91 réponses à ce sujet

[MrMrPendragon]

Story comes first, and you design the gameplay to highlight the story, its setting, and its theme.

[Andraste_Reborn]

They're both important to me, but ultimately I care about the story and characters more than the gameplay. I can forgive a lot of wonky mechanics if I'm engaged by the plot.

[Aren]

Once the Arishok said

 

1)Story

 

1)Gameplay mechanics

 

1)lore cohesion (to avoid the meaningless retcons)

 

Pillars of the Dragon age, of the game that must be.

 

The triumvirate divides and governs. One is nothing without the others.

[Orian Tabris]

Plot and story.

 

Otherwise, Inquisition would kinda suck. I mean, those combat controls are terrible on PC.

[Darkly Tranquil]

Before Inquisition, I would have said 75:25 story to gameplay. Now, having played (and hated the combat in) Inquisition, I'd say mechanics are at least as important as story. If the gameplay is awful, the game won't be fun, no matter how good the story is. Conversely, strong mechanics and compelling gameplay can make up for a lacklustre plot, so I'd say it's 60:40 in favour of mechanics.

[Korva]

Story and characters above all else, no question, that is why I play this sort of game.

 

Combat should happen when the story or setting call for it. Gear? I hate gear-obsessed games. Am I the protagonist or nothing but an ambulatory armor rack and weapon stand? Items only matters in terms of "does it suit this can character and they credibly fulfill their role with this equipment" or if it serves a point in the story like a special heirloom blade. Levels and "grinding" for them have nothing to do with a credible immersive experience and in fact fly right in its face. Sure, people learn, but the stereotypical level-up mechanics don't reflect real learning well. Exploration is, ideally, part of the story anyway.

 

If I want a game in which combat or resource management take the spotlight, I'd much rather go for, say, a roguelike.

[Navasha]

Both are pretty vital to making a game.   I can play a game with great mechanics and weak on story and love it quite a bit.   XCom comes to mind.   However, I can also love a good story game that is weaker on mechanics...  Sorry Bioware...  your recent games tend to fall into this category for me.  

 

The best games are great on both.  Engaging and fun to play.  

[Dinerenblanc]

The story is essentially the soul to most games. Without it, there would be no context to what you're doing. The general rule of thumb is that the more complex the mechanics, the more "story" is needed. Basic games like Tetris can get by without a story, but a game like Dragon Age and Skyrim would be nothing without its lore and plot. Face it, a lot of what you do in this game is incredibly repetitive. If it wasn't for the story and it's colorful cast of characters, I wouldn't make it past Haven. It gives purpose to your actions.

[fhs33721]

Story is more important for me no doubt. As long as it isn't the sort of gameplay I suck so much that I have no chance of ever finishing the game I don't particularily care for gameplay. (for example I am absolutely unable to play fighting games where you have to press ridiciously complicated button-chains to perform comos in order to win. I admittedly just totally suck at that.) After all I regularly play through ME1 even though the combat there is downright aweful if you ask me and the mako-drivng is atrocious at best and pure hell on some planets.

[Neoideo]

The people who complain about the game combat, are you talking about the tactical cam problem? the real time combat? . I thought the latter was very well implemented.

[Abyss108]

Gonna agree with a lot of other people who posted and say both. I usually don't play games without a plot (with a few exceptions), but I also always put the difficulty on the highest level and try to 100% all the extra stuff, beat extra bosses, Max out my stats, etc.

[MaxQuartiroli]

I cannot play a game with a bad/lame story, no matter how the game mechanics are good. At the opposite, I'll always play a game with a good story even with the worst game mechanics..

 

If we are talking about RPG of course...

[Heimdall]

Let me put it this way:

A great story can get me to look past mediocre game mechanics, but great game mechanics won't salvage a poor story.

[Darkly Tranquil]

Let me put it this way:
A great story can get me to look past mediocre game mechanics, but great game mechanics won't salvage a poor story.

But there are entire genres of games that are highly successful with barely a whiff of story to justify them. Take the Street Fighter series (near and dear to my heart) for example - the plots in those range from paper thin to pants-on-head stupid, but the franchise has endured for 25 years on the strength of its compelling competitive gameplay. Heck, even in the RPG genre, Dark Souls has a pretty thin plot, but it's gameplay and challenge more than make up for the lacklustre narrative.

If we look at long term patterns in the industry, few games live and die on their story, but many get crucified for bad gameplay. For a recent example, just look at the beating The Order: 1886 took for focusing on story and visuals at the expense of gameplay. Ready at Dawn were so focused on telling their story that they made the gameplay so basic and linear in its design and mechanics that it might as well have been a rail shooter with QTEs. Rather than letting the player actually play the game how they wanted to, RaD constantly snatched control away from the player and forced them to sit and watch for half the game while they took over to show unskippable cutscenes because the story was (allegedly) amazing. They got mauled because as good as the game looked and sounded, and as interesting as the premise was, the gameplay didn't hold up.

When you get down to it, games are an interactive medium and they need to deliver an engaging interactive experience or there is nothing to meaningfully differentiate them from non-interactive mediums like film; a point Ready at Dawn sadly forgot. Games that deliver on gameplay but fail on story tend to get a pass far more often than games that deliver on story and fail on gameplay.

[ThreeF]

But there are entire genres of games that are highly successful with barely a whiff of story to justify them. Take the Street Fighter series (near and dear to my heart) for example - the plots in those range from paper thin to pants-on-head stupid, but the franchise has endured for 25 years on the strength of its compelling competitive gameplay.
 

I think people in this thread are answering on  personal level. For instance there is no way in hell you will make me play a Street Fighter game for the game itself. I might play to goof off with friends, but I will do it for the company and not the game. So these games don't even come into consideration.

[Heimdall]

But there are entire genres of games that are highly successful with barely a whiff of story to justify them. Take the Street Fighter series (near and dear to my heart) for example - the plots in those range from paper thin to pants-on-head stupid, but the franchise has endured for 25 years on the strength of its compelling competitive gameplay. Heck, even in the RPG genre, Dark Souls has a pretty thin plot, but it's gameplay and challenge more than make up for the lacklustre narrative.

If we look at long term patterns in the industry, few games live and die on their story, but many get crucified for bad gameplay. For a recent example, just look at the beating The Order: 1886 took for focusing on story and visuals at the expense of gameplay. Ready at Dawn were so focused on telling their story that they made the gameplay so basic and linear in its design and mechanics that it might as well have been a rail shooter with QTEs. Rather than letting the player actually play the game how they wanted to, RaD constantly snatched control away from the player and forced them to sit and watch for half the game while they took over to show unskippable cutscenes because the story was (allegedly) amazing. They got mauled because as good as the game looked and sounded, and as interesting as the premise was, the gameplay didn't hold up.

When you get down to it, games are an interactive medium and they need to deliver an engaging interactive experience or there is nothing to meaningfully differentiate them from non-interactive mediums like film; a point Ready at Dawn sadly forgot. Games that deliver on gameplay but fail on story tend to get a pass far more often than games that deliver on story and fail on gameplay.

I speak more to my personal taste than a general judgement of games as a whole. I very rarely have interest in games I know have minimal story or no story at all. That's not to say that I give a pass to utterly uninspired gameplay and sometimes it really isn't worth it to force myself through clunky awkward gameplay to get at the story. But fundamentally I approach video games as a storytelling medium, distinguished from others by its capacity for interactivity (Hence my preference for RPGs)

[keesio74]

Story and characters above all else, no question, that is why I play this sort of game.

 

Combat should happen when the story or setting call for it. Gear? I hate gear-obsessed games. Am I the protagonist or nothing but an ambulatory armor rack and weapon stand? Items only matters in terms of "does it suit this can character and they credibly fulfill their role with this equipment" or if it serves a point in the story like a special heirloom blade. Levels and "grinding" for them have nothing to do with a credible immersive experience and in fact fly right in its face. Sure, people learn, but the stereotypical level-up mechanics don't reflect real learning well. Exploration is, ideally, part of the story anyway.

 

If I want a game in which combat or resource management take the spotlight, I'd much rather go for, say, a roguelike.

 

Interesting... because I usually do pick a rogue.

 

I wonder if the exploring/leveling/gear part of the game is so important to me because of my past experiences with cRPGs. I'm older and my first exposure to cRPGs was in the last mid-80's. I grew up with The Bard's Tale, Ultima 3-5, the original Might & Magic, Wizardy, Wasteland 1, etc. Because of the limitations of the technology at the time, it was hard to get emotionally involved with your companions (who where just names and some associated numbers). And when conversation in the games was something like:

 

(You): NAME

(NPC): Jana

(You): JOB

(NPC): I am a healer

(You): JOIN

(NPC): I will join thee

 

It was easy to see why these games were hardly character driven. These games had plot, some were pretty interesting, but hard to really get into because the plot was driven by some text and a few graphics. So really, all you really had was grinding/questing/leveling and getting gear and that is what people played for. That is what I associate cRPGs with and when I get an itch to play, that is what I look for. I remember when I picked up DA:O... it was my first real cRPG since the early 90's. It was so long so my mind was blown with all the character development and story and etc. I didn't even know games were this detailed with that stuff. So I can see why many people play for the story.

[songsmith2003]

Interesting... because I usually do pick a rogue.

 

I wonder if the exploring/leveling/gear part of the game is so important to me because of my past experiences with cRPGs. I'm older and my first exposure to cRPGs was in the last mid-80's. I grew up with The Bard's Tale, Ultima 3-5, the original Might & Magic, Wizardy, Wasteland 1, etc. Because of the limitations of the technology at the time, it was hard to get emotionally involved with your companions (who where just names and some associated numbers). And when conversation in the games was something like:

 

(You): NAME

(NPC): Jana

(You): JOB

(NPC): I am a healer

(You): JOIN

(NPC): I will join thee

 

It was easy to see why these games were hardly character driven. These games had plot, some were pretty interesting, but hard to really get into because the plot was driven by some text and a few graphics. So really, all you really had was grinding/questing/leveling and getting gear and that is what people played for. That is what I associate cRPGs with and when I get an itch to play, that is what I look for. I remember when I picked up DA:O... it was my first real cRPG since the early 90's. It was so long so my mind was blown with all the character development and story and etc. I didn't even know games were this detailed with that stuff. So I can see why many people play for the story.

 

Ultima series still had great some great plots once they went the virtues/avatar route. Limitations made the stories difficult to tell, but if you're like me and read every little thing you still had a story. To this day I have yet to forgive EA for ruining a wonderful series. (You never played the Baldur's Gate games?)

[keesio74]

Ultima series still had great some great plots once they went the virtues/avatar route. Limitations made the stories difficult to tell, but if you're like me and read every little thing you still had a story. To this day I have yet to forgive EA for ruining a wonderful series. (You never played the Baldur's Gate games?)

 

Some of those games did have great plots. I loved the plots for Ultima 4,5 and 7. But to be honest I didn't get as emotionally involved with them as with games now because it is one thing to read it and another to see/hear it. You should have seen the look on my face when I watched Loghain called the retreat at Ostagar. The impact of watching it was so much greater than if I read some codex entry that he did it. I played much of DA:O trying to take out Loghain... I was after him... it was personal. While in Ultima 5, I just wanted to win the game. I didn't have that same venom for Blackthorne and the Shadowlords. They were just boss enemies to me.

 

No, I never really played the BG games. I tried a few years ago because everyone was telling me it was the greatest cRPG ever, but the game looked  too dated for me and I couldn't get into it

[Korva]

I wonder if the exploring/leveling/gear part of the game is so important to me because of my past experiences with cRPGs. I'm older and my first exposure to cRPGs was in the last mid-80's. I grew up with The Bard's Tale, Ultima 3-5, the original Might & Magic, Wizardy, Wasteland 1, etc. Because of the limitations of the technology at the time, it was hard to get emotionally involved with your companions (who where just names and some associated numbers).

 

Interesting. I'm a bit younger, but I remember picking up Ultima VI kind of on a whim when it was a little dated already, and that game was my wake-up call, the experience that made the genre "click" for me. Before that, the few RPGs I tried kind of bored me -- I wanted to like them, but something was missing. Then along came U6 and for the first time I felt like a "person" in a game, felt like I "belonged" and had a purpose in a world that was more than just monsters standing around waiting for me to kill them. I needed a dictionary for it since I'm not a native speaker, but that too was part of the fun and helped me improve my English in leaps and bounds. Years later when we read Shakespeare, my teacher refused to believe I'd learned Elizabethan English from a computer game.

 

The Ultima series is also responsible for me being strongly in favourite of playing restrictions on the protagonist. Not in terms of race or gender, but in terms of expected behavior. You were a protector/role model and had to act like it. IMO that allows for better and more coherent storytelling than when you can do whatever you want and still be treated like the great hero ... even when you murderknife people for fun at the drop of a hat.

[Darkly Tranquil]

I speak more to my personal taste than a general judgement of games as a whole. I very rarely have interest in games I know have minimal story or no story at all. That's not to say that I give a pass to utterly uninspired gameplay and sometimes it really isn't worth it to force myself through clunky awkward gameplay to get at the story. But fundamentally I approach video games as a storytelling medium, distinguished from others by its capacity for interactivity (Hence my preference for RPGs)

I wasn't really directing my remarks at you specifically. Sorry if you got that impression. Your post was just the one that kicked my thoughts in that direction and served as a starting point. Obviously, it's very much a matter of personal taste.

[rashie]

For a game that isn't a click and point visual novel, definitely the gameplay. Good gameplay can carry a bad story, its far harder for the opposite to happen in a game were the devs actually intended for the gameplay to be the focus.

[ManleySteele]

My answers are just for RPG's. I tried to remember the name of the last FPS I played and came up with nothing. I consider character building and development an integral part of the story. If it's not, it detracts from the experience.  Combat mechanics is not that important to me, as long as I can learn them fairly quickly and just play the game. I'm a casual player who doesn't much care about combat tactics. I do wish the AI for the companions was done better, but I can live with it in DAI.

 

When it comes to story, I want as many choices as possible, supporting an engaging and entertaining story. I want my choice of companions to matter. I want my dialogue choices to matter. I want multiple ways to solve the problems presented to my character. If that means I prefer story to mechanics, then it is what it is. I want to be able to roleplay a game or play to seek an outcome with equal ease.  I want it all.

 

Last, but not least, I want modding tools so that I can fix anything and everything I can't stand about a game. The lack of developer provided and supported modding tools for Dragon Age and Mass Effect is both franchises' major shortcoming.  The modding community has done very well for us, but they shouldn't have to build their own tools.