Is Story more important then Gameplay?
- Thread starter Lamss
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't think a game can excel at one area enough to make a good game without some other feature backing it up at least a little bit.
Games like DDR and Guitar Hero relied mostly on game play, but the sound track backed it up. You wouldn't play either of those games if they had crap music.
Deus Ex and TES games rely on game play and exploration since the stories are meager at best.
Final Fantasy and The Walking Dead rely on story and character development to keep you invested in the game. Or at least final fantasy used to. *sigh*
I think the only games that had one thing going for them came out for the Atari 2600, I mean, at least the NES had cool music and gaudy peripherals.
Games like DDR and Guitar Hero relied mostly on game play, but the sound track backed it up. You wouldn't play either of those games if they had crap music.
Deus Ex and TES games rely on game play and exploration since the stories are meager at best.
Final Fantasy and The Walking Dead rely on story and character development to keep you invested in the game. Or at least final fantasy used to. *sigh*
I think the only games that had one thing going for them came out for the Atari 2600, I mean, at least the NES had cool music and gaudy peripherals.
It depends completely and totally on what the game is for me. I'm willing to forgo pretty much nonexistent gameplay if the story is good enough. (Walking Dead) But in other instances like say, Devil May Cry, the story is obviously not as important as the gameplay and really, that's fine.
Personally though, if one or the other is entirely mishandled I just can't do it. Like for instance, Metal Gear Solid 2. The gameplay improves upon its predecessor in such an amazing way that just playing the game is great fun, but the story is just so...convoluted, messy, and terrible that I can barely stomach a single playthrough.
On the other side of things we have Dragon Age: Origins, this is more personal but I don't really know any games that have downright broken gameplay but great story so it'll have to suffice. The story in that is generally considered above average, but I consider the gameplay itself to be such a slog that I just don't find playing through it all enjoyable in the slightest.
Personally though, if one or the other is entirely mishandled I just can't do it. Like for instance, Metal Gear Solid 2. The gameplay improves upon its predecessor in such an amazing way that just playing the game is great fun, but the story is just so...convoluted, messy, and terrible that I can barely stomach a single playthrough.
On the other side of things we have Dragon Age: Origins, this is more personal but I don't really know any games that have downright broken gameplay but great story so it'll have to suffice. The story in that is generally considered above average, but I consider the gameplay itself to be such a slog that I just don't find playing through it all enjoyable in the slightest.
Gameplay is a must, story is optional. Gameplay without a story, well, that is how games started. If I wanted a story without gameplay, I'd read a book, because they are always better (example: Metro 2033).
Personally, when I'm looking at a game, the very first question I ask is "what's it about?" I mentioned this somewhere else, but yeah, I want a story--I want interesting characters, in interesting settings, doing interesting things for interesting reasons--and a game without a compelling story is far less likely to hold my interest. There have been exceptions, of course, but not many. I don't think a story necessarily needs to come at the expense of gameplay, though, or that it should (which is why I basically don't play JRPGs anymore). I think the best games are the ones where the gameplay and the story go hand in hand, where the one organically draws you into the other.Lamss said:
As for graphics, I don't worry about them as long as they're not obviously broken. I just played To The Moon last week; that game was pretty damn good, and it looks like it was made for the SNES.
Not to seem like a fence sitter or anything, but there is no answer to this question - it depends on the individual player. "Nerds" (gamers, comic lovers, what-have-you) seem to act like they're the authority on any and all things nerd. People in here giving definitive, authoritative answers on this question are, quite frankly, sitting in a silly little ivory tower where their opinions are the only ones that matter.
It depends.
The Binding of Isaac, Mario, Katawa Shoujo, and Heavy Rain are all games. You try and pick either story or gameplay to emphasise without making 2 of them utterly useless.
The Binding of Isaac, Mario, Katawa Shoujo, and Heavy Rain are all games. You try and pick either story or gameplay to emphasise without making 2 of them utterly useless.
It really depends; sometimes an excellent story can outweigh bad gameplay or a good story can be ruined by awful mechanics. Again, the same can be said in reverse. Excellent gameplay making up for a non-existent story or fantastic gameplay overshadowed by a cringe-worthy and crap story. It depends on which is given centre stage by those who put the game together. Either way; they're both vital to a good game. If it has bad or no gameplay then how can you truly call it a game? If it has an awful story then why should I play it?
It's a mix, but usually a good game can get by by being really fun to play. But sometimes the story can make you want to push further and motivate you through slow or hard areas because you want to know what happens next, but then if a game has no story there's not much incentive for me to play.
Also know as the 'Why I dont Buy From Nintendo' affect.
Also know as the 'Why I dont Buy From Nintendo' affect.
Personally I think the question is rather flawed. The problem is gameplay. It's just such a nebulous and undefinable term. Anyone reading, try this: ask yourself what gameplay is. Is it jumping over things in Super Mario? Is it shooting in Half-Life? Is it talking to people in Mass Effect? Does it need to be based around a physical action taken by the on-screen avatar, such as shooting or jumping? Can it be clicking through menus a la Crusader Kings or Final Fantasy? What about games such as Silent Hill where the actual gameplay is neither enjoyable nor heavily action based?
The way I see it there are at least two ways to create a game: Either you focus on the story and use the interactive nature of gaming and player projection to increase the impact it has on the player; or you create a series of gameplay mechanics, after which you create enough story to justify the events and mechanics of the game.
I don't think there's really a need to decide which is definitively better as the vast diversity created by these different schools will serve to entertain and engage as many people as possible, rather than forcing everyone to enjoy one specific thing.
Games can have stories with minimal gameplay supporting them (walking dead); stories mixed with gameplay (Spec Ops, Mass Effect); and gameplay with minimal stories (Mario, Gears of War). The existence of one doesn't mean the destruction of another.
PS: The argument of "gameplay is obviously the most important thing because they're called GAMES" is possibly the most trollish point seen I've seen any internet forum in my life.
The way I see it there are at least two ways to create a game: Either you focus on the story and use the interactive nature of gaming and player projection to increase the impact it has on the player; or you create a series of gameplay mechanics, after which you create enough story to justify the events and mechanics of the game.
I don't think there's really a need to decide which is definitively better as the vast diversity created by these different schools will serve to entertain and engage as many people as possible, rather than forcing everyone to enjoy one specific thing.
Games can have stories with minimal gameplay supporting them (walking dead); stories mixed with gameplay (Spec Ops, Mass Effect); and gameplay with minimal stories (Mario, Gears of War). The existence of one doesn't mean the destruction of another.
PS: The argument of "gameplay is obviously the most important thing because they're called GAMES" is possibly the most trollish point seen I've seen any internet forum in my life.
GAMEplay. Video GAME.
Guess which one I value more. Part of the reason for why I don't consider Walking Dead to be GOTY. It's more of really good interactive movie.
I like story in my games but the gameplay has to be there or else I won't enjoy it. If playing it feels like a chore, then unless the story is fucking amazing, I am not going to want to finish the game.
When I want a great story, I'd rather go read a book. Lets my mind imagine the world and characters for me which makes it significantly more immersive for me than playing a game.
Guess which one I value more. Part of the reason for why I don't consider Walking Dead to be GOTY. It's more of really good interactive movie.
I like story in my games but the gameplay has to be there or else I won't enjoy it. If playing it feels like a chore, then unless the story is fucking amazing, I am not going to want to finish the game.
When I want a great story, I'd rather go read a book. Lets my mind imagine the world and characters for me which makes it significantly more immersive for me than playing a game.
Story is more important than anything, with out a doubt, I'll play something that looks shitty, plays shitty, is full of glitches, and controls like ass if it's got a good enough story to pull me through it.
It's nice when a game has everything though.
And if a game's story is terrible enough or even just about something I'm uninterested in it doesn't matter how good it looks or feels; I won't be beating it. I may play it for a bit, I may even waste an evening on it if it's fun enough, but I'll never see the 'ending', and that's the real judge of a good game in my book. Something so fun it dragged me all the way through it rather than losing my interest to one of the millions of other amazing games out there.
It's nice when a game has everything though.
And if a game's story is terrible enough or even just about something I'm uninterested in it doesn't matter how good it looks or feels; I won't be beating it. I may play it for a bit, I may even waste an evening on it if it's fun enough, but I'll never see the 'ending', and that's the real judge of a good game in my book. Something so fun it dragged me all the way through it rather than losing my interest to one of the millions of other amazing games out there.
I have a friend like that. He puts a large priority on story, but he's very honest about it and is quite picky with games he plays. Either they are unique artistically, or have an interesting story. The only exception being TF2. So he's more of a movie and novel buff, I guess better mediums for getting stories across. I know his taste, and if he gets to a game before me, he's a pretty reliable source of opinion on the story.
I myself believe there has to be a balance, not necessarily in how awesome the game is, but that the game must not be overly tedious. A story can keep you gripped as long as you aren't grinding your teeth with controls or cheap enemies or horrible saving system, etc.
I myself believe there has to be a balance, not necessarily in how awesome the game is, but that the game must not be overly tedious. A story can keep you gripped as long as you aren't grinding your teeth with controls or cheap enemies or horrible saving system, etc.
I think it mainly depends on the game and the person playing it. If a game has a good enough story I will usually power through bad or broken controls and game-play to finish the story. It doesn't matter how fun the game-play is. if the story doesn't interest or hold my attention I will usually stop playing it.
It wasn't the mechanics, though I'm not sure if they aged well or not.Auron said:
It was uncomfortable to play, most of all, in combat. You just ended up abusing Morte's "Lithany of Curses", which makes relatively easy fights even easier(depending on difficulty). The fact that you could skip so much of it is a definite plus, but towards the end of the game you get tossed into it more and more of it. Gameplay might be the wrong word for it (combat and the interface maybe?) but it wasn't as immersive as the story required it to be.
Of course, that's just what I thought of it and opinions differ. It's still one of the best games I've ever played.
Assuming game-play is decent, I'd say yes. Story is the most important thing for me but if the game-play is absolute crap I can hardly enjoy the story.
Like many others here have stated, it depends on the game.
Usually, I'm willing to overlook bad gameplay mechanics if the story's good. I prefer singleplayer over multiplayer, so story and characters are pretty important for me. That said, I can enjoy games that have little to no story or games that obviously aren't focused on their story.
For example, I managed to play through the first Dragon Age 2-3 times, even though the gameplay is very meh-ish. Spec Ops The Line, even with its very generic gameplay, is probably my GOTY from last year all thanks to its great character developement.
On the other hand, I do play games that are just meant to have fun with and not meant to tell a great story. However, I do value games with great story and characters higher than others.
Usually, I'm willing to overlook bad gameplay mechanics if the story's good. I prefer singleplayer over multiplayer, so story and characters are pretty important for me. That said, I can enjoy games that have little to no story or games that obviously aren't focused on their story.
For example, I managed to play through the first Dragon Age 2-3 times, even though the gameplay is very meh-ish. Spec Ops The Line, even with its very generic gameplay, is probably my GOTY from last year all thanks to its great character developement.
On the other hand, I do play games that are just meant to have fun with and not meant to tell a great story. However, I do value games with great story and characters higher than others.
in my opinion, yes. a game can have the mechanics of a petrock and the graphics that make minecraft look like a van Gogh painting but if the story is good it can make up for all of that.
and by good story i mean a reasonable plot, flexible story line, likable characters and most importantly, MAKE SENSE!
captcha: make it so. good idea captcha.
and by good story i mean a reasonable plot, flexible story line, likable characters and most importantly, MAKE SENSE!
captcha: make it so. good idea captcha.