Why do you play a video game for its story when...

the gameplay is pretty mediocre and generic, you feel like it's a chore to play through the game just to see what happens next in the story, and you could just watch a movie or TV show with the same thing which will most likely have a better plot/story, characters, acting, etc.?

Yeah mate I've done this road before and you will never get a straight up answer.

I do like gamibg as stort mmt telling. Device, if the story is really good. I wilk be moee forgiving.of gameplay short comings

@Lulu_Lulu: What's this? Lulu_Lulu has an avatar? Am i dreaming?

What is your question exactly?

@CyberLips

Lol.... Been meaning to get around to it.... That and I wanna get started on my blog.....

I never played a game for the story and plot only or at least loved it (Unless it's an Interactive Drama or Adventure game). For example Remember me has an interesting story, still I rarely get back to this game to actually finish it, cuz the gameplay is just a meh for me (still it's a good game). And yes, Gameplay>Story.

Because I'm involved in the story enough to keep on playing. I've never played a game with an amazing story, yet genuinely bad gameplay. And no, I wouldn't count games such as The Walking Dead or Heavy Rain as those are more like interactive experiences. The gameplay isn't bad in that it actually makes me frustrated or anything. As for movies and TV, they're fine and all, but they aren't interactive like video games and are, as such, a completely different experience.

Kind of simple really, because I'm interested enough in the story to see it through. As for why I wouldn't just watch a movie or tv it's because I'm interested in that specific story with those specific characters. I don't just play a game or watch something simply for the sake of merely doing those actions. Having said that though I can't say that I've ever played a game where I didn't also get at least something out of the gameplay. Boring gameplay can be a subjective experience.

This is why we should stop refering to them as Games. After all, not everything you see on TV is called a movie.

i don't mind it, Telltale games don't have the greatest gameplay, but they are still awesome games to play

That's a bit of a generalisation, isn't it? Not all games with a story have bad gameplay. Nor do games with little narrative lack the potential for a good story. The advantage videogames have is that the player can be part of the story; he/she can influence events (to a certain extent), which makes it arguably easier to relate to or care for something. Most games simply need an outset and from there it's the player who creates the actual stories. Besides, while I do think games will always lack the narrative depth of movies and books, I do not feel that popular action/adventure movies or shows have significantly better stories or characters.

The advantage videogames have is that a satisfying narrative experience does not rely solely on someone writing a script; it also relies on creating a convincing and coherent gameworld where the player can create his/her own stories; where there's the possibility to add your own narrative depth to an otherwise pretty basic story.

On top of that, I think people generally need very little to appreciate a story. I think the value of a story lies more in adding factors that appeal to people than actual narrative complexity (at least when it comes to most forms of entertainment).

@psx2514: I don't play a game just for its story.. i play a game for its gameplay,if the game isn't fun then i wouldn't care about the story,if i only cared about the story i would just watch a youtube video playthrough of it and uninstall that game!

Seems to me more people care about hardware first, graphics secondary over story or gameplay. My priority is gameplay and is probably why Kirby Triple Deluxe and maybe a couple others that aren't so high tech has been my favorite so far this year.

A question in response to your question: if a bad game has a story that interests you, why not play it?

I mean, very few books, films, shows and games have good stories, so I don't understand why you'd limit yourself to only two or three of those mediums.

Some games have stories so good that they're better than most movies. But those games are scarce and very rare

Games have been improving their storytelling methods as well as keeping their gameplay engaging. If a game's story is interesting me, I'll usually play in spite of what you call "mediocre" controls, because at least I'm the active participant in the story as opposed to just sitting there soaking it in like with film, books, or TV. Some people don't really understand that, I guess.

Actually they are non existant, movies will always be better at telling stories than games will, any game that does even come close to telling a good story will suffer in the gameplay department.... The two are on opposite sides of the same Spectrum.

Its for one simple reason, games or any for of interactive narrative is not suppose to tell a specific story, its suppose to create space in which a story can happen....

@Lulu_Lulu: So says you, but many gamers will disagree. And besides, video games have come a long way in the storytelling department, and I believe they will be better at telling stories than any other medium due specifically to their interactive nature. If you can't see that, then whatever. Just keep playing your gameplay-focused games and I'll keep my eye out on the latest story-based games.

If the game is boring I will not play it regardless of how good the story is, theoretically if the story is that gripping I would go on youtube and watch it but I have never played a game where the gameplay was so bad and the story was so good that I felt compelled to do that.

A friend of mine did watch resident evil 6 on youtube though since he loved the story and hated the gameplay

@mastermetal777

Many Gamers, like you, will simply bend the facts to suit their preferences.

Video Games will surpass all mediums in Narrative but not storytelling... Not in plot !

I'm sorry but like I said, anygame that attempts to convey the creators specific series of events is doomed from the very beginning. every other medium will always better at that than games ever will be. But I'm not saying continuing this way will lead to failure, its just going to be like every other popular trend.

@Lulu_Lulu: How am I bending facts? It's my opinion that games will become better at storytelling and narrative than other entertainment mediums. How does the phrase "I believe" translate into it being a fact as opposed to opinion? If you don't agree with me, that's fine, but that's your opinion. Like I said, if you don't see it that way, then okay. Great. You're not alone. Just know that I feel the opposite and live with it.

The games I play that have great stories tend to have great gameplay too, or tend to be well paced.

@mastermetal777

What is a "Game" ?

Answer that question and you've already bended the facts.

@Lulu_Lulu: No, the question is what is a "video game" and the definition of that has been changing ever since the medium was first born. Games might have a set definition, but video games have become so much more than the base "game" definition. And IN MY OPINION, a video game is anything that has visuals, allows you to interact with it in any way, shape, or form, can have a story (or not), and is wholly dependent on player input in order to achieve something.

@mastermetal777

It hasn't been changing, the definition was never set to begin with.... Nor do we have a proper definition for it right now..... But as usual many people jump the gun, claiming to know what it is prematurely. People like you, uncomfortable not having an answer and eager to fill in the blanks.

I don't know what gaming is, nor am I in a rush to force a definition from oppinions.

@Lulu_Lulu: To leave it undefined is to leave it too abstract: a word you have an aversion to for some reason.

@Lulu_Lulu: Because games, storytelling, and art are not static concepts with static definitions and can be viewed under multiple lenses for differential interpretation, your stance that some "games" should not be considered "games" and have their own distinct separate category is a stance of forcing something into a definition by opinion, a stance that you claim to oppose. Dynamic concepts evolve overtime, and while sub-categorization helps keep track of movements and changes in a medium throughout history, it doesn't change the general classification. Dadaism is extremely different from the Baroque era; however, both are art. Postmodern literature is extremely different from Romantic Literature; however, both are literature.

As for the question at hand, I will continue to play a game partly out of a completionist tendency. I like to try for a full understanding when reading a book, watching a film, or playing a game. If it's generally bad all around, understanding why it's bad in its entirety and not forming half-completed opinions is a good general practice.

Your question however requires a far simpler explanation. The above explanation would be for a game with no redeeming qualities; however, if there is a redeeming positive quality amidst negative qualities, then that positive aspect is sometimes enough to persist through the game.

That's all well and good if I want to watch a romcom, but the fact is very few fantasy or sci-fi movies come along and even when they do they tend to suck. Movies just aren't a good medium for telling those kinds of stories because they often involve sweeping storylines with many characters and locations...it's just too much for a 2 hour movie and the special effect cost is through the roof. It took 12 hours to tell the LotR story even though a lot of elements were cut out and the LotR Trilogy is pretty thin story-wise compared to modern fantasy epics. Compare that to A Song of Ice and Fire which has taken HBO a little over 40 hours just to get through the first 3 books and plenty has been cut out of that as well.

So if you want fantasy and sci-fi plots, video games are way better at it than movies. There's just less limitations. And even if you concede an advantage to movies should they want to try their hand at these genres, it doesn't change the fact that hollywood writing is abysmal. And on TV, they're barely trying anymore...everything is a reality show because that way the producers don't have to pay for actors or a script. So it's easy to say "just watch a movie," except that there's no movies and nothing on TV to watch.

Back when I was a big devilmaycry fanboy I did this. I loved the story so much that I didn't care about the mediocre gameplay in devilmaycry 4. I wanted to see what happened to Dante and I wanted to see if his brother Vergil would come back. It's been a long time since I've played through a game in which I didn't enjoy the gameplay, but If I enjoyed the story enough then I probably would.

@psx2514:

Yes, but only if the game is short. About three months ago I slogged through Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons just to finish the story. I doubt I would for a game that's more than around four hours long.

@mastermetal777

This abtsraction is necessary, its not designed to patronize.

@Minishdriveby

True.... But you should know that what your talking about far exceeds gaming..... Games are not so undefined that they can accomodate such drastic differences in concepts..... Call them what they really are... Interactive Entertainment. Don't force the term "Game" on them. Not everything can fall under that category.

The only game where I couldn't be bothered to actually play, when I was interested enough in the story, was Hitman. I just watched a 1.5 hour movie of all the cutscenes and gameplay dialogue on youtube. Otherwise, I'm not normally that bothered by gameplay for the games I actually care about the story for. Some games I've given up completely cus there was neither story, nor gameplay to keep me interested. I probably finish 95% of the games I play though.

@Ish_basic

Movies can tell any story, just because the type of story you like doesn't exist is not the medium's fault. besides you're too hung up on the "movie" part, I'm merely using "movie " to desrcibe all passive experiences, it can be a book, a graphic novel, a tv series, a mini series, etc.

Passive mediums will always do storytelling better because telling a story is a passive experience, it requires one person to talk and the other to shut up and listen, it doesn't require any input from them. The teller is trying to convey his specific series of events, and the more specific they are, the less input is required from the audience. Games are more than welcome try to do this aswell but it would at the cost of interactivity. This is where the push for altering the definition of what a game is comes from, Games are suppose to do Narrative in their own way, not by mimmicking other mediums simply because thats what we've grown use to.

Oh but it's not the same thing at all. With a movie or a TV show you're just an observer, merely watching what happens. But a game puts you inside the story, makes you feel more involved and a part of the world that the story takes place in.. And some genres like RPG even lets you change how the story plays out. They are both completely different experiences.

I played some games with decent gameplay, but couldn't go on because the story was terrible and I wasn't invested in it. However keep in mind that it really depends on the game and how it presents itself. Just Cause 2 is all about making things explode, so the bad story didn't stop me from having fun at all. Same thing in games where there's virtually no story and the whole focus is on gameplay, like super meatboy. But in a game like Assassin's Creed 3 the story is a major part of the game experience, and it was awful, so even if the gameplay is fun I can't play something like that.
On the other hand, I haven't really encountered any games with great story and horrible gameplay.

@Lulu_Lulu: And you think that interactive storytelling doesn't exist? Video games are always pushing the boundaries on how stories can be told. It doesn't all have to be something passive that you sit down for. Video games drop you right in the action so that you experience the story instead of watching or reading about it. And to me and a lot of people, that's more appealing than just letting it all happen without any sort of input. After all, if story was as passive as you think it is in video games, then it would just keep going even as you, the player, dies in battle. The story cannot happen without input in a video game, no matter what that input is. Hell, even in games like Dear Esther, The Stanley Parable, and Gone Home, the story cannot move on without you actually taking steps and walking around to move. A passive story would just let it happen without any control. Video games, by their very nature, allow you to move the story along and make it possible.

It should be noted that other mediums have tried interactive storytelling as well; it's not just a method used in video games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_Stories

@Minishdriveby: While that's true, video games are the best medium to utilize it to its fullest potential.

I agree.

Boy, I could not disagree with this more. I could've agreed with the above, all up until TLoU hit and showed me that gameplay can not only be incorporated as a benefit to a narrative, it can be essential to it. TLoU moved me, and I've never really been able to articulate as to why until just recently. Admittedly, it's not at all original. In fact it's pretty standard stuff, but the execution is nailed. Every other narrative-focused game I played prior was always very distinct in its separation of gameplay and story. Always a large disconnect and disparity between them. TLoU changed this.

The true brilliance of Naughty Dog's work is that they were able to provide a feeling of continuity between actively participating and passively experiencing, because nearly every mechanic (as well as its presentation) gave conveyance of what the story was telling. The melee engine, for instance, truly felt like a struggle for life and death....it hit hard. The guns had weight and power, each shot was relevant, and firing a round almost held a sense of significant loss. Scavenging for supplies delivered and reinforced first hand the state of desolation and desperation that pervaded throughout. Gameplay enforced the narrative at every turn. Even tiny things such as the little conversations the player has with other characters, going on while one is doing such simple things as walking from point A to B, helps create that relation far more effectively than any passive experience can ever hope to. Seemingly insignificant things (such as giving Ellie a high-five after a team effort or various optional conversations) to major plot points (carrying an unconscious Ellie out of the hospital while being chased) aids that relation. In Left behind, this is even more exemplified. The costume store, photo booth, brick throwing contest, arcade game, water gun fight. None of those would be nearly so impactful in my caring towards those characters had I simply watched.

The story was so much better due to active participation, that it got to the point that an otherwise generic, forgettable, predictable zombie plot had more of an effect on me than many of the best movies I've seen have. That's all due to me being a part of it, not just watching.

As for what defines a game.....you seem to be saying it's the degree of interactivity that should be the determinant here. That's a slippery slope. In that case, where do you draw the line? Mario? Assassin's Creed? Beyond Two Souls? When does something stop being a game to you? In my view, it's not the amount of interactivity that is at issue, it's the manner and context in which it's implemented. But if it's interactive in any sense, it's a game.

Anyway......it's entirely possible for a teller of a story to convey a series of specific events while at the same time affording a degree of agency to the audience. TLoU is proof this is possible. A story can be a more engaging experience in the interactive medium than a passive one can, it's simply a matter of getting the execution correct and maintaining a sense of parity between what mechanics there are and how they reflect to the player what they see when they are placed in a passive state.

@MirkoS77: And you just described why The Last of Us is my favorite game ever lol.

I agree with both of you completely. I never played a story driven game that I feel really worked until The Last of Us. It's the only one that really nails it. It's just a really difficult balancing act to get story and gameplay to work together. You usually have to sacrifice one for the other, but The Last of Us is the most successful at achieving this than I've ever experienced before.

In the Last of Us, the story adds meaning to the gameplay and the gameplay adds meaning to the story. *thinks back to the ending sequence of winter*

Why watch a film when you can read book?

Games, films and books are all very different from each other. They tells stories in unique ways. The interactive nature of games allows you to have stories that wouldn't be possible in any other medium.

It's insanely rare that I'll play a bad game for the story (since those are often bad too).

If anything I may sometimes play a game for its story-tellingsince I'm sometimes interested in how devs go about doing that, though I'm very against cutscenes, and set-piece driven gameplay.

Because you're being entertained. A great story can entertain you just as much as great gameplay. Why do people sit in front of a TV or hold a book in front of their face for hours? That ALONE sounds boring, but they do it because they are being entertained by a story.

What movies are capable of is neither here nor there. The fact is the medium pretty much ignores any kind of story that isn't a romantic comedy so that people who like sci-fi or fantasy stories are pretty much compelled to play games or read books for it because in actual practice, these mediums are much better suited to telling such stories. The potential of movies to tell these kinds of stories is irrelevant when they don't even bother. You don't get points for what you can do, only what you actually do. Gaming is better with these kinds of stories if only because it actually tries to tell them.

Also, don't give me that shit about "by movies, I meant books." Seriously...when you get caught in a flimsy argument, you don't get to just change the definition of a word. Gonna start referring to you as "congressman Lu_lu."

@Ish_basic: "congressman Lu_Lu" I actually like the sound of that, for the exact reasons you mentioned lol. But trying to argue/debate with this guy, I've learned, is about as constructive as building a house of cards next to a high-speed fan.

Ahh Lulu sometimes you troll so bad that ts actually kinda sweet. But no storytelling isn't an passive experience its actually quite a active experience and you know this so why even begin to claim anything else.