Is Story more important then Gameplay?

[Busard]

End your friend

Joking aside, a game is about gameplay, otherwise it's not a game. The story can be all sparkly all you want but people won't give a damn if there's no engaging gameplay behind it for a game, otherwise it's just a movie (looking at you, heavy rain)

 

[Olas]

I'm pretty sure the point of games is that the gameplay is the story. But if by "story" you mean cutscenes and dialogue I'd say gameplay is far more integral and dominant to a game's quality. After all if you want a good story more than anything else videogames aren't the best place to look for it.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

That really depends on the type of game it is.

It also depends on the game-ER. Take WoW for example. Most people who play the game will cheese through the quest text, "Kill X monsters then come back, got it," and any quest that forces them to take-in the story (like escort quests) will drive them up the wall. Meanwhile you have the other players who make sure to read every quest, they can tell you what happened in every zone where they quested, and they often enjoy (or at least done mind) those "tedious" escort quests because they like the story that goes on during them.

Then there's Starcraft, where some players will beat the campaign and never even look at the multiplayer, and other players go straight to the multiplayer and maybe work their way through the campaign later just as something to do when they aren't in the mood for multiplayer. Other players enjoy both aspects.

In short, neither story nor gameplay is more important, strictly speaking. It's all a matter of what the gamer wants, and what the developers want to deliver.

 

[Reven]

Gameplay, hands down. That's why I'm competing in a game. Competing with other players, myself, or even just the developers by way of software. Contrarily, other media is usually better suited for storytelling, or at least doesn't suffer from the gritty details of turning something into a game, if that's what I want.

I loved Telltale's The Walking Dead. But that was not a game. It was an interactive drama. And it worked so much better than games that try to tell serious stories. TWD had all of the benefits of interactive media without the pitfalls of padding itself with challenge or diversions or microtransactions. Heavy Rain, too, although that was so deeply flawed that I hate to mention it in the same paragraph as TWD.

There are plenty of alternatives to storytelling; there aren't many alternatives for competition when it's 10 below befre the wind chill, or it's 3am and you can't sleep and no one's around to throw sportsballs at your head, or you're dead tired after a day at the office and all you can stand to move is your thumbs. So why are we so eager to sacrifice video gaming on the altar of art?

I would still argue that TWD is a game, while its gameplay is limited, i find it is not limited any more than past point and click adventure games. And claiming that it was not a game as if it is a fact is not appropriate. And with regards to competition, not all games are made for competition, it is not the universal goal of all games nor the universal definition (which i imagine there is non).

And with regards to your last question, why is it that a game is sacrificed if it has a great story? Ideally a great game will have both. Saying that games having a good story means that it can't have good gameplay is simply not true.

 

[Maze1125]

That's a meaningless question, the answer in inherently relative.
It depends on both what the player wants and what the game was intended to be.
A player who wants a game for the sake of gaming, is obviously going to value gameplay, whereas a player who wants it for the sake of an interactive story is going to value the story.
Equally, a developer who wants to make a bit of fun for people to play around with is going to value gameplay, whereas a developer who wants to make some kind of statement or narrative is going to value story.

There simply cannot be a definitive answer to that question as it varies from person to person and from game to game.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

No, plain and simple. A story without gameplay is no longer a game but a movie. Gameplay without a story is still a game. Stories can make a game much better, but without gameplay it loses the interactivity that defines what a videogame is and sets it apart from other mediums.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Depends on what I want out of a particular game, for example, to me The Walking Dead did fine as a story focused game. Where as for me, a game like Devil May Cry or Battlefield/CoD it's more about how the play feels and responds.

It's not defined to me as a genre thing, it affects me on a game by game basis as to witch I truly prefer.

 

[Sarge034]

I say it depends on the type of game you're playing, but both categories have good games in them. On the "good gameplay / no story" side you have Left 4 Dead (the first one), and on the "good story / mediocre gameplay" you have the Mass Effect series. Both do what they do very well, but the aims are very different for both of these games. Just my two cents...

 

[Squilookle]

As a general rule- no. Gameplay is the single most important part of any game.

I would rate story above graphics though, if it used a story.

 

[Lunar Templar]

nether.

the type of game dictates which is important.

an action game? gameplay should be the priority

RPG? Story.

however, one should not be neglected just because the other is the strong point, the best games have have strong gameplay and story

 

[PeterMerkin69]

I would still argue that TWD is a game, while its gameplay is limited, i find it is not limited any more than past point and click adventure games.

We could always move the point & click games to the interactive drama/narrative/adventure category to resolve this.

And claiming that it was not a game as if it is a fact is not appropriate.

Depends on if you believe in a solid definition of the word game, I suppose.

And with regards to competition, not all games are made for competition, it is not the universal goal of all games nor the universal definition (which i imagine there is non).

Maybe, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a single game of which the focus isn't competition in some capacity. I'm having a harder time imaging why you wouldn't call the activity play, or recreation, if it didn't decide a contest.

And with regards to your last question, why is it that a game is sacrificed if it has a great story? Ideally a great game will have both. Saying that games having a good story means that it can't have good gameplay is simply not true.

You're right, of course, that's not true at all. You misunderstood me though. What I meant was that there appears to be a movement in the gaming community intent on "elevating" video gaming into Something Moar, as if gaming for the sake of gaming isn't enough. Not everyone wants to have emotional experiences, or learn about the plight of the Sudanese, or be taught morality lessons by nonexperts over a round of jumping on mushroom people. And I really don't think there's anything wrong with that.

 

[piinyouri]

I can certainly enjoy a story, but I don't think I've ever played a game just for the story.
If it's great, it's a bonus.
If it's not, and the game play is still to my liking, I'm good.
Hell the plot of a game could be excellently constructed but if I don't enjoy the gameplay, it won't matter.

 

[Reven]

I would still argue that TWD is a game, while its gameplay is limited, i find it is not limited any more than past point and click adventure games.

We could always move the point & click games to the interactive drama/narrative/adventure category to resolve this.

And claiming that it was not a game as if it is a fact is not appropriate.

Depends on if you believe in a solid definition of the word game, I suppose.

And with regards to competition, not all games are made for competition, it is not the universal goal of all games nor the universal definition (which i imagine there is non).

Maybe, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a single game of which the focus isn't competition in some capacity. I'm having a harder time imaging why you wouldn't call the activity play, or recreation, if it didn't decide a contest.

And with regards to your last question, why is it that a game is sacrificed if it has a great story? Ideally a great game will have both. Saying that games having a good story means that it can't have good gameplay is simply not true.

You're right, of course, that's not true at all. You misunderstood me though. What I meant was that there appears to be a movement in the gaming community intent on "elevating" video gaming into Something Moar, as if gaming for the sake of gaming isn't enough. Not everyone wants to have emotional experiences, or learn about the plight of the Sudanese, or be taught morality lessons by nonexperts over a round of jumping on mushroom people. And I really don't think there's anything wrong with that.

1. True but i think arguments would still break out as to what extent the interaction needs to be before it becomes a game.

2.I agree, it really does depend on your definition and whether there is just a universal definition.

3.Well you play a video game, so not sure using play or recreation does not fit in that category (i may be misunderstanding your point here, if I am i apologize)

4.Fair enough, and i agree there is nothing wrong with people not interested in the story and prefer the gameplay, as you mentioned i basically misunderstood this point. With regards to the whole movement, I see the potential for CERTAIN games to become art/moar as you put it, but I'm not of the opinion that they all should, movies and books aren't held by that standard, why should games?

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I believe that the gameplay is where you should start; if the game is no fun to play then no one will experience or enjoy the narrative. This is why Mass Effect 1, while a absolutely stellar narrative with excellent characters, is harder to enjoy because its combat mechanics, which is what joins the whole thing together, are shitful.


The story is the servant to the gameplay, not the other way around.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

It's a matter of personal opinion. A good story can make up for shit gameplay, to a degree. The game still has to function without feeling like a total grind.

Spec Ops: The Line is an ideal example of an excellent story making standard, but well functioning gameplay, work together into a truly great game.

 

[Silvanus]

For me, I must say that story does tend to come above gameplay. It's what sticks with me for longer, and it's what defines most of my favourites.

I'd say story & atmosphere together beat out gameplay in importance for me, and even then, a game can't survive on story alone.

 

[PeterMerkin69]

1. True but i think arguments would still break out as to what extent the interaction needs to be before it becomes a game.

Absolutely, but let them. That's how we hash things out.

I'd say a good place to start would be in questioning the focus of the thing. Does it exist primarily to tell you a story? Then it's an interactive drama. Was it built around gameplay mechanics? Then it's a game. Imagining the difference as a continuum with "Interactive Story" and "Game" written at either end would handily account for the intermediary titles.

3.Well you play a video game, so not sure using play or recreation does not fit in that category (i may be misunderstanding your point here, if I am i apologize)

Informally we play them, anyway. But then professional sportsmen "play" football, golf and baseball, too, and not necessarily for fun. There's definitely some overlap but I think it's more accurate to say we "play games by competing in them for the sake of fun." But of course it's simply easier to say play, and so we use that.

why should games?

Exactly. More power to the people who want Moar out of their entertainment, if that's their bag, but it's not mine, and I'm okay with that.

 

[Ihrgoth]

I personally play games more for story, especially when it comes to single player. What I love is when you have a multiplayer game with a story but I will play games just for gameplay if it is multiplayer. System Shock 2 has amazing gameplay as well as good writing and good story. But then there are games like Mass Effect 1 with mediocre gameplay (outside of the leveling system) but really good stories. I would rather have a good story than have good gameplay.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

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.

Great answer here. You mention film - and this is something I wanted to bring out in reference to the original post - everything is being compared to film these days. Hollywood. Unfortunately, this comparison diverts attention away from the fact that games are way more interactive. Not only do you imagine yourself as the main character, you are the main character. You can even be side characters if you want. If you want to see the story, you have to play the game.

Books and movies are driven by the characters and and the plot, games are driven by the gameplay. I find them to be separate and distinct from any other medium as veloper says above.

I would think it'd be easier to add a killer story to a game that is well developed...like there should be no reason for the crumby stories that brawlers and fighters get.