Can a good story save poor or medicore gameplay for you?

[chaosfalling]

I've come to a realisation that some of my favourite ever games have nothing special going for them in the gameplay department, but they all have one thing in common - and thats a strong, gripping plot as well as terrific characters you care for.

On the flipside no matter how polished or technically brilliant a game is, I sometimes get bored and uninspired if the story is of little substance.

Anyone else agree with these sentiments?

 

[Cprl Caboose]

A truly good game finds a balance between the two. However, if the game has a fantastic story, I'll give it a fighting chance.

 

[woodaba]

Yes. KOTOR 2 was virtually unplayable, but the story and characters were so bloody good that its in my top 10 favourite games.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Yeah, some Bioware games had basically nothing going for them in the gameplay department, KOTOR, Dragonage etc (In my opinion naturally)

But they were still amazing games due to the epic stories and good characters.

Now then time to figure out how to not get Non Standard Game Over'd in Persona 4 (no it does not count as an ending dammit! No matter what the credits say!)

 

[chaosfalling]

Dragon Age is a good shout. Not into those class of RPGs, but the story kept me intrigued to the bitter end.

 

[Loonyyy]

If by mediocre you mean average and bland, and not of a high quality, then yeah, I'm happy to play through some games simply for the story. I've played games with far too much of a turn based influence simply for the story.
I still play Oblivion, for the story.
I bought Homefront, largely for the story.
However, poor gameplay doesn't really work so well for me, if a game has poor gameplay in such a way that they cease to be enjoyable to play, it is irredeemable. No-one should buy it. It should be forgotten. If I wanted only story, I would have read a book. Or better yet, the Wiki Synopsis.
The reverse also applies: I've almost quit several games in disgust due to their offensively poor stories (Call of Duty: Black Ops, BattleField: Bad Company 2, Lost Planet: Extreme Condition (This one was mainly because of the way the story was told, simply put, I cared not for the characters, and on the flipside, the gameplay was irritating and the few brilliant points of sparkling innovation were outnumbered by the crass crap elsewhere.))
I have a philosophy on Game stories: If your game does not do story well, or if your story is not coherent and makes the game WORSE, then don't use it. Better yet, use a minimalist story.
Left 4 Dead and Portal both demonstrate that by being minimalist with your story, you can avoid plot holes and boring the player, whilst making their experience much more entertaining.

TLDR: Games with stories have the responsibility to tell good ones that do not make the game worse. Gameplay and poor stories both are capable of ruining a game, even if the other is fine.
And I'll play through bland RPG's and FPS's for the story.

 

[The Dark Umbra]

I gotta say i agree with you guys story is number one. Though i have excused some games.

 

[WorldCritic]

Silent Hill 1-3: Crappy Gameplay, Great Stories
Jet Set Radio/Future: Not much plot, but incredible gameplay

So yes, if one is really good, then it can make up for the flaws in the other.

 

[dannyanger]

yes but still mass effect is the best game of all

 

[JaymesFogarty]

Absolutely! I find it incredibly hard to have fun playing games like tetris or bedazzled, or whatever the latest shiny craze is, because the material is not nearly compelling enough to return to. I don't have the mindset to be able to waste an hour mindlessly tapping on a screen. The story, (and by that I mean the setting, atmosphere, & plot, as the story of a game certainly seems to encompass these things) is the most important attribute of a game. While I wouldn't excuse a terrible game with a good story, a game could be the most fun experience ever, but without a coherent narrative that's engaging and interesting, I can't enjoy playing it.

Unfortunately, I seem to be part of a dying race of people in believing that. With more and more developer focus on multiplayer modes, (as obviously for developers items and map packs related to multiplayer make them fortunes as part of DLC) I do often worry that the industry is heading in the wrong direction.

 

[EmperorSubcutaneous]

I'll play an otherwise-mediocre game if it has a great anything just to experience that one thing, whether it's story, gameplay, graphics, music, atmosphere, whatever.

The lower the rest of the game rates, though, the better that one thing should be. If a game is otherwise complete crap but has a pretty decent story, I won't play it. If it's complete crap but has the omg best story ever told, I'll play it. If it's mediocre but has a pretty decent story, I'll play it. Etc.

 

[AlternatePFG]

Yes. KOTOR 2 was virtually unplayable, but the story and characters were so bloody good that its in my top 10 favourite games.

Pretty much this. I didn't hate the gameplay, but like the first KOTOR it just wasn't fun at all.

 

[Zac Smith]

Assassin's Creed 1, gameplay got very repetitive and boring, but enjoyed the story tremendously

 

[dancinginfernal]

Deadly Premonition says yes.

 

[thejackyl]

I would say a good story can save a game from mediocre game play. And fun game play can save an awful story.

Case and point: The Resident Evil series. Abysmal story (The original was campy as hell), but I found the game play extremely fun, despite the initial difficulty of the stationary camera.

Also, and I will probably get some flak from this one: Silent Hill 2. I didn't like the game play too much. But the psychological aspect of the story made it an amazing game.

 

[Jordi]

If a game has excellent gameplay with no, or a bad story, I'll play it. A bad story can be annoying though, especially if the game puts a heavy emphasis on it. But if the gameplay is fun, then the game is fun (for me). The only exception I can think of is if the game('s story) somehow offends me, but that is not very likely.

A game with a very good story and bad gameplay might work for me as well, although I think it is slightly less likely. The reason is that in almost all games, even story-heavy ones, the story takes up far less time than the gameplay does. Furthermore, especially in the beginning a game needs to pull me in, as I'm not invested in the story yet. And if the gameplay sucks too much, I will never get to the point where the story may have gotten truly interesting.

Basically a game needs to keep my interest pretty much all the time. Since most of the time is spent with the gameplay, I think that is slightly more important.

 

[Irriduccibilli]

It works both ways.
One of my favourite games of all time, Unreal Tournament 1999 has a terrible story but awesome gameplay, while a game like Mass Effect 2 lacks (sort of) when it comes to gameplay, but it have a fantastic story which also made it one of my all time favourites
It works both ways.

By the way, this thread could use a poll

 

[friedtoast88]

It obviously depends on what level both game play and story are on. For the most part I won't sacrifice game play for story. Games should focus on making it fun to play prior to weaving an intricate narrative into the mix. If I wanted a nice story I would go watch a movie or read a book. Games are for playing. This is why I consider Just Cause 2 a far superior game to LA Noire.