Support NeoGAF

[Tidus_Great]

Sure they do. That's why every broadcast of any of these includes storytelling and a focus of the competitors. This is a poor example.

and to go back to the most obvious Muhamed Ali created a narrative for his fights and made people more interested.

A story or emotional investment will get more people interested.

 

[skLaFarebear]

There's a lot more wrong with sticker star than just stripping away the story.

But anyway, gameplay will always be more important to me. Like you said with Xenosaga, I love the ambition and the scope, but Xenosaga 2 is seen as an awful game because of its terrible, terrible battle system even though it starts to develop its characters and push the story forward that the first game introduced.

Xenosaga 3 is amazing because it does story and gameplay great, which more games should try to pull for. I'd prefer a game to have both, but I'd rather play a Platinum game where the gameplay is amazing and the story is usually mediocre (except for W101, which is good), than something like Xenosaga 2 again.

 

[Skilletor]

It does. Now as we enter modern gaming, the need for voice acting and editing became a necessity, meaning the developer would have to either got them right very early in production or else going back to edit the script after all the recording has been done will add extra development time and cost.

So, in fact, better technology might cause result in weaker story/writing, although of course it can be alleviated if a lot of effort are placed on story than gameplay, such as the older cRPG and VN games.

What does technology have to do with writing? What does voice acting have to do with writing?

 

[ITA84]

They are different mediums. The very notion of "gameplay" need not even be an element in interactive mediums at all.

But then this would be a form of art, not a game (yeah, the old "games are art" argument). Why don't we just treat interactive art separately from games (at least from a critical standpoint)? After all, if they're not games anymore, you don't have to care about gameplay anymore (at most you might take issue with the quality if the interface, but that's a merely technical aspect).

 

[grandwizard]

A good story has never made up for poor gameplay for me. And if the story is all I'm interested in from a game I'd rather just watch it on YouTube than simply go through the motions.

It's different if your actions in the game can actually influence the story, in that case I'd consider it part of gameplay and something unique you can only get from playing it. But that is a rare case.

 

[masud]

If I may add as long as the gameplay is serviceable, it can still be enjoyed for its story.

Only if you're cool with playing games that are merely 'serviceable'. I'm not.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

What does technology have to do with writing?

Technology gives you access to additional tools as a storyteller that you might not have had previously.

Fidelity in the character models, for instance, lets you tell more of the story through the facial expressions and body language of the character in a way that would be very difficult with, say, 8-bit sprites.

Increased texture resolution and poly count (as well as better lighting fidelity) in your environments gives you additional options for subtle environmental storytelling.

 

[Murtrod]

I agree that story is such a crucial and often overlooked (WAY OVERLOOKED) aspect of games, but:

Story (should) = gameplay (quality wise)

There is only one occasion in which ( in my opinion) Story > Gameplay and that was Spec Ops: The Line, and even then, that was a painful playthrough.

Gameplay will always be priority in development (and often should be), but I agree that games need to have a much larger emphasis on writing. However, writing isn't profitable because the average gamer is not interested in a game's plot compared to the core entertainment value of a game: its gameplay. So, while many games accomplish a great equilibrium, it is sadly not a priority.

 

[Derp]

The way i see it is, a game without gameplay isn't a game. But a game without a story can still be a game. So gameplay is more important.

 

[Schreckstoff]

An example.

If I had to pick between the Naughty Dog that made Platformers and the one that makes storydriven TPS, I wouldn't have to think for a second to pick the former.

So yes gameplay > story. Doesn't mean I'll disregard the story and that I wouldn't appreciate a good story, just that a good story doesn't outweigh bad gameplay.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

I value both, but I won't disregard a game if one sucks while the other is good. Depends on the genre and whatnot. I'm probably not going to be playing a visual novel if the story doesn't appeal to me, just like a straight-up action game without many cutscenes won't do much for me if the combat is shit.

Of course, I'm also a guy that can get engrossed in a lot of video game stories people find bad, so take that as you will.

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.

There are plenty of game stories written by people that have written books and/or legit screenplays.

Just straight up disagree...what am i playing when story>gameplay? Am I holding a video game controller or a tv remote?

Visual novel?

 

[Htown]

A good story isn't required for a game to be great, any more than you need a strong narrative in a painting or a piece of music. Story just isn't as central to games as it is to books, movies, or television.

That's not to say there aren't games with great stories. Sometimes story-focused games are amazing, and story is essential to those games. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just that the absence of a good story doesn't necessarily make a game bad.

 

[LegendX48]

I see them as equal myself. I will never understand some people though with the whole "fuck story, fuck cutscenes, I skip all of them all the time" mindset. There's entire genres that are completely built around story/writing. Guess those people stay away from RPGs and point and click games.

 

[Dark_castle]

Both are important. And if one is weak, it can makes the whole game bad despite its qualities.

In games in which the story has little to no importance and which rely entirely in gameplay, it is not a problem, since you are playing the game for the gameplay, not the story.

In games in which the story is the main selling point or should be an interesting part of the game, if said story turns out to be badly-written, you may not want to continue playing, despite the gameplay being good (I'm looking at you Star Ocean 4). This is the unwritten rule of many (J)RPG: they must have a good story if they want you to continue playing.
On the other hand, you have games with an interesting story but less than stellar if not outright bad gameplay (Magna Carta was such a mess...). In that case, you will simply stop to "play" because the game becomes a chore, and you are honestly feeling like you are wasting your time playing something which is just not enjoyable.

So, I don't believe that Story > Gameplay, nor that Gameplay > Story. However, with games in which the story is not important in the first place, the Gameplay is far enough. Heck, in some case the Gameplay will be enough to make you continue playing a game with a poor plot (for games which are supposed to have a decent plot), but those are rare.

In short: Story = Gameplay, unless Story is not relevant in the first place, in that case Gameplay trumps all.

Case in point. You don't need good story/writing for every genre other than RPG and VN for them to be good. Gameplay is the essence of video games. Can a good story carry say a action adventure with poor/mediocre gameplay? Sure, Nier is a good example of that. But these are very rare to come by.

 

[Seanspeed]

Glad you agree. I've never understood why people care so much about stories in games. Games are first and foremost, a game. Having a story is nice, I guess, but I don't play games for their stories. I play games because I play them for their gameplay.

I'm open to the idea, at least. I mean, I've played games that have very little 'gameplay' to them because of the 'experience' of it, like Dear Esther and Gone Home, and I did enjoy my time with them. But even Gone Home, it was mainly the immersive storytelling experience that defined it. The story itself wasn't anything to write home about.

I really do want video game stories to become better. I'd be super psyched for a game that told a story that stirred me as much as something like Contact or Saving Private Ryan or something. But so far, no game has even come close. There's games I become interested in what happens, like Halo, Mass Effect or certain RPG's, but its not the actual reason I'm playing them. If they didn't have interesting gameplay, the story wouldn't keep me going or anything.

Video game stories are just shit, for the most part. Subpar or mediocre in the best of circumstances(and this is not common). And I've never gotten excited over a mediocre story before.

I imagine people who say they play video games for the story can just *very* easily invest themselves in whatever story they are fed, no matter how good or bad it is.

 

[Malreyn]

Gameplay HAS to trump story or else you're just gonna get something like Beyond Two Souls and you can just watch the whole thing on a lets play and never have an interest in buying it.

 

[WetTreeLeaf]

Of course gameplay is still an important factor, but not as important as story. The exception to this rule for me is multiplayer only games, or Singleplayer games with a 'make your own story' like Mount and Blade or Total War.

Yeah I'm on the same boat I find myself playing less and less gameplay oriented games, if the story makes no sense then I cant find a way to push through; only a few exceptions like Dark Souls, Mount and Blade, and Skyrim.

 

[ITA84]

Technology gives you access to additional tools as a storyteller that you might not have had previously.

You may be right, but that wouldn't count as an excuse for a poor story, would it? I mean, if an author can't tell his/her great story with any of the mediums available, it's his/her fault.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

If your game's story is more important than the gameplay, just write a book.

I don't think Danganronpa would be anywhere near as fun if it was a book.

Just like how some of 999's plot developments wouldn't work as a book.

There's room for story-driven games seeing as there are so many ways to tell a story.

 

[Version 3.0]

I'll take it one step further in the opposite direction from you:

no story > story

That's the extreme version. But generally speaking, the less story, the better.

IT'S A GAME.

 

[Infinite]

Once again story is the feedback portion of the game in the same way art style, animations and sound effects are. You should not critique it independently of the entire package.

 

[HK-47]

What does technology have to do with writing? What does voice acting have to do with writing?

Tech and voice acting effect a lot of things, from how much it will cost to make reactive choices, to cost of dialogue, to how much time and money itll take to rewrite things. And thats just the budgetary side of things.

 

[Skilletor]

I see them as equal myself. I will never understand some people though with the whole "fuck story, fuck cutscenes, I skip all of them all the time" mindset. There's entire genres that are completely built around story/writing. Guess those people stay away from RPGs and point and click games.

Don't play point and click games (most were on PC and didn't have one growing up), but RPGs is my favorite genre, and I don't give a damn about the narrative most of those have to tell.

What's confusing to me is why people say things like this when, in most rpgs, you spend far more time running around and getting into battles than you do watching cutscenes or progressing the story.

 

[Noirulus]

Story > Gameplay. Story is what really immerses me into the game, and in the end those moments are more powerful than the fun that gameplay provides. Having both would of course be fantastic.

Don't play point and click games (most were on PC and didn't have one growing up), but RPGs is my favorite genre, and I don't give a damn about the narrative most of those have to tell.

What's confusing to me is why people say things like this when, in most rpgs, you spend far more time running around and getting into battles than you do watching cutscenes or progressing the story.

Um, that's pretty obvious. You're watching the cutscenes in order to understand the world of the RPG better, thereby immersing yourself into the experience so that the mindless grinding actually has some semblance of meaning.


Side-note: All these posts saying "lul ill just go read a book or watch a movie if I wanted a good story!" are so cringe-worthy.

 

[Sillverrr]

Pretty much feel the same way as the OP. Stumbled across the same games he mentioned and love, love, LOVE these series. Games can do good stories, but obviously some genres are more suited to this format, as others have mentioned.

Whilst I prefer story-driven games, then, fast-paced arcade games still have their place, and also story-light games like Nintendo's platformers (excluding Metroid - the lore is deceptively deep there, as proven by Metroid Prime).

When I was younger, I definitely gravitated more towards the latter - I grew up with Sega and Nintendo. As an adult, with less time on my hands, I tend to seek out deeper experiences in order to feel the most reward for my commitment. As the medium advances, and games become by-and-large more complex, so to has my taste altered to embrace this reality.

I don't even distinguish between a well-written game and other forms of media any more. The way I see it, the lines are well and truly blurred - often these games are part of a larger "universe", encompassing comics, movies, books AND games.

The adult me will forever hail Baldur's Gate 2 as the pinnacle of what I'm referring to. The child in me will always have time for Mario as well

 

[Pikma]

Well, if you're playing VNs or Adventure games, of course story is more important than gameplay, other than that, Nope.

 

[Seanspeed]

Once again story is the feedback portion of the game in the same way art style, animations and sound effects are. You should not critique it independently of the entire package.

Art style is not a 'feedback system'. Neither are animations or sound effects. And in no way are any of these things free from criticism on an individual basis. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

 

[Joey Ravn]

I don't like blank statements, and "X > Y" is one. The way I see it, it totally depends on the game. Some games are more tailored to be story-heavy experiences, while others completely forfeit any kind of plot and focus exclusively on gameplay.

Think Gone Home and Tetris, for example. I don't need groundbreaking gameplay to enjoy Gone Home, since what draws me to that game in the first place is the story around it. Experiencing it as if I was that character is what motivates me to pick it up and play it. Tetris, on the other hand, doesn't need any sort of explanation as to why I'm dropping this pieces and making lines with them. Its gameplay is its motivation AND end goal.

That being said, I'm a person who likes more games with a deeper story than amazing gameplay. As long as the game is competent enough to take me from point A to point Z, I'll be happy to play it. For example, I'm playing Metal Gear Solid (PSX) for the first time now. While its gameplay could have been revolutionary back in the day, it's severely lackluster in some areas today. But it's still good enough for me to enjoy it. If the storty wasn't so crazy and the characters so interesting, I wouldn't be playing it, though.

no story > story

IT'S A GAME.

I don't understand this justification. "It's a game", so it must not have a story and a plot? Every single game? Are you saying that entire genres have no right to be?

Crazy.

 

[HK-47]

Don't play point and click games (most were on PC and didn't have one growing up), but RPGs is my favorite genre, and I don't give a damn about the narrative most of those have to tell.

What's confusing to me is why people say things like this when, in most rpgs, you spend far more time running around and getting into battles than you do watching cutscenes or progressing the story.

In western rpgs I spend an awful lot of time talking to people. I'm replaying KotOR 2 and just had a 5-8 minute chat with a droid that wanted to sell me on the black market and had destroyed an entire mining station to try and make it happen. Not to mention gameplay doesnt mean no story is happening.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

I do disagree with the first having a good story (or maybe I'm just getting my words confused with memorable) but total disclaimer, that's absolutely my opinion, I'm not saying that as fact. Some people DID enjoy the first's story.
I DO agree with enjoying the campy as hell atmosphere, it was such a great vibe.
2's story however, I thought was actually pretty entertaining and memorable.

I really liked the concepts and lore behind 1's story, but it was told in such a jarring way that you can't even understand a lot of it until the end, which is pretty poor pacing.

2's story is a lot more enjoyable to watch unfold because you can actually follow it imo.

 

[unround]

Making blanket statements either way is pretty silly, especially given that one will always inform the other if present.

 

[Schreckstoff]

I see them as equal myself. I will never understand some people though with the whole "fuck story, fuck cutscenes, I skip all of them all the time" mindset. There's entire genres that are completely built around story/writing. Guess those people stay away from RPGs and point and click games.

Point'n'click adventures were mostly built around humor not story.

In western rpgs I spend an awful lot of time talking to people. I'm replaying KotOR 2 and just had a 5-8 minute chat with a droid that wanted to sell me on the black market and had destroyed an entire mining station to try and make it happen. Not to mention gameplay doesnt mean no story is happening.

Technically that's lore

 

[LegendX48]

Don't play point and click games (most were on PC and didn't have one growing up), but RPGs is my favorite genre, and I don't give a damn about the narrative most of those have to tell.

What's confusing to me is why people say things like this when, in most rpgs, you spend far more time running around and getting into battles than you do watching cutscenes or progressing the story.

Most of what you do in RPGs is done in order to progress through it though. Things like grinding or doing random side quests (which tell their own stories separate from the main one sometimes) fill in the gaps between the events that transpire. It may seem odd to hear it as an argument but you can't deny that one of the genre's most important aspects is the narrative. If nothing else, it gives context to your actions.

 

[Seanspeed]

Don't play point and click games (most were on PC and didn't have one growing up), but RPGs is my favorite genre, and I don't give a damn about the narrative most of those have to tell.

What's confusing to me is why people say things like this when, in most rpgs, you spend far more time running around and getting into battles than you do watching cutscenes or progressing the story.

Yep. RPG's are my favourite type of game as well. And I typically have very little interest in the story. Its the gameplay that keeps me coming back. And I think its worth remembering that there's more to the term 'gameplay' than just combat.

 

[HK-47]

Point'n'click adventures were mostly built around humor not story.

Not the point and clicks I've been playing. Even plenty of Lucasarts games arent built just on humor.

 

[LegendX48]

Point'n'click adventures were mostly built around humor not story.

That's why I said "story/writing" with writing being the keyword here I suppose

 

[Nachos]

I can think of at least two instances where this isn't true:

1: Horror games, in which the experience of being an active participant is a huge part of the buy-in for what the story is trying to evoke

and

2. Reactive games (Many western RPGs, Telltale stuff, etc.) where your input actually affects aspects of the story (albeit usually in fairly minor ways).

Right, I should've specified that I was talking about games that primarily tell their stories through non-interactive cutscenes or events. Games are adding more and more ambient dialogue, but a lot still wrestle away direct control in the interests of precise cinematography and/or timing.

Your examples are cases of what I mentioned later in my post, though, especially scary games. Tension and suspense are usually built around the player's agency, as they can often escalate via their action or inaction. If those are deliberately invoked and nurtured, they can go to influence the player's expectations for everything.

 

[Noirulus]

I feel like you can't really classify VNs as video games.

 

[Heartfyre]

A good game can have great gameplay and uninteresting story.
A good game can have uninspired gameplay and a gripping story.
But only a great game can have great gameplay and great story.

Many people underestimate how a compelling narrative simply makes gameplay better. Context adds so much to a game, the reasons why gameplay mechanics are the way they are, and character motivations. When was the last time a game with no story or a bad narrative won the lion's share of Game of the Year Awards? It's always games like The Last of Us, Portal 2, Mass Effect 2, Red Dead Redemption, GTA4/V and so on. Games with great gameplay mechanics, coupled with a compelling narrative.

If you're making a truely compelling game these days, you gotta have both. There's really no excuse. You can make a good game without a fine story, but it's unlikely to have a lasting impact.

 

[HK-47]

Point'n'click adventures were mostly built around humor not story.



Technically that's lore

No, thats story and dialogue. Lore is like backstory, world building and shit on the edge of the ongoing plot. This was directly related to progressing the game.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

Not the point and clicks I've been playing. Even plenty of Lucasarts games arent built just on humor.

Besides, how do you meaningfully separate "humor" from "story"?

Humor is a huge part of how the story is told. You have to include that when discussing story, because otherwise, what are we talking about? A wikipedia plot summary version of the story?

 

[Stoze]

I think the phrase "gameplay > story" is a false, yet well intentioned saying.

It's more about what each individual game sets out to do and if it does it consistently well or not.

This, don't know if that's how I would word it but I think I agree with what you mean. One reason why I agree is because games with great stories often have the gameplay and story intertwined so tightly together design-wise that the comparison and argument becomes minuscule. This would be game like the Telltale games, 999, To The Moon, etc.

Then you have the other side of the spectrum where games go by the cutscene-gameplay-cutscene formula, i.e. nearly all AAA games. The reason why saying gameplay > story feels off to me here is that when a story is shallow, dumb, or bad, you can just completely ignore it. Then it becomes a game that doesn't really have a story and is just a game that is good or bad. On the other hand, you can't ignore bad gameplay even if the story is great with these kinds of games. At least, I can't.

 

[Seanspeed]

Most of what you do in RPGs is done in order to progress through it though. Things like grinding or doing random side quests (which tell their own stories separate from the main one sometimes) fill in the gaps between the events that transpire. It may seem odd to hear it as an argument but you can't deny that one of the genre's most important aspects is the narrative. If nothing else, it gives context to your actions.

Yes, it gives context to your actions. That's typically the height of the importance I give it. Beyond that, I'm playing it because its fun to play, not because I'm heavily invested in what is happening in the world.

 

[Schreckstoff]

That's why I said "story/writing" with writing being the keyword here I suppose

In Point'n'Click adventures it's very often the cohesion though, much of the humour comes from your actions.

For instance, Monkey Island's "Please", "Pretty Please",... wouldn't be half as fun if you weren't the one picking the option.

 

[Astral Dog]

I do disagree with the first having a good story (or maybe I'm just getting my words confused with memorable) but total disclaimer, that's absolutely my opinion, I'm not saying that as fact. Some people DID enjoy the first's story.
I DO agree with enjoying the campy as hell atmosphere, it was such a great vibe.
2's story however, I thought was actually pretty entertaining and memorable.

I disagree, Bayonetta 1 had a clear focus, it was a journey where Bayonetta interacts with the 4 main bosses, her younger self, an annoying journalist, a mysterious witch and was filled with memorable dialogue.
Its actually a simple story that was appropiate for an action game.
The story on Bayonetta 2 loses all structure, its very similar to Bayonetta, but as PG tried to make it complex, they failed,
its not about Bayonetta, but about three characters and there is not enough space for all of them, it loses focus on plot points and is instead a series of sequences vaguely connected.
Its a mess.

 

[zma1013]

I'll admit to suffering through The Witcher 1 gameplay in order to see how the wonderful world and cast of characters developed throughout. I made a decision early on to just treat it as a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book and that worked out good enough, however after experiencing the story fully, I have no desire to ever play the game again as the only engaging thing about it I now already fully grasp. The gameplay just had too many annoying issues cropping up and a unique but all-too-simple combat system that left me genuinely bored in fights and some shitty levels that I never want to play again. F#$% that swamp, F#$% it hard.

That's probably the only game I've actually put up with gameplay I didn't care for just for the story parts. I especially liked how the decisions in the game weren't boiled down to Duh This Good or Duh This Bad. Quite often both of the decisions seemed shitty and since I play the good guy, I was quite vexed and had to clearly think about my choices and ultimately went with what I thought was the lesser of the two evils. It was a refreshing change of pace from the usual black and white choices.

I guess the moral of the story is, I certainly feel that gameplay in a game is the most important aspect, but there can be rare occasions for me that I'll suffer through for a story I suppose. I'll still label the game based on the quality of the gameplay though.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

I imagine people who say they play video games for the story can just *very* easily invest themselves in whatever story they are fed, no matter how good or bad it is.

Or they just value different things in a story/have different tastes than you. No need to be condescending about it.

 

[Foffy]

A series like Ace Attorney that in my experience became rather worthless for a repeated playthrough, because the game is so heavy on story that if you have a good memory, you really remember most of the game and it becomes more of a drag. Games with weak stories also can get in the way of the game, creating a sense of "get on with it!" or worrying about going back to it, like the Final Fantasy XIII trilogy.

I hold the view that if the gameplay is simply good enough, and potentially better than the narrative, it makes it easy to go back to it. A game with a story shoved in your face that gets in the way of the gameplay has the issue of interfering with that desire. It's far easier for me to get into Super Metroid again than it is to get into Other M, specifically for these kind of reasons.

I may also be a unique case, as my favorite genre of games are platformers.

 

[HK-47]

Yes, it gives context to your actions. That's typically the height of the importance I give it. Beyond that, I'm playing it because its fun to play, not because I'm heavily invested in what is happening in the world.

Sort of defeats the whole role playing thing though.

 

[WetTreeLeaf]

Yes, it gives context to your actions. That's typically the height of the importance I give it. Beyond that, I'm playing it because its fun to play, not because I'm heavily invested in what is happening in the world.

What games do you mean specifically, so I can get a better picture. Lord knows I would never play an RPG just for its gameplay (dont say Dark Souls).