"lots of little episodes"

Hmm, that makes me think. Can you have characters without a story? Or rather could you make a series of micro stories that keep your mind narratively engaged and gives you a sense of objective, without needing an overarching story that you need to remember with each play session, and without being as dumb as simply saying: this is your mission, go do it.

This makes me think of cartoon shows, and I'm reminded of the likes of Dexter's lab and My Life as a Teenage Robot: perfectly engaging and eventful, have colorful memorable characters and plots, involve no overarching story progression and are only 11 minutes long apiece. Perfect.

Not every game needs a story. Not every game needs to be a "cinematic experience." Mediocre story lines are just painful to sit through. When a game has a bad or boring story line it only decreases the quality of the game. There should be a story only if story telling is one of the main objectives of the game. In something like mario, this is almost never the case. The objective is just to have fun running and jumping through different worlds.

I'm tired of skipping cutscenes for games where I just want to run around and blow stuff up or have fun. If I want to experience a grand story, I'll go and replay Xenogears.

depends.

Miyamoto has some great instincts. I think he really nailed it here. Actually there's another Iwata asks for Mario Galaxy 2 (I think) in which Miyamoto disagreed with the direction of the game as regards narrative cutscenes. Except in that case, if I remember correctly, the director convinced Miyamoto to let them go ahead with what they were doing.

But Miyamoto is right. I don't come to a game for the story, generally, but for the game play. After all, other mediums tell stories and tell them very well - but when I play a game I am deciding to participate actively in this world, so why would I want a story told to me, especially in the form of long cut scenes and text and so forth? But I don't think games should be completely without stories - what then is the purpose of authored narratives in games? I think they contextualize the gameplay, making it less abstract and easier to follow. To that end they don't have to be very long or complex - indeed "Bowser kidnapped Peach" suffices. A more modern example would be "Shadow of the Colossus". I feel that that game handles its narrative perfectly.

On the other hand, I can't say that everything I've just written is an absolute truth because I actually quite liked the Mass Effect games and they're obviously going for a very cinematic story telling experience. But in general I think less is more when it comes to game narratives, and I find it interesting that Miyamoto understands that better than a lot of younger designers.

Well, the earliest RPGs (Bard's Tale comes to mind) didn't really have much in the way of story at all, so it's absolutely true that you can design compelling games across different genres without a strong story element. But then the growth of RPGs has tended toward more story, which I'm guessing is a market reaction to what that fan base wants (I personally prefer it). The influx of mobile and indie games is providing a great deal of opportunity for designers to explore what Miyamoto is saying. A game like "Jack Lumber" comes to mind - just enough context (like Mario chasing the Princess) to provide a clever backdrop and forward momentum, and then the gameplay keeps you engaged.

Big Ape steals girl, plumber tries to get her back. Even Donkey Kong has a plot line and yes I think games need at least a plot line. It helps to set time, place and motivation. The key is to have the plot line and story enhance the game, not get in the way of it.

I think it really depends what you consider "story". Super mario bros had a story, princess was kidnapped by bowser, king of the koopas and a couple of plumbers named mario and luigi went on a quest to rescue her.

Whole of that story was summed up in a single sentence, it wasn't much of a story but that is a story.

Last game I played with absolutely zero story would have to be Minecraft...I was going to say Bridge Constructor but jeez....even that had a story.

While stories can help some people make sense of game mechanics, I don't think it is necessary most of the time. Sports (Soccer, Baseball, Football, etc) are the most popular games ever created and they have no story (instead players and fans create their own story-lines about the games).

Videogames are in this weird place right now where people are making games that sort of blend together the different lineages of videogames (sports, board games, and paper-based RPGs / interactive narratives).

Story has never been a big draw for me in games, I only care about the gameplay. I've felt like way too many games and developers are focusing more on improving narrative than improving gameplay (and thus most AAA games that come out today do not interest me at all). Glad to see the great master Miyamoto reinforcing my opinions :P

There are two extremes to this discussion. Those who are gameplay purists and those who are story lovers. Most people fall somewhere in between. Story isn't always necessary, but story can also overcome below average gameplay. It just depends on the game and the player.

A game just needs a reason for you to continue to make progress, it doesn't have to be a story. I think all games can be at least slightly improved by a story just because there are many people who are way less inclined to play something without a story, but i would hate to think there are developers who think they have to have a story in a game.

I think portal is a perfect example. Portal still would have been a fun game without the story. You could almost entirely remove the plot of portal just by removing the glados' sinister nature and just have her be a robot that occasionally checks on your progress and makes snide remarks to motivate you.. The game still would have been fun and Glados would still be a fun character(albeit a slightly different one) It would not have been as good, and it most certainly would not have reached the amount of people it did but it still would have been a great game.

I think so far, the Paper Mario series have done a good job and remain entertaining. Considering Sticker Star to be a handheld, it might have been a good idea to avoid any story and assume the player will pick it up every few minutes. I think they hit a balance perfectly.

And I think how they done sticker star is a nice variation compare to the other Mario Games. It's not quite Mario RPG.. The Original Paper Mario, Thousand Year Door, or Super Paper Mario. It has its own unique place in the franchise.

I don't trust club Nintendo's feed back, but this is coming from a person who uses it without giving a wink of useful feedback, but the feedback generally support the developer's initial instinct

If you want a story read a book or watch a movie. Games need context, not a story. The Princess gave Super Mario Bros. context, it wasn't a story. A game without context is like math without physics. Math becomes a lot more interesting when it has context as do games.

Maybe it is too simplistic to do "simple story" when we were in 90's but now a best background than just "save the princess for the 45st time" can be good we (the first gamers of Mario) are old now #just my idea

Sorry Jeremy, I have to agree with Keith! In some games, the story is the context. In games like Super Mario brothers it isn't, but in games like Final Fantasy and Monkey Island it is.

The key element would seem to be "characters."

A game can be plenty of fun with no story if it has no characters. Tetris and Bejeweled are good examples.

And a game that emphasizes story pretty much always has characters. Can anyone suggest exceptions to that rule?

The question is, is a game with characters usually improved by having a story?

More specifically: is a game whose action is expressed through personifications of people usually improved by setting the actions of those characters inside a predefined story?

Depends on the game. Story is an element of a game. Just like a soundtrack can be an element in a movie.

Arguably, if you were watching a concert movie, music is very important and is a necessity. If you're watching a documentary, maybe not so much. Or if you're watching the Artist, not at all.

If you're playing an RPG, story is probably very important; rhythm game, not so much; tetris, not at all.

Yeah I think the handheld platform influenced the decision here.

ANd it is better not to have too much narrative or plot. IT is more believable then because the player fills in the blanks with their imagination. It is often better just not to show alot of detail.

I've enjoyed games with stories that were set in stone. I've enjoyed games where the player makes their own story through their actions. I've enjoyed games with no stories at all.

I think we should stop trying to dictate to others the proper way to have fun.

Story, or context, is a requirement for me these days. Some games I can make up my own context, like minecraft and such, and have a lot of fun with it. On the other hand there are games that I just hate if there isn't a compelling story. Take the JRPG realm, it is dead because the story is as basic as the gameplay these days. It is always the same... the same as Mario. There is only so much platforming I can do before I need a story to compel me onward.

It is the reason I hated SMG 2 - it was just the first game without any story. If I wanted to do that, I would replay the first one and ignore the story. NSMB - oh same story as ever with more platforming. That is okay if I want a platformer, but if I'm a little tired of the genre there is NO compelling reason to trudge through the game again.

I have no interest in NSMB Wii U or the 3DS coin collector game because if I want to platform I would just get out one of the other 10 Mario games and replay it.

"Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important." - Id programmer.

While i may be about gameplay as about 98% of modern console games are unworkable without my custom scheme i did buy sticker star and as a handheld game consumed in bite size pieces a minimalist approach works however i can't imagine shiggy saying gameplay is fine without story because for longtime faithful having in jokes only we would get is a great time. Sticker star has fun gameplay but stripping it bare so you don't even level up is poor form compaired to past effeorts. There is new and inturusting stuff going on in sticker star gameplay wise but if xenosaga was all story and the new paper mario is all gameplay with no story i'd prefer it somewhere in the middle like rayman,sly,ratchet,jack or ratchet imagine how much less enduring each series would be without personality,humor or story.....now i'm going to have to be more watchful of mario next we'll see zelda with no story just four sowards style gameplay free 2 play want keys,health or bombs pony up and screw that story that players enjoyed....wth?!!

Seem to have listed ratchet twice ohh well sticker star is enjoyable gameplay wise but cutting off the story in jokes and all was the worst thing done to this fine series and on wii u i expect a return to form story and leveling up et all.

if Tetris had a better story i'd probably play it more, and i'm not joking. I have a hard time thinking of abstract puzzle games as anything other than toys or time wasters. Yet a game like Silent Hill stick with me for years. its powerful in a way that Tetris can never be.

In my mind, the importance of story (as well as any other element in a given video game) varies based on both the intended audience and the type of play experience the developers aim to provide. For example, depth of gameplay mechanics is not nearly as much of a concern in a point-and-click adventure game as it is in a fighting game, due to the fundamentally different play experiences each one is created to deliver. This does not mean that either one is more or less of a video game than the other, as mechanics are but one component (albeit an important one) of a greater whole.

To relate this to Sticker Star: while the Super Mario games are lauded for their platforming and tight, responsive controls, the largest part of what keeps players coming back to the Paper Mario series are the superb tongue-in-cheek writing, the wacky characters populating the world, and (perhaps most importantly) the memorable party members that accompany Mario on his quests. In my mind, a Paper Mario game that does not put a key emphasis on those things is Paper Mario in name only.

This is about Miyamoto's stance on narrative as it specifically applies to Paper Mario, not every game in general.

I'm a huge fan of story lines, however with the amount of debate going on in this topic Miyamoto's I'm now questioning most of my childhood memories of gaming. Was a storyline really needed?.... Would you want to get to that very end castle without a princess to save? i'd say sure but would I want to now that I have a reason?...before nintendo games (to me) had little to no story line, sure we played them but could they have been better? And I think Nintendo alone answers that question by introducing storylines that people fall in love with.

Story and Gameplay are merely different paths to the same goal: entertainment.

Plenty of games (like Tetris) entertain without story.

Plenty of movies/TV/books entertain without gameplay.

Neither is "necessary".

Let me tell you Miyamoto. Torchlight II has a great gameplay but it has no story. After I have played it for a few hours I got bored and don't fell like playing it anymore. Why? There is no story, nothing to connect me to the game and keep me looking for. And if I want to do something again and again to become better at I'll do art and sports, not at games.

If the gameplay doesn't connect you to a relatable expereince you enjoy you won't like the game or the story. There was an absolutely terrible game on th Atari 2600 "Empire Strikes Back" or some such ~ horrible game. It worked for me thgouh at that age because I still imagined myself as Luke Skywalker ~ and I loved the experience .. still think the game was crap thgouh. No connection =/= No fun story simply fleshes out the ideas.

The trouble with removing story is that story helps distinguish one game from another. We've mostly explored different gameplay variations. You can turn the walls instead of the player or whatever, but it's pretty much over in that area. The story's setting can also help, since it actually introduces ideas that can be used by the gameplay, like Mirror's Edge. Stories also give continuity and evolution to the gameplay. If you can remove the story, then the game becomes more of a toy. In that case, you have to give the player more control of the surroundings, etc, so the game is a build type thing, rather than a reactive experience to stimulus. There's nothing wrong with either one, but you should know which one you are attempting before you get as far as this game appears. Chances are, the game just wasn't very good and story couldn't save it.

"We've mostly explored different gameplay variations. You can turn the walls instead of the player or whatever, but it's pretty much over in that area."

Sounds like you're implying that all gameplay has already been done for games, while there's more un-tackled scenarios then not.