Gearheads of War

I'm going to go back to  my review of Gears of War in which I talked about how the story was analogous to the Star Wars saga in which the story was mediocre but served the purpose to set up the entire franchise.  I still believe that to be the case.  Gears of War was exactly that.  They had the blowing up of the Death Star at the end and everything, including the cliched dialogue.

There's no question to me that down the road whenever Epic gets around to announcing that it's going to produce a sequel that the pressure will be on to expand the story and basically create their "Empire Strikes Back."  

But my question is, does the story matter that much to you as a gamer?  N'Gai said on the podcast that the gamers who don't care about Gears subpar story are only contributing to the problem.  I would argue that I buy a game for fun first and foremost.  For me it comes down to whether or not the game is intensely fun to play.  And Gears was exactly that.  Yeah, the story was overwrought with cliched dialogue and a sometimes confusing story (what's up with the imulsion any way?).  The point is that I had a great time in the campaign .  I knew that I was supposed to blow the Locust nest up and some random item called the resonator failed to do its job.  I was able to get vengeance on the guy who impaled Kim on his sword and send a big F U bomb to the folks who did it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm expecting much more of the story to find its way into the sequels.  I'm expecting to find out why the Locust lady at the end claims that they "must fight".  I didn't really get way over the top into Halo until Halo 2 came out and I read some of the fiction.  But the key is that I want the game to keep moving forward and not have to stop and have a 10 minute cut scene explaining things.  I never want to be pulled out of that immersive experience and cut scenes do stop you dead in your tracks.  Sometimes in a game like Gears they can be a bit refreshing when you need to catch your breath, but ultimately, they are just a diversion from popping a Locust head off with a Longshot, shotgunning a Wretch or dodging the fiercely frightening Berserker.

Gears did lay the foundation for an expansion of the story.  The first game was straight out of the 80s action movie dialogue, but as a teen growing up during that time period, I kind of like the Die Hard dialogue.  So sue me.  

To me, games don't have to be literary to be great.  A good story can enhance the experience, but I had a great time with Crackdown and that story was non-existent.  I also loved Prince of Persia, but that story was not really anything to crow about either.  I'd much rather be able to do the impossible in a game setting than have to think about what the true motives behind the protagonist are.  Perhaps it's because I want to just unwind while playing games, but whatever the reason is, story isn't the biggest draw to a game.  It can definitely put me over the top in terms of fanboyism of a franchise (i.e. my Halo obsession), but it won't stop me from loving a game if the story isn't as solid as it can be.  Plus, I still believe that we're going to see the Gears universe completely blossom as the Epic IP grows and expands as Mark Rein and Cliff have discussed.  The bottom line is that I loved the game because the gameplay was the immersive element.  It was so intense and challenging (especially on Insane) that it didn't need an intricate story.  

I know many of you will say that it can easily have both, but I would argue that in order to really develop the exposition, you would have to be removed from the center of the action, a la some RPGs and Metal Gear games and its ridiculous amounts of cut scenes.  I want to be playing, not watching. Perhaps there is a happy medium, but in many of the games that I've loved, the story hasn't been great.  And it hasn't mattered one bit.