Gameplay or Story?

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

Gameplay IS story and vice-versa. If it's not, then something is broken. If there is no reason for the story to be represented in game form, if it gains nothing from being a game, then it's bad. If the story just exists to be an excuse to kill monsters, you're missing out on potenial. This mutually exclusive bull**** is what is leading people to make hand-holding narrative walking tours for videogames. "The story is all that matters, I want to get to the end without also ever dying or having to think". Ugh.

Edited October 20, 2012 by HungryHungryOuroboros

[Sylvanpyxie]

While I often enjoy good game-play, I find I can usually put up with slightly more clunky game-play systems if it means I'm able to enjoy an excellent story.

 

Mask of the Betrayer didn't have particularly smooth combat, and after a certain point my Cleric was just slaughtering things in melee in a matter of moments, so it was hardly challenging. Yet the story was by far one of my most enjoyable gaming experiences in years. I certainly enjoyed it more than games with slightly more refined combat systems, like Mass Effect 2 or, more recently, Kingdoms of Amalur.

 

On the flip side, I wouldn't be such an avid fan of the Fable franchise if the combat hadn't been so greatly improved. I still regard the Fable franchise highly, even if it's not particularly groundbreaking, it certainly has elements in the game-play that, if forged together into a single game, would be an extremely enjoyable experience. Yet, as the franchise has progressed and the story has become less enjoyable, I find myself becoming disappointed by the series.

 

It's a tough one, but I suppose, in this specific genre of gaming, story is more important to me than game-play. Though, in other genres game-play will almost always trump story.

[Leferd]

The rpg mechanics in ME2 was inferior to ME, but the combat was definitely a huge improvement. I haven't gotten very far in ME3 yet, so can't comment on it.

 

I agree with the sentiment that gameplay is more important than story as far as gameplaying is concerned, but a great story will take the game to the next level.

 

However, my point is that, I think what got us really excited about PE is because of the promise of gameplay similar to that of the IE games. Most of us trust Obsidian, or even Bioware to deliver strong writing, but lately, it is the lack of strong gameplay, and tactical combat, that has us waxing nostalgia over the good old days of IE.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Leferd

[GhostofAnakin]

I'll state ahead of time that if either aspect is bad, then the game likely won't be fun for me. So assuming that both features are at least "average", then I vote for story. A game's story is what draws me in.

 

In other words, I'd choose a game with a great story and average gameplay over a game with great gameplay and an average story.

[Sensuki]

Gameplay IS story and vice-versa. If it's not, then something is broken. If there is no reason for the story to be represented in game form, if it gains nothing from being a game, then it's bad. If the story just exists to be an excuse to kill monsters, you're missing out on potenial. This mutually exclusive bull**** is what is leading people to make hand-holding narrative walking tours for videogames. "The story is all that matters, I want to get to the end without also ever dying or having to think". Ugh.

 

I was going to say Gameplay and Writing, basically what I mean is the quality of the writing, dialogue and cut-scenes (which is essentially story) more important than the gameplay - combat, exploration, other general activities you undertake when playing etc.

[agewisdom]

I think a gripping story is definitely more important than gameplay, anytime.

 

If we want fantastic gameplay, it would be better to look for games like Dark Souls, Demon Souls, Diablo or Torchlight series. It's the story that sets apart Obsidian games from other types of RPGs. They should definitely get the story right first.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Brains and body, both. Fallout, Arcanum, and VtM: Bloodlines, perfect examples of story and game play intertwined. Although it has to be game play led, if you just want a cinematic "game", just watch a movie or read a book, they're going to be significantly better than a game with no game play. Games can be as good a story telling medium as books and movies, through game play. Game play, game play. Sick of some developers making bad games because they can't make movies.

Edited October 20, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

I think a gripping story is definitely more important than gameplay, anytime.

 

If we want fantastic gameplay, it would be better to look for games like Dark Souls, Demon Souls, Diablo or Torchlight series. It's the story that sets apart Obsidian games from other types of RPGs. They should definitely get the story right first.

I disagree. Obsidian sets itself apart with its systems and how those systems are interwoven into the narrative.

 

Take KOTOR II. They didn't just take KOTOR and tack a new story on it. They:

 

-Added an Influence system, which tied into the narrative in a lot of ways

-Made many companions play differently(Kreia's Jedi buff bond with the PC, Hanharr's rage mechanic, T3's moving meditation)

-Added Lightsaber and Force Forms

-Made the PC a Jedi from the start

-Added Prestige classes

-Added a far greater range of skill checks

-Gave incentives to play differently(melee sparring with Handmaiden/Mandalorians, increase weakest skill)

-Greatly enhanced the usefulness of skills

-Removed the level cap

-Added a penalty for forcing a lock

-Included an easy switch between two sets of weapons(ranged/melee)

-Added an indicator when a storage container was empty

-Improved the balance of Pazaak

 

And probably several others I'm forgetting. Obsidian doesn't make a game and go "Mechanics? Systems? PFFFT. Those just exist to serve my GLORIOUS STORY!"

[Leferd]

Question for the writing preference folks, I'm not sure why you are more excited about this game than other Obsidian/Bio games? Is it guaranteed that the writing will be improved over their past games? I expect it to be roughly the same as any other Josh Sawyer, Tim Cain, Chris Avellone, George Ziets game.

 

It's not the writing that is the problem from Obsidiand and Bio.

 

The focus for PE lies in bringing back the hardcore rpg elements, tactical combat, and superior user interface of The Infinity Engine, and modernizing it. I'm hooked by the promise of gameplay reminiscent of the classics.

[Sensuki]

I disagree. Obsidian sets itself apart with its systems and how those systems are interwoven into the narrative.

 

Take KOTOR II. They didn't just take KOTOR and tack a new story on it. They:

 

Sure they added in a bunch of mechanics.

 

But I still thought that the gameplay was boring. More boring than KotOR 1. The story was a lot better though.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Sensuki

[AwesomeOcelot]

Kuroiryuu, what are some examples of "modern" RPGs with great gameplay?

 

Kotor

Kotor2

VtM:B

Mass Effect

Alpha Protocol

New Vegas

NWN2

HotU

Dragon Age

MotB

 

The above games had good stories but subpar gameplay. What are some examples of the inverse?

 

Going have to disagree with you there, VtM: B and F: NV had buggy, clunky, unbalanced game play, but it also had great game play, and I'll take that over a highly polished game with mediocre game play.

Edited October 20, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[agewisdom]

I think a gripping story is definitely more important than gameplay, anytime.

 

If we want fantastic gameplay, it would be better to look for games like Dark Souls, Demon Souls, Diablo or Torchlight series. It's the story that sets apart Obsidian games from other types of RPGs. They should definitely get the story right first.

I disagree. Obsidian sets itself apart with its systems and how those systems are interwoven into the narrative.

 

Take KOTOR II. They didn't just take KOTOR and tack a new story on it. They:

 

-Added an Influence system, which tied into the narrative in a lot of ways

-Made many companions play differently(Kreia's Jedi buff bond with the PC, Hanharr's rage mechanic, T3's moving meditation)

-Added Lightsaber and Force Forms

-Made the PC a Jedi from the start

-Added Prestige classes

-Added a far greater range of skill checks

-Gave incentives to play differently(melee sparring with Handmaiden/Mandalorians, increase weakest skill)

-Greatly enhanced the usefulness of skills

-Removed the level cap

-Added a penalty for forcing a lock

-Included an easy switch between two sets of weapons(ranged/melee)

-Added an indicator when a storage container was empty

-Improved the balance of Pazaak

 

And probably several others I'm forgetting. Obsidian doesn't make a game and go "Mechanics? Systems? PFFFT. Those just exist to serve my GLORIOUS STORY!"

 

I'm not saying Obsidian should ignore gameplay altogether. All I'm saying in response to the OP is that I would prefer a well crafted gripping story as a priority first. Great gameplay is equally good... but I'm hoping for a good story that can help immerse me into the world and its' lore, first.

 

I don't want a situation like Dragon Age 2 where the plot was basically a disappointment and the focus was on putting flashy combos' and pressing the "awesome" button with huge swords and flashy battles.

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

I don't want a situation like Dragon Age 2 where the plot was basically a disappointment and the focus was on putting flashy combos' and pressing the "awesome" button with huge swords and flashy battles.

Dragon Age 2's gameplay was AWFUL, and Dragon Age 2 would be painful to play no matter what narrative window dressing they draped over that massive turd. They didn't "focus on gameplay", they focused on making the game as close to Mass Effect but with Magic Because Mass Effect Made More Money.

[Leferd]

 

Going have to disagree with you there, VtM: B and F: NV had buggy, clunky, unbalanced game play, but it also had great game play, and I'll take that over a highly polished game with mediocre game play.

 

I actually list VtMB as one of my all time favorites. The RPG mechanics were superior in that game, but combat was pretty weak.

 

I liked the improvements of NV over FO3, but I just couldn't get past the game design elements already embedded by Bethesda. I hated the user interface. I hated the perspective. Faults of Bethesda, not Obsidian.

[agewisdom]

I don't want a situation like Dragon Age 2 where the plot was basically a disappointment and the focus was on putting flashy combos' and pressing the "awesome" button with huge swords and flashy battles.

Dragon Age 2's gameplay was AWFUL, and Dragon Age 2 would be painful to play no matter what narrative window dressing they draped over that massive turd. They didn't "focus on gameplay", they focused on making the game as close to Mass Effect but with Magic Because Mass Effect Made More Money.

 

I fully agree with you that DA2 gameplay was awful but over at the BSN forum, you'd see a lot of people having the opposite opinion. In fact, they feel that it was much better gameplay than the boring gameplay of DA:O.

[MichaelStuart]

Story for me.

I have yet to play a RPG were I liked the gameplay.

[Frankenfruity]

Story is more important. However, if the gamplay was a complete disaster I would never play the game for the story, no matter how good, I'd just go read a book or something. On the other hand if story was a complete disaster and the gameplay was amazing, there's definitely a chance I'd play that game.

But if we look at it from the angle where one of them is acceptable and the other one is great, I'd prefer to story to be great.

 

Edit: Should probably note, that my vote is influenced by the fact that I almost never play the same game twice. Or if I do I don't finish the second play through. The reason is two fold: 1. The story that drags me in the first time around, doesn't have that grip. 2. There are many games that interest me and so little free time to even play just the best RPGs.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Frankenfruity

[Leferd]

Story for me.

I have yet to play a RPG were I liked the gameplay.

 

Therein lies the rub.

 

Strong gameplay and strong writing in rpgs shouldn't be mutually exclusive. The original Fallouts and Infinity Engine games had strong elements of both. The dichotomy has shifted with modern RPGs in which presentation has trumped solid tactical gameplay, in favor of cinematic, and watered down tactics -posing as gameplay. The writing remains strong, but actual gameplay has suffered as a result.

[moridin84]

I don't want a situation like Dragon Age 2 where the plot was basically a disappointment and the focus was on putting flashy combos' and pressing the "awesome" button with huge swords and flashy battles.

Dragon Age 2's gameplay was AWFUL, and Dragon Age 2 would be painful to play no matter what narrative window dressing they draped over that massive turd. They didn't "focus on gameplay", they focused on making the game as close to Mass Effect but with Magic Because Mass Effect Made More Money.

Hah.

 

I was just going to use Dragon Age 2 as an example of why I choose "Gameplay" over "Story". I wanted to play Dragon Age 2 a second time but couldn't because of how horrible the gameplay was.

[Lysen]

Gameplay IS story and vice-versa. If it's not, then something is broken. If there is no reason for the story to be represented in game form, if it gains nothing from being a game, then it's bad. If the story just exists to be an excuse to kill monsters, you're missing out on potential. This mutually exclusive bull**** is what it's leading people to make hand-holding narrative walking tours for videogames. "The story is all that matters, I want to get to the end without also ever dying or having to think". Ugh.

 

I've always thought that discovering the story is an important part of gameplay. That's why PS:T gameplay was great, because it was closely and in a very interesting way (memories) tied with the story. But BIS also changed a lot in terms of the mechanics compared to Baldur's Gate, like Obsidian later did with KOTOR 2. Some people tend to forget that and complain about 'boring' or 'bad' gameplay in PS:T while praising its 'story'. And honestly I just don't understand why they think that Arcanum story was bad or mediocre. It was actually quite interesting - especially compared to ME or DAO stories.

[JohanKris]

For a story I read a book or watch a movie. I play games for the gameplay and for most games the story is just a way to push the gameplay forward. For RPGs the story is sometimes more at the forefront, but I only like the story due to its interactive component. Making the choices as see what they bring is the important part of the story for me.

[novander]

Gameplay. The story is what I'll remember; if it's a good story I'll go back and play it again, but if the mechanics are bad I'll give up before I see how good the story is.

[Keyrock]

While I, like most, prefer both a good story and good gameplay, given the choice of only one or the other, story is king. This is likely because I'm as much an (point & click) adventure gamer as an RPG gamer.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Keyrock

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

While I, like most, prefer both a good story and good gameplay, given the choice of only one or the other, story is king. This is likely because I'm as much an (point & click) adventure gamer as an RPG gamer.

Both point and click and RPG games are about integrating game mechanics into the narrative. As an adventure gamer, I am very disappointed in my fellow point-and-click fans who treat the genre like a click-to-continue digital storybook where you're allowed to look at things.

[Utukka]

I voted for gameplay. The reasoning: If gameplay is horribly bad, buggy, unbalanced etc, I might be able to bring myself to fight through it if the story is amazing and then I will probably never pick it up again. If the story is bad but it's extremely fun, I'll probably still play it.