Can a good story save poor or medicore gameplay for you?
- Thread starter chaosfalling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Depends on what I'm playing. Usually, a good story will make a game with average or slightly below average gameplay a good game, and vice versa. But if one is going to be truly awful, I'd rather it was the story. A great story can't make up for truly awful gameplay, but great gameplay can make a game with shitty story fun to play, but horrible gameplay is a game-breaker for me, no matter how good the story is, I won't enjoy playing.
I have not really liked either fable or fable 2, but I enjoyed Fable 3 primarily because the story felt like an epic fantasy story. the ending I got actually put a tear in my eye, because Walter was basically the Hero's father. so yeah, A story can do a lot in my opinion, even if I do not care for the gameplay.
Silent Hill 4 immediately popped on my mind. One of my favorite games of all time and it told one of the best stories in gaming, period. gameplay, well not so much but not exactly bad. It's brought down by some weird design choices. (a coin takes as much space as a steel pipe in the inventory?! are you for real?!)
Yes, that's pretty much how point-and-click adventure games get a pass; the gameplay may be completely shit across the board for the genre, but the great writing so many of them sport still makes them fun. It does work the other way too, though. After all, who played Saints Row 2 or inFamous for the epic narrative? I sure didn't, but I still liked those games.
Depends how long it is.
For an RPG, I have to enjoy the combat. But I enjoy combat it lots of RPGs, really.
For anything less than 15 hours, yeah. I played and enjoyed Heavy Rain, after all.
For an RPG, I have to enjoy the combat. But I enjoy combat it lots of RPGs, really.
For anything less than 15 hours, yeah. I played and enjoyed Heavy Rain, after all.
Bingo! That was my prime example - actual poor gameplay, not even medicore, just flat out bad. But heck it was one of my games of the year last year.dancinginfernal said:
Absolutely. FFX is my favourite game of all time, but the gameplay itself is pretty bad imo. The story is just THAT incredibe to me.
Similarly though, No More Heroes hasnt got a very impressive story whatsoever but the gameplay is just so much fun!
A balance needs to be found but I can play a game that completly fails at one if it kicks ass in the other.
Similarly though, No More Heroes hasnt got a very impressive story whatsoever but the gameplay is just so much fun!
A balance needs to be found but I can play a game that completly fails at one if it kicks ass in the other.
if the gameplay is bad then no a good story can't save it for me. I say this because I experience the game through the combat and or platforming. If it's bad it makes me want to get through it recklessly just to get it over with or I'll skip it whenever possible.
I'll give ya a few examples. Castlevania: Curse of Darkness; Overall everything about that game makes it awesome, the music, atmosphere, characters, enemies, weapon creation system and the familiar system. Those are all the reasons I love the game. Yet its the combat is the reason why I'll never really play it again unless I have to. It's really sluggish even with the fastest weapons you can tell there's some input lag. Compared to Castlevania: Lament of Innocence which had a simple yet very well done battle system even better then Lords of Shadow in fact. It was fast and very fluid even if the game was really easy until the final 5 bosses.
Another Example is 2008 version of Prince of Persia again almost everything about that game was really good. Except for the fact you couldn't die at all. I can see the reason for Elika to save the player every time they fall that was smart because some platforming sections were hard. It's the fact you couldn't die in combat is why people really didn't like this game. To me being able to die or fail if Elika dies, gives me a reason to play better and think of tactics so either of us won't get killed in a battle. Without the ability to die overall kills any replay value or reason to even try in the game.
I'll give ya a few examples. Castlevania: Curse of Darkness; Overall everything about that game makes it awesome, the music, atmosphere, characters, enemies, weapon creation system and the familiar system. Those are all the reasons I love the game. Yet its the combat is the reason why I'll never really play it again unless I have to. It's really sluggish even with the fastest weapons you can tell there's some input lag. Compared to Castlevania: Lament of Innocence which had a simple yet very well done battle system even better then Lords of Shadow in fact. It was fast and very fluid even if the game was really easy until the final 5 bosses.
Another Example is 2008 version of Prince of Persia again almost everything about that game was really good. Except for the fact you couldn't die at all. I can see the reason for Elika to save the player every time they fall that was smart because some platforming sections were hard. It's the fact you couldn't die in combat is why people really didn't like this game. To me being able to die or fail if Elika dies, gives me a reason to play better and think of tactics so either of us won't get killed in a battle. Without the ability to die overall kills any replay value or reason to even try in the game.
Yes, because I have played and enjoyed JRPGs despite the fact that a strictly turn-based battle system combined with random encounters is a terribly inefficient and often times boring method of gameplay.
I managed to get through The Witcher 1. Great story, worst combat mechanics I've ever had to learn, but I did miss them in the sequel, but not a whole lot.
It depends on what you mean. Some games have relatively poor game play as compared to games with perfect but in of itself is decent to good game play. Likewise some games have a manageble story but when stacked up to epic stories such as Xenogears (yes, I know the second disk was bad, but a little understanding and a little research, most notably into perfect works and you have something that can take years to fully comprehend) and it seems horrible in comparison.
So it does depend on the definition of "good quality" and "poor quality", though some games are so poorly done I don't think anything could save them.
So it does depend on the definition of "good quality" and "poor quality", though some games are so poorly done I don't think anything could save them.
I found that the gameplay to L.A.Noire got boring for me after getting to the second Vice case but the cases and the World War 2 flashbacks kept me playing to the end.
I don't find that I can get through a game to figure out if the story was good, if the gameplay was terrible.
Two words: Mass Effect. The original game is a complete mess as regards gameplay, but the story hooked me completely and made me a die hard fan.
Of course, you'd still be in your rights to dismiss it, and to Bioware's credit Mass Effect 2 went and fixed everything wrong with the original. Repeatedly trying to coast by on story and making no attempt to improve sub-par gameplay would not fucking fly with me.
Of course, you'd still be in your rights to dismiss it, and to Bioware's credit Mass Effect 2 went and fixed everything wrong with the original. Repeatedly trying to coast by on story and making no attempt to improve sub-par gameplay would not fucking fly with me.