How is this acceptable but this isn't?

[TerranReaper]

(For once, I'm thankful for captcha, accidently pressed "enter" and the captcha stopped me from making a blank post)

I really don't get the logic behind this. If a guy hates a game because it has bad graphics, everyone is going to jump on him for being a shallow idiot and that he doesn't consider everything else from a game. However, if a guy says that he hates a game SOLELY on the fact it has a bad story, it is acceptable? Since when did a story was able to carry a game regardless of its other aspects that makes it a game to begin with? This also brings me to my next point. People quote Yahtzee a shitload by stating that multiplayer cannot hold up a game on its own, fair enough. But a story can hold up a game on its own even if the gameplay is lackluster? They're both features and part of a game aren't they? What makes a story more important than everything else? Shouldn't multiple aspects that make the game be equally important or at least the gameplay being the most important? After all, gameplay defines video games and separates this medium from something such as movies. So what gives?

Edit: You all make good points, but here's another one. How is it that it is acceptable to reject a game that has a mediocre single-player but a great multiplayer (Example: Bad Company 2) while at the same time, it's stupid to reject a game that has a great single-player but a mediocre multiplayer (Example: Bioshock 2)?

Edit2: Perhaps graphics was a poor example to use, but as I said, people put story ahead of everything, including gameplay, which is perhaps the most important. It appears that a great story can save poor gameplay but great gameplay can't save a poor story.

 

[lacktheknack]

Seeing how gameplay is the part that makes video games unique, it should be the biggest factor. However, a crap story can wreck a game even more then lackluster graphics.

The instant you see people protect shoddy gameplay is the moment you can call foul without any trepidation whatsoever.

 

[Drakmeire]

graphics alone don't make a good game, story is the same. some games have an awful story but are still really good and some games have bad gameplay but a great story
example would be Metroid other M, the story and characters were terrible beyond belief but it could have been saved by the gameplay, too bad the gameplay also sucked.
final fantasy can be the same way the story in 13 is pretty good, but the gameplay and repetition get in the way. but you will find yourself playing to see what happens in the story.

 

[solemnwar]

Story is important because if the story is shit then you don't give a damn and it makes the game PAINFUL to play because you have no investement.

 

[Nelson McCulloch]

It truly is a capacious balance between gameplay, story and graphics.

 

[TonyVonTonyus]

One of the most important aspects of a game is the story because a game isn't a toy it's a medium for getting across a point or a story, just like a movie. But if it has bad graphics and gameplay then it's just like a movie having cheap effects and terrible acting.

 

[Squilookle]

Fact is, the different aspects are not equally important and never will be. For different people, different aspects are more important, but generally I've found that gameplay is the most important, followed by story and then graphics.

So while story is not as important as gameplay, having a good story in your game is still way better than just having the glitz of graphics. Not to mention that graphics is the only one of the three that everyone sees the limits of before they get the game. You only really discover the extent of the gameplay and story once you've bought it, which makes a lot of gamers understandably resentful when a new game has had all the effort put into the graphics to get people to buy it, and after that the player gets slapped in the face with bad story/gameplay, which the developer considered not as important.

That's why lamenting a game just because it's not a flashy graphical picture is so stupid, and lamenting the lack of story actually makes a bit more sense. I say only a bit more because some games get along just fine without any story at all. If a game is attempting a story though, then it has to be prepared to be judged on it.

 

[King Crab]

all aspects should work harmoniously together to produce a good game. If one is lacking, say graphics for example, it would lead to a less enjoyable game. If one aspect is far superior or inferior the qualities lacking in the other elements are either over shadowed or highlighted -- then again, even if all elements are balanced the end product might still be mediocre.

it's . . . . difficult to say. I mean, I didn't enjoy mass effect or dragon age origins but I loved Baldurs Gate and fallout, and still replay them quite often. I don't think ME or DAO are inferior in story or game play, and they are superior in graphics, but in a thousand ways I can't clearly express Baldurs Gate and Fallout are superior games.

thats what I think anyway.

 

[zehydra]

Gameplay is the most important part of the game, hands down. I can see why someone might argue that story is an important part of a game simply because in many games, it's what drives gameplay. The story, in many games, is the reason for what you are doing in the first place.

For the record, I disagree with Yahtzee that a game can hold up on its own with just multiplayer. When you have multiplayer, you don't need a story, because a good multiplayer game allows players to shape their own stories through gameplay.

 

[zehydra]

One of the most important aspects of a game is the story because a game isn't a toy it's a medium for getting across a point or a story, just like a movie. But if it has bad graphics and gameplay then it's just like a movie having cheap effects and terrible acting.

I'd like to know what point the game "Solitaire" is getting across.

 

[God's Clown]

Honestly Graphics aren't really even that important. Some of the best games ever have crappy graphics. Gameplay + Story are by far way more important. If someone hates a game JUST because it has bad Graphics he is a failure as a gamer.

 

[TonyVonTonyus]

One of the most important aspects of a game is the story because a game isn't a toy it's a medium for getting across a point or a story, just like a movie. But if it has bad graphics and gameplay then it's just like a movie having cheap effects and terrible acting.

I'd like to know what point the game "Solitaire" is getting across.

When I say "game" I mean video game. Solitair is a card game that just happens to be a digitalized. I mean a game like Dragon Age or CoD.

 

[Daedalus1942]

Seeing how gameplay is the part that makes video games unique, it should be the biggest factor. However, a crap story can wreck a game even more then lackluster graphics.

The instant you see people protect shoddy gameplay is the moment you can call foul without any trepidation whatsoever.

Case in point, Mass Effect 2, and the First one showed so much potential.
-Tabs<3-

 

[Asuka Soryu]

I rank it this way:

Gameplay (most important) I love Mario and that stories pretty weak.

Story Second most important thing - Keeps me compeled and wanna go further.

Graphics third most important Helps me feel immersed in a game's world and shows wether the game designer's tryed or not. (ignoring budget titles since they're limited to how much they can spend)

 

[Mr.Pandah]

HERE IT COMES!!!

Well, lets see...I'm on both sides of the story here. Some games are just unbearable to play due to the graphics. Graphics should be great in this day and age. Of course I'll forgive an older game for having mediocre graphics, but if a game is released today and doesn't have either fantastic graphics, or some style to the graphics that otherwise hides the ugliness, then it can really take away a lot from the game.

Example, if lighting/graphical details in Dead Space were nowhere near what they are, the game would be ass.

As for story making or breaking a game...I don't think it does. Some stories are hardly there at all in games. Some have fantastic stories as well, but are brought down by other factors, such as gameplay and graphics.

As for Battlefield 2...I thought it was a fantastic game because of the multiplayer and that Bioshock 2 was an alright game because of the lackluster multi and mediocre singleplayer.

 

[kuyo]

Hating a game over graphics is an overreaction, unless its something like having a love interest that looks like a troll. In that case it's more a problem with the railroading than the graphics. besides, if we got hung up on graphics, all the old games with crappy graphics would be thrown out (also the wii wouldn't have survived).
Bioshock 2 didn't have a great single player mode.

edit: the other reason would be if the graphics cause a headache.

 

[imPacT31]

How is it that it is acceptable to reject a game that has a mediocre single-player but a great multiplayer (Example: Bad Company 2) while at the same time, it's stupid to reject a game that has a great single-player but a mediocre multiplayer (Example: Bioshock 2)?

Most people who bought Bad Company 2 did so with their primary focus on the multiplayer element of the game - and the inverse for Bioshock 2. If someone "rejects" BC2 for its poor single-player experience, it's probably because they had no real interest in the multiplayer and therefore are somewhat justified in judging it a bad game in their limited view. The same could be said for the, essentially hypothetical, person who bough Bioshock 2 for its multiplayer and was disappointed by that, electing not to play the main focus of the game.

Essentially, I'd say the reason BC2 comes out of this worse is that it's expected to offer a decent single-player experience in addition to its online focus, while nobody really expected anything from Bioshock 2's multiplayer component. If a game provides the option for solo play, then that mode should be able to stand on its own - as it will be the only part of the game available to those who don't go online - while a multiplayer mode can potentially be ignored if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[uncanny474]

A few points real quick:

1. Bioshock 2 was a mediocre game. As is Bad Company 2.

2. Graphics will eventually reach the point where they cannot be improved (i.e. they are perfect representations of real life), whereas stories can always be improved, since the quality of a story is mostly subjective (although some stories just can't be defended). Also, graphical differences are, mostly, minor. Take COD:BO and compare it to Halo Reach, and you're not going to find much difference. Stories and writing vary wildly from game to game, with some having the sort of brilliance only seen in games like KotOR, and others having the drivel of Dark Sector. Finally, the quality of graphics can vary based on the hardware you're using to run your system. Try playing a 360 game on a 30 year old, 13" TV and compare that to playing a Wii on a state-of-the-art 50" LED (or whatever) TV. The Wii is going to look better, because of the TVs. However, Lost Planet's story sucks no matter what kind of TV you play it on.

3. In the interest of promoting games as art, some minor gameplay flaws can be overlooked. Take Psychonauts. It was a truly artistic game, with an excellent story and brilliant writing. That said, some of the jumping and flinging around was poorly handled, and the missions were all collection quests. However, at this point in games' history, we can overlook these flaws and still call Psychonauts an excellent game, because gameplay is at least functional and the rest of the game makes up for it. Serious gameplay flaws or a lack of a good concept can ruin a game, regardless of artistic intent. I would like to draw your attention to the indie scene, where this sort of thing happens often. Go to Newgrounds and look up a game called "Why This". It's terrible, even if it is (or tries to be) artistic. But it's so rare to see a mainstream game that even attempts to be artistic, we're able to look past any of the flaws it has, so long as the story's good. After all, if it was completely broken, it wouldn't be published. Except by EA, but that's another rant.

EDIT: Forgot one last point.

4. Lastability. Blow through original Halo and then go online. Not really fulfilling. Now do the same with Knights of the Old Republic. Still just as fulfilling as the second time (because by then you knew all the twists).