Poll: Can story save a bad game?

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Nope. A game that's bad when taken on its own merits is unsalvageable as a whole. You can make it more tolerable with its surroundings, but bad gameplay will ruin the work as a whole in the end; plot doesn't have the same effect on a video game.

Then again, I'd probably rank plot as the second least important aspect of a game, barely in front of the quality of the graphics. On the other hand, when summarizing a game with abysmal gameplay but a standout plot, the most likely summary you'll get from an unbiased point of view is that while that plot is noteworthy, the game as a whole is poor, while a game with excellent gameplay but a bad plot, or no plot at all, will likely garner reactions of "the story stinks/isn't there/whatever, but the game is so much fun to play, who cares".

 

[BreakfastMan]

Well, it really depends on A: What being a "bad game" means, B: What type of "bad" we are talking about, and C: How good of a story we are talking about, but I am generally inclined to say... Yes, a good story can redeem a game that otherwise fails in other aspects, Deadly Premonition being a prime example of how that can work.

 

[Tiamattt]

As previously said vague terms need defining, so I just going to presume that "bad" means REALLY bad, like I really regret buying this sort of bad.

The thing about video games is whenever we play them we're looking to, well play something. If we were looking for a good story we look for a book, or a movie, etc. But for video games we want to play for fun, and if the gameplay is bad that means we're obviously not having fun and will ditch it for something else. Not that story isn't important for video games since a good story can enhance the experience by 100, it's just if the gameplay sucks bad enough for people to not want to play it then the story really can't do anything to help. It would be a case of 100 multiplying a 0, you still end up with a zero.

To put it in another way I'm guessing we all had those few games where we weren't having fun, said to ourselves "I don't want to play this anymore" and never touch them again. Those games could've had great stories attached to them, but we weren't willing to continue doing something we don't want to just to find out.

I'm sure a a good story can save a mediocre game, like something tolerable but not great. But if the gameplay is bad enough to, well be called bad then chances are the story can't do much of anything for it.

 

[Evolutionary High]

I guess you guys have never heard of this game called Pathologic.

 

[el_kabong]

Whether or not a game with bad gameplay can be salvaged by a good story really comes down to re-enforcement intervals vs. time with an aversive stimulus.

The story can re-enforce players to slog through terrible gameplay (aversive) through two ways. The first is to do this through positive re-enforcement, where the bits of whatever story you get are a reward for having endured thus far and the promise of more encourages you to continue.

The second way is through negative re-enforcement. if the story is delivered outside of gameplay (ie - cutscene), that can be a negative re-enforcer in that, while you are in a cutscene, you aren't being subjected to the terrible gameplay (thus removing the aversive stimulus).

So, whether or not a player can still enjoy a game with awful gameplay is the direct result of how often and how much you are reinforced for putting up with the terrible gameplay. The more often you are rewarded and the more time spent away from the aversive stimulus, the more favorable the game will be.

Of course, truly great games will have little that's negative about them (ie - both gameplay and story are rewards). Any bad gaming experience can be salvaged with the reinforcement from story, but the worse the gameplay, the more likely that the "game" will look a lot more like a movie or book.

 

[Richard Keohane]

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: Yes, Planescape: Torment.

 

[Steve Dark]

Yes. Alan Wake had repetitive gameplay, average voice acting and slightly uncanny valleyesque animation. But by the Old Gods of Asgard I loved that story.

Also, Dear Esther is technically a terrible game. You have no control, no objective other than to walk from one end to the other, there's pretty much literally no GAME to it. But it is engaging and captivating, even if some might argue it's not actually a game.

 

[Bad Jim]

It depends on why the gameplay is bad. If the gameplay is merely bland then a good story can keep the game interesting. But if there are poor design choices and the gameplay is annoying/frustrating/broken then no story can save it.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

There's really no point in playing a point and click adventure for anything but the story unless your idea of a good game is clicking stuff.

 

[SlaveNumber23]

Yes, The Walking Dead has pretty terrible gameplay but a fantastic story.

 

[Ryotknife]

legacy of kain: defiance.

after Soul Reaver 1, the gameplay got worse and worse, but the story got better. So i would say yes a good story can save a game.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Yes. Alan Wake had repetitive gameplay, average voice acting and slightly uncanny valleyesque animation. But by the Old Gods of Asgard I loved that story.

Pretty much this for me, though Steve was a bit more rough on the game than I would've been. But it's entirely possible that I would've quit by the halfway point if not for wanting to see how the story progressed.

 

[Nieroshai]

It's the saving grace of many games I enjoy, like Final Fantasy. Not that the gameplay is universally bad, but JRPGs are so long, they need engaging stories or else they're a boring grind. Inversely, bad story can kill good gameplay. Dante's Inferno had tight hack-and-slash gameplay, what with its fusion of God of War and Devil May Cry fighting, was absolutely horrible because of repetitive visuals and butchered story (which might not matter so much to newcomers, but I studied classical literature).

 

[Frission]

"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.

I would say a game needs two things to be successful out of this list (At least for me):

1) Story
2) Gameplay
3) Re-playability ( Hard to define. Mount & Blade and FTL fit here)
4) Atmosphere, The World (Think Dark Souls)
5) Dialogue and The Characters
6) The music.

By far the music for "to the moon" was amazing.

 

[EmperorSubcutaneous]

According to most people Spec Ops: The Line had gameplay that was generic bordering on bad. But the story was so amazing that it ended up on many people's top-games-of-2012-so-far list.

I'd argue that the same thing happened with Silent Hill 2, if you count atmosphere as belonging to story. The gameplay in SH2 is terrible, but it's one of my favorite games of all time (and I'm definitely not alone there).

You could even say the same about most BioWare games. The gameplay has never been particularly special, but the story and characters are what people play them for.

 

[JnSchder]

Yes, sometimes, if not most of the time, they can make a mediocre game into an enjoyable game just by story alone. The gameplay in Silent Hill 2 isn't great but its the story and atmosphere that always draw me into it. Katawa Shoujo barely has any gameplay to speak of but its story brought me to tears. Planescape: Torment gameplay mainly consists of reading long walls of text and the combat is atrocious, but the writing and setting is so good that I can easily forgive the terrible gameplay.

 

[Frission]

double post nevermind

 

[Gatx]

It depends or it doesn't really. That also depends. Some people will, and already have argued in this thread that adventure games, visual novels, and maybe JRPGs (if they don't like turn based combat) have terrible gameplay but then there's also the argument that those aren't "games," just some kind of interactive experience.

According to most people Spec Ops: The Line had gameplay that was generic bordering on bad. But the story was so amazing that it ended up on many people's top-games-of-2012-so-far list.

It's arguably the point that the gameplay feel like a subpar shooter because it's being critical of shooters, but I guess it's a rare thing that you see a big budget game make it's game play a certain way in order to mean something rather than just trying to make the most enjoyable to play game outside of super artsy indie games.