I don't think you can discuss about it if a game needs a story or not because that depends on the personal preferences.

I for example can't enjoy a game without or with just a poor or poorly told story no matter how good the gameplay is.
That doesn't mean that those games are bad but I don't like them.
Gameplay is not completely unimportant to me but it doesn't have such a big effect on my decision if I like a game for that the gameplay would need to be way beyond saving.

But that's my preference when it comes to games and it doesn't mean everyone who disagrees is wrong.
It's the same the other way around.

This also means you can't say that "games of only about....." or "only very little about...." because it's just the way you enjoy games.

Exactly what I've been saying a few pages back, but some people just don't get that. Still, nice to see that someone does :)

Actually, there are meaningful choices even in those genres you mention. Let's use Super Mario Brothers as an example. Suppose that, as small Mario, you just hit a ? block and a mushroom came out. However, the mushroom is in a dangerous spot. Do you:
1. Try to get the mushroom (and risk dying by bumping into an enemy), or
2. Ignore it (and risk dying later because you're still small)?

If that's how you want to split hairs, I can do that too for adventure games. For example- do I

1. Talk with all the NPCs to find clues to the puzzles
2. Try to figure the puzzle out on my own
3. Try using things on things randomly?

Also, there are adventure games that give you choices in dialogue, multiple endings etc. Are we going to split the genre into "games" and "not-games" based on that? It's ridiculous. I'm sorry, but it really looks like some of you are trying to discount adventure games simply because they don't fit the "games don't need stories" stance, which for some reason I can't begin to fathom needs to be absolute for some here. It can't be "some games don't need story" or "I don't need games to have a story". It's "games don't need a story and when they do they are not games".

I don't see it as splitting hairs; I see it as having to judge risk versus reward. Also, strictly speaking, I haven't said anything about pure adventure games and stories. In fact, the only exception I made is Visual Novels, since such "games" (if that is the right term) are solely about story. It's the same reason that races should stay out of non-racing games and stealth should stay out of non-stealth games, etc. (Minigames are a bad thing unless the primary focus of the game is minigames.)

That game is awesome. IcePick Lodge really knows how to combine fun, interesting and bizarre into one coherent whole. :)

for me the question of story in games isn't a issue. it's how it's relayed to the gamer imho. Are you thrown out of the game for a moment to watch the story or are you allowed to experience it?

Why is it that people watch sports? The setup is always the same, but you never know the outcome. A player might miss or hit, and that small choice can have a hug impact on how the match plays out. In a platformer, FPS, hack&slash... the same. At every point you have to be attentive. If you miss a jump you will find yourself in a different spot than you wanted and you will have to make new choices on the fly to get out of that mess.

There are no choices to be made in a puzzle. You either do it the way it is intended or you don't. Every player will have to same outcome. And once you have done it there is nothing in it anymore, you have solved it once and it remains solved. The same also applies to those super-unfair Super Mario ROM hacks, you either play it the way it is intended or not at all. Again, there is no choice to be made, your path is predestined, you are just trying to figure out what that path is.

Right now you're just talking about what you don't like about the genre, and that has nothing to do with anything. I could argue with you ( "At every point you have to be attentive"- because solving puzzles does not require attention?) but I see no point to it.

I had this experience with a game called, "Bayonetta."
Gameplay-wise, it was fantastic; fast-paced, high octane fun throughout. I didn't finish it because the story was all kinds of undigestable for me. I mean I don't hate it, but I remember putting it back on the shelf going, "Well that was cool. Now what was I going to do today? Ah. Right. Work."

And I never said that it was mandatory, nor did I claim that I avoid games with no story. I said that I avoid games known to have a bad story and am arguing nothing more than the idea that a story is every bit as important as the gameplay. That doesn't mean that every game needs to have a story tacked on, but there are also games with good stories that don't need engaging gameplay to stand as quality experiences. Either can carry a game, and claiming that gameplay is the only element of a game that actually matters is pushing one's own preference as though it's the only objective measure of a game in the medium. Which is, as you said, silly.

Quoted for truth.

For me, I find that I want my games to be good at everything they do, with one or two areas being especially nice. If an aspect of the game is terrible, then that sheds a poor light on everything else. EG: Outcast has a nice setting and dialogue, but the gameplay and interface is very chunky. Ditto for Deadly Premonition. They feel terrible to play. :(

In my opinion, stories and gameplay is not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are meant to go together. Take the Phoenix Wright series or the Star Trek TOS adventure games: They use gameplay to help convey their settings, but have plenty of dialogue as well. Without dialogue, both games would be lifeless - but without gameplay, both games would feel much more linear.

However, note that the absence of something isn't a deterrent for me. I want my games to be good at what they do, so when a game ignores something, it is sometimes for the better. Visual Novels are an extreme example, in that they usually eschew gameplay in exchange for better writing, music, and pacing.

Anyhow, there are good and bad examples where games and stories are meshed together:

GOOD
*Zelda - Majora's Mask
*King's Quest VI
*Snatcher
*Wonder Project J2
*Phoenix Wright
*Star Trek: 25th Anniversary & Judgment Rites
*Thief I & II
*System Shock 1 & 2
*Bastion
*Deus Ex
*Ect...

BAD
*Inquisitor
*Deadly Premonition
*Outcast
*Metro: Last Light
*King's Quest: Mask of Eternity

I...kinda forget the bad examples, on account that I prefer remembering the good times.

TBH, I'm confused. Either you've moved the goal posts a few kilometers to the right or you've done a poor job of articulating your argument.

I'm not sure if I've made a single posts in this thread where I don't acknowledge that certain genres do require stories. But, if my last statement was in error, then I'm really confused by what you've been posting because it doesn't make any sense at all.

A person that avoids playing games that lack stories or good stories not understanding why people say that they'd read books for story rather than play games would make some degree of sense. Even if it is a tad weird, but this, I really don't get.