Nintendo's "Gameplay over Story": The Pros and Cons of the Controversial Approach

[MayorBryce]

Nintendo has always taken a "Gameplay over Story" approach. On the bright side, this means the gameplay is always fun. It's always enjoyable. On the downside, this causes some poor storytelling.

Let's start with the Pros and look at some games that benefit from this approach.

• Super Mario Odyssey. As far as the story goes, this one is minimal: Bowser wants to marry Peach to control the world, and Mario needs to stop him. Along the way, he travels the world and stops Bowser from stealing random things for the wedding. This one benefits from the gameplay over story approach: the move list is plentiful and the world is beautiful. Without having to focus on the story as much, it allows the team to experiment with locations, environments, styles, and more.
• Splatoon. I'll discuss the entire Splatoon franchise, as it's pretty consistent as far as gameplay and story. Squids paint the floor to win games. That's the gameplay. Things are more complex than that, but at its core, it's painting the ground to gain territory and sometimes push objectives. The story mode on the side consists of linear levels that teach you various mechanics of the game, and the boss battles are clever.
• Breath of the Wild. While I haven't played TOTK enough to give a good opinion on it, I have done most of BOTW. You're traveling the land, looking for secrets, fighting the occasional mini-boss, checking out the scenery and locales, fulfilling side quests, and more. The story is also fairly straightforward: Ganon took over Hyrule 100 years ago, and Link, who's just returned from a century-long stasis, must regain his former power and defeat Ganon. Along the way, he must travel to the four races of Hyrule, enter powerful machines, and configure them to aid him in his battle. The puzzles in these dungeons are clever and really require some thinking. The world is full of things to do and varied environments, all while running and looking amazing with the black magic they pulled to get the game to run like it does.
• Pikmin 4. Captain Olimar, in his 4th adventure into the world of Pikmin, has once again, to the complete surprise of everyone who knows him, crash-landed on a world full of Pikmin. You've got to track him down. Along the way, you collect treasure to power up your ship to reach new areas. The fun of playing Pikmin returns, now with time-based battles where you refine how fast you can obtain a series of treasures.

Nintendo is known for having amazing gameplay, and most, if not all, of their games on Switch are fun to play. But, unfortunately, it means the story is sometimes hastily thrown together just to have a reason you're doing what you're doing.

• Splatoon. Quite possibly one of the biggest offenders, the development team spends so much time creating a rich and believable world, then falls short when they need to justify the gameplay. In the story mode, you're going on floating linear levels that go against everything the game is trying to teach you about the Octarians. Vast TV screens mimic the sky in underground worlds, eliminating the player's concern for their power problems. All the levels are floating and linear, which, even if you consider the Octarian tech, makes you wonder why the Octarian's time and money was spent creating these locations. Later installments also do little to justify the linear, floating levels. In Splatoon 3, you're in an underground cavern where humans used to live. Yet, nothing makes sense. Why is the ground white? Why is the sky there? Why is there a rocket when you're underground? Why are these levels designed to test you, when Inkfish weren't even available to the AI's knowledge until recently? Some of these are explained by the Alterna logs, but it still doesn't make sense. This is really a shame, because the devs also make an effort to enrich the world using scrolls, poems, even a blog in some DLC. Yet the story mode never makes a ton of sense.
• Breath of the Wild. Story beats are infrequent, not very often, and rarely add to the story. The game adds detail using memories, recollections, that Link has in key locations. However, while this are fun to watch, they don't add to the story. They describe the great champions who were alive a century ago, yet they have no relevance on the present day. Some key battles or experiences also don't help. One of the final memories shows Link right after receiving the wound that nearly kills him, yet we still have no idea what caused it. In another, Hyrule Castle has just been taken over and... not much happens. They're just running away. Zelda has a breakdown. No stand, just running away. Then, there's the divine beasts. For starters, you're telling me you need someone to push a button and fire a laser? That is the best use for the descendants of these legendary champions? Then, you've got to do a segment to get inside these things. Yet the reasons it's a problem to the various races are nothing. The Ruto are annoyed that it's flying above them? The Gerudo are worried it'll come near them when it's always a safe distance away? The Zora have an actual reason, to prevent flooding, but it still doesn't really matter to them, since "water and air are the same" or something. And the Gorons are more inconvenienced than heavily affected.
• Pokemon Sword/Shield. While Pokemon SV revised the plot a lot better, Game Freak's second installment on Switch falls very short. Now, to be fair, this is the indie devloper Game Freak we're talking about, not the biggest IP in the world, but this is also one of Nintendo's first-party games for some reason, so I figure it would be good to include here. There's no tension. Cutscenes are lackluster and infrequent. At one point, there's a big battle at the end of the tunnel, then you get there and... it's all over. Nothing interesting. The game tries to build mystery around the legendaries, but it isn't hard to figure things out when they're on the box. Then again, I don't want to beat a dead horse too much. This is Pokemon we're talking about, we need to be more gentle on the biggest IP in the world.
• Kirby. Gameplay? Fun! Story? Eh... The story is basic at the beginning. Something happens and it leads to Kirby travelling, eating enemies, stealing their abilities, and defeating more enemies. Things drastically pick up halfway, and next thing you know, there's a world-ending calamity/god/creature you've got to defeat. There's little buildup, it's just "final boss/end of the world be upon ye!" and you defeat them and move on with your life. At leat the story beats are more meaningful. In Forgotten Land, King Dedede has regains control from his mind control and decides to help you before nearly sacrificing himself so you can get to the elevator and get to the boss.

This approach has it's pros and cons. It was fun to analyze where it works and where it doesn't, but overall, I'm glad they chose this approach. While a good story would be very appreciated, I'd rather be enjoying myself with fun gameplay. If I need story, there are other games for that. This is, however, something I wish Nintendo would invest more time into.

Thanks for reading. If you find any incorrect info, please let me know so I can correct it.

 

[thesjaakspoiler]

Isn't the limited storage capacity of the Nintendo platforms also a reason why the story is so shallow?
Although theoretically a Switch game cart can hold 64GB, most of the are 2~4GB.
That is completely different than a 25GB/50GB BluRay disc.
With a PS4/PS5 you can store hours of video on a single disc so developers have more opportunities to put story telling elements in games.

 

[MayorBryce]

Isn't the limited storage capacity of the Nintendo platforms also a reason why the story is so shallow?
Although theoretically a Switch game cart can hold 64GB, most of the are 2~4GB.
That is completely different than a 25GB/50GB BluRay disc.
With a PS4/PS5 you can store hours of video on a single disc so developers have more opportunities to put story telling elements in games.

Not in the slightest. You can put good stories into smaller games. I could name countless indie games that have wonderful stories that are tiny in file size.

 

[mrcroket]

Nintedo makes games, not movies, and I really wish this would never change.

 

[MayorBryce]

Nintedo makes games, not movies, and I really wish this would never change.

I agree. Nintendo puts gameplay first and foremost, meaning all of their games are going to be fun to play. I'm simply nitpicking over the fact that this usually costs the game a good story.

 

[CoolMe]

This been their shtick since the beginning. one of things you must do when you make games for younger audiences (mainly) is to dumb down the story elements, characters, themes etc. Appropriate to their level. So of course everything will be all sunshine and rainbows and nothing that hints even remotely to real life affairs like politics, conflicts, violence, ideologies etc. nothing that could threat that "kiddy-land" illusion.
I don't see them dropping this unless something happens like kids no longer buy their games and thus losing mon, but honestly im not seeing it, atleast not in the foreseeable future.

 

[Robert Newbie]

It's such a nuanced issue. When I was a kid, NES games were usually about an hour or two, assuming you were skilled enough to make it to the end. Games like that needed a premise more than a full narrative.

Now, games have to be 10+ hours minimum, so it's expected to have a story. The hook of a game is its interactivity, so slow walk scenes and prolonged reading and dialog sequences (let's not forget audio logs) make some people bored or even upset. Some love it.

Sometimes, people come for the story and are impressed by the gameplay. (or the other way around) Uncharted has simple gameplay: No frills, just magnetize to ledges, shoot, and sometimes drive. The Last of Us has stealth/third person shooter gameplay with an upgrade system that encourages a little exploration. Silent Hill 2 has simple gameplay and an engaging horror story. Resident Evil 2 is a longer game with more varied shooting gameplay.

There's no real answer to which is better. I can say that as I've gotten older, I just want the gameplay. The story bogs down the interactivity. I used to love the scenes in PSOne games because they were carefully crafted and visually impressive. Each one was a treat. I don't feel that tinge anymore and I just want to play.

I know it's a wall of text, my bad.

 

[Lumpofcoal]

Personally, I don't mind a mediocre story if the gameplay is VERY FUN. However, if the gameplay is not very fun, then the lacklustre story becomes even more painfully obvious and I will be critical of it.

As an example, unicorn overlord. Its story is very bog standard with very little twists. But it's the engaging (to me) gameplay and art presentation that makes it easier for me to overlook the flaw.

 

[B.B.Link]

Silent protagonist kills story. Mario doesn't really matter except for Paper Mario. Mario and Luigi rpg interactions are funny at least, but Link especially in these deeper Zelda titles needs a personality and speech! Same goes for you trainer in Pokemon. Scarlett and violet tried to tell a deep story unlike other Pokemon games but your smiling derp of an avatar ruins the story they were trying to tell. Games like Mass effect, Cyberpunk 2077 and others shows you can make an avatar talk and have personality and be into the story. Silent protagonist is a lazy way out. It signals from the developers "I don't give a shit about investing this character so why should you?"

 

[a_username_that_is_cool]

I love the "gameplay over story" trope. I always say "I came here to play a game, not watch a movie!" whenever a game is 99% story. Sure a good story is really nice for games, but if the gameplay sucks then I say the whole thing sucks.

Silent protagonist kills story. Mario doesn't really matter except for Paper Mario. Mario and Luigi rpg interactions are funny at least, but Link especially in these deeper Zelda titles needs a personality and speech! Same goes for you trainer in Pokemon. Scarlett and violet tried to tell a deep story unlike other Pokemon games but your smiling derp of an avatar ruins the story they were trying to tell. Games like Mass effect, Cyberpunk 2077 and others shows you can make an avatar talk and have personality and be into the story. Silent protagonist is a lazy way out. It signals from the developers "I don't give a shit about investing this character so why should you?"

As I'm pretty sure GabeN said, most of the time silent protagonists are a 'vessel' for people. "You don't want people to have one reaction and the protagonist to have another" or something like that

 

[B.B.Link]

I love the "gameplay over story" trope. I always say "I came here to play a game, not watch a movie!" whenever a game is 99% story. Sure a good story is really nice for games, but if the gameplay sucks then I say the whole thing sucks.

As I'm pretty sure GabeN said, most of the time silent protagonists are a 'vessel' for people. "You don't want people to have one reaction and the protagonist to have another" or something like that

That might have worked when we used to play with our toys when we we're little. But these companies need to know now we don't need to imagine things anymore. Tell your story through the game you develop.

 

[Exidous]

But these companies need to know now we don't need to imagine things anymore.

This would be more reprehensible if it wasn't so stupid.

I'm not saying Nintendo's enormous success in aggressively disagreeing with you is proof that you're wrong, but you should take it as an indication.

 

[Ethelbert]

Some Nintendo series could handle a stronger story focus. Zelda for example. But not at the cost of the gameplay focus.

I suspect Metroid Prime 4 will try to something like this. We'll see how it pans out.

Sonyslop-style walking and yapping gameplay is best left for Sonyslop ofc.

 

[Robert Newbie]

Silent protagonist kills story. Mario doesn't really matter except for Paper Mario. Mario and Luigi rpg interactions are funny at least, but Link especially in these deeper Zelda titles needs a personality and speech! Same goes for you trainer in Pokemon. Scarlett and violet tried to tell a deep story unlike other Pokemon games but your smiling derp of an avatar ruins the story they were trying to tell. Games like Mass effect, Cyberpunk 2077 and others shows you can make an avatar talk and have personality and be into the story. Silent protagonist is a lazy way out. It signals from the developers "I don't give a shit about investing this character so why should you?"

I grew up with those games, so I'm just used to the silent protagonist. It did make more sense back in those days, though I'm sure it still took some finesse to write around a main character that couldn't speak. I'd argue that we have examples of both working well, whether it's Final Fantasy VI for a talking protagonist or Chrono Trigger with a silent one. It's a matter of preference, really.

 

[B.B.Link]

This would be more reprehensible if it wasn't so stupid.

I'm not saying Nintendo's enormous success in aggressively disagreeing with you is proof that you're wrong, but you should take it as an indication.

....and I didn't know I was arguing with you, as I didn't quote you in anything. Who are you again?

And just because Nintendo is successful doesn't mean they know how to tell good stories. you just buy the games for the brand anyway. If you want to make cinematic stories like their trying to do now, a silent protagonist will not work in those stories. Did anyone play Hyrule Warriors Age of Calamity? Did Link make any sense as a SP in that story?

 

[ertaboy356b]

Wow this thread got revived recently. Like what a great game designer said "if it's not fun, why bother?".

With that said, a mediocre movie has better story than the best story games.

 

[Exidous]

....and I didn't know I was arguing with you, as I didn't quote you in anything. Who are you again?

You're shitting on the most successful game company for its game design philosophy. You're arguing with a lot more than me - common decency, reality, probably Dad. You literally wrote "we don't need to imagine things anymore."

You don't want games. You want maybe-interactive movies.

And just because Nintendo is successful doesn't mean they know how to tell good stories.

You strike me as someone who has strong preferences on audiobook voice talent: you have no idea of the quality of the underlying story one way or another because you're tragically blinded by the least relevant elements of its presentation.

you just buy the games for the brand anyway.

Nintendo's games are bought for their brand more than perhaps any other, because they earned people's respect and confidence by making excellent games, by doing almost the exact opposite of what you are whining for in this thread.

If you want to make cinematic stories like their trying to do now, a silent protagonist will not work in those stories.

It sounds like you define cinematic as "not a game." Certainly not one where the player feels like they are the protagonist or significantly shapes the progress of the story.

I'm going to pull in your previous examples because they're just perfect

Games like Mass effect, Cyberpunk 2077 and others shows you can make an avatar talk and have personality and be into the story.

Bioware was historically perhaps the single laziest game developer on Earth. They build systems, barely, and then write scripts. Mostly, the parts of their games people remember are dating sims: dialogue trees where the goal is seduce a virtual character.

It's not that their scripts are bad, it's just that they can't do anything else well, if at all. And then sometimes their scripts are bad. Mass Effect was more of a game than KOTOR, but both are fundamentally closer to scripts - choose your own adventure books. Their closest game studio comparison would be Telltale (which you should look into).

Cyberpunk 2077 was wildly overambitious and buggy on release. I don't want to cast shade on CDPR beyond that, but it was such an obvious budgetary face plant - they didn't spend enough time or money to get that one out the door, as planned, properly. You know what takes disproportionate time and money? voice acting, cutscenes, and all the other shiny irrelevance that Nintendo regularly deemphasizes. CDPR would have likely had much more success - financial and critical - with Cyberpunk if they had adopted a design philosophy closer to Nintendo's and further from you.

And of course, Nintendo has never tried to make this sort of game - certainly not like Cyberpunk. (Nintendo actually does have smaller teams and second parties that make dialogue tree games, but they don't blow through hundreds of millions of dollars developing each of them - they're predominately 2D).

In general, Nintendo doesn't want to wrap cutscenes around a script, they want to make games.

Did anyone play Hyrule Warriors Age of Calamity?

You mean the Dynasty Warriors game, made by the same Koei team that makes all the Dynasty Warriors games? What does that have to do with Nintendo's design? I admit that Nintendo is taking questionable risks when it rents out its IP to third parties, but the best of them have paid off - like the Capcom Zelda games.

Did Link make any sense as a SP in that story?

While Nintendo is renting out their IP, it makes sense to keep the third party penned in creatively. Few would want them tarnishing the IP by adding or changing major elements. Imagine if they cheaped out (see: Koei, Dynasty Warriors) and got a bad voice actor. We might be able to laugh at the excuuuuse me princess of it all now, but I can't imagine it was great for the Zelda cartoon while it was being made. It obviously would have been bad here.



Anyway, you're going to get the closest approximation of what you say you want: they're making a Zelda movie, God helps us. Pretend like it has context buttons and you'll be all set.

The rest of us have games to play.

 

[B.B.Link]

You're shitting on the most successful game company for its game design philosophy. You're arguing with a lot more than me - common decency, reality, probably Dad. You literally wrote "we don't need to imagine things anymore."

You don't want games. You want maybe-interactive movies.

You strike me as someone who has strong preferences on audiobook voice talent: you have no idea of the quality of the underlying story one way or another because you're tragically blinded by the least relevant elements of its presentation.

Nintendo's games are bought for their brand more than perhaps any other, because they earned people's respect and confidence by making excellent games, by doing almost the exact opposite of what you are whining for in this thread.

It sounds like you define cinematic as "not a game." Certainly not one where the player feels like they are the protagonist or significantly shapes the progress of the story.

I'm going to pull in your previous examples because they're just perfect

Bioware was historically perhaps the single laziest game developer on Earth. They build systems, barely, and then write scripts. Mostly, the parts of their games people remember are dating sims: dialogue trees where the goal is seduce a virtual character.

It's not that their scripts are bad, it's just that they can't do anything else well, if at all. And then sometimes their scripts are bad. Mass Effect was more of a game than KOTOR, but both are fundamentally closer to scripts - choose your own adventure books. Their closest game studio comparison would be Telltale (which you should look into).

Cyberpunk 2077 was wildly overambitious and buggy on release. I don't want to cast shade on CDPR beyond that, but it was such an obvious budgetary face plant - they didn't spend enough time or money to get that one out the door, as planned, properly. You know what takes disproportionate time and money? voice acting, cutscenes, and all the other shiny irrelevance that Nintendo regularly deemphasizes. CDPR would have likely had much more success - financial and critical - with Cyberpunk if they had adopted a design philosophy closer to Nintendo's and further from you.

And of course, Nintendo has never tried to make this sort of game - certainly not like Cyberpunk. (Nintendo actually does have smaller teams and second parties that make dialogue tree games, but they don't blow through hundreds of millions of dollars developing each of them - they're predominately 2D).

In general, Nintendo doesn't want to wrap cutscenes around a script, they want to make games.

You mean the Dynasty Warriors game, made by the same Koei team that makes all the Dynasty Warriors games? What does that have to do with Nintendo's design? I admit that Nintendo is taking questionable risks when it rents out its IP to third parties, but the best of them have paid off - like the Capcom Zelda games.

While Nintendo is renting out their IP, it makes sense to keep the third party penned in creatively. Few would want them tarnishing the IP by adding or changing major elements. Imagine if they cheaped out (see: Koei, Dynasty Warriors) and got a bad voice actor. We might be able to laugh at the excuuuuse me princess of it all now, but I can't imagine it was great for the Zelda cartoon while it was being made. It obviously would have been bad here.



Anyway, you're going to get the closest approximation of what you say you want: they're making a Zelda movie, God helps us. Pretend like it has context buttons and you'll be all set.

The rest of us have games to play.

You have some points, but it didn't change anything about how Nintendo sucks at making stories, and how silent protagonists destroy a feel of a good story. And personal attacks won't change that, either.

 

[nWo]

Well, you know something? I kinda agree and disagree at the same time. When I was a kid, I was blown by the story of Super Metroid, for example. And that game combined great story and GREAT, ENHANCED gameplay coming from the original Metroid and Metroid 2. With the Mario franchise, well, you get the classic story about a damsel in distress, but you get a lot of fun in the way. That's just a clear example of "if it's not broken, don't fix it". Now, think about this: I don't know, the "Fast and Furious" movie franchise. That damn thing is about races, and that's it. But it has spawned, I don't even know anymore, 10 movies? People go and watch every new movie, and the people behind the name make millions of dollars. That's an example of a bad thing.

Now with Nintendo NOWADAYS, yes I agree, the story is kind of blurry, but you get the full experience getting a fun game, with an OK story and a great memory is going to be there forever. I have played so many games, on Xbox, Playstation, PC, you name it, and the vast majority have a long story and lore, but with no love, or at least I feel it that way. You lose interest very soon, and the game becomes a responsibility more than a happy hobbie.

So, I really like the way Nintendo makes games. Some things are bad, some things are good, but all in all, it's the brand that has given me the most cherished gaming moments of my life. Just my two cents.

 

[Exidous]

You have some points, but it didn't change anything about how Nintendo sucks at making stories, and how silent protagonists destroy a feel of a good story. And personal attacks won't change that, either.

You have no points, and have been enormously more disrespectful.

What you like is one thing, but demanding it as a new blueprint for the most successful video game developer is obviously stupid. Go back to your dating sims and stop sullying intelligent conversation with your foolishness.