03-20-2018, 05:01 AM
Oh I thought I had replied to this
As with just about every aspect, I think it depends on the game and what it's trying to deliver.
The way I look at games, it's less about "does this game have a good story?" and more about "is this game trying to tell a story?" If yes, then the story should be good. Fun gameplay might not be as big a factor, since the entertainment is supposed to come out in the story.
Same with gameplay. It's not so much "is the gameplay good?" and more "is this game trying to give me a fun experience via gameplay?" If so, then the gameplay needs to be solid. The story doesn't have to be good, because the game isn't trying to give you a good story.
For instance Firewatch. The gameplay could be seen as bad, from an isolated standpoint. The controls are solid, but limited, and there's not a lot to do. But the game isn't trying to give you a lot to do or a challenge, it's trying to tell you a story. The gameplay is used more as a storytelling tool, letting you control the protagonist (to a degree) and deliver a story in a way a movie couldn't. Indeed, the story itself is only as good as it is because of it being told in this way.
Because the game's telling a story, the story matters and should be good. The gameplay just needs to facilitate it.
Of course, some games do both; in particular RPGs. A good RPG has a good story but makes the actions you take to complete it fun as well. The reason I really like M&L: Bowser's Inside Story is because it did both of those well. The story was exciting, interesting, and funny, but the gameplay was also really fun. Had either of those fallen flat, the game would have suffered because its intention was to deliver both.
A good example of this is Owl Boy. I stopped playing because, while the story was pretty good, the gameplay (for me) became tiresome and just wasn't that fun after a while. The problem was that the game was trying to deliver on both gameplay and story. Had this been a story-centric game, where it was clear the story was the focus and it was really good and polished, the gameplay would have been OK. But because I was expecting to also have fun controlling the character, when I didn't it became disappointing.
What I'm trying to say is that for a story to be good, it needs to be good for the game. In a gameplay-centric game, a crappy story might actually be a good story. If the players should be enjoying the gameplay, why distract them with an interesting, deep story? Super Meat Boy's story is really basic, bland, and boring. But it's perfect for the game, because it provides a simple premise for what you're actually doing: controlling a boy made of meat through interesting and fun levels.
And as I said with Firewatch, the gameplay may be crap at its core but it's good for the game. The story is the main attraction, and the gameplay works perfectly with that.
Now which of these games you will actually enjoy does depend on what you personally enjoy more; gameplay or story. I'm definitely not saying that everyone should enjoy every type of game. I guess I'm trying to say that there are different focuses, and a game may just seem bad because the aspect you're looking to enjoy isn't the focus.
Personally, it doesn't really matter that much. I can enjoy most games, as long as what they're trying to do is done well, and is interesting and fun to me.
(Note: I mainly talked about gameplay vs story as that seemed to be the main comparison in this thread. These are definitely not the only aspects that can be focused on. Little Inferno has minimal gameplay, not a lot of story, but it's super fun to see what happens when you burn different things. The gameplay and story are good because they fit the game, but the focus of the game is making things look and sound cool and interesting.)
As with just about every aspect, I think it depends on the game and what it's trying to deliver.
The way I look at games, it's less about "does this game have a good story?" and more about "is this game trying to tell a story?" If yes, then the story should be good. Fun gameplay might not be as big a factor, since the entertainment is supposed to come out in the story.
Same with gameplay. It's not so much "is the gameplay good?" and more "is this game trying to give me a fun experience via gameplay?" If so, then the gameplay needs to be solid. The story doesn't have to be good, because the game isn't trying to give you a good story.
For instance Firewatch. The gameplay could be seen as bad, from an isolated standpoint. The controls are solid, but limited, and there's not a lot to do. But the game isn't trying to give you a lot to do or a challenge, it's trying to tell you a story. The gameplay is used more as a storytelling tool, letting you control the protagonist (to a degree) and deliver a story in a way a movie couldn't. Indeed, the story itself is only as good as it is because of it being told in this way.
Because the game's telling a story, the story matters and should be good. The gameplay just needs to facilitate it.
Of course, some games do both; in particular RPGs. A good RPG has a good story but makes the actions you take to complete it fun as well. The reason I really like M&L: Bowser's Inside Story is because it did both of those well. The story was exciting, interesting, and funny, but the gameplay was also really fun. Had either of those fallen flat, the game would have suffered because its intention was to deliver both.
A good example of this is Owl Boy. I stopped playing because, while the story was pretty good, the gameplay (for me) became tiresome and just wasn't that fun after a while. The problem was that the game was trying to deliver on both gameplay and story. Had this been a story-centric game, where it was clear the story was the focus and it was really good and polished, the gameplay would have been OK. But because I was expecting to also have fun controlling the character, when I didn't it became disappointing.
What I'm trying to say is that for a story to be good, it needs to be good for the game. In a gameplay-centric game, a crappy story might actually be a good story. If the players should be enjoying the gameplay, why distract them with an interesting, deep story? Super Meat Boy's story is really basic, bland, and boring. But it's perfect for the game, because it provides a simple premise for what you're actually doing: controlling a boy made of meat through interesting and fun levels.
And as I said with Firewatch, the gameplay may be crap at its core but it's good for the game. The story is the main attraction, and the gameplay works perfectly with that.
Now which of these games you will actually enjoy does depend on what you personally enjoy more; gameplay or story. I'm definitely not saying that everyone should enjoy every type of game. I guess I'm trying to say that there are different focuses, and a game may just seem bad because the aspect you're looking to enjoy isn't the focus.
Personally, it doesn't really matter that much. I can enjoy most games, as long as what they're trying to do is done well, and is interesting and fun to me.
(Note: I mainly talked about gameplay vs story as that seemed to be the main comparison in this thread. These are definitely not the only aspects that can be focused on. Little Inferno has minimal gameplay, not a lot of story, but it's super fun to see what happens when you burn different things. The gameplay and story are good because they fit the game, but the focus of the game is making things look and sound cool and interesting.)