Poll: Can story save a bad game?

[MorganL4]

Alpha Protocol.

Perfect example.... What got me through it was the way the roleplay/story elements keep you interested, despite the horrid controls.

On what platform did you play it? Because I played it last year on the PC and the controls were pretty okay for a third person shooter, not only that but I found story and mechanics to suit a game of that kind better than it did in Deus Ex: HR (which I played before that).

I also did PC.... the damned computer hacking bits and the getting shot at while trying to find that one part of the rock you are allowed to jump off....... I almost quit more times than I can count, but I was so engrossed in the story that I kept going.

 

[Arcadian Legend]

Considering that I think story isn't one of the most important factors in making or breaking a game, it'd have to be a pretty fucking amazing one.

 

[Entitled]

No, because story is part of gameplay, so if it has good story, it can't be bad to begin with, and it doesn't need saving.

 

[Saulkar]

As long as the game is playable (you can get from point A to point B without breaking your keyboard or a crash every couple of seconds) and the story is good enough then at this point it is all up to the individual to decide. The better the story the better the chances.

 

[Skin]

Yes. Witcher 2 prime example.

How the hell is The Witcher 2 a bad game? While I must admit I would have preferred a CRPG combat system to an ARPG one, it isn't a particularly bad ARPG in my eyes.

Entertaining combat that turns into a terrible rolling snooze fest and the fetch-questyness of it all was a great undoing for me.

Fair enough. Personally I found higher difficulties fixed the combat for me since you actually have to use potions, traps and signs intelligently. That gave it a lot more depth. But I have no idea what you mean by fetch-questyness. Maybe in the second chapter, but other than that its hardly fetchquest happy.

The Vergen sequence *shudders*... Oh God, the Vergen sequence...

Combat was challenging, that is, until you got a few points into Quen and realized you could win the game without rolling around for an hour straight, and the fact that the best fight in the game (Letho) was in the first act... Kind of made things less interesting. Yeh there was a dragon, but who fucking cares... It was boring and repetitive and so darn contrived.

I literally only played it through a second time to get the other story, and even that was a waste. Fuck Iorveth, Roche 4 life.

 

[mohit9206]

i voted for maybe depends.. i am a sucker for good story in games..
for me a game is playable only if it has a good story (except racers ofcourse).
good gameplay coupled with a good story is what i love about gaming.
but poor gameplay is very frequent in games that have a good story..
personally i can put up with a game that has mediocre gameplay if it has a great story..
but however if a game has really terrible gameplay, or is too hard, or has too many bugs or glitches etc then even a good story is enough to make me play the game.

 

[Driekan]

Most of the example I'm seeing thrown in here aren't really bad games. They're average, mediocre, a few of them even ok. Story made them great.

An outright bad game cannot be saved by story.

Put a great story on top of the original Dungeon Lords (No patches, no nothing), and it still will be bad.

For that sake, put a mind-blowing story that then fades to a blue screen, and you still end up with just a blue screen.

 

[DugMachine]

If the gameplay is upsetting me and I'm not having a good time then no, no amount of storytelling will get me to change my mind. Case in point, Mass Effect. I thought the first one had a shit combat system that played like ass and don't even get me started on the vehicle and planet exploration.

The next 2 were a great improvement with great stories. The story in the first one was brilliant as well but the gameplay, like I said.

 

[craddoke]

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: Yes, Planescape: Torment.

I think this is a prime example of why we need a better definition for "bad" to answer this question - the game-play in Torment is not bad, it's just sub-optimal. Sub-optimal game-play coupled with the greatest story in a computer game (Ever) works. Bad game-play with the greatest story in a computer game (Ever) .... well, that probably works too. Just not as well.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Sometimes but at the end of the day you have to endure the bad game. If I want a story I will go watch a film or something I hate all the pausing, stopping and starting in modern interactive films...er games. ><

 

[Driekan]

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: Yes, Planescape: Torment.

I think this is a prime example of why we need a better definition for "bad" to answer this question - the game-play in Torment is not bad, it's just sub-optimal. Sub-optimal game-play coupled with the greatest story in a computer game (Ever) works. Bad game-play with the greatest story in a computer game (Ever) .... well, that probably works too. Just not as well.

Exactly. I personally consider Planescape: Torment to be game-wise a pretty good game. They made good, creative use of the D&D system in a lot of regions, and a generally great implementation of it.

Imagine Planescape: Torment's story, only the game you play in order to be exposed to it is 1982's ET. Does not sound like a good game to me.

 

[Twilight_guy]

No. If Superman 64 had the greatest story even it'd still be called a shit game. It'd be a shit game with a fantastic story.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

If the story is ridiculously good, yes, it can save a bad game, I'd say.

 

[Draxz]

Final Fantasy X was essentially a bad game... Especially since every 5 steps made me fall into an enemy, which was persistently annoying. The reason why I completed it though was because I was pulled into the story. This game was new to me, the story was new. It had pulled me in deeply because I hadn't seen graphics so in-detail at the time. Either way, the turn based - battle phase just didn't really do it for me. After-all, I already had Pokémon and that was going great on it's own. FFX-2 changed that by having a regenerate power system, where you had to recharge, but that seemed to lose some merit when I realized I was chasing after random peoples' movie albums. Oh well...

Silent Hill, that was rather annoying. The dodging kicking, somewhat bad camera view and terrible aim-assist... Well, that was a down-side. But the story was compelling, it pulled me in. As a 8 year-old boy, I was hidden under my blanket, as I ran into walls and jumping a mile when something appeared in the fog. The whole experience of being alone was very relatable to me. I felt like I really cared for getting Cheryl back and finding James' wife (of who's name I do not remember). I felt responsible. Not only because I was young and that seemed morally correct. I played the game not so long ago, as I repurchased the PS and PS2 games (for those platforms) and found myself feeling a great amount of nostalgia, as I could still relate to that loneliness and all these new emotions I never really had. Anxiety, depression, self-hate and a lot of distrust. It all played rather well. Back when I was younger, I always played easy but this time I played hard! The puzzles were just as mind-boggling and intimate for me. So I suppose on a 50% bad game, on gameplay... Yes, it can be saved.

Now for a newer game... Resident Evil 6. Now, from my ex-boyfriend's opinion, all I can gather is that the story is really gripping and full you in deeply. Though, after 18 hours of playing it with him, I found myself mostly watching him doing everything, as I endless hit quick-time events and found myself with popcorn, believing I was watching some kind of interactive movie. Where I can somewhat change the story-line. So I suppose, "Maybe" on this note. I never really understood how everything got how it was or began it's place. Infact, I never understood who the Bad Guy was. I kind of felt like I was playing Metal Gear Solid 4 at parts.

Speaking of which, who the fuck is Ada?! Okay... Now I have to say NO.

 

[BrotherRool]

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: Yes, Planescape: Torment.

Oh darn yeah. Wish I'd read the comments before I actually voted. Gameplay sucked in that..
except actually I guess only the combat sucked, the gameplay for Torment was still brilliant. Just the gameplay involved running round a Brothel for an hour uncovering secrets, collecting items, talking, building up relations. That was all gameplay. (story also rocked as well as RPG non-combat gameplay though. Hence best game of all time instead of just good game)


Also for the Dear Esther/Heavy Rain affairs. I think it can't be stressed enough that it's not the story that's selling those games. It's the gameplay that involves telling a story. Sitting down and just hearing Dear Esther narrated is fairly boring, In fact it doesn't even make sense. It's playing Dear Esther that makes the story really work, although it contains no elements we'd traditionally associate with a game. Same with Heavy Rain. The story was crud, but the method of telling a story through gameplay was so intriguing it completely saved the story (not as in made it bearable, but saved it as in made it good).

Okay I reckon this is my opinion. Story can make an average game excel. There are plenty of plain games that have been made by their stories. But even moreso if there's boring traditional gameplay, even bad traditional gameplay, alternative gameplay that sells a story through game has the power to make that game amazing.

 

[mattttherman3]

Yes, Alpha Protocol being the best example, I mean when you shoot people, and the reticle is on the center of the ennemy's torso, and the bullet MISSES MULTIPLE TIMES, the story better be good. GOD AWEFUL gameplay. Dragon Age 2 is also an example for me, lets go to the same dungeon 8 times, yeah thats kool, you would think people would stop holding up there after the fourth group was found massacerd.