Art and a Good Story > "Gameplay"

[Overlord59]

Visuals and story are important aspects of a game. They can make a great game into an exceptional game. However a game is only great in the first place if the gameplay is fun and enjoyable. A game cannot be rescued from bad gameplay by pretty visuals or an interesting story because it wouldn't be fun to play.

If I wanted great story I'd read a book or watch a movie, for great visuals I'd watch a movie. However I play games to have fun actually playing them and the majority of that is from the actual interaction (i.e. gameplay) with that game.

A good game consists of all these things combined into one package. However what makes or breaks a GAME is the GAMEplay. At least in my opinion.

 

[Vrex360]

Otogi: Myth of Demons almost proves this theory correct, it is beautiful... however the gameplay is also pretty decent so I don't know.

Meditate on this... I will.

 

[Vrex360]

Visuals and story are important aspects of a game. They can make a great game into an exceptional game. However a game is only great in the first place if the gameplay is fun and enjoyable. A game cannot be rescued from bad gameplay by pretty visuals or an interesting story because it wouldn't be fun to play.

If I wanted great story I'd read a book or watch a movie, for great visuals I'd watch a movie. However I play games to have fun actually playing them and the majority of that is from the actual interaction (i.e. gameplay) with that game.

A good game consists of all these things combined into one package. However what makes or breaks a GAME is the GAMEplay. At least in my opinion.

Greetings, welcome to the escapist.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I have to disagree with the OP. Art direction and story are often key components of a memorable game experience, but if the moment to moment game mechanics aren't fun I won't likely stick around to experience the story. In fact, this is the essential reason I don't play games like MGS or Final Fantasy - I simply do not enjoy the actual game mechanics enough to warrant experiencing the story.

 

[AncientYoungSon]

There are two sides to this argument:

1. The logical side suggests that games need to have good GAMEplay in order to appeal to players. I think the most addictive games fall into this category because it's rare that you can experience the same art/story again and again and still be impressed.

2. The sales side shows that people will buy RPGs that are 90% cutscenes and pressing a single button to command a random number generator to determine whether or not your character hits an enemy, clearly indicating that "gameplay" isn't always what leads a person to enjoy a "game".

As for me, I think a balance of both is good. Excellent gameplay married with stellar storyline can make a game amazing. But if I had to choose, gameplay all the way.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

I came to this thread with low hopes. I was not disappointed.

 

[Jumplion]

Visuals and story are important aspects of a game. They can make a great game into an exceptional game. However a game is only great in the first place if the gameplay is fun and enjoyable. A game cannot be rescued from bad gameplay by pretty visuals or an interesting story because it wouldn't be fun to play.

If I wanted great story I'd read a book or watch a movie, for great visuals I'd watch a movie. However I play games to have fun actually playing them and the majority of that is from the actual interaction (i.e. gameplay) with that game.

A good game consists of all these things combined into one package. However what makes or breaks a GAME is the GAMEplay. At least in my opinion.

This is a response I see a lot, but would it really be impossible for you to play a more "mature" game or something, such as Heavy Rain? What's stopping video games from achieving the stories you see in books/movies and the visuals from movies? Why does gaming have to be restricted to "fun" and lack any real meaning? (This is going to the "extremes" territory) Not every game has to be a bloody "fun" fest with explosions and gore everywhere because apparantly that's "fun".

Everyone has a different taste of "fun" (which is why I also prefer using the term "enjoyable", two different contexts there). How do you explain survival horror movies/books/games/ect....? People love being scared, but nope, that won't do, it's not "fun" because it's not a bunch of explosions and blood like [Prototype] does.

What about documentaries or [auto]biographies? Non-fiction books? Not everyone wants a souless comedy full of fart jokes and stereotypical "gangtahs!#!", many people want intelligence to go with their "fun". Games have a huge advantage over movies and books, why can't they go into more productive topics and actually teach the player? "6 Days in Fallujah" was detailed as more of a documentary type of game detailing the soldiers in Iraq's operations in Fallujah, and hopefully it'll suceed to what it's trying to do.

Sorry for this huge rant, for some reason I get all ranty in this particular topic.

But if you get ANYTHING from this post, please, by god;

Watch [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN0qRKjfX3s&feature=PlayList&p=F8344EC9CBB1B78E&index=0]
These [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKTAJBQSm10&feature=channel_page]
videos [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlOXAtPvMDk&feature=channel]
about [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=channel&v=oFywW99Uvwc]
awesome stuff.

 

[Overlord59]

Visuals and story are important aspects of a game. They can make a great game into an exceptional game. However a game is only great in the first place if the gameplay is fun and enjoyable. A game cannot be rescued from bad gameplay by pretty visuals or an interesting story because it wouldn't be fun to play.

If I wanted great story I'd read a book or watch a movie, for great visuals I'd watch a movie. However I play games to have fun actually playing them and the majority of that is from the actual interaction (i.e. gameplay) with that game.

A good game consists of all these things combined into one package. However what makes or breaks a GAME is the GAMEplay. At least in my opinion.

This is a response I see a lot, but would it really be impossible for you to play a more "mature" game or something, such as Heavy Rain? What's stopping video games from achieving the stories you see in books/movies and the visuals from movies? Why does gaming have to be restricted to "fun" and lack any real meaning? (This is going to the "extremes" territory) Not every game has to be a bloody "fun" fest with explosions and gore everywhere because apparantly that's "fun".

Everyone has a different taste of "fun" (which is why I also prefer using the term "enjoyable", two different contexts there). How do you explain survival horror movies/books/games/ect....? People love being scared, but nope, that won't do, it's not "fun" because it's not a bunch of explosions and blood like [Prototype] does.

What about documentaries or [auto]biographies? Non-fiction books? Not everyone wants a souless comedy full of fart jokes and stereotypical "gangtahs!#!", many people want intelligence to go with their "fun". Games have a huge advantage over movies and books, why can't they go into more productive topics and actually teach the player? "6 Days in Fallujah" was detailed as more of a documentary type of game detailing the soldiers in Iraq's operations in Fallujah, and hopefully it'll suceed to what it's trying to do.

Sorry for this huge rant, for some reason I get all ranty in this particular topic.

But if you get ANYTHING from this post, please, by god;

Watch [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN0qRKjfX3s&feature=PlayList&p=F8344EC9CBB1B78E&index=0]
These [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKTAJBQSm10&feature=channel_page]
videos [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlOXAtPvMDk&feature=channel]
about [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=channel&v=oFywW99Uvwc]
awesome stuff.

I never said games should only have gameplay and nothing else! I said story and visuals are not the most important part of games, but never said they were mutually exclusive to good gameplay! For some reason you assumed what I meant by good gameplay meant a shooting game with gore and explosions (i personally am not interested by either of those) when i meant as a challenging system!

I'm not limited to one genre of games, i love RPGs, some FPSs, Simulators, Adventure games and those addictive flash based games! Not too keen on survival horror games, but thats because I am, by nature, a wuss. Even so I would still rate gameplay as more important. You can learn lessons from games, see real life events played out virtually but if it doesnt have good gameplay I'm not going to get very far in them.

And for survival horror games, I find the scariest thing isnt the atmosphere (although it is more important than in other games) but rather the feeling of helplessness from the gameplay system that determines whether I am scared or not.

 

[Lucky Chainsaw]

I would choose a game with mostly good story then one with mostly good gameplay any day. I hate the argument "If it's too story based then it may as well be a book or a movie". The fact that it has gameplay at all effects it quite a bit. Just the fact that you have to work to progress in the story allows for a completely different experience. Not to mention the other ways game play can improve the story.

 

[UncleOvid]

There are two sides to this argument:

1. The logical side suggests that games need to have good GAMEplay in order to appeal to players. I think the most addictive games fall into this category because it's rare that you can experience the same art/story again and again and still be impressed.

2. The sales side shows that people will buy RPGs that are 90% cutscenes and pressing a single button to command a random number generator to determine whether or not your character hits an enemy, clearly indicating that "gameplay" isn't always what leads a person to enjoy a "game".

As for me, I think a balance of both is good. Excellent gameplay married with stellar storyline can make a game amazing. But if I had to choose, gameplay all the way.

Thank you for this. Gameplay (i.e., interactivity) is important, because it's what sets video games apart as a medium. And story's important, because it's what defines artistic work in any medium as art. One of the reasons, I think, that games are so slow to be accepted as a legitimate art form is that so few developers, even of "good" games (however you define that) actually put much effort into balancing the two. Even Bioshock, I thought, bore a storyline that, while ambitiously deep for a video game, was at best average if put up against any decent movie, novel, what have you.

Which may be comparing apples to oranges, but that's my point: you have to compare them. In order to be considered an Art Form in the way that film or literature is (that is what we're talking about, right?), games need to move us emotionally on the same levels. I offer the KOTOR games (for all their flaws) as support, given that either of them are about a gazillion times better than the last three Star Wars atrocities movies.

 

[UncleOvid]

I would choose a game with mostly good story then one with mostly good gameplay any day. I hate the argument "If it's too story based then it may as well be a book or a movie". The fact that it has gameplay at all effects it quite a bit. Just the fact that you have to work to progress in the story allows for a completely different experience. Not to mention the other ways game play can improve the story.

I mean that. Wish I could be that concise.

 

[conquerworm]

Story always beats gameplay, a good story is needed to draw me in

I want to agree with that. but that last RE game... The controls where so bad I didn't make it past the first fight before wanting to take a baseball bat to my console due to frustration with the controls... Oh, well my bad for not researching before buying... :S

 

[Timtimfed]

I find It's true to a degree.
I really struggle to get into a game without a decent/good atmosphere and story. That said, if the gameplay is atrocious no story can redeem it.

For example, I found both Braid and Crayon Physics (why am demonstrating using these?) equally 'fun', but I gave up on the latter pretty quickly. Whilst Braid didn't have a great 'story', It had an atmosphere and really engrossed me in the game. Even when I got up to frustrating as hell puzzles I trudged through them because the game had me invested in it.

 

[ohgodalex]

Resident Evil 5 was a fun and interesting game despite being written by Capcom. Therefore you are wrong.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Story always beats gameplay, a good story is needed to draw me in

Ah. Too bad you never played Tetris, or Pacman, or basically any game in the arcade before Dragons' Lair... you've missed out on a lot.

Please be more of an idiot. Yes I've played pacman and such because they're fun, but they were fun for a little bit, not the gagillion hours I plugged into Morrowind because its story was so darn interesting. Why does it bother you what I think?