Can a good story make up for weak gameplay?
- Thread starter wgreer25
- Start date
I really can't put a simple yay or nay down on this matter. In some cases (like indeed with Enslaved), I excuse the gameplay faults cos of the story and characters, but in others I don't. I'd like to explain why, but I can't, as there isn't any specific reason for this.
But...SomeBritishDude said:
finding out years later that you can pop the antwerp into a bunch of tiny antwerps by holding your sword above your head is awesome!
Generally, Yes. If the gameplay is weak, I'll deal with it for a good, compelling story. If the gameplay's extremely monotinous, not so much.
It depends on just how awful the gameplay is. If the game is completely broken, no. And even then, bad gameplay means I probably won't play twice since the story no longer holds as much incentive now that I've already seen it.
However, if it really is a good story then for the first playthrough, the answer is most likely a resounding: Hell yes.
However, if it really is a good story then for the first playthrough, the answer is most likely a resounding: Hell yes.
To an extent. Weak gameplay can be made up for by a good story, but the story has to be strong and there's a level of gameplay that no amount of story can make up for; if the gameplay is TOO weak, story won't help.
"but I found myself wanting to keep playing to see how the story and how the characters develope."
Well that alone means that for you, the story and narrative compensated for the gameplay deficiency.
I can relate. Heavy Rain's QTE-orientated gameplay meant that quite often the stiff movement, occasionally poorly responsive controls and mediocre actions would act to the detriment of the overall game. But the sheer pressure of getting closer and closer to finding the killer and seeing what awaits certain characters made up for the gameplay.
So yes. An excellent story and narrative can compensate for poor gameplay. However there are limits, the gameplay must be playable. If the gameplay is simply boring but has an excellent story then that's acceptable for some. If the gameplay is unplayable but has an excellent story then that's unacceptable, but you know some people will love it.
Well that alone means that for you, the story and narrative compensated for the gameplay deficiency.
I can relate. Heavy Rain's QTE-orientated gameplay meant that quite often the stiff movement, occasionally poorly responsive controls and mediocre actions would act to the detriment of the overall game. But the sheer pressure of getting closer and closer to finding the killer and seeing what awaits certain characters made up for the gameplay.
So yes. An excellent story and narrative can compensate for poor gameplay. However there are limits, the gameplay must be playable. If the gameplay is simply boring but has an excellent story then that's acceptable for some. If the gameplay is unplayable but has an excellent story then that's unacceptable, but you know some people will love it.
When you talk about "Story" do you mean the OVERALL game narrative OR the way most developers seem to approach story? As in almost completely separate and only really existing in the cutscenes and really could be totally skippable.wgreer25 said:
Think back to games before cutscenes, they could tell SO MUCH in the actual gameplay, and it is what makes video games unique as an artform in the sense of storytelling, totally distinct from books(perfect for first person narrative) or screenplays/movies (Third person) games can effectively and powerfully tell a story from a 2nd person narrative perspective.
You don't realise how complex games like Enslaved can be, flitting between 3rd person perspective between the cutscenes (HE jumps, HE says) and the gameplay (YOU jump, YOU say).
If a game can solidify that excellent cutscene narrative into the gameplay then the qualities of one will carry over.
So I'd say that a great story can go a long way to make a great game even if not-so-great gameplay, as the gameplay becomes worth it to get more of the story.
You Bastard...Dango said:
I honestly prefer most story driven games with average gameplay and a good story as opposed to a game with good gameplay but with a terrible story. In my view, if you rely on gameplay it has to be brilliant, whereas if it is balanced out with story I can get over average gameplay.
If a game's good point is just the story, that lowers my buying point to approximately the value of a good book: $15.
If a game's good point is just the gameplay, I'll buy it for the price of a boardgame ($20)
If a game's good point is just the visuals, I'll buy it for the price of a full-color poster. ($5)
If a game's good point is just the music, and I like the music, I'll buy it for the price of a new CD. ($10)
Extra good points increase my minimum buying price.
So by what I've been hearing about Enslaved, I'd put the optimal price at ~$30-$40.
If a game's good point is just the gameplay, I'll buy it for the price of a boardgame ($20)
If a game's good point is just the visuals, I'll buy it for the price of a full-color poster. ($5)
If a game's good point is just the music, and I like the music, I'll buy it for the price of a new CD. ($10)
Extra good points increase my minimum buying price.
So by what I've been hearing about Enslaved, I'd put the optimal price at ~$30-$40.
i would say no, story is not enough after all it is a game and therefore the core compenent is the interactive gameplay. That is what should be core, afterall story can be found in films/books so why would i want to wade through meh to get to the awsome story.