-
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"
- Thread starter enigmatic_alex44
- Start date
This was your original comment:
You were the one trying to disassociate both elements in the first place. "Who the hell said remove story entirely?" Who the hell said remove GAMEPLAY entirely?
This thread is about whether gameplay is more important than story. The least you could do is read the OP and some posts before saying we have to wrap our heads around you not understanding the discussion.
Saying 'gameplay > story because games with better gameplay are more popular' is an extremely weak argument. Is Transformers: Age of Extinction a better movie than The Grand Budapest Hotel or Birdman too? Is 'Shake It Off' the epitome of music in 2014?
Let's look at the GAF GOTY 2013 list instead. Small selection of games in the Top 20:
Last of Us
BioShock Infinite
Grand Theft Auto V
Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons
Gone Home
Papers, Please
All games praised for their narratives and story. Or are you convinced people liked Gone Home because they just absolutely loved walking around an abandoned house?
It has bad combat sure, but that is an almost entirely optional part of its gameplay. You can play most of the game as an adventure game almost.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Context is really important. Some games rely on story more than others, some don't rely on story at all. Honestly it's not a topic I hear debated much at all. Certainly not as much as gameplay vs. graphics.
For point and click visual novels like Gone Home and cutscenes-heavy "cinematic" games like Uncharted, the narrative is what everything else is centered around. So those games require more story than gameplay mechanics to drive them forward. For games like Titan Attacks or Resogun or Street Fighter IV any story elements are just fluff to try to give the game personality. Those games are all about gameplay and could exist without backstory at all.
Then there are games like generic dudebro military combat shooter 4, everything is a war. Those games only tend to have stories to try to differentiate one from another. They are centered around skill, where gameplay is absolutely the most important thing.
So it depends on the game, really.
For point and click visual novels like Gone Home and cutscenes-heavy "cinematic" games like Uncharted, the narrative is what everything else is centered around. So those games require more story than gameplay mechanics to drive them forward. For games like Titan Attacks or Resogun or Street Fighter IV any story elements are just fluff to try to give the game personality. Those games are all about gameplay and could exist without backstory at all.
Then there are games like generic dudebro military combat shooter 4, everything is a war. Those games only tend to have stories to try to differentiate one from another. They are centered around skill, where gameplay is absolutely the most important thing.
So it depends on the game, really.
flatearthpandas
Member
Thread title kind of belies the actual point of the OP.
What's most important is what you do most of the game. If you're playing a VN where 95%of your time is going to be spent reading, the writing and story are going to be your most important aspects. However, gameplay can still elevate a mediocre story into a great game if the story and gameplay elements can be integrated.
If the majority of your time is spent playing the game, as in most genres, especially RPGs, gameplay is the most important. I cannot imagine a story so good that it is worth sitting through 30 hours of terrible gameplay to experience. Of course, story can still enhance or detract from the experience.
What's most important is what you do most of the game. If you're playing a VN where 95%of your time is going to be spent reading, the writing and story are going to be your most important aspects. However, gameplay can still elevate a mediocre story into a great game if the story and gameplay elements can be integrated.
If the majority of your time is spent playing the game, as in most genres, especially RPGs, gameplay is the most important. I cannot imagine a story so good that it is worth sitting through 30 hours of terrible gameplay to experience. Of course, story can still enhance or detract from the experience.
Winterfang
Banned
Game play over story, all time. Every time.
Case in point, my latest 2 games. Kingdoms of Amalur and The Witcher 2.
Kingdoms has a below average story, in which I constantly Lost interested in everyone and ran into the main plot often by mistake, while enjoying the optional quest.
There's no personality whatsoever and I don't remember the names of any character, my main party was full of forgettable fellas, except from the female assassin.
The game play however is just plain fun, even annoying mechanics like lockpicking, blacksmithing and armor enhancements are easy to do, never felt like a chore and the rewards are always good. I could talk about the core fighting mechanics but it would make the post huge. To make it simple, KOA is a game that rewards you for playing.
On the opposite spectrum The Witcher 2.is a game that seems to goes all out against the player having any semblance of fun,but which the story captivated me from the start. From the very being you are with the poorly explained fighting tutorial and you will start getting frustrated right away. It's the time of combat that had a focus of being elaborate and deep without taking in account fun or natural player progression. Is so bad that it hurts the story, because the main character is supposed to be a strong flesh out character but doesn't translate into combat.
The opposite of Kingdoms, in which the story is merely a background for you to use your sweet skills. The Witcher is a game that punish you for trying to have fun or take risks, putting emphasis in preparation instead of in the moment quick thinking.
The main difference is that when you are getting your ass kicked, you think "next time I'll save in here, then use this potion and this enhancement and start again, rather than naturally discover the strategy mid battle. Except in my case after I died, I said fuck it, I don't care about Geralt, he can be imprisoned and die again for all I care. I'm no punishing myself again.
So The Witcher 2 sucks in my eyes, because it fails at being a game.
Case in point, my latest 2 games. Kingdoms of Amalur and The Witcher 2.
Kingdoms has a below average story, in which I constantly Lost interested in everyone and ran into the main plot often by mistake, while enjoying the optional quest.
There's no personality whatsoever and I don't remember the names of any character, my main party was full of forgettable fellas, except from the female assassin.
The game play however is just plain fun, even annoying mechanics like lockpicking, blacksmithing and armor enhancements are easy to do, never felt like a chore and the rewards are always good. I could talk about the core fighting mechanics but it would make the post huge. To make it simple, KOA is a game that rewards you for playing.
On the opposite spectrum The Witcher 2.is a game that seems to goes all out against the player having any semblance of fun,but which the story captivated me from the start. From the very being you are with the poorly explained fighting tutorial and you will start getting frustrated right away. It's the time of combat that had a focus of being elaborate and deep without taking in account fun or natural player progression. Is so bad that it hurts the story, because the main character is supposed to be a strong flesh out character but doesn't translate into combat.
The opposite of Kingdoms, in which the story is merely a background for you to use your sweet skills. The Witcher is a game that punish you for trying to have fun or take risks, putting emphasis in preparation instead of in the moment quick thinking.
The main difference is that when you are getting your ass kicked, you think "next time I'll save in here, then use this potion and this enhancement and start again, rather than naturally discover the strategy mid battle. Except in my case after I died, I said fuck it, I don't care about Geralt, he can be imprisoned and die again for all I care. I'm no punishing myself again.
So The Witcher 2 sucks in my eyes, because it fails at being a game.
SkeptiMism
Member
Nobody plays a game *just* for a story (edit: and actually I'd argue that nobody plays a game just for its gameplay either, as when you break it down to its deepest core, it's just pressing buttons - thus for everyone enjoying games there are multiple things that affect their enjoyment). People play a game because they find that game fun. That fun comes from multiple factors, from which the story can be the most important for someone.
If story was really such a meaningless element to a game's appeal compared to good gameplay all the time, every time as some seem to suggest, then I doubt anyone would have given a rat's ass about games like Monkey Island, Phoenix Wright, Xenogears/Xenosaga, Alan Wake, Deadly Premonition or anything by Quantic Dream or Telltale Games.
In an ideal world, gameplay would always be the primary concern, but reality isn't quite so black and white, sadly.
In an ideal world, gameplay would always be the primary concern, but reality isn't quite so black and white, sadly.
nkarafo
Member
Technology has nothing to do with how good the story is. A good story doesn't necessarily include high quality voice acting or fancy cutscenes. The way the story is presented is different from the story itself. Personally, i prefer the more subtle approach with minimal voices and no cutscenes.
Also, Gameplay > Story.
Meaning the gameplay wasn't as shitty as some thought.
Also, I meant fun as fun to play in the active sense of enjoying something interactive. You can like an environment, a story but it's not what "fun" is in video games imo.
nailbombxx
Member
As cliche as it sounds, if you want a great story you should read literature or watch movies. There are much more high quality stories to be experienced there, and you won't be distracted by playing the game. There are a hand full of games that have really compelling stories, however, I think of the story/plot of a video game as more of a backdrop to the gameplay. Gameplay should build the foundation of a good game, and then you can develop a fascinating story around it, but story will never take precedence over the gameplay. A game with crippled game mechanics but a cool story is still an imperfect game.
What? Experiencing a story can be fun. Movies are praised for being "fun" all the time.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I think this is really a personal call. For me, story can be just as important as gameplay, if not more so, but for others gameplay will always come first.
Last time I checked Walking Dead was Game of The Year by a ton of publications so this isn't a fringe opinion.
Why should I care if the games sell a ton or not?
That is entirely subjective. You don't have to play games for their stories, but that doesn't mean it can't be what others enjoy about them.
I absolutely adore 999, and while I love the story I merely 'liked' the puzzle parts. Nobody would recommend 999 for its puzzles either, even though that is the meat of the gameplay. 999 is fun because of the story. Nobody played Heavy Rain because they like quick-time events. Nobody played The Walking Dead because they just love pressing buttons to make choices. Et cetera.
I have no qualms with games that emphasize story over gameplay or vice versa.
That said, I personally have not complete a game with bad gameplay imo. My favorite stories in games are the crazy, over the top, insane ones which lead to more fun and interesting gameplay.
The serious, dark, gritty, realistic stories are boring and the gameplay tends to be the same.
That said, I personally have not complete a game with bad gameplay imo. My favorite stories in games are the crazy, over the top, insane ones which lead to more fun and interesting gameplay.
The serious, dark, gritty, realistic stories are boring and the gameplay tends to be the same.
Roran Stehl
Member
Both are equally important and matter more or less depending of the genre.
I sometimes feel that trying to find an unifying approach in what makes a game a good game is pointless as one of the strength of the medium is its diversity.
I sometimes feel that trying to find an unifying approach in what makes a game a good game is pointless as one of the strength of the medium is its diversity.
It is to me.
lotsofotherstuff
Member
There are other ways to enjoy something than just "having fun". Why are video games the only media form where it seems to be the only thing you "should" aim for is fun (unless you make a horror game)?
There is a ton of music, movies, books, plays etc that uses the form of that media to create a experience that is considered great without the need to make the viewer, listener (or something) have fun. Why shouldn't some video games developers strive for using the tools that are inside video games to make the same experience?
In addition, the gameplay, and even the HARDWARE the game is played on, are in complete service of the story of 999.
Silver-Tan
Neo Member
I tried to think back and remember whether I ever played a game purely for its story that isn't a RPG or a story-based game, and I can't remember any. Then I tried to remember whether I've ever stopped playing a game that had a decent story purely because its gameplay was awful and I could think of quite a few.
I think good stories are nice additions to games with good gameplay, definitely better than having to sit through a bad story just to keep playing, but even that depends on the genre itself.
But if you genuinely think story>gameplay then you'd probably be better off watching movies or playing visual novels.
I think good stories are nice additions to games with good gameplay, definitely better than having to sit through a bad story just to keep playing, but even that depends on the genre itself.
But if you genuinely think story>gameplay then you'd probably be better off watching movies or playing visual novels.
krameriffic
Member
Yep. It's why I'd rather watch streams or let's plays of gamers like Uncharted.
Or maybe I'm more willing to tolerate serviceable or subpar gameplay for a story I enjoy.
Movies don't have gameplay. Visual novels like the ones you're implying, often, don't have gameplay. People can have a preference for story, while also desiring the gameplay that accompanies them, or that even complements them.
Simbabbad
Member
Obviously, it depends.
First, I'm not sure "story" is a good term, "immersion" is a better one for what the OP probably wants to express. For example, does ALIEN have a good story, or is its story the ideal vessel for cinematic immersion and for themes not necessarily expressed through story but visuals (the design of the monster, the appearance of the Nostromo, etc.)?
Games aren't ideal for story, but they're ideal for immersion, so IMO the distinction is important.
In that line, it's easy to find extremely good games that have merely "sufficient" gameplay, because they mostly stand on immersion: Silent Hill in general (do Silent Hill games have good story or good immersion, BTW) and Shattered Memories in particular, Deadly Premonition, American McGee's Alice, Killer7, No More Heroes... remove their themes and story, and those games are below average. And then there are games with good gameplay that would be unremarkable without their story/immersion, like Dead Space, Dead Rising, Paper Mario in general, Fatal Frame...
For those games, story/immersion > gameplay, even if the gameplay needs not to spoil the story too much and can improve the game a lot (Fatal Frame has a good story/gameplay balance for example).
And then, there are obviously games where story isn't important, more of an excuse than anything, even if art style or settings or atmosphere can be a plus: Mario, Zelda, platforming games in general, beat'em all like Devil May Cry (character design and settings are important there, but not really the story), etc.
So basically it's absurd to make a general rule.
Also, I think art style and settings etc. should be gathered with story and immersion, it's more or less the same thing. For example, Shadow of the Colossus and ICO, even if they have good gameplay, are mostly immersion games.
First, I'm not sure "story" is a good term, "immersion" is a better one for what the OP probably wants to express. For example, does ALIEN have a good story, or is its story the ideal vessel for cinematic immersion and for themes not necessarily expressed through story but visuals (the design of the monster, the appearance of the Nostromo, etc.)?
Games aren't ideal for story, but they're ideal for immersion, so IMO the distinction is important.
In that line, it's easy to find extremely good games that have merely "sufficient" gameplay, because they mostly stand on immersion: Silent Hill in general (do Silent Hill games have good story or good immersion, BTW) and Shattered Memories in particular, Deadly Premonition, American McGee's Alice, Killer7, No More Heroes... remove their themes and story, and those games are below average. And then there are games with good gameplay that would be unremarkable without their story/immersion, like Dead Space, Dead Rising, Paper Mario in general, Fatal Frame...
For those games, story/immersion > gameplay, even if the gameplay needs not to spoil the story too much and can improve the game a lot (Fatal Frame has a good story/gameplay balance for example).
And then, there are obviously games where story isn't important, more of an excuse than anything, even if art style or settings or atmosphere can be a plus: Mario, Zelda, platforming games in general, beat'em all like Devil May Cry (character design and settings are important there, but not really the story), etc.
So basically it's absurd to make a general rule.
Also, I think art style and settings etc. should be gathered with story and immersion, it's more or less the same thing. For example, Shadow of the Colossus and ICO, even if they have good gameplay, are mostly immersion games.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
This is fine only if the Story is actually worth a shit and the Gameplay has the decency to not overstay its welcome (and most under these conditions DON'T).
TacosNSalsa
Member
To me it depends on how bad the other element is. Injustice kept me till the end even though I didn't care for the fighting. Lords of Shadow 2 had a story I really really wanted to finish but the gameplay was so booty butt cheeks that I don't think I even made it half way.God of War 3 was the exact opposite imo it had awesome gameplay but also had a story and characters that I hated coupled with unskippable cutscenes I stopped playing about 2 hrs in
Of course there can be multiple factors, but it still seems weird to me to play a game primarily for story, when there are many other alternatives (Livestreams, let's plays, story synopses on Wikipedia) that allow you to experience the story without having to be good at the game.
For instance, I am awful at FPS, but I've really liked the story and tone of Bioshock games. Never completed one though, just use one of the methods above to get to the point faster.
If Super Smash Bros had no music and beige polygons for graphics, I'd still enjoy playing it (Super Beige Bros?) because it's the kinetic feedback that keeps me coming back.
This isn't to say that people playing for story are "wrong", because there is no "right" way to play a video game. It just seems like a cumbersome, tedious thing to go through from my perspective.
Yeah, that was poorly worded from me, but you got exactly what I wanted to say.
Especially the bolded (with one restriction: applied to "traditional" (i.e. cinematographic) storytelling) would be my main gripe with a lot of games these days, that try to go against that basic principle and do a playable movie.
More specifically, video games have the possibility of a completely different story telling that what we know from books, theater, movies... In the end effect, the quality of the story itself (e.g. the script) is often (always?) bad in games; but that doesn't mean that they're not compelling on a narrative point of view, because of the novelty of the genre.
Trying to do a movie and patch some gameplay above that is just plain lazy and compeltely missing the point of video games.
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
It's funny that you mention sticker star, as the gameplay was completely butchered in that release as well.
The argument for gameplay>story is that is the most important aspect for replayability. Using Uncharted 2 as an example, a game that won the GAF GOTY in 2009, you don't have many people signing its praises at this point. Many are saying that the gameplay is dated and difficult to replay, beginning to have quite a negative consensus on GAF. I'd wager something similar will happen to the Last of Us in a short time.
Games like Dark Souls or Super Metroid will always be relevant as the gameplay is excellent, yet the people demanding a spoon-fed story will complain.
I'd also argue that the majority of stories featured in games have mediocre writing, presentation, and execution, but this post has already gone on too long. Also, I'm an engineer, not a liberal arts major, so I will concede to someone who can do the argument justice.
Sakura
Member
This attitude kind of annoys me. Where do people get off saying stuff like this? One of my favourite games of all time is Persona 4 Golden. I don't give a shit about the gameplay. But I should instead be watching movies or playing visual novels? What is the 60+ hour movie equivalent of Persona 4, where I personally move the story forward at my own pace, interact with characters of my choosing, make my own choices, etc? It doesn't exist. So why would you say people like me would be better off not playing games just because I prefer story to gameplay?
Also, people can, you know, play video games, and watch movies, and play visual novels. Enjoying one form of entertainment doesn't exclude you from others.
Coffee Dog
Banned
The gameplay is part of the story. Wow, that wasn't hard.
Silver-Tan
Neo Member
By that point I usually just watch the game on YouTube, but that's like, my opinion, man.
I'm talking strictly in the sense of "I play all games for their story" rather than "I play all games for their gameplay". Sure, both elements can complement each other.
That came out harsher than intended, though. I wasn't suggesting that if you think story is more important than gameplay you're stupid, just that if you think it's an absolute thing that must be put in a pedestal right above gameplay perhaps you're kind of missing the point of most video games. But again, that's my opinion.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
This seems like such a gross and cancerous attitude. "Go do something else."
Gunstar Ikari
Unconfirmed Member
I'm trying to think of a game where losing most of the story would make it significantly worse for me...and I can't. If a game has a premise, and an ending more substantial than A WINNER IS YOU, then I'm good on the narrative front.
Gameplay is infinitely more important than story as far as I'm concerned.
Gameplay is infinitely more important than story as far as I'm concerned.
protomouse
Member
Uncharted's story stands out about as much as a mindless summer blockbuster movie amongst other mindless summer blockbuster movies. Deliberately so, I'd say.
Generally, I disagree. Games don't even need storytelling to be emotionally involving. Storytelling tends to bog games down. That's why a game like Ico, that conveys emotions through game mechanics, demonstrates how the video game medium can be more powerful than any other, if it just lets go of trying to emulate the others.
A purely ludologic approach to games (gameplay is always more important) is IMO an old-fashioned way of looking at games. Sure, there are tons of great games that offer great gameplay and a basic or no story (puzzle games, strategy games, Dark Souls, stuff like the first four Hitman games, etc.), but the industry is currently moving towards creating games that try to offer a great story and great gameplay and for those games story is just as important as gameplay.
Winterfang
Banned
Elaborate please. Because that doesn't make a lick of sense.
lukeskymac
Member
But The Witcher's presentation (story, dialog, voice acting) also sucks, so that's not really that fair of a comparison.
I love 999 and I think it's a good example for most of the debates in this thread.
One thing that's been mentioned and I don't agree at all with is the idea that a story is always better told through a movie or a book, than through a video game.
999 story would have not been as good if it was a movie, the player choices shape up the experience, and the puzzles are a way for the developer to put in details, develop characters, show dialogues and foreshadow events, in a way that cannot be achieved by a movie.
While in most games the story may just be a way to contextualize the gameplay, in 999 it's the other way aroung, the puzzle sections are all crafted to complement the story.
Also the game results really immersive, the interactive nature that separate games and movies is what, in my opinion, contribute to an emotional response that a movie can't generate.
This is the kind of storytelling I look for in a game, and that I can't find in a movie.
lotsofotherstuff
Member
It's impossible to get the same experience from watching a game and playing a game. You might understand the story but ,especially from Naughty Dog games where much of the characterizations happen during gameplay, you are really limiting what you can get out from a game such as Uncharted by just watching a lets play of it.
Something that gets me all the time is when people say that they have experienced what The Last of Us is by watching a lets play of the game. No, you haven't, you haven't experienced what the the doctors room is by just watching someone play it.
I don't think people that say 'gameplay > story' think that a story doesn't matter at all, but that a game with great story and very bad gameplay is just not enjoyable and therefore not preferable.
Games in the visual novel genre like 999/VLR/AA/Danganronpa have amazing stories and characters, and despite that focus they still manage to have servicable to great gameplay. I think it's very easy to ruin such games with bad gameplay though.
If I want a good story - and just a good story only - then I would rather look in other mediums with zero interactivity.
Games in the visual novel genre like 999/VLR/AA/Danganronpa have amazing stories and characters, and despite that focus they still manage to have servicable to great gameplay. I think it's very easy to ruin such games with bad gameplay though.
If I want a good story - and just a good story only - then I would rather look in other mediums with zero interactivity.
Dark Souls would be an awful game if you took away the lore, artwork, story, music, etc. You know, all the things beyond pressing a button to swing an axe. Games can be a lot more than just a simple, repeating mechanic with a finish line and a score. Dark Souls actually argues for that, not against it.
This thread is a perfect example of why GAF can be so grating to read. Hyperbole everywhere. Generalization after generalization. Absolutely no perspective. There are tons of different styles of video games. You can't just say "story>gameplay" or "gameplay>story" and leave it at that.
Woo-Fu
Banned
Story is pepperoni on my gaming pizza. Gameplay is the crust, cheese, and sauce.
I can remove the pepperoni and still have great pizza. If I remove the crust, cheese, and sauce, I don't have a pizza at all.
So for me gameplay>story. I won't play a game just for the story for the same reason I won't read a book just for the page-turning.
Now I'm not saying games can't have good/great stories, although few do in my experience. I'm just saying that story isn't what makes a great game for me, nor is it why I spend time with this particular medium. Better mediums for story and when I want that I spend my time with them instead of games.
I can remove the pepperoni and still have great pizza. If I remove the crust, cheese, and sauce, I don't have a pizza at all.
So for me gameplay>story. I won't play a game just for the story for the same reason I won't read a book just for the page-turning.
Now I'm not saying games can't have good/great stories, although few do in my experience. I'm just saying that story isn't what makes a great game for me, nor is it why I spend time with this particular medium. Better mediums for story and when I want that I spend my time with them instead of games.
Coffee Dog
Banned
A narrative focused game is a controlled story. The gameplay, whether it is moving snake from area to area in the jungle or socializing in persona 4, is how the player can influence that story in his or her own way.
If you look at something like metal gear solid 2 or hotline miami, which communicates vital information and theming through the design of the game, it shows that storytelling doesn't have to be restricted to a rigid story section/gameplay section style.