73 réponses à ce sujet

[RyuGuitarFreak]

TJSolo wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

But for a game, gameplay must ALWAYS come first. For games: good programers>>>good writers.

Without a writer or some basic story as a guide, what will programmers do?
A game is basically a story that programmers expound upon graphically.

Not really. Sports games don't need a writer, a Mario Game, or a simple puzzle game. You don't really need a writer to make a game based on saving the princess going thourgh some levels or a game like Echocrome. What they have in common with a Bioware game is the concept of gameplay, they are all videogames.

slimgrin wrote...

One thing that bothers me about story is
how video game publishers these days use it as a hook to help sell
games.

That's absolutely right. Story today for most hardcore games is like one more obligatory thing to make it good to the potential buyers, as the casual ones leave it. I once saw an interesting interview that Miyamoto said he didn't like that Super Mario Galaxy had "too much" story and he would leave that in SMG2.

[TJSolo]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

But for a game, gameplay must ALWAYS come first. For games: good programers>>>good writers.

Without a writer or some basic story as a guide, what will programmers do?
A game is basically a story that programmers expound upon graphically.

Not really. Sports games don't need a writer, a Mario Game, or a simple puzzle game. You don't really need a writer to make a game based on saving the princess going thourgh some levels or a game like Echocrome. What they have in common with a Bioware game is the concept of gameplay, they are all videogames.

Everything is in place for sports games; the rules, players, organizations, and such if we are talking about sports games based on National products like the NBA and NFL. When you deal with a sports game from scratch somethings have to be written in before hand  with some kind of explanation. Like All Pro Football and Backbreaker.

You don't use exceptions to prove the rule. I find it peculiar that if I don't constantly add qualifers such as some, most, many, few, or  the like there are people that will blindly misconstrue my statements as if I am claimnig absolutes. I have already stated games like Tetris don't necessarily need story and by games like Tetris I am implying puzzle related games. My posts will get longer and longer if I need to explain things that are easily inferred from reading.

[nikki191]

slimgrin wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

slimgrin wrote...
This is true. Some open world games incorporate story better than others. Oblivion does a pretty good job of intertwining plot threads with quests so they are not all just random events. But I think this is hard for devs to do.

I agree good story makes certain types of games, namely RPG's, better. But since we are talking about video games, story is a relatively recent dvelopement, one that supplements gameplay. And this dynamic is always changing in the RPG genre. Not so much in other genre's which still rely heavily on rich gameplay mechanics.

How is story a relatively new concept? Every since Mario bashed his first ?-box and Sonic grabbed his first ring the story side of video games have been expanding and used with varied effectiveness.
3-d graphics has added to the cinematic feel of stories more but stories have been playing a large role in games for a for long time.

How does Mario's story hold up to MassEffect? And sonics to Dragon age? Again, people didn't play Mario Bro's to find out what the princess would say when you rescued her. If you took these stories seriously, I am surprised. I played Mario Bros for the platforming madness that it was. Not story.

I guess what I mean is story elements in recent games are more sophisticated examples of the craft. It has evolved. Story is becoming a more integral part of gaming, for better or worse. But early video games really didn't rely on story.

im suprised the princess doesnt say "please stop stalking me i have a 500 yard restraining order on you"

[AmstradHero]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with the OP's statement.  And the reason why is included in the very first post: Morrowind.

The ONLY thing that kept me playing Morrowind (or Oblivion for that matter) was the story.  I did the main quest line, and a few significant quest chains for both (ie guild quest lines), but once those were done, I couldn't bring myself to play any further.  Same goes for Fallout 3, but that was more because of the huge slap in the face that was delivered to you in its ending. Nothing will excuse forcing fans to wait to buy DLC to
prevent a completely ridiculous plot railroad.

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed all Bethesda three games (even though I think those responsible for Fallout 3's ending should be punished severely), but the story is what keeps them going. Once the story is finished, I have no desire to keep playing, which means that the gameplay itself is uninteresting. Sorry Bethesda.

For an RPG, story is the driver of the game.  At present, no other gaming genre relies so heavily on story in order to keep the player interested.  Though many gaming companies have realised that a coherent story is an excellent way to increase immersion and interest of players for a game that they already enjoy.  The first famous example I can think of this was Starcraft.  Blizzard (stated that they) made a concerted effort to include an interesting and engrossing story for the players to experience as part of the main campaign.

The idea is that the story supplements gameplay that is already interesting for the player.  People love stories, and if you can make them care about the setting or the characters within the game they are playing, in most cases, you've increased the enjoyment of the player significantly.  Why do you think CoD4: Modern Warfare was so popular?  It was because it was like an action movie with a interesting plot that pulled players in.  Combined with good gameplay, it created a horde of fanboys that went out and made the ill-advised decision to purchase the horrendously overhyped and yawn-worthy MW2, which had a ridiculous "plot" and practically made a mockery of its predecessor.

The idea that story is essential to a game is a fallacy.  A game with an amazing story but horrendous gameplay is still a horrendous game.  Yes, players love a story, but they will not see their way past hideously dull gameplay and a bug-ridden experience to finish it.  And there are many genres of games that have no plot to speak of and are huge sellers: Any sport game, beat-em-up (disagree with me touting DOA's "plot" if you will, but that's a very weak argument), puzzle games, guitar hero (or any music/rhythm game for that matter).  These aren't small examples, but games that have sold in the hundreds (if not thousands) of millions. Gameplay should never be shortchanged for the sake of plot, as gameplay is what makes a game a game and not a book or a movie.  Hence why I will never ever buy Heavy Rain, because I do not consider Quick Time Events to be a gameplay mechanic.  I can't think of anything more boring than playing through a 10 hour narrative where I, as a player with a controller, never get to do anything more interesting than follow some button directions on screen.

However, from an RPG perspective, I do see significant merit to the OP's argument that story is gameplay. Dialogue is a big part of an RPG, and it can influence some aspects of the game fairly significantly. This is where I'm going to have to blow my BioWare fanboy trumpet and state that for the most part, BioWare have done the most in having choices affect the story.  Some of the decisions you make in ME1, ME2 and Dragon Age have colossal effects on the game world itself, and some pan out to affect on the game later on. (Though I do concur that this perhaps had less effect on ME2 than BioWare had led fans to believe) And yes, just for perspective, in FO3 and NWN2 (particularly Mask of the Betrayer) you can do some fairly significant things as well.

So the argument then is that dialogue itself is a gameplay mechanic. Logically, where the player's decisions within dialogue will have an effect on the game itself, it then becomes a gameplay mechanic.  But in terms of a gameplay mechanic, it requires nothing of the player.  There is no skill involved in choosing a dialogue option (or if there is, then it means the dialogue is very badly written!), and there is no means for one player to be "better" at dialogue than another, which means it's not really "gameplay" as such, or it's a very bad gameplay mechanic from a gaming perspective.

This is the point where I must say that I love BioWare games for the sheer amount of dialogue they have, and I typically regret the lack of depth in NPC interaction I get in RPGs from other developers (Obsidian's work is probably the only exception). So I love dialogue, but it's still not a gameplay mechanic.

Story is a huge driving force for gamers to play a game, but without enjoyable core gameplay, or the ability to greatly affect the outcome of the story (and that's still very difficult to do at this point in time because it requires "MOAR!!!" in terms of content, hence development time and money) the "core gameplay" of an RPG is still pretty much limited to its combat.  If that is not enjoyable for players, then the RPG likely has a bit of a problem.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 01 mai 2010 - 10:20 .

[RyuGuitarFreak]

TJSolo wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

But for a game, gameplay must ALWAYS come first. For games: good programers>>>good writers.

Without a writer or some basic story as a guide, what will programmers do?
A game is basically a story that programmers expound upon graphically.

Not really. Sports games don't need a writer, a Mario Game, or a simple puzzle game. You don't really need a writer to make a game based on saving the princess going thourgh some levels or a game like Echocrome. What they have in common with a Bioware game is the concept of gameplay, they are all videogames.

Everything is in place for sports games; the rules, players, organizations, and such if we are talking about sports games based on National products like the NBA and NFL. When you deal with a sports game from scratch somethings have to be written in before hand  with some kind of explanation. Like All Pro Football and Backbreaker.

You don't use exceptions to prove the rule. I find it peculiar that if I don't constantly add qualifers such as some, most, many, few, or  the like there are people that will blindly misconstrue my statements as if I am claimnig absolutes. I have already stated games like Tetris don't necessarily need story and by games like Tetris I am implying puzzle related games. My posts will get longer and longer if I need to explain things that are easily inferred from reading.

I didn't use exceptions, I used examples. I haven't seen any of your statements before your quote on me.

My point was: you don't really need a good story to make a good game. So, gameplay is more important than story for a game. Therefore, good programmers are more important than good writers for games.

The other was: Story IS getting more important on games, hardcore games at least.

[Merci357]

slimgrin wrote...

I guess what I mean is story elements in recent games are more sophisticated examples of the craft. It has evolved. Story is becoming a more integral part of gaming, for better or worse. But early video games really didn't rely on story.

Well, no. Even I am to young to have played the early ones, but just look up Infocom or Magnetic Scrolls. Text adventures, basically just an interactive book. Adventures - and RPG's - are around since there are computer games. As are, however, arcade games, that had at best a three lines as background story. Imho nothing has changed over the decades besides the technical abilities to present gameplay and story.

[SuperMedbh]

nikki191 wrote...

im suprised the princess doesnt say "please stop stalking me i have a 500 yard restraining order on you"

*chokes on tea*

[cruc1al]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
I didn't use exceptions, I used examples. I haven't seen any of your statements before your quote on me.

My point was: you don't really need a good story to make a good game. So,  gameplay is more important than story for a game. Therefore, good programmers are more important than good writers for games.

The other was: Story IS getting more important on games, hardcore games at least.

Note that TJSolo said "without a writer or some basic story as a guide..." (my emphases). He didn't say a game needs a good story in order to be a good game, he said it needs a basic story. Neither did he say a game needs a dedicated writer, just a basic story (which can be written by anyone). At least that's how I interpreted what he said, and in light of that interpretation your post beginning "Not really. Sports games don't need a writer..." is irrelevant.

Modifié par cruc1al, 01 mai 2010 - 11:03 .

[Iakus]

AmstradHero wrote...

Story is a huge driving force for gamers to play a game, but without enjoyable core gameplay, or the ability to greatly affect the outcome of the story (and that's still very difficult to do at this point in time because it requires "MOAR!!!" in terms of content, hence development time and money) the "core gameplay" of an RPG is still pretty much limited to its combat.  If that is not enjoyable for players, then the RPG likely has a bit of a problem.

Afraid I'll have to somewhat disagree here.  While gameplay is indeed a very important part of a game, a good story will keep people playing a game long after the latest shooter or sports game has lost its novelty.

A few examples:  the Baldur's Gate series, Fallout 1 and 2, Planescape: Torment, and Deus Ex, , are all really old games  By today's standards, how do they compare  to Dragon Age or Mass Effect?  But these are games still rememberd with fondness and played by rpg fans.  They overlook the primitive graphics, awkward combat mechanics, and general unpleasantness in getting modern machines to play such primitive games for the sake of a really good story.  Well, I do at least. 

That said, yes if gameplay is bad enough, no amount of storytelling can overcome it.  I have tried more than once to play Oblivion, and the leveling mechanics are so counterintuitive I simply could not get through it (I swear that game rewards you for keeping your primary skills low)  And don't get me started on the latest Dragon Age patch...

The best of all possible worlds will have both good story and gameplay, of course.  But if I had to choose, I'd take a game with an excellent story and a few quirks in gameplay to a one with highly polished gameplay and a so-so story

[AmstradHero]

iakus: I enjoyed the gameplay of fighting in those RPGs, so I don't consider their gameplay to be horribly weak. I didn't say the gameplay had to be perfect, simply that it had to be enjoyable.  Funnily enough, Planescape is the perfect case in point for me as well.

I never played it the first time around, so I experienced for the first time two years ago.  The graphics had aged, the controls were a little clunky, but there was still fun to be had in the fighting, even though I couldn't actually die!  Yes, it was the plot that kept me going until the end (that and being told by a number of my friends that I HAD to finish it), but if the gameplay had been dull, I wouldn't have finished it.

I love some retro games with bad graphics, clunky interfaces, etc as well, but typically it's the gameplay that draws me back.  Well, that and nostalgia.

Edit/PS: I also agree that RPGs are a little bit of a different beastie to most computer games.  But that's because many of the hardcore RPG fans are self-confessed geeks that are a sucker for interesting stories/characters.  I imagine the "hardcore RPG fan" has re-read their favourite fantasy novel more times than the average person has re-read their favourite book.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 01 mai 2010 - 11:28 .

[Rendar666]

I guess I should rename the post "story and gameplay in RPGs" then.... That's what most of the conversations revolve around in the thread.

Still, with games like Alan Wake coming out that promise a gripping story as well as fun gameplay, and even Halo Reach with fun gameplay and the chance to explore the back-story of the Halo universe everybody can enjoy the thing they want the most. Gameplay or story. Both of which are important. Hopefully they deliver on both sides.

When I play a single player game (keeping this related to single player games and RPGs) if there isn't a good story, or a story at all, there's no reason for me to play it. That's just me. I can deal a game that hardly has any fighting or anything and a lot role-playing.

What do people think about D&D and the games the sprouted from it? D&D is known for it's interaction and the ability to create fantastic places and people who interact with one another through role-play as well as killing one another. D&D is one of my favorite things to do on my free time. I prefer building up a character's personility and then allowing them to meet my friend's characters to set stuff up. I hate it when D&D modules are just combat.

Do any of you guys play D&D, pen and paper games, as well as Video games? It seems a lot of the RPG crowd do, from what I can see.

Yeah, Amstrad Hero, I've read R.A. Salvatore's Drizzt series at least 7 times in the past 9 years since I first got the Crystal Shard. Love those books >.<

Modifié par Rendar666, 02 mai 2010 - 01:26 .

[Rendar666]

AmstradHero wrote...

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with the OP's statement.  And the reason why is included in the very first post: Morrowind.

The ONLY thing that kept me playing Morrowind (or Oblivion for that matter) was the story.  I did the main quest line, and a few significant quest chains for both (ie guild quest lines), but once those were done, I couldn't bring myself to play any further.  Same goes for Fallout 3, but that was more because of the huge slap in the face that was delivered to you in its ending. Nothing will excuse forcing fans to wait to buy DLC to
prevent a completely ridiculous plot railroad.

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed all Bethesda three games (even though I think those responsible for Fallout 3's ending should be punished severely), but the story is what keeps them going. Once the story is finished, I have no desire to keep playing, which means that the gameplay itself is uninteresting. Sorry Bethesda.

For an RPG, story is the driver of the game.  At present, no other gaming genre relies so heavily on story in order to keep the player interested.  Though many gaming companies have realised that a coherent story is an excellent way to increase immersion and interest of players for a game that they already enjoy.  The first famous example I can think of this was Starcraft.  Blizzard (stated that they) made a concerted effort to include an interesting and engrossing story for the players to experience as part of the main campaign.

The idea is that the story supplements gameplay that is already interesting for the player.  People love stories, and if you can make them care about the setting or the characters within the game they are playing, in most cases, you've increased the enjoyment of the player significantly.  Why do you think CoD4: Modern Warfare was so popular?  It was because it was like an action movie with a interesting plot that pulled players in.  Combined with good gameplay, it created a horde of fanboys that went out and made the ill-advised decision to purchase the horrendously overhyped and yawn-worthy MW2, which had a ridiculous "plot" and practically made a mockery of its predecessor.

The idea that story is essential to a game is a fallacy.  A game with an amazing story but horrendous gameplay is still a horrendous game.  Yes, players love a story, but they will not see their way past hideously dull gameplay and a bug-ridden experience to finish it.  And there are many genres of games that have no plot to speak of and are huge sellers: Any sport game, beat-em-up (disagree with me touting DOA's "plot" if you will, but that's a very weak argument), puzzle games, guitar hero (or any music/rhythm game for that matter).  These aren't small examples, but games that have sold in the hundreds (if not thousands) of millions. Gameplay should never be shortchanged for the sake of plot, as gameplay is what makes a game a game and not a book or a movie.  Hence why I will never ever buy Heavy Rain, because I do not consider Quick Time Events to be a gameplay mechanic.  I can't think of anything more boring than playing through a 10 hour narrative where I, as a player with a controller, never get to do anything more interesting than follow some button directions on screen.

However, from an RPG perspective, I do see significant merit to the OP's argument that story is gameplay. Dialogue is a big part of an RPG, and it can influence some aspects of the game fairly significantly. This is where I'm going to have to blow my BioWare fanboy trumpet and state that for the most part, BioWare have done the most in having choices affect the story.  Some of the decisions you make in ME1, ME2 and Dragon Age have colossal effects on the game world itself, and some pan out to affect on the game later on. (Though I do concur that this perhaps had less effect on ME2 than BioWare had led fans to believe) And yes, just for perspective, in FO3 and NWN2 (particularly Mask of the Betrayer) you can do some fairly significant things as well.

So the argument then is that dialogue itself is a gameplay mechanic. Logically, where the player's decisions within dialogue will have an effect on the game itself, it then becomes a gameplay mechanic.  But in terms of a gameplay mechanic, it requires nothing of the player.  There is no skill involved in choosing a dialogue option (or if there is, then it means the dialogue is very badly written!), and there is no means for one player to be "better" at dialogue than another, which means it's not really "gameplay" as such, or it's a very bad gameplay mechanic from a gaming perspective.

This is the point where I must say that I love BioWare games for the sheer amount of dialogue they have, and I typically regret the lack of depth in NPC interaction I get in RPGs from other developers (Obsidian's work is probably the only exception). So I love dialogue, but it's still not a gameplay mechanic.

Story is a huge driving force for gamers to play a game, but without enjoyable core gameplay, or the ability to greatly affect the outcome of the story (and that's still very difficult to do at this point in time because it requires "MOAR!!!" in terms of content, hence development time and money) the "core gameplay" of an RPG is still pretty much limited to its combat.  If that is not enjoyable for players, then the RPG likely has a bit of a problem.

With Morrowind, it isn't so much the main story as all the little side stories and interesting tidbits you might find: Quests from people, searches for magic items, and reading all the hundreds of books in the game (yes, most of them aren't more than 5 pages.... but still). The gameplay, the strongest point to me, was the massive amount of custimization regarding armour and weapons and your ability to literally go EVERYWHERE. You could use teleportation and floating potions. That game is EPIC.... IMO.


Edit: I totally agree about Modern Warfare. #2 was SUCH a dissapointment. Fun online... for a couple weeks. I just couldn't handle anymore of the same recycled online gameplay though.

Modifié par Rendar666, 02 mai 2010 - 01:36 .

[Rendar666]

slimgrin wrote...

I don't think I'd be much interested in Heavy Rain or Alan wake. What would the replayability factor be? I like a game I can dig into a second or third time, and I admire devs who can make a game with high replay value. A very hard thing to do. I haven't played Heavy Rain, but with one major plot line, whats to do a second time?

Someone who has played it can answer this.

For me, no matter how good the story is, game play mechanics and strategy bring me back. That's why I played ME2 six times. Not to hear the story six times over, or even to experience the different permutations of cut scenes and varying dialogue. It was to experiment with the different class types.

Why in the world, if I know the main story, would I want to play the game again just to watch the same cut scenes play out? Perhaps some people find this enjoyable, but its not very engaging imo.

And that's where it is shown that everyone's going to have a different views and opinions and thoughts regarding this issue. Personally, it's the story that brought me in. You liked the gameplay and experimenting with classes. Every body's got different tastes regarding games and... everything.

It's interesting to see what other people think though.


P.S. Actually, Heavy Rain has mutliple endings and so many ways one single event can turn out. It's definately what most would consider a "hardcore" game as it really focuses on narrative-- and choices-- and is quite hard. You do get some REALLY intense situations where you've got a split second to decide what to do before you die, get caught, murdered horribly etc. While not specifically RPG, no stats and all that, you play the role of these characters and chose everything they do and it affects the story drastically. That right there would lead to some interesting replays, IMO.

Modifié par Rendar666, 02 mai 2010 - 02:22 .

[RyuGuitarFreak]

cruc1al wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
I didn't use exceptions, I used examples. I haven't seen any of your statements before your quote on me.

My point was: you don't really need a good story to make a good game. So,  gameplay is more important than story for a game. Therefore, good programmers are more important than good writers for games.

The other was: Story IS getting more important on games, hardcore games at least.

Note that TJSolo said "without a writer or some basic story as a guide..." (my emphases). He didn't say a game needs a good story in order to be a good game, he said it needs a basic story. Neither did he say a game needs a dedicated writer, just a basic story (which can be written by anyone). At least that's how I interpreted what he said, and in light of that interpretation your post beginning "Not really. Sports games don't need a writer..." is irrelevant.

I got it now. But some games doesn't need story at all. Some NES or Atari didn't have a story, you just go through some random gameplay to make points or like a sports game, score to win some match. It really depends on the design, but story is not a requirement to make a game, depending on what you're gonna do.

"I have already stated games like Tetris don't necessarily need story and
by games like Tetris I am implying puzzle related games."
I agree with this. That's an example of what I was saying. I don't know why he quoted me at all now.
I'll keep my opinion that gameplay is far more important, on my posts I explain why, so I'll GTFO.

[SuperMedbh]

Hey Ryu, don't GTFO! This is possibly the most civil thread I've seen on this subject, with some cool insights from differing viewpoints.



Totally off topic, but a shout out to AmstradHero-- loved Alley of Murders, best DA mod ev-ah! Lord knows where you guys got the energy and know how to make that, though. Wow, just wow.

[KalosCast]

Gameplay is still the most important aspect, as it ruins everything else if it doesn't work right. If the gameplay is buggy, it doesn't matter how good the story and atmosphere are, it's going to rip you out of your immersion every time a bug comes up (like, THE GODDAM FLOATING GLITCHES IN ME2 FIX THAT **** ALREADY FOR ****'S SAKE) no matter how much subtlety and nuance you manage to write into it.

However, good gameplay only makes for a good game, a great game uses atmosphere and story to elevate it above those ranks. I would say that for a great game, atmosphere is the most important part. The Half Life series is very light on story and even lighter on the details behind what drives that story, yet it is possibly the most highly acclaimed video game series of all time. This is because it does atmosphere very well. You genuinely feel like you're thrust into a real world, and your confusion at the things you don't understand are the same confusion that you would expect Gordon Freeman (who is in turn, you) to feel. Another good example of this would be the first L4D game (the second one sucked balls), it genuinely felt like a chaotic and abandoned zombie-infested environment. It had all the trappings of modern action-horror movies with the general feel of abandonment, desolation, and helplessness that would come with a zombie apocalypse. You could have replaced all the monsters with angry pandas and it would have still felt like a zombie game. However, a good atmosphere is hard to have without a good story, these two can be considered exceptions to the rule. Morrowind and Oblivion are also great examples of why atmosphere and gameplay are much more important than storytelling. Both of them don't really have much more than the standard cliche fantasy stories, but the presentation oh the presentation...

A truly great game needs at least a decent story, good game-play, and a solid atmosphere. However, a game with an excuse plot (or none at all) and only a cohesive enough atmosphere that the game doesn't feel schizophrenic can easily be a good game, as opposed to something lacking in gameplay but trying to make up for it with story and presentation (see: FMV games of the 90's, also Heavy Rain and other games that forget they aren't movies)

Modifié par KalosCast, 02 mai 2010 - 07:51 .

[Rendar666]

KalosCast wrote...

Gameplay is still the most important aspect, as it ruins everything else if it doesn't work right. If the gameplay is buggy, it doesn't matter how good the story and atmosphere are, it's going to rip you out of your immersion every time a bug comes up (like, THE GODDAM FLOATING GLITCHES IN ME2 FIX THAT **** ALREADY FOR ****'S SAKE) no matter how much subtlety and nuance you manage to write into it.

However, good gameplay only makes for a good game, a great game uses atmosphere and story to elevate it above those ranks. I would say that for a great game, atmosphere is the most important part. The Half Life series is very light on story and even lighter on the details behind what drives that story, yet it is possibly the most highly acclaimed video game series of all time. This is because it does atmosphere very well. You genuinely feel like you're thrust into a real world, and your confusion at the things you don't understand are the same confusion that you would expect Gordon Freeman (who is in turn, you) to feel. Another good example of this would be the first L4D game (the second one sucked balls), it genuinely felt like a chaotic and abandoned zombie-infested environment. It had all the trappings of modern action-horror movies with the general feel of abandonment, desolation, and helplessness that would come with a zombie apocalypse. You could have replaced all the monsters with angry pandas and it would have still felt like a zombie game. However, a good atmosphere is hard to have without a good story, these two can be considered exceptions to the rule. Morrowind and Oblivion are also great examples of why atmosphere and gameplay are much more important than storytelling. Both of them don't really have much more than the standard cliche fantasy stories, but the presentation oh the presentation...

A truly great game needs at least a decent story, good game-play, and a solid atmosphere. However, a game with an excuse plot (or none at all) and only a cohesive enough atmosphere that the game doesn't feel schizophrenic can easily be a good game, as opposed to something lacking in gameplay but trying to make up for it with story and presentation (see: FMV games of the 90's, also Heavy Rain and other games that forget they aren't movies)

Why can't a game be like an interactive movie?????  Heavy Rain = Awesome.

[Dick Delaware]

Rendar666 wrote...
Yes, but how long can you play Tetris, Lumines and Roguelikes without getting so bored you want to cry like a baby? The thrills of fun gameplay only last so long.
 
Funny Example: Doctor Roboniks Mean Bean Machine (Terrible game... but still) It puts story together with connect the color, tetris like, gameplay. It's a terrible game through and through, but at least it was an attempt at combining traditional arcade style gaming with a story.

Some games have your standard Tetris, arcade gameplay, mixed with a story. Kind of wierd, but they can actually be entertaining. I personally don't like Tetris or those kind of games very much. I need a game with both story and good gameplay to keep me playing for more than a week.

I won Mass Effect 1 fifteen times but I only won Modern Warfare 2 once. I played it on insain so I wouldn't have to suffer through the terrible story more than once. I felt it was terrible anyway.

People seem to have little problem playing games like chess for over a thousand years, and I don't recall chess having a story either.

It's an asinine comparison. Most game stories are complete sh*t anyways. Even the best of them aren't close to a brilliant work of literature. Once games start talking about social issues in a serious manner and without the use of fantasy or sci-fi proxies, then I'll start taking their stories more seriously. Or, if a game comes out with quality of writing comparable to a Hemingway or another great literary figure, then I'll also take it seriously. Until that day comes, you had better have quality gameplay.

EDIT: That's not to say that good story and writing doesn't add a lot to a game, just that it isn't the primary reason I play games, in large part because books and movies are able to do that far better, and likely will continue to do so for the forseeable future.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 02 mai 2010 - 06:53 .

[Iakus]

AmstradHero wrote...

Edit/PS: I also agree that RPGs are a little bit of a different beastie to most computer games.  But that's because many of the hardcore RPG fans are self-confessed geeks that are a sucker for interesting stories/characters.  I imagine the "hardcore RPG fan" has re-read their favourite fantasy novel more times than the average person has re-read their favourite book.

I have no idea what you're talking about

Actually, the more I read this thread the more I start to think that asking whether story or gameplay is more important (at least in an rpg) is kinda like asking if the steering wheel or the gas tank is more important for a car.  In the end, you really need both. (plus a few other bits)

But to me, a game with good gameplay is one I'll play a couple of times over a year or two and forget about it.  A good game with both good gameplay and a good story will keep me coming back over and over.  The rpgs with the best stories (like Planescape: Torment) feel like an interactive novel.  The best of the more moden ones (like  ME1, imo) actually feel like an interactive movie. 

A small aside:  I got curious about this "Heavy Rain" game that's been mentioned and looked it up.  Wow, that looks great!  Makes me wish I had a PS3

[Daodan]

Good gameplay is what makes a game fun to play.

A good story is what adds detail and has the potential of making the game a great experience.



Just my two cents.

[Elvis_Mazur]

For me gameplay will always be more important than anything in a game. That is what ME1 failed: the game have more focus on history and left the gameplay as a secondary thing. But Bioware saw the error and corrected it, and i approve the change. And that doesn't mean that now the history is a ****. Bioware managed to put a well done gameplay and an interesting history.



The gameplay of Mass Effect 1 was most times irritating and boring. I always had to try at least 2 times to enter in cover and it was a useless strategy, because the idiot AI never used the cover. The player ran at FTL speed and that was very unnatural. The underground buildings were always the same big ****. That unlimited ammo system made most weapons useless. And walking around that Citadel from ME1 was boring: nothing happens there, it is always the same monotone place. Besides the Mako, a vehicle made to climb up mountains but never managed to climb one without a bit of sacrifice, that fail aim where you think the vehicle will shoot at that direction but it won't, among other errors.



Now the ME2's gameplay was a surprise for me: it is as good as the Gears 2's gameplay.

[Rendar666]

iakus wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

Edit/PS: I also agree that RPGs are a little bit of a different beastie to most computer games.  But that's because many of the hardcore RPG fans are self-confessed geeks that are a sucker for interesting stories/characters.  I imagine the "hardcore RPG fan" has re-read their favourite fantasy novel more times than the average person has re-read their favourite book.

I have no idea what you're talking about

Actually, the more I read this thread the more I start to think that asking whether story or gameplay is more important (at least in an rpg) is kinda like asking if the steering wheel or the gas tank is more important for a car.  In the end, you really need both. (plus a few other bits)

But to me, a game with good gameplay is one I'll play a couple of times over a year or two and forget about it.  A good game with both good gameplay and a good story will keep me coming back over and over.  The rpgs with the best stories (like Planescape: Torment) feel like an interactive novel.  The best of the more moden ones (like  ME1, imo) actually feel like an interactive movie. 

A small aside:  I got curious about this "Heavy Rain" game that's been mentioned and looked it up.  Wow, that looks great!  Makes me wish I had a PS3

That's exactly how I feel. The gameplay side of a game will, in my opinion, get old in a year or so. Maybe sooner for some. But the story (like with books and movies), combined with good gameplay complimented by good characters and setting, is what brings me back, not the "fun" of chopping through hundreds of skeletons in a story that is cringe worthy. I never play those old shooter games like Killzone 1 anymore. Sure, it was fun for a few months. I sold that game like 5 years ago. But I still play my old RPG games for PS1 and, believe it or not, Shining Force redone for Xbox 360 on Sonic's Ultimate Game Collection .