Some games have really bad gameplay but I sometimes play games for its story not gameplay anyone ever play a game they liked that had bad points but a really good story?
Poll: Can story save a bad game?
- Thread starter Ryanrulez5
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Can a good story save a truly bad game? For me, probably not. There's no way a story can make bad gameplay any more bearable.
Can a good story save an average or mediocre game? Definitely. Look at Psychonauts. It's an average platformer at best, but the story, characters, and environments are more than enough to make it one of my all-time favorite games.
Can a good story save an average or mediocre game? Definitely. Look at Psychonauts. It's an average platformer at best, but the story, characters, and environments are more than enough to make it one of my all-time favorite games.
"To the Moon" was debatable as to whether or not it was even a GAME, but the story was so unbelievably good it was my favorite game of that year. So I'll say "yeah". It'd have to be a REALLY good story though.
If they gameplay is truly broken or just so unappealing then no, I don't believe a good story can make up for it, but if there gameplay is just uninspired or boring then I definitely think it can shine a more positive light. Indigo Prophecy is a decent example and was at least trying to be unique, and while the story did go kind of stupid towards the end I was never bored playing it. Overall though I prefer it when a good story compliments good gameplay and it shouldn't have to be one or the other.
Maybe, I guess. But I can't think of an example off hand. There's plenty of games I've found to be a bit bland on gameplay, with the story adding that little edge to keep me playing where otherwise I might not have done. I can't specifically think of a game I thought was outright bad but saved by the story, though I wouldn't rule it out as impossible.
It depends what you mean by "bad."
"Bad" is vague and could encompass a wide spectrum from "not great" all the way to "blisteringly horrible."
I do think that story/aesthetics/atmosphere can easily save a game with gameplay that is "not great," "average," "mediocre," or "occasionally frustrating." Examples of this would be the above-mentioned Psychonauts and Indigo Prophecy. Both of those games, gameplay-wise are not great; not horrible, but nothing to write home about. But in terms of story and atmosphere, I found them both quite compelling.
Another example that I would name would be Bioshock. The hybrid/shooter gameplay works well, but it isn't really innovative or special by shooter standards, especially considering how much Bioshock copies from its spiritual prequel, System Shock 2. However, the atmosphere and story of that game carry it to remarkable heights and it is one of my all-time favorite game experiences.
On the other hand, it's entirely possible that the gameplay will be so agonizing or so boring to get through that the players distaste for the gameplay will outweigh their desire to explore more of the game world and experience more of the story. No examples of this come to mind for me personally, but I have a friend who hates turn-based combat systems so much that he can't bring himself play through any turn-based RPGs. He tries, and he takes me at my word on games that have great stories, but his dislike of turn-based combat systems outweighs any compelling aspects of the world or story.
So I guess your question is best answered with two other questions:
-Just HOW good is the story?
-Just HOW bad is the gameplay?
And because "good" and "bad" are subjective to the player, you're going to get a lot different takes on a given game, but there are some games that stand out a lot. Psychonauts is a popular one. Many people, myself included have expressed frustrations with the gameplay while saying that the world and story completely excuses it.
"Bad" is vague and could encompass a wide spectrum from "not great" all the way to "blisteringly horrible."
I do think that story/aesthetics/atmosphere can easily save a game with gameplay that is "not great," "average," "mediocre," or "occasionally frustrating." Examples of this would be the above-mentioned Psychonauts and Indigo Prophecy. Both of those games, gameplay-wise are not great; not horrible, but nothing to write home about. But in terms of story and atmosphere, I found them both quite compelling.
Another example that I would name would be Bioshock. The hybrid/shooter gameplay works well, but it isn't really innovative or special by shooter standards, especially considering how much Bioshock copies from its spiritual prequel, System Shock 2. However, the atmosphere and story of that game carry it to remarkable heights and it is one of my all-time favorite game experiences.
On the other hand, it's entirely possible that the gameplay will be so agonizing or so boring to get through that the players distaste for the gameplay will outweigh their desire to explore more of the game world and experience more of the story. No examples of this come to mind for me personally, but I have a friend who hates turn-based combat systems so much that he can't bring himself play through any turn-based RPGs. He tries, and he takes me at my word on games that have great stories, but his dislike of turn-based combat systems outweighs any compelling aspects of the world or story.
So I guess your question is best answered with two other questions:
-Just HOW good is the story?
-Just HOW bad is the gameplay?
And because "good" and "bad" are subjective to the player, you're going to get a lot different takes on a given game, but there are some games that stand out a lot. Psychonauts is a popular one. Many people, myself included have expressed frustrations with the gameplay while saying that the world and story completely excuses it.
Xenogears and Chrono Cross are good examples of games where the gameplay was mediocre (and almost entirely missing, in the case of disk 2 of Xenogears), but the story was interesting and unique enough to keep people playing.
Although given the choice, I'd still play Chrono Trigger over Chrono Cross, and Xenoblade over Xenogears. But then again, Chrono Trigger and Xenoblade are great stories in their own right.
Although given the choice, I'd still play Chrono Trigger over Chrono Cross, and Xenoblade over Xenogears. But then again, Chrono Trigger and Xenoblade are great stories in their own right.
As others have said, a good story can't "save" a game but it can make a less than great game palatable.
I dont care about mainly story games because the gameplay tends to be dull.
Prime example: Dragon Age. FUCK YOU.
All of bioware games I imagine. But mass effect at least apparently has some nice music and action here and there, Dragon Age was a big TROLL GAME and I was fooled by it.
The one except is Ace Attorney, if we even count it as a game anyways. But if it does, then its one of the best games I have played so far, and thats funny considerating the game could be completed by a dedicated 3 year old by just plain mashing the "A" button and the directional arrows...
I thing Ace Attorney and IWBTG are some of the greatest games out there. Funny thing that too. They QUITE dont have anything to do with each other, LOL
Prime example: Dragon Age. FUCK YOU.
All of bioware games I imagine. But mass effect at least apparently has some nice music and action here and there, Dragon Age was a big TROLL GAME and I was fooled by it.
The one except is Ace Attorney, if we even count it as a game anyways. But if it does, then its one of the best games I have played so far, and thats funny considerating the game could be completed by a dedicated 3 year old by just plain mashing the "A" button and the directional arrows...
I thing Ace Attorney and IWBTG are some of the greatest games out there. Funny thing that too. They QUITE dont have anything to do with each other, LOL
Fable III was an absolute chore on reflection, but had a fairly engaging storyline. But no, it didn't save it from being a bad game really. I don't think I would play it again.
I sort of want to hug you right now, because most the time, I'm the only one that thinks that then get attacked by all the BioWare fanboys (well, not so much anymore after Mass Effect 3 came out). I would say Dragon Age is an example of how story can't save a game, but the story was about as bland and boring as the poor excuse for combat that the game had.aguspal said:
Portal 2 had an ok story and was hilarious, but the "puzzles" took little to no thought to solve. It took me longer to figure out where to go then how to get there.
I'd say it maybe depends. I have yet to see it ever happen. The Walking Dead came to mind, but again, it isn't really a bad game. It isn't trying to be much more than a point and click adventure, and the story is good.
See, I'm usually a huge gameplay-all-the-way guy, but I wouldn't say To The Moon was a "bad game", gameplay-wise. The gameplay was fine, there just was veeeeeery little of it. A minimalistic game isn't a bad game.BloatedGuppy said:
To The Moon's story didn't save the game. The game didn't need saving (though obviously nobody would have given a damn if the story was bleh).
but man... To The Moon. Oh! oh, River *sniff*
Like others here I have to say no, it will not save a truly bad game.
But a great story will certainly save a mediocre game. I'll add Alan Wake to the examples here.
But a great story will certainly save a mediocre game. I'll add Alan Wake to the examples here.
It all depends on the game and how the game fails.
If the game is function-able with gameplay that is meh but has a great story then it can bring it all together to make a game that you atleast want to play though.
Games that are Broken and are unplayable due to bad coding, mechanics or simple balancing cannot really be saved no matter how good the story is.
If the game is function-able with gameplay that is meh but has a great story then it can bring it all together to make a game that you atleast want to play though.
Games that are Broken and are unplayable due to bad coding, mechanics or simple balancing cannot really be saved no matter how good the story is.