• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

I disagree with "gameplay > story"

-Plasma Reus-

Service guarantees member status
Gameplay ALWAYS trumps story for me. I could care less about a story in a game. If I want a good story, I'll go watch a movie. When I play a game, I need good gameplay. It's as simple as that.

This is akin to saying: "If I want a good story, I'll go and read a book".
This is the problem with video gaming. A game with a good story somehow interleaved with the interactive nature of gameplay will always objectively trump a video game that is only gameplay for the sake of points.

People watch movies because they bring stories to life. Video games can do the same but on a factually more immersing level.
 
I can enjoy a good story in a game when the gameplay is garbage and I can enjoy good gameplay when the story is garbage, but it's easier to have straight up fun for me with good gameplay, and often times the bad story is easier to ignore since I don't have to be active in the game while it's being presented.
 

dhlt25

Member
gameplay trumps all for me. I love RPGs and PnC but over the years the games that I played the most are the one with superior gameplay. For story driven games, the world and characters are a lot more important to me than the overall plot though. The interactivity with the world is something only games can offer, I couldn't care less about the over arching story. This is why AAA games (uncharted, TLOU) with supposedly great story but offer no interactivity with the world bore me.
 
Sadly, I have debated with people who actually think gameplay is everything that matters. There was also one person who specifically said games shouldn't have any cutscenes at all.
The attitude isn't that common fortunately, but it's definitely there I think.

Yeah, and in those cases, I would just attribute those to personal preferences. But if they're making a blanket statement, stating those as fact and as universal, well, they need to understand that there isn't a size that fits all for everyone.
 

Arondight

Member
I've come to expect both to at least competent. Whether a developer wants to focus more on story or gameplay is up to them but I'm not going to trash them for their decisions. I think one of the greatest things about gaming is that there is a huge variety on how a game can be designed, the way they are played, how much impact a story can make. There are options to choose from and I don't see why a player needs to relegate themselves to one particular area as if it's the perfect way to play/design them.
 

Gustav

Banned
Gameplay ALWAYS trumps story for me. I could care less about a story in a game. If I want a good story, I'll go watch a movie. When I play a game, I need good gameplay. It's as simple as that.

I don't understand. Why wouldn't you watch movie for good cinematography?

Books are for stories!
 
I don't understand. Why wouldn't you watch movie for good cinematography?

Books are for stories!

LOL - that's because I don't like to read books. :) I'm actually not much of a book reader, so my main source for stories would be movies in this case. ;)

This is akin to saying: "If I want a good story, I'll go and read a book".
This is the problem with video gaming. A game with a good story somehow interleaved with the interactive nature of gameplay will always objectively trump a video game that is only gameplay for the sake of points.

People watch movies because they bring stories to life. Video games can do the same but on a factually more immersing level.

I guess I should clarify this. I play games because I enjoy them for their gameplay. A good story is great and all, but if the gameplay is weak, then the story (no matter how good) adds nothing to the game for me. And when I watch a movie, I watch movies because I want a good story. Movies are my main source for good stories as is games is my main source for gameplay. Gameplay is everything to me in a game. If the gameplay is weak, then the game fails in my eyes. It doesn't matter how good the graphics are, how good the sound/music is, how good the story is, etc. Gameplay is king to me, and everything else is secondary.
 

DOWN

Banned
I agree with OP. Style is substance. If you can't be bold and dark with your intellect, imagery, and dialogues, then I'm not in.

It's part of why I'm not into indie games, and I don't agree that simple or unoriginal gameplay like in Uncharted make them bad, because the production value, charisma, and style elevate it to the top.
 
Yeah, and in those cases, I would just attribute those to personal preferences. But if they're making a blanket statement, stating those as fact and as universal, well, they need to understand that there isn't a size that fits all for everyone.
No, but most of these people very clearly were talking about games in general, not just their preferences.

I also put in an edit to my last message (but a bit too late) about how there are people in this thread too saying the old "if you want to make a game with a larger focus on story than gameplay, then maybe you should go write a book", which is really condescending and tells quite clearly that they are talking in general.
 

Applecot

Member
Really depends on the game. Good story takes very ordinary gameplay and makes the whole experience better. So I could agree with this argument in those cases.

But if you're talking about a fps... Well the best story in the world could never make up for sub-par gameplay.



Over simplified responses thus far have been pretty shocking.
 

Hikami

Member
Have to agree. Story>gameplay for me.
I think you're crazy if you primarily played Persona 3/4 for the dungeon crawling..

It's why I have a hard time getting into a lot of Nintendo's games. Most lack any interesting story.
Pokemon is fun and all but, doing the same thing every year (get badges > beat elite 4, etc.) has gotten boring.
If they actually had an interesting/memorable story then it would'nt be so bad.
 

Jucksalbe

Banned
The examples for story based games in the OP are all games that actually are very well designed and do have "good gameplay" (if you want to generalize it that way).
Better "Story > Gameplay" examples would be games that are just badly designed, but still have a great story. Maybe Nier? But that also has its soundtrack going for it. Can't really think of a good example.

But if you just want a discussion about what aspect of a game is more important, then I'd say it just differs from game to game. I can enjoy heavily story focused games like adventure games as well as pure gameplay games. For some games having too much story would hurt the pacing (Mario games for example).
 

Sölf

Member
OP, you listed Ace Attorney, Dangan Ronpa and Zero Escape as examples, that Story > Gameplay. In this particular case I have to agree, but that is, because those games are practically Visual Novels with quite a bit of Gameplay. Of course the story is more important if it takes up 75%+ of the game.

However, in most cases, you actively play for the most time and don't read text. In that case, the gameplay is more important than story for the simple reason that it is more prominent. Take a look at the Kingdom Hearts series. The story may have been interesting in the beginning, but by now, it's a giant clusterfuck. I am pretty sure most people who have sticked with the series are not playing for the story, but for the gameplay, which imo is pretty good. At least I had to force myself to actually play the games with bad gameplay (358/2 days, repetetive as hell; Re: Chain of Memores, the card system is just not as good). But the other ones? Oh boy, I had so much fun playing, just fighting enemies was enough for me.

So, in general, gameplay > story. In a few particular genres, story > gameplay.
 

Hakai

Member
I think Gameplay > Story.

I don't like the structure that you play to unlock cutscenes where the story progresses, I prefer games where your character evolves during your gameplay, and gives you the sense that what you are doing is actually effecting the gameworld. That's my main problem with story driven games, is that I'm playing to be able to see a story, and I think that has a lot to do with the rise in popularity of gameplay videos.

It's funny that you used MGS as an example OP, cause IMHO Altough it is a story driven game, I think it is one of the few ones that understands that the gameplay is more important than the story that is telling.
 
I have to sort of agree...
Latest example for me was Talos Principle, without the story I could see myself getting bored doing puzzle after puzzle, but because of the story I just wanted to know what was at the top of the tower and kept me playing it non stop.

Of course it is so well designed that if you don't care about the story you can skip those terminals and just do puzzles, so it caters to different types of players.
 
Have to agree. Story>gameplay for me.
I think you're crazy if you primarily played Persona 3/4 for the dungeon crawling..

It's why I have a hard time getting into a lot of Nintendo's games. Most lack any interesting story.
Pokemon is fun and all but, doing the same thing every year (get badges > beat elite 4, etc.) has gotten boring.
If they actually had an interesting/memorable story then it would'nt be so bad.

One could argue that the dating sim is as much gameplay as story. The character is writing but interacting with them gameplay.

Otherwise said would it still be as meaningful if it all were just cutscenes?
 

Seanspeed

Banned
Then at this point it's nothing more than semantics we seem to disagree on. If I replaced "feedback" with "atmosphere" or "experience" I'm sure the same idea would come across. In any case, art style is apart of feedback because it's how the gave visually tells you who it is. That's how I think of it.
You say its 'semantics', but you are giving such a massively wide umbrella to the term that just about anything falls under it. The art on the box is a 'feedback system' by your standards!

Its not really important to the topic though.

I think of them more as elements of a larger thing. Like how a food dish is comprised of several different ingredients or how your neogaf account is comprised of your posting history, threads you created, your username and your avatar. I'm not saying it's impossible for you to enjoy a story and loathe the way a game plays or vice versa. I'm saying those two things are apart of a greater whole which is the game in it's entirety. Basically these are aspects that contribute to your enjoyment of the product and the effect it has on you.
Well of course they all add up to the greater experience factor. But you can still pick out individual elements there and critique them and point fingers.

If I say "2 + 4 = 6", the ultimate result is 6, but that doesn't mean 2 and 4 are the same number or that its unimportant what numbers they are. If I change a number and its "2 + 3", then suddenly the end result changes as well, right? Same thing with games. Each part contributes in its own way and its worth looking at how that end result was achieved. Of course in games, the fact that we all value things differently means that we're not only going to rate the different individual aspects differently, but the *value* we place on those individual elements means that even if we did rate the specific elements the exact same, the end result could still be different between us. But still, those individual aspects matter.

For example, a bad story in a game does not detract from a game for me much, if at all. If I'm enjoying the gameplay, I'm still comfortable giving the game high marks. And theoretically, if a story were good enough, I could probably do with lesser gameplay and still enjoy it. The problem comes from stories in games not tending to be very good, even in the best of times. So if the story isn't good, then a lot more rests on how good the gameplay is. Not that these are only two variables, but for many, gameplay *is* the biggest variable for this very reason.
 

Micerider

Member
I think it depends on the game, there's room for both.

When I play a racing game I don't give a shit about a story.

When I play an action-adventure game, I do want something to care about.

But everyone's entitled to their own personal preferences too. I primarily play games FOR the story, so gameplay focused genres don't appeal to me as much.

There is room for both indeed, I don't understand why some make it looks like two opposite poles of a same line. If focus is on the story, then yes story > gameplay.

That said, an excellent story never redeems very crappy gameplay. While excellent gameplay can make me ignore a bad story. So, at least if your focus is on story, don't half-ass the gameplay but make it at least "decent"
 

Driw3r

Unconfirmed Member
If story is interesting, i can easily stand poor gameplay. Story is usually important part of the game for me. Not always ofc, i like some puzzle and physics based games, so there "story" can be just a gimmick. But mostly i am looking for just good story nowadays, which sucks you in, and you forget everything else.
 

geordiemp

Member
When you have both, that's when I really smile.

Got to skyhold last night first play through on hard, and was smiling allot.

TLOU big nod as well last year.
 
Video game stories are always sub-B movie pap anyway written by people who weren't good enough to write books or movies. The focus on them is another symptom of the sad trend of video games trying to be movies.

Yep. Worse is that the story is told with 30 to 40 minute monotonous action scenes between story movements.
 
I've seen gamers use that phrase a lot over the years to justify games with poor or non-existant stories. As long as the gameplay is good it gets a pass. Now there are genres or games where gameplay IS all that matters like platformers (3D World was my GOTY 2013), Tetris and sports games.
Games were the "ginmick" is the story tend to age more poorly than the ones where the gameplay was the priority. Not to mention that with games, what once was considered "good" story telling might even feel a bit silly with the passage of time.

To me, Chrono Trigger feels a lot better to play today than Final Fantasy 7 for example.

A game's main focus should "MOST" of the time be trying to make the interactive part engaging. If not, then use movies as the medium to tell your story.
 

WetTreeLeaf

Neo Member
The problem comes from stories in games not tending to be very good, even in the best of times.
Well the thing is that gameplay in most game tends to not be very good either. For me if you want me to play your game and you have a shitty story then your gameplay better be god-tier enough to make me forget you dont even have a story. But I can see that youre coming from the opposite side of this.
 
Games can get incredibly difficult to play if the gameplay is tediously boring or difficult. Right now I'm playing through Persona 4 for the first time and while I generally enjoy the game's plot, characters and general dialogue, any time I have to work my way through a dungeon, I get so fed up and can barely force myself to play any more than two levels of a dungeon at a time. It's just so bland and uninspired in terms of actual layout and battle design.

The other game I'm playing right now is Battlefield 4 (solely the multiplayer), which is so much more fun and enjoyable than slogging through Persona 4 despite having literally no story at all. Gameplay simply makes games enjoyable; if you do not have enjoyable gameplay, you will not have an enjoyable game. Whereas if you do not have an engaging story, you can still have a really fun and engrossing game.
 

AniHawk

Member
This is why I get so frustrated with games that see the story as an after-thought such as recent disappointment Fantasy Life on 3DS. Or going back a bit further, Mario Sticker Star. That one is particularly frustrating as the legendary Miyamoto who's had a hand in some of my favorite games of all time went out of his way to butcher SS and made the dev team strip out the story and keep it so minimal. From what I've read he's not a fan of story in games :(

koizumi basically snuck stories into all the games he worked on when he was doing stuff on miyamoto's franchises. link's awakening, the wind waker, and majora's mask, i believe were all on him. the problem is he doesn't know when a game should have it and when it shouldn't. i think super mario galaxy having a rather somber backstory for rosalina makes the game way heavier than it needs to be should you ever hazard through that dark doorway. i think he's an example of a guy who doesn't know when to hold back.

miyamoto might be on the opposite end. if it helps, think of miyamoto as an engineer. he doesn't just see his job as getting a thing to work, but getting it to work as efficiently as possible. for that reason, i think he is very much against story in games when they get in the way of gameplay in certain genres (i think he's generally fine with it in zelda, and mostly against it in mario). story is an embellishment, like good graphics, or good music. if the game is mechanically sound, then that's what matters most. the story can happen later. mario, yoshi, and midna, along with probably several other characters, were all designed with limitations or ideas for gamepaly mechanics first. nintendo had only so much space to design a guy in 1981, so jumpman had to be made using those limitations. yoshi was originally just a tool for mario to get around on, and only later he became a green dinosaur. midna was just the thing that helped link attack in wolf form, and her character didn't exist until afterward.

what might have contributed to sticker star turning out like it did was super paper mario. that was a game that was conceptually amazing and lacked heavily in execution. the idea of taking 2d platforming and using a switch to 3d to reveal spaces (and allow for 3d platforming) was a tremendous idea, hampered by basic level design and walls of text impeding the player's progress needlessly. sticker star is intensely focused on smaller puzzle-like levels, owing more to the legend of zelda's design qualities than previous paper mario games. sticker star was also built for a handheld, and it's not hard to imagine engineer-miyamoto trying to make the game playable in short bursts (you also see this in the design for luigi's mansion 2).

i think story has its place in games, but its importance is overblown. at the end of the year, games with a focus on storytelling usually win the awards with games that have far better mechanics and level design. it's fine that there are games that can do both, but it's not really reflective of the industry when that happens every single year. i also take issue with it when it tries to invade games that don't need story. mirror's edge, for example, is a first-person platformer. the worst parts of that game come from the infusion of its story. either it's a part that actually kills the momentum of the gameplay, like a small noninteractive cutscene in the middle of the game, or it's the gun-toting enemies that you actually have to take down because faith is part of a resistance which is what the story tells us. the best parts of mirror's edge are the dlc missions and the game's time trials.

maybe 6-8 years ago i was of the opinion that putting the controller down so a game could tell a story at me was a failing of the game. i still think that cutscenes are a rather outdated form of relaying information to me, but that's not to say that all storytelling in game is bad when most of it takes away control from the player. probably the best example of a story in a video game for my money is 999. it's not actually due to the writing of the characters or the plot, but how the plot is reliant on choose-your-adventure tropes and even the concept of how hardware can be used to tell a story. for all its flashiness, heavy rain using the power of the ps3 to tell its story with voice acting and mocapped character models pales in comparison to 999's thoughtful implementation of the ds's hardware, when all it used was bustups and no voices whatsoever. gone home is a step in the right direction as well. i feel like gone home, the stanley parable, and p.t. are three games part of the same class of games where the story is designed into the game, and the game isn't designed around the story.
 

EloquentM

aka Mannny
Give me a game with amazing story AND amazing gameplay and I'll agree with you OP. Until that happens (and on a good enough basis) then I'll be more inclined to agree.
 
No, but most of these people very clearly were talking about games in general, not just their preferences.

I also put in an edit to my last message (but a bit too late) about how there are people in this thread too saying the old "if you want to make a game with a larger focus on story than gameplay, then maybe you should go write a book", which is really condescending and tells quite clearly that they are talking in general.

Yeah, I could see how that would be condescending. Also, in reading through this thread, it's obvious that stories are becoming more and more important to people than in the past. It really has become a very integral part to the overall enjoyment of a game for many people, which I find to be very interesting. Again, I'm not in that camp, as I value gameplay above everything else, but it's an interesting dynamic to see take place.
 

Spoo

Member
For me it's just about what I lament the most after the experience is over. If the game has an incredible storyline, but poor gameplay (I forward Xenosaga Episode II as an example), then I'm much more likely to lament than longer than if a game comes along and has a lot of potential for a great story (Maybe something like Dark Souls 2?), but chooses to focus on gameplay instead of that story, I'm less likely to care after I've consumed the game.

I think that pretty much suggests gameplay > story. Not in the "It is always the case that gameplay is more important than story" way, but in the "it is always the case, that in the absence of a good story, great gameplay makes up for it more than a story could make up for lackluster gameplay."

Because, lets face it, there's plenty of middling examples, not super, super extreme ones.
 

WetTreeLeaf

Neo Member
A game's main focus should "MOST" of the time be trying to make the interactive part engaging. If not, then use movies as the medium to tell your story.
I think this is kinda silly to say, when I make a decision in The Witcher 2 I'm "interacting" with the game, my decision shapes the game world and the gameplay; you can only get certain experiences through games that you could never get through a movie.
 

adixon

Member
Gameplay ALWAYS trumps story for me. I could care less about a story in a game. If I want a good story, I'll go watch a movie. When I play a game, I need good gameplay. It's as simple as that.

Film is a visual medium. If you get caught up in telling a story and it makes the cinematography less powerful, you're really not taking advantage of the medium and you might as well just write a book! I pity people who watch movies for the story.
 
How many game developers are there that only have good stories?

How many game developers are there that only have good gameplay?

I'd say the developers with the better gameplay would win. The only *unique* presentation of story unique to video games was Half-Life series, Portal (to a smaller scale) + Crono Trigger or Seiken Densetsu 2. And these still have great and top of their genre gameplay respectively.

Those games are few and far between but even then, every other game just sticks cut scenes and simple choices to show what 'cutscene' you're going to get if that.
 

Bricky

Member
I don't give a shit about the lore when playing something like League of Legends, but I sure as hell wouldn't play The Stanley Parable without the narration. Story and gameplay are both equally important parts of interactive entertainment, their significance depends on the game, how much emphasis is placed on each and their respective quality. The genre is even more important; visual novels, adventure games, walking simulators all contain games that would not be noteworthy experiences if their stories were crap. Likewise puzzle games like Tetris or racing games like Gran Turismo simply don't need a story at all since they are all about gameplay.

The thing is that most games used to prioritize gameplay over story, thus the quality of the latter wasn't noteworthy and the whole 'gameplay > story' mentality became widespread. 'Good gameplay > bad story' indeed applies to most games (arguably to this day), but 'Good story > bad gameplay' can as well (Spec Ops: The Line). In best-case scenarios the gameplay is there to serve the narrative or the other way around and both are great (Papers Please) but that doesn't have to be the case for the game to be worth playing.

So yeah, neither '>' the other. Gameplay and story can both be the defining factor and should compliment each other to offer the best possible experience.
 
This is the problem with video gaming. A game with a good story somehow interleaved with the interactive nature of gameplay will always objectively trump a video game that is only gameplay for the sake of points.

I can count the titles that have tried to do this on the fingers of one hand, and they are all either from the indie scene or released years ago.

The truth is most developers have given up even bothering to try and do interesting things with narrative in an interactive medium, and 99% of "story based" titles out there are the equivalent narratively of press A to turn the page.
 
videogames are a narrative medium. I guess there's no dispute there. Sometimes the narrative is provided by the game mechanics (like in a game of chess, every match provides its own narrative) or by an external author (like a kojima-god watching over your shoulder while you play).
That's why I really don't get people who say things like "If I want a story, i read a book or watch a movie". If I want a passive story (maybe an exceptionally good one at that), I go for those mediums; but if I want to be part of that story or create one of my own, I'll play a game. Exactly for the story, because of the story.

Minecraft, pure gameplay no story whatsoever.

Let me tell you my minecraft story. Yesterday a friend joined me in my server, when...
 

Steez

Member
It can go either way for me. Plot, characters and writing can carry bad gameplay and vice versa.

What I don't understand are all those blanket statements like "I'd rather watch a movie, if I want a story." Hey, guess what? A lot of movies have horrendous plots as well. And a lot of games have really boring and unimaginative gameplay, too.

Honestly, this rigid "gameplay above all"-mentality is holding the medium back. The end product can be whatever the hell its creator wants it to be and doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary rules.

If not, then use movies as the medium to tell your story.

Why? Why can't somebody tell a story through a game? People get hung up on the term "game" way too much.
 
A great story will never be able to compensate for crappy gameplay.
Exactly. Great gameplay with a shiy story is still a great game. But shit gameplay with a great story is still a shit game.

But the ideal is great gameplay with a great story. My favourite games are this. MGS, FF, Portal and Uncharted.

One thing to remember with games is that world building can be important. Games without much story (Pokemon, Fez and Cave Story) have great lived in worlds. That's important to the game experience for me, I can tell pretty quickly when a game has a bland world and it puts me off.
Film is a visual medium. If you get caught up in telling a story and it makes the cinematography less powerful, you're really not taking advantage of the medium and you might as well just write a book! I pity people who watch movies for the story.
Well said. Funnily enough it was by watching Interstellar in IMAX that I first appreciated the power of cinematography, had never been to IMAX before. I rewatched it for the great scenes alone, though I did enjoy the story more on the 2nd viewing.
 

Dr. Buni

Member
I think music = characters > story >> gameplay.

I am aware this is an unpopular opinion, but a fantastic soundtrack is definitely essential for a game to be great, for me. The less impressive is the music, the less likely is for me to remember a game fondly months and years after playing it. Characters are important because without good characters, a good story totally falls apart. Plus, who doesn't like having interesting characters in their games? Crazy people, I tell you.

A story is needed for the game to be memorable. It doesn't need to be an epic story (I am easy to please), so long as it isn't abysmal like the story in say, Fire Emblem Awakening, I am good. I used to think story in games was pointless, but after playing 999 a few years ago, as well as Ghost Trick, my perspective changed completely. I can still play and have a good time with storyless games, but the experience feels empty and lackluster, in the end. For example, here are a few games I played since last December:

Super Mario 3D World
Shin Megami Tensei IV
Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney

Out of these four games, my favorite is easily Virtue's Last Reward. And why? Because of the story, characters and music. The gameplay? It is really lackluster, there are puzzles in the game, but I hated most of them (probably because I am not smart enough to solve them). Then, comes Phoenix Wright, which is weaker in the story aspect, but as strong as VLR when it comes to characters. I am in love with the Ace Attorney characters :) Then, it comes SMT IV, which is way less story-oriented (although, comparing to older titles in the series, it has quite the focus on the story), but still great and memorable. And for last, comes Mario 3D World, which is fantastic in terms of gameplay, but only decent in terms of music and awful in terms of story and characters (I am sorry, Mario, Peach and Bowser might be classic characters, but they are still terrible characters).

Hell, after Mortal Kombat (2011), I am convinced that even fighting games require an interesting plot. One of the biggest issues I have with Super Smash Bros. 4 is how barebones it is in terms of single player content, that including the removal of a story mode, which was present in Brawl. Don't get me wrong, I think Subspace Emissary wasn't that great (gameplay-wise, I mean) and I wouldn't want it back in Smash 4, but a story mode with comic books-like cutscenes or something like that, would have been appreciated. Oh, well.

So, yeah, nowadays I do care a lot about story and the OP, I can't agree that gameplay is more important. A game without a story isn't worth my money anymore.
 

Kill3r7

Member
They are both essential to delevering an amazing interactive experience. However, story is very genre specific. On one hand, the best platformers, puzzle and fighting games aren't hindered by a subpar story. On the other, a game like TLOU would not be as great without the story.
 
It's really great when a game has a good story. It's even better when visuals and sound are great too. But when gameplay is truly great, you play it no matter how crappy story or graphics are.
Not really. I gave up on Divinity Original Sin because the story was so terrible i couldnt care anymore to continue on, despite enjoying the combat.
 
Depends on the game of course.


Counter strike is pure gameplay for me ND I wouldn't have it any other way.

Silent Hill 2 though got mediocre gameplay really, it got puzzles that are rather good bit Tyler combat is just mediocre top bad, yet it's my favorite game. It's not just the story though, but the world, atmosphere, music and what not that draws me into the game. The story is a big part too though and I don't mind the combat as a result of the rest being that good.
 

Seanspeed

Banned
Well the thing is that gameplay in most game tends to not be very good either. For me if you want me to play your game and you have a shitty story then your gameplay better be god-tier enough to make me forget you dont even have a story. But I can see that youre coming from the opposite side of this.
So you've never enjoyed a Mario game before? Zelda? Racing games? Fighting games? Most multiplayer games? :/

I'm surprised you're a gamer at all if you think its rare for a video game to have good gameplay.
 

Phinor

Member
Typically gameplay over story for me. There are dozens of games I've quit because the gameplay just doesn't interest me enough to see the story through. Just as an example Remember Me is one of those games, really enjoyed most things about the game but halfway through the game I just didn't have the strength to keep going anymore. Binary Domain is another good (and popular in Neogaf) example. Meanwhile strong gameplay alone can get me through a game. Rage was a fantastic shooter and I don't remember a single thing about the story. And then you have games where both things click and it's a thing of beauty, like The Last of Us.

But I said typically, there are many exceptions to the rule. Sometimes you immerse yourself in a game so deep that it doesn't matter if it's a walking simulator or whatever you want to call it. Gone Home was great. Thirty Flights of Loving, The Stanley Parable etc. all work really really well despite almost no gameplay at all besides movement. Also enjoyed both Beyond Two Souls and Heavy Rain.

So usually gameplay > story for me, but a good story/world design/atmosphere/characters can carry a game just as well. There's no strict rule either way. Now how about turn based vs. real-time? Turn based all the way, right, right? (Answer: It also depends on the game, there's no strict rule on that one either.)
 
Well I'd argue that sometimes the story IS the gameplay. It's certainty true of Telltale's games and things like Gone Home.

And when it comes to books, I only read them for the grammar. If you want good stories you should use your imagination. I don't see why anyone would bother with books when most of their stories are so terrible.

Seriously though, both gameplay and story are important, but it's possible to have a good game without a story, just like a book can be good if it's non-fictional (where's the story in A Brief History of Time?)
 

Lernaean

Banned
And you'd be wrong OP. Games are what the word says, and thus gameplay will always be the most important part of them.
Maybe what you want is more 'interactive stories', but in order to have a gamey game, you need some damn good gameplay.
Also there are games and series with great story and fantastic gameplay, so there is no valid argument you can't have both. You can. It's just that most devs have failed providing any compelling gameplay.
 
Top Bottom