Forums / Media / Video Games

From reading/watching most of the Fire Emblem: Engage reviews that have come out so far, an early consensus seems to have formed saying that the game has great gameplay but a weak story. I think this could generate an interesting discussion on whether or not great gameplay alone could save a game that otherwise has a poor story (and whether gameplay or story is more important for a video game).

I asked some general questions on the FE: Engage article, but as of this writing at least, didn't receive some answers, so I'll ask them again in the Forum (even though it's not really that active these days):

Can fantastic gameplay save a game that otherwise has a terrible story (and vice-versa)?
Any examples of such games?
If you were a game dev with limited resources, would you place more emphasis on polished gameplay or story and how would you try to balance the 2 out?

I'll try to take a crack at the 3rd question:
I would personally focus alot of my creative and capital resources on creating a game that is fun or at least engaging to play. The story I would try to execute as best as I could even if it may be cliched or otherwise weak. Basically, my philosophy is, if you're making a video game, make a video game. You could make a game that's all or virtually all story, but at that point, you might as well just make a movie or something.

Oneechanbara Z2 comes to mind. Its story is definitely far from what I would call "award-winning"--it's nothing offensive, but nothing exceptional either--but damn if the gameplay, coupled with the soundtrack, didn't sell it for me; a visceral, blood-spattered, cathartic experience through and through.

Speaking of the Simple 2000 series, Earth Defense Force also comes to mind, though I'd kinda argue that its writing is good because it's so B-movie-esque and not in spite of it; there's a charm to it.

I do think gameplay is a lot more important than story; i.e. good gameplay can save a bad story, but without it, even a tearjerker can feel like a slog to experience.

Sonic Adventure 2 has a fairly silly story, but it's still enjoyable. I would say the gameplay is what makes the game worth it, though.

I think the common consensus is that gameplay matters more, but a bad story and cast can really sour the experience. Aesthetics matter more than many would like to admit, as they are what draws people in and keeps many invested. Good writing can make more tedious or frustrating sections more bearable, but there is a limit to how much it can do.

Really depends on the specifics. Exactly how awful or good something is will definitely matter. As will things like genre. Generally, great gameplay can save awful (or non-existent) story. Because it'll compromise most of your playtime and story is skippable. On the flipside, if it's an exercise in patience to go between the story bits, most people will give up.

Look at Jade Empire. The gameplay isn't unbearable, but it definitely isn't worth playing all for its own. Even if you look at games released around the same time, it's not that great. But the story is amazing.

If I were a dev, I'd first decide what kind of game I want to make and go from there. That said, If I'm gonna do a genre that's more….meaty gameplay-wise, I wouldn't want it to be an afterthought.

I lean towards fun factor, but I think its a little more complicated than that. I do agree with the sentiments above that good gameplay can save a awful or non-existent narrative in games, but there are instances where the opposite was true. Here are 2 examples for arguments sake:

Silent Hill 2' and Deadly Premonition, both have bare bones and janky as fuck combat. While SH2 leaves a lot to be desired in that category, Deadly Premonition is a technical nightmare all around, a game that feels like its coming apart at the seams.

Yet for their "gameplay" failings, they are both remembered fondly because they were incredibly compelling. The characters, the atmosphere, and narrative beats both stuck a chord with audiences and trudged on through its otherwise not-very fun gameplay.

I think in the end this is really a subjective thing

Some people enjoy a good story and are probably willing to overlook subpar gameplay if the story is interesting, but I personally don't think I'd be able to even get through a game if I find the gameplay generally not enjoyable; I know I've dropped games before even though I found the story and writing interesting, just because the gameplay didn't grab me--examples include The Caligula Effect and Tales of Vesperia.

>If it's an exercise in patience to go between the story bits, most people will give up

Among other things, this video here shows one way to blend a story and gameplay together:

The formula of "pure gameplay with cutscenes interspersed in between with gameplay's only purpose being to get to that cutscene" is definitely a flaw to look out for, and was something that affected the quality of some earlier First Person Shooters that came out.

Gameplay and story could both be fantastic, but gameplay can't just be the means to get between 1 cutscene and another, and the way you present both can definitely elevate the quality of a game. And given the examples the video provides, I think that's why the original Modern Warfare (COD4 back in the day) is still remembered. Looking back, the story was a bit disjointed and didn't really get to fully explore its premise, and the gameplay formula got stale as it was run to the ground over the years, but all of it was packaged in a way that immersed the player in the gameplay and story experience it had

A bit of a copout answer I guess, but it really depends on the game overall. Like it was already mentioned above but Deadly Premonition is a game that has janky as hell gameplay and more technical problems than a Bethesda game, but people still love it for the characters and overall plot. Meanwhile pretty much every mainline Mario platformer has a really bare bones narrative but are beloved because the gameplay, controls, and level design are top notch.

Getting a good balance of both can be tricky but I have seen some people who will decry a game for one area even if another is quite strong. Like it's generally agreed the gameplay and visuals of The Last of Us 2 is really well made, but the narrative is a huge point of contention when compared to the first game. Similarly I've seen some "walking simulator" games that get high praise for the narrative but are criticized for having minimal gameplay (I think Gone Home is the most famous example).

Walking simulator games like The Stanley Parable can be good. Just don't pretend that your walking sim is the best thing to happen to gaming since… whatever the equivalent of sliced bread is in the Video Game industry (you could also say that about lots of other games as well).

A bit of a copout answer I guess, but it really depends on the game overall. Like it was already mentioned above but Deadly Premonition is a game that has janky as hell gameplay and more technical problems than a Bethesda game, but people still love it for the characters and overall plot. Meanwhile pretty much every mainline Mario platformer has a really bare bones narrative but are beloved because the gameplay, controls, and level design are top notch.

Getting a good balance of both can be tricky but I have seen some people who won high jackpots on bigwinwall.com. Like it's generally agreed the gameplay and visuals of The Last of Us 2 is really well made, but the narrative is a huge point of contention when compared to the first game. Similarly I've seen some "walking simulator" games that get high praise for the narrative but are criticized for having minimal gameplay (I think Gone Home is the most famous example).

Yes I also think a good balance between gameplay and story is important. But in my opinion the emphasis should be more on the gameplay than on the story. Because I remember my favorite games when I was younger and actually I created a lot of story about the game in my head using my own fantasy. That's even more exciting than reading walls of text in the middle of the game. Many people don't have the time to deal with the story forever, but primarily want fast entertainment. That's why I would put 70 % development in gameplay and 30 % in a solid story telling. At least this sells good on the market.

Personally, I don't consider story to have even a smidgeon of the importance that gameplay has. I play a game because I want to play a game, not absorb a story. A nice story might spice up a game, but even aesthetics are better for that purpose in my opinion.

I was hooked by the gameplay of Dark Souls, and later I'd come to consider the story not just unimportant, but an outright liability due to how it seems to be the main reason behind permanently missable content in the series. I guess it's cool to read about, but it's very uncool to lose the opportunity to acquire an extremely useful item without having to spend a few dozen hours of gameplay more to get it because of it. Unskippable cutscenes are a pain, too, but I guess that's more of a design problem than a problem with the actual story.

Also, Scarlet Nexus had a free weekend on Steam a few days ago, and one of the main reasons I was uninterested was how the story consumed so much time compared to what little gameplay I experienced. In about an hour of gameplay, I only got past the first chapter. I don't think all the basic mechanics had even been explained in all that time. Not good when the story only managed to garner any interest from me by the time I'd already gotten tired of its sheer volume.

at the end of the day having a lot of both are good.

A good story can forgive serviceable gameplay.

Examples: Fallout New Vegas, the Walking Dead, Outer Worlds, Outer Wilds

Good gameplay can forgive serviceable story:

Examples: Grand Theft Auto V, Elder Scrolls Oblivion and Skyrim.

Some games can forgo story for pure gameplay:

Examples: Counter-Strike, Team Fortress 2, fighting games

while some games can forgo gameplay for pure story:

Examples: Visual Novels, gone home, Dear Esther.

Honestly the sweet spot for me is that the gameplay is good but the story is accessible at your own pace.

A good example of this would be Smite or Dota 2 where you can read the lore on your spare time but at it doesn't serve as a blockade for the gameplay.