Is Story more important then Gameplay?

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I'm pretty sure the fact that here are so many threads and arguments over this topic clearly demonstrate that gameplay is not "undisputed" arguments are in fact DISPUTES , and i seem to recall the walking dead having very little true gameplay and yet it made alot of best game of the year lists. Of course all this is opinion, and gameplay is by far and away not even close to being the undisputed number 1.

It can be disputed perhaps, but it would be wrong. Gameplay is number one way out ahead all by itself, standing supreme. A game with shitty gameplay will fail and no one will buy or play it. A game with no gameplay isn't a game; if it has graphics and no gameplay, it's called a movie. If it doesn't have graphics, it's called a book.

You can have a story and no game and call it "Dear Esther" or "Heavy Rain" and it might sell a few copies. Or you can make Minecraft, World of Warcraft, any Bethesda game with little or only token story and make millions on a game millions will play. This isn't opinion, it's the very basis of games design, the core principle, the fundamental rule, the first thing they'll teach you on a game design course.

You can have a different opinion and say story is more important than gameplay, but you would be wrong, objectively and subjectively wrong. Someone needs to want to play a game, be engaged in it and, if the developer has done their job right, have fun playing it.

 

[Maze1125]

I'm pretty sure the fact that here are so many threads and arguments over this topic clearly demonstrate that gameplay is not "undisputed" arguments are in fact DISPUTES , and i seem to recall the walking dead having very little true gameplay and yet it made alot of best game of the year lists. Of course all this is opinion, and gameplay is by far and away not even close to being the undisputed number 1.

It can be disputed perhaps, but it would be wrong. Gameplay is number one way out ahead all by itself, standing supreme. A game with shitty gameplay will fail and no one will buy or play it. A game with no gameplay isn't a game; if it has graphics and no gameplay, it's called a movie. If it doesn't have graphics, it's called a book.

You can have a story and no game and call it "Dear Esther" or "Heavy Rain" and it might sell a few copies. Or you can make Minecraft, World of Warcraft, any Bethesda game with little or only token story and make millions on a game millions will play. This isn't opinion, it's the very basis of games design, the core principle, the fundamental rule, the first thing they'll teach you on a game design course.

You can have a different opinion and say story is more important than gameplay, but you would be wrong, objectively and subjectively wrong. Someone needs to want to play a game, be engaged in it and, if the developer has done their job right, have fun playing it.

What about the Walking Dead? Or Baldur's Gate? Or numerous other well selling, highly rated, story focused games?
You can't just pull up two examples of poorly selling story games and then a few well selling game-focused games and go "See, I'm right, objectively right."

As I already said. What matters depends on the game that the developer is trying to make and the game the individual player wants to play.

You're obviously the type of player that prefers gameplay, which is fine, but that doesn't make other people wrong for preferring story.

 

[rosac]

The "why not both" meme has never been so important. Although I'd rather have gameplay over story, it's why I love mario kart, smash bros and tony hawks so much after all.

 

[Joccaren]

If there is large variance in the gameplay, I.E: Old games like Banjo Kazooie, or newer ones like the Arkham games, rely more on gameplay than story IMO. Its because they make their gameplay interesting and varied, so you're rarely doing the exact same thing constantly for 12 hours straight.
Modern FPS and such rely on story to get me, and they fail badly at it, because their gameplay is just the same thing over and over again for the most part, and that's not interesting.

If I were to be put in a pure white version of a level of Banjo Kazooie, with no music, story, context or anything, and all the assets and such where circles and squares and such as opposed to objects and characters, and there was no speaking in the game, then I'd still enjoy it. The gameplay is varied, and discovering what to do would be fun.
Were I to do the same with something like CoD, it wouldn't work. All context is lost, and the game just becomes point and click till enemy dies, and that's not fun.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

What about the Walking Dead? Or Baldur's Gate? Or numerous other well selling, highly rated, story focused games?
You can't just pull up two examples of poorly selling story games and then a few well selling game-focused games and go "See, I'm right, objectively right."

As I already said. What matters depends on the game that the developer is trying to make and the game the individual player wants to play.

You're obviously the type of player that prefers gameplay, which is fine, but that doesn't make other people wrong for preferring story.

WD and BG have good gameplay AND good story; that's why they're great games. Get gameplay wrong and no one will want to play, it's really that simple. First rule of game design. I'm not the "type of player" who prefers anything. A video *game* has to have good *gameplay* or it's not a good *game*, that's all there is to it. It might work as a film, book or "interactive experience", but not as a game.

A GREAT game has good gameplay and story, but a game that fails at gameplay can have the best story in the world, and it will still fail at this first hurdle. It will be remembered for just this in fact. It is not one or the other as you are implying. It is gameplay first, story second, both for a real winner.

It is what SWTOR tried to do that WoW didn't actually. I love good stories, my favourite games have great stories but I can only play them because they're fun and engaging. If they weren't, I'd give up and play something better.

 

[Karoshi]

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.)

Yeah, that's a great distinction. I belong to the category of people who ask the first question.

Since I was a kid I wanted to see greater emphasis on story and while gameplay is good and well, only story will make a lasting impression on me.

 

[Timmaaaah]

Gameplay is important, but in terms of a series, the core gameplay elements should stay the same in my opinion. For me writing will always be the most important thing but the gameplay has to be able to engage me enough for me to bother. Also it can't be too repetitive and has to merge the story with the gameplay, otherwise they may as well just make a film and I can go play a more well put together game. The first time I played CoD4 I loved it because it just felt nicer than other shooters in terms of gameplay. Only problems for me were short game overall, short levels, and not really that much in terms of plot (though it was better than the sequels). If Infinity Ward had branched out like Rockstar Games and got creative with their story telling, setting, and level design then they could have made some fucking incredible games.

 

[Azwrath]

This is like asking if green is a better color then red. It greatly depends on context and personal taste.

 

[balladbird]

As has been said, context is important, and in a perfect world one could get by with a more indecisive answer like "a good game needs both", but if a video game were to be something like a D&D character, with only so many points to allocate between the two attributes, I suppose we can go two ways: my personal bias, and what I observe.

Speaking from personal taste, I can get into a game with average or even slightly below average game mechanics provided the story is compelling enough. I'm a fan of JRPGs for Pete's sake. Modes available outside of story mode hold little replay ability to me, even if the game is a blast to play, with the exception of the handful of catharsis titles I play when I don't want to think about anything for an hour. So, I guess I'd rate story as more important personally.

Still, in the current game environment story seems to almost be a vestigial component, depending on the genre. There's a veritable fleet of FPS titles with nothing but a token effort at a bare bones plot for a single player campaign, coupled with deep and involved online multiplayer support. Whether that's a good thing or not is only tangentially related to the thread, but it does seem to be the current trend.

meh, my first post runs three paragraphs... I may be too long winded for forums now. XD

 

[King Aragorn]

I'd have to say gameplay is more important. Simply because the interaction is what makes a game...a game.
I've seen the argument of games being the most interactive way of telling a story, and while it is very true, but what's the point if the interaction is bad?

 

[Alandoril]

No, they are both equally important. Just wish more developers actually bothered with the whole story thing but having writers put it together rather than just having one of the coders with some spare time knock something together at the last minute.

 

[Maze1125]

WD and BG have good gameplay AND good story; that's why they're great games. Get gameplay wrong and no one will want to play, it's really that simple. First rule of game design. I'm not the "type of player" who prefers anything. A video *game* has to have good *gameplay* or it's not a good *game*, that's all there is to it. It might work as a film, book or "interactive experience", but not as a game.

You're arbitrarily distinguishing between "game" and "interactive experience", and in doing so you're giving yourself an inherent get-out clause to make sure you're always right.
So, at this point, if I give any example of a "game" that has a really good story but bad gameplay, but that's still a valuable experience that people enjoy, then you'll just say "That's not a game though, that's in interactive experience." Which will make you "right" every single time.

But, the simple fact you've insisted on making that distinction proves what I'm saying. There are people who value what you call a "game" and there are people who value what you call an "interactive experience". Which parts of those bits of media are most important comes down to the person who experiences them, and what they want out of them

It is not one or the other as you are implying.

I never implied any such thing. I'm the one who's arguing that what matters is individual preference, which obviously leaves the possibility open for people who prefer things that contain both.

I love good stories, my favourite games have great stories but I can only play them because they're fun and engaging. If they weren't, I'd give up and play something better.

Yes, YOU love good stories, YOUR favourite games have great stories but YOU only play them because they're fun and engaging and if they weren't, YOU'D give up and play something better.
That's your personal opinion. Just because you feel that way doesn't mean it's a necessary matter for everyone else.

 

[Windcaler]

I think story and gameplay are equally important but to be honest a good story can save a game with average or even poor gameplay. A couple examples of this that come to mind are Blood Omen 2: Legacy of kain and walking dead. With Legacy it had a really clunky combat system but its story drew you in. With Walking dead, gameplay wise I think the game was awful and barely a game (interactive movie was always a better title IMO) but the interaction of the characters and story (despite going through the same cliff notes no matter your choices) made another game that really drew you in.

Edit: I also forgot to mention that good gameplay can savea game that has a poor story. See battlefield 3. Where its multiplayer and interesting skill based mechanics creates a great game but i couldnt care less about the story

 

[AT God]

Depends on the game, in a perfect world they should go together but sometimes a game has to sacrifice one to make it's point. I enjoyed the gameplay of Braid but I know many people who didn't like Braid's gameplay but enjoyed it's message and vice versa

 

[TelHybrid]

Oh hell no.

An entertainment medium which has a basis of interactivity should always put the interactivity ahead of the plot.

 

[Arfonious]

A perfect world would be good gameplay and good story.

But if one were to be chosen it would depend alot on the kind of game we are talking about. For instance in a strategy game gameplay is way more important than story and in an RPG it could be the other way around.

 

[klaynexas3]

I'll go with what most people have said about it depending on the type of game. I sure as hell don't want to play a Final Fantasy game for it's gameplay, and anyone that says they play a bethesda game for story is lying to you to all hell. It's all about immersion, and games can provide that immersion better than any other medium. Mass Effect pulled me in so well with it's story and characters and writing and all that good stuff. But when we hit the gameplay, I just sort of played through it wanting to hit the next dialog choice point. To me, gameplay means nearly shit if I see little to no reason to do it. Sometimes story drives that well, but at other times it might just be the gameplay, or some other force in the game outside these two forces(I play minecraft to go traversing through the caverns of the earth for the sake of exploration alone). It's all about presentation. One part of the game has to be polished to a shine, or else the game isn't worth playing really. Even if it's just a repeat of something we've already seen before, if it's done well, that makes a good game. Though gameplay does need to be present, so I will admit gameplay is fundamental to a game in general, but that doesn't automatically mean that should be the main focus of every game.

 

[Thoughtful_Salt]

It's all about how you connect the story with the gameplay. If the connection is poor, and the gameplay signifies nothing with the story, then nothing is achieved. Spec Ops: The Line and Fez are great games which achieve a near perfect marriage of story and gameplay. If the game has a great story but is deficient in every other category, then it's alright to brutally trash the game (which I'm currently doing with MW3 btw). But if the gameplay is sufficient and the story is great, then it's alright to champion it.

 

[rasputin0009]

Gameplay for sure.

Take Zelda: SS for example. The story is one of the best in the series. And the interactivity between the characters is excellent. But the gameplay in itself is terrible compared to other Zeldas. Enough so, that I quit 2/3rds through because I wasn't having fun anymore. This is from someone who's played through OoT, MM, WW, TP, LA, 4 swords, the Oracle games, and minish cap multiple times each. Story couldn't save it.

Heavy Rain is another example. Why the fuck does this "videogame" exist? Both gameplay and interactivity is terrible. As I was "playing" it, I kept asking myself why I had a controller in my hands. I could have watched a movie instead. With a better story. David Cage is a turd.

And on the other end, the God of War games. Story is okay at best. But the combat is ridiculously fun. Same with the Halo series. Meh story, great shooter gameplay. Story can help out the game you are playing set up the universe you are interacting with and help with immersion, but as a whole, it's not the most important part. Oh, another example would be the Fire Emblem series. Not always a great story, but awesome chess game.

I just know that I'm playing games to play games, not watch a movie. I have movies for that.