Do you still play SC2?

[Hawki]

I'll save us some time and agree to disagree with Kaise. Game mechanics aren't the issue here, so I won't drag it out.

Nissa though...okay, I'm sorry if I overreacted, but I do treat it as a breach of trust. As stated, on general principle, I refuse to pass judgment on a game's story, even if I've watched a playthrough. I say this for the following reasons:

-Games, being the medium they are, are inherently shaped by the player. Not always to the same extent (there'll be far more imput in an RPG than a platformer for instance), but it's still there.

-Because games are based on imput, elements will always be 'lost in translation,' so to speak. I've found this to be true many times, where playing a game after watching it has completely shifted my view on the story, themes, characterization, etc.

-There's the concept of "story comes from gameplay." Other people can explain this concept far better than I can (Extra Credits, Zero Punctuation), and I touched on it a bit in a Coursera course pertaining to game design/adaptations, but broadly put, it's the idea that gameplay, by itself, is a method of storytelling. One of the most well-known examples is Super Metroid, a game that has almost no text (certainly no actual dialogue), but is generally lauded for its atmosphere, and the use of environment to tell a story (a personal example would be Doom). Have I watched playthroughs of SM? Yes. Do I feel comfortable talking about its story? No. I haven't played it. I'm in no position to cast judgment. Even its more text-based counterpart of Other M is a debate I refused to get involved in, because again, only watched it. It would have been dishonest of me to say anything about the story in regards to quality without having given it the same treatment that everyone else had.

So, of course, that's just me. It's one of the reasons why I admire Archengeia so much (a web reviewer) so much, as per his stance on Gears of War - has seen all the games, but hasn't played them, so won't give an appraisal of the story unless that changes. Certainly GoW 3 is a game whose story I changed my view on after playing it, long after watching a playthrough. So to answer your question, no, it would be unfair to say that you know nothing about Majora's Mask. But if MM suddenly became the topic of conversation, I'd feel very uneasy talking about its story unless I'd played it myself (which I have). Oh, sure, I'd be fine sharing impressions, but to say "this is good/bad because of x/y..." Yeah. Not so much. This even extends to material such as Sfdebris or Spoony - certainly I have a sense of how they feel on the topics they review/watch/play through, but I'd never use that as a basis for my own opinion of the game (e.g. I can't say "FFXIII/UltimaIX is bad," because even if that's my general impression from everything I've read/seen, as I haven't played them.")

But again, just me.

[Turalyon]

Lol no, that's not it at all. It's not about being hipster, it's about being a grownup with better ways to spend my money/time. I don't play many games at all these days, besides free ones online.

And Hawki, chill out. I can comment just fine on Starcraft 2's storyline. I have seen multiple playthroughs of both WoL and HotS, and will probably see them again before long. I mean, crap, it's not like I've ever commented on the gameplay mechanics of SC2. Your point is absurd. That's like saying I haven't read a book because I read it in electronic form and haven't had the experience of turning the pages. I've never played Majora's Mask before, so does that mean I know nothing about it after three/four views? Sheesh.

Ah, there's such a fine line between fandom and fan-dumb isn't there?

[TheEconomist]

That's like saying I haven't read a book because I read it in electronic form and haven't had the experience of turning the pages.

I understand what you're saying, but this was a really, really bad metaphor.

Although StarCraft is one of the better games to judge their story through playthroughs, it's still a much different experience. Going through the motions of the missions gives you a closer tie to the outcome of the subarchs and the characters, in general, although not as much in StarCraft because the characters and story are crap, but, still, assuming you don't despise the game play, your impression of the universe itself should be a bit more positive, but only a little.

For example, when I was a kid, there were several RPGs that I played close to the end then had some memory card problems and lost the saves, this was fairly common on the old PSX's with certain games and it was really frustrating. Eventually, I just game sharked myself to near inviniciblity and plowed through the story line. RPGs are very story-centric, but there was still something lost by not going through the motions. Going through the motions is actually pretty important for a game. I enjoyed the story much more in later playthroughts because I felt more attached to the struggles of the characters actually going through the motions of killing enemies and bosses, etc.

I won't go as far as the others though and say you shouldn't be here or that you've breached some trust or something. I still respect your opinion and your right to be here since your experience with the story itself isn't really all that altered by not playing and that's where the real problems are. It's just that these problems are slightly alleviated by the experience itself, which is why people like Hawki, if I understand correctly, can look past the story problems.

[Hawki]

It's just that these problems are slightly alleviated by the experience itself, which is why people like Hawki, if I understand correctly, can look past the story problems.

It's a possibility, but as I've mentioned, there's no set relationship between how gameplay affects story. There's plenty of games I've played where playing it after watching a playthrough has given me a more negative opinion of the story.

[TheEconomist]

By story are you referring to the storytelling experience? If not, that's not what I'm talking about and doesn't apply. if so, then, well, we pretty much have to always disagree. Must be genetic.

Either way, watching games instead of playing them. What the hell is wrong with you people.

[Hawki]

Story, as in, sum total of elements that make up a story (plot, characters, themes, worldbuilding, storytelling). Granted, playing a game will almost always improve the storytelling experience as opposed to watching it, but the other facets in isolation can go up or down.

[ragnarok]

It's a possibility, but as I've mentioned, there's no set relationship between how gameplay affects story. There's plenty of games I've played where playing it after watching a playthrough has given me a more negative opinion of the story.

Tell me something Hawki: when you watched a playthrough of it, did the person playing it have commentary? Or was it an LP without commentary?

Because I've seen a lot of people have negative opinions on games simply because of the LPer's commennts as he/she was playing it.

[Hawki]

It isn't set. Sometimes it's with commentary, sometimes without (usually the latter). There's been negative commentary where a personal playthrough has given me a positive experience in contrast to said playthrough. But again, I can't really give an opinion based on a LP.

[ragnarok]

It isn't set. Sometimes it's with commentary, sometimes without (usually the latter). There's been negative commentary where a personal playthrough has given me a positive experience in contrast to said playthrough. But again, I can't really give an opinion based on a LP.

I see. I've seen people who've turned away from games simply because of one commenter didn't like it. That's why for certain games if I'm not sure, it's better to listen to several commentators.

[TheEconomist]

@Hawki: Not really talking about world building, themes, characters (except for development), but I am talking a little bit about plot. For example, I mean is that, in order to bond with the characters, you need to feel at least some of their struggle. Meaning, when you finally reach the boss that had been harassing you the whole game, it's important that that battle is suitably challenging to give that impression. In SC2 terms, it's important that the lead-up to killing Mengsk reflects the importance of that through, among other things, the motions of going through the action bring out the importance. Game sharking or let's playing through that makes you lose a lot of the experience.

Or something, don't feel like going in circles. None of this matters.