I may add that perhaps another way to create meaningful narratives would be not to divulge to the player there are other ways to playing the game than the one he chose.

There's nothing worst than completing a game and then reading in the achievement panel = ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED - Get True Ending;

I mean, what's up with that? I played the game, that was my experience, that ending was the truth to me!

A game should not break the player's own experience by trying to match him with its standards. And not only in terms of things showing that different options are avaiable, but not showing the option to the player at all. Take for example those books in which it points you which page you can go depending on what you want the story to happen. That totally ruins the feeling of destiny or fate. Because the player sees the option.

And sure, people will start telling given designer that he should start writing books or directing movies, but no. The intimacy potential which games hold is much larger than books and movies and I think it is therefore worth pursuing a way to create compelling gameplay which supports a new theme or tone everytime a turn in the story happens, should the designer feel that the pace and feeling of the game must comply to the story.

That's why I would be so against making sequels for certain game ideas I have, and that's not to say I wouldn't make a sequel ever, but, for some titles I wouldn't have a problem designing gameplay from scratch every new iteration, should the story demand it.

I don't mean to sound but I can't seem to figure out how this fits into a discussion about fighters, a genre that's not exactly known for its focus on story.

It's just an example of change. Gameplay changes for some reason and people become pissed. In Brawl's case I have no idea why it changed, it just so happens that in the example I gave, it has to do with the game's story.

Hi, I'm new here. But let's try hitting the ground running...

The Melee players may think that the lack of combos is game breaking and something that the developer did wrong. I'm not sure I agree, for me, trying new things is always important and changing the tone is a part of trying new things.

But just try telling that to people, specially the ones at Ubisoft's official forums on their latest releases. The Ghost Recon fans and the Splinter Cell fans are engaged in open fighting with the company, so to speak. Every thread is a swearingfest against the company, simply because they try changing the game's franchise. Now, sure this is a indie game development forum, but I guess it serves to show that a fanbase is pretty attached to its expectations for the game.

So, while changing the game's pace, setting and tone for the sake of innovation might be a pretty idea design-wise. It's a complete ruin for most fans who actually care. And this is to say that perhaps gamers are being spoiled by the way we design, develop and release games. Whenever someone reads the combination "<Game Title> 2: <Cool sub title>" they expect, as would Gears of War star figure say, something bigger, badder and more bad-ass, though still in the same vein. They expect an improvement in gameplay, as in polishing it further. Whereas sometimes the gameplay should follow the story and not the way around. And that's to show that most players care about the gameplay, which is something most design authors state. But, at the same time, sometimes, the message the game has to pass on is much more important for the designer than simply entertaining.

And sure, people will start telling given designer that he should start writing books or directing movies, but no. The intimacy potential which games hold is much larger than books and movies and I think it is therefore worth pursuing a way to create compelling gameplay which supports a new theme or tone everytime a turn in the story happens, should the designer feel that the pace and feeling of the game must comply to the story.

That's why I would be so against making sequels for certain game ideas I have, and that's not to say I wouldn't make a sequel ever, but, for some titles I wouldn't have a problem designing gameplay from scratch every new iteration, should the story demand it.

So to cut it short, I don't think combos are the most important part of fighting games. You could want to design a fighting game which rewards 'patience', so you have to carefully read your opponent, consider his stance and then punch, instead of rewarding 'effort', like training everyday so you can pull that triple puch, double heel kick spin special move. That's totally OK with me.