Is Story more important then Gameplay?

[Lamss]

My friend got into discussion about what makes games great. He started saying that he thinks story is the most important thing, and that he buys most of his games for story. I thought that was really silly and said if the game doesn't play well, look well and sound well then it is not entertaining as a videogame. I personally believe that story is not as important in a video game as good gameplay, visual and audio. I do think that story is good to have, but I would make the trade off to improve everything else.

What is your opinion?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

That really depends on the type of game it is.


If it's a hack and slash game like Devil May Cry, gameplay is more important than everything else, which is why DMC2 is regarded as the worst in the series despite having a passable story.

 

[shrekfan246]

I don't play Devil May Cry for the story.

I like a story for the context around what I'm doing in the game, but if the game is boring or handles terribly, the best story in the world wouldn't redeem it and make it a good game. That's not to say there aren't any games that I like more for their stories than their gameplay (see: Final Fantasy, Persona 4, Mass Effect) but they typically have very serviceable, if not outright fun, gameplay.

On the flipside, stories can typically age much better than gameplay. There's a reason people still hold up games like Baldur's Gate, Planescape: Torment, and Deus Ex on pedestals, and I seriously doubt it's for the moment-to-moment action (in the case of Deus Ex, I mean the combat more specifically than the openness of the level design and freedom of progression).

 

[Treeinthewoods]

Both are good but I would take awesome gameplay and a dumb story (Mega Man anybody?) over a great story with lousy gameplay. Story is not an absolute necessity for a game to be fun.

 

[darth.pixie]

If either is exceptional, the other can lack. Planescape Torment's gameplay? Not a game's finest hour, but everyone played for story. If gameplay however, truly shines then the story can be nothing.

It depends on individual taste. I would play even the most awful game for a compelling story, but I have friends who wouldn't touch a game with award-winning writing if the gameplay sucks.

 

[WoW Killer]

If I was playing games for the stories, I think I'd be pretty disappointed with the medium as a whole. I can't say I've ever played a game with a genuine stand-out story. And I mean I've just recently played through Bastion. Some unique ideas in there, yes, well presented, definitely, but the plot itself is still nothing special. Great gameplay though, which is why I liked it.

 

[Full]

Either can take prevalence for me.

If I jump into a game and it turns out the characters are cool or the lore is interesting or the plot is exciting, but the mechanics aren't fun/samey/boring etc., I can without a doubt look past it in order to be able to see the narrative unfold (the only time I wouldn't look past is if the gameplay is outright broken). If the story is paper thin and contrived but the gameplay is balls to the wall awesome than again, I can look past the lack of good context in it.

Also, look at it this way. There are two ways people could view a game:
"What's it about?"
or
"What do you do in it?"

EDIT: (I stole that last bit off someone with an octopus with tits for eyes as their avatar, I don't remember who it was or what thread it was in though. Respond if you are them, and I will credit you as an inspiration, and as a kind gesture I will invite you to my birthday party and then tell you when you arrive that there aren't enough balloons so you have to leave but will kindly accept your present anyway.)

 

[Dead Seerius]

As many have already said, it depends on the type of game. I almost always put gameplay ahead of story in priority though; in fact The Walking Dead is probably my only personal exception.

Still, there's a certain demand for games that are almost entirely reliant on story. Just ask David Cage.

 

[veloper]

Great gameplay with little or no story makes for a great videogame. That is the classic recipe for a videogame. How it all began and where no other visual medium can compete.
A simple premise here is better than much elaborate, but cringeworthy storytelling.

A great (or merely decent) story with little gameplay or terrible gameplay, can be improved by turning it into an animation or a machinima instead. That's what it should be.
I could make a positive exception for a genuine non-lineair story, so with alot of branching paths and/or emergent storytelling (so unlike most of the fake choice games we get). The medium of film cannot provide such an experience, so I get where some RPG fans are coming from, despite the crappy stories this genre usually treats us and the limitations of scripted consequences.

 

[alphamalet]

Story is not more important than gameplay in a game.
Story will never be more important than gameplay in a game.

-If you prioritize telling a story over creating the gameplay of a game, then you shouldn't be making a game. There are plenty of other mediums out there that are better-suited for telling a story, and where story can take center stage.

-You can have gameplay with no story and have a game, but you can't have story and no gameplay and still have a game. Gameplay is the crucial piece to this medium that separates it from anything else, therefore gameplay is the most important component to the concept of a game.

-People often say that story is more important to them because they are able to emotionally connect with a story easier than they are able to connect with ludic gameplay mechanics. After all, story is the way we humans have passed information for thousands of years. Our brains are hardwired to understand and care about a story. This does not make story a more important component in the concept/theory of a game however.

This is game design/theory 101 really.

I would also like to point out that there is a difference between gameplay and interactivity (which I won't go into detail about), and in mediums where gameplay is nonexistent (hence non-games) the story can and should be prioritized more heavily.

 

[Raikas]

I thought that was really silly and said if the game doesn't play well, look well and sound well then it is not entertaining as a videogame.

Why is that silly? People play different games for different reasons, after all.

Peronsally, I think it depends on the type of game - I don't care if a strategy game as a story at all as long as it plays well, but an adventure game can have the best gameplay in the world and will still be crap if the story isn't solid.

So I'd expect someone who plays mostly strategy games to consider gameplay more imporant and someone who prefers adventures games to be the opposite. There are genres that can go either way, and then I think it's more a matter of taste. I can forgive a lot from an RPG or a shooter if it has a solid story, but I know other people who would play the same games and skip all of the story to get to the action or tactics, so they want those elements to be better. And neither of us is being "silly", we're just looking for different things.

 

[aguspal]

Gameplay.

Because you know. VideoGAMES.

Histories should be one of the last things they devs should take priority on IMO. Yes, I am saying that even grapichs and music are abvdoe History. Come at me bros!

 

[Guffe]

Not for me
For me a good story is, yes, very important but not above gameplay.
For me it comes down to this:
If Xenoblade, for example, had the same good story but every boss battle and some normal encounters would be buggy as hell it wouldn't be fun. Then again look at SuperSmashBros and BudokaiTenkaichi, no or a very low story content but the gameplay is fun as hell.
Best is of course a very good combo of both in a game.

 

[jehk]

Story is not more important than gameplay in a game.
Story will never be more important than gameplay in a game.

*snip*

This is game design/theory 101 really.

Disagree totally. Research aesthetics of play. It's all about why people play games. Many people play games for the story and its far more important for them than gameplay.

 

[alphamalet]

Disagree totally. Research aesthetics of play. It's all about why people play games. Many people play games for the story and its far more important for them than gameplay.

Well, let me preface this by stating that I am almost four years into a Game Design Bachelor's Degree at my university, so I am well-read on the topic and have been educated by authorities in game theory and development.

With that being said, I'll quote myself:

There are plenty of other mediums out there that are better-suited for telling a story, and where story can take center stage.

This is undoubtedly true. A movie provides a far better structure for telling a story. A book provides a much better structure for telling a story. However, if someone is playing a game, that means they picked a video game over a medium that is far more capable of telling a story. Why would they do that? Because having gameplay was more important to them than a medium whose structure can provide a better environment for stories. People don't realize how they are weighing the priorities of their medium of entertainment. They don't realize this because:

...they are able to emotionally connect with a story easier than they are able to connect with ludic gameplay mechanics. After all, story is the way we humans have passed information for thousands of years. Our brains are hardwired to understand and care about a story.

Again, it's game design/theory 101

 

[jehk]

Again, it's game design/theory 101

When did you attend school? The 80s? I have a degree in GD as well. You're holding on to some really out dated thinking.

Especially the part about about games being poor for story telling. They're poor if you try to tell stories like movies or books. They're amazing if you embrace the interactivity in software.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Story is not more important than gameplay in a game.
Story will never be more important than gameplay in a game.

-If you prioritize telling a story over creating the gameplay of a game, then you shouldn't be making a game. There are plenty of other mediums out there that are better-suited for telling a story, and where story can take center stage.

-You can have gameplay with no story and have a game, but you can't have story and no gameplay and still have a game. Gameplay is the crucial piece to this medium that separates it from anything else, therefore gameplay is the most important component to the concept of a game.

-People often say that story is more important to them because they are able to emotionally connect with a story easier than they are able to connect with ludic gameplay mechanics. After all, story is the way we humans have passed information for thousands of years. Our brains are hardwired to understand and care about a story. This does not make story a more important component in the concept/theory of a game however.

This is game design/theory 101 really.

I would also like to point out that there is a difference between gameplay and interactivity (which I won't go into detail about), and in mediums where gameplay is nonexistent (hence non-games) the story can and should be prioritized more heavily.

disagree, there are tons of games that i wouldn't remotely touch if they didn't have the story involved that they do (they could be the last games on the earth and i wouldn't touch them)

I always enjoy a decent/great story in games, while it is much harder for me to get into a game purely for the gameplay aspect of it.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

I'll take better story over better gameplay any day but that's just me.
Although it's hard to call something a game if you pour TOO much into the story.
You can have a game without a story but you can't have a story without a game. Because then it's, well, not a game anymore.