Poll: Attention RPG Fans! Do You Favor Gameplay Or Story?
- Thread starter RJ 17
- Start date
I usually like a great story in my RPGs, but if the gameplay sucks then I won't play the game. See Final Fantasy XIII.
Ideally I'd prefer a healthy balance of both. One that doesn't sacrifice story for gameplay and vice-versa.
Yeah, having both is quite important. If a game just bores you to death with dull gameplay, no amount of story is worth trudging through it. And on the flip side, good gameplay is nice, and maybe even slightly more important (you have to actually go through the game to see the story afterall), however an uninspired story can still leave a bad taste in your mouth after its all done.
See Morrowind and Skyrim. The gameplay in Skyrim is pretty good, but the story isn't all that exciting. Morrowind's gameplay hasn't aged well at all, but the story and setting (assuming you make it that far) really do save the game.
See Morrowind and Skyrim. The gameplay in Skyrim is pretty good, but the story isn't all that exciting. Morrowind's gameplay hasn't aged well at all, but the story and setting (assuming you make it that far) really do save the game.
I prefer Story over gameplay, but the gameplay needs to be bearable. Lets look at the original Mass Effect here, its story is great, but its gameplay is so god-awful I cant bring myself to replay it.
I think your question is looking at the wrong ideas. As a video game,gameplay is paramount,and RPG's are story driven by nature,so that's equally as important. But in an RPG you're supposed to play a role in the world. How can you if you can't become invested or interested in the world? So,in an RPG,what I seek above all else is a world that I can enjoy,immerse myself in,and become invested in.
For RPGs I usually put more weight on story than any other genre. I am more willing to overlook issues that would break other games for me. Just like how I am able to overlook crappy story in a good spectacle fighter game.
Some of my top RPGs are:
Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines (buggy, guns suck, love the world, story, and characters),
KOTOR 1, 2, (clunky combat, some bugs, 2 is unfinished, love the world, story, and characters),
Mass Effect 1 (clunky combat, love the world, story, and characters),
Witcher 1 (the combat is really dull, love the world and story)
Risen/Gothic 3 (combat is damn hard, enemies can feel unfair, combat can also feel clunky/slow, Love the world and some of the character stories)
The issue is when you get to other games that have RPG aspects or RPG lite such as Fallout 3 or Skyrim. These tend to focus on the action and some small stories so gameplay takes a larger role. So I guess it comes down to what mood I am in? I do love Skyrim and fallout NV but for different reasons mostly the freedom to do what I want in the world.
Some of my top RPGs are:
Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines (buggy, guns suck, love the world, story, and characters),
KOTOR 1, 2, (clunky combat, some bugs, 2 is unfinished, love the world, story, and characters),
Mass Effect 1 (clunky combat, love the world, story, and characters),
Witcher 1 (the combat is really dull, love the world and story)
Risen/Gothic 3 (combat is damn hard, enemies can feel unfair, combat can also feel clunky/slow, Love the world and some of the character stories)
I withhold judgment on Arcanum of steamworks and magick obscura until after I get further into it, it is loads of fun? but I have yet to get past the first city.
The issue is when you get to other games that have RPG aspects or RPG lite such as Fallout 3 or Skyrim. These tend to focus on the action and some small stories so gameplay takes a larger role. So I guess it comes down to what mood I am in? I do love Skyrim and fallout NV but for different reasons mostly the freedom to do what I want in the world.
Sparse is a better word.TrevHead said:
No one would ever say "You have to play Dark Souls for the story!"
You play for the combat and any semblance of atmosphere or grand mythology is just icing
The other games are more like "Experience the great story and deal with the gameplay!"
It's a delicate balance to have both.
I would go with story.
For the fact I am a Film Studies University student but I develop games and the story always adds value and feeling to the game though gameplay does matter it doesn't have to be amazing. As long as the story brings me in I will be fine as it manipulates me to want to play more and a good story should do that.
So story but gameplay does matter on how you progress through the game.
For the fact I am a Film Studies University student but I develop games and the story always adds value and feeling to the game though gameplay does matter it doesn't have to be amazing. As long as the story brings me in I will be fine as it manipulates me to want to play more and a good story should do that.
So story but gameplay does matter on how you progress through the game.
Damn, ninja'd so hard I have to pull a sword out of my chest.Darken12 said:
I play games, RPGs especially, for the sense of immersion. I want to forget that I'm sitting in my bedroom holding a plastic controller and believe I'm actually wandering around the mountains of Skyrim, bitching to myself about the cold and keeping an open eye for spiders and wolves creeping through the trees.
Gameplay, easy. I can read a wiki or something for the story if it's that good. Story has occasionally gotten me to forgive shit-ass gameplay (KotoR, my curiosity over how Jade Empire will end got me to ignore how I hated almost everything in that game and cheesed combat with an infinite combo of doom), but that's really rare. I think Lost Odyssey has a really cool story but playing that damn game is so boring I think it might be poisoning me with some sedative.
Of course, if the characters are insufferable (Blue Dragon's entire cast, freaking Oliver of Ni No Kuni), it becomes far far more difficult to enjoy the gameplay, but I can generally handle an insipid story. It's insipid characters that make it impossible despite the gameplay. I think this is a remnant of me being a Tales of... and Star Ocean series player; characters were typically acceptable at worst (except for Abyss, Graces F, and Star Ocean 4, who were all atrocious), story was normally absurd/awful (except for the amazing ToD, ToV, and SO3), but the gameplay was fabulous.
Of course, if the characters are insufferable (Blue Dragon's entire cast, freaking Oliver of Ni No Kuni), it becomes far far more difficult to enjoy the gameplay, but I can generally handle an insipid story. It's insipid characters that make it impossible despite the gameplay. I think this is a remnant of me being a Tales of... and Star Ocean series player; characters were typically acceptable at worst (except for Abyss, Graces F, and Star Ocean 4, who were all atrocious), story was normally absurd/awful (except for the amazing ToD, ToV, and SO3), but the gameplay was fabulous.
I voted Story, but that comes from a very Games-Are-Art-Hippy kind of perspective, namely that I consider gameplay to be an integral part of the story. For instance, if Dark Souls was just a movie it wouldn't be as affecting because we wouldn't be as well aware of the immense struggle that it took to complete it, if God of War didn't have gameplay we wouldn't understand Kratos and what he is like nearly as well, and lets not forget things like The Walking Dead, where even non-games-are-art-hippies concede that the gameplay and story are essentially the same entity. Overall, I say story is more important, but sometimes the gameplay can make the story better.
Both, A good story can keep a poor gameplay system from killing a game but it only goes so far. If I can't progress the story because the gameplay is so poor then I have a major problem. Similarly, gameplay can make up for a poor story but if there is a poor or no story at all I often wind up with no motivation to play.
Not saying that a game has to skimp on one or the other though, Lost Odyssey is a good example of a game that doesn't compromise on either.
Not saying that a game has to skimp on one or the other though, Lost Odyssey is a good example of a game that doesn't compromise on either.
In RPGs, if the gameplay is dull, I can get through it if the story is great. Although, having great gameplay and story makes the experience a lot more enjoyable, like with Xenoblade Chronicles.
In most other genres, I'm not too bothered if the game isn't story focused but the gameplay is good, but having a great story makes me more likely to play it.
In most other genres, I'm not too bothered if the game isn't story focused but the gameplay is good, but having a great story makes me more likely to play it.
That's how it should be atleast. For table-top RPGs this player agency can be entirely true, but for CRPGs it's still an ideal.John the Gamer said:
Without other players to meaningfully interact with and together create the story, the emergent storytelling gig may easily become just a toy (Mindcraft is more like playing with LEGO) instead of a game with your story.
Even with other players online the result is more commonly the raid in a MMOG and very rarely the invite-only DM session. How many players(DMs) want to play those non-hero types that are necessary to make a story work? The intelligent AI controlled NPC with it's own goals and reactions is still a pipedream.
Gamers are probably stuck with linear stories and grindy open worlds for a long time to come. So the heavily scripted, branching story is the expensive compromise that is still the best thing we may have now.
