Support NeoGAF

[TWILT]

Gameplay is far more important than story or plot, but absolutely terrible story/plot/dialogue/characters can utterly destroy any desire to play for me. I don't really need much motivation to do battles/solve puzzles/perform whatever mechanic, so even average or forgettable stories are fine. It's when they are insultingly bad that I cease to enjoy it anymore.

I'm pretty much the same. I mean, for example, take a game like Tales of Graces f. I enjoyed Tales of Graces' combat gameplay for the most part, but the story and characters are so awful (though that's not the only problems I had with the game to be fair) that I don't know how I even finished it.

For the most part, I'm actually kind of cool with a mediocre story if the characters are good.

 

[Tesseract]

I laughed in real life.

You think those games are on the level of great storytelling in movies or books?

i think pst is the best story ever. i'll fight you.

 

[radioheadrule83]

False dichotomy.

Not really. Some games don't need a story, I wouldn't want developers to strive for both when they don't have to. Story should only be important in games that exist to tell stories. And even then, for me, gameplay is more important... I'd rather watch a competent film than play a shit game with a story that is only good by game industry standards.

 

[Freezie KO]

Would you rather play a game that its only redeeming quality its gameplay, or a game that the only redeeming quality it story? (Explain why you selected that response.)

Gameplay. Cinema or novels are much better media for delivering an authorial vision and narrative, so the best game story can likely never live up to the best film story. There's a fundamental dilemma when delivering an artistic vision while simultaneously giving the player control.

And even in games that exchange cutscene/gameplay/cutscene/gameplay with that formula, there's no accounting for standard narrative tools like pacing (for twenty hour games) and character development (when the character can do whatever the player deems).

Not to mention that most game writers are on the level of high school composition.

Could you understand why someone else would choose the other option?

I understand insofar as I "understand" that people think Lord of the Rings and superhero movies are great cinema. Some people just have bad taste.

I know that's abrasive, but you asked.

Does it bother you when someone doesn’t understand your points of view on the matter?

Not really. It's the internet, dude.

 

[Beatrix]

I prefer games with good gameplay. In my opinion that is what truly makes a game. A game with a good story and only that, is dull to me since it had no replay value. It's like watching a movie over and over. At least with good gameplay/mechanics/etc. I can replay it.

For example, WoW's lore is ridiculous now but I still enjoy the mechanics and gameplay for the most part. So it's still enjoyable for me to play even though the story is trash. The new DMC is a prime example, story was terrible but I was able to play it because of decent gameplay.

While games like FF6-12 and other classic JPRGs have decent/good stories but I can't play them again purely for the story since I already ran through it. The gameplay remains the same and lacks variation to me.

I can totally understand why someone would prefer story over gameplay, but it doesn't make much sense to me. If you wanted a more plot driven experience wouldn't you rather watch a movie/tv series? And isn't the point of video games is to "play" them? To each his own.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

If a game's only redeeming value is a linear story, then I see it failing as a game, no matter how good the story might be. If, however, the story is non-linear and can be shaped by the player, then that's perfectly fine and the rest of the gameplay doesn't have to be particularly good - in fact, some of my favorite games are like that. As long as there's plenty of meaningful interactivity, I'm set.

Games with great gameplay and crappy or nonexistent stories are perfectly fine as well.

 

[RooMHM]

Story? It's even less important than graphics.

 

[pargonta]

this thread title makes me twitch..
it should be gameplay <3 story. we shouldnt draw lines in the sand, but instead trace blueprints for a better tomorrow! let's grow video games as a fictional medium together!

and, video games ARE a fictional medium. they are also other things, i.e. just basic games and toys, but i care deeply about them as a fictional medium.

I often play games for music et al.

the only reason i rented kingdoms of amalur reckoning last febraury was to hear Grant Kirkhope's music.

The only reason i want to play halo 4 is for retros art design, for example.

 

[DamnTheMan]

I don't think it's as black and white as the OP wants it to be, depending on the game either or being good will suffice. The walking dead has virtually no gameplay mechanics besides QTE's, which on the xbox360 are hard to complete due to framerate lag, but I still enjoyed it because of the incredible story. So yes, I will play games with a good story but shitty gameplay, and yes I will play games with great gameplay and a shitty/non-existent story.

 

[raven777]

It really depends on games...but mostly I focus on the story..

For RPGs, my desire to play is desire to progress the story, rather than having fun exploring or fighting with monsters.

There are exceptions like fighting games or sports games, or even games like Dark Souls or Monster Hunter where story was of less importance.

And when I play Visual Novel? gameplay is almost irrelevant.

 

[Hakai]

Gameplay.

Story is nice and all, but it doesn't matter, I mean it's a game, as long as it is fun to play and challenging it's fine.

The other way around is really tidious and annoying to me, my main objective with a game is to play it and have fun, so if the gameplay is broke, I rather watch a good movie for a good story, than support the bad gameplay for it.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Freezie is better articulating what I want to say regarding pacing, narrative flow and quality of writing...

Game directors that have fantasist dreams of being film directors, and delusions of grandeur, have simply marred some otherwise reasonably good gaming experiences for me... the only time I've been perversely happy with bad storytelling foisted upon me has been when its so terrible that it's funny (see B-Movie efforts like: House of the Dead Overkill, the Conduit 2, shooting the President in Resident Evil 6, etc)

My drop off in interest in JRPGs coincided with two things: the death of text-box dialogue, and having less time on my hands. Some games do spoken dialogue so badly it completely shatters any immersion I would have otherwise had. People on here raved about Xenoblade, and I tried to play it. I think it has some of the worst voice acting I've ever heard. It's no worse than most other RPGs either.

Metal Gear cinematics and codecs are fun when there's some biped robot / genetics / betrayal drama, but otherwise -- you're just being talked to death by utter nonsense. Pseudo-intellectual, naval-gazing narcissism. STFU Drebin.

I'm not overly impressed by the likes of GTA IV, LA Noire, Heavy Rain and the upcoming Beyond either... and I don't like the PR/Marketing these guys do where they try and tell me how they're doing something noble, or trying to elevate the art. Having pundits call GTA IV's writing oscar-worthy was laughable.

GTA and LA Noire at least had me interested going in. I liked the idea of experiencing those gangster / gumshoe stories and genre tropes in game form, but beyond that -- the idea of 'playing' some creative-graduate's terrible story is going to fucking bore me unless he also adds some fun or novelty. Give me fun, and you can do what you want.

I'd be perfectly happy for all gameplay filler and 30 minute cut-scenes to die. If I want passive storytelling I'll go watch a movie made by a studio that's hired some decent script writers, editors and talent!

The Uncharted and Batman games set a pretty good bar for dialogue and production in games, but fun comes first. It has to!

 

[FordGTGuy]

I would play neither.

 

[Eliciel]

there is a simple rule to prove which one is more important:

Can a game without any gameplay at all exist? I guess not, at least it's not a game anymore

Can a game without any story at all exist? Sure. But then again isn't there always a "story" in the closest meaning of "story". If you play tower defense the story is to defend your castle from the attacks of the evil...if you play tennis the story is that you want to become the worlds greatest tennis player.

I guess a game can't be a game without having any gameplay at all because then you could call it a movie.

 

[Paper Sparrow]

Would you rather play a game that its only redeeming quality its gameplay, or a game that the only redeeming quality it story? (Explain why you selected that response.)

Depends on the genre. I could play a FPS or a sim game with a terrible story, as long as the gameplay did not suck. RPGs on the other hand need to have at least a decent story to keep me engaged. Visual novels need to be good to great in the story department(for obvious reasons). I suppose some genres rely on story more than others.

Could you understand why someone else would choose the other option?

Yeah, my friend can't play a game without a decent narrative involved. My brother could care less about the plot.

Does it bother you when someone doesn’t understand your points of view on the matter?

Not really. Just because I hate horror movies doesn't mean everyone should.

 

[Foxtastical]

there is a simple rule to prove which one is more important:

Can a game without any gameplay at all exist? I guess not, at least it's not a game anymore

Can a game without any story at all exist? Sure. But then again isn't there always a "story" in the closest meaning of "story". If you play tower defense the story is to defend your castle from the attacks of the evil...if you play tennis the story is that you want to become the worlds greatest tennis player.

I guess a game can't be a game without having any gameplay at all because then you could call it a movie.

The Jesper Juul argument.

 

[Perfect Blue]

Gameplay, an entertaining story (that doesn't mean "good") is an added bonus.

 

[Freezie KO]

My drop off in interest in JRPGs coincided with two things: the death of text-box dialogue, and having less time on my hands. Some games do spoken dialogue so badly it completely shatters any immersion I would have otherwise had.

This is a perfect example of how gamemakers want to be filmmakers, yet don't respect the craft of filmmaking. Performance directing is an actual skill. Working with actors is a skill.

Compare directors with intense rehearsal processes, even within the animated film world, with games. Directors spend years casting sometimes. Some demand the actors actually interact with each other instead of simply recording their lines in isolation (Toy Story). Gore Verbinski on Rango actually had a plan to get the best performances from a strong cast.

Meanwhile in games, devs get their fanboy favorites, throw them in a booth, and some programmer (okay, audio recordist) tells them to recite their lines. It's a shit gig and actors treat it like a shit gig.

And that's just one element of a huge overall process that doesn't even touch on foundational issues such as auteur vs player.

 

[Foxtastical]

And that's just one element of a huge overall process that doesn't even touch on foundational issues such as auteur vs player.

Wait, what? Like in the idea that the auteur is putting their vision above, in terms of priority, the perceived desires of their audience?

 

[AppleSmack]

Gameplay >>> story in any game that is actually worth $60

 

[cartman414]

I don't get argument "game stories are not on par with literature". They don't have to be. Movies aren't too, just reminding. It's other medium. Like you tell story by visual means mostly in movies, games should tell story using gameplay and interactivity first and foremost. I understand it's a hard thing to do, but at least it's worth trying. We don't need two filmindustries, or alternative literature, we need good games as games, good movies as movies, and good literature to read, no?

The thing is, game stories are practically the bottom rung. They exist in a media based on interactivity on a secondary basis.

Oh also FF7 is masterpiece for kids or adults
It actually blends good story into a game so nicely that I want to see it repeated for last 15 years. Still waiting!

FF7 had good ideas but flawed execution. FF6 came much closer.

FF5 may get a lot of flak for its story and characters, but the gameplay is quite possibly the best in the series.

 

[Jarmel]

False dichotomy.

But I can go either way, as "redeeming" quality by definition entails that I find the good gameplay/story sufficiently entertaining to overshadow the game's deficiencies. It's an interesting discussion nonetheless.

This is correct.

 

[thomasmahler]

I could play a game that has good gameplay and a bad story. Not the other way around though, I'd never play a bad game just for its good story.

You didn't play The Walking Dead? Walking Deads gameplay is non-existent, yet the game was absolutely excellent.

 

[plank]

I think the real debate should be gameplay vs graphics.

 

[KingofGourds]

The way a game can tell a story is as varied as any other medium. Yet narrative games are incredibly young as a form compared to other contemporary forms. The best games I've played have almost always found a way of integrating what story there is to fit the experience it is delivering through the gameplay.

 

[GQman2121]

Equally important to me.

If the gameplay is solid, yet I don't care about what I'm doing, then its all for nil to me. Examples would be Dead Space; Mirrors Edge; GTA IV.

On the opposite end, there are times when the gameplay is shit, yet you push on because you do actually want to see how things play out in the narrative. Ex. LA Noire; Heavy Rain; Uncharted.

Then there's overall shit gameplay, character's and story: MW 2/3, Assassins Creed, RE 5, etc....

More Portals, Batmans and Sleeping Dogs would help things.

If I'm honest with myself, I think I can handle average to mediocre gameplay vs. story. Something like Bayonetta or new DMC bore me to no end.

 

[Freezie KO]

Wait, what? Like in the idea that the auteur is putting their vision above, in terms of priority, the perceived desires of their audience?

There are several problems when accounting for auteur vs player that you don't run into with passive media like film and literature.

The primary one is that the player can do actions contrary to the narrative, tone, environment, and character-building that the author is trying to establish.

For example, if I've just had a 10 minute action scene, a game developer can't just shoehorn in a meditative scene right after it. There's tonal issues.

If I make my character massacre all my enemies (who just disappear when their character models touch the floor because the game can't technically handle more NPCs), the author is going to have a hard time convincing me of my character's moral quandaries.

If I've died and restarted a mission 18 times, the impact of my player character's death at the end of the story is meaningless.

There are other issues such as pacing a story that authors have to account for. Three Act or Five Act structure goes out the window when planning for a 10 hour game.

And also, as you mentioned, yes, there is a much larger conflict between the auteur and the audience when the audience interacts with the piece. Ignoring bugs and technical problems, the basic mechanics of a game are treated as a product, rather than a work of art.

Products are best to be able to be used by the most people. Art is not. The best art works are never the ones that set out to satiate the "perceived desires of their audience".

 

[Vazra]

I think the real debate should be gameplay vs graphics.

Well while its seems to be aimed at story vs gameplay I think we could throw different aspects around here. All good

 

[Pai Pai Master]

You didn't play The Walking Dead? Walking Deads gameplay is non-existent, yet the game was absolutely excellent.

That's a little different. Alternative game experiences are something worth more than just "gameplay + story."

A traditional game that is poorly made and has crappy gameplay will not be justified by a good story, for me.

 

[zruben]

You didn't play The Walking Dead? Walking Deads gameplay is non-existent, yet the game was absolutely excellent.

I have to disagree with you on this one.

There's gameplay, there are puzzles, there are decisions, there are bits where you need to have good reflexes, mash buttons and think fast. Also, the "character profile" you create through your actions and seeing how it will impact on future events of the game it's gameplay as well.

it's not an "intense" gameplay, like a plataformer, a sport game or a FPS; but's it's an appealing gameplay for the game genre.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

I can understand that there are people of there who don't like or play games with story but this comment is just over the top bullshit. And no, I won't give you examples of games with good story. Yes, your comment is THAT stupid.

You don't need to give me an example of a game with a good story. You need to give me an example of a game which, when the gameplay is bad and unenjoyable, has a strong enough story that makes playing those sections worth it as opposed to watching TV or reading a book. A story so good that you'll tollerate most of the experience being poor.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Skip cutscenes. Put those worthless creatures out of their misery. Shh no tears, only dreams now.

 

[Vermillion]

Gameplay has to be at least decent.

 

[Raptomex]

I could play a game that has good gameplay and a bad story. Not the other way around though, I'd never play a bad game just for its good story. You can ignore the story but if the game isn't good to play then there's no point in playing it.

Heart of the Swarm is a good example for me, like many others I absolutely loved the story and writing in Starcraft/Brood War. It took a turn for the worse in Wings of Liberty, and in Heart of the Swarm the writing is so awful that if it wasn't Starcraft I would not be able to continue playing. The campaign is really fun so far so I can overlook it, even if I'm super bitter about the direction the story is going in.

Spot on.

 

[timetokill]

- Good story, terrible gameplay?
Nope, never playing it.

- Terrible story, good gameplay?
Sure, I'll play the hell out of it.


It's really that simple. There are games with good stories and "passable" gameplay that can skate by, but the amount of rope I give those games is very limited indeed.

 

[ksamedi]

Good gameplay is esential in games for me. I like games that let me be creative and let me interact with the game world. If a game does these things good, a good musical score (OP is way underestimating good music in games) and a good story can take the game a level higher in terms of my enjoyment of the game. Usually, though, a well crafted game with lots of interactivity tells the story itself. You get immersed in the world and the need for a set story becomes less important. Thats why a lot of people in this thread can live with terrible stories in games with good gameplay I think.

A good example of this for me is Zelda OOT. The story was really crappy and nothing really substantial other then "A evil guy wants to rule the world go stop him" kind of thing. What made the game so powerfull, though, is how immersed you become with the game trough gameplay. You forget about the story, you just play it out. The ending of OOT is really powerfull because of that aspect.

 

[Espada]

Gameplay is far more important than stories in videogames. It's the interactivity of videogames that distinguishes them from other mediums (books, film, music). It's where the bulk of a game's fun is derived.

A game with an excellent story but godawful/dull gameplay is not worth a playthrough. You might as well watch the cutscenes on Youtube.

A game with excellent gameplay but a horrendous/thin story is a gem and worth replaying over and over again. It's an experience that deserves to be played.

This is why I take issue with "games" load themselves down with endless cutscenes, QTEs, and barely interactive worlds. You're rendering the player passive far too often in an active, interactive medium. Either figure out how to tell your story during gameplay or pare it down.