Gameplay-Driven vs Story-Driven Games

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,177
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Because, y'know, we haven't had this conversation a 1000 times.

Fine. I'll say it again - good story can make up for bad gameplay, and vice versa.

Yoshi178 said:
gameplay. why would i play video games for story? i can just go the cinemas and watch a movie if i want story.
Why would I go to movies? I can just read a book if I want story.

Course I don't actually believe that, but I'm not a fan of this argument. That if one medium can deliver better stories than others (generally speaking), the less apt medium becomes worthless in that regard. Besides, there's certainly games that have delivered better stories than movies. Sure, games have yet to deliver their own Citizen Kane, but it's fair to say that something like Mass Effect has a better story than Sharknado.

Yoshi178 said:
tetris didn't become one of the most famous video games of all time because of it's story...
And Mass Effect isn't as fondly regarded as it is because of its gameplay.

I'm serious - the actual moment to moment gameplay of ME1 is pretty dull when you get down to it. It's the world and characters that keep one invested.
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
hanselthecaretaker said:
True, board games do the competitive mode better with certain genres similar to how books almost always do things better than the movies based off of them, but there are still limits and trade offs. The depth of mental strategy and camaraderie amongst those circled at a table will always be greater than those staring at a screen, but on the other hand there really isn?t a board game equivalent or superior for something like fighting games, where mechanics and move sets are the main draw. MK takes it a step further with the outlandish and brutal presentation, along with tons of unlockable content to find.

Even for games like MGS or SoulsBorne the biggest draw for me is the kind of tactile feedback found when controlling the player character, and the options available when dealing with both opponents and the game world itself. A sense of experimentation in the former and exploration in the latter are also key to their enjoyment. The story and lore are merely gravy on the meat and potatoes.

In short, any medium can be seen as superior depending on the mode of stimulation the user is seeking.
Anything turn-based really. And the problems of videogames is fucking bizarre. Like if you ever get a chance, play Gloomhaven and compare it to X-COM. Just how fucking smart Gloomhaven's mechanics are, how it handles character progression, how it handles combat ... just the attack modifier deck customization. Argh. And the random battle goals? How you unlock new classes? World customization? Its legacy aspects? Abilities customization? Items and item usage?

And there's no reason for X-COM to be as comparatively fucking stupid as it is. But lo and behold, 9.5/10. The X-COM board game is better than X-COM.

I am not being hyperbolic when I say literally everything barring set up time is better in Gloomhaven than X-COM. Barring perhaps premise, but even then Gloomhaven is gothic fantasy done pretty well. Trust a videogame company to make a new RPG system and you end up with the incredibly shitearse Pillars of Eternity. And guess what? 9.5/10...

And before anybody pulls out the 'oh, but the writing!...'

"The mighty Aumaua are the largest of the kith races and are commonly found in or near oceans. Though not truly aquatic, they have an affinity for water and many of their civilizations, such as Rauatai, are based on naval dominance. They are known for their unparalleled strength."

---

"The godlike are children of the kith ("civilized" races) who have been blessed with physical aspects associated with the gods (though some do not consider it a blessing). These aspects may take many forms and often come with mystical powers. Aberrant head shapes are typical, and godlike are unable to wear protective headgear as it is near-impossible to find anything that fits. Because of their unusual nature and their inability to reproduce, godlike are often viewed with fear and wonder."

----

It's like a cryptic language that apparently lesser mortals like myself might merely consider childish, and only videogamers can recognize its transcendental brilliance.

This shit is not what I expected from the people that made New Vegas in a year.

This is just character creation... but oh boy, reading novels worth of this quality of writing is going to be fun. Really puts you in the mood, right?

Take something like this from the 3.5 PHB of D&D...

Humans typically stand from 5 feet to a little over 6 feet tall and weigh from 125 to 250 pounds, with men noticeably taller and heavier than women. Thanks to their penchant for migration and conquest, and to their short life spans, humans are more physically diverse than other common races. Their skin shades range from nearly black to very pale, their hair from black to blond (curly, kinky, or straight), and their facial hair (for men) from sparse to thick. Plenty of humans have a dash of nonhuman blood, and they may demonstrate hints of elf, orc, or other lineages. Members of this race are often ostentatious or unorthodox in their grooming and dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, body piercings, and the like. Humans have short life spans, reaching adulthood at about age 15 and rarely living even a single century.
Did they learn absolutely nothing doing Neverwinter Nights 2? Granted, their studio personnel has probably changed but did they bother at all to review their previous works or other game systems? This description isn't good, but it's at least functional.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
I didn't play Mass Effect to game the system either.. until I found out that was the only way to get the best results. Mass Effect in particular is a good example of 'go full-evil/noble or lose', since paragon/renegade choices aren't tied somekind of speechcraft, but to how many paragon/renegade choices you've made previously. Meaning you'll get access to the highest paragon options near the end only if you've been super duper nice to everyone throughout the whole game. This doesn't exactly encourage a player to freely react the way they would, as there are obvious benefits to sticking to a single path.

The choices in W3 have narrative ramifications for the characters you meet. Do you choose to let Triss get tortured just so you can learn some info for a quest, or do you say 'hell with the quest' and put a stop to it? Do you tell on a little goblin girl living in an adandoned house or make effort to conceal her? Do you let a werewolf tear a woman, who got his wife killed, apart, or do you intervene? The fact that these choices aren't tied to obvious game benefits makes it easier for players to judge these moments on their own without some punishment or reward hanging over it.
Like I said, I not really a fan of how most moral systems work (including ME paragon/renegade). I honestly would never play ME in a full paragon or renegade path just because I think Shepard's character wouldn't feel "right" if you went fully either way so I do think it's BS that you lose options for playing anything other than min/max. I feel ME succeeded at a pretty good role-playing experience considering it's something rarely focused on by devs and thus that bar is rather low then and now for the video game medium.

It's been awhile since I played TW3, I'm not saying the game was devoid of choice but I felt like there were few instances of it and they were rather infrequent (when compared to say ME). Plus, Geralt is more a set character than Shepard so the RPing is less just due to that. And, I guess the way my friend talked about the previous games that I hadn't played made my expectations higher than they should've been. TW3 has some really great bits for sure and the handling of those bits was more organic than ME as well.

MrCalavera said:
Phoenixmgs said:
And there's very few RPG decisions to be made during the game either, it's not even on par with a David Cage or Telltale game in that department either.
Woof, that's a hot damn take.
Is Witcher III worse than 2 or 1 in this regard? Because both of these blow David Cagey and Telltale when it comes to choice significance.
Telltale games deserve their "Your choices do (not) matter" label, it's really apparent once you finish more than two of them. And when it comes to DC games well... there's usually one correct way to play them, that give you a sortaaaaaaa sensible story outcome(?), accounting on rules established previously by Cage that is. And other paths that just devolve into this half baked mess.
I never played Witcher 1 or 2 (nor do I have any interest in honestly) but I was expecting more out of TW3 from a friend talking about the 1st 2 games with regard to choices. The illusion of choice isn't inherently a bad thing and can work just as good as real choices (especially on a single playthrough) but too much of it is bad like most things. Dialogue choices don't just function as choice options but also mold a character into a unique character that is your own. It's why people cared so much about redoing Shepard's appearance over and over in the customization screen in the sequels to make him/her just right because it was their Shepard whereas a character like Nathan Drake is the same exact character to every player. There's "Archer" playthroughs of Telltale's Batman on Youtube for example. I'm not trying to say Telltale or DC games are some beacons of choice but they do more than the entirety of the Final Fantasy series with regards to choices and role-playing. Few devs even try to do such things so there's few examples to even pull from, I don't like having to bring up DC games either but there's not much to pull from.

Hawki said:
Yoshi178 said:
gameplay. why would i play video games for story? i can just go the cinemas and watch a movie if i want story.
Why would I go to movies? I can just read a book if I want story.

Course I don't actually believe that, but I'm not a fan of this argument. That if one medium can deliver better stories than others (generally speaking), the less apt medium becomes worthless in that regard. Besides, there's certainly games that have delivered better stories than movies. Sure, games have yet to deliver their own Citizen Kane, but it's fair to say that something like Mass Effect has a better story than Sharknado.
It really doesn't have much to do with video games being an inferior medium to others, it's that the writing talent just doesn't work in the industry. Video games have many advantages to storytelling over movies and books. Even something as simple as having to press a button to pull the trigger at the end of MGS3 is something unique to the medium that can elevate storytelling. I may easily have to dedicate 1,000+ hours of my time to finally get a narrative that I'd rate as 8+/10 from video games and that's only picking and choosing games that I've heard have good stories mind you. I've played many games like Nier or Xenosaga or FFX or Uncharted 4 (which won an award for best narrative) and none of those games even had 6/10 quality narratives. Whereas I can pick and choose from movies and TV shows and probably get at least a 7/10 narrative maybe 50% of the time with far less time commitment. That's why playing video games for story doesn't make sense to me because the "hit rate" is so very low, not that the medium itself can't tell stories well, it just doesn't have the storytellers.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
And there's no reason for X-COM to be as comparatively fucking stupid as it is. But lo and behold, 9.5/10. The X-COM board game is better than X-COM.
Eh, I don't care much for the XCOM board game unless there's another XCOM game that's better that I don't know about. A few of us had to demo it a few years back for GenCon and I don't think it's come out afterward due to anyone wanting to play it. I'd rather play the video game honestly (not that it doesn't have some major flaws of its own).
 

Addendum_Forthcoming

Queen of the Edit
Feb 4, 2009
3,647
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Addendum_Forthcoming said:
And there's no reason for X-COM to be as comparatively fucking stupid as it is. But lo and behold, 9.5/10. The X-COM board game is better than X-COM.
Eh, I don't care much for the XCOM board game unless there's another XCOM game that's better that I don't know about. A few of us had to demo it a few years back for GenCon and I don't think it's come out afterward due to anyone wanting to play it. I'd rather play the video game honestly (not that it doesn't have some major flaws of its own).
No thanks, though it might simply be that I like the premise of managing a secretive global war effort where the gaming is centred moreso on all the background supports and structuralism that goes into such things. Plus I like gaming with other people, and basically XCOM combat sucks.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
I'd be more inclined to blame the obsession with ever-better graphics for modern games' lack of features rather than because they're including more story.

That said, you can make a brilliant game with no story. You can't make a good game with no gameplay.