How does one simply prefer story over gameplay?

It kind of depends on the game for which takes priority. If the game is story focused then the story and pacing had better be fantastic with at least somewhat enjoyable gameplay.

Because not all games are trying to do the same thing, I can like a variety of things too.

Also a game can have terrible gameplay, but still be found enjoyable to me, for example Deadly Premonition.

And that's probably it. Its like most of my friends whom detest movies with good emotional stories, they won't get invested in them if they're in it for the action instead of the story.

Could you please elaborate all your points?

I think there's also an element to it involving how we process information. I know people that just can't invest themselves in animation of any kind, and they don't point to the fact that the story or characters are weak, but rather it being animated as the barrier. I've seen the comment, "I can't identify with 3d models/drawings," so often over the years that I just chalk it up to wiring.

That being said, gaming is still in its infancy as a storytelling device. Add to that that the industry is dominated by violence driven narratives (because violence driven gameplay is easier to code and we lack the controller options for much else beyond hitting/shooting things), which don't often lend themselves to emotional responses. I also can't recall crying because of a videogame story. For me, it's not so much the story is bad or inferior as it's just not that kind of story.

Because, for me, if a story is told well enough I can forgive weak gameplay. Ideally, they are both equally balanced. But everyone loves a great story, and when you remember the good parts of it, rather than the bad gameplay, people enjoy it more.

You made excellent points there. I've been gaming for over 20 years, it wasn't until this year with The Walking dead and Into the Moon that I finally shed tears.

Story is more valuable because a story can be transcendent, can make you think, and can leave a lasting impact on you. Hell, a good -book- can enlighten/scar for life. Good gameplay keeps you coming back for more, but you'll likely never finish a game saying "man, that gameplay really haunted me and I thought about it for weeks afterwards."

The question is, can you stomach bad gameplay to get the full story. In the days of Youtube, this is less and less necessary.

-Byshop

@RageQuitter69: Am I the only person who thinks that Final Fantasy X suffers from more story than gameplay? I mean I can't really bring myself to play the game again because I was finding it very difficult to like. I know there has been some story in every Final Fantasy but this was just the worst for me.

Theres absolutely nothing wrong with playing a video game for its story.

But if the story does not take advantage of what the interactive medium has to offer then why bother playing the game for the story at all, never heard of a movie ?

Long Story short...... F#CK (non-interacive) Cutscenes !

I asked myself this very same question while playing through games like Mass Effect 1, Assassin's Creed 1 and Bioshock Infinite. Great stories (Infinite was crap from all angles) but crap gameplay made them all a chore to complete. Games like Dragon's Dogma which has a crap story but good gameplay are much more enjoyable imo.

Sometimes good story telling can make average gameplay seem more fun though which worked for Metal Gear Solid 4. Games like Heavy Rain beat out Beyond Two Souls imo. Both focus on story but Heavy Rain's story and gameplay seem way more intense. I disagree about Mass Effect 2 being shitty. Mass Effect 2 is my favorite of the series.

When I was younger, I used to prefer story over gameplay. However, I have come to find story less important. Of course I enjoy a good story, especially one that gives meaning to the gameplay.......but as a whole, gameplay is more important. After all, it is a GAME. So of course GAMEplay is more important.

@Kevlar101: Pretty much.

I find games with excellent stories and not-excellent gameplay can be enjoyable, but on the one-or-the-other spectrum, I find games with excellent gameplay and crap(or absent) stories more fun.

Western game stories take themselves way too serious. I don't even care if the story makes sense in a video game. MGS4 Mario Galaxy Bayonetta all have stupid stories but I enjoyed them the most. The only game story I thought was halfway decent as of late was Beyond Two Souls.

I can't even play games like Mass Effect. It's all blah blah blah choose this line or that line it bores the hell out of me. GTA is another game that bores the hell out of me. I like games that are creative and the more creativity the better. I don't even care if it makes sense.

dude alot of rpgs are more for the story than gameplay

i mean look at persona 4 one of the most criticaly acclaimed jrpgs and its very story driven but thats why i love it the story and characters make up for its meh gameplay

sometimes a good tale can go a long way ^^

The first and only time I ever shed tears while playing a game was when I played a VN (Visual Novel) game called Clannad. If you liked The Walking Dead and To the Moon (which both are kind of like VN games), then I would recommend checking out Clannad too.

Most games i play have to have some interesting setting or story going on.

so for me, story/setting is more of a hook then pure gameplay, but that's not to say that I like story to the exclusion of gameplay.

If for instance were talking about like a Mario game where gameplay is king, that's one thing the because the entire point of something like Mario is the gameplay. But if you got game is emphasizing a world or trying to tell a narrative and that's what got me interested in the first place? If it's a long game, and it's story sucks or drags i'll lose interest after a while. Unless the gameplay is so spectacular (and usually it's not), i'll put the game down.

Now a game with a cool story/setting but terrible gameplay, unless getting to the next segment is a not a chore and brief, then i'll drop it as well.

If it's gameplay is merely adequate, that doesn't tarnish a game if it's story is really good. a game like Spec Ops : The Line would be an example of this. It doesn't change my mind that i prefer The Line over practically 90% of military shooters in the campaign department. Which usually rely on set piece spectacles roller coaster rides then telling an interested narrative. whether it's campaign is entwined narratively with it's multiplayer aspect or not is besides the point.

While I do think that developers should strive to find other ways of telling a story other than non-interactive cutscenes, I don't think the bolded makes sense.

For instance, I really like the story of Final Fantasy X. Regardless of Final Fantasy X's reliance on non-interactive cutscenes, I cannot get the Final Fantasy X experience from watching a movie that/=/Final Fantasy X. Plus, even if I do put more stock on Final Fantasy X's story than its gameplay, I'm still expecting some combination of story/gameplay/customization and movies cannot provide the other two components even if FFX does not assert its medium's individual characteristics in its storytelling component.

This actually raises a really interesting point. If you strip away all story elements, P4 just becomes... well... Nocturne which was one of SMT's earliest PS2 RPGs and was very, very boring by comparison.

The point that I wanted to make that your post made me think of is that story is conveyed in many more ways than just as the sum of a collection of cutscenes and dialog boxes. P3 and P4 specifically are great examples of what I'm talking about. In both of these games, the story is conveyed through every element of the gameplay. The settings you wander through, the personality of your characters that comes out through their chatter in combat and how they interact, and even to a lesser degree the music. These elements don't advance the plot, obviously, but they complement it brilliantly. They help to make this cartoonish world -feel- like a real place and the characters seem like real people.

These two games are the best examples I can think of where almost every element of an RPG just works together to make a single, brilliant game.

-Byshop

The way I see it, many people play games to get an experience out of it. Whether that experience comes from an interactive story or from engaging gameplay will be different for everyone. There are great games on both sides of the fence.

I loved The Walking Dead as much as I love Super Mario 3D World. I think those are two examples of story vs. gameplay.

i guess there is the social link side of gameplay that was pretty cool where you develop friendships through events and helps stregthen the personas you get throuout the game

I disagree. I can easily play games like Robotron, Pac-Man, and Donkey Kong with no issues. And as far as games with minimal story, there's Pikmin, countless FPSs, Scribblenauts, Lego games, etc...

I think those games earn all their merit from their gameplay alone.

If you think Mass Effect 2 has garbage gameplay, please tell me what games you're playing.

While I value story over game play overall, I also agree with this statement. A game can have no story and still be fun. Schmups, side scrolling shooters, puzzle games, etc, can be great with no narrative. The reason I value story over game play is because there's no such thing as an intellectually provocative or thought provoking "game play".

-Byshop

Walking Dead and Journey? Enough said

You're right about that!

As much as I love games, and they've been a part of life for over 20 years, I've never looked to them to get any deep experiences. I just don't think it's possible. There are some emotional moments to be had, but nothing like a movie or book.

I think puzzles would be the closest thing I've seen to game play being thought provoking. I really enjoyed Portal, and I'm interested in The Witness' lack of guidance.

Well, that's just it though. While the gameplay itself might not be thought provoking or memorable, I -have- played games where the story really impacted me. The Last of Us on PS3 was the most recent example. Hell, just the opening sequence was harrowing and emotional.

Another would be Amnesia: The Dark Descent. Your character can't remember anything (shocker, I know) and the entire story is told annecdotally through journal entries that are narrated through voice over when you find the text. Obviously, a main character with amnesia is just as tired a plot device in tv shows and movies as it is in video games, but this story was amazing.

Bioshock Infinite, while some enjoyed the story and others didn't, had an ending that stuck with me. Same goes for the Burial at Sea DLC, too (perhaps even moreso).

Just like certain game types can get away with no story, other game types fail miserably without a decent narrative to accompany them. Horror games and RPGs are pointless if they don't have a story to go along with the gameplay. Other game types like FPS titles can go either way, but what set the Bioshock series apart from other more generic FPS games was the well thought out story and setting. Without it, Bioshock is just another semi-linear FPS with interesting graphics, but there are literally hundreds of those out there.

-Byshop

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that a game needs a story or needs to be story heavy to be a multi-faceted experience. Aesthetic qualities/atmosphere can also make a game a multi-faceted experience. For instance, Super Mario Galaxy doesn't have much of a story, but it has tons of atmosphere and visual intrigue.

What I find baffling is people who don't pay attention to anything but gameplay.

That just isn't true. Plenty of games force you to perform certain actions or take place in an atmosphere that cue's an emotional response. In fact, many games are praised for using gameplay to enhance the story. With great games these days gameplay and story are hardly disconnected.

Games where the developers have actually have effort put into their gameplay and level design, no ta game where the developers spent nearly all of the development time on the story, and then literally tacked the gameplay like it was some unnecessary multiplayer component.

You're replying to a later post without the context of the earlier posts. The point wasn't that gameplay can't enhance a story, it was that gameplay alone (sans story) is generally not thought provoking. However, a story without gameplay (i.e. a cutscene, film, television show, book, etc) can carry siginificant impact. It's unlikely that you'll play a game of Defender and afterwards think "man, the way my ship could move up, down, left, and right as really made me re-evaluate my entire position on organized religion."

-Byshop

Obviously he was asking for specific titles. To come back with "duh, games that are better than ME2" is a cop-out response. Oh, and the multiplayer mode was not "literally" tacked on.

-Byshop

What do you mean by the multiplayer mode, Mass Effect 2 never had a multiplayer mode (Mass Effect 3 did, is that you what you thought I was talking about?), I was saying that the gameplay in Mass Effect 2 was simply tacked on in a similar manner to how multiplayer modes are tacked on in games where they are unnecessary.

As for specific titles:

• Grand Theft Auto V
• The Last of Us
• Saints Row 2
• Tomb Raider (2013)
• Sleeping Dogs
• Red Dead Redemption

To name a few

I'd agree that MGS4 had great gameplay on the whole, but you had too many guns and too much ammo. I wish they could find a middle ground between MGS3 and MGS4 for the two installments of MGS5.

I misread your post (missed the word "like") and assumed you were extending your complaint to ME3's similarities to ME2 and its additional multiplayer mode. ME2 and ME3 are often regarded in the same breath compared to ME1.

-Byshop

ME2 had only two choice that true affect your character, your class and extra weapon. The rest was just so shallow and did nothing. There are a large number of RPG that I enjoy the combat some much more including the first Mass Effect. Story wise it is the same old same old for Bioware.