I'm not saying story is a bad thing. It's not, but it seems like a lot of devs focus so heavily on coming up with an engaging story and good visuals that they forget to actually make the game fun to play.
I think about some of the games I've played over the years, and a lot of my favorites either had fairly limited or even downright absurd plots that basically boil down to an excuse to make the gameplay loop happen.
Just a random musing.
Retro games barely had a story. It was just sort of expected to be there.
If anything, there was a period of time where screaming idiots felt the story was supposed to be le epic deep lore where everything has to fit together like some kind of fantasy novel series of books with 5000 pages. Sonic Universe. Zelda Timeline. It was nonsense. During the era I was halfway expecting the Tony Hawk Canonical History.
That being said, I don't mind a good story, just don't make it the main focus of the game. Hell, windwaker had a pretty decent story (even though it was for kids), but it was fun to actually play, in spite of the grindy bits.
...and I know I'm gonna get flak for this, but ocarina of time is overrated... if I have to go back and forth over hyrule field one more goddamn time...
I think it depends on how that exposition is handled in the game too. The old adage of "show don't tell" is probably truer in games than for almost any other medium.
The things you see and observe within the game world can do far more to deliver a story than the vast majority of dialogue in a game. The game world is the number 1 key to immersion. And things that try to force you out of that game world like cut-scenes can be some of the most immersion and experience breaking elements in a game.
agreed. I don't have a problem with story in games (beyond the obvious), I just hate it when a dev focuses so hard on story that they forget to make the game actually playable, lol.