Again 10/10 doesn't mean a game is perfect. It means that the reviewer felt the game was so good/engrossing/unique/well-designed/etc. that it deserved the highest accolade and award they offer. It's not a concrete assessment of a gameI have always believed that the scoring system is flawed, since it never encapsulates all the details that effect the game. So there is that.
On the subject at hand, it really depends on if the game hangs it's entertainment value on the narrative or not. That said, no game should get a "10/10" but that should effect the scoring if the narrative is central to the game. If not, story is a non-factor.
Depends if the game is meant to have a story that's supposed to be taken seriously.
If the answer is yes and the story is crap, then the game does not deserve a 10 if the gameplay is top notch.
Tetris doesn't have a bad story. It doesn't have one.
some would argue that a game having little to no story doesn't deserve a perfect score.
hence, subjectivity.
What was the story of Tetris again?
I agree with this. To me, 10/10 means that the reviewer liked the game so much that they felt the negative things didn't detract at all from the overall experience, that it's so good they don't matter.Again 10/10 doesn't mean a game is perfect. It means that the reviewer felt the game was so good/engrossing/unique/well-designed/etc. that it deserved the highest accolade and award they offer. It's not a concrete assessment of a game
Video games have stories?
Reason I ask is because I got into debate about MGSV/Platinum games/Mario with some of my friends. Most were pissed off how modern gamers and reviewers put too much emphasis on story over gameplay when deciding if they liked the game in the end. ?
If a games story is terrible but the gameplay mechanics is outstanding and fun, can a game deserve a full 10/10 score?
Reason I ask is because I got into debate about MGSV/Platinum games/Mario with some of my friends. Most were pissed off how modern gamers and reviewers put too much emphasis on story over gameplay when deciding if they liked the game in the end. Some argued that story should never be factored into final score as gaming is primarily a gameplay driven medium and has no place to mark it down for that. While others disagreed saying it depended on genre.
Where is the line drawn? Only cinematic games vs action games? What if a mixture of both? What then? If a game excels in the gameplay department does the story ultimately matter in the end? If its best in class and you have a fun experience that is unmatched, can you say it is a 10/10?
they do know what they're talking about, because they're talking about their opinion.Tetris? Pacman? Robotron 2084?
Just because people might argue a game needs something more than 'little to no story' doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.
So I take it that you don't enjoy adventure games and interactive fiction,Yes. Story should always be secondary to gameplay. They're video *games* not hand-holdy story time interactive visual novels.
Does a game with bad story but perfect gameplay deserve 10/10 Reviews?
...because some people care about the story?Yes!
if the game is fun & play as it should why would you care about the story?
So I take it that you don't enjoy adventure games and interactive fiction,
Adventure games include text adventures/interactive fiction, point-n-clicks, visual novels, etc.what does 'adventure game' entail exactly? platformers? sure I like a lot of them. RPGs? I enjoy RPGs quite a lot; action, japanese, isometric etc. If I find the gameplay fun and well put-together/well designed while completely ignoring the story then I can generally enjoy it.
two words: mario galaxy
What about the other spectrum? How do the "only gameplay matters" folks feel about a game with an incredible story but basic gameplay?
The thread should have ended with this post.Scores are completely subjective, so if the reviewer feels that it does, then it does.
What about the other spectrum? How do the "only gameplay matters" folks feel about a game with an incredible story but basic gameplay?
Not bad or unenjoyable to play, but just basic. As in the gameplay is there for the purpose of what is needed to enjoy the game. Like how The Walking Dead has walking and interaction, or point-n-clicks lets you move your character and manage your inventory.I guess it would depend on the game, but as a general thing, for me as gameplay is all that matters, from my viewpoint I would say yes, if a game has gameplay that's deserving of it, then it deserves the score.
If a game isn't fun to play gameplay wise, then I would have no interest in playing it no matter how brilliant the story is.
Not bad or unenjoyable to play, but just basic. As in the gameplay is there for the purpose of what is needed to enjoy the game. Like how The Walking Dead has walking and interaction, or point-n-clicks lets you move your character and manage your inventory.
Seems kind of limiting if you only want games to be fun
What about the other spectrum? How do the "only gameplay matters" folks feel about a game with an incredible story but basic gameplay?
What about the other spectrum? How do the "only gameplay matters" folks feel about a game with an incredible story but basic gameplay?