Support NeoGAF

[Palculator]

"Bad story" usually refers to the story as if it was written down on paper and evaluated on its own merits. I don't really buy into that view and think the game should be evaluated as a whole. As such, if whatever context or narrative the game provides you to with keeps you going, I wouldn't call it "bad." So yes, such a game would still deserve a 10/10.

 

[PsionBolt]

No, it does not.

However, it's important to realize that Super Mario Bros., Mega Man, Minecraft, and many other beloved games of that sort do not have bad stories. They don't have no stories, either. They have good stories.

It's a mistake to believe that a game with perfect gameplay and poor story exists. At least, I've certainly never played one.

 

[Pizza]

It depends on what a "game" is to the reviewer, and what the game is trying to achieve.


If a game is trying to be a deep cinematic experience, but "only" makes a really fun game with a bad story, I would personally rate that at an 8 or so out of 10. It is a really fun game that fails to meet some of it's own goals.

But to me no game should ever be a 10. There's always room for improvement and that's completely fine!

 

[chaosblade]

Never player FF5. Was it supposed to be more of a dungeon-crawler rather than a narrative driven , full blown RPG? I get the sense that at the time FF as a brand wasn't established as a cinematic, story driven experience , though I could be wrong.

They got pretty narrative-driven by the time 4 hit, so it's not really a dungeon crawler. It doesn't take itself too seriously though and is pretty lighthearted for the most part, which is for the better since the story it tells isn't all that great. It's a game you play for the gameplay (the job system implementation).

 

[Phediuk]

Depends completely on the design goals of the game in question.

 

[neurosyphilis]

Story is the most important thing in a game for me. My favorite genre in the cinematic experience type so the Naughty Dog, Rockstar, God Of War, and Until Dawn type stuff. Nintendo's games stories are almost non existent, but some still get great scores, I guess it could depend on the person reviewing it.

 

[Elitist1945]

Story is the most important thing in a game for me. My favorite genre in the cinematic experience type so the Naughty Dog, Rockstar, God Of War, and Until Dawn type stuff. Nintendo's games stories are almost non existent, but some still get great scores, I guess it could depend on the person reviewing it.

Even then, for me, a story can be 'just alright' if the presentation takes it up a notch. Beyond Two Souls' story is undeniably...not great. But the presentation (acting, music, sound) were all fucking incredible so that kinda picked up the slack for me.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

It's alright to have a bad story as long as it is not the focus, or is not something blatantly negative like custer's revenge. In which case it doesn't matter if it was not the focus, you have something terrible in it no matter what.

 

[Polioliolio]

If the badness of the story actually brought down the game for you, I would expect that to reflect in the score.

 

[saturnine]

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?

I think there is a difference between what we take from a given work and how we criticize it. I'm with you in that I'd rather "consume" (I don't like this word) a crude work of art that has a soul and interesting ideas rather than going through a soulless well produced "objectively good" piece that brings nothing noteworthy to the table. That doesn't mean I can't formulate criticism toward the weaker aspects of the former though.

In the end, what's the point of criticism? To try to formulate clearly one's point of view, and maybe offer a different perspective to others regarding a particular piece of work. I'd say those that stand to gain the most from it are the artists themselves. Though that doesn't mean that any and all criticism is good of course, and it also means that a good critic goes beyond "x is fine / x is shite".

You're entitled to your opinion, but a plot hole could hardly be called a "mystery" if it actually undermines a whole narrative. I'd argue no author would willingly have one in their work.

 

[Adam_Vania]

In the end, what's the point of criticism? To try to formulate clearly one's point of view

ah, here is where we differ. i have a totally different definition of criticism. anything we say is our own point of view so that is a mute point. the goal is in coming up w something new to say, your own individual response. good/bad is what i can get from a censor. it is unreliable unless i share the exact value systems as the critic, which is nearly impossible.

 

[jdstorm]

Story is so subjective. The amount of games I have played with great story's that people think are terrible because the story isn't presented through in your face Cutscenes and FMV sequences is incredibly long.

The the counter point to that is the last of us. A game who's story is a generic fetch quest that you'd hate if it was in a long open world RPG. Yet people love it because naughty dog did a great job with its characters. Despite having nothing interesting to actually say

 

[autoduelist]

Story? I don't need no stinkin' story.

Gameplay 10/10 = 10/10 game for me.

 

[GnawtyDog]

No. Even the gimmick stories have to be sort of coherent with the theme. Mario is. Save the princess in the castle from the koopas.

 

[Seventy5]

This seems to imply that those TellTale games do not have gameplay or that it is bad.

I think an important thing here is to first define what is and what is NOT gameplay.

I don't think that TellTale games really have gameplay, or even David Cage's games. That's not to say they aren't enjoyable experiences, but they aren't designed around a fun gameplay hook that keeps you engaged through playing. They are almost entirely narrative driven. I loved Until Dawn, but I wouldn't score it highly based on the very basic gameplay. The story and atmosphere are the hooks that dug in, the gameplay was simply a method of advancing that.

 

[shoreu]

No, a 10/10 is stellar on all fonts. If you have any aspect that left you wanting it shouldn't get it

 

[HMD]

Destiny is a perfect example of OP's hypothetical game.

 

[Compsiox]

If the gameplay is so magnificent that it makes up for the failure of a story then of course.

 

[Radical Edward]

Gameplay trumps everything else, for me. If it has a good story, cool but it doesn't need it for 10/10.

 

[More_Badass]

I don't think that TellTale games really have gameplay, or even David Cage's games. That's not to say they aren't enjoyable experiences, but they aren't designed around a fun gameplay hook that keeps you engaged through playing. They are almost entirely narrative driven. I loved Until Dawn, but I wouldn't score it highly based on the very basic gameplay. The story and atmosphere are the hooks that dug in, the gameplay was simply a method of advancing that.

I mean, gameplay is merely a tool to deliver the experience that the developer wants the player to have. To say Telltale games don't "have gameplay" is kind of silly. They have the gameplay/mechanics/controls that's suited for that experience. That's the metric that matters

 

[hitmon]

I'd leave it up to the reviewer if they want to give a game a certain score since different people have different tastes.

 

[viveks86]

Depends on the game. If the game is actively pushing a story for you to experience, and the story is crap, then it makes no sense to give it a perfect score, regardless of gameplay. Gameplay is just one of many factors, even if it is often the most important. But that's just my way of looking at a game. At the end of the day, reviews are purely subjective, so it's perfectly acceptable for a reviewer to weigh different aspects differently and decide to give a perfect score, despite the story

 

[Astral Dog]

Depends on the genre.
That said, there are many story driven AAA games with questionable stories but perfect scores.

 

[_Spr_Drnk]

A good story, while undoubtedly a good thing, has only ever been essential in the storytelling of books, film, and theatre as far as I'm concerned. In the realm of gaming, gameplay is king. Cut scenes can go fuck themselves.

But I'm like that.

 

[Radical Edward]

No, a 10/10 is stellar on all fonts. If you have any aspect that left you wanting it shouldn't get it

I guess it depends Who's reviewing it or how integral story is to the game. I don't really care if a game has a passable story so i would give game 10/10 if gameplay, alone, was perfect/ brilliant . All subjective, i guess

 

[MrCunningham]

If story isn't a central part of the games design, then yes it can earn a 10/10.

 

[PSqueak]

Legend of zelda games have incredibly basic, rudymentary stories, it's all about delivery, so i say, yes.

 

[More_Badass]

This only works if you believe a perfect score equals a "perfect game"

But that's not what perfect scores mean. It simply means that the person writing about the game felt it deserved the highest accolade their site/magazine/etc offered. It's a personal metric, there's no concrete definition or standard for what a perfect game is. It's a fluid concept, based on the strengths of genre and preference.

 

[Zafir]

No.

That said, I'm someone who probably wouldn't give 10 out of 10 to anything.

 

[Elitist1945]

This only works if you believe a perfect score equals a "perfect game"

But that's not what perfect scores mean. It simply means that the person writing about the game felt it deserved the highest accolade their site/magazine/etc offered. It's a personal metric, there's no concrete definition or standard for what a perfect game is. It's a fluid concept, based on the strengths of genre and preference.

Exactly. No game is perfect. You can find flaws in any of the highest rated games. Easily.

 

[KOMANI]

No.
Mario doesn't count. We're conditioned to just play and have fun playing a Mario platformer without dwelling too much of the story.

Metal Gear has a story arc that spans 8 games, an ensemble of voice actors, tons of exposition. So when MGS4 has 20 minute cut scenes that are poorly paced with tons of dead air, and when both Mgs4 and MGSV are beating you over the head with shit that's poorly written... You kind of get insulted. Marrying gameplay and story is a tall order, but after MGS3, the series had a problem doing just that.

 

[Seventy5]

I mean, gameplay is merely a tool to deliver the experience that the developer wants the player to have. To say Telltale games don't "have gameplay" is kind of silly. They have the gameplay/mechanics/controls that's suited for that experience. That's the metric that matters

I'm thinking of gameplay I guess in an old school sense, but applying it to what games have become. TellTale games don't have the gameplay that a Mario game or Wipeout have. I wouldn't come back to The Walking Dead for the controller based portion of the game like I would with Alienation or Super Time Force, but it's still an engaging experience for the story and choices. I guess my point is that games have evolved so much that holding a story based game back for lack of tactile, skill based play, or an action game for lack of a good story is silly. If it's fun or engaging, that's the only metric I care about.

 

[oneils]

95% of game stories are bad but that hasn't stopped the 10/10 reviews from coming out.

I have to agree, close to all video game stories are terrible and we are able to overlook them.

 

[Terrorblot]

It obviously depends on what the game is trying to be. A video game can be a narrative, a toy, or both. I love a game with an engrossing story, but forcing a game to focus on narrative is as much an unfair demand as it's opposite.

 

[Richie]

I'm playing Darksiders 2 on the Wii U, the story so far takes itself too damn seriously and whatever fun the -story- is giving me comes from mocking its clichés and Oh-So-Badass moments. The gameplay is pretty fun though, and since I can take a MST3K approach to its narrative, if it keeps up this level of gameplay I'd personally rate it favorably.

It depends though because if the story was aggressively BAD to be point of being off-putting (and not simply laughable) yeaaah that'd mess with my enjoyment of the game.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

Yes.

See Super Mario Galaxy 2.

 

[LukasTaves]

Hell yeah.

Thought I disagree about the gameplay being perfect on Mgs V. It improved a lot, but there's still plenty to be improved specially in level design.

 

[Sami+]

Depends. I'm very lenient on mobile, handheld, or twitch arcadey stuff, but very rarely am bothered to play a full $60 console game if it doesn't bother with context. In the latter case, I'd never give it a 10.

Mario Galaxy 2 is a good example actually because I personally like the first one a hell of a lot more purely on account of the story and presentation.

 

[SavoyPrime]

Not in my opinion, but narrative is important to me. Not to say that gameplay isn't important. But it's the narrative/story that keeps me fully engaged.

 

[Mazzo3]

Maybe it doesn't deserves 10/10, but it is certainly a contender. Story in a game is as important as you make it to be, imo. Even so, I'd say that the most effective way to tell a story in a game is doing it non-intrusively, through gameplay, since it plays to the media's strength.

 

[BigWeather]

Bad story? No.
No story? Sure.

If the story was important to the game, or at least to the creators of the game, and they failed to accomplish that then it hurts the overall.

However, tons of 10/10 games have no story or a super-light story and that's fine -- Spelunky is one example.

 

[LostDonkey]

Story means nothing to me. I skip them most of the time anyway.

As long as a game is good to play, has lots of replay value and is fun I will play it.

Sure a good story adds to some games as a break from the action maybe, but yeah I wouldn't have any problem with a game getting a 10/10 score with no or a poor story as long as the gameplay was great.

I've played some games over the years that have got really bad reviews because of their story and enjoyed them and I've played some games that have had their story put on an untouchable pedastal and thought they were very mediocre.

 

[conman]

Yes, if the story isn't central to the experience (Mario, Street Fighter, Binding of Isaac, etc).

No, if the story is the focus of the game (Gone Home, Heavy Rain, The Witcher 3, etc).

 

[Boss Mog]

The answer is YES, because for a game, gameplay is the most important thing. So a game like Bayonetta getting a perfect score is fine.

However if the opposite question were to be asked then the answer should be a resounding NO and yet a game like Red Dead Redemption is able to achieve extremely high marks only because of its story and presentation while it's gameplay is mediocre at best.

 

[Forsaken82]

If the game itself is good, than why not?

You can have a fantastic game with a shitty story, you can't have a fantastic game with shitty gameplay.

 

[antitrop]

It reaaaaalllllly depends on what the game is trying to focus on, story or gameplay. Some games prioritize one over the other and I judge them on those merits.

Like with The Order 1886, they put the story of that game front and center. A significant portion of the game is made up of unskippable cutscenes, so yeah, I'm gonna judge that game mostly on the story.

With most games, if I'm not enjoying the story, I'll just skip the cutscenes and I won't let that affect my overall enjoyment of the game.

Now something like GTA V, I would still give that a 10/10, even though I was disappointed with the story. There's so much more to that game than just what's going on with Michael, Trevor, and Franklin.

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

I've played games with a story so bad, or so non existent that I utterly lose any interest or motivation in playing them. You're telling me that if an JRPG was released with literally zero cutscenes and story, it could get a 10/10?

If anything either bolsters or worsens my enjoyment of the game I'm playing, it should be reflected in either a better or worse score, story included. How hard is that? I'm judging a complete package, not sectioning off pieces because reasons. If a game has horrendous, grating music, I can't judge it negatively for that because music isn't part of the gameplay? What about visuals? You can technically design games as wireframe shapes and models for the bare minimum needed to create a "game". But since visuals do not directly affect it's interactivity, should it be discounted?

 

[Deleted member 325805]

Most 10/10 scores aren't warranted IMO.

 

[LAM09]

Nope. Any game needs to have the perfect balance of both to warrant 10/10.

 

[like.a.ser]

In video games, story always comes second to good gameplay. I appreciate a well-written story, and it's wonderful when story and gameplay come together, but ultimately I play a game to 'play' a 'game.'

So yes, which is why Super Mario Galaxy is a 10/10 game.