No Stupid Questions

In reading this thread, I get the sense that some people don't (or can't) separate gameplay and story. Saying, "this is a great game" to me has nothing to do with the story; the way a game plays can exist entirely outside a story. The two can work together well and create a fantastic experience, but "game" seems like it ought to refer to the thing you do since, you know, you're playing it.

My personal favorite example of this is Outer Wilds. The thing you played was a platformer puzzle game and it was executed very well. The story drove the gameplay perfectly and was a fantastic mystery you solved as you played. As an experience, it was about perfect to me; the gameplay was fun and the story made everything you did meaningful.

I loved the story of TLoU and was thrilled when HBO adapted it. Honestly, it's hard to imagine anyone enjoying the thing TLoU had you do separately from the story it was telling. It was basically "walk here, press X" most of the time with some brief interludes of clunky shooting and quicktime events.

I get the gameplay making the story more immersive, but there's no reason the gameplay shouldn't be judged on its own merit separately from the story.

Don't worry OP. My observation of people who eventually stopped playing those games and instead just watch the story on YouTube validates your experience. Some games are worth less than their let's plays.

A Way Out is a perfect example of this, it's literally a co-op netflix show you have 0 control over except a choice between two endings (which of you wins a gunfight at the end)

Just watch the Let’s Play if you want the movie 😀

DDLC?

I occasionally enjoy them when I'm between games, and I know I will not have the time or energy to start a new, more involved game.

I see these kind of games as a different medium to tell a story and, if done well, the controls can be a part of the storytelling. The Last of Us is a great example of using controls for this.

As to why not whatch a movie? I cannot sit in front of a screen passively anymore. If I'm with my partner, we can sit together and watch something, otherwise, I want to interact with the screen, even if it's only by walking.

Do people want it? Or does the gaming industry believes that people want it?

I'll give you an example: Minecraft. It has no story whatsoever, unless you count as "story" those lame excuses for lore (like the ender dragon). And yet it's the best-selling video game ever.

Same deal with Pokémon main series games. The series started out strongly gameplay-driven, to become gradually strongly story-driven. Guess which are the best selling gens? Gen 1 (Red/Blue/Green/Yellow) and Gen 2 (Gold/Silver/Crystal), that are far less story-driven than the rest! (And if you look at player ranks, Heart Gold and Soul Silver are often near the top. Gen 2 gameplay and story, Gen 4 visuals.)

So... really, I don't think that people want gameplay-less games. It's just that the industry is shoving it down their throats nonstop. And the ones who do want a story will look for it elsewhere - like visual novels, movies (as you said) or the good old books.

Basically Playstation exclusives. They are heavily marketed and hyped up, they make good stories, but there isnt any gameplay other than walking through some foliage ridden areas (foliage spam is the 'game looks good' tactic) and maybe the odd enemy to shoot.

I agree they would be better suited as tv shows/movies than games.