When you think about it, a game can have no story at all and still be fun. Practically every fighting game ever made has little or no story, and no one even cares. Shooters often have virtually no plot. Ditto for puzzle games.
Sure, a lot of games are based heavily around their story, but if they’re not playable, then no one will even care. Besides, most video game stories pale in comparison to what you can find in any bookstore or library.
tho it depends on the genre
look at a game like Bioshock, wich had like one of the most interesting settings in gaming in a long while, it managed to go overboard on the gameplay and fallin juuuuust a lil bit short in the story department
i would’ve preffered it went a bit more minimalistic in its approach of all the power ups and stuff and focused more on a convincing story and all around world
i hated it when Ken Levine stated in interviews that story and charakters always come last as that was one of the most interesting things i saw in Bioshock
so yeh, when there’s a cinematic perspective behind the game its all about balance
and most devs get that shit so fuckin wrong its a rarity we get to play games that have a decent and more importantly, unique story to tell combined with solid gameplay
dont get me wrong bout Bioshock btw; i’ve finished it twice and i think it pretty much deserved allmost all the praise it got
In RPGs like KOTOR, where there are so many possible choices to make and so many outcomes that those choices can bring about, the level of interactivity with the story makes it possible (and perhaps even very sensible) to consider the story itself part of the gameplay.
OFF-Topic: I think KOTOR II would have exceeded its expectations if the story took on more dramatic twists and turns, such as being able to kill a member of your party because you are Sith and they stand against it or vice-versa (rather than just converting everyone or losing influence). In my opinion the optional twists in KOTOR I left a bigger impact by the end of the game.
However in terms of console RPGs I would say it is roughly 50-50, since you actually have certain pre-concieved notions of expectation of RPGs in terms of their plot and characters (at least I do). In other genres, it’s not so important. Solid gameplay is obviously important in all genres, however, since player interaction centres around it and cutting it out would be removing the player from the experience.
Also, Prak:
In RPGs like KOTOR, where there are so many possible choices to make and so many outcomes that those choices can bring about, the level of interactivity with the story makes it possible (and perhaps even very sensible) to consider the story itself part of the gameplay.
Having never played KOTOR I shall not comment on that particular example but the idea itself is something interesting. Would you, for example, consider FFX-2’s relatively open-ended plot to be simply an extension of the gameplay or part of the story itself? I don’t have a real opinion on this matter, so don’t expect a debate, but I would be interested in hearing your views on that example and why, if you do agree that the openendedness of its plot can be considered an extension of its gameplay, you consider that to be the case.
if they happen to slap a good story on a game that’s nice. but if i wanted stories i’d read books.
gameplay ftw
It’s complicated really, but I personally prefer story over gameplay. Games that are nothing but about the gameplay gets repetitive and boring to me while a story will keep me playing it so I can find out what happens next.
eg, even though I already know the story/ending of Portal, I would still like to buy it.
It seems to me that you’ve confused the purpose of games with the purpose of books. Try paying a visit to your local library. You’ll get better stories with less investment.
However in terms of console RPGs I would say it is roughly 50-50
x 2
I read books and stories (written a few myself and am currently writing one that is currently 103 pages). The purpose of a video game is to have fun, right? I have fun with whatever I play, as long as I like it I might add. Books aren’t the only things that have a story to them. Perhaps you’d rather read a book than watch a good movie? I don’t know. But a video game with a deep storyline is like an animated book to me and I find that fun. The video game has served its purpose.
If a game has a story to make the players care more about the character they control the better it is IMO.
Now, the story telling might not always be on par with Faulkner’s, it’s still more than decent in many games I play.
I see the many story parts of a game as a reward for my achievement through it. I still enjoy many games that have little to no story, but I tend to prefer story driven games.
The best for me would be to keep a balance between story and gameplay, where you play most of the game, but get a rewarding story part (I must admit that I’m an eye-candy whore :P) after completing a difficult task.
Real Time Strategy – Story
Fighting games – Gameplay
First Person Shooter/Third Person – Gameplay
Roleplay – Story/gameplay (They both Equals)
Sport – STORY!!!!!
I lol’d
If that was serious, I’m lolling at you, not with you.
If that was serious, I’m lolling at you, not with you.
Yeah, i am serious. I think RTS should be focused more on story than Gameplay. Look at what Warcraft and Homeworld series have archieved… These games got brilliant storyline, which makes the gameplay even more fun. The cutscenes, the dialog and the plot itself. And yes, you can laugh at me cause i am soooo funny! =D π
Much to my shame, I never played Homeworld. However, to say that Warcraft’s story is more important than its gameplay is insane at best.
A game can have a great story with characters with a lot of depth and have shitty gameplay and be a pain to play.
So, I guess gameplay wins out. I still like a good story (in games that warrant it — I dont’ really care if my fighting/puzzle games have a story), but it doesn’t do much good if you can’t uncover the story because the gameplay makes you want to tear your hair out.
That being said, a game that is lacking in certain areas of gameplay can be redeemed with a good story.
But other than that, i say Gameplay wins for the most. But RTS should still be Story, in my opinion. π
Examples:
Tetris <3
KOTOR I & II <3
Then you’re a moron. Congratulations on writing off Tetris, practically every Mario game ever made, tons of excellent strategy games, and numerous others as "nothing."
You have a point, maybe I was a bit too rigid. I`ll fix my mistake.
There are games like Tetris for quick play that don`t have and don`t even need to have a particular story and there are strategy games which are made so that you could create a story by playing. Although I never played Tetris for longer than 15 minutes. And as for Mario games they all are crap to me. Maybe some of the first one`s were entertaining because I was 5 years old back then.
You’re a moron.
Anyone who calls all Mario games crap has zero credibility as any sort of gamer. You’re the worst sort of pathetic kid-friendly-phobic poser and should be purged from existence so those of us who appreciate games for being games can return sanity to the market.
if it wasn’t for the plump plumber, i wouldn’t be so into gaming, and there would be no smash bros
As for SSB, I think I’ll pass. For me, a game like that will get very old very quickly.
My favorite Mario game ties between World and Sunshine.
If I had my way, I’d have a game that had both. Gameplay AND story. Those are the games that more often than not find themselves in my favorites list. But gameplay holds a bit more weight than story, I think… if a game has a great story but is impossible or otherwise lacking in gameplay, I’ll lose interest quick. On the other hand, fun gameplay can make up for a crappy story – Mario, Tetris, and the infamous Dynasty Warriors series (no real story, but hey, you get to kill people by the thousands!)
prolly cause your supposed to play them with friends?
more poeple = endless replay. ENDLESS!
now go find some friends or ask your parents to make more siblings. :p