I honestly agree with Chris about how story is more important. But he started off using Final Fantasy as his example and he lost it for me. Terrible example if you are going into this on the story side of the argument.
No Right Answer: Gameplay vs. Story
- Thread starter Firefilm
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Great episode. Winner this week is... Dan. It's always Dan.
You only scraped the surface of this great discussion, but did it very well. I think neither is more important, what's important is that they are in harmony with each other.
You only scraped the surface of this great discussion, but did it very well. I think neither is more important, what's important is that they are in harmony with each other.
Chris made a veeeeeeeeeery good point about Call of Duty, but I still think that gameplay is stronger moreover because without gameplay it isn't really a game. I mean, even if you hate JRPGs there is some strategy to them despite how story focused they are, unless it's FF8 where the olny strategy is GF GF GF
I'm always prefer story to gameplay. If game don't have at lest decent story i don't bother to play it, and if game have good story but game play i don't like, i play it and enjoy it.
For example i absolutely hate platform-puzzle games but i LOVED Catherine, all because of story and characters, just had to soldier trough all puzzle stuff, and precisely that's why i don't play indy games that only have game play and no story, i just don't see point in gameplay without story and characters.
For example i absolutely hate platform-puzzle games but i LOVED Catherine, all because of story and characters, just had to soldier trough all puzzle stuff, and precisely that's why i don't play indy games that only have game play and no story, i just don't see point in gameplay without story and characters.
Gameplay is the most important part of a game and is what defines this genre of entertainment and separates it from books, movies and television. Story is simply a device that paces the gameplay in the matter that levels, stages, waves, worlds and tracks do for other games. Story, as the other pacing devices, in games simply gives variety or different contexts to what can happen, what will happen and why it's happening at all. In Beetle Racing Adventure, one might never ask nor care as to why one could be racing through the desert one minute and through Jurassic Park the next minute, but one does recognize the point of dividing the tracks between levels instead of making them one long running course.
Take the debate concerning what makes an Rpg. It's the gameplay that defines Rpgs, be they action or turn-based. The mechanics decide accuracy(turn/phase-based rpgs, cut that out Morrowind and the first Witcher), health, spell and weapon damage as well as all the other stats and actions determined or ruled by dice rolls (or whatever type of number generator an rpg may use) to some extent. Story, besides its obvious element of setting, in Rpgs simply metes out the amount of time one spends in combat, the areas and options one can access and usually decides the end point of games. As far as how story in this genre allots action and rest, one can make three divisions(and divisions within those divisions): Webbed, the game has many paths from start to finish; Branched, actions at node points cut off portions of the game; Linear, the end is set despite what deviations may exist.
Webbed
Games Examples: Mount&Blade, the Elder Scrolls, Metal Max and the SaGa series.
Story in these games is more important for the options it gives than the place it leads the player.
In Mount&Blade, one can mercenary themselves, join up with a kingdom or help a throne claimant to retake their lands; none of these options are forced.
In the Elder Scrolls series one can go anywhere one desires, but one must engage certain groups in order to gain access to certain things such as spell creation.
The other two series have a definite end point that only occurs when one decides to pursue it.
Branched
Game Examples: Tactics Ogre:Let Us Cling Together, Might&Magic: Dark Messiah, Chrono Cross, Alpha Protocol.
In all of these, except Dark Messiah, decisions that one makes decides what areas one can access, who will be the player's enemies or allies as well as the type of ending one receives. In Dark Messiah, one's choices determines the ending as well as the acquisition of special equipment.
Linear
Game Examples: Tales of series, Dead Island, Borderlands, Golden Sun
No matter the amount of quests these games have or options to say anything contrary to the direction of the story, the end point is always the same.
Regardless of how tight or loose the story is, the mechanics of each of the games defines what makes them. If one were to remove the gameplay and make a movie out of the background of any of those games, one would have a non-interactive creation defined by the acting, atmosphere, light, ect. The only interaction of concern from the audience, is whether or not they'll pay money for the DVD or sequel.
Just as it has been stated before, remove the story and one has the same evident gameplay; it will just be an unfettered and ceaseless experience, with no points of interest. Also, games being defined by their gameplay also applies to dramatic changes to a series. People were upset over the X-com shooter, due to the developers creating a game defined by different mechanics with the original game's name plastered on it (and no, a game called X-COM: Enforcer never existed. Insisting such will result in pain. Well, playing it will result in painful headaches anyway). The one being developed by Firaxis which is said and shown to an extent to be more faithful to the original three, is more welcomed due to it appearing to be an attempt to improve upon, and not utterly abandon, the original gameplay.
People are likely more willing to accept spin-offs of a franchise, than changes to the core gameplay of the original. Main sequence Final Fantasy is still turn-based despite its constantly changing gameplay. Take the class system in Final Fantasy, sometimes it's in and other times it's not. The core gameplay doesn't change, but the flow and outcomes gain greater variability. Final Fantasy XII is still turn-based despite its attempt to introduce a battle system that is more organic with the environment.
Ultimately it must be recognized that story is a device of gameplay pacing in the same vein as levels in shooters, platformers and such. One must also consider gameplay's constancy when judging a story's importance, as context alone doesn't equal a game. It's to be acknowledged also that story enjoyment has nothing to do with pacing, but that doesn't make it inherently bad. Deadly Premonition as a game with an entertaining story, but horrible gameplay has a story with an interesting plot, setting and characters. However, the game suffers from a poor x-axis control when aiming, enemies that are more a chore than a challenge on difficulties higher than easy, a slow door opening animation that frustrates those that don't know they can get through the doors faster by running into them, an unnecessarily long quick time event near the end and other things that would make the game a poor experience were one to play it without story.
Take the debate concerning what makes an Rpg. It's the gameplay that defines Rpgs, be they action or turn-based. The mechanics decide accuracy(turn/phase-based rpgs, cut that out Morrowind and the first Witcher), health, spell and weapon damage as well as all the other stats and actions determined or ruled by dice rolls (or whatever type of number generator an rpg may use) to some extent. Story, besides its obvious element of setting, in Rpgs simply metes out the amount of time one spends in combat, the areas and options one can access and usually decides the end point of games. As far as how story in this genre allots action and rest, one can make three divisions(and divisions within those divisions): Webbed, the game has many paths from start to finish; Branched, actions at node points cut off portions of the game; Linear, the end is set despite what deviations may exist.
Webbed
Games Examples: Mount&Blade, the Elder Scrolls, Metal Max and the SaGa series.
Story in these games is more important for the options it gives than the place it leads the player.
In Mount&Blade, one can mercenary themselves, join up with a kingdom or help a throne claimant to retake their lands; none of these options are forced.
In the Elder Scrolls series one can go anywhere one desires, but one must engage certain groups in order to gain access to certain things such as spell creation.
The other two series have a definite end point that only occurs when one decides to pursue it.
Branched
Game Examples: Tactics Ogre:Let Us Cling Together, Might&Magic: Dark Messiah, Chrono Cross, Alpha Protocol.
In all of these, except Dark Messiah, decisions that one makes decides what areas one can access, who will be the player's enemies or allies as well as the type of ending one receives. In Dark Messiah, one's choices determines the ending as well as the acquisition of special equipment.
Linear
Game Examples: Tales of series, Dead Island, Borderlands, Golden Sun
No matter the amount of quests these games have or options to say anything contrary to the direction of the story, the end point is always the same.
Regardless of how tight or loose the story is, the mechanics of each of the games defines what makes them. If one were to remove the gameplay and make a movie out of the background of any of those games, one would have a non-interactive creation defined by the acting, atmosphere, light, ect. The only interaction of concern from the audience, is whether or not they'll pay money for the DVD or sequel.
Just as it has been stated before, remove the story and one has the same evident gameplay; it will just be an unfettered and ceaseless experience, with no points of interest. Also, games being defined by their gameplay also applies to dramatic changes to a series. People were upset over the X-com shooter, due to the developers creating a game defined by different mechanics with the original game's name plastered on it (and no, a game called X-COM: Enforcer never existed. Insisting such will result in pain. Well, playing it will result in painful headaches anyway). The one being developed by Firaxis which is said and shown to an extent to be more faithful to the original three, is more welcomed due to it appearing to be an attempt to improve upon, and not utterly abandon, the original gameplay.
People are likely more willing to accept spin-offs of a franchise, than changes to the core gameplay of the original. Main sequence Final Fantasy is still turn-based despite its constantly changing gameplay. Take the class system in Final Fantasy, sometimes it's in and other times it's not. The core gameplay doesn't change, but the flow and outcomes gain greater variability. Final Fantasy XII is still turn-based despite its attempt to introduce a battle system that is more organic with the environment.
Ultimately it must be recognized that story is a device of gameplay pacing in the same vein as levels in shooters, platformers and such. One must also consider gameplay's constancy when judging a story's importance, as context alone doesn't equal a game. It's to be acknowledged also that story enjoyment has nothing to do with pacing, but that doesn't make it inherently bad. Deadly Premonition as a game with an entertaining story, but horrible gameplay has a story with an interesting plot, setting and characters. However, the game suffers from a poor x-axis control when aiming, enemies that are more a chore than a challenge on difficulties higher than easy, a slow door opening animation that frustrates those that don't know they can get through the doors faster by running into them, an unnecessarily long quick time event near the end and other things that would make the game a poor experience were one to play it without story.
I think they are both right and both should have won. Great Gameplay can keep me playing, but so can a good story. Put them both together, and I will love your game. Let me chop up ogres or giant robots, or dragons in a fun way, but give me a good reason to do that, and things work out well. I've played games with great stories, but less than great gameplay and games with great gameplay, but stupid or nonexistent stories.
The best of the Suikoden series? Are you kidding? I have played that game from start to finish like 5 times. There were times I started playing it just to play it without ever finishing it. I even bought the original Suikoden years later (back when Suikoden 3 was out) for $50, because I had finally found it and wanted to play it AND get the hero from it in Suikoden 2. Great game all around. I don't know why they felt they needed to mess with the battle system in the later games.Felipe Nurwandi said:I usually don't post my opinions in these kinds of debates, but this got me really fired up for some reason.
For me personally, I would choose the story. Think about it this way, which aspect keeps you going? For me, the points + leader boards are really addictive, and I understand why you would choose that; but with great story you're engaged in that world, and when you keep going it's a different feel of WHY you kept going.
I would also bring up Final Fantasy VII. That game is considered by its fans to be the best FF game, but I always thought the gameplay was crap. I thought so back in 1997, I still think so now; so why do people think it's the best? The answer to that question is the story.
P.S If you haven't play Suikoden II before, you're not allowed to argue
In my opinion, story is generally far more important than gameplay. But if I could only have one I would choose gameplay because I would rather read a book or watch a movie than deal with a horrific cesspool of gameplay.
I would also like to point out that if a game is essentially unplayable due to the terrible gameplay, then it doesn't matter how good the story is because you won't be able to see it.
I would also like to point out that if a game is essentially unplayable due to the terrible gameplay, then it doesn't matter how good the story is because you won't be able to see it.
Eh, I found the gameplay in 1 better than 2. Less monotonous, and with the ability to alpha strike rather than just use one ability over and over and over. 2 went way too far down the corridor shooter path to be entertaining, and its weak story left a lot to be desired of it. Each to their own I guess.Daystar Clarion said:
OT: Both need to be good for me to enjoy a game. I cannot enjoy a game that has a lot of gameplay, but absolutely balls context. Nor can I enjoy a game with a great story, but balls gameplay.
It doesn't matter that a game needs both gameplay and story; the show's called 'No Right Answer' after all.
I don't think I'll try to give a preference, but I will say that I find the way that gameplay can affect the storytelling interesting. Even QTEs can be used to resolve a situation which should have an entirely arbitrary winner. (see chainsaw duels in Gears of War)
I don't think I'll try to give a preference, but I will say that I find the way that gameplay can affect the storytelling interesting. Even QTEs can be used to resolve a situation which should have an entirely arbitrary winner. (see chainsaw duels in Gears of War)
Tough choice. On the one hand, games have survived and thrived without or with very poor stories for the life of the medium. On the other, ask any gamer about memorable moments and you'll probably get story parts of Mass Effect or Final Fantasy rather than another round of space invaders. Some game stories have taken on a life of their own. Metal Gear, Mortal Kombat, and Residient Evil thrive more on their continuing naritive than on the game play, while I hear very little talk of the gameplay to Mass Effect 3 over what characters will be there and what romance options are open. Others have their story shuffled to the side like Halo and Soul Calibur. No one cares if Mario can rescue the princess or Link can gather the Triforce, the games are just fun to play.
For myself, I've been gaming 30 years (our of 33) so at this point, story is very important to me as it is what keeps me from realizing much much of a new game I've player before in past ones. Without it, I go back to the days where I realized there was little difference between streets of rage and fianl Fight.
For myself, I've been gaming 30 years (our of 33) so at this point, story is very important to me as it is what keeps me from realizing much much of a new game I've player before in past ones. Without it, I go back to the days where I realized there was little difference between streets of rage and fianl Fight.
You know I really want to throw my hat in for Story because I can think of a thousand examples of Good story + Shit gameplay = Great game but I can't even drudge up one example of Shit story + Good gameplay = Shit game. I have a metric fuck ton of examples of games with bad stories but every single one of them has shit gameplay to go along with it. So I have to grudgingly agree with Kyle on this one.
Also I'm sick of people not knowing (Or acknowledging that they know) the difference between story and script Bioware does not tell good stories, they write good scripts.
Here's every single Bioware story. Ancient evil force threatens existence, everyman hero inevitably saves the day with a slew of loveable support characters. All the interesting stuff happens in dialog
Also I'm sick of people not knowing (Or acknowledging that they know) the difference between story and script Bioware does not tell good stories, they write good scripts.
Here's every single Bioware story. Ancient evil force threatens existence, everyman hero inevitably saves the day with a slew of loveable support characters. All the interesting stuff happens in dialog
I was hoping Kyle would go a bit more into the experience of playing a good game and Chris to go into some examples of good game stories via description. As it stands, the argument seemed a little devoid of examples.
Example! Mario Bros.: stupid story, but you turn on your Nintendo, blink, turn it off and ten hours have passed without you noticing.
On the other hand: Planescape: Torment. I maintain that I hate this game, but it has garnered a ridiculously rabid fan following even though its gameplay is sub-standard even for its time largely due to its experimental storytelling.
More examples like this would have helped round out the debate quite a bit.
Example! Mario Bros.: stupid story, but you turn on your Nintendo, blink, turn it off and ten hours have passed without you noticing.
On the other hand: Planescape: Torment. I maintain that I hate this game, but it has garnered a ridiculously rabid fan following even though its gameplay is sub-standard even for its time largely due to its experimental storytelling.
More examples like this would have helped round out the debate quite a bit.
Beating this guy:The_root_of_all_evil said:The story in this is?
Is the story. Which is actually impossible since he has a perfect score in that game.
Did a Story vs Gameplay episode just happen without mentioning Bastion?
Bastion is touted by many as one of the greats, is it because the gameplay is great? It's decent enough. But the story (and narration that doesn't become old nor repetitive) was what pushed it into toplists and into people hearts and minds.
But, as has been stated, a game with bad gameplay is doing it wrong. Even the best story needs gameplay that is tolerable at the very least.
A game can have little-to-no story (Mario, Minecraft, Pretty much every arcade game ever, etc) and still be great, in fact, a lot of games would probably be WORSE with any kind of story (Minecraft again).
You can't just go "Ok we have a great game here, lets tack on a god story and we'll have a classic". For a good story to work you have to build the gameplay to suit it, and vice-versa.
TLR? Gameplay wins by a tiny bit, but mainly because if you only want Story, you'd be better off watching a movie or reading a book, games have to have game in them.
And a game can have no story, and be fine, but a game can't have no gameplay... it doesn't count as a game at that point.
Bastion is touted by many as one of the greats, is it because the gameplay is great? It's decent enough. But the story (and narration that doesn't become old nor repetitive) was what pushed it into toplists and into people hearts and minds.
But, as has been stated, a game with bad gameplay is doing it wrong. Even the best story needs gameplay that is tolerable at the very least.
A game can have little-to-no story (Mario, Minecraft, Pretty much every arcade game ever, etc) and still be great, in fact, a lot of games would probably be WORSE with any kind of story (Minecraft again).
You can't just go "Ok we have a great game here, lets tack on a god story and we'll have a classic". For a good story to work you have to build the gameplay to suit it, and vice-versa.
TL
R? Gameplay wins by a tiny bit, but mainly because if you only want Story, you'd be better off watching a movie or reading a book, games have to have game in them.And a game can have no story, and be fine, but a game can't have no gameplay... it doesn't count as a game at that point.
Good call, but bending the rules somewhatKrion_Vark said:Beating this guy:
Is the story. Which is actually impossible since he has a perfect score in that game.
Extra Credits will find out where you live, summon Cuthulu and ask him what nightmares HE has for inspiration.