Games with great story but bad gameplay

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
Sixcess said:
Oh hi, every-Bioware-game-ever.

Oh alright, that's a little bit unkind, but with the exception of Mass Effect 2, where I rather enjoyed the combat as well, I've almost always viewed Bioware's actual gameplay as something to get through so I can enjoy the next conversation scene.
Just curious. How did you not like ME3's gameplay if you liked ME2's? Don't get me wrong, I liked ME2's a lot but I thought ME3's gameplay was amazing.

OT: It's kind of unfair to say this but The Walking Dead. I won't say it's bad but there's barely any of it and that's kind of a big deal to me.
Shanicus said:
Halo 2. It just felt... sticky. Dual Needlers was also a retardedly broken strategy, but the combat felt sluggish even with those pink spikes of death. Halo 1 combat was nothing to write home about, but it felt much smoother than Halo 2's oddly enough.
So this means you thought Halo 2's story was great? I guess it was alright but I never considered it great... Also, you wanna talk broken weapons? Energy sword. Infinite charge is just not fair.
 

Fleetfiend

New member
Jun 1, 2011
479
0
0
I'm going to go ahead and say nearly every turn-based RPG. Mainly because of all the grinding involved.
 

wakeup

New member
Aug 26, 2012
151
0
0
alphamalet said:
wakeup said:
alphamalet said:
wakeup said:
lack of game play doesn't mean bad game play as that is what the developers intended. Bad game play is when the game play mechanics they do use aint solid enough. Saying i didn't like that it had QTE's doesn't work as a argument.
Lack of gameplay is almost always unjustifiable as well. If extremely minimal gameplay is present, and doesn't add to the experience, you shouldn't be making a game.
not really that's whats great about games, there are no boundaries and you shouldn't try and define what a game can, cant do. for example heavy rain is a interactive experience and i love it for that and i also love its game play style. if you don't like that type of gameplay fine but that doesn't make it "bad".
There is a difference between interactivity and gameplay. Something can be interactive, and not be a game. Heavy Rain (from what I remember) has interactivity, not gameplay. If you are going to make a "game", then underutilizing gameplay does a disservice to what you are trying to make, and the medium as a whole. If you are making an interactive experience then fine, but stick to that and don't get bogged down with needless gameplay that will interrupt the pace of the experience.

Also, there are authorities on the subject matter that have defined gameplay, interactivity, and what constitutes a game. There is some grey area to it, but the quintessential component that is required for it to be a game is gameplay. To gloss over and disregard it is not the mark of a successful endeavor in the medium.

The point: Basically, if you want to make a game, then you need to give adequate focus to the gameplay. If something other than gameplay is the primary concern, then you need to rethink the medium that you have chosen.

if that's what they want to make you cant stop them from doing that. What other medium would you suggest as TV and film have no interactivity at all. Heavy rain had game play elements where you walk around the environment. "does a disservice" how? heavy rain couldn't have been made any other way as it doesn't follow traditional game play tropes. Just because its different from what you normally expect doesn't mean it has any less merit. By my standards if i interact with it its a game. I hate the word game anyway, i prefer the term interactive entertainment.
 

Sixcess

New member
Feb 27, 2010
2,719
0
0
RedDeadFred said:
Just curious. How did you not like ME3's gameplay if you liked ME2's? Don't get me wrong, I liked ME2's a lot but I thought ME3's gameplay was amazing.
Fair question, but believe it or not I haven't actually played ME3 yet. Though I enjoy the series I never quite got around to the third game. No doubt I will one day.
 

SpaceBat

New member
Jul 9, 2011
743
0
0
MintberryCrunch said:
Spec Ops: The Li-
sextus the crazy said:
Spec Ops: the Line.
Nouw said:
Spec Ops: The Line
janjotat said:
I've been ninja'd to spec ops
AD-Stu said:
Rawne1980 said:
Spec Ops - The Line
Ah. Not that I didn't see this coming... But still.
I think the bad gameplay seemed almost deliberate. Upon first hearing this before playing I assumed it was a copout by fans who were trying to make excuses, but then I played it and suddenly it seemed a lot more clear.
Yeah, the gameplay is intentionally made to mimic the average modern military game. Creating something unique that was fun to play and different from all the other games would have completely missed the point. It saddens me to see that so many people completely missed the fact that it was trying to be the same as every other shooter in order to effectively fulfill its role as a commentary on the state of modern military shooters.
 

RatherDashing89

New member
Jan 11, 2013
62
0
0
Fleetfiend said:
I'm going to go ahead and say nearly every turn-based RPG. Mainly because of all the grinding involved.
I'd agree for the most part, although I really did enjoy the gameplay in Suikoden 2 for Playstation. The story was phenomenal, but the gameplay was still fun. First off, there was an auto-attack option for when you were just fighting random trash and had optimized your build enough to take them. You could get a lot of variety and there were a lot of hidden stats to discover. You could easily beat the game without grinding or minmaxing, but if you did find those secret strategies it was hilariously easy at some parts. But most of the fun there was in the out-of-combat micromanagement. In combat you were pretty much just pushing buttons, but I'd prefer that to games that try to make the combat itself "fun" with ATB crap.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
Semudara said:
veloper said:
There are no videogames with good stories; there are videogames with good stories-for-a-videogame, which translates as nice/okay.
If you cannot make it as a novelist or a movie director, you can always impress gamers. A magnet for failures who would rather make movies, but couldn't make it; that's what the game industry is turning into.
Seriously? That's a ridiculous generalization. You have every right to be cynical, but just because you haven't personally experienced something does not mean IT DOESN'T EXIST, and no one on The Escapist is going to appreciate you putting such a judgment on an entire medium.
That's where you are wrong. I've experienced just about every game that comes highly recommended for it story. I can safely make my claims.

I'm not impressed with the quality of storytelling in games. Read a good book or watch a good movie, THEN compare to your Walking Dead or To the Moon, etc.

What's mediocre or decent by normal standards, becomes bloody Game of the Year material to gamers. It is we gamers who should experience more things in general.
 

alphamalet

New member
Nov 29, 2011
544
0
0
wakeup said:
alphamalet said:
wakeup said:
alphamalet said:
wakeup said:
lack of game play doesn't mean bad game play as that is what the developers intended. Bad game play is when the game play mechanics they do use aint solid enough. Saying i didn't like that it had QTE's doesn't work as a argument.
Lack of gameplay is almost always unjustifiable as well. If extremely minimal gameplay is present, and doesn't add to the experience, you shouldn't be making a game.
not really that's whats great about games, there are no boundaries and you shouldn't try and define what a game can, cant do. for example heavy rain is a interactive experience and i love it for that and i also love its game play style. if you don't like that type of gameplay fine but that doesn't make it "bad".
There is a difference between interactivity and gameplay. Something can be interactive, and not be a game. Heavy Rain (from what I remember) has interactivity, not gameplay. If you are going to make a "game", then underutilizing gameplay does a disservice to what you are trying to make, and the medium as a whole. If you are making an interactive experience then fine, but stick to that and don't get bogged down with needless gameplay that will interrupt the pace of the experience.

Also, there are authorities on the subject matter that have defined gameplay, interactivity, and what constitutes a game. There is some grey area to it, but the quintessential component that is required for it to be a game is gameplay. To gloss over and disregard it is not the mark of a successful endeavor in the medium.

The point: Basically, if you want to make a game, then you need to give adequate focus to the gameplay. If something other than gameplay is the primary concern, then you need to rethink the medium that you have chosen.

if that's what they want to make you cant stop them from doing that. What other medium would you suggest as TV and film have no interactivity at all. Heavy rain had game play elements where you walk around the environment. "does a disservice" how? heavy rain couldn't have been made any other way as it doesn't follow traditional game play tropes. Just because its different from what you normally expect doesn't mean it has any less merit. By my standards if i interact with it its a game. I hate the word game anyway, i prefer the term interactive entertainment.
I have been studying game design at a university for four years, and I can tell you that interactivity does NOT constitute a game.

Interactivity purely means to be able to have input in a system, with a result.
Gameplay is the partaking of a challenge within a system, defined by rules, in which a quantifiable outcome results.

Heavy rain consists mainly of dialog choices, and quicktime events, but at no point can you fail them or get a game over. They do not present a challenge that results in a quantifiable outcome. Certain outcomes might elicit a specific emotional response from the player, be it the "good" or "bad" ending, but those emotions are relative to that player, and can't be quantified. It would be like calling the ability to move your mouse and click icons on your desktop gameplay. You don't play your desktop, you interact with it.

You're right, Quantic Dream can make whatever they want, and I can't stop them, but merely undertaking a different endeavor in an established medium does not automatically constitue a successful entry to that medium. I think Heavy Rain would have been better if it were a film, a visual novel (which has interactivity), or a series of videos. Walking around environments hardly lead to anything meaningful, presented no challenge, and broke the pace of the game. If I remember correctly, even Yahtzee complained that the beginning of the game had you walking around doing stuff that amounted to nothing. That isn't helping Heavy Rain with it's primary goal which is to tell a story. The thing about telling a story is that that are a plethora of other mediums better suited for doing that sort of thing, where it can and should be a primary focus. If people wanted nothing but story, they would read a book or watch a movie, but people pop in video games because they want to PLAY something.
 

Fleetfiend

New member
Jun 1, 2011
479
0
0
RatherDashing89 said:
I'd agree for the most part, although I really did enjoy the gameplay in Suikoden 2 for Playstation. The story was phenomenal, but the gameplay was still fun. First off, there was an auto-attack option for when you were just fighting random trash and had optimized your build enough to take them. You could get a lot of variety and there were a lot of hidden stats to discover. You could easily beat the game without grinding or minmaxing, but if you did find those secret strategies it was hilariously easy at some parts. But most of the fun there was in the out-of-combat micromanagement. In combat you were pretty much just pushing buttons, but I'd prefer that to games that try to make the combat itself "fun" with ATB crap.
There are definitely some awesome exceptions. One that comes to my mind is The Legend of Dragoon. Just by adding the simple ability to create combos based on timing made it JUST interactive enough that it wasn't as boring to me as many turn-based games tend to do when I get around halfway through the game. After that it's usually just cutting myself through the gameplay until I can see the story.

Final Fantasy Tactics is another decent example, but it's not turn-based in the same way that most RPGs are that I was referencing.
 

wakeup

New member
Aug 26, 2012
151
0
0
alphamalet said:
wakeup said:
alphamalet said:
wakeup said:
alphamalet said:
wakeup said:
lack of game play doesn't mean bad game play as that is what the developers intended. Bad game play is when the game play mechanics they do use aint solid enough. Saying i didn't like that it had QTE's doesn't work as a argument.
Lack of gameplay is almost always unjustifiable as well. If extremely minimal gameplay is present, and doesn't add to the experience, you shouldn't be making a game.
not really that's whats great about games, there are no boundaries and you shouldn't try and define what a game can, cant do. for example heavy rain is a interactive experience and i love it for that and i also love its game play style. if you don't like that type of gameplay fine but that doesn't make it "bad".
There is a difference between interactivity and gameplay. Something can be interactive, and not be a game. Heavy Rain (from what I remember) has interactivity, not gameplay. If you are going to make a "game", then underutilizing gameplay does a disservice to what you are trying to make, and the medium as a whole. If you are making an interactive experience then fine, but stick to that and don't get bogged down with needless gameplay that will interrupt the pace of the experience.

Also, there are authorities on the subject matter that have defined gameplay, interactivity, and what constitutes a game. There is some grey area to it, but the quintessential component that is required for it to be a game is gameplay. To gloss over and disregard it is not the mark of a successful endeavor in the medium.

The point: Basically, if you want to make a game, then you need to give adequate focus to the gameplay. If something other than gameplay is the primary concern, then you need to rethink the medium that you have chosen.

if that's what they want to make you cant stop them from doing that. What other medium would you suggest as TV and film have no interactivity at all. Heavy rain had game play elements where you walk around the environment. "does a disservice" how? heavy rain couldn't have been made any other way as it doesn't follow traditional game play tropes. Just because its different from what you normally expect doesn't mean it has any less merit. By my standards if i interact with it its a game. I hate the word game anyway, i prefer the term interactive entertainment.
I have been studying game design at a university for four years, and I can tell you that interactivity does NOT constitute a game.

Interactivity purely means to be able to have input in a system, with a result.
Gameplay is the partaking of a challenge within a system, defined by rules, in which a quantifiable outcome results.

Heavy rain consists mainly of dialog choices, and quicktime events, but at no point can you fail them or get a game over. They do not present a challenge that results in a quantifiable outcome. Certain outcomes might elicit a specific emotional response from the player, be it the "good" or "bad" ending, but those emotions are relative to that player, and can't be quantified. It would be like calling the ability to move your mouse and click icons on your desktop gameplay. You don't play your desktop, you interact with it.

You're right, Quantic Dream can make whatever they want, and I can't stop them, but merely undertaking a different endeavor in an established medium does not automatically constitue a successful entry to that medium. I think Heavy Rain would have been better if it were a film, a visual novel (which has interactivity), or a series of videos. Walking around environments hardly lead to anything meaningful, presented no challenge, and broke the pace of the game. If I remember correctly, even Yahtzee complained that the beginning of the game had you walking around doing stuff that amounted to nothing. That isn't helping Heavy Rain with it's primary goal which is to tell a story. The thing about telling a story is that that are a plethora of other mediums better suited for doing that sort of thing, where it can and should be a primary focus. If people wanted nothing but story, they would read a book or watch a movie, but people pop in video games because they want to PLAY something.
So? im learning about game design too so im not sure how your more qualified to express your opinions. Yes OPINIONS, yet you state it as through your opinion is fact. not sure how not having " a game over" state is a bad thing in fact i consider it a good point. Your missing the point, heavy rain wouldn't be better as a film because the selling point of heavy rain is your choices have consequences and its your story. how would that work as a film. unlike yahtzee i greatly enjoyed the beginning as it set up the characters and made you care.the bottom line is you simply don't enjoy that type of game but dont try and down play the people who loved it because they have every right to. i guess you didn't like the walking dead too.
 

lumenadducere

New member
May 19, 2008
593
0
0
SomeLameStuff said:
Alpha Protocol should be the immediate answer for this question every time.
I'm inclined to agree. Alpha Protocol did so many amazing things with its story, characters, and choices, but it really flopped with the gameplay a few times. I really wish more studios would write the way Obsidian does.
 

Moth_Monk

New member
Feb 26, 2012
819
0
0
An old example:

Dreamweb

An interesting cyber-punk conspiracy but with really boring, lazy gameplay.
 

Papadam

New member
Apr 9, 2009
108
0
0
I am surprised that no one has mentioned Silen Hill 2 yet!
Easily one of the best video game stories made but the gameplay is pretty bad.
 

alphamalet

New member
Nov 29, 2011
544
0
0
wakeup said:

So? im learning about game design too so im not sure how your more qualified to express your opinions. Yes OPINIONS, yet you state it as through your opinion is fact.
Everything I stated on game theory, and what makes a game is not an opinion. It is the product of research and study by authorities on the subject mater. Gameplay is required to have a game. Gameplay is the quintessential component of the medium that noting else has, therefore it must be the primary focus for a successful game. Gameplay is not the same as interactivity. I can't make it much clearer. Perhaps you need to study more if you don't think any of these are the case.

not sure how not having " a game over" state is a bad thing in fact i consider it a good point.
Becuase without a "game over" or failure state then there is no challenge, and if there is no challenge then there is no game. You can put the controller on the floor during the QTEs of Heavy Rain, and it will still move forward. The parts where you have to walk around the environment drag, and they flat out tell you what need to do, or where you need to go. I and most people think that those sections, the closet thing to gameplay in Heavy Rain, were unnecessary and hurt the pacing. If you think otherwise then you are entitled to that opinion, but you're in a minority.

Your missing the point, heavy rain wouldn't be better as a film because the selling point of heavy rain is your choices have consequences and its your story.
These consequences, again, are derived from interactivity, and not gameplay. Interactive visual novels have a a better-suited environment for this sort of storytelling. My challenge to you is justify why this needed to be a "game"? Where is there any meaningful gameplay (not interactivity), and what does it add? If you have no answer, then Heavy Rain has failed as a game, and would have been beter suited for another medium.
 

Lt._nefarious

New member
Apr 11, 2012
1,285
0
0
Tanis said:
The Longest Journey
GREAT story, good characters, nice music, interesting locations.
Too bad it was BORING to play, with most puzzles being 'look up the FAQ because this thing is broke yo.
-Hell, and I LIKE point-n-click adventures.
Oh, I've been meaning to find out about the Longest Journey. Is it great, I just bought but I'm not sure whether to install it?

OT: Silent Hill 2... Well a bit. The sickening camera, horrifying controls and combat like pulling teeth did add to the atmosphere and what have you but...

Also Dragon Age: Origins, TWD and Catherine...
 

wakeup

New member
Aug 26, 2012
151
0
0
alphamalet said:
wakeup said:

So? im learning about game design too so im not sure how your more qualified to express your opinions. Yes OPINIONS, yet you state it as through your opinion is fact.
Everything I stated on game theory, and what makes a game is not an opinion. It is the product of research and study by authorities on the subject mater. Gameplay is required to have a game. Gameplay is the quintessential component of the medium that noting else has, therefore it must be the primary focus for a successful game. Gameplay is not the same as interactivity. I can't make it much clearer. Perhaps you need to study more if you don't think any of these are the case.

How though? heavy rain was sold as a ps3 GAME. you might have to explain this to the 3 million plus people who brought it as one. I don't think you understand the word fact as whoever these people you keep referring to have no way of convincing everyone to agree with them, ever. Wow start insulting me now,fine i think your rather narrow minded.

not sure how not having " a game over" state is a bad thing in fact i consider it a good point.
Becuase without a "game over" or failure state then there is no challenge, and if there is no challenge then there is no game. You can put the controller on the floor during the QTEs of Heavy Rain, and it will still move forward. The parts where you have to walk around the environment drag, and they flat out tell you what need to do, or where you need to go. I and most people think that those sections, the closet thing to gameplay in Heavy Rain, were unnecessary and hurt the pacing. If you think otherwise then you are entitled to that opinion, but you're in a minority.

the challenge is to try and get the best ending, sure you can do nothing but that would result in a dark ending and everyone one would die. no challenge = no game, i don't get where you get this from and i disagree that there is no challenge in heavy rain. and sure, you know the opinion of every heavy rain player out there.

Your missing the point, heavy rain wouldn't be better as a film because the selling point of heavy rain is your choices have consequences and its your story.
These consequences, again, are derived from interactivity, and not gameplay. Interactive visual novels have a a better-suited environment for this sort of storytelling. My challenge to you is justify why this needed to be a "game"? Where is there any meaningful gameplay (not interactivity), and what does it add? If you have no answer, then Heavy Rain has failed as a game, and would have been beter suited for another medium.
Why this needed to be a game beside the fact that people decided to make it one. Well if it wasn't a game i would have no interest in it what so ever yet as a game its one of my Favorites. it adds tension, the sense of being there, an attachment to the characters, the feeling of guilt and most importantly the feeling that its me controlling the story. You can continue to enjoy the same games with the same mechanics while i play some unique games that try to do something different. not sure what your problem is with playing something a little different now and then, don't worry you will still have your generic games to fall back on as they are not going away.