Story vs Gameplay

Tetris is the most pure video game there is and it has no story whatsoever. Doesn't need one. As soon as you load it up and the blocks start falling, players instinctively start putting them in neat piles. When a line is complete, the line disappears, and the nature of the game is revealed, and it slowly speeds up as you go along. Before you know it, you're hooked.
It's not even one of those "World 1-1" situations where they teach you how to play because of how the level is designed, there is no need to teach in this case. It's pure instinctual gameplay. And 0 story.
I would argue open world survival games don't need a story either. The objective is simply to survive. And in a multiplayer environment, if there is one, the story is created by the community and the infighting and raiding that happens therein. Such a game could have complex combat and crafting systems, carefully constructed or procedurally generated maps, whatever, and still not have a story. You're in a world. You're cold and naked and hungry and there are wolves after you. No story, just facts. Survive. That's the gameplay and the motivation.
Story is, and should be, completely secondary in a game. Anything else is a CYOA novel or a chance to preach and virtue signal politics at a captured niche audience in an industry with lower standards than anywhere else (99% of indie games).

Tetris is also an insanely simple game, so it doesn't really need a story.

Basically, before adding a story, ask yourself: does this game need a story?

Story only matters as far as what it means for the setting and how its elements create and compliment characters, environments, abilities and even just mere objects to interact with for the player's enjoyment. Don't ignore it, but never prioritize its "deep, muhchoor narrative or cinematic experience" absolute shit over the appeal of the game to people who fucking play them for everything they offer in their worlds.

Gameplay fucking first. Always. Even RPGs with all your favorite waifus need to be enjoyable enough in their sound, areas and mechanics for you to experience and learn why they made you into a waifufag.

If you hate absolutes then you'd know what you said in the OP comes down to degrees. The "perfect" gelling of story and gameplay doesn't happen, and it doesn't need to happen. The important part of any mixed media format is the natural blending of elements without them compromising each other. That's where art comes into it, it's where personality comes from. The problem with many AAA games is that they're too close to being a "perfect" compromise of elements, so any trace of art or personality is lost in the refining process, even if the elements are independently good. The best outcome, and what's largely the outcome in highly regarded games, is when independently good elements overlap enough to be cohesive, but not so much as to wipe out their idiosyncrasies.

In the context of story versus gameplay, it's a false dichotomy. Most good games are a not entirely cohesive combination of both. "Story" leads into any number of design factors. I'm not given to care much about Doom's intermission screens but if its graphics, sounds, music, weapons were different you'd be sure I'd notice. Are those things "story" or "gameplay" in this discussion? The only sensible answer is both. So the entire subject is a bit dumb.

/thread

You can, but at the end of the day who fucking cares? By and large video game writing is shit and only serves as a setpiece to add flavor to whatever is going on, which is to say make an otherwise boring game interesting. Take Undertale as an example. The gameplay itself is rudimentary at best and frankly not entertaining. The writing however drives it and keeps the player engaged.

Compare to a puzzle game like Panel de Pon or Lumines. No story, no narrative, 100% gameplay.

Your posts scream "pseudo-intellectual fedoralord who just started his first year of community college", and are probably the type of person to unironically use phrases like "ludonarrative dissonance".

You even agreed to those statements.

So, keeping to the best aspects of their respective mediums is stupid? Why would I ever settle for half-assed attempts and compromises?

Games will always suffer in writing, because they are designed, written and created by committee. Market research, targeted demographics, development time, budgetary restrictions and creative differences could all play a huge (and often detrimental) factor to the story that they've set out to convey. Doubly so if that story is remotely controversial.

Compare that to a novel, which is a much purer connection between the artist, the art, and the expression thereof. The message is far more direct, and I don't need to wade through game mechanics in order to experience the story that I am being told.

Let's see how the medium continues to evolve in another few decades. I'm not getting my hopes up for anything special, interactivity be damned.

Peace out.

Story, as well as everything else that is not gameplay in a video game, is window dressing.
This isn't to say it's totally unimportant, it's just that you only need to do it if your gameplay isn't a lighthouse among lampposts.

a game can survive without story as long as the gameplay is up to par. the converse is not true.

Fucking /thread right here.

/thread

But MUH CINEMATIC EXPERIENCE!

A story without gameplay isn't even a game. See: Gone Homo.

Probably the most cancerous meme in vidya development.

I don't know what that means.
Yes, because video games can do more for story than books can. In a bok you're reading an specific story, in video games you LIVE them, you put yourself in the role of something or someone and go through it.
Kek, so you only play AAA? I'm not saying indies are better, but a single person can write a cohesive enough story and still being good gameplay wise. In fact, Metal Gear is mostly Kojima's and it's an AAA.
I can't give a shit about the artist or it's background, I already said I don't consider video games art, I just want to have a good time through an story I can live by myself, whatever the message could be, if there's any.

I do. Playing for gameplay alone makes me feel like I'm wasting my time. In fact, playing video games is a waste of time.

But user, Visual novels are video games

I figured as much, but not happening is kind of wasted potential.
One of the thing doom fags likes to jerk about is the fact that you're playing with a really badass guy, you can only get to that conclusion for the setting. I'd say that if it lacked that setting, which also include graphics and other decisions such as enemy design, then Doom would be weak. In fact, Daikatana and similar games with little to no setting are that very same concept.

...

...

Your thread is bad and your opinions are bad. This thread is done, deal with it.

There are some small, non-disruptive elements that can make PURE GAMEPLAY videogames more memorable even for normalfags and also give more things to discuss about, like Character design, Atmosphere and Setting, examples: Super Mario Bros. (Just an example, there many more obscure, less iconic games that do it too.)
But if we're going to count their opinions, the average john mobile player cares about studying or sorting gameplay mechanics as much as they care about story elements mentioned before.

My bet is that, for many people, story is as much of a selling point as graphics, it's not really important and it can be ignored, but it's supposed to leave an impression.
Have you ever thought a game would be shit because it had a generic copypasted setting/plot, even before trying the gameplay? You can be right, you can be wrong.

is also valid, disrupting gameplay to tell story, even moreso on games that DO NOT need a full blown plot or any plot at all, is the most petty storytelling, the only thing worse would be a "cinematic experience"

PlayStation went downhill since 2 and became unredeemable at 3.

As I said above, interactivity is the only thing required to be gameplay, gameplay is a loosely defined term anyway, which in it's more simple interpretation is just interactivity.
I haven't played gone home, but if it's anything like The Wolf Among Us, then it's gameplay, same with QTE. I also said above that I'm not determining the quality of the gameplay, but another user already said that story can make the difference from a very boring gameplay to an engaging one. If the story is interesting enough, shit like QTE is bearable, specially if QTE makes sense story wise.

Depends what I'm in the mood for. There's plenty of different ways to make a game, which is cool.

I think there has to be a certain level of competence in gameplay creation to allow me to get more into a game's story as a form of recuperation between exposition, though.
I've tried playing VNs before, and unless the story is really freaking good with interesting ideas, I get disinterested and burned out from the bombardment of text and monotone button pressing.

The problem with stories in vidya games is that you will always get the same ending. And since its a vidya their not gonna spend a whole lot of time fleshing out a good story because they have other things to do. If you really want a story play a fucking VN. Videogames main focus shouldn't be story it should be about the game because while the story may be good it ain't shit unless you can play it.
I've also heard of books that let you decide what ending you want so if you really want a choice in the ending you could always read one of those.

So? You mentioning it doesn't mean it's not a good example of why you're a chromosome hoarder.

Haha, oh wow.
Okay. Give us games that have better stories than novels.

Be prepared for him to toss some trash VN at you.

inb4 spec ops and bioshock infinite

Yeah, that's exactly my point. That very specific blend of elements is part of why it's effective, because that's what forms the soul of the work. It's not so much a matter of how well it slots together as it is about everyone involved being on board with the concept, even if they had slightly different interpretations of it. That's not to say it would necessarily be a better or worse game if the non-gameplay parts were changed, but it sure as hell wouldn't be Doom. It would be something else, made of a different idea by different people in different circumstances.

Because Tetris is boring and something you'd only play if you literally have nothing else to play.

I already said that don't exist. Admittedly, I should have said could, not can.

I have absolutely no problem with one ending. Open ending or multiple endings are absolitely terrible, it adds nothing to the gameplay, and absolutely shits on the story. A moral system or multiple choices are a bigger meme than cinematic experience, or just a consequence of it.
As I said, choice is just a meme. I'm not talking about choosing the path of the story, I'm talking about living it, seeing it, hearing it, moving through it, expanding it if necessary by yourself, by doing side quests, for example. That's something a book can't do.

Actually, Kingdom of Amalur have a pretty fucking interesting story written by a famous author, apparently.

The guy I mentioned in the OP sucked Spec ops the line dick because of the ending. I never played it myself, but it sounds pretentious as fuck.

Story in video games was a mistake!
tory
ory
ry i
y in
in
in v
n vi
vid
vidy
idya
dya
ya w
a wa
was
was
as a
s a
a m
a mi
mis
mist
ista
stak
take
ake
ke
e

Alright so one ending is good, but the op is saying what holds more value gameplay or story?

lmao

The story of stillborn game that attempted to be an MMO has a good story? What?

I love Chris Avellone as much as the next dude, but the writing in that was trash. What the fuck are you thinking?

This thread is a fucking disaster.

But that's the thing, user, I'm not even talking about a significant story, it doesn't have to be a Pulitzer story, something as simple as a premise can help you to build the story anyway you'd like. Take doom for example. Sure, the imagery inside the game reinforces that premise, but you weren't handheld through the story except for level names and the such.
I think an story can be good and enjoyable without having to be complex or substantial at all, and the same is true for gameplay. I'm mentioning that because I think the most important aspect of a game is entertain, and what is more entertaining than an story?

Not sure what you mean

Prove me wrong. It's the same reason Pac-Man gets boring after a while, and even worst, Pong.

The main story was shit, sure, but the whole lore behind it was amazing, every fucking book in the game had an story which pieced together made an incredibly interesting setting, which is why I also said that you can expand on the story IF NECESSARY. You can go through the whole game without reading one of those books.

(checked)
fucking gay dude. Chris was a one hit wonder and the notoriety from all the Planscape fanboys went to his head. A hack writer and a one trick pony.

You buy games to play them this user is right.

This is amazing. Keep going, OP.

What matter more in videogames?
Story or gameplay?

I don't merely buy books to read them. I can literally read anything, like the back of my shampoo. I buy games to have fun and entertain myself, same with books unless the book have another purpose.

I did not say game writing is better than novels. Also, do you have proof that the side lore was done by the interns?

As I said in the OP, I think is both, but as this other user said it doesn't have to be a perfect balance. The one ending stuff just means that otherwise it would be a pointless gimmick. It also happen in movies, although not a gimmick, and god forbids a book with different endings.

The other anons are right here OP. Games are currently second fiddle to other story-telling mediums. You are right that interactivity is something games do better, but thus far there hasn't been a game which delivers a story on par with the classics of cinema or literature.
Gameplay and mechanics should always the priority for games, because that's what you're doing. You can skip all the cut-scenes, ignore dialogue, and still have fun as long as the game plays well. And sure, a decent story makes things more immersive and definitely improves things, but it's not a priority. And when it is, the story is usually shit and the gameplay suffers too. Look at all the shitty walking sims that get released.
It does if it wants to compete with traditional mediums. Being a "decent story for a video game" isn't enough. If game stories want to be on the same level as older mediums, they need to match those mediums.
Pong is literally one of the simplest games in existence, of course it gets boring. Tetris is fun to play until you eventually lose, then go do something else. It's like playing Chess or doing one of those puzzle box things, you're entertained for as long as it takes to beat it or for it to beat you.
Look, I love the books in Morrowind, and they are examples of decent writing, but if you compare them to actual books by renowned authors they don't hold a candle.
The simple fact is, game stories just aren't at the same level of other story mediums. They might be one day, but it's a long way to go. And it makes perfect sense that anyone designing a game would play to its strength, the interactive process, for gameplay rather than trying to tell a story. I enjoy the story in games, but if you asked me to pick my favourite stories, or anyone else, I can guarantee they would be picking books and movies, and if they aren't it just means they don't read or watch enough.

Yes, but it's not the only thing required to be a game. You also need a fail state.

So bullshit interactive story "games" aren't actually games if there's no fail state.

Let me guess, you put them on your shelf to show others how enlightened you are.

The first twelve times didn't count, rught? Lol.

The quality wasn't enough of a giveaway? Seriously?

Prove yourself right.

While "Gameplay" will always be the most vital aspect of a "GAME" I think Story is more important then allot of people give it credit for. Story is more then just what characters say in cutscenes or what is written on notes you can read through out a game. depending on how you look at it everything in a game is part of the story. Devil May Cry 3 is a game where it's Characters elevate it from a good game to a great game Dante wouldn't be nearly as fun to play as if his Character wasn't what it was and Vergil Wouldn't be as satisfying as an opponent if he wasn't portrayed how he was.

Webm related

And just how Story can Elevate a game it can also bring a game down. funny enough I can use Devil May Cry as an example again with DmC. DmC when based purely on gameplay is an above average Action game. but DmC's story is so bad and interferes with the Gameplay so much that it actively makes me Hate the game. I can't look past the story since it's constantly shoved in my face the whole game.

What are some of you guys meaning when you say "writing", regarding games? Like, the script? Of course a games writing can hardly ever match writing in literature, it's a damn book, it's entirely reliant on writing to deliver it's experience. I don't think that necessarily means however, that literature will always trump a video game when it comes to story telling. The story of a game comes from more than just what they say in cutscenes. Films, literature, and video games have their own ways they should be telling stories that fits their strengths.

Take vid related for example. I'll admit, I've never read The Shining (and I'm not a Kubrickfag either, so don't bully), so maybe some bookfag can correct me, but wouldn't the paranormal design of the hotel be better explored through film like Kubrick did than trying to explain it purely through writing? I believe there are ways that games can trump both films and literature. I think HyperBitHero touched on an instance in his Vergil video where Vergil gets the Devil Arms from Beowulf instead of you at first. It's a way the story enhances the rivalry the only way a game can, because what it does is linked directly to gameplay, and what the game was establishing for you up until that point. That certain bosses, once defeated, will give you a nice cutscene of you showing off with your new weapon that you can now use throughout the game, except now it's not happening to you, but to your brother that wiped the floor with you last time. but Another small example I mentioned in some other thread are your Limits slowly getting deleted out of your Digital Mind Wave at the end of Crisis Core.

I don't want "cinematic experiences" in games most of the time, I'd like something that keeps gameplay and story intertwined, with the emphasis being on good gameplay.

fug, forgot vid

and you beat me to that example

HA Nice to see another fan of his work.

Video games aren't just games, so there goes your bullshit theory. All a video game need is gameplay, and if you don't need gameplay for a game to be a game, then a video game without a fail state can effectively be a video game.

Same deal was with movies in their first 40-50 years of existence, though. The problem movies had is that they tried to emulate books, same with the TV with the radio, it wasn't until they figured out their own formula that things got better.
But video games aren't a traditional medium, gameplay doesn't exactly fit with traditional media. With a movie you can just watch it. With a book you can just read it.
That's my point. There's not a single video game that doesn't get boring after doing the exact same thing over and over, and I think that's one of the things that define video games, doing repetitive tasks, the only thing that makes that bearable is the story, with chess is the multiplayer aspect and you can say the same about any "multiplayer" game.
Of course, but that's because they are a little part of the whole thing. With books you can only tell a linear story. Maybe you can divide it by chapter and tell them in different point of views, but the whole thing will always be like that every time you read the book. In a game like Morrowing, you can explore the lives of most citizens and immerse in the lore of the game. Or you just can ignore it. That's the biggest difference of games and books.

Try playing Tetris for more than 15 minutes. I'm doing you a favor, the charge of proof is on you.

Are you retarded or you can't read? I literally said games could have a better story, same as I said merely as "not only for". Fuck user, do you buy a book just to read it and not understand any of it? Do you read the newspaper for fun? Do you read porn just to learn philosophy? I read novels to entertain myself, not just to "read them",
That's not solid proof.

This is true, but conversely you can't really get inside a character's head in a movie the same way you can in a book. You can't display their inner monologue without resorting to some shitty, cheesy VO or something just as hacky.
Movies and books both have strengths and weaknesses. The difference with games is that if you make story-telling the priority, it quickly loses the fun appeal of gameplay and becomes a VN or a walking sim. If you focus on the story you lose the actual "gaming" aspect of the game.

You're close to an epiphany here user. Modern games haven't made it the point of being able to present good stories because they just haven't existed for long enough.
Compare movies and games. There was the start, with shitty 5 second clips of a horse running, and then silent films, and then black-and-white films with sound, and then speaking. So much technical development at an astounding pace, but not quite the level of story-telling as book. Exact same thing with games right now. All mediums rely on the techniques we develop through them over decades and centuries (in the case of literature) and the better you get with those techniques the easier it becomes to write something good. But games just aren't quite to that point yet. No game can forego gameplay and mechanics in favour of the story, because thus far there hasn't been a story worth foregoing those things to present in a game.
DOOM has almost no story, you just pick up a gun and shoot, and I could do that and be entertained for hours. Same thing with city-builder or a Civ game. That doesn't need a scripted story to make repetition enjoyable. There's a ton of games that are fun without needing any story to make them bearable.

DMC3 is an excellent example, really. Dante tells an story even in the way he moves.

You're right, but it can be explained in the book, it's just more effective to just show you, but the problem with that is that you lose focus on it, and that's because the 2 mediums are different. You can extenuate things in books that would otherwise go unnoticed in a movie.
he thing with video games is that if something goes unnoticed is entirely your fault. You can overlook things on purpose, or you can go and look for every single detail. I think that's why there's more potential for video games.

I… what?
Yes, they're more than just games, but they still require the defining two traits of a game: interactivity and a fail state. A game without a fail state is just a plaything, or a toy. Video games are just a virtual form of games, using the video format (so, computer generated graphics).

I don't know why you're arguing this. Games can have story. They also don't need them. They do need a fail state and interactivity, though.

GAMEPLAY

Story can fuck off as long as I have good gameplay.

I don't mind good gameplay without story, but good character development really adds to the experience if done right.
When the gameplay is bad, the story can't be much better so…

Good story without good gameplay is like a movie with good music without good visuals.

It can be appreciated for its positive traits, but it's still bad overall.

How? It's your claim that tetris is boring. Now move your water filled head and prove it.

Like walking simulators? Oh wait, even the story is garbage on those

That's the funniest part of walking simulators- even lacking in gameplay, their stories are still utter dogshit.

Asura's wrath had pretty shallow shitty gameplay but the sheer fucking absurditiy of it's animations and story more then makes up for it.

Is this what kids actually think these days?

Anime is actually much the same, whenever they don't use a manga or visual novel as a basis the whole project they work on tends to be anywhere from fucking atrocious to middling or all over the place at best in regards to writing and art direction quality, and the good ones tend to be short, not even half a season most times, and the long ones always have a solo or duo behind the story.

Examples that differ are Paranoia Agent, a really good anime that was masterminded by a dude with some fair cash and experience writing psychological thrillers, Basically think about a japanese David Lynch for a good idea here. The second is Fooly Cooly, aka FLCL, done by a very VERY talented and close-knit team of animators (aka the Evangelion dudes) who did that Daikon 4 opening with mountains of references, basically a golden team, and without reigns and a director all they could manage was a mishmash of crazy retardation that was all over the place, but was cool.

Then we have a duo anime, Eden of the East, which was written by one guy, while a woman did the character designs and the animation was handled by a company that does tons of this shit, basically an outsider brought in.

Anime found good ways to do it and we've had mixed results with people like Kojima and bad results with people like Moleneux, so I think that the real problem is character with this method.

It's about passion when it comes to making a good story, and when you get down to it a lot of people chose the game industry as a backup when they failed elsewhere, despite it being a damned good choice in the first place. The problem lies in the fact that it's new, and that old fucks like Kojima tend to be movie buffs because that was their childhood. When the new generation comes in for real, there will be TONS of opportunities to move out of the commitee model when people like us are at the helm, but right now we're STILL in infancy because the old fucks came into the new-fangled business as a comprimise, not because they actually like it.

And that's the whole goddamned problem here, lack of passion in the old souls that reside within.

This doesn't work because movies aren't just about jaw droppoing visuals and good sound design. To be clear, there are prefectly enjoyable movies that are just about visuals, but a good narrative adds to the expierence.

Likewise, factors other then gameplay can add to games.

What the issue really comes down to is that you can either view a game as a toy, or view it as a art medium, or view it as a storytelling medium, or all of the above. People aren't sitting down and considering that different people may want different things out of video games as a medium and they talk past each other.

Personally, i'm fine with enjoying games that are just about core gameplay and are basicallty just interactive toys, but i'm also fine with a video game where it's mainly about narrative and the interacitity is just used to add to the expierence, or anything in between as long as the result is etither engaging or fun.

This doesn't make sense though because there are indie games that are basically made the same way novels are, and there are plenty of AAA movies that stuff have good narratives that are also market researched and have the same demographic/budget issues you mentioned.

Hell, there ARE AAA video games with good narrative, said narrative just usually isn't complex (simple =/= bad) and takes a backseat to the game design, as it should.

Gameplay

I didn't even know the stories of my favorite games growing up, and I didn't care. I spent hours and hours exploring the various worlds, that was the "story" for me.

A videogame that's perfectly balanced with story and gameplay can range from great to masterpiece, mostly gameplay can also be good, purely gameplay can vary on how well it's done but it's still the definition of a videogame even if boring on your book, mostly story can still make a classic if good enough, but purely story can never be a "game"
Story on videogames is a window dresser as mentioned before ITT, it can give a small or important impression, but it can never be all of the game, it can be equally important than gameplay for games that need it, not too much on other games.
And honestly, vidya is already pretty hollywood in terms of production these days so i don't want to push it to be the next huge thing to compete with movies and books, it's already bad enough that they're trying to turn the internet into a second television.

Also known as entertainment, and even then, what's wrong with "wasting your time" with videogames, being worried about public opinion?

It's all subjective, sometimes you need a smaller game to play, even if not on a hurry or desperate, that does not make that kind of games boring, and even less something you would ONLY play if bored.
And you can always impose yourself to some autistic challenge on simpler games, like getting to the Kill Screen on Pac-Man.

That shit is so over the fucking top, I need to watch all the cutscenes.

vidya - story = vidya
vidya - vidya = nogame

fuck you

Op's world must be crumbling after realizing that he is wrong if he isn't retarded enough to not see his error anyway

Story in a video game is like icing on a cake. It's still a cake without it but it's a lot better with. You can also eat icing by itself but you're gonna get sick of it real fast unless you're an idiot child or something.

Just watch a no commentary let's play of it and the DLC on youtube, you'll get pretty much the entire expierence without having to deal with the shallow combat.

It's already trying to be an anime (the missions are called episodes and have next time on previews and mid mission commercial bumpers), so just treat it as one and you'll enjoy it.

Only things to note is that the PS3 version had bad screen tearing so try to find an upload that uses the 360 version, and to not skip the after episode text sections since those fill in a lot of plot details, but not all youtube uploads include them, and obviously not every playthrough of the game encounters every single QTE animation.

Webm related for example I know a lot of them never encounter

It's obvious if you think about it for a short minute. Video games are a mixed medium. The programming is engineering, the production is mostly management, art, music, character design, level design, and writing are all art. Saying that "video games are not art" is absolutely retarded, unless you are claiming to have a video game without graphics, without writing, and without level design or gameplay design.
Story helps, but it's not necessary.

A video game does not necessarily need a fail state. Wario World III didn't have a fail state, and it's a damn good game. I've heard that Kirby yarn game didn't have a fail state either, but I never played it, so I'm not sure how good it is.
Games without a fail state are more-or-less elaborate puzzles, but it doesn't stop them from being games.

The only games I ever played in my life where story bolstered the experience were Lunar: Eternal Blue, Xenogears, Zelda: Link's Awakening, and the early Metal Gear Solid games. For Eternal Blue and Xenogears they would have been linear, somewhat boring, RPGs with not much to do or explore if not for a compelling story that had me curious to see what would happen next (and Xenogears was still kind of boring). For Link's Awakening, the story was a genuinely charming departure from the original games, filled with a ton of imagination, without all the overly produced bullshit of the later games, that was as good as it gets.

For most of my favorite games growing up, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy VII, Star Ocean 2, Shining the Holy Ark, the first few Zelda games, first few Mario games, first few Sonics, the games could have been in Mongolian and I would have nearly the exact same experience as long as the menus and puzzles were English.

I was a retarded teenager when I played Final Fantasy, I had no idea what was going on and I was too impatient to actually read all that text. Most kids in school would just skip most the dialogue, they wanted to get onto finding the next secret on the world map, and it was as much fun as we ever had. The stories didn't boost or take away from the experience at all (none of us cried when Aeris died which is the meme they're trying to push). I played the newer apparently "better translated" PSP version of Star Ocean 2 and all it did was lose all the charm of the original. All I needed to know was the general idea of what was going on, I don't need David Lynch plot twists and academy award winning dialogue. Zelda: LttP was "go explore to find these triangle parts and then you can save the princess," fair enough, I did it and it was as much fun as I ever had.

It does, though.

They're not bad pieces of work, mind you.

Good gameplay and good story aren't mutually exclusive, you colossal semen slurpers.

Nobody said it was, retard

Gameplay will always be more important to a game than a story. If the story is shit, but the gameplay excellent, then fine. Great story, shit gameplay, bad game. Stories exist just to give you more of a hook to play, to get you a bit more invested and immersed.

Why are you shooting those rocks? Because if I don't the Earth dies.

Then what's the point of making a whole thread dedicated to arguing over which is important, gameplay or story other than to circlejerk each other over shitty arcade games from the 90s designed to steal your money?

Watching right now. Pretty fuckin' good.

/thread

Games can be more than the sum of their parts, these topics are autistic at best.

Because some people just haven't figured out that video games are more than the sum of their parts.
While gameplay is the most important part, and the one which everything else should be built around, it is still only a part of a greater whole.

Take Doom for example.
The important gameplay mechanics are enemy variety and the player character's fast movement and hard-hitting arsenal.
Because of this, the narrative is kept simple, "demons are invading, go kill them," because you already have to dedicate much of your thought to identifying enemies and strategy.
The designs for the demons are also built with this in mind, with all of them except shotgun and rifle zombies having unique sprites, and thus a distinctive appearance even with the primarily red/brown demon color palette.
Even the music works with the gameplay, the game's most iconic theme being reminiscent of the opening from Master of Puppets, an energetic song in a genre commonly associated with infernal imagery such as that seen in Doom.
The gameplay of Doom may be good on its own, but by adding non-gameplay elements oriented around the gameplay, Id made one of the most enduring video games of all time, even eclipsing Wolfenstein 3d, which released a full year earlier but is now mostly known for mecha-Hitler.

That's what gestalt is, as mentioned in
It's also what makes practically anything "good".

magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/bursting-flavor-2003-02-24

Have done it multiple times, and it was more fun and entertaining, than quite a few of stories I've experiences in the story heavy video games. So if I was given a choice between playing Tetris and another game with decent story but trash gameplay I would just play fucking Tetris.
Now check em.

I want this shitty forced meme to die. Fail states and win states are not necessary for a game, even if it is the most logical outcome. This was just something Holla Forums invented on its first days on this website to somehow justify their hatred for Depression Quest ("it's not a vidya so it's bad!") instead of using the many, many other less outlandish reasons to shit on that borderline game.

Remember when old TF2 had single-map eternal round servers where you just joined, popped in a few kills and disconnected whenever? No teams ever won because matches were way too long to even care about that. You could argue dying on itself was the fail state, except you could respawn in a few seconds. Now, imagine a strategy game like Age of Empires in which matches are played exactly like that, except you may not kill the last villager of any given player; every action in that game produces a score that gets added to your lifetime stats and determines your position in the ranking. Getting your empire destroyed is then not an actual game over (you can start anew with your villager), but merely a temporary setback. You can not die, you can not lose, you can not die, but still, you are playing and competing for the highest score. Given the right conditions a new or a severely buttfucked player could somehow rise to the top of the lifetime stats ladder through some hard work and good strategy, so it's not like being decimated once dooms your chances at being the best. Would you still argue this isn't a game because it has no I II II I_ state? What about puzzle games which difficulty only lies in the time it takes you to solve each puzzle? Are they somehow not games anymore because a bunch of Internet memesters decided they are not?

A game only depends on interactivity, but not any kind of interactivity. Included in the program state (the set of values put in memory by the program itself, ie. the angle if the camera), there is game state, which is a somewhat abstract set of values composed only by those values that directly relate to gameplay mechanics. A true game allows the player to interact with game state through a strict set of rules, defined by the game designers. These games, as described before, have some very clear and manipulable states (specially puzzle games): number of buildings, total scores, units, puzzles solved, state of the current puzzles… so we can safely consider them games.

The only non-game I can agree on with the rest of Holla Forums is Gone Home, basically because it has no game state, only program state, and is essentially an interactive diorama/multimedia 3D model player. The world/game in Gone Home is static, and save for the keys, interacting with stuff doesn't alter the nomexistant game state in any way.

Gaming is a medium, not art

Gayms are arts fags are annoying and dumb as fuck

...

You press buttons, you alter the program state. You can look around and move your camera, and that's about the extent of it, but really, that's what interactive means in computing context. It was all specified in the post, and you are probably thinking about game rules (game state interactivity), which is exactly what Gone Home lacks and why it is not a game, but rather a glorified computer program or a nonlinear movie.

then it's not a game, it's a toy.

So only as interactive as an elevator panel.
Makes sense, since in Gone Homo the only material decisions you can make are in the menus.

What is being unable to solve a puzzle, if not a fail state?

A puzzle is never impossible to solve unless it locks itself down. You either are not dedicating enough time to it, or not trying hard enough, but either way, the puzzle can only be "solved" or "yet to solve" but unless it was designed or misdesigned to timbal lock itself after a few bad moves, it is never lost.

Clearly you have never played Windows Solitaire.

Just take metroid's example, a great story is delivered by good gameplay

It never reaches a conclusion OP. The "gameplay > story" faggots pretty much outright ignore any other argument.

Hell, go through this thread right now, and look for any post that just trivialises this shit as just "gameplay > story" and put your cursor on their ID number. You'll probably notice a hell of a lot of 1s or 2s. These people don't pay any actual attention to the discussions in these threads, they just drop off their opinion and leave thinking there is nothing to be learnt.

There are gameplay-driven games, there are story-driven games. There are surprisingly very few that are in-between, I find that a game pretty much has one or the other being the main reason that keeps me playing.

The key thing is that it does not excuse the other component for being shit. It's the gameplay's job in a story-driven game to not make the game a chore to play through just to find out what happens in the story. Likewise it's a story's job in a gameplay-driven game to not be so stupid that it feels insulting to the player.

Story and gameplay are like water and oil.
You can mix them, it just takes a lot of contrived stuff and you can't just take any water or oil and do it.

The "balance" between plot and gameplay is a retarded concept and should never be done. Either admit that your game isn't a game and make an 1 hour long walking sim or whatever, or make a proper fucking game. Compromise is what brought the current modern turds with linear world design and cutscenes up the ass, and probably what dug the graves of many genres.

Of course, some narrative is good, but keep the shit simple. If the entire story of the game takes more than a paragraph to tell, it's shit. Games stories are like porn ones, yadda yadda. Plus, there's probably some games out there that do manage to mix them well, but the exception proves the rule.

Game writers should instead focus on lore. It doesn't get in the way of gameplay, allows the people who actually care about it to speculate and have fun, potentially increases game replayability, can give a cult following and overall are better on games. In fact, most modern games praised for their stories actually have pretty simple or shit ones, but their lorebuilding is good enough for people to either ignore it or interpret it in a more complex way.

The whole issue of story vs gameplay depends on what kind of game it is.

Good games draw you into writing your own story. Don't tell me why my character wants to save the princess. Just present me with the opportunity to do so.

DMC3 did everything just right.

Oh boy, time for another bout of pseudo-intellectual waffling about the nature of the this medium.

Story (the descriptor of events and elements) is a purely cosmetic feature only meant to contextualize the narrative (the structure and design of events) being portrayed in a given work through descriptions, visuals, etc. This includes things like lore, motive, backstory, art style, character design, etc. Unless any of these details have a direct connection to the narrative of the work, all of this is arbitrary. Story is not necessary in any creative medium and certainly shouldn't be the what a creator should design their work on, because that sort of design cares more about what their making (the they dress up the content in) versus how their making it (the actual craft). Story in games is equally cosmetic and should always be subservient to the design of the gameplay and the actual events in the game's (and thus the player's) narrative.

However,
while I say story isn't necessary in games and other media, that doesn't mean it isn't helpful. The more complex a work is in it's design, the harder it becomes to be invested in it for that design alone of most people. This is where cosmetic features like story come into play, as it can contextualize that design and gives people another avenue to be interested. It draws them into a work that may be more complex to digest on design alone. This can be reflected in the complexity of design in games and how much they used story. Simpler puzzle games like Tetris don't need a story to draw you in because its gameplay is much easier to grasp. Shooters like Doom and Wolfenstein 3D don't need much more story than a simple premise to get you shooting Nazis and Demons in the face to make the gameplay a more satisfying/cathartic experience. Meanwhile big RPGs like Morrowind and Deus Ex would be far too hard to digest just for its gameplay if it wasn't dressed up in and propped up by a lot of story to make more easily draw you in.

tl;dr:
This picture is still pretty relevant, but I'd say it's relative based on the work. Games like Doom are quite like porn - more simple in design (and in Doom's case very well executed) and meant to provide a cathartic experience, where story exists only so far as to contextualize it in the most basic way. However, in more complex games, story can be far more useful to draw people into it that would otherwise be pushed away by that complexity on its own.

Video games are literally toys, user.

No user, video games are ART

Fuck art

please fucking kill yourself. he was a one hit wonder

...

All of the games he was apart of where great.

The thing about games is that a lot of aspects go into it that can make a game appealing. You can do without a story, music and good visuals and focus purely on gameplay, like Tetris which still has music, but putting effort into everything else can lead to a more engaging final product. Rhythm games don't work without music, so that's gameplay and music, but you can do without a story and nobody will mind. All combinations have merit if done right but the gameplay HAS to be there, even if just minimally, to tie it all together.

So it's really Gameplay > everything else. That doesn't mean you should discount everything else just because, though. It's the variety and possibilities that make the medium interesting. Doom would still be fun to play if it everything was a different sized and colored square, but part of why it was so memorable is because of its visuals and sounds. I think that goes for most games
When I come up with a character for my game I try to think of how every aspect of them can compliment each other; their fighting style/mechanics, looks and personality. If I leave something out they wouldn't feel complete.

They're not, most writers are just failed english majors. There's plenty of examples of games with good writing that make use of gameplay to give the player information.

Kirby's Yarn was an interesting case. Yes, you couldn't "lose" but there are different points of victory. To 100% the game, I actually found myself swearing at the game in segments because of a sudden spike in the goals. For example, to get the best rating, you need to collect a certain number of jewels, and if you get hit, you lose over 50% of them and might as well resign yourself to starting the level over. That's not including the challenges to unlock furniture for the other characters, which suddenly have things such as time limits and realizing that you gotta go through the previous 5 min of gameplay again if you make another slipup.

If you played ghost trick, do you remember it more for the gameplay or the story ?
Here's your answer.

Reminder that TotalButt Cancer thinks it's alright that God Hand should be hard and demanding. but dark souls should have an easy mode.
Why ?
BECAUSE HURR DURR BIPOL GEN BLEY IT NOT JUS BECAOS OF HTE GEMBLEI :DDDDdDDD

Gameplay is what matters. Story should work as extra incentive for me to get from point A to point Z. If it's good, amazing. But it should never overshadow gameplay.

What do you remember more for Devil May Cry 3 the gameplay or the story? There's your answer.

See I can play the same game too

This. Only nu males play games for story alone. There's a few decent plots here and there, but generally speaking vidya stories are shit tier