Games are still leagues behind cinema or books in terms of good writing, which is apparent in both storytelling and voice acting scripts. Very very few games have a really good story or script, and almost none can take it a step further and tie the storytelling into the medium in a more effective manner than “cutscene-player does thing-cutscene”.
e:
:
|
I think "entertaining" is about as subjective as "good". I found it entertaining, amusing, diverting, enjoyable, exciting, and whatever other gerunds* you'd like to offer.
|
I found it entertaining up until the point where the basic concept had been established and cemented. I then found the gameplay to very quickly become samey, tedious and frustrating; and while I went on to finish the game I didn’t find it entertaining as a complete work.
:
|
Okay, you've said why a good story is an asset to a game. You haven't said why a bad story is a liability.
As Nepsotic joked, a story is a postive when it's good, but only neutral if it's bad. Sonic has a terrible story. No-one complains, they just get on with enjoying the rest of the game. You can ignore dull story in a way that you can't ignore unimaginative gameplay.
|
Bad story is a liability because it is needed to provide context and justification to what the player is doing. Mediocre stories get a pass because games have more to them than mediums like cinema or books – the story is not as hard-wired in, as we can find examples of games with no story at all.
However, a game like Mirror’s Edge is a game which requires people, and it requires them doing things. Why are they doing things? That’s what the story is there for.
Games do not
need stories, but a game which has player’s actions being driven by characters in a meaningful way need a good story. Sonic gets away with it because the gameplay is not effected by the story; Sonic runs around assault courses and beats up robots in the same way a Saturday morning cartoon does the same shit every episode.