How accurate is this in 2017?

How accurate is this in 2017?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7NCvm0pC_r8
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

It has never been accurate as it depends entirely on what you want to do with your game.
Carmack is an autistic codemonkey and all he cares about is gameplay.

Extremely accurate if I want story. I'll read a book. Get that shit out of my games

I don't think it's not important, but Gameplay should *ALWAYS* be first.

Otherwise watch a movie, read a book, etc. What's the point of a game if not the gameplay?

I doubt a story can matter much if the game plays like complete shit.

He's right
Gameplay > Everything else
Without it what's the point of video games? Why not use some other medium to tell your story?

Like every broad generalization, it doesn't apply to everything it addresses.

Considering nowadays the most talk about genre is RPG, I would say he's wrong.

People even care about multiplayer-focus genres like fightan, RTS and FPS.

t. The order dev

>People even care about story in multiplayer-focus genres*

There's a fuzzy line that comes up when you're discussing visual novels.

I'm playing Steins;Gate 0 on my PS4 right now. It's sold on a disc and played with a controller, and occasionally I make choices. It's technically a game.

Point and click adventures are games. Monkey Island is a game.

These things can't exist without a story. The medium has expanded, and for some specific types of games you need a story. Not all of them, but some of them.

Definitely not necessary for a good game. Games are for gameplay. Period. Walking simulators and arthouse garbage need to GTFO.

BUT the truly GREAT games are able to perfectly perform well in the 3 pillars of a game -- gameplay, story, and then graphics. The focus should always be on gameplay, but a game that has that AND good story and graphics is what's called a great game.

in the 90s 100% correct. now? not really.

Spec Ops The Line had terrible gameplay but the plot kept me playing

Depends on what the game wants to achieve.

On one end is DOOOOM
On the other end is stuff like Dragengard and Witcher, where the cutscenes is good enough to carry the game between gameplay.

Then there is the games where the cutscenes isn't good enough to carry the game, and the gameplay is too weak to carry it.
I.E Most Ninja Theory games

It has never been not true.

He's sort of right in that it isn't important for the game itself, but what we call 'games' these days are more like eclectic mixtures of different art forms, interactivity just being one component.

>Cares about gameplay
Doesn't he just care about tech?

Truth. RAGE is the epitome of that. Carmack makes technical marvels but is absolutely dreadful at gameplay, hence why Romero was actually necessary for the team.

Of course, Daikatana proved that Romero was nothing without Carmack technical expertise.

A good story wont make a shit game good.
A good game can be made better with a good story.
A bad story can make a good game worse.
A game can be good even with a bad story.

/thread

Depends on the game really.
Point & Click and text adventures live on their story.

Pretty much everything else can easily go without it.

More accurate than ever before

Gameplay comes before story, but it all depends on the game. DOOM does not need deep story due to the games nature. The Witcher 3 has a large focus on story and is better off because of it.

The quote is flawed and tries to create a black/white mentality to appear clever, but just ends up being flawed. It represents a time when telling stories in games was borderline impossible due to technical limitations. Is it okay to ditch the story for gameplay? Sure, just make sure the gameplay is so good it's worth doing that. Can good story save shit gameplay? Nope, but it can make mediocre gameplay bareable.

On a sidenote, the vast majority of games are written like dogshit by aspies. Most games that try to present a story just end up falling flat and it's not weird people look down on videogames as a story-telling medium.

Witcher 3 would have been a much better game if it focused less on the story and more on the gameplay. I mean the story it had was great for the most part, but the story was the minority of the game and most of it was fucking filler content which was not fun on account of shitty gameplay.

Having to use my witcher senses to investigate an area, track down a monster, then having to properly prepare for it and having a hard as balls fight to the death with some monster with gameplay similar to something like Monster Hunter would have been fucking brilliant. Instead I just followed the glowing red stuff until I saw a monster, charged in and mashed buttons like a retard.

Witcher having Monster Hunter-like gameplay is retarded.

Would have actually made the game fun to play. Much better than the button mashing it had.

I can kinda agree with that.
I can appreciate a good story, like in FreeSpace for example, but I can aslo appreciate a game with fuckall story, like Descent or racing games for example.
While having a story is a huge plus, it doesn't necessarily make the game any better. Racing games come to mind first, the best ones don't have any kind of story or backstory at all, like Need for Speed II SE and Forza Motorsport games.

I wouldn't say it would be fun, it would just be fucking weird to play.

The Witcher is not like Monster Hunter.

>some monster with gameplay similar to something like Monster Hunter would have been fucking brilliant.
Jesus christ why.
Maybe you should just have said "oh I wish it was dark souls combat" like the fucking peasant you are.
Monhun is terrible, the gameplay is just as bad if not worse than witcher 3, and the only reason it's remotely polished is because you'll fight the same fucking monster in monhun 400 times just to get a 0.2% drop item, meanwhile you'll see 3 leshens in tw3 and they're all more intricate fights than the most intricate monsterhunter fight.

Which is probably why the gameplay is bad. Monster Hunter was an example.

The point I was making was the gameplay in Witcher 3 was ass. More focus on it and less on the story would have made a much better game.

There are plenty of films where the story isn't even that important

it's almost as if different media can provide entertainment through a variety of means, not necessarily unique to that medium and that pigeonholing different methods of entertaining is just restricting yourself from the full plethora of potential experiences available to each medium

You provide an example that makes me think worse of the game.

The worst thing about W3 is not the gameplay nor the story, it's probably the giant ass open world.

> meanwhile you'll see 3 leshens in tw3 and they're all more intricate fights than the most intricate monsterhunter fight.

That's bullshit. They just had insane amounts of health but posed no real threat. Hack dodge hack dodge hack dodge beats them every single time.

Pretty accurate.
If you want to tell a good story you'll just write a book, in a videogame it'll just get watered down with hours upon hours of gameplay that break the narrative flow.

Yeah, because Monster Hunter totally isn't that right?

What
Leshens summon wolves to take damage for them.
They also teleport away when you get too close and cast concussion and root spells so they can clear distance.
Maybe you should actually play the game faggot.

>there was a time when porn movies had stories

Nowadays it's just a bunch of fucking-only scenes sharing a theme: anal, sloppy blowjobs, etc.

Except porn parodying real movies, I guess.

A good story can be a game even if the good is badnesss

>It represents a time when telling stories in games was borderline impossible due to technical limitations
That's no more true than Carmacks statement. Shit like Blood omen and Daggerfall was quite story heavy. Especially Blood Omen and that was only two years after Doom. Honestly I think Carmack is wholly undeserving of his reputation or prestige.

It's true. People these days have been trying to much make things into things they are not. You need gameplay to have a game. Consumers subconsciously understand this, that's why artsy fartsy games always fail.

Rage was a technical mess, megatextures were a mistake

Why the fuck are you getting so anal about an example? Are you one of those people who still thinks Witcher 3 was the perfect game or something?

Any gameplay would have been an improvement on what it had. Monster Hunter, Dark Souls, hell give it fucking Dragon's Dogma combat and it would have been amazing. But what we got was 900 hours of fancy footwork animations with the end result being you mash the attack button to stagger everything to death (seriously, why did they put so much emphasis on those fucking pirouettes? That's a dance move, not something you use in a fight).

Because you are making the wrong fucking comparison to the wrong game.

Witcher 3 is not the perfect game, but its combat is perfectly serviceable.

> But what we got was 900 hours of fancy footwork animations with the end result being you mash the attack button to stagger everything to death (seriously, why did they put so much emphasis on those fucking pirouettes? That's a dance move, not something you use in a fight).
None of the game you list use real fighting moves.

Art shit never sells. But people in their millions shell out every year to play CoD's single player campaign.

>>Witcher 3 is not the perfect game, but its combat is perfectly serviceable.
If you like being served shit, maybe.

Good argument there, m8.

Depends on the game, you illiterate fuckwit. The only genres that cannot survive without a compelling narrative are Visual Novels and Role Playing Games. The plot doesn't need to be good, just serve stimulating context.

For every other genre it is either annoying as shit or a nice bonus.

Duh, everyone knows soulsborne perfected 3rd person melee combat, other games might as well stop trying.

And none of those games had developer interviews with the developers bragging about how many hours of animation they just added. Nor did they have a fucking conversation in the game about said animations remember your footwork and to fucking pirouette more look at this nice animation we made.

The combat however was shit. It was shallow as fuck. In a world where monsters are treated as real animals and threats and not everyone is some super human who can kill a dragon in one hit and the best they could come up with for combat was hacking and slashing?

Fucking disappointing.

John Carmack is an autistic coding robot who murdered a cat because it was "having a negative net impact on [his] life". Don't talk to him about the importance of story and emotion in video games, because he doesn't know what emotion is.

i think undertale is a great way of using game mechanics to tell part of the story... like, sans being able to attack you even in the menu. or when the heart turns up-side-down in one of the mettaton fights. the whole game is just so fucking smart.

Story in a game is like story in a movie.
Some subgenres rely on it, while in other subgenres like porn or arcade shooters it's not that important.

Because Witcher 3 is actually closer to real sword fighting compared to any of those you list.

>
The combat however was shit. It was shallow as fuck. In a world where monsters are treated as real animals and threats and not everyone is some super human who can kill a dragon in one hit and the best they could come up with for combat was hacking and slashing?
Actually, he also throws bomb and casts magic, the fuck do you want? Geralt swinging a giant mallet like in Monster Hunter?

You're going to get tonnes of shit for this comment but I completely agree with you, using game mechanics to augment the story is always a fucking treat

Story is not the most important aspect, but sometimes is mandatory nonetheless. How would a graphic adventure wok without a plot? Or even a western RPG, where you need context to roleplay?

Here's the thing: if you can dismiss story so easily, you should dismiss art direction too, since it's equally superfluous. Let's say, for instance, you're playing Super Mario Bros. The running, jumping and physics are there, but every sprite is now a colored rectangle or circle. Now Italian plumber, no goombas, no coherence; just pure gameplay. Try that and then tell me gameplay is all that matters.

megatextures are the future
nudoom, far cry 4, battlefield 1, and a few other games use it

the only subgenre that relies on story for games would be visual novels which aren't even really games

They are games though.

yo real talk, va-11 hall-a had a great story, great writing, and great music. HOWEVER, the fact that music wasn't tied to the game and you had to assign your playlist was such a fucking waste of the soundtrack imo. did anyone else feel this way????

That's not true. All RPGs need a good story too. Adventure and point and click games too.

Megatextures is a mistake for consoles with 512mb of RAM, it works fine on modern hardware.

>Because Witcher 3 is actually closer to real sword fighting compared to any of those you list.

No it's not. It's not even close. It's fancy looking animations and nothing else. It's even worse when you consider the way you fight a person is the same as the way you fight that giant ass griffon because that griffon absolutely gives a fuck about your technique and footwork.

NAME ONE GAME
A SINGLE GAME
JUST ONE GAME
that has a story that isn't shit
Professional advice: literally impossible

The Dig

...

It's fancy fucking footwork and sword swinging, which is what martial art is about, dodging and slashing.

>It's even worse when you consider the way you fight a person is the same as the way you fight that giant ass griffon because that griffon absolutely gives a fuck about your technique and footwork.
The same technique applies, if the griffon cannot hit you, it's the same as the person.

Unless somehow you think fighting a griffon means you shouldn't dodge or employ footwork.

Gamestory > gameplay.

nier automata of course

Lost Odyssey had lots of really fucking amazing stories. Like literally the best writing in any video game ever.

They were unfortunately just stories you could collect and read. The games actual plot was horseshit because for some reason they hired an award winning writer to write these collectable stories but didn't have the brains to use him to write the games plot.

The Third Birthday

That first sentence is pretty much proof you have literally no knowledge about real fighting techniques.

Gameplay is the only thing unique about video games as a medium. Obviously it should be the primary focal point.

If that was true, Yoko Taro wouldn't have any fans.

On the contrary, I don't think you know jack about real fighting techniques.

What do you think of martial art user?

After playing Persona 5 i can safely say anti story fags are just jaded cancer little shits that took over Sup Forums and spread their cancerours standards.

Embrace the redpill, Story = Gameplay

>what are boardgames

I have enjoyed and still enjoy plenty of games with barebones to no story, but can't think of a single game I like with a good story but bad or practically nonexistent gameplay.

I'm not opposed to story in my games, but it shouldn't be the top priority.

ok good, now try this one
name ONE WESTERN GAME
JUST ONE
that doesn't have a trash story

Information procured from decades of research and experience: it cannot be done

Ah yes. When in a fight with someone my reaction to them attacking me is that I should spin to the left or right, and when they do a really big attack I should instead roll along the floor to dodge it.

Look at dark souls, it'd still be a 9/10 game even if you cut the all story.

>no true scotsman

jackie chan

I'm curious, what's your reaction when someone is attacking you that you would consider appropriate?

It's called a parry. It's a basic fucking move in any kind of martial arts. You don't hit the fucking ground and roll out of the way like some retard. Nor do you start spinning around like a ballet dancer.

So what shit game that has a good story?

Hey you fucking retard, that's the wrongest thing you can say.

Because dodging is the easiest way to get out of harm's way, and it's easier than doing a parrying.

And you do it by just stepping to side, or backward, you know, like the Witcher.

Drakengard

There aren't many worse games but it'd make a good book

Thomas Was Alone

the gameplay is really shallow and boring but the story is nice

Ah yes. Moving your entire body several feet is indeed quicker and easier than moving your arms. In real life we're all anime ninjas who can teleport a few feet away in 0.001 seconds and gain invincibility frames while doing so.

Dude just youtube some fucking sword duels or something. You're on the internet, there is no excuse for being this wrong.

The game mechanics in undertale were superb, some in Sup Forums wonder why this game was successful, forgetting that games can feel fun to play

Seconding this. Story kind of tie in the gameplay.


I'll say Lisa the pointless has a pretty boring gameplay but a top tier writing and ambience

You are a stupid person.

soul reaver 2

Dude, look at the average sword duel.

This here:
youtube.com/watch?v=7NCvm0pC_r8
People dodge.

Parrying is fucking hard work because your arm bears the enemy's strength, and you risk contact with the enemy.

>Dude just youtube some fucking sword duels or something. You're on the internet, there is no excuse for being this wrong.
Learn footwork, user.

Try the whole CRPG genre.

>americans haven't made a good game in 16 years
Pathetic

Every Yoko Taro game before Platinum rescued him. Playing Drakengard is straight up disgusting.

>Proceeds to post a video comprised of people parrying

Dude did you even watch the video?

You do know what a parry is right?

>Then there is the games where the cutscenes isn't good enough to carry the game, and the gameplay is too weak to carry it.
For those kind of games there's always tits and ass. Those assets are actually underutilized, as crazy as that might sound.