inu-kun said:
I think the big question is "how you define a story?". You can go with the clinical description, ie based solely on the script and how well it is written. Or you can go with the emotional connection with the story as how well you felt connected to it.
I've got two types of definition:
1) Story, as in, being the same as the plot. So, for instance, a piece of fiction could have a good plot that's told terribly, and therefore still have a good story.
2) Story, as in, the culmination of numerous aspects of a work of fiction (plot, characters, worldbuilding, themes, character development, storytelling, etc.)
Usually it doesn't matter too much, but it can be helpful to make the distinction at times.
Myria said:
In many instances someone watching a gameplay is going to 'get' more of the story than the player, who often has other concerns as gameplay elements, sadly, often get in the way of (poorly timed) story elements. You don't have to watch very many Youtube vids or Twitch streams to see a player miss major story elements entirely -- oftentimes to their, or their viewers, great frustration -- because they were too busy with whatever the game had them doing at the time.
I've seen players miss gameplay elements, but not story elements. Or at least, not miss them in the sense you're referring to them as, more just going by them. Off the top of my head, Doom 2016, where players would never bother with the lore logs. Course, then I got the game and discovered I wasn't missing out on much, so there is that.
aegix drakan said:
Hmm....
It really depends.
Sometimes a story thing can be so bad that you can instantly form a judgement on it because it's something that completely butchers the experience (*coughOtherMcough*), but as a general rule, you should play a thing before judging the story. Games are, after all, an interactive medium, and the gameplay often served to reinforce the story.
I'll be frank, while I can't call Other M an example of stellar storytelling, its control scheme is the biggest nail in the coffin for me. I can play and enjoy Metroid games with barebones stories (e.g. Super Metroid and Zero Mission), because as sparse as their stories are, they're at least fun to play. I'd maintain that a good story can salvage poor gameplay and vice versa. However, Other M (and Hunters) lack in both these areas, while something like Fusion excels in both of them.
aegix drakan said:
That said, I would agree with whoever you disagreed with about Starcraft 2, although maybe not about the same things (I dunno what your conversation was about). As someone who spent a lot of my teen years in love with the lore of the original games, the new trilogy gets so, so, SO much wrong with the Zerg and Protoss that unless I get Legacy of the Void for free like I got Heart of the Swarm for free (or I get it for like 5 bucks), I don't think I want to finish the new trilogy.
No one particular issue, just...well, I guess everything. Took at least three years for the bombshell to be dropped. I suppose I can trust her that she (and others) played SC1 like I did (would have been 9 when it came out), but often times it felt like we played completely different games.
Per the above statement of yours, I'd rather agree to disagree. Best thing I can say about spending time debating SC1/2 is that it gave me the heads up not to enter The Last Jedi debates/shitstorms.