Story or Gameplay?

[GanonSlayr]

I'm just wondering,would you rather play a game thats more story driven,or gameplay driven?

 

[Wielder of Aegis]

I like an even mixture. If you want a game with abundant but equal amounts of both good story and good gameplay, one word: OKAMI

 

[Djinn]

It is really hard to tell, I think a balance is needed between the two.

A game that is purely gameplay driven lack a strong story and that might be good for some, but I love a deeper story in a game. It's what allows for things like this very board to exist where we can converse on our favorite aspects like characters, places to live, or talk about the mysteries in a theory forum.

Story driven games are great, but there is a limit. Sometimes there are too many sequences, or videos to watch and it really takes away from the gameplay. Especially if you only get to play for a few minutes before you have to stop and watch another vidoe of the characters chatting with each other. This can make it hard to pick up and play for half an hour or so before school/work. It cannot be done quickly because you never know when you might get stuck in a sequence where you have to find someone or watch some fifteen minute long fmv. This can also really kill replayability since people will remember a unreasonably long and annoying section of the game and decide not to play it again because they hated that specific part.

So between these I definitely think it has to be a balance. A gameplay driven game can be too bland for my taste. But a heavy story filled game drags on far too long and gets annoying when you only want to play and not watch a movie.

 

[Nicole]

I, personally, like a story-driven game better. But this is coming from a person who still enjoys the Spyro series, Ty the Tasmanian Tiger series, and many other games like that. Gameplay isn't all that matters to me. Honestly, I wouldn't be able to tell you if the gameplay is actually good or not. I still firmly believe the early gameplay of ALttP is way too frustrating for me. I do know that TP, for example, had good, albeit easy, game mechanics.

I always like to theorize and think deeply about a plot. I like long cutscenes that provide more insight into characters, backstories, etc., as long as their not ridiculously long or can't be skipped. This is a reason TP has always been my favorite Zelda game. It may have not had the deepest story, but I can make infrences and theorize so much based on subtle hints it seems to be very deep.

Just my take. I'm not that avid in "great games," or whatever you might say. The reasons stated above are why I prefer Zelda to Mario, for example.

 

[SuperGanondorf]

Story was the sole reason I bothered playing Pokemon Mystery Dungeon 2 after the first five minutes, since the gameplay was "meh" at the best of times and "why the hell am I even playing this" at the worst. I can put up with a game that has poor gameplay if the story is strong enough.

It really depends on the game. The Ace Attorney series, for instance, is rather light on gameplay. The story basically is the game. Everything you do in-game is based on the story, and your knowledge and memory of the story actually apply to the gameplay. Tetris, on the other hand, has no story and yet is insanely fun. The balance necessary for a given game really just depends on the game and the skill of the staff working on the game. I don't see the team who creates Mario games, for instance, coming up with a deep, complex plot beyond "save the princess" or "kill the dark star". Enjoyable plots, yes, but nobody plays Mario games for the plot. If you do, you really need to try some new games or read a book or something (this excludes the Mario RPGs which actually have a decent plot). Meanwhile, I don't see the Ace Attorney people coming out with an insanely gameplay-heavy platformer anytime soon.

In other words, it depends on the game and how skillfully each aspect is pulled off. If the balance tips too far without good reason, it's not a good game. Ace Attorney skillfully balances very light gameplay with a deep plot. Meteos, on the other hand, puts in a slight, amusing plot interspersed with intense gameplay. I'd play either way, as long as the method used fits.

 

[Caeda]

I woud rather play a game that's more story driven. If I start to play a game that has really good gameplay but absolutly horrible story ythen I won't play it.

 

[Heros Temporis]

Definitely gameplay. A good story is good too, though.

That said, I'd pick gameplay because in my opinion, story is a secondary quality of games. A story is given to you so that you are driven to keep playing and enjoying whatever else the game has to offer. But games CAN stand without story. Think about NES games and most Metroid games (even newer ones, like Zero Mission). They don't have a lot of story, or a lot cutscenes, but they are all still good. (Seems recently that many Metroid games are incorporating more story and cutscenes into the game; examples are Prime 3, Metroid Fusion, and Prime 2.) Also consider mini-games or extra features of other games. For example, multiplayer (CTF, Deathmatch/Slayer) in shooter games. There's no story, but the gameplay is certainly there. For another example, take Firefight from Halo. It takes the gameplay of the Campaign, which tells the story and introduces game basics, and makes it its own game mode without any story.

In short, a good story is definitely a good thing to have, but gameplay is what will keep me coming back for more of what the game has to offer. Games can't stand on story alone; a game with a decent story and excellent gameplay is better than a game with excellent story and decent gameplay in my opinion.

 

[Meego]

For me it is a bit of both. I mean gameplay is probably the most important seeing as it is a video game, but I have to have a game peak my interest too which can be done through a good story. If the game loses either of those things then I usually lose interest in it, to be honest. The thing is to remember a great game, for me, it has to have a memorable story line too then you can take the story further. A simple story can be effective too, though as long as it makes sense and keeps an audience. But I don't want a plot that is too confusing and complicated to follow, so I moderately simple story and then awesome gameplay...sounds good to me!

 

[Jimmy]

For me I ignore the story on the second playthrough. So that should tell you my answer

 

[Petman1325]

For me, it truly depends on the game. If one aspect is really high, such as having a really detailed story or enjoyable gameplay, then it doesn't matter so much, such as (as SuperGanondorf said) Tetris, in which the story is non-existent. Some games can have a detailed story yet have little gameplay, yet in all the games I've got, I'm not certain if I can pick anything out of there.

However, when I review games, gameplay and story are two of the highest marks, the others being music and art-style. They're like ying and yang: one cannot truly exist without the other. There must be some purpose as to why you're aimlessly shooting hordes of enemies. Otherwise, the fun wears off, as demonstrated in many online games with limited gameplay.

 

[Ariel]

In the great Gameplay-Story-Presentation Triumvirate, gameplay is king. I would give it about 60% importance, with 20% to the others. Nintendo knows this, gameplay is what sells consoles, not consoles themselves.

 

[Blazestarre]

While I really love good stories, that comes second to gameplay.

Gameplay is what makes a video game a game. It sets it apart from other media and the hook for video games is the fact that you control what's going on onscreen. The gameplay needs to be solid enough to entertain the player. Early video games had little to no story. They might have had something simple to justify what the player was doing, but most of the time, you just played the game to get the highest score. As long as the gameplay isn't too repetitive (usually avoided by increasing difficulty), then the game is enjoyable.

That doesn't mean that story isn't important. I love stories and enjoy examining them. The reason TP is one of my favorite Zelda games is because I love the story. But stepping back from that, stories just are not a necessity in video games. I'd rather have a game with great gameplay and no story (or even a bad story) over a game with poor gameplay and an awesome story. A great story on top of great gameplay is just a really nice bonus.

 

[Y2K3]

Definitely Gameplay. While it should still have a good story, I can play games with weak stories. In fact, I usually prefer them. Sometimes, big storylines turn me off of games. If the gameplay is weak, however, then I usually get put off before too long.

I find with strong stories, you tend to need more cutscenes, and I'm not a big fan of those. I find them to be drawn out, and usually boring (such as in TP).
Strong gameplay though will keep me occupied for hours and I may have to pry myself away from it.

 

[LinkLover]

I like an even mixture. If you want a game with abundant but equal amounts of both good story and good gameplay, one word: OKAMI

I totally agree. I need a mx of both. I can't stand sitting through hours of tutorials and cutscenes, but just gameplay bores me. With a mix, it is considered a good game to me. And Okami and LoZ:TP were both that. You usually could tell when the cutscenes were coming, and they weren't that long.

 

[Ganondorf]

Gameplay, I'm sick of long, drawn out games that spend too long on prettiness and cutscenes and story and not the gameplay.