Story or Gameplay?

[ryuclan]

 

I want gameplay. That's what games WERE about back in the day. Think Mario. Maybe you asked yourself back in the NES days, why the f*ck is Peach always kidnapped? But you didn't really want an answer. All you cared about is making that jump. Nowadays, it's different. Games like TLoU concentrate a lot on story. Don't get me wrong, that's a really good game, but a good story won't make the experience of playing that specific game more better than a gameplay concentrated game, at least for me.

This whole "this is what games WERE like" argument isn't true at all, since plenty of older games had in-depth storylines, usually in the form of a thick instruction manual that the player would be prompted to read at certain points in-game. Wasteland is a perfect example of this.

 

This is true. Even Atari games had big manuals with storylines in them, but you know what kids say today TL;DR

[Th3MaN1]

 

 

I want gameplay. That's what games WERE about back in the day. Think Mario. Maybe you asked yourself back in the NES days, why the f*ck is Peach always kidnapped? But you didn't really want an answer. All you cared about is making that jump. Nowadays, it's different. Games like TLoU concentrate a lot on story. Don't get me wrong, that's a really good game, but a good story won't make the experience of playing that specific game more better than a gameplay concentrated game, at least for me.

This whole "this is what games WERE like" argument isn't true at all, since plenty of older games had in-depth storylines, usually in the form of a thick instruction manual that the player would be prompted to read at certain points in-game. Wasteland is a perfect example of this.

 

This is true. Even Atari games had big manuals with storylines in them, but you know what kids say today TL;DR

 

I'm not saying that games shouldn't have storylines, but for my personal taste, I'd rather have gameplay. I can still go back to playing Pac-Man and Pong, other people can't.

Take Spec Ops: The Line for example. Mediocre game with good story (IMO). I played it for a few hours, then went back to Max Payne 3. Simply because I didn't like the gameplay. That's my taste.

[TECHN9CiAN]

I prefer a good story over good gameplay. Lets face it: every shooter, every racer, every RPG and every sports game is the exact same thing gameplay wise, with minor tweaks here and there to seperate them, but the core gameplay and system is the same.

 

Without the story, all youre left is mindless repetition of what you already did in another game, but with different weapons, cars, character, or team. Its the story that truly makes the game and attracts the majority of players to buy a new game. Unlesss theres a revolutionary new gameplay system or genre, which hasnt happened in over a decade, thats how it is and will be.

 

So, story over gameplay takes my votes.

[a20characterusername]

 

I'm not saying that games shouldn't have storylines, but for my personal taste, I'd rather have gameplay. I can still go back to playing Pac-Man and Pong, other people can't.

Take Spec Ops: The Line for example. Mediocre game with good story (IMO). I played it for a few hours, then went back to Max Payne 3. Simply because I didn't like the gameplay. That's my taste.

 

Nothing wrong with having a difference of opinion, I was just pointing out that there were plenty of story-driven games back then.

[Vercetti42]

Lets face it: every shooter

Far Cry 3, Bishock, Half-Life, Counter Strike are all excellent shooters.

 

 

every racer

Forza Horizon, Forza Motorsport, Gran Turismo are once again, excellent games. Plus the upcoming racing game "The Crew" looks amazing.

 

 

every RPG

Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, The Elder Scrolls, the older fallouts etc are also good games.

 

 

is the exact same thing gameplay wise,

No. You need to stop judging a genre by games like Call of Duty or Need For Speed. All games listed above have excellent gameplay. So saying that the gameplay is the same in nearly all games out today is simply moronic.

Edited February 3, 2014 by AceKingston

[Daz]

I went for the full on Gameplay 100% option.

 

Though I do actually like story in certain games, and a great exampleis the MGS series, that at this point in time for once I am more excited about the story (as it means something to me) over the gameplay (which could go either way at this point seeing how 4 turned out).

 

To put it simply, video games are about being a GAME, not a story, otherwise they would be called video stories. Story may be more important to some people who have a few hours to spare here and there, or only get one good game a year. But for me, I spend insanely stupid amount of hours on games and this is why the gameplay is most important.

 

The issue is here that it is much harder to get a story to be good than it is to get gameplay good. Once you have good gameplay and a great engine and physics, after a while of playing you know if it is worth a damn or not. However with a story, it can be varied as hell. For example the Far Cry 3 story was probably one of the worst stories I have ever witnessed. However, the Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon story was f*cking incredible and my game of the year for sure. Despite the fact they are essentially the same game in gameplay terms it does make a difference there. Though if the gameplay had been utter sh*t. FC3 would have been a flop and Blood Dragon would have still been awesome.

 

I just feel that the atmosphere and fun you experience in gameplay tells the story much better than any cutscene could. Reading notes or journal entries on a computer tells the story better than someone barking it at you when all you want to do is play.

 

The problem is the story is always forced into the gameplay. It is far better when you discover the story at your own pace and you are not constantly interrupted for pointless cutscenes. Games were great back in the 2d era, you would get some dialog at the start that gives a backstory to what you are doing and you can skip it or not, you might get some more dialog text during a boss battle but thats all you needed. Half Life 2 was another great example, you could control your character and mess around while dialog was taking place. You got to fully experience the game world as yourself through your eyes.

 

I really am not impressed by a lot of game's storylines, and by the sheer amount of time I put into games I always want to make sure there is replayability with the gameplay, otherwise the game may as well be a rental, because let's face it. Who watches a movie then rewatches it again as soon as you finish it.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Daz

[Vercetti42]

For example the Far Cry 3 story was probably one of the worst stories I have ever witnessed.

To be fair it isn't one of the worst stories ever made IMO. It is still miles better than San Andreas' story. However compared to the other parts of the game, it was slightly mediocre but still decent. However the mission variety, graphics, atmosphere and gameplay were just amazing. It's easily in my top five games of all time.

 

But, yes I agree with you Daz. If you want a good story then go watch movies. Movies and books are focused on story-telling while games focus on gameplay. There are enough resources that focus on story-telling out there, games should be different.

[Daz]

My main issue with it was the unrealistic nature of some hipster douchebag somehow learning how to be a killer in no time. And the insanely stupid ending choices which make no sense at all.

 

The missions were fun, the plot was not. It just made me groan at all the cringey stupid as hell stereotypical bollocks in it. I won't go into detail as I don't know if spoiler tags work on the new board but anyway, none of it made logical sense, at least Tomb Raider did the journey of that similar style perfectly.

 

Another sh*t one was Army of Two: 40th Day.

 

An example of a random choice in that game:

 

Option 1: Let a tiger out of it's cage.

Option 2: Shoot the tiger.

 

Result: Let the tiger out, it goes on a rampage and kills a bunch of school children. Kill the tiger, it turns out its an endangered white tiger and the RSPCA and PETA employees cry and one of them shoots co-workers before themselves.

 

Or

 

A merc has a woman locked in a room.

 

Option 1: Let him rape her.

Option 2: Let her out.

 

If you let her out she turns out to be a spy and kills a bunch of people.

 

You just have to laugh at how stupid that sh*t is, the game is full of lose-lose choices. Beyond a joke.

 

Story needs to be a decent backdrop, but many game devs haven't got a f*cking clue what they are doing.

[Vercetti42]

My main issue with it was the unrealistic nature of some hipster douchebag somehow learning how to be a killer in no time. And the insanely stupid ending choices which make no sense at all.

 

My main issue was the:

 

 

Introduction of magic in the game. Um, that honestly came from nowhere. Some random guy gets stuck in an Island and finds out that he has some crazy magical powers which just sounds like total bullsh*t.

 

 

And I agree that the ending choices were dumb:

 

 

Sorry for the 4chan style of posting but:

>Gets dunked on an Island

>Does all lot of things to get out of there.

>Chooses to save friends in the end/Chooses to kill friends in the end.

>Stays back on the island after saving friends.

>Stays back on the island after killing friends after saving them in the first place.

 

 

 

Still an excellent game nonetheless.

Edited February 3, 2014 by AceKingston

[Daz]

 

My main issue with it was the unrealistic nature of some hipster douchebag somehow learning how to be a killer in no time. And the insanely stupid ending choices which make no sense at all.

 

My main issue was the:

 

 

Introduction of magic in the game. Um, that honestly came from nowhere. Some random guy gets stuck in an Island and finds out that he has some crazy magical powers which just sounds like total bullsh*t.

 

 

And I agree that the ending choices were dumb:

 

 

Sorry for the 4chan style of posting but:

>Gets dunked on an Island

>Does all lot of things to get out of there.

>Chooses to save friends in the end/Chooses to kill friends in the end.

>Stays back on the island after saving friends.

>Stays back on the island after killing friends after saving them in the first place.

 

 

 

Still an excellent game nonetheless.

 

 

My issue was:

 

The whole purpose of the game is to save your friends and get off the island that would never change, no matter how f*cked up you got from killing people you would never choose to side with a random tribe and kill your girlfriend. At that point you get killed anwyay, what a moronic choice to make.

 

 

Just as bad as the multiple ending choices of GTAV

 

Why the f*ck would anyone choose to kill one of the main characters. Option or not, the reasoning behind chosing these make no sense whatsoever.

 

 

GTAV was beyond stereotypical cliché bullsh*t.

[Fireman]

I went for the full on Gameplay 100% option.

 

Though I do actually like story in certain games, and a great exampleis the MGS series, that at this point in time for once I am more excited about the story (as it means something to me) over the gameplay (which could go either way at this point seeing how 4 turned out).

 

To put it simply, video games are about being a GAME, not a story, otherwise they would be called video stories. Story may be more important to some people who have a few hours to spare here and there, or only get one good game a year. But for me, I spend insanely stupid amount of hours on games and this is why the gameplay is most important.

 

The issue is here that it is much harder to get a story to be good than it is to get gameplay good. Once you have good gameplay and a great engine and physics, after a while of playing you know if it is worth a damn or not. However with a story, it can be varied as hell. For example the Far Cry 3 story was probably one of the worst stories I have ever witnessed. However, the Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon story was f*cking incredible and my game of the year for sure. Despite the fact they are essentially the same game in gameplay terms it does make a difference there. Though if the gameplay had been utter sh*t. FC3 would have been a flop and Blood Dragon would have still been awesome.

 

I just feel that the atmosphere and fun you experience in gameplay tells the story much better than any cutscene could. Reading notes or journal entries on a computer tells the story better than someone barking it at you when all you want to do is play.

 

The problem is the story is always forced into the gameplay. It is far better when you discover the story at your own pace and you are not constantly interrupted for pointless cutscenes. Games were great back in the 2d era, you would get some dialog at the start that gives a backstory to what you are doing and you can skip it or not, you might get some more dialog text during a boss battle but thats all you needed. Half Life 2 was another great example, you could control your character and mess around while dialog was taking place. You got to fully experience the game world as yourself through your eyes.

 

I really am not impressed by a lot of game's storylines, and by the sheer amount of time I put into games I always want to make sure there is replayability with the gameplay, otherwise the game may as well be a rental, because let's face it. Who watches a movie then rewatches it again as soon as you finish it.

 

It seems to me that you're just placing everything under gameplay and nothing but cutscenes under story, ofcourse gameplay is going to win then. Obviously notes and journal entries are part of the story, not part of the gameplay. Quests are part of the story, not the gameplay. Running from A to B is forced upon you by the story, not the gameplay. Missions are part of the story, not the gameplay.

 

I get the feeling you mostly play shooters, but even there the story plays a vital role unless you're going to play online. Otherwise the game would just be an offline shooter against bots (see Nerf Arena and Laser Arena) with no objectives, no quests, no progression. Just one big arena with people shooting at eachother.

 

Story makes the game, if there wasn't a storyline you'd get bored of the gameplay within a few hours (or well, I should say, I would). Some people say Diablo has good gameplay, but I can't play that crap for more than an hour before dieing of boredom, because literally everything becomes the same with a lack of story.

If there wasn't a story, a lot of games with the same genre would feel exactly the same, because the core gameplay of most games is just exactly the same (imagine point-and-click adventures without a story or every platformer without a story).

 

Other problem I have with gameplay-first is that it stays the same in most games, nothing changes in the course of a game. You get more powerful weapons or abilities, but you press the same 5 buttons for most of the game. The only exceptions are mini-games.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Fireman

[Algonquin Assassin]

I prefer if it slightly favours story, but not too much and it depends on the type of game really. So 60% story/40% gameplay? IMO 50/50 is unrealistic as I can't think of any game that can get a perfect balance. There's always a skew even if slight.

 

However I think digging into the past and saying "back in the day it wasn't about story" is kind of stupid considering story driven games aren't a thing of the new generation.

 

Of course gameplay is important, but I admit if the story doesn't strike me as somewhat interesting the rest is difficult to get into.

[CatDog96]

A game doesn't even need a story if theres good gameplay and lots of stuff to do.

[Algonquin Assassin]

A game doesn't even need a story if theres good gameplay and lots of stuff to do.

I disagree. What's the point if there's no alter motivation? In an open world game especially with no story you're aimlessly controlling a character you know nothing about trying to do things with no understanding of.

 

As someone said before the story is actually one of the unique aspects of a game. You can make 20 first person shooters for example that all play basically the same with similar mechanics that may be fun in their own right, but the one unique aspect that sets each apart is story they tell.

[Vercetti42]

 

A game doesn't even need a story if theres good gameplay and lots of stuff to do.

I disagree. What's the point if there's no alter motivation? In an open world game especially with no story you're aimlessly controlling a character you know nothing about trying to do things with no understanding of.

 

As someone said before the story is actually one of the unique aspects of a game. You can make 20 first person shooters for example that all play basically the same with similar mechanics that may be fun in their own right, but the one unique aspect that sets each apart is story they tell.

 

I'm sure he mean't "If a game has great gameplay then story isn't exactly important".

 

As for the FPS argument, no there are other unique aspects that separate first person shooters, other than COD of course. Far Cry 3 has this unique atmosphere and light RPG elements while Bioshock is set in underwater. Half-Life is a post-apocalyptic style game with an amazing level of immersion.

 

There are games which have "meh" stories but great gameplay. Far Cry 3 for instance. Although the story wasn't really "meh" it was decent but honestly nothing great. Same goes for San Andreas.

[TECHN9CiAN]

 

Lets face it: every shooter

Far Cry 3, Bishock, Half-Life, Counter Strike are all excellent shooters.

 

every racer

Forza Horizon, Forza Motorsport, Gran Turismo are once again, excellent games. Plus the upcoming racing game "The Crew" looks amazing.

 

every RPG

Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, The Elder Scrolls, the older fallouts etc are also good games.

 

is the exact same thing gameplay wise,

No. You need to stop judging a genre by games like Call of Duty or Need For Speed. All games listed above have excellent gameplay. So saying that the gameplay is the same in nearly all games out today is simply moronic.

Lol.... Dude... You proved my point with ur examples. All the RPGs you mentioned, for example, share the exact same gameplay courtesy of bethesda, their run on the same engine. And the racers, are all just sequels with, as i mentioned, minor tweaks and different cars and of course different tracks...

 

And as for the shooters not all being the same... "Go here and kill everyone till you get there, then kill some more till youre extracted" covers it's core gameplay. Its all mindless repetition. Only reason you play the different games is because of the minor differences and new/different story.

[Misbegotten cad]

It's a bit genre biased question.

Lot of genres, such as sports, driving games and platformers, do not really need a story, but need a very good gameplay.

On the other hand, RPG without a good backstory gets boring very quick.

 

But looking at the games on my shelves, I would choose gameplay over story. I just cannot be bothered with games that have rubbish controls of cameras anymore.

[WinterEdit]

1st poll: Story.

I like to play story-based games more than gameplay-centered games. Story has less to do than gameplay-based games, sure, but I still prefer them for the experience. Case in point: The Last of Us. It had a great story, which is why I am ready to forgive it for the bugs. It has some bugs, but they are usually small enough to be forgiven.

 

2nd poll: Great story - average gameplay.

The gameplay doesn't need to be epic to experience a great story. It just needs to be playable, that is all I need. But if the game is open-world and it has multiplayer, it having great gameplay and average story is good too. In that case I play it for multiplayer.

Sometimes I like to play average story-games such as Just Cause 2 simply for the gameplay mechanics. It's a good time killer.

 

3rd poll: 50% Story - 50% Gameplay.

If I had to choose, that would be the best for me. In my opinion, a story needs gameplay and gameplay needs story. Sometimes gameplay can be fun without a story, but that is for multiplayer games mostly. I have not played e.g. Beyond: Two Souls or Heavy Rain, which have only little gameplay and good/great story or so I have heard. This is one reason why I don't rate story higher and gameplay lower.