Dose bad story ruin the game

[GetThefuckAoutGTA]

For me story is my first priority in GTA not graphics,features location and 3 protagonists

 

What do u think

[rjmthe2nd]

STORY GAMEPLAY GRAPHICS.

 

And a good character, if its lacking good story it'd be like wtf, and Bad Gameplay equals me enver playing again after finishing, bad Graphics? in this gen is not acceptable to me. which is why i hate Nintendo for making sh*t looking games all the time. only game i liked was Mario and Pokemon on their console.

[GetThefuckAoutGTA]

STORY GAMEPLAY GRAPHICS.

 

And a good character, if its lacking good story it'd be like wtf, and Bad Gameplay equals me enver playing again after finishing, bad Graphics? in this gen is not acceptable to me. which is why i hate Nintendo for making sh*t looking games all the time. only game i liked was Mario and Pokemon on their console.

I said my first priority

[Mokrie Dela]

Yup. It's the story that pulls me in, that makes the characters who they are. I spend a lot of time wondering around in game, and I want the story to reflect the freedom to do that - RDR's was a great story but john's scripted "urgency" contradicted my urge to just wonder around.

 

I dont want the characters complaining that they're lacking for time, when i'm going to spend hours messing about, and in a map as big as they say it is, the story HAS to stand up. I'm worried that it'll be short, and i want it long! (no jokes please).

 

 

Graphics and features/gameplay - in this day and age - are as important, but all three elements are critical. SRTT for example - stupid storyline, and SRIV even more so. Batman Arkham A/C, GTA IV, RDR, splinter cell double agent, fantastic storylines. Splinter Cell Conviction, ok storyline, Saints Row TT oneward, crap.

 

So yeah, im with your. Story is a big deal, and i hope it lives up to our expectations.

[shattered-minds]

It's a tough one. The two are linked. But if I had to chose; Gameplay.

 

I look at it this way; The gameplay makes me want to play the game, the story makes me want to keep playing the game.

 

The actual storyline could be pretty mediocre, but if it has you doing fun stuff then it's good. For example, I'm playing Far Cry 3 and loving it. The story is a little cliché and mediocre, but I've just recently had a massive shootout on a multilayered scaffolding spanning eaither side of a canyon, zip-lining across to each side, to then dive off a bridge and jump off a waterfall on a jetski.

 

I view that the same way with GTA games. I had near to no interest in the story in IV, I found Niko boring and uninteresting and none of the characters apart from maybe Roman, Packie and Brucie were particularly memorable or likable. But then the game had sniping a construction site, committing a bank heist and having a shootout in a museum. So all is good.

[theNGclan]

Let's look at Saints Row: The Third as an example. It's story writing was absolutely awful compared to the first two games. SR3 is considered the runt of the SR series, isn't that such a great example.

 

Story writing is a key element in making a game.

[kudoboi]

all 3 imo. story, gameplay and graphics

[kesta195]

I do value story slightly more than gameplay but a game which has a bad storyline OR gameplay isn't likely to be very good at all. You need both.

[Mokrie Dela]

It's a tough one. The two are linked. But if I had to chose; Gameplay.

 

I look at it this way; The gameplay makes me want to play the game, the story makes me want to keep playing the game.

 

The actual storyline could be pretty mediocre, but if it has you doing fun stuff then it's good. For example, I'm playing Far Cry 3 and loving it. The story is a little cliché and mediocre, but I've just recently had a massive shootout on a multilayered scaffolding spanning eaither side of a canyon, zip-lining across to each side, to then dive off a bridge and jump off a waterfall on a jetski.

 

I view that the same way with GTA games. I had near to no interest in the story in IV, I found Niko boring and uninteresting and none of the characters apart from maybe Roman, Packie and Brucie were particularly memorable or likable. But then the game had sniping a construction site, committing a bank heist and having a shootout in a museum. So all is good.

Strangely I found the opposite. I saw lots of details and depth in IV's storyline. Niko was by far the most developed character, very complex and life-like. As a writer, I would be proud if i had wrote GTA IV. I find most of the characters believable and effective.

 

San An has to be the worst GTA story, but it was still a fun game - kind of what Saints Row SHOULD have been. The story was enough - barely - to keep me interested but it was a fun game. SR went wrong - it was kinda fun, but the story had me bored enough that the entire game was just filler.

 

IV put me in the shoes of Niko, and everything i did , even the mundane stuff, felt enjoyable, because it was part of a whole. Here was a man on a mission, and we learnt of that as we progressed. It was all FOR something - sort of. Sure, IV could have had more fun stuff in it - tanks, the Hunter, more random, "fun" activities etc, but it didn't matter. The story tied everything together nicely i felt where as SA got lost in its vast world. Gang stuff - yeah that worked, but then they took the game out of LS and into SF/LV and the story got lost in the process. it was like a down to earth (kinda) home-grown game, that suddenly tried to go global....

 

 

I think as good or bad as the story is, there has to be balance between that and the gameplay. Brilliant story & crap gameplay = poor . Crap story & brilliant gameplay = hollow. good story * good gameplay = now you're on to something....

[Bertanius]

I think mine would be storyline too, next would be gameplay, and then graphics. One reason GTA is famous is for its amazing storylines. GTA V will surely deliver a great story.

[shattered-minds]

It's a tough one. The two are linked. But if I had to chose; Gameplay.

 

I look at it this way; The gameplay makes me want to play the game, the story makes me want to keep playing the game.

 

The actual storyline could be pretty mediocre, but if it has you doing fun stuff then it's good. For example, I'm playing Far Cry 3 and loving it. The story is a little cliché and mediocre, but I've just recently had a massive shootout on a multilayered  scaffolding spanning eaither side of a canyon, zip-lining across to each side, to then dive off a bridge and jump off a waterfall on a jetski.

 

I view that the same way with GTA games. I had near to no interest in the story in IV, I found Niko boring and uninteresting and none of the characters apart from maybe Roman, Packie and Brucie were particularly memorable or likable. But then the game had sniping a construction site, committing a bank heist and having a shootout in a museum. So all is good.

Strangely I found the opposite. I saw lots of details and depth in IV's storyline. Niko was by far the most developed character, very complex and life-like. As a writer, I would be proud if i had wrote GTA IV. I find most of the characters believable and effective.

 

San An has to be the worst GTA story, but it was still a fun game - kind of what Saints Row SHOULD have been. The story was enough - barely - to keep me interested but it was a fun game. SR went wrong - it was kinda fun, but the story had me bored enough that the entire game was just filler.

 

IV put me in the shoes of Niko, and everything i did , even the mundane stuff, felt enjoyable, because it was part of a whole. Here was a man on a mission, and we learnt of that as we progressed. It was all FOR something - sort of. Sure, IV could have had more fun stuff in it - tanks, the Hunter, more random, "fun" activities etc, but it didn't matter. The story tied everything together nicely i felt where as SA got lost in its vast world. Gang stuff - yeah that worked, but then they took the game out of LS and into SF/LV and the story got lost in the process. it was like a down to earth (kinda) home-grown game, that suddenly tried to go global....

 

 

I think as good or bad as the story is, there has to be balance between that and the gameplay. Brilliant story & crap gameplay = poor . Crap story & brilliant gameplay = hollow. good story * good gameplay = now you're on to something....

But my criticism wasn't that Niko or any other characters weren't fleshed out and were 2D, but that I found none of them particularly memorable or likeable.

 

Plus it had one of the problems that nearly all open world games seem to suffer with; a major disparity between what the character wants and what the player wants. Niko is constantly whining about not wanting to get back into killing or crime, then when that mission is over, he's off killing hundred of people, getting into police shootouts, murdring hookers, then the next mission is "cousin, I told you I don't want to get back into crime!" It's the same in Far Cry 3 "Oh no, I must rescue my friends from the pirates!..right after I've played poker with the locals and hunted some tigers. Maybe I'll unjam some of those radio towers whilst I'm out too...oh yeah, my friends! ooh, a jet ski!.."

 

The thing that excites me most about GTAV is that it seems like all the characters want to be doing crime, so all the extra killing and chaos causing they do out of the missions still make sense as they wont be whining about it during missions.

 

But I do agree with you on that you need a balance between story and gameplay. It's just to me, gameplay is more important to me in a game, as I can forgive a mediocre story that has great gameplay whereas a game with a good story that is a chore to play is no fun. And what the point of a game that isn't fun?

[GarrowsKai]

I think in this gen it really is a combination of storyline and Graphics. Obviously a good storyline is vital but it would be ruined by poor graphics.

[Deffpony]

A bad story can absolutely break a game. There were some issues with IV that really ruined moments for me.

 

I'd rather play a 16 bit game with a great story than a next gen Michael Bay flick

[Mokrie Dela]

But my criticism wasn't that Niko or any other characters weren't fleshed out and were 2D, but that I found none of them particularly memorable or likeable.

 

Plus it had one of the problems that nearly all open world games seem to suffer with; a major disparity between what the character wants and what the player wants. Niko is constantly whining about not wanting to get back into killing or crime, then when that mission is over, he's off killing hundred of people, getting into police shootouts, murdring hookers, then the next mission is "cousin, I told you I don't want to get back into crime!" It's the same in Far Cry 3 "Oh no, I must rescue my friends from the pirates!..right after I've played poker with the locals and hunted some tigers. Maybe I'll unjam some of those radio towers whilst I'm out too...oh yeah, my friends! ooh, a jet ski!.."

 

The thing that excites me most about GTAV is that it seems like all the characters want to be doing crime, so all the extra killing and chaos causing they do out of the missions still make sense as they wont be whining about it during missions.

 

But I do agree with you on that you need a balance between story and gameplay. It's just to me, gameplay is more important to me in a game, as I can forgive a mediocre story that has great gameplay whereas a game with a good story that is a chore to play is no fun. And what the point of a game that isn't fun?

Good point regarding the wants of the character and the player. I have a playing style that differs to most, and i don't think i've ever really gone on a killing spree in IV. I play AS Niko, and i find that fun, and i see him as a kind of professional, if you like.

 

I personally disagree strongly with finding the characters memorable or likable. III era had its share of epic characters, but many were forgettable, hollow shells of stereo type. IV had its share of those too, but many were archetypical and Niko, Roman, Jacob, Brucie - these are memorable and likable to me. I can see them in my mind, how they act, and their personalities, but now lets say, T-Bone, Jizzy, or some of the others from SA, even some from VC (one of my favourite gtas), they just don't stand out to me. I guess we're looking at the characters in different ways - I see them as dimensional shapes, where i can approach from different directions - the characters (not all, granted) in IV had that, but those from SA and backwards, looked great, and WERE great, but only in one aspect. I can't see the different angles of many of them.

 

There are exceptions, however - Ryder from SA, Tenpenny, Smoke (simply for antagonistic reasons) - these were great characters, not because I liked them, but because i didn't! Ryder was a prick, but he felt moderately well developed, and while i disliked him, I felt a connection through CJ that he was my "homie" and thus warrented loyalty.... until mid SF Tenpenny - well i'm a fan of Samuel L. Jackson, so i needn't explain that.

 

But talking of memorable characters, know who i DONT find memorable, or likable? CJ. I don't know why, but he's a pretty poor protag for me. Tommy was cool, but so lacking in dimension and had about as much depth as this analogy, but i still liked him, possibly because Liotta is one of my favorite actors (watch "Control").

 

Niko on the other hand, i find so much more than any of them. Every aspect of his personality i feel i can see, from his torment to his cynicism, even to his hypocrisy and self righteousness. Johnny has to be one of my all time favourites of the series though, simply because i LIKED that character. Billy grey filled the role of Ryder - i disliked him, which, abstractly, made me like him. BOGT kind of let the side down a little, but i still found Tony and Henrique good characters. it was Luis that was underdone there, and he reminded me of the III era characters - of CJ - wooden and uninteresting. He reflected a lot of qualities i see in myself, but despite that, i didn't CONNECT with him - and i think that's the key to it all. I connected with Niko, not with CJ, and THAT is probably why I prefer the IV era characters and find them more interesting and memorable.

I'm betting you connected more with CJ and co.