The Good, the Bad, and the Sequel

[Stavros Dimou]

There are many kinds of sequels and not all of them need a better story.
A better story is only needed in franchise that is based on story actually. If the strong point of a series was never it's story,then an improvement on the story department isn't that urgent.
For example take Mario and most of Nintendo's game.
Each Mario games tells the exact same story and repeats the same events over and over again.
Mario doesn't need anything more than that actually.
But think of a Mass Effect game without a good story.
Mass Effect (1) tried to balance good story with good gameplay,but its very well written story and cinematics made the real difference.Bioware saw this,and they made Mass Effect 2's story stronger,while (IMO) gameplay became more stale and honestly I got bored after realizing the pattern the game had "Talk to X,X will ask you for a favor,you go there shoot many usual dudes to get to objective,fight a boss,repeat".
I think that what a sequel has to have to be considered good is to keep all the essential characteristics,its definitive points the same,while expanding,refreshing and perhaps altering less significant things.
What is Castlevania whithout Dracula,Mario without platforms,or an id Software game without darkness and disgusting moments ?
Developers should keep the main things that shape up a game's experience the same,while changing or improving anything else.
I expect from a sequel to make me feel the same kind of feelings I felt with an original,but while offering new content to make the experience feel fresh.
I believe that if a developer would like to make substantial changes regarding a game's,basic feel shouldn't name it a sequel.
And that's why I think Prey 2 should be named something else.
I played Prey and liked it but when I learned that Prey 2 is going to be nothing like the original I felt bad inside me 'cause I thought "The game I liked is dead and now I will never play something like that thing I liked again".
Something that made me prejudiced against Prey 2.
It might be a good name,but from a Prey game I'd expect an Indian mechanic using spiritual powers to fight aliens,playing around with portals and watching disturbing vistas every now and then,similar to DNF's "hive" level.
When I see that a sequel is so different and doesn't hold the things that made the original what it is,I feel like being tricked over to buy something that I think it's something else.
Sequels should be made if there are clear ideas in a creator's mind of how it should be done properly I think.For a sequel to be good,the main designer should have a clear vision of how the game will play,and how the series will evolve from before.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Of course, it comes down to whether or not we think the lead designer should be held in the same sort of regard as a movie director is, above the rest of the development team.

I guess that rather depends on just how influential the designer really is.

To what extent is a game a reflection of a single person's vision, and to what extent is it a collaboration?

Sid Meier and Chris Sawyer probably did do almost the entirety of the games they are known for by themselves. (Chris Sawyer outsourced things, but that's different to having people working with you to design something.)

Shigeru Miyamoto designed the original Mario & Zelda games. There were other people designing the levels, and doing programming (and probably music), but the game mechanics (and character design) are largely his responsibility.

By contrast, by the time of mario 3, Shigeru Miyamoto probably already had far less direct involvement with how those games were made... (These days he's usually listed as Executive producer most of the time.)

Doom and quake, meanwhile, seem to have been games built almost entirely around the question of 'what can we do with our cool new technology?'.

I guess it's possible for a game to reflect the vision of a single (or small number of) people, but at the same time that doesn't seem to be the working practice of most modern game studios.

 

[AJey]

WTF? Jim, you serious? "Game can be good with a weak story"! Are you F-ing serious?! Most pathetic piece of argument ever! wow! Show me a good game that has a weak story! You gonna use Angry Birds maybe?! Show me a single good game without or with weak story!

Let me put it this way. You show me any game from the 80s or earlier that has a good story. Any game...
Now think of any game released during that time that were actually good: Mario 1 and 2, Megaman 1 and 2, Street Fighter 1 and 2, Wolfestein, Pacman, Galaga, Tetris, etc. Any game in that group is an example of games that are good but have almost no story. And that not even counting more modern games.
Story is games is almost always weak... Other than RPG, most games stories is more like a premise (save your girlfriend, get the MacGuffin, shoot everyone before they shoot you). Most modern games focus on setting to set them apart, more than story.

I agree! Those are pretty good games that have a premise at best. But thats a completely different era of gaming. With the technology of that time and dominant genres, story was very often impossible. Not to mention that then game was about fun, and fun only! Today, games have vastly expanded. They still have to be fun, yet a story, characters, plot, gameplay, mechanics, esthetics, music and many more variables are required to have a valid game. Imagine Morgan Freeman without a story, fantastic supporting characters and setting. Imagine Final Fantasy having only a hack-n-slash element. Imagine Elder Scrolls being only about killing monsters! And the list goes on. I get your point about 80s, but its not relevant in 2011. Games have changed drastically. Im also NOT trying to say that everyone should only care about story. I do play games like Counter Strike or COD sometimes. However in todays gaming world, at least a decent game is obliged to have a story (among other essentials). Not to mention there really are not many good games out there!

 

[AJey]

WTF? Jim, you serious? "Game can be good with a weak story"! Are you F-ing serious?! Most pathetic piece of argument ever! wow! Show me a good game that has a weak story! You gonna use Angry Birds maybe?! Show me a single good game without or with weak story!

'Good?' or 'Successful?'

Because uh, Counterstrike comes to mind. I don't like Counterstrike, but a very large group of people do and have for a very long time. Also 'good story' is pretty subjective--I wouldn't say Punch Out had a good story, but the game was a blast. Hell, the entire Street Fighter franchise has a 'storyline' so laughable that you literally probably shouldn't know it, but remains an excellent franchise for what it is. But of course, I could list games like this all day. If it's something as subjective as how much you 'like' them you're just going to shoot them down because they're not your kind of games.

Granted not any kind of story is a good story. I do recognize the difference between "good" and "successful". COD is successful yet it lacks story. At the same time COD represents only a fraction of a game. Lets compare COD to Halo. They are both successful. Not to make fanboys mad, but I would say COD is more popular. Does it mean COD is a better game? No! Why? Because an additional element that Halo has - story - is present and is pretty decent. There are many important parts in games, however today story remains the most important. Story helps progress and build characters, it helps set the setting, it helps you immerse into a game etc. Of course there is a fun factor. But even a flash game can be fun. Im not trying to speak form a preferences point of view. When I play any kind of game, I also try and evaluate it professionally. So I can enjoy and like the game, but not think that its necessary good!

 

[Son of Makuta]

WTF? Jim, you serious? "Game can be good with a weak story"! Are you F-ing serious?! Most pathetic piece of argument ever! wow! Show me a good game that has a weak story! You gonna use Angry Birds maybe?! Show me a single good game without or with weak story!

Let's ignore old games for the time being, and just look at all the awesome games that have little story, if any at all. Audiosurf. Cogs. Greed Corp (it has a setting, nothing more). Marvel vs. Capcom 3 (sure, it has a story, but who gives a damn?). Almost any FPS. Wolverine: Origins.

Hell, even Half-Life 2's story is mostly comprised of excuses to go to places. The original Portal didn't have a plot besides "then I walked to here, was insulted by a robot, and did something clever" until near the end of the game; World of Goo does something similar. Despite this, all three games definitely told you something. They evoked; they brought to life. HL2 had Alyx Vance and a world under control by a sinister influence. Portal presented you with the mystery of the puzzles themselves and the meta-mystery of what exactly was going on and who this enigmatic, crazy-sounding computer was. World of Goo nudged you every now and then to tell you that as you solved simplified engineering conundrums, something not-that-innocuous was happening somewhere in the background, distracted you with whimsy, and then pulled a climax out of nowhere and threw it straight at the part of your brain that controls wonder.

 

[Trilliandi]

Am I the only one that read Yahtzee's second post and suddenly thought of a drive-in-roller-coaster?

 

[hermes]

WTF? Jim, you serious? "Game can be good with a weak story"! Are you F-ing serious?! Most pathetic piece of argument ever! wow! Show me a good game that has a weak story! You gonna use Angry Birds maybe?! Show me a single good game without or with weak story!

Let me put it this way. You show me any game from the 80s or earlier that has a good story. Any game...
Now think of any game released during that time that were actually good: Mario 1 and 2, Megaman 1 and 2, Street Fighter 1 and 2, Wolfestein, Pacman, Galaga, Tetris, etc. Any game in that group is an example of games that are good but have almost no story. And that not even counting more modern games.
Story is games is almost always weak... Other than RPG, most games stories is more like a premise (save your girlfriend, get the MacGuffin, shoot everyone before they shoot you). Most modern games focus on setting to set them apart, more than story.

I agree! Those are pretty good games that have a premise at best. But thats a completely different era of gaming. With the technology of that time and dominant genres, story was very often impossible. Not to mention that then game was about fun, and fun only! Today, games have vastly expanded. They still have to be fun, yet a story, characters, plot, gameplay, mechanics, esthetics, music and many more variables are required to have a valid game. Imagine Morgan Freeman without a story, fantastic supporting characters and setting. Imagine Final Fantasy having only a hack-n-slash element. Imagine Elder Scrolls being only about killing monsters! And the list goes on. I get your point about 80s, but its not relevant in 2011. Games have changed drastically. Im also NOT trying to say that everyone should only care about story. I do play games like Counter Strike or COD sometimes. However in todays gaming world, at least a decent game is obliged to have a story (among other essentials). Not to mention there really are not many good games out there!

Your original point was about weak story, not no story.
I agree that most games today need to have a story, but in 90% of the cases the story is paper thin... Sure, one could argue that Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter or Guitar Hero has a story, but its mostly a justification to the gameplay. Truth is, most games hasn't evolve over the "kill the invaders" premise of Galaga. Almost every game (successful or not, good or not) can have its story summarized in a single sentence.

 

[Sylveria]

Burly Marines Part 96, coming this fall for PS3 and Xbox.

I guess I'm one of those few people that does embrace certain developers, or at least publishing houses, rather than purely the franchise. For instance, I am a total whore for NIS and Atlus. I will happily get nearly anything they put out. Sure, not everything is a masterpiece. Some of it flat out sucks. But I'm usually happy with their products, even their new titles.

I'm also someone who tends to fall into that "cheaper is worse" trap. I ignored the indie market for a long time, mostly because I couldn't imagine a <$10 game being any good. But, then I got the Breath of Death VII/Cthulhu Saves the World pack from Steam for $3. Best money I've ever spent and two of the best, most fulfilling gaming experiences I've had in YEARS. I will likely be a support of Zeboyd games for a long time.

Though I should state I only seemed to take the "Cheaper is lower quality" stance while looking at the indie market, something I should be flogged for I'm sure. Often I look at new games and say "There is no way that is worth $60," and often I'm right, even when referring to tried and true titles. Take DNF or even Portal 2 as examples. DNF, despite the 90 year dev time, is not worth $60. Just looking at it, it looks cheap, maybe $40 tops. Portal 2 is the same. It is undeniably great, but its not a $60 game.

I find that I've suddenly greatly embraced my PSP. I rarely take it anywhere, but with the component cable to hook it up to my HD Tv.. I'm getting high quality, big screen gaming experiences for $30-$40 with some easily being worth $60 but only costing about half of that. In a lot of cases, if these games were $60 PS3 titles, there's no way I'd have made the investment, but I can gamble $30 and not feel too bad if it doesn't pan out.

 

[Sylveria]

WE DO NOT PLAY GAMES FOR DEVELOPER CREATIVITY, we play games for fun. Developers are not damn rockstars and they can't do whatever they want. They have to make games for people, not themselves. This is the real cancer killing the industry. So what you hate isn't at all reasonable.

Judging by your comments, you must be 7 years old at best(Yes, I know, your comeback will be "I'm 29 years old and 6'12'' and bench press 900lbs, bring it on fag" save it for CoD), or else you wouldn't be so ignorant to the fact the stuff you cling to now exists because developers took the chance to be creative.

New and creative games are what make gaming fun. New and different experiences that expand the gaming palate and help the entire industry grow. What you want, what you embrace, is tedium and repetition; stagnation. If developers weren't creative and didn't try new things, all your cover-based, FPS, regenerating health-bar, shovel-ware garbage wouldn't exist because the ground work would have never been laid by people with some actual innovative ideas. Unfortunately, thanks to people like you, now every game uses those ideas and refuses to gamble on new and potentially interesting and fun ideas.

I'm honestly amazed you could set down Call of Duty 57 long enough to write your response. People like you are the industry cancer, happily shelling out $60 for the exact same game with a new sub title every 6 months and sending the message that all we want is the exact same game to play over and over again.

 

[AJey]

WTF? Jim, you serious? "Game can be good with a weak story"! Are you F-ing serious?! Most pathetic piece of argument ever! wow! Show me a good game that has a weak story! You gonna use Angry Birds maybe?! Show me a single good game without or with weak story!

Let me put it this way. You show me any game from the 80s or earlier that has a good story. Any game...
Now think of any game released during that time that were actually good: Mario 1 and 2, Megaman 1 and 2, Street Fighter 1 and 2, Wolfestein, Pacman, Galaga, Tetris, etc. Any game in that group is an example of games that are good but have almost no story. And that not even counting more modern games.
Story is games is almost always weak... Other than RPG, most games stories is more like a premise (save your girlfriend, get the MacGuffin, shoot everyone before they shoot you). Most modern games focus on setting to set them apart, more than story.

I agree! Those are pretty good games that have a premise at best. But thats a completely different era of gaming. With the technology of that time and dominant genres, story was very often impossible. Not to mention that then game was about fun, and fun only! Today, games have vastly expanded. They still have to be fun, yet a story, characters, plot, gameplay, mechanics, esthetics, music and many more variables are required to have a valid game. Imagine Morgan Freeman without a story, fantastic supporting characters and setting. Imagine Final Fantasy having only a hack-n-slash element. Imagine Elder Scrolls being only about killing monsters! And the list goes on. I get your point about 80s, but its not relevant in 2011. Games have changed drastically. Im also NOT trying to say that everyone should only care about story. I do play games like Counter Strike or COD sometimes. However in todays gaming world, at least a decent game is obliged to have a story (among other essentials). Not to mention there really are not many good games out there!

Your original point was about weak story, not no story.
I agree that most games today need to have a story, but in 90% of the cases the story is paper thin... Sure, one could argue that Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter or Guitar Hero has a story, but its mostly a justification to the gameplay. Truth is, most games hasn't evolve over the "kill the invaders" premise of Galaga. Almost every game (successful or not, good or not) can have its story summarized in a single sentence.

I can summarize War and Piece by Tolstoj into one sentence. Will it make it a bad story? Of course not. Also lets not confuse a premise and a story. Mortal Kombat or Guitar Hero merely have a premise, a direction to follow. While story is a whole world. And sure, I completely agree that most games have paper thin stories. Thats why there are not many really good games. Fun, popular and enjoyable does not equate to good by the way. So when Jim states that a good story is not essential for a good game, naturally that makes me agitated.

 

[I forgot]

WE DO NOT PLAY GAMES FOR DEVELOPER CREATIVITY, we play games for fun. Developers are not damn rockstars and they can't do whatever they want. They have to make games for people, not themselves. This is the real cancer killing the industry. So what you hate isn't at all reasonable.

Judging by your comments, you must be 7 years old at best(Yes, I know, your comeback will be "I'm 29 years old and 6'12'' and bench press 900lbs, bring it on fag" save it for CoD), or else you wouldn't be so ignorant to the fact the stuff you cling to now exists because developers took the chance to be creative.

New and creative games are what make gaming fun. New and different experiences that expand the gaming palate and help the entire industry grow. What you want, what you embrace, is tedium and repetition; stagnation. If developers weren't creative and didn't try new things, all your cover-based, FPS, regenerating health-bar, shovel-ware garbage wouldn't exist because the ground work would have never been laid by people with some actual innovative ideas. Unfortunately, thanks to people like you, now every game uses those ideas and refuses to gamble on new and potentially interesting and fun ideas.

I'm honestly amazed you could set down Call of Duty 57 long enough to write your response. People like you are the industry cancer, happily shelling out $60 for the exact same game with a new sub title every 6 months and sending the message that all we want is the exact same game to play over and over again.

You can disagree without all the petty insults and presumptions about me. I can barely reply because your reply is filled with so many presumptions (especially funny because I'm not fond of Call of Duty or FPSs)rather than an actual rebuttal that I'd like to refute but would go away from the main subject.

New and creative games aren't BY THEMSELVES what make gaming fun. A game can be new and creative but that doesn't mean anything if it isn't fun. It's the execution of a game's rules and structure that make it fun, which most sequels (hopefully) try to improve and refine with each installment. Also, it's not the people's fault that there are so many FPSs but the publishers with poor business skills that are responsible.

 

[karamazovnew]

Yahtzee mentioned that "when I said 'sequels' I meant ones involving the same characters". In that case, Bioshock 2 and Assassin's Creed 2 are on the borderline, since you play with different characters and fight different villains, or am I wrong here?

In my opinion, with the exception of a few rare games that really bring out something new, we've been playing sequels (sorry, 'clones') of games from the 90's for too damn long. Some have improved on the formula. Assassin's Creed is the worthy successor of Prince of Persia. Why on earth would they still release Prince of Persia games without the open world idea of AC is beyond me. I can dig remakes of older games, such as Tomb Raider Anniversary, to the extent that I can't figure out why they took time to make Deus Ex Human Revolution from scratch, instead of remaking the original. There are sequels which I would love to play (if done right), such as a No One Lives Forever game, a Sim City or Transport Tycoon. I'd love to see a good Pharaoh successor, or Rome Total War remade with current graphics. I for one can't wait for Skyrim and I pray to the gods that it's more like Morrowind than Oblivion (fat chance tho). Or Heroes uhmm.. (which one is it?) and pray that it's as close to Heroes 3 as possible. I've been praying to the dark side for years to get a Jedi Knight game (not that console port crap they did) or an I-War 3. Or Thief 4 And look, Metal Gear Solid 3 was a joy to play and had probably the best spy story ever told. Sequels aren't bad... it's the choice of what's turned into a sequel and HOW they 'sequel' it that is. Let's all be honest and just say what 'sequels' we hate to see.

Fifa (and all other sports games): an update roster every year and better graphics wouldn't be BAD, but the changes are so small that you're better off buying one at 4-5 years interval.

NFS: it's been bad ever since they made the good one: Porsche Unleashed. They've been toying around with other stuff and Underground 2 was fine but they just stretched it out too much. They stepped on GTR's turf and got smoked for it. Unless they come back to the "one brand history" type, they'll just continue to waste time and money. We're bored with NFS and have plenty of better alternatives.

Final Fantasy: been good for a long time, but Hironobu Sakaguchi left just after releasing his masterpiece (FF9) and it's been steadily going downhill ever since. FF12 was fine but they abandoned the concept too fast. From "I can't wait to see the next title", most of us are now thinking "I wonder just how BAD the next one's gonna be".

Metal Gear: this 'thing' just won't die... The third one was splendid but the more they go into weird futuristic conspiracies stuff, the worse it will become. I wonder just how many entire minutes of play we'll have in the next one.

Call of Duty: I would forgive them if they simply made Stalingrad again. And again.. and again. And let me play the German side. Modern Warfare 1 was fine, but they've ran out of cake and now they're just releasing Fifa with guns.

Prince of Persia: just die! Die, you time rewinding freak! Pass your shit to flight sims where that trick would be really useful. I'm tired of having a broken column as my only possible path to save life on earth. Anybody here ever marveled at just how stupid architecture design is in PoP?

The rest (everything else that has a number next to its name): some are good, some were bad to begin with. Some are good for a while (like GTA, before GTA4), then mess up, then turn into something good (Red Dead Redemption). Others blow up their chance on the second title (Mafia).

It all sticks to a very simple formula: with few exceptions, games have become more and more shitty. The main reason is simple: graphics. Too damn expensive and take too damn long to make. Everything else derives from this simple truth. The problem with any sequel is basic physics: it's released some time AFTER the original. Thus, it's shittier, but with better graphics. Sequels are not the CAUSE of everything that's wrong with the gaming industry. Sequels are a symptom and, in unfortunate cases, a simple victim.

 

[BrotherRool]

I agree that the Final Fantasy formula seems the best way to go about it. I mean GTA basically uses that idea and now Bioshock is in on the act two.

But I would rather we followed developers than names. So Bioware seem to have managed to make a name for themselves and the same with Valve (Blizzard would be an example if they ever produced an original game)

EDIT: But Yahtzee is right that even name only sequels are limiting. FF's have always been particularly unshackled from each other. Cid, Chocobos and JRPG being pretty much the only thing in common (and even that gets broken every now and then) and they've ruined their name a little bit by releasing games that people weren't expecting and have serious flaws. To keep a franchise clean it would again seem to be encouraging less risk

 

[demalo]

I just found this today and while I'm sure many of you know of it's existence I almost screamed like a school girl and when I saw what is on it's glorious HTML coded pages: http://www.gog.com/

Why am I posting this on a topic spawning from emails questioning the validity of sequels? To stress that even though a sequel can be justified because of enhanced graphics and game mechanics doesn't mean that the story should be butchered to do so. So instead of rehashing old stories or attempting to squeeze blood out of a turnip with a new one - there are games out there that need no sequel, they just need to be remade!

I don't want a new game, I want the old game with better graphics! I don't care if the subplots are finished up or expanded on, maybe new missions or NPCs or different events, I just want the wonderful story with new graphics and an updated GUI! Good stories don't need to be messed with they just need a face lift! Don't stuff in new ideas or remove the bad ones (ok, maybe the really bad ones), just take me from dot matrix to HD!

This isn't he movie industry where you need to wait 50 years before a studio can rationalize the remake of an old film. Games have changed more in the past year than movies have in the last ten. And I'm not talking about reboots (Spiderman... Hulk...) I'm talking about REMAKES! Same story, characters, plot points - REMADE!

Fix the bugs, close the plot holes, expand if you must on character development but give me the same old song and dance again! Even if you have to throw a new story in there to get me a little more intrigued - remake it! Even if you include the original in all it's glory with the new package - remake it! Hell, create a multiplayer aspect too and add in a micro-transactions system but for God's sake - REMAKE IT!

If the story is what makes the game interesting it doesn't really matter what it looks like, unless it looks like shit! So instead of slapping a 2 or a 'Reborn' or, for Gods sake, a S3QUAL in the title, just remake the damn thing! We'll be happy about.

What you ask me could possibly be just remade? - Duke F/n Nukem 3D - that's what!

There can't be one person on this site that can't say they would want just one game remade!

 

[NickFury90]

Judging by your comments, you must be 7 years old at best(Yes, I know, your comeback will be "I'm 29 years old and 6'12'' and bench press 900lbs, bring it on fag" save it for CoD), or else you wouldn't be so ignorant to the fact the stuff you cling to now exists because developers took the chance to be creative.

New and creative games are what make gaming fun. New and different experiences that expand the gaming palate and help the entire industry grow. What you want, what you embrace, is tedium and repetition; stagnation. If developers weren't creative and didn't try new things, all your cover-based, FPS, regenerating health-bar, shovel-ware garbage wouldn't exist because the ground work would have never been laid by people with some actual innovative ideas. Unfortunately, thanks to people like you, now every game uses those ideas and refuses to gamble on new and potentially interesting and fun ideas.

I'm honestly amazed you could set down Call of Duty 57 long enough to write your response. People like you are the industry cancer, happily shelling out $60 for the exact same game with a new sub title every 6 months and sending the message that all we want is the exact same game to play over and over again.

God this is a fucking stupid post, filled with petty insults and presumptions, and the good ol' cliche Call of Duty moniker to slap on to us simpletons who play video games for fun.

People like YOU are the reason gamers keep looking down on art/indie/"deep" games as pretentious dickheads with their heads up their ass. Somebody talks about how gaems are suppose to be fun(which, hey what do you know, they are!), and you go off on a tired ass rant.

 

[dante brevity]

"incredibly unbelievable" - Jim

This is a repeating redundancy.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

When does Burly Marines Part 96 come out?

 

[purifico]

WTF? Jim, you serious? "Game can be good with a weak story"! Are you F-ing serious?! Most pathetic piece of argument ever! wow! Show me a good game that has a weak story! You gonna use Angry Birds maybe?! Show me a single good game without or with weak story!

Bayonetta. It's a good, I'd even say outstanding game (game of the year in my book) that has virtually no story.

Same goes for Valkyria Chronicles, which is one of my favorite games of all time, but has a pathetic excuse for a story too.

And I'm not bringing up the 80th games. Yeah.

I could probably name a few other good games with bad stories, but these two are the ones that come to mind first.

 

[NightlyNews]

WTF? Jim, you serious? "Game can be good with a weak story"! Are you F-ing serious?! Most pathetic piece of argument ever! wow! Show me a good game that has a weak story! You gonna use Angry Birds maybe?! Show me a single good game without or with weak story!

Bayonetta. It's a good, I'd even say outstanding game (game of the year in my book) that has virtually no story.

Same goes for Valkyria Chronicles, which is one of my favorite games of all time, but has a pathetic excuse for a story too.

And I'm not bringing up the 80th games. Yeah.

I could probably name a few other good games with bad stories, but these two are the ones that come to mind first.

Bayonetta technically has a story it's just confusing as shit and once you understand it, it isn't that amazing since they hid it too hard.