Yep.
-
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.
Does a game with bad story but perfect gameplay deserve 10/10 Reviews?
- Thread starter Arnie7
- Start date
Yep.
Swimmer9800
Member
It goes both ways. I would give Gone Home a 10 and there is virtually no gameplay in that game.
protomouse
Member
I think you need to start by defining what "story" means in the context of a video game. Generally speaking, gazing upon video games with the eyes of a movie buff is a misguided effort. Sadly, that's increasingly common these days.
chozen
Member
So gears of war fails at its gameplay aspect. I see it all now, thx.
SuperEpicMan
Banned
In terms of the core story though, it just didn't grab me. Which is a huge shame since you are right about the music, setting and presentation etc. Without an engaging story, endless zombie killing and parkour could only hold my interest for so long.
ForsakenLotus
Member
If there is an emphasis on the story to some degree, no, such as with Metal Gear Solid games (though plenty of people, myself included, really like the story and characters). Games with little to no narrative importance, like Mario Galaxy, can, although personally I find it impossible to compare a game like that to a more well rounded game that balances gameplay and a compelling narrative, like BioShock or The Last of Us. It's why whenever somebody says Mario Galaxy is one of the best games of last generation or even of all time, I just can't cope with that because it's so simple in a way. However, the game is a ton of fun which is all some people care about.
Neoleo2143
Member
I disagree, the act of exploring and interacting with objects in the house is Gameplay.
You don't need fixed "twists", though. Any twists can come as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of a player's actions. You could have some proper butterfly-effect stuff going one, where one action early in the game triggers a series of events in the background that can completely change something later on.
Nothing needs to be set in stone, the story emerges around the player. Fuck, the player can decide to chop wood for 60 hours if they want, but in doing so, things would happen around them that they could have prevented, or things could fail to happen that they could have helped cause in a different time. Whatever happens, happens entirely organically.
And what his means is that no two playthroughs are the same, and the game is infinitely replayable.
But no, apparently we'd rather have our flashy set-pieces and age-old cliches.
No. I'm not sure where you got that impression.
Again, it's pretty clear that your opinion of The Last of Us having terrible gameplay is not the same opinion as those giving the game 10/10 scores. "Terrible gameplay" and "good gameplay" are subjective judgements that vary from person to person, not objective fact.
Neoleo2143
Member
Sir Ilpalazzo
Member
"Fun" is having "enjoyable experiences". There isn't really a meaningful difference between enjoying yourself through narrowly taking down killer robots in Vanquish and taking in Silent Hill 2's brilliant art and audio.
Why would TLOU being a 10 to someone stop Gears from being a 10? They can coexist. They're completely different games with completely different mechanics.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
I'd argue BTS is still an amazing game cause of its interesting story and characters. Gameplay was lackluster but that doesn't matter cause it wasn't the point. We have amazing games that aren't concerned with delivering polished gameplay and that's fine cause that's not what the experience is about.
VNs are still games. You can't rule out a whole genre as "quazi-games" just cause they're not focused on combos, twitch reactions, etc.
And RPGs that are focused on gameplay can get away with having lighter stories, etc , but narrative driven RPG or game with a bad story is a failure.
I can suffer through a bad game with a good story, but it's very difficult for me to do the opposite. If there's no reason for me to care about what i'm doing then odds are i'm not going to want to do it. Obviously, there are exceptions like Dark Souls, but the odds of a game feeling fun, challenging, and rewarding these days are next to zero.
I tried. I died, many many times. But I love the concept of it.
Elitist1945
Member
I guess it all depends on how you view "fun". I would never dare call Spec Ops The Line fun. That game depressed me. But it was a great experience.
NullPointer
Member
If I was scoring it, yes, because mechanics trump story for me.
But I guess it'd still depend upon how much that story gets in the way of those perfect mechanics, and whether the story is a big selling point of the game in the first place *cough*destiny*cough*.
Take Black Ops 3 for instance. Even if that game had flawless mechanics I'd still ding it because the story injects itself too much into the proceedings and interrupts any chance of flow, especially towards the end.
If you're going to have a bad story, make it easy to ignore.
But I guess it'd still depend upon how much that story gets in the way of those perfect mechanics, and whether the story is a big selling point of the game in the first place *cough*destiny*cough*.
Take Black Ops 3 for instance. Even if that game had flawless mechanics I'd still ding it because the story injects itself too much into the proceedings and interrupts any chance of flow, especially towards the end.
If you're going to have a bad story, make it easy to ignore.
It doesn't have terrible gameplay, and both the story and gameplay balance each other and reinforce each other.
goldenpp72
Member
Depends if story is intrusive really. Like mega man 2 having a lame plot is no issue but if I have to watch it constantly it becomes an issue.
Puck Beaverton
Banned
My feelings, although the Souls series has a sense of place that few other games have. It's different than something like MGS V which felt like a sandbox for me to play in that I eventually got bored of because there was nothing else there.
Lord of Ostia
Member
It depends on how much the game subjects you to the awful story. If the game is very gameplay focused and the story is simple and out of the way, just a means to contextualize your actions, then sure. If the gameplay is great but the game forces you to watch long, drawn out cutscenes full of awful storytelling, dialogue, and performances, then I could totally see someone docking the game for that. I could also see them not caring about that as long as the gameplay was good. Similarly, there are developers such as Telltale who's games are pretty awful when it comes to gameplay, but deliver some great storytelling, world building, and characters, and the scores reflect those aspects rather than harping on about the poor gameplay sections, as those clearly aren't the focus. So I definitely think it goes both ways, and really depends on the type of game and what the game is going for.
For a more recent example of a game that I think fails in this aspect is Fire Emblem: Conquest. It features arguably the best gameplay in the entire series, but the story is probably the worst of the entire series. Fire Emblem is a series that has traditionally focused on delivering both great gameplay and an involving and well-told (if a bit cliched) story. The game is a 10/10 in gameplay, but only a 3-4/10 in story. To me, that make the game an 8/10. It's worth playing purely for the great design on a gameplay level, but the horrible story really does bring the whole experience down. As a fan of the franchise, I was looking forward to the story of the newest entry as well as the meaty strategic gameplay, and the game only delivered on one half of my expectations, meaning that it was disappointing even if they gameplay exceeded expectations. This is especially true considering they were supposedly focusing on the story this time in response to criticisms of Awakening's rote narrative. The story in Conquest (and to a lesser extent Birthright) definitely represents a failure of the developers to deliver on their vision and promise to fans, so it definitely affects my perception of the game.
For a more recent example of a game that I think fails in this aspect is Fire Emblem: Conquest. It features arguably the best gameplay in the entire series, but the story is probably the worst of the entire series. Fire Emblem is a series that has traditionally focused on delivering both great gameplay and an involving and well-told (if a bit cliched) story. The game is a 10/10 in gameplay, but only a 3-4/10 in story. To me, that make the game an 8/10. It's worth playing purely for the great design on a gameplay level, but the horrible story really does bring the whole experience down. As a fan of the franchise, I was looking forward to the story of the newest entry as well as the meaty strategic gameplay, and the game only delivered on one half of my expectations, meaning that it was disappointing even if they gameplay exceeded expectations. This is especially true considering they were supposedly focusing on the story this time in response to criticisms of Awakening's rote narrative. The story in Conquest (and to a lesser extent Birthright) definitely represents a failure of the developers to deliver on their vision and promise to fans, so it definitely affects my perception of the game.
Story quality is most relevant in regard to the way it affects a game's pacing.
If the player is asked to take time away from gameplay in order to sit through story exposition or cutscenes then it better be engaging content. Otherwise, if the story content is shitty, then the game's pacing is going to be garbage.
So in short, yes if a game features a story that doesn't nothing but get in the way of its gameplay it should be critiqued for that.
If the player is asked to take time away from gameplay in order to sit through story exposition or cutscenes then it better be engaging content. Otherwise, if the story content is shitty, then the game's pacing is going to be garbage.
So in short, yes if a game features a story that doesn't nothing but get in the way of its gameplay it should be critiqued for that.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
That's more about having a sandbox experience though. It's fine, but if a game is setting out to have a strong plot that says something, I can't imagine it being able to accommodate the amount of choices you're talking about so naturally, while still having a well defined, clear direction story-wise.
It doesn't mean emergent, open stories like these are inherently worse (or better) ,but there is a trade off here. You either get choice and freedom, or you get a strongly constructed plot that has direction and drives the experience.
Theognosis
Member
If video games were measured by the quality of their stories, the highest score a video game would get is 3 out of 10--and that's being very generous!
There are enough other media if you want those.
Adam_Vania
Banned
I think what is a good/bad story is far more subjective than what is good/bad gameplay. Gameplay is something you can figure out relatively quickly -- usually within a minute or two of simply playing the game. Maybe it takes you a few hours to cycle through various modes and get used to the pacing/friction/physics of the game.
Compare that to a story, which is AT LEAST playing through an entire game once, which can take dozens of hours these days. If I was going to analyze a film's story I would want to not just watch it once, but many many times, looking at camera work, lighting, themes that are found throughout the work and related works (if in a series such as Metal Gear). I would look at the historical context surrounding the game's release and see if any of that could be reflected in the narrative itself.
That is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to comprehending the story in a game like MGSV, which encompasses 2 games (GZ+TPP) at 60+ hours of regular and optional story content (5 1/2 of which are cutcenes, same as MGS1-3). Most people that played MGSV did not finish the game, not even the first ending 1/2 the way through. They still say they know the story and it sucks. This is the official story turned running gag on Kotaku. Maybe they are just marketing to the modern cynical consumer.
It's an unfortunate position to take because it shuts us off from discussion. There can be no allusions explored or critical analysis because the story sucks, and the "defender" is just "making this up himself". Nobody can have their own opinion unless it is in these very strict binaries of "good"/"bad" that tell us nothing of the work itself. This way of thinking ignores the creative element in critical analysis, and indeed the very collaborative creativity that flows between art and audience. This is crucial for endowing the work with a meaning beyond mere gameplay mechanics. The player PLAYS WITH the game. It's not a one-directional experience. With MGSV's story Kojima quite literally held out his hand to the player, inviting them to w co-participate willingly in this process of creating the Big Boss legend.
Compare that to a story, which is AT LEAST playing through an entire game once, which can take dozens of hours these days. If I was going to analyze a film's story I would want to not just watch it once, but many many times, looking at camera work, lighting, themes that are found throughout the work and related works (if in a series such as Metal Gear). I would look at the historical context surrounding the game's release and see if any of that could be reflected in the narrative itself.
That is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to comprehending the story in a game like MGSV, which encompasses 2 games (GZ+TPP) at 60+ hours of regular and optional story content (5 1/2 of which are cutcenes, same as MGS1-3). Most people that played MGSV did not finish the game, not even the first ending 1/2 the way through. They still say they know the story and it sucks. This is the official story turned running gag on Kotaku. Maybe they are just marketing to the modern cynical consumer.
It's an unfortunate position to take because it shuts us off from discussion. There can be no allusions explored or critical analysis because the story sucks, and the "defender" is just "making this up himself". Nobody can have their own opinion unless it is in these very strict binaries of "good"/"bad" that tell us nothing of the work itself. This way of thinking ignores the creative element in critical analysis, and indeed the very collaborative creativity that flows between art and audience. This is crucial for endowing the work with a meaning beyond mere gameplay mechanics. The player PLAYS WITH the game. It's not a one-directional experience. With MGSV's story Kojima quite literally held out his hand to the player, inviting them to w co-participate willingly in this process of creating the Big Boss legend.
Wtf. Not even close to what I said. Are you trolling or just dense?
Edit: all I said is Gears is nor survival horror. That is all I said.
Elitist1945
Member
Neoleo2143
Member
As I've Stated before, a game with bad gameplay gets me to ask "why is this a game?". BTS gets me to ask that question.
I don't think I've ruled out VNs as games, indeed, I go back and forth on whether Choose your own adventures can be classified as actually "games". I realize the design in VNs goes into word play and figuring out oddities.
Agreed on the point about RPGs.
This is absolutely not true unless you're reducing "gameplay" down to just controls.
Things like level design, enemy design, pacing, depth are all factors of gameplay that often require a full playthrough of the game to understand. For example, Dark Souls' Lost Izalith is a fucking disaster in level design compared to previous parts of the game, yet you'd never know about it unless you actually played through the majority of the game.
Are you arguing for aesthetic relativism? Because, dude, post-modernism is so passé.
More seriously, when people talk about bad stories, I understand them to mean "badly written/told" stories, which is very much possible. I'd argue trying to criticize a work through arguments is much more intellectually engaging than claiming that all stories are equal and should not be openly judged because people reading a critic might not think for themselves after that.
It depends on the game, what it's trying to accomplish, and how much the bad story interferes with the gameplay.
Some examples of games with bad stories:
DKC: Tropical Freeze - Not much of a story outside of a cutscene at the beginning, but it doesn't matter because it's a gameplay focused game.
Other M - A garbage story told through long, unskippable cutscenes? This game would deserve huge negative points even if the gameplay was great.
Bayonetta - A bad story told through long, boring cutscenes. You can skip them, but if you do so, you're left utterly confused about where you are and what's going on and what you're supposed to be doing. I'd mark negative points for this game's story, but not as much as Other M.
I can't believe people are saying "No" to the question in the thread title. Marking a game off for not having a good story when it wasn't the intent of the game to have a good story is like marking a single player game off for not having multiplayer. It's like marking Halo off because it doesn't have an open world and RPG elements. It's like marking F-Zero off because the vehicles aren't realistic. It's completely missing the point of video games.
Some examples of games with bad stories:
DKC: Tropical Freeze - Not much of a story outside of a cutscene at the beginning, but it doesn't matter because it's a gameplay focused game.
Other M - A garbage story told through long, unskippable cutscenes? This game would deserve huge negative points even if the gameplay was great.
Bayonetta - A bad story told through long, boring cutscenes. You can skip them, but if you do so, you're left utterly confused about where you are and what's going on and what you're supposed to be doing. I'd mark negative points for this game's story, but not as much as Other M.
I can't believe people are saying "No" to the question in the thread title. Marking a game off for not having a good story when it wasn't the intent of the game to have a good story is like marking a single player game off for not having multiplayer. It's like marking Halo off because it doesn't have an open world and RPG elements. It's like marking F-Zero off because the vehicles aren't realistic. It's completely missing the point of video games.
Shang
Member
I've long considered 10s to be the best they could be at what they do. No game is perfect, but there are games that are exemplary at what they set out to do, and gave almost no obvious flaws.
So for me, it depends on the game, and how heavily it leans in the story. For example, I didn't like Life is Strange's ending, and that bothers me, but I don't care nearly as much about a story problem in a game more about its gameplay that purposely deemphasizes the story.
So for me, it depends on the game, and how heavily it leans in the story. For example, I didn't like Life is Strange's ending, and that bothers me, but I don't care nearly as much about a story problem in a game more about its gameplay that purposely deemphasizes the story.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
This. If my game time is 99% great gameplay and 1% shit-tier storytelling then I can easily overlook that aspect of the game, and if I was a reviewer I'd just mention it as a trivial flaw.
Now imagine Mario Galaxy with FFXIII-2's story and exposition... yikes
Adam_Vania
Banned
im not arguing for aesthetic relativism. if you want to say that's what i believe in you are free to feel however you want.
personally i am way past looking at something and saying yes/no. this is me/not me. i like to take from everything, even bad stuff. even the bad stuff has some good stuff in it. look at culture. look at how subcultures appropriate bad stuff and then it gets retro-revived. is Ed Wood a "bad" filmmaker? i don't care. i like MST3K, i think some of those movies are way more amazing works of individual brilliance than some certified "good" movies. for me yes only talking about one specific value good/bad is pointless. what is bad about it? what is bad about these stories? i do not care about plot holes. all stories require an element of mystery, a place for the audience to fill in the game, a suspension of disbelief. i see people complain about fantastical things happening and think, is fantasy a "bad" quality?
BleedOrange
Banned
Sheesh. 5 pages in and im the first to bring up Halo 5.
Halo 5 exemplifies this situation in my opinion. I am disappointed by the quality and execution of the narrative but the gameplay is tied with Tribes 2 for best FPS Ive ever played. I expect a better narrative from Halo titles so I'm appreciative that reviewers called them out on the subject and are holding their feet to the fire.
Halo 5 exemplifies this situation in my opinion. I am disappointed by the quality and execution of the narrative but the gameplay is tied with Tribes 2 for best FPS Ive ever played. I expect a better narrative from Halo titles so I'm appreciative that reviewers called them out on the subject and are holding their feet to the fire.
Neoleo2143
Member
I'd like to summarize and answer the question in the Topic.
The Question is a contradiction, a game with a bad Story intrinsically has bad gameplay and/or Narrative.
The Question is a contradiction, a game with a bad Story intrinsically has bad gameplay and/or Narrative.
Mario games do not have a story and it's the same shit every time, either the princess has been kidnapped by bowser or the princess has been kidnapped by bowser and there is some other meaningless shit going on. Reusing this same basic setup may have been a pass for a story in the first 1 or 2 games but 20 games down the line? Yea Mario games do not have a story.
I think of a story as something with a bit of creativity and effort being put into the narrative. Mario games only have this as a backdrop, the game would function exactly the same without a story i.e you would go to the same worlds regardless.
I think of a story as something with a bit of creativity and effort being put into the narrative. Mario games only have this as a backdrop, the game would function exactly the same without a story i.e you would go to the same worlds regardless.
Are you saying Mario would be better if he was a grizzled, gritty man with a troubled past, who must overcome his own demons before being able to overcome the monsters unleased upon the Mushroom Kingdom by Bowser (who is really misunderstood, and in a plot twist, is merely releasing his own kind who were held in slavery by the Mushroom royal family)?
Scores should strictly reflect a person's enjoyment with a game. Enjoyment can result from mechanics, systems, graphics, story, setting, any other number of items, or a combination thereof. There is no magic formula or metric or standard; all that matters is much you enjoy a game.
OfTheOverflow
Member
If the game makes a point to present a story, then I expect it to be damn good if the game otherwise deserves a 10.