Now these latter replies are certainly more interesting and up to par.
I'm certainly a horrible communicator. At no point in my entire internet forum life have I made a passionate topic which meant dearly to me and not be accused of trolling. There is nothing inconcise about this thread however.
If one were to make a keyword list for this thread for example, story or storyfag would be the main keyword.
I just don't think it needs to be expressed in an elitist forum. Not only does it convert the speaker to look down upon what should be a community that he should be looking up to for their analytical opinions which led to their unpopular opinions but the mere sentence "Duh. It should be obvious from the title that this thread is about storyfags." holds weakness to a newfag. It not only makes them look like a douche which is just one more ammo for the retards to strengthen their accusations that the TS is a troll but it holds no discussional value.
Imagine this. Someone makes a post that states all games you dislike is wrong and all games you like are superior. It would be a rhetorical truth but if everyone simply took this for face value then it defeats the point of even discussing what's wrong or right or wonderful or creative or correct or wrong about all rpg games in general. In turn if everyone accepted this then it would eradicate more than 50% of the threads in this forum. Everyone who buys into this belief can also say every thread is inconcise. The wording of choices, persistence in sequels, epicectomy, emergent narrative, combat challenging, biggest Rpg experts, old school D&D - pick some other keywords that's in the latest 1st page and it can be accused of being inconcise to anyone who doesn't want to discuss anything.
...and that's what almost 90% of the repliers are doing. Even the ones who reply politely are afraid of touching the word storyfag and if you are afraid to touch the heart of any topic, even if you do end up touching it with a ten inch pole, it would seem all over the place.
But to those who are interested in the topic, it's like a rabbit hole. If you don't understand something, you can ask specifically what's confusing about it. You don't need to hide around making a statement about how good or bad survey questions are. Hell, there are many survey questions across the internet (this forum is no exception) that get more replies than better worthwhile topics.
More importantly, survey questions are the easiest questions to answer. It's laughably hypocritical to say something is inconcise and then bring up an example of a topic theme that's the most concise and obvious in survey questions.
But then the rabbit hole for anyone who doesn't want to discuss a thread but pretends to want to also follows a straight hole. Where the only key diversion is those who make pointless retarded replies that add nothing at all to a thread or more purposeful replies that take a little more to unravel to show the poster's real bias.
Now mind you, I don't mean to make the poster above sound so bad. This is a difficult thing. I waited too long to reply and now I have to reply to many people who all bring up many different points. This isn't a bad thing. It's the hallmark of a great forum when you can't stay on one path even if you just multiquote because there are several people who bring up several great inter-branching points that stay within the realms of the heart of the thread. Maybe I'm paying too much respect for the poster because he made a comment for me to stay on board but those are the facts. Respectful post and maybe even respectful poster but also a poster who has a bad inconcise point.
Maybe the above isn't clear enough. After all, when one is being accused of being inconcise and then one makes a reply along the lines of "No! You're inconcise" no matter the layers of explanation, it sounds rude, trollish or just plain offensive.
Nonetheless if forums where more advance and I could show an argument map - the poster above basically did this.
What are you asking? -> please be more concise -> stuck between a survey question - x: error - incompatible with accusations of how a thread is inconcise -> follow up: stating the obvious about CRPGs being min-maxing power fantasies -> x: error - making a jump in conclusion following a point that was branched off because of another poster's reply about Rpg power fantasies and yet is at the same time a concise point which does not match with the original premise of the poster.
It all sounds lame but this is why argument maps were designed this way. Sometimes even the most linguistic posters can have a lame point. This is no different than someone saying I'm an immersionfag.
If someone who doesn't want to discuss the thread but wants to be polite to the TS were to read the post, they could get the impression that the poster did read the thread and respectfully if not clearly answered the thread.
It takes a certain level of honest analytical intent (not much I know as this isn't rocket science but this is the problem with pandering to people who are on the fence with a topic) to see the obvious which is that in any interactive medium: everyone is an immersion fag.
Every gamer be they graphic whores, storyfags or gameplay fanatics feel a particular immersion with a game that leads them to praise it higher than it should or hate it worse than the average hater who doesn't pick up the game at all.
If this were a less reputable board maybe such polite and detailed replies need pandering to. This board (even if as some claim it has declined) is still much more capable of raising the depth of their opinions but sadly as with any boards - the overlaying premise is that even you guys who don't stoop down to troll level just aren't interested with the topic so my post sounds inconcise or your interpretation of my post falls down like a stack of cards at the first basic observation of your counter points. Even if I spend all this time trying to explain this to you, we won't get much anywhere because you're not inherently interested about the subject. You just want your piece of pie so you can satisfy your addiction with replying to posts that seem mildly entertaining. I wouldn't even be surprised if one of you comes back only to say I said a bunch of nothings in this post. Despite my saying it's pointless to explain to you, as far as this above texts goes: I am still partially explaining it. It's just the natural consequences of trying to be respectful of the other person. Tl;dr: I respect the points of the two poster who I was addressing to in the above but frankly their counterpoints and accusations are bs. Maybe I should go into more details about their post. They still certainly brought something interesting to the table especially the one who accused me of being an immersionfag as he brought up an impression about the Witcher's "automatic" combat system (a wrong one as he didn't take into account the difference between FCR and vanilla) but just look at how many texts needs to be taken up just to "respectfully" point out the flaws in their post. Flaws that I consider on the level of stating the obvious as the points are again riddled with obvious holes that makes the points crumble at the mere attempt of discussing their points.
Now back to something more relevant to the thread:
Am I taking the term too seriously?
Yes. Yes I am. Is it wrong though? I think that depends on the ramifications. Of course, again, this all assumes we're interested in the topic.
If you want to treat it like a C&C situation: The first question of course is what's the value of discussing this term seriously in such a way that the choice of discussing it at all is worth further discussing it.
...and then what's the consequence if the choice is not discussed. There's alot of layers into this of course but as demonstrated by some of the posters, this is all concise and clear.
Even if you do not take into account all the consequences, someone disinterested with the topic could just as repeat a simple point like the lack of threads discussing the stories of videogame. It's not quite a satisfactory premise but from an overlaying theme, it's certainly a lamentable premise and any premise that's worth lamenting has at some point a certain value that makes discussing it seriously a somewhat valuable idea to someone else.
It's like with criticizing modern games. Discussing something to a certain depth may not be akin to treating it seriously at least from an effectiveness perspective as it won't change anything but it could create a community like this where one seeking opinions that are more perspectives than comments can gain part of a perspective they are looking for. What they do with that perspective? That's the downside. No one really knows. Not even ourselves. Even if we want to say by doing so we raise an important topic that elevates us beyond the common troublemakers who post trash to entertain themselves or satisfy their ego - in the end, this is just a thread. A screen that shows a series of characters that show a bunch of sentences that may or may not be read by someone influential much less inspire I or you or someone else to do something about it.
But this is unfair. You raised a valid point. You gave me the official definition, (at least within the parameters of a forum veteran) so I think if not you, others deserve "my take" after I've been informed with the actual definition.
"'storyfag' around here denotes somebody whose appreciation of the story in a game serves to help them forgive it its flaws as a game."
"You're looking for the sort of person for whom the story is the point of the games"
What's the difference between the two here?
I would say if we were to simply take this as sentences and not "try to infer between the lines" then this two are the same.
But again this is unfair. Let's infer between the lines.
What's wrong with someone appreciating the story in a game?
Is that not part of the point of stories in a game? The same can be said of gameplay making up for bad stories in a game. The same can be said of graphics making up for bad stories in a game. The same can be said for online making up for other aspects of a game.
You can't stop at this point though.
The difference between a well thought out set of criticisms of any aspect of a game is that the person first (subconsciously or consciously) wanting what's "good for them" in a game. And then if they are legitimately passionate about it, then they ask what's wrong. Finally they determine for themselves what's right and they share it. This is setting aside people who copy paste opinions and summarize them or clip them apart to create an opinion that's more "memerable".
But then the rabbit hole goes deeper.
What does it mean for the story to be the point in a game to someone?
Wouldn't this in some way mean they would forgive certain aspects of the game?
Maybe they would be less forgivable but would anyone truly be completely unforgiving in the face of a great story (to them).
I'd like to tell you a conundrum.
Most visual novels lack gameplay in the sense that would make a hardcore gamer say it's an achievement to finish a visual novel except maybe in unlocking all the endings. Still, this praise is unworthy.
One would think that most VN players are befitting of the tag storyfags. Either definition works.
Another person (a VN player) could also re-interpret this in a positive light that they focus more on the stories of games.
But can this really be true? Especially in light of the mainstream appeal of novel readers and movie watchers?
I would say it doesn't. But we're not taking this seriously yet. (Although I wouldn't be surprised if people assume I were)
To take this seriously, you would realize that VNs are more challenging for storyfags than for the average VN player. An almost paradoxical thought because it implies that there is something worse than storyfags but the term storyfag is supposed to be an extreme already.
It's as if there should be a middle ground definition like story whore.
But there isn't.
Because there isn't though, there's a lack of "personal vanity metric" for vocal gamers to discuss more stories in forums which in turn produces less story based topics as a consequence.
That's not the only thing lacking though. If it were, why would it be so bad? Also: why would it be necessary to make a thread of it at all except to rant and complain? (Of course now we've totally abandoned the ones who doesn't want to discuss the thread. They whom ranting and complaining could make sense and they, even the ones who are legit, created the argument hole for troll and troll accusations to enter legitimately in threads like this without breaking the moral code that leads to their banning.)
To make this less confusing though, let's shift to the gameplay and graphic whores.
What drives people to make better graphics and modified gameplay (for better and worse)?
Initially it may appear that, like fanfictions, it's just a case of by the numbers. If we were to simply limit to pure successful modmaking and eliminate those who are desirous but incapable of modding, it still is a by-the-numbers desire.
That's not quite true though. Even the by-the-numbers desire are started from ideas.
Ideas that are not just given birth by one skilled, lucky and ambitious son of a dreamer but ideas that become mythology because someone brought forth the argument.
Am I that person?
I don't believe so and I don't even have that delusion which is why I'm making a storyfag topic aimed at vocal storyfags even though anyone can answer and their answers could be better than the storyfags.
Let's go back now to VNs though. Not because we should but VNs do have "truer" storyfags which in turn makes for a better preview of a "what if" future.
Not in a sort of elitist definition or personal definition but subconsciously, regardless of the quality of the VNs, the truer "vocal" storyfags lay out interpretations and official definitions of VNs and these allows the creation of a community. A smaller community than most but certainly a community with a certain attitude. Attitudes that people subconsciously mimic all because certain vocal storyfags spoke their minds.
This being an example (just don't blame me if reading it creates spoilers)
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/578844-divi-dead
The game is less well known and less praised than Fate/Stay Night but it has a richer group of story speculators. We see this all the time in movies. Even movies that are unknown give forth story speculators. What is more key is that story speculators are often different from fanfiction writers though they overlap.
This is the key that's still lacking within videogames that Rpg elitists are so close to reaching. Reaching beyond VNs even. (We see this not only in modern RPG makers who "wrongly" misuse VN graphics even the professional made ones and we also see this in the storyfag accusations.)
This is no longer your typical adventure click and point vs. interactive rpg anymore but the seed is still subtle and may still die off without anyone perceiving or caring for it.
We're now closer to interactive rpgs. The mainstream reacts to it positively and the hardcore feels it too. The mainstream now have their taste of interactive games. They just don't have a fuller taste of classic games. The hardcore now sees a better visual because they have both been on the positive and negative end. They have experienced games that have less creativity and gameplay and at the same time, they have received a conflicting dilemma that almost makes them analogically like the poorer or more subsdiized culture adopting and praising Marxists philosophies because it is the one that makes it clearest and basic of philosophical beliefs in villifying their villains.
In some ways it's much clearer with the accusations of storyfags because Marxists have to deal with complicated gray areas like the self made man who supports a more free market version of capitalism but the term storyfags is more a process of aligning story lovers with the stereotype that breeds forth the modern mainstream rpgs that these so called hardcore rail on. It is only that the hardcore has the least empathy with stories that it's much easier to create statements like storyfags because even the hardcore gamers may have a field day of accusing others of graphic whorse but animation packs, spell mods, eye candy mods still matter to them not just in mods but in the official games. Stories however matter to them the least because the ones they praise are in themselves often cruder stories and the best ones they've experienced in this interactive medium are often the least interactive. It's almost like they have a more mainstream movie culture.
Again, let's go back to VNs though, that analogy serves the clearest. Particularly because VNs are interactive videogames whose gameplay is more centric to the story not unlike life sims giving more importance to buy and sell items compared to even great rpgs.
It also helps that this is such a niche view if not also a near non-existant one for the VN community that one may be forced to look more seriously in the term storyfags and create hierarchies for it.
See the greatest challenge for a storyfag in VNs is the choice and consequences. The great VN stories are the ones where, once you unlock an ending, you're almost regretful of unlocking another one.
The ramifications are not that important if you're simply in it for a one time gaming experience. It's when you adopt a certain rankings, no different than the premise created by the many here who rank gameplays, that it's starts becoming much clearer that there is, if not a hierarchy, a subconscious ranking rivaling the rpg elitists here but in a story sense. This story sense also extends to gameplay and graphics...but only to those who can do something about it.
(Again I don't believe I can because I haven't made a game nor am I in the process of being able to learn how now but I do feel it's worth discussing and I am at this point totally focused on replying to those who feel the topic is worth discussing even if the very person who made the point above no longer wants to.)
It's why I bring up the Witcher because often times storyfags are forced to only address the potential. Rare is it that someone (often times
not a storyfag) gets to create a mod that delivers the latter.
FCR not only does that to the Witcher but in order for FCR to do that to the Witcher, it relies on the Witcher's simplified combat system and overall mechanics to deliver the same "storyfag immersion".
See the complexity of the Witcher is not that it makes combat less or more better or more gimmicky, etc. etc. I'm not saying this is the intent of the game developers but rare is it that a combat system follows a certain mechanic that is praised world wide in the realm of strategy. FCR won't be praised for that but I don't think there's any shame in that because the only one game series (and the latters one don't even count) that I know of which has been praised for is the Total War series.
For rpgs though, FCR, is certainly one of the more complete and rewarding for storyfags and it is able to do this because of the potential already present in the Witcher's combat system.
I'd like to break this reply for a moment though because this trail allows me to address another point brought up by someone else which is comparing Clock Tower to Argento.
That's kind of the tricky thing when it comes to being a storyfag. In order for a story to be so good that the gamer forgives the flaws of a game when one can say no such game has 100% perfection especially rpgs then the story "must" attract them in such away that technicalities, though they may serve as justifications for their emotions, are in themselves irrelevant. It's also in this way that storyfags become much closer to the classic game lovers that serves to represent the stereotype of this forum. Most importantly, it is also in this way that Argento is irrelevant to Clock Tower unless it's a Clock Tower story criticism thread.
It's actually not that complicated. Gameplayers inherently know this. How many times have gamers read and agreed with a 7/10 rpg review and become more addicted especially as the years go by to this 7/10 rpg than a 10/10 rpg especially as the 7/10 rpg becomes much more scarce?
Yes, they often justify this intangible quality as addictive gaming but these same people,
you same people, can they go on and villify addictive gaming qualities such as crafting, dungeon design and automatic combat systems as bad. It's as if you have a spider sense to distinguish between the two and it doesn't need to be communicated at all once you all agree that it's there.
This holds true for storyfags too. Story quality is important. Story uniqueness too. Videogames have a dilemma though.
There's no true uniqueness. I can justify Clock Tower has a great story because of it's scarcity or originality...but that's not true.
Resident Evil was the first but it didn't gave the same effect plot-wise as Clock Tower.
It also doesn't explain why Clock Tower is better than Clock Tower 2 and 3.
Worse, it doesn't take into account Clock Tower Snes as more people know Clock Tower for the PSX.
Worse, from a storyfag perspective, the difference between Argento movies and Clock Tower 1 is precisely because the SNES version was the Argento one and the PSX version was what made it different in that it was akin to a good Argento sequel with better presentation all wrapped in a plot sense that gives forth a better ramification of the first game all while containing unique gameplay combinations plus the scarcity which all gives it elements that makes it worthwhile from a storyfag sense regardless of whether one likes the story or not.
It's this psychology that makes storyfags so...discussion worthy especially from one storyfag to another because if we accepted this insulting but valid definition of us and we challenged our fellow storyfags to this idea that it almost comes off paradoxical.
Stories are always subjective and although graphic and gameplay has also been subjective there's always been a unification among gamers and where dissent happens, hardcore niche happens. Not so with storyfags. They/we are not pure technical story judges unless we're talking of a specific game thread like if this was totally focused on Clock Tower then we can argue about the similarities of Clock Tower and Argento but in an overall sense we're alot closer to classic gameplayers than we are to the mainstream. No different than a movie critic becoming much closer to unknown rare gem movies than they are to either Citizen Kane or The Dark Knight. Both are whom still "mainstream" in a sense.
Clock Tower doesn't come as close to FCR. Clock Tower still changed the gameplay for it's genre or whatever label it belongs.
Many games do that and they are often underpraised for that but most importantly they are considered almost "unprecedented".
For example, I don't love the RPG maker game I mentioned of whom I have forgotten the name. I don't know how the poster can get that when I specifically said:
"but that had an awesome beginning but the still awkward way of navigating the environments turned me off."
At best you could jump to the conclusion that I only played to the beginning which would be correct.
...but the bigger reason I'm including it is because I can't believe something like Three, The Hard Way can be more exposed yet something like it, though a great RPG maker game, was more of a trope breaker. Certainly deserving of praise but not something I would consider among worthy of being the easiest to find Rpg Maker game if you do a basic Google search for quality Rpg maker games.
I'm a bad Google searcher though but I'm not kidding you when I say it took me half a day to find the title for the game I mentioned since I could literally spot in only one thread.
http://db.tigsource.com/games/sunset-over-imdahl
It didn't help that all the other "famous games" I've skimmed (despite the poster stating Rpg Maker VX improved things to the "full spectrum) were still your typical "closer to fantasy games".
I could only surmise that the poster mistook my mentioning of full spectrum as being "game themes" rather than game plots because things like satire and limited area games (often metaphoric plots with symbolic endings) are definitely not new to RPG maker type gamers but the overall diversity in plots does not only stretch to themes. In Wesnoth mods, you have to really play through the end of several mods to understand what it means for diversity.
This said, I didn't just bring up this game though so I can reference it.
I think what's more important is that, just as gamers, storyfags need not be in it for the story...but still in it for the story.
Imdahl is a convenient game because you can see in that link that one gamer compares it to Legend of Mana. A storyfag would not compare it to Legend of Mana.
It has nothing to do with taste but with what a storyfag focuses their attention on.
It would be like someone saying KOTOR is BG with better graphics. It would not calculate to a BG fan and even a hater who only played the beginning would wonder what the **** is the other person talking about. This of course does not mean the other perspective is not incorrect but see just as a detailed analyst of RPG codex can raise himself beyond the typical gameplay complainer of your typical rpg player, storyfags must at least raise themselves higher to a story lover in order for them to not only forgive the game's flaws BUT most importantly fall within the parameters of being so immersed in that story that they come off as a storyfag.
If you take this psychology shift seriously enough, it's not much different from your typical RPG Codex analyst.
It may not necessarily be BG or Planescape Torment or insert rarer games but at heart an analyst who's overlaying theme may at first sound like their problem is with the gameplay, given enough details, can bring up problems that belong to the graphics (especially the interface) and the plot logic (especially the quest design). Because they are not only more vocal though but they are not unwilling to hold back, you get to the heart of the comparison.
In contrast, if I said a storyfag would love the third screenshot of Sunset over Imdahl, I would come off like a graphics whore. But remember the psychology of the definition of what a storyfag means.
You can say this is just immersion faggotry but how do you explain games where the immersion isn't there?
This brings to light the same dilemma hardcore gamers have but hardcore gamers are more forgiving of gameplay criticism than story criticism and they are also more vocal because the culture states that it's "alright" to criticize those things (lore included even though they seem to be more part of the story) than it is to criticize story.
The title isn't "Some questions from a storyfag who doesn't agree with other graphic whores or gameplay fanboys though".
It's targeted at those vocal storyfags. They are vocal so obviously they have no problem with expressing their opinions but why do they sell themselves short? I'm sick of hearing something like "...but the game has gray morals" but nobody dares to touch the ramifications of those gray morals. It's just gray morals. Something that wouldn't even fly as a basic criticism of the Matrix is suddenly accepted attitude by storyfags.
This isn't just limited to plot defenders. Reviewers don't dwelve into stories. Story dwelvers of videogames don't act as if they are dwelving into an interactive medium.
For an example of this, and hopefully this kills the idea that it's all purely an immersion faggotry thing:
I can guarantee you that to a storyfag, Wild Arms XP is better than Final Fantasy Tactics.
I can guarantee you that to a storyfag, FEDA Emblem of Justice is better than Shining Force.
...but! On average, more story lovers and story whores would prefer and love Final Fantasy Tactics and Shining Force "because of their immersion".
This isn't even about story. A storyfag would love those other games "because of their gameplay". Like classic gamers with different tastes, even if a storyfag disagrees with the immersion or the plot subconsciously what makes them forgive a certain gameplay element is the C&C.
Where C&C means choices & consequences to a gamer, a storyfag interprets C&C as D&C: Decisions and Ramifications. So why they hold back on sharing such opinions if they are vocal storyfags anyway? They have to answer that.
Going back to FCR for the Witcher, pre-FCR, what some see as automatic combat systems or even irrelevant mechanics as long as it makes the game fun or where story whores see (just as storyfags may see) gray moral decisions, storyfags already see the potential of FCR and that's what makes them forgive the game. Only FCR, intentionally or unintentionally, gives them a real concrete example of what they saw and they are no longer riddled with referencing theory and less known games.
Tl;dr version: (Though not quite in the same exact words) Storyfags may forgive...nay love the automated combat system because the game gives them an option to play a game where the musings found within the Book of Five Rings apply. A game where a single power player may still exist (after all Witcher is still an rpg power fantasy) but both the gameplay design and plot works together to "weave" a game where said powerful player has (though it doesn't necessarily mean need until FCR is installed) to take into account surroundings, terrain and crowd behaviour.
This makes it more appealing and immersive than both the mainstream easy design of modern games or the hardcore tactical "wait and choose options" of more challenging rpg games because it builds up the role of the characters.
Even better, the design of the FCR mod makes it so that even if one were to have a God mode, it's possible to screw yourself. (Though I haven't found a mod that makes God mode possible for the Witcher) For example, there's a random two ghoul room in Chapter 2 (nothing major spoiler wise) where in encountering them means you can't go up the stairs nor can you quite kill them immediately without the right oil.
This doesn't mean it's not unhackable to make the game easier but God mode is often the greatest litmus test for a storyfag because most rpgs are power fantasies and the best rpgs are ones where being powerful has ramifications. Negative ones or unlockable ones not just gameplay easing ones.
Again it's easier to understand for VNs because VNs have god mode inherent in their design. The difficulty is in the ramifications and decisions. If you mess it up, it's just a C&C game wrapped in a visual interactive game. If you do it correctly, even the most shallow games, leave you with a richer depth of What if thoughts and overall immersive experience that's difficult not because everyone subjectively praises it or you yourself accepts it but because the implications are just...unique. It's like the JFK sniper simulation. It's a basic 3d sniper shooter "sim" but people are generally disgusted by the gameplay. The only difference here is that storyfags are attuned to more gameplay elements than just sensitive game themes.
This game themes stretches even to the most mundane aspects so much so that even the, again, shallowest aspect because aspect that makes games more game forgiving. The only consequence is that often times the gamer needs more experimentation to finish a game. Often times experimentation that makes the game easier to sync with it's rpg power themes but often times storyfags stray towards challenging games anyway.
For example, my personal love with the FCR mod didn't mean I didn't mod it (save edit actually) so that it was easier. Yet why bother installing FCR at all and not just make vanilla easier?
FCR's reliance gives me the experience of stumbling upon such situations where I "died" because the creature I killed spewed some poisonous gas while killed. Why didn't I become cautious of this? Because I modded the game to full swords stats in line with the power fantasy that the hero while amnesiac is still a superb swordsman. (It also helps me see less of the save/load screen)
This design can be seen anywhere and given to a creature but only a storyfag who feels the euphoria of power possessed by the RPG power fantasy theme can receive the same euphoria from seeing why this character simply does not dominate the entire environment if he can in one birth do things that appear to take eons for the game world characters to achieve. It is a form of pseudo-immersion that only interactive games can produce but one where neither easy nor hard nor medium gameplay can replicate.
In some ways, there's some Revan-like euphoria given to the plot. Only storyfag gamers are turned off by the Revan-like implications. Another paradox.
Here, let me make a comparison: Mainstream gamers may like the Revan revelation. (They may not and then turn around with Kotor 2 and then just rationalize that the only thing bad about Kotor 2 is the unfinished design.)
Hardcore gaming plot lovers may like the themes presented in Planescape Torment and <insert some other game>
Though overstretching (especially for Final Fantasy haters), I dub this the FFVI - FFVII paradox. Both are highly praise worthy and highly immersive to the right crowd but one of the least liked FF would be the most immersive, enjoyable and best plot for a storyfag and that's FFII especially the fixed latter versions. There's many reasons for this possibility (and I'm not including my own subjective biases though with all things considered it's impossible to truly rip this apart) but if you look at it, FFII serves up many of the above hints I presented.
Finally I give you the Tales of Destiny 1 (PSX) Leon fight and the Blue vs. Rouge battle of Saga Frontier 1. Both are neither considered immersive games plot-wise nor exactly "highly praised non-controversial classic games". Most importantly though, the events I'm mentioning (read the Gamefaqs secrets if you want to be spoiled) are the equivalent of the Aeris death for a storyfag and these are not immersive scenes even for a storyfag at all.
Even more importantly, God mode changes the context and experience of these scenes. Difficulty has nothing to do with the events at all. Neither do spoilers. You can read how to unlock these all you want, the experience can't quite prepare you
if you're a storyfag. (Not saying it won't for others but it will definitely for storyfags.)
Hopefully this clears up:
"I reckon it comes down to the fact that cRPGs are meant to be enjoyed in the interaction with the game, including its story, rather than appreciated solely for the story. News at eleven. A shitty story that a cRPG lets you interact with and influence is what we look for, what the storyfags of this board would probably point to. A great story with no interaction has no place in videogames. RPGs and interactive novels are not the same thing. At all."
I'm not saying there won't be people claiming to be storyfags that just want a movie or a good plot but both definitions do not fit the psychological behaviour of your original definition. (Again both definition)
Storyfags can just as much love shitty stories as cRPG can. Stories are subjective. Their subjective quality, even if you love them, do not automatically make your psyche forgive the rest of the elements of a game.
I can give you one personal example but it's going to be real hard to give one "unanimous" agreed-upon-by-most-storyfags example because of how the storyfags hold back.
This is Final Fantasy VII. I would consider Final Fantasy VII to have a great story. Far superior to all other Final Fantasies but where I differ is that I consider the story only good "pre-Aeris death".
Now why do I hold this opinion?
It's not just plot. Sure the scarcity of an amnesiac hero starting not from when they first forgot but when they first approached their lover (Tifa) but also when they first jumped from a train as an introduction (highly unique for that time in rpgs) and their first appearance in a true urban city with true characters (not just cyberpunk themes) overlayed by their joining a fantasy terrorist team (again unique as far as overall execution for that time) all gives me this opinion, it's the gameplay and graphics that seal the deal for me. Most of it coming for innovation.
The primary one is that only after TedTalks become popular and Dan Ariely talked about predictably irrational that it become more mainstream for people to have the "uglier than you" clone theory to hold much more sway among the masses, Final Fantasy VII was addressing this not just in the Zack-Cloud paradigm but also in the graphics.
Where people see the sprites, especially today, as not having aged gracefully - I see it (even back then) as an attempt to make the more appealing graphics more appealing. This was unique because the psychology behind graphics had not yet been done this way to my knowledge at the time (especially in a mainstream manner) until FFVII.
I'm not saying this is intentional but years down the line, with the advent of more fan translation, it would impress me even further that Square created Live a Live. Almost the same execution but in a more experimental manner. Even today, as a storyfag, I consider Live a Live to be the best rpg power fantasies yet paradoxically I don't consider Live a Live to be the best immersive plot wise. (Paradoxically for those who bring up immersion.)
Depth wise, I also don't consider Live a Live to have as much plot as your great CRPG. Even I may not necessarily disagree with one who can eloquently explain to me why it has both a shitty gameplay and a shitty story.
Nonetheless, regardless of whether I consider it to be shitty or non-shitty or great, I would never change my opinion with why I consider Live a Live to be among the best representation of an RPG power fantasy plot in the same manner that Final Fantasy VII (regardless of how many other opinions/games may have swayed me from their quality) would always be something I consider a storyfag game. It doesn't matter if one day I woke up considering it a bad game in any aspect or if one day I'm no longer a fanboy of it (which technically I'm not but any FFVII fanboy sounds like a FF fanboy unless they denounce it) the above reason is why time and time again I would consider FFVII a great game/story as fitting a storyfag.
It's no different than CRPG fans. You could exaggerate it to the point that there are some CRPG fans who consider two types of shitty CRPGs. Shitty CRPG games and Bioware/Oblivion/Morrowind/Dragon Age crap. Sentence-wise, this doesn't make sense as it somehow makes games like Morrowind to be both CRPG-lite and non-CRPG to a CRPG fans but because the stereotype/the attitude/the community/the vocals have been layed out. It is quite clear except for the individual details.
But that's the positive light, let's switch it to addressing the negative:
"So we have cRPG fans who are derided as/self-identify as storyfags, because they enjoy exploring the interaction between the cRPG and its story. They're generally not going to talk about interactive novels. They're not going to perform deep analysis of the story of a cRPG, because most of them are utter juvenile shit. They're not generally going to form massive modding communities, because the cRPG is not a story-telling medium, it's a medium for a game of which the story is a part.
The story is a game in RPGs and we talk about it as a game, not as a story, except in passing."
See it's not about massive modding alone. That's just a part and a part where I head towards the extreme of talking to my fellow storyfags.
If I was rude and trolling, it's almost as if the question was: "If you guys are really that passionate of storyfags that you are so vocal about it then why can't create a modding community huh? cRPG is not a storytelling medium you say? Well so was Chrono Trigger you faggot and someone was able to make a proposal using it!
"
Of course this is just the bottom of the iceberg. It just has much to do with their posting. How can storyfags claim to be storyfags if someone here can say "check out the SomethingAwful forums" because I can guarantee you the reason SomethingAwful can get to this depth much like the HongFire forums is because they don't hold back on their taste. (This is all judging from my lurking.)
It's alot like scanlation community developments. Yes, the community rallies behind scanlators but in the end what makes it vocal is that people are vocal not just in words and opinions but they don't hold back. Where they have something to say or praise, they do so. Not always in the intelligent manner and certainly there's no romantic "a few gave birth to the many" but **** they were proud but they were just not loud. They were demanding and they layed it out as hard as some of the longest TL;DR CRPG ranters. They didn't just "say". They didn't just "state". They "gave". So how come the vocal storyfags don't pull this off? Again, I'm not talking about the silent ones or the rare thread makers like me. I made this thread for them.
I don't know them though. I don't know you. If it sounds like I'm desiring of digesting the Codex in one thread, forgive me, I read points. I bring up points. I make threads to people.
I don't memorize usernames. A troll name could just have argued with me but if in my next thread they wrote something interesting/worthwhile/addressing my points, that's what matters to me: the discussion.
I'm off the belief that there's nothing vague to someone who wants to discuss. What's vague becomes specific because they specifically ask. They don't just remark. They don't just pander.
I'm a lot less harsher normally as I said I'm a horrible communicator but there's nothing vague about my words to a storyfag and also I made this thread here in this manner, in this design, in this wording because I believe the forum members (based on the few threads I've read) to be capable of answering and analyzing it beyond a simple comment. If what comes back to me does not match with that expectation, then there's a chance my thread is not to those person so the poster who wrote:
"ignore the trolls and discuss back with those that are trying to understand what you want."
At the time I wrote the previous reply, the closest thing to someone making the effort is where people agreed and accepted the lack of story based threads and I still addressed those just as I am addressing the posts now.
You can only discuss back though where someone has discussed forward.
Now as far as quest being lore or not lore: it's all about context.
Remember: storyfag thread.
You already admit. Some cross lore-pieces.
My opinion is that many cross lore-pieces. To separate this, you have to take the concept of quests out of the context of how storyfags perceive it. Not always literally. We're all different even us storyfags but as I said:
Again see the replies. I guess if there's any wording I would clarify it's that quests can be lores depending on how people discuss them. I don't like looking down on forum readers though but like I said, board really disappointed me.
Again it falls in line with whether it's about technical details or it's about a thread for storyfags by a storyfag.
Also hopefully my reply above already address this:
"I can only think of someone defending it if he doesn't want to sit through combat and just wanna see the story, much like what BioWare did for Mass Effect 3 with the new "story-mode", where the combat is almost removed from the game in favour of the story. And those kind of people should just go watch a movie."
As a short addendum though, let me provide you with this imagery:
One of the story versions a storyfag wants to see is this (not necessarily the specific story he intends to gain as he does not yet know the game but one of the "vague" premises)
He wants to see a powerful character that can be defeated.
But as an interactive medium, he wants both the premise of how novels create the downfall of powerful fantasy characters (and in some ways movies akin to the Legend of Zorro) but he also needs the interactive immersion. The surprise as it may.
Yet, despite the immersion, he is also linked to his reality. In his reality there are rules but not quite the same rules as DnD though as PnP evolves there are some cross-comparisons.
Yet as stated, this is not about realityfaggotry. It's not exactly fun (even in the Witcher) to enter hostile mod accidentally by wrongly targetting certain creatures.
Worse, the immersive effect of this, almost always lead to a dead end. Rare is it that there's a bonus ending like in BG II after you've done with all the spells and perceive an event that normally can only be delegated to a very skilled few whom was able to survive the onslaught of summonings.
ME3's system (based on what I read, not having actually played it) would not provide this.
"It looks like one of OP's unspoken assumptions is that traditional RPG combat is "gamey", time-consuming and therefore distracts from the story, while "realistic" Witcher-style combat meshes better with a storyline (it's like something you would see in a movie or read in a novel) and therefore enhances it."
Tradition died several times. Fallout was a descendant for example though because of time, many may perceive Fallout as an originator.
Time-consuming needs context also. See the thread about dungeons, crafting, etc.
Witcher-style is not realistic. Oils are not realistic. Most importantly, realism would have killed the effect of a fantasy killer of ghouls that can also be killed by a ghoul not just in sloppiness but like with all fights, in chaotic non-percentage scenarios.
Finally RRRrrr... you're a storyfag but I don't believe you have played the games I mentioned in the games I presented them.
The psychology of the Witcher lies in the combat system. FCR makes this even more clear from the exaggerated difference between how easy a Witcher can eradicate a human but how difficult a Witcher must approach the supernatural which is emphasize even more if you cheat a certain way which is give full upgrades to your swords and dexterity and play the rest the normal way (so you get the euphoria of level ups.)
I've also brought up some other games and other gameplay aspects.
Sunset over Imdahl and Saga Frontier 2, though technically just having painted backgrounds, can tell a million stories from that background.
Having played Saga Frontier 2 more than Sunset, I could even say the backgrounds are so storyfag centric that when the backgrounds and events become lazy, it's almost a 2x turn off to a storyfag than it would to a normal gamer.
About the Batman games, I was curious. Definitely wasn't sure my PC could handle it but seeing the Joker turned me off.
Would I have liked those games otherwise? Who knows but I won't be trying them.
I will say this though. Batman and Robin was a horrible game but despite the fact that I could only play up to the first Freeze battle, I considered it a storyfag worthy game.
Years passed by and I finally played GTA 3. I was totally turned off. What surprised me though was that the most praised aspect of it was what most turned me off which was the graphics and the design.
Arkham City in particular from the videos I observed have the flaw in that the combat animations are predictable. Automation alone is not enough for a storyfag. A certain sense needs to be in tune. Take the Pirates remake. Simple combat with slight interactions. Could be boring too. But where lack of diversity made it boring, it was also storyfag worthy because it was one of the few games that linked age to swordfighting thus despite the unrealistic portrayals of pirates, my lack of empathy towards fantasy pirates that look like young pop stars, my lack of interest other than general curiosity with how Sid Meier portrayed Pirates (for I did not play the original but had a taste of Sword of the Samurai for DOS) all in all, it was a game I hold little special interest for but it was a game I storyfagged all over.
At Capt. Shrek, I name you not because I specifically hate you (or the opposite) but because you are the only one who fits someone who wants to discuss back but also mistook the direction of the thread and for that, though the direction your post took is the most detailed while also the most direct in raising questions, you also made a different topic.
To keep this thread from being accused further of incoherency, I shall decline to address your point except to say that even for the literary contemporaries, they are also just as vague as your common CRPG fan or storyfag or whatever other groups there may be.
These are people who's biases also lead them to focus on something else. As stereotypes of course. Individually speaking, one can only address the individual but as stereotypes goes, my opinion is that the illusion of a certain stereotype being superior to another stereotype is but a more eloquent form of racism. (Linking to this joke as I'm not sure my words can communicate the implication:
)