I've been wondering about this for awhile now. Short answer from me is "no," but I'd like to give some context.
Years ago, on a site, I and another user were arguing about StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty. This was on a SC-themed site, and said user and I were well entrenched in our positions (TLDR, mine was a positive take, hers was negative). This was months, if not years after the original release, and let's say that by this point, the arguments were increasingly bitter (which is why I left the site just before LotV was released - I didn't want to go through the shit flinging again). Point is, long after the game was released. However, in one such conversation, the user casually commented that she'd never played the game, only watched a playthrough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gVVWznIM-o was my reaction.
Suffice to say, I felt miffed. Not so much that the opinion was different, but that I'd spent months, if not years engaging with a person who I assumed had actually played the game we were discussing. Said user maintained that there was nothing wrong with this, that watching a playthrough of a game was just as valid a way to get a full story experience without having played it. I disagreed, and felt lied to, because SC2 wasn't the only game we'd discussed and disagreed on, so I was left to ask how much had been actually played or not?
Personally, I've rarely, if ever been partial to that belief. I had that belief since at least 2010, when Other M came out. I watched a playthrough at the time and thought the story was pretty decent. However, it was clear that a lot of people at the time didn't, and I stayed clear of those debates, because I didn't feel I could honestly debate Other M without having played it. Having since finished Other M recently, I will say that my perspective on the story has changed (it's not good, but not the abomination some make it out to be), but the key difference is that I now feel I have the 'right' to discuss it in-depth, whereas previously, while I could have an opinion on it, that opinion never would have been as well informed as someone who'd actually played the game. And if you want an example of me having a negative view on a story I haven't played, I can choose something like Sonic 06. However, I've only watched it, not played it, so I'd still be hesitant to outright declare it to be bad.
I want to make it clear that I don't think not playing a game forbids you having any opinion on its story at all, because that's silly. However, I am dubious as to the idea that without playing it, one can really appreciate a game's story for good or ill. I think some genres do give more leeway (e.g. Telltale's games), where I have watched playthroughs myself, but even then, I'd be reluctant to comment on them extensively. The flipside of the coin is games which factor in exploration and environmental storytelling - the BioShocks, Half-Lifes, and Doom 3's of the medium for instance. I'd argue that a similar scenario is declaring a film's story to be good/bad after only having read the script. Yes, you technically get the plot, but since film is a visual medium, you're not accomodating its strengths. If one judged something like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Blade Runner solely by their scripts, they'd be pretty lacklustre (granted, I think 2001 is lacklustre anyway, but that's another issue). But I think we can agree that both films are elevated by their cinematography.
So, TL, DR, my question is, is only watching a playthrough of a game an equivalent experience to playing it storywise? And does watching rather playing a game give one an equal platform to discussing it as someone who has? My answer would be "no" in both cases, but discussion is the essence of...something...meh, it's a forum.
Years ago, on a site, I and another user were arguing about StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty. This was on a SC-themed site, and said user and I were well entrenched in our positions (TLDR, mine was a positive take, hers was negative). This was months, if not years after the original release, and let's say that by this point, the arguments were increasingly bitter (which is why I left the site just before LotV was released - I didn't want to go through the shit flinging again). Point is, long after the game was released. However, in one such conversation, the user casually commented that she'd never played the game, only watched a playthrough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gVVWznIM-o was my reaction.
Suffice to say, I felt miffed. Not so much that the opinion was different, but that I'd spent months, if not years engaging with a person who I assumed had actually played the game we were discussing. Said user maintained that there was nothing wrong with this, that watching a playthrough of a game was just as valid a way to get a full story experience without having played it. I disagreed, and felt lied to, because SC2 wasn't the only game we'd discussed and disagreed on, so I was left to ask how much had been actually played or not?
Personally, I've rarely, if ever been partial to that belief. I had that belief since at least 2010, when Other M came out. I watched a playthrough at the time and thought the story was pretty decent. However, it was clear that a lot of people at the time didn't, and I stayed clear of those debates, because I didn't feel I could honestly debate Other M without having played it. Having since finished Other M recently, I will say that my perspective on the story has changed (it's not good, but not the abomination some make it out to be), but the key difference is that I now feel I have the 'right' to discuss it in-depth, whereas previously, while I could have an opinion on it, that opinion never would have been as well informed as someone who'd actually played the game. And if you want an example of me having a negative view on a story I haven't played, I can choose something like Sonic 06. However, I've only watched it, not played it, so I'd still be hesitant to outright declare it to be bad.
I want to make it clear that I don't think not playing a game forbids you having any opinion on its story at all, because that's silly. However, I am dubious as to the idea that without playing it, one can really appreciate a game's story for good or ill. I think some genres do give more leeway (e.g. Telltale's games), where I have watched playthroughs myself, but even then, I'd be reluctant to comment on them extensively. The flipside of the coin is games which factor in exploration and environmental storytelling - the BioShocks, Half-Lifes, and Doom 3's of the medium for instance. I'd argue that a similar scenario is declaring a film's story to be good/bad after only having read the script. Yes, you technically get the plot, but since film is a visual medium, you're not accomodating its strengths. If one judged something like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Blade Runner solely by their scripts, they'd be pretty lacklustre (granted, I think 2001 is lacklustre anyway, but that's another issue). But I think we can agree that both films are elevated by their cinematography.
So, TL, DR, my question is, is only watching a playthrough of a game an equivalent experience to playing it storywise? And does watching rather playing a game give one an equal platform to discussing it as someone who has? My answer would be "no" in both cases, but discussion is the essence of...something...meh, it's a forum.