Poll: What is more important, action or a good story?

[Cobalt180]

When playing any video game, whether it's RTS, FPS, RPG, or whatever games are your favorite, how do you recommend it to your friends? Obviously you can't simply say, "it's an awesome game, go get it", because when you're asked that, you either go out and buy the game, or you don't. So, potential money issues aside, don't you ask your friend why you should bother getting whatever game they promote?

Some people will say that the multi-player maps are huge, which I would counter with: "but that doesn't mean the multi-player is good, it just means you have a lot of space." Other times they'll say, "you can use this gun and change it to match how you play." I'm impressed by that one, but I have to ask, "How many fights do I have to win in order to unlock it?" they mention that the game has perks to suit your play, to which I respond, "Are those perks balanced, or do I have to spend all my time equipping counter-perks so then I feel like I have as much a chance as everyone else?"

Games with multi-player focus (i.e. Lost Planet 2) generally skimp on their campaign, making the core focus the action in a game. I personally like a good story.

I've seen trailers of games where you just run through brown environments killing Nazi's, Soviets, or just Communists of some kind, maybe America is being invaded by someone, then I see game like Halo, like Turok,etc.

Many poeple wouldn't touch those games with a sterilized bayonet that shoots lightning. But I have to ask, Halo is fighting aliens in space, who've decided that humanity is stupid and so are their froofy guns and pinkness. Whereas Turok is just a fun concept, Space Marines on a Dinosaur planet. It might just be me, but what do you value in a game? Do you like stories? Or do you play solely for the multi-player bloodbaths?

 

[No_Remainders]

Both are important.

See, the thing is, while having a game that has the best game-play but lacks any substance, you might have fun in small bursts, but ultimately you'll wonder why you're there.

On the other hand, if the controls are too horrendously ham-handed, but the story is among the best ever, you'll find it difficult to keep up because you keep wondering how the fuck you're meant to play a game.

I enjoy games that have a nice balance between the two. Sure, I play CoD, but I won't play for more than 30 or 40 minutes at a time, after which I'll go back to something with more substance.

 

[Hungry Donner]

For an FPS or RTS, that depends. Here I'd say gameplay is paramount and if you've got that everything else is icing on the cake. My favorite FPSs are No On Lives Forever 1 & 2, and its largely because of the excellent characters, story, and humor. On the other hand I'm having a blast with Team Fortress 2 right now and here the characters and story (and even much of the humor) is kept peripheral.

It isn't surprising that NOLF focuses on singleplayer while TF2 is basically multiplayer exclusive.

For RPGs I'd say atmosphere is the most important, followed by characters and/or story.

 

[TheKruzdawg]

Both are important.

See, the thing is, while having a game that has the best game-play but lacks any substance, you might have fun in small bursts, but ultimately you'll wonder why you're there.

On the other hand, if the controls are too horrendously ham-handed, but the story is among the best ever, you'll find it difficult to keep up because you keep wondering how the fuck you're meant to play a game.

I enjoy games that have a nice balance between the two. Sure, I play CoD, but I won't play for more than 30 or 40 minutes at a time, after which I'll go back to something with more substance.

I agree with you. For me, it kind of depends on my mood. There are some days where I just want to shoot some people I don't know, so I go play CoD for 1-2 hours and then I'm good. Other times I want to get really invested in a story, so I boot up Mass Effect or Dragon Age. Ideally, I'd like a game that can balance both: it has enough story, and a one that is well written enough, to draw me in and make me want to keep playing to find out more. I also want it to be fun to play for extended periods of time. For me, Mass Effect and Dragon Age nail that in both categories.

 

[SoopaSte123]

I like a good story as much as the next guy, but gameplay is what's most important to me. Single-player gameplay. Bad gameplay and a good story? Well too bad, you're not getting purchased. Decent gameplay and a good story? Sure, I'll buy you, Mr. Red Dead Redemption. Good gameplay and a bad story? Sure, I'll buy you, too, Señor Just Cause 2. Good gameplay and a good story? Well, you're one of my absolute favorites, then, Miss Metal Gear Solid 3.

 

[NinjaDuckie]

Both are important.

QFT.

The thing is, different people are obviously looking out for different games, and different games appeal to me in different ways. Just Cause 2 is an example of a game that gets by solely on action (because let's face it, the story, dialogue and interconnections are so very kitsch and cheesy that it's almost laughing at itself). It has enough crazed stunts and explosions going on that it doesn't really need to rely on its story - a massive improvement from the first game, which, suffering from poor PS2 graphics and unbalanced, repetitive action, got me to ignore it for ages even if it did have a fairly good story.

I completed Just Cause 2 on the PS3, and was prepared to collect all the pickups and such before our PS3 died. The action can be just as fulfilling as the storyline.

Most of the games I play for the combination of good storytelling and varying, cool action. Games that successfully manage that for me are Arkham Asylum, Conviction, Just Cause 2, Ass Creed Bro, etc.

Some games I play have neither action nor storyline, though - namely Minecraft and the Sims, both for the building and the creativity. I suppose they can be chalked down to Interior Design and Architecture rather than videogaming though.

 

[TheJoojo]

Even if a good story is present, if the action isn't good, first impressions might not be as good as they could be. I don't like the argument "you have to play it X hours until it gets good".

However, if only good action is present, the game might be playable all the way to the end but it will probably be pretty forgettable.

 

[The Virgo]

Both. A good story without a lot of action is bound to be boring and a game with lots of action but a bad story is bound to be a pointless exercise in killing AI algorithms.

I do like MYST though. I never could figure out the damn game, but I loved those pre-rendered environments and the music.

 

[orangeapples]

gameplay, action, ambiance, story are all equally important when it comes to games.

my best example is Prince of Persia 2008. The gameplay was unique and really fun, lots of action, the world it created the look, the design the technique were all great, but I found the story so bang my head on the wall stupid that I would force myself to play, just to get to the ending to be done with it and never have to come back.

I am currently having a very similar experience with Final Fantasy XII. The cutscenes are all very fleshed out (a bit too long), the world is very unique and quirky, the look of the game is top notch and the story is very intriguing. But the gameplay is so boring. I am literally just watching battle after battle while the game plays itself. the last few boss fights I literally put down the controller, got up, made something to eat, came back, sat down and watched my characters fight while I enjoy a sandwich.

I also have a different opinion on the FPS genre. The online multiplayer is the story. Very basic and loose, but still for me it counts.

 

[Cobalt180]

I wouldn't say that games like Minecraft are "Architecture and Interior Design" games, because as much as it's an element there, if it's fun to play, then I'd qualify it as a game. Minecraft boasts an impressive following because of the sheer level of customization and the level of replay value it has. It stimulates player creativity to find solutions to problems and lets you have fun along the way, it's a great game that has been able to stand up to make itself known for the fact that it relies on how the player plays it, rather than create a path for the player to follow.

 

[meticadpa]

Action.

Look at things like Painkiller: mindless fun, but what the hell is the story even about? The story's just something there to give a vague excuse for all the mindless violence.

But no matter how good a game's story is, if it's not fun to play, I'm not going to play it.

Good games of course have both in equal measure, and they are both important to most games. It's just that not all games need a good story in order for them to be fun or enjoyable.

 

[Cobalt180]

Games like Final Fantasy have seemed to become more and more cinematic as they come and go. I've played remakes of Final Fantasy (1) and Final Fantasy 4, but I never felt they took away from the action to showcase their graphics. I would raise the point that maybe the Computer-Generated cutscenes make the game feel less like a game than a movie that you have to move the character through to get to the next scene, but I've stopped playing those games as a whole. The stories keep getting more and more alike, with teenage-appearance kids fight to end an evil authority while fighting alone. It seems like that's all FF has been for the past few games.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Both are important.

See, the thing is, while having a game that has the best game-play but lacks any substance, you might have fun in small bursts, but ultimately you'll wonder why you're there.

On the other hand, if the controls are too horrendously ham-handed, but the story is among the best ever, you'll find it difficult to keep up because you keep wondering how the fuck you're meant to play a game.

I enjoy games that have a nice balance between the two. Sure, I play CoD, but I won't play for more than 30 or 40 minutes at a time, after which I'll go back to something with more substance.

QFT... and /thread on first post.

I get pissed off with bad games with good set pieces because I'd just want to play the set pieces and fuck everything else.

It's less the case with the vice-versa situation, but it's still annoying as hell when an otherwise good game feels flat when it comes to the fighting. But I remind myself that the story's good and get on with it.

 

[geK0]

While I enjoy the stories in some games, it is unnecessary. That being said, I do enjoy a lot of single player games, but story needs to take a back seat to game play.

 

[NinjaDuckie]

I wouldn't say that games like Minecraft are "Architecture and Interior Design" games, because as much as it's an element there, if it's fun to play, then I'd qualify it as a game. Minecraft boasts an impressive following because of the sheer level of customization and the level of replay value it has. It stimulates player creativity to find solutions to problems and lets you have fun along the way, it's a great game that has been able to stand up to make itself known for the fact that it relies on how the player plays it, rather than create a path for the player to follow.

Yes, I guess that's a valid set of points. Everyone plays differently, and some people see attempts at emulating the 'Classic' mode gameplay with unlimited items solely for building as 'cheating' or breaking the game, whereas I see it as more fun than the 'Survival' mode. I've always had an affinity for building and house/level design, though, so I guess that mode suits me better than it does hardcore survivalists used to fighting games etc.

 

[thenamelessloser]

Story is important but action really isn't. Also in some games story is the gameplay such as Planescape: Torment.

That being said gameplay is still very important but action isn't important at all. I mean, Gabriel Knight, Monkey Island, etc are all very fun games without any action really.

It would interesting if developers were pushed harder to have fun gameplay without it being action based.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

That being said gameplay is still very important but action isn't important at all.

I'm pretty sure in this case the OP used 'action' but meant 'gameplay'

 

[badgersprite]

For my tastes, generally a good story. Action often becomes generic and meaningless, and, if you don't give a rats ass about why they're fighting, then the action won't be terribly exciting, because it has no purpose and you don't really care whether your heroes succeed or not.

I'm not saying games have to have the best storytelling ever in order to make their action work; the story just needs to be competent, and the action has to be relevant to it somehow. Generally speaking, that is. Open world sandbox games where you make your own fun by going batshit insane and blowing shit up are the obvious counterpoint.