucking 3-act play into every building. Cooking is a form of art, but cooking is certainly not a means of telling a story.Therumancer said:
Games are still a very insecure medium that are trying to show they're art by apeing the conventions of other mediums that already are; primarily books and film. A painting doesn't need a writer to furnish it with a really well-written plaque to tell you what's going on; indeed, art critics shit on such paintings, saying you should tell any story entirely through the medium of the work itself. Statues don't come with supplementary novels. Only games feel they need to do this kind of thing, and the sooner they realise they don't, the sooner they'll start being their own artform.
You are insane. Again, it's like saying the carpenter who makes a picture frame is as important as the painter who makes the picture. The story can only ever act as a frame and setup for the play aspect of the game, which is what makes the medium what it is. Games will never be art while people like you are trying to force them to be something they're not.Therumancer said:
Or maybe it's that the modern non-play approach to game storytelling is totally wrong. Remember in Castlevania, how Simon Belmont slew the fearsome Medusa? How did we know he'd done that? Why, because we did it ourselves, without needing anything but our actions in the game to tell us that.Therumancer said:
Is Sonic better for the asinine "universe" that's been built around it? Most people would rather it was just Sonic fighting Robotnik because he's evil. Mega Man has recently gone back to that. Is Homefront a better game than Black and Doom 2 because it's more willing to interrupt the actual gameplay with tedious storyline?
If you seriously think that's how important story is then you have no idea what videogames are. What about Tetris? Are you saying Tetris would be better with a plot? What about chess? Would chess be a better game if on white's turn ten white had to lose their kingside knight to the corrupt black Bishop because on move five it was established that knight had great faith and it would be both tragic and ironic for him to die at the Bishop's hands? Don't worry, on white's turn fourteen the E-file pawn is going to avenge his father.Therumancer said:
Nevermind that none of this is playing chess, we're having a story now!
A game needs as much story as a game needs. Story provides a basis for visualising the game's mechanics in a less abstract way; more story suits games with more complex mechanics that need to be tied together. For example, Mastermind has no story; it's just a guessing / logic game on a board with coloured pieces. Battleships has more story; the pieces are ships, the board is a radar screen. Clue has even more storyline, with each piece a character, the board a house with secret passages, and even an overall outline of what the players are trying to do in the place. In each case it's as much as they need; Mastermind would seem absurd with the level of story Clue has, while Clue would seem like an abstract collection of arbitrary rules without the story to frame them.
Narrative is something games are terrible at; the best they tend to be able to do with it is have the game and narrative alternate, meaning the "story" (as you call it) is just the thing that happens between the game. They're much better when the narrative is built around the player's actions, which is the "no story" that the games-are-art crowd so despise.
Wait, have you ever played any game that isn't an RPG?Therumancer said: