How Much Should A Games Story Count In The Review Score?

We all know that review scores are becoming more and more meaningless to the community as of late, especially here at Gamespot. I feel the reason for this is the inconsistencies from one review to another. The latest example is That Dragon, Cancer. This game was score a 9 here at Gamespot. The reason for the glowing review was the powerful story. But what here the negatives?

Review Here

I would think that clunky controls and glitches would bring the score further down than a 9. Also the reviewer finished the game in 2 hours. Game length was a huge issue for games like The Order 1886 and Ryse, but it's brushed over here in the name of story. Strange.

My opinion is that the 1-10 scale needs to be defined or scrapped all together. Because the way things stand now, the numbers mean nothing. A 2 hour game with clunky controls, glitches and 2 hours in length scoring a 9 cheapens the polished games that scored a 9.

I haven't played That Dragon, Cancer yet but I plan to. I am in no way saying the game is bad. From what I've read so far the story is very powerful and memorable. But what is wrong with scoring the game based on all factors? We've seen good games with network issues at launch dropped in score. It seems as if Indie titles aren't held to the same standard of polish and yet we are asked to give them the same shot as AAA budget titles?

How important is story for you? How much weight would you give it in your reviews?

It should matter a lot less than gameplay. Good gameplay can carry a bad story. A good story can't carry bad gameplay

Depends on its subjective weight in the game's overall package. You can use light story elements to make your game better than it had any right to be (Binary Domain, PoP 2008), you can integrate it into the gameplay to make it a deeper experience than its gameplay entitles it to be (Spec Ops, Hotline Miami), you can give **** all about it but let it interrupt your gameplay (Call of Duty Ghosts, Uncharted 3), etc.

A story is an integral carrot on a stick for many people. Where its value lies in a score is subjective, but gameplay is definitely important in an interactive medium. The issue then lies in integrating interesting gameplay into your story, like this game and Gone Home and many others ignore.

Depends on the game. You wouldn't expect a good story from a racing game for example.

I think story might be the absolute last thing I care about in a video game.

So what would you say about putting review scales in categories? Like putting racing games on one scale, shooters on their own and RPG's on their own etc.... Sites like Giant Bomb sort of do this already in the way they give the reviews to the person that excels in that genre. Jeff gets fighters, Dan gets Nintendo games, Austin gets the jrpg stuff and so on. That at least gives us some sort of context for the review number given. Here at Gamespot the numbers are just all over the place.

Eh, I don't think you can peel off different aspects in a game and give each a specific more or less value; the games need to be judged in their totality of fun factor, entertainment, game play mechanics and obvious flaws to what the devs promised or what they tried to achieve and lived up too or failed to deliver the goods.

Even though I believe a game needs to succeed with its gameplay above anything else, how the story should be judged should be based on how heavily it reflects the overall package. If this medium is going to be looked upon as an art form, then the story/narrative like you see in That Dragon, Cancer needs to be properly looked at with a critical lens with gamers willing to take it seriously. We are very much still in the primitive stages when it comes to this all things considered.

Depends on what the game is going for, but the game should always be enjoyable. I dont think That Dragon, Cancer is a good example of giving a game too high of a score for story because of the subject matter though

And there is nothing wrong with that. What are your favorite games recently? I prefer games to actually be a "game" like OlliOlli 2, Rocket League, Trackmania or Trials Fusion. I like high scores and leader boards. I like skill progression beyond just seeing level, hit points or DPS number going up. I like to actually be in control of the action and have my skill represented in what is going on.

This is why MMO's and most RPG's don't always click with me. But games like Mass Effect stuck because I really liked the story. So in my opinion story has a place, but the gameplay itself matters most. And for that reason I cannot understand the love affair with The Witcher 3. That game is "bad" imo. MGS V is FAR more polished and playable but I know people don't like how the story comes off as unfinished later on. I don't care about that as much because of how good the game plays.

Here's your answer: 0%

It depends on how much a game focuses on story.

Witcher 3 would not be game of the year if it had shit writing. Half that game is exploring that world and talking to other people. If that wasn't enjoyable, then it would be a shit game altogether. I think the same applies for Metal Gear. If it wasn't enjoyable to watch those long-winded cutscenes and exposition, then it would be a huge failure. At the same time, a game like Vanquish has completely shit characters and story, but the actual movement and shooting make up for that. You can skip all the cutscenes in Vanquish and still have an amazing time all around. You play a game like Vanquish to be and feel like a badass, you're not there to watch other lameos pretend to be cool.

There are games that are meant to be played for it's story; as a result, the other aspects are expected to be set aside. With that said, to answer your question, it depends on what game.

Depends on the game.

Here's the reality: the numbers are always and have always been meaningless. A random numeric the reviewer pulled out of his ass to try to poorly capture a value on how much he liked thing.

Recently? I don't game as much, but I really like Bloodborne, and I just got done playing Majoras Mast 3d which may come off as hypocritical as I basically just said stories in games are insignificant as I personally think it has one of if on my favorite story and writing in a game.

But in general I like action games mostly. Action, action adventure, action rpg, etc. When it comes to stories I do like some of them but a lot of the time when they don't take themselves seriously like MADWORLD, Wonderful 101, Mario and Luigi series. I liked the Hotline Miami stories also. I agree with you that The Witcher 3 is pretty lame, people are pretending like the side quests and story makes it this amazing masterpiece for gaming. I admit that I'm ridiculously impressed by what the studio did but with such boringly generic combat combined with clunky controls especially in a game with a lot of fighting in it, there is just no way I could possibly say it's one of the greatest games of all time, and I don't think the story is all that great in it either.

I do also have to add that story did ruin a game for me which is Metal Gear Solid 4, I just couldn't put up with the awful cut scenes to get to the actual game. I don't want to be fooled again, but it's hard because from what I heard 5 is a really great game, I might have to get it.

Depends on the game. If it's a narrative based game I can pass it for the stories sake. So it depends on how focused the game is on something and if it succeeds in doing that. If I have to nitpick every aspect of the game I'd sit here and give TWD a 5 out of 10 for its weak ass gameplay.

Gameplay should be the most imperative detail a developer focuses on. But it's understandable if a game like TWD and what it's going for is different than your normal game.

What's better; books or film?

Completely depends.

Here's a better question, how much f**ks should i give about someone else's opinion regarding a video game?.. answer: zero f**ks

i enjoyed a lot of 5 or lower/10 games than i did with 8 and above games, reviews are useless and have zero impact on the real world just sayin

Pretty sure some people actually read reviews before buying a game

Never said otherwise

That's because gamers don't like to read. They care more about the number than the reasoning behind it.

The answer there is obvious. Film! Who has time to read?

Peoples who got tons of some smarts?

Depends what kind of game it is. If it's an RPG or point and click adventure game, heavily. If it's a racing or fighting game, not at all.

To me, gameplay is the foundation. If that isn't strong enough or is constantly pushed around by other aspects, everything collapses.

PS gamers will say a lot while Xbox gamers will say none.

Obviously it depends how important a good story is to you in a game... For me, it's very important. And I can usually play through an average game gameplay-wise, if it has a good story. A good example are games like David Cage's games or even Telltale's games.

No, because everyone sees any given story through their own eyes and unique perspective. They should stick to things like technical aspects, game mechanics, level design and pacing.

For me, it depends on the genre. Adventure games, 1st person shooter games and RPG of the like can't survive without a good story. So that's very important to me but for acrade games and even classics like Mario, game play matters most.

I agree with this. I mean, sure, some games are pretty much meant to be played for the story and in that case it should hold a lot of weight on the score. But most of the time it kinda bothers me when reviews heavily critique the story. Because I am looking for facts. To see whether or not I may enjoy it. Story is almost 100% subjective. I can't be convinced by someone that a story is good or bad. So I don't like it when people try.

If I am reading a review, I just want to know how it plays, how it looks, or other factors that are factual.

Balance, you heard of it?

Yep, I don't want to be told a game is politically incorrect because it's disrespectful to women, or their isn't enough minorities in them etc. or told a story is "convoluted". Gosh I hate that word, it usually means someone couldn't keep up with the story.

To score a game on its story is a broad assumption on the reviewer's part that we all see things exactly as he or she does.

I dont put much stock into story, if its good its a bonus. Gameplay first.

@finalstar2007: but you have notoriously bad taste.

And reviews very much have an impact in the real world

in the end...every review is subjective, is not like there is a formula for it anyway

I see that, sometimes a story can be annoying and ruin the experience more like in Max Payne 3. Sometimes a lacking story like in Dark Souls or Half Life has no bad effect since gameplay is so good. Sometimes an amazing story makes the experience more satisfying and enjoyable like in Witcher or Dragon Age or Mass Effect. So, yes it depends on the game.

By that reasoning, there should be no art criticism at all. If you were trying to critique a painting, you wouldn't be able to say anything other than "yep, that's definitely paint alright."

Depends entirely on the game. A concept that is too nuanced for this forum apparently.

Art is made for discussion with the sole purpose of inspiration or statement. Video games are much more interactive, so they can be enjoyed in many different ways. A reviewer can't judge a game on how it inspires a player, so all they can do with any degree of accuracy is relate the objectives.

It depends entirely on how story-driven or gameplay-driven a game is.

If a game is entirely story-driven and has very little gameplay, then it should be judged primarily for the quality of the story, since that's the focus of the game.

If a game is entirely gameplay-driven and has very little story, then it should be judged primarily for the quality of the gameplay, since that's the focus of the game.

However much the reviewer thinks I suppose. They're basically writing an opinion piece and then trying to boil that opinion down to a number, as dumb as that concept is.

The amount of weight that a story carries can vary wildly from one gamer to the next. Many gamers consider the story one of the more important aspects. Me? I'm usually just like "**** when will this shit end so I can get on with the gameplay!"

Like with MGSV, so many gamers were let down by the story, whereas I gave no fucks and just wanted to play the damn thing. I'm the kind of guy where if the story is actually enjoyable, it's just a bonus. So obviously you would get vastly differing reviews between people coming in with different interests.

I mean, if everyone was a good critic, it might be different. You would be evaluating every facet of a game and judging those individual aspects according to what value they truly bring or take away from the experience based on how important they are to the experience.

Thing is, most of these reviewers aren't actually critics, so it really doesn't matter. Beyond that, the concept of chalking an experience up to a number is really just absurd. What you take away from the write up or video should be most important.

That has nothing to do with anything. A reviewer can't account for how a movie, book, painting, or photograph will inspire the audiencer either, all they can do is give their personal take on the material, properly supported with backup evidence. The very fact that people don't always agree is precisely why discussion is important in the first place. And don't try to say that video games are different. The very fact that such discussions take place proves that there's enough material to be discussed.

Seriously, it just seems nuts to me that people are saying that people whose job it is to critique art shouldn't critique certain things just because not everyone will agree. The fact that people disagree is all the more reason why that kind of stuff SHOULD be discussed.

Discussion is one thing. It's fine and should be encouraged. But reviews are a different breed of animal. In the game industry, reviews are a final judgement on the product. You wouldn't want Bob Ross reviewing your game would you? He'd say something like "look at all the preeeety treeees! They make me feel happy. 10/10.".

very little to be honest. i have played plenty of games where there is no story and its a cracking game. i have played relatively few games where i powered on throught it because of the story.

a good story, well told, can be a nice extra push in a game but it can never be the defining elemement that makes up a major chunk of the score. this is true of all genres, from RPGs to RTSs.

its also the well told bit that is key. a score should automatically go down if the game is taking control away from the player for extended periods just to tell its story for example. unskippable cutscenes should also be a hanging offence.

Bob Ross can do that all he wants, that just makes him a shitty critic. Not because he's wrong, but because he hasn't even discussed anything.

If anything, you just supported my point. It's entirely possible to critique art without making ANY judgements. However, if you're going to make judgements (as is typically the case with reviews), then it's kind of important to properly support that judgement based on your interpretation of the content. After all, your intrepretation of the content plays a very big role in the judgement that you arrive at, so it's kind of important to explain HOW you arrived at that judgement. Your hypothetical Bob Ross example is precisely why these kinds of discussions should take place even in reviews. "Look at all the pretty trees! They make me feel happy! 10/10" That's just an item from a checklist. There's no discussion of why the trees are pretty, what statement the overall work conveys, or if "pretty trees" support the work's overall statement.

Eh, I am not really a fan of art criticism, honestly. I don't see the point. I never read movie reviews or anything like that. There is nothing they can say that would influence whether or not I will see it.

Video games are the only reviews I would ever consider looking at to decide whether or not I should get the game. And I prefer them to stick to the facts as much as possible.

But that's the only thing that matters!

ITT: The "reviews should be objective" nonsense yet again.