I really don't care for the story. I just wish they would give a movie with the game I can watch beforehand so I know the story, and then just start playing. If I wanna play, I wanna play and not sit passivily through cutscenes >(. I also really hate repetetive tasks and just walking from A to B on a map so the next mission can begin. I just want action tbh. But I'm trying to be more patient and see some of the cutscenes in games nowadays.
I guess it's pretty much all about gameplay for me. But ofcourse atmosphere does a whole lot. And to have the greatest game, you simply must succeed in all parts that make up a game ;).
Rocket League makes for a good example on how I like a game to be, just plain fun.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want a game that will actually pull you into the story, I suggest the Bioshock trilogy. That trilogy changed my gaming views.
Comment has been collapsed.
I recently got Bioshock 1 from a trade =D. So was thinking of starting that one up. Hopefully it won't take this long again to get Bioshock 2 & 3 in a trade.
Comment has been collapsed.
The storyline is the most important part of a game. I can't find anything more important than that. Without a storyline, I could hardly even call it a game.
Comment has been collapsed.
TBH I agree with ya.Gameplay serves to story I think.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe. But I always check the story before buying a game. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Says a guy with 1,068 hours on record in CSGO...
Your second most played game after CSGO is Chivalry: Medieval Warfare with 231 hours. I assume Football Manager 2014 has a deep storyline? Rocket League as well, best story ever.
You seem to enjoy a lot of games that have very minimal to no story.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is this supposed to be funny? I didn't laugh. I play cs:go for the drops (yep, I'm greedy) and whenever friends tell me to play. Chivalry was the only multiplayer game I actually enjoyed, but then I quitted it forever. I had Football Manager in a time period when I had almost no games at all, that's the only reason why I was playing it. I only play Rocket League when a friend tells me to play with him. Can we talk seriously now? Add up the hours I've played in all single-player games (real time, not farm time) and you'll see how much time I spent there. I mean, just do the comparison of how many single player games I've played and how many multiplayer games I've played.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's more like the other way around, can't have a game without GAMEplay. It's kinda in the name. Which is why I despise walking simulators.
Comment has been collapsed.
Having played Remember Me, I can assure you that shitty gameplay cannot be overcome by a great story
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you're missing the point. A good story can carry a mediocre game, but can't overcome bad gameplay. On the other hand, great gameplay can manage without any story whatsoever.
So, while the story can be a big reason for playing a game, the gameplay still has to be at least decent.
Comment has been collapsed.
How can a great gameplay manage without a story? Games without story are repetitive and eventually become boring. Maybe both of them (gameplay and story) need each other to make a good game. When one of them is absent, then the game isn't really good.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends on the game. an FPS without a story becomes boring very quickly. But a platformer or a puzzle game can manage perfectly fine without any story at all.
And what you said about becoming repetitive and boring makes me think of e.g. TellTale games, which are entirely story driven. Even though gameplay is minimal, the execution is quite well. Once the story is over, however, there's little reason to replay the game.
All games can eventually get repetitive and boring, even games that are "infinitely replayable", though when that is is partly dependent upon the person and partly dependent upon the genre.
to answer your question "how can a great gameplay manage without a story?", I already gave Tetris as an example, and if that's not enough, look at racing games, sports games, or multi-player games like CSGO and TF2. Believe me, no one is playing those for the story.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course, I never said that story driven games are to be replayed. You play it once and that's enough. The infinitely replayable games tend to get boring obviously. Tetris was good at its time, but don't expect anyone to enjoy it nowadays that there are many other games with storyline. CS:GO and TF2 survive mostly because of their free drops, their market, the opening of their cases, the fact that their keys are a common steam currency, etc. I play cs:go because of the drops, I leave the game open at events where they drop souvenir cases to people that watch it, I use its currency, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
so how does a game like Mini Metro exist? According to you, no one would play it.
CSGO and TF2 don't just survive becaues of the free drops and the market. It's a lot of fun to just play a frag fest from time to time, to just shoot whatever. If not, Quake and Unreal Tournament would never have existed. (nor would TF2 or CSGO)
People still play games like Candy Crush, and I guarantee it's not because of the story. As I've said, great gameplay can succeed without a story (or with a bad one), but a great story with really shitty gameplay won't get played.
Comment has been collapsed.
Isn't Candy Crush a mobile/facebook game? I'm talking about games that you can play in your pc. In mobile/facebook, there aren't many serious competitors. Quake and Unreal Tournament didn't have many storyline games as competitors in their time. They were also quite original games in their time. Also, I don't deny that games without storyline can't be fun. As I said above, I used to enjoy Chivalry, although I ended up quitting it, because it got boring, got angry with the devs, and it also had a toxic community. And most people will end up getting bored with an infinitely replayable game at some point. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
most people will end up getting bored with most games eventually.
and to put things in historic context, Duke Nukem and Unreal had great stories, and predated Quake and Unreal Tournament. It's just that there was, and still is, also a market for games with no story.
I'm not gonna get into "in facebook, there aren't many serious competitors", just think about how ridiculous that statement is.
You could make that statement for mobile, but that simply isn't true anymore, and hasn't been for quite some time.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean it. There aren't many serious competitors. What I mean though is that their "technology" is far behind the pc one. Games with a storyline would thrive in mobile and facebook. Do you see many games with storyline in mobile and facebook? Not really. But as I said below, your examples are irrelevant anyway, because my statement was for pc games specifically.
Comment has been collapsed.
Games without story are repetitive and eventually become boring
And the opposite argument can be made. Games with a story are finite and once you finish that there's no reason to play it anymore.
It all comes down to the genre. Some genres do not even require a story or have a very minimalistic one like puzzle games(Portal anyone?) while genres like adventure and rpg need good ones to attract an audience. However regardless of the genre a game with bad gameplay ends up being a bad game cause no matter what other great aspects exist in that game if you have to bypass a few bugs and deal with horrible and unrersponsive commands it will ruin your fun and you'll end up more frustrated than pleased.
this is just for the sake of argument btw, not saying you are wrong to prioritise anything other than story if that's the aspect you're more interested in, it's all highly subjective anyway
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep, as I said above, games with a story aren't supposed to be replayed. So what though? Good games aren't meant to be played infinitely.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ffs. You generalize too much, man. xD Chess isn't even necessarily a pc game. Chess started as a board game hundreds of years ago and it's fun because you have to use your brain. How can a game actually compete with chess? And chess has more fans of its board game version rather than its pc game version. Chess started existing without any serious competitors and survived because it's for thinkers and because you can play it no matter where you are (outside, in a cafeteria, in a park, in home, etc.). Please, stick with the pc games, because I'm talking about pc games all this time. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
you said "good games aren't meant to be played infinitely". I brought up chess to directly refute that statement.
If you want to be specific to pc games, until recently, games didn't play for that long because of hardware limitations - older games weren't compatible with newer systems, and newer hardware allowed for much better games. But StarCraft is probably the oldest game I can think of that was still getting played for years upon years, and there the story is minimal. Warcraft was meant to be played damn-near infinitely, and is still chugging along (that one does have a deep story, I think). TF2 has been chugging along forever and a day. Civilization was meant to be infinitely replayable, and there are people who've been playing for 25 years and one game has actually lasted over a decade
Comment has been collapsed.
I was just pointing out that that argument is flawed cause both sides are true. I'm gonna use the telltale example that I saw above too. I can pick and binge play a Telltale game in one day(they are usually around 10h long) while I can play Banished or Cities: Skylines( which have no story other than a basic setting) for weeks getting the same enjoyment out of them as i did with the Telltale game which pretty much is pure story.
As mentioned above it all comes down to the genre. Sometimes a story is needed, sometimes it's not. When it is present in the game we agree it should be good.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know, I know. In the end, it depends on each person's opinion. Each person likes different things that another person could even detest. Well, Telltale games aren't 10 hours long. o.O I remember them being quite small. 1 or 2 hours long.
Comment has been collapsed.
i actually give some value to the download. it's like when you like the travelling part of the trip. /nonsense
Comment has been collapsed.
1-gameplay should be funny and if the game it's a grindfest should be really funny to do it and have always te atmosphere of you get a progress.
2-grindfest like black desert isn't funny for example, but grindfest like diablo 2 it's really funny. in other hand grindfest like diablo 3 = pure shit.
3-history should be good because if it's bad you lose interest pretty fast and probably in a long game like RPG you finish whitout finish the game
4-graphics i don't care but i start to call a bit of nice graphics like Suikoden V game.
5-complicated systen in games??? i think no one like that because just look to the past and see games ultra simple are the most popular.
cs:go
super mario bros
rocket league
and a long etc.....
6-conclusion the game need a good balance between all. but the most important are the gameplay because if the gameplay it's pure shit = history don't care nothing because you gonna drop it at some hours.
for example diablo 2 game don't have a good history in reality, but you know what? the gameplay, the rewards, etc... are that nice that after 15 years people still play that game. they made mods and private server whit mods etc....
and the content of the game it's poor compared whit actual games but people still playing it and returning to playing it.
for the love of god there's still oficial servers up after 15 years. just tell me how many games after 15 years still have oficial servers up whitout paying month suscriptions.
Comment has been collapsed.
If no one liked complex systems, games like Crusader Kings II wouldn't exist
Comment has been collapsed.
Well obviously there's people that like that type of games but it's a form of talk. i wanted to mean that complex system it's the least important for a game and isn't the most important part of a game, i can say it's the worst important part (hope i used the correct words and can understand me, i'm spanish soo i don't know full english lenguage)
Comment has been collapsed.
I get what you're coming at, I think most people like pick-up-and-play. A steep learning curve is a pain in the ass, and only the very best games can get away with needing 10+ hours just to figure out how to play the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dialogues are strangely important to me. Storyline comes next.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think I agree. I can forgive a bad story as long as the dialogues in the game are amusing.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's partly the reason why I prefer games like ... let's say Tales From The Borderlands to Life Is Strange. The quality of the dialogues are miles apart (for me personally at least).
Comment has been collapsed.
Story > Gameplay > Atmosphere > Music >>> Graphics
Comment has been collapsed.
Gameplay is the single most important part of a game. If it's not fun to play, I just won't play it. there are a handful of exceptions, where the rest of the package is so fantastic as to make up for weak gameplay; but that's exceedingly rare
Atmosphere depends a lot on the type of game. It can be huge in horror/suspense games/moments, but be next to useless in, say, the vast majority of puzzle games and platformers.
Story is similar to atmosphere in that it varies from game to game, but different in that it's a lot less genre-specific. There are great games with no story, or none worth paying attention to, and there are games made all that much better because of the story.
The "Complex System", as you put it, should only be there because it's integral to the game, but should be viewed as a sub-genre. RPGs, Strategy and Simulation games can run the gamut from fairly simple to incredibly complex, and people like them for different reasons. Diablo and Baldur's Gate are contemporaries, but shouldn't be confused as being similar types of games. Likewise,games like Heroes of Might and Magic or King's Bounty are not at all in the same category as to Dawn of War or Company of Heroes. People play Europa Universalis or Crusader Kings because of the complexity.
As for graphics, well, they can't make a bad game good, but they can make a good game bad. I'm old-school, so I barely care about graphics, but if you screw that up, it still matters. That being said, graphics can make a good game better. And in some genres, it's almost a requirement.
Comment has been collapsed.
All of them, if one is bad it's enough to ruin an otherwise great game. If it has a story I want it to be engaging and immersive, the visuals have to be appealing(not necessarily cut edge but I'm sick of all those 8-16bit games coming out nowadays, you have the technology to do better, use it!), the gameplay mechanics and controls have to be working well, the voice acting has to be decent if it is present, the music cannot be annoying but above all for me likeable characters. If I play a game that puts me in control of a character or a team of them I need to be able to relate to them or at least wanna see where the story takes them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Generally, when I see 8-bit graphics on a modern game, I assume the game isn't any good. There were a handful of very good/clever retro homage games that were wildly successful, so now a bunch of uncreative developers equate the 8-bit graphics with success (forgetting that those games were successful because they were damn good, either despite weak graphics, or because the graphics were intentional for the atmosphere).
Success breeds copycats, and a lot of copycats only copy the most superficial aspects of the successful games, and barely even notice the "secret sauce" that makes the game great.
Comment has been collapsed.
For those around long enough:
How many space invader clones came along before Galaga? How many platformers sucked in the '80s? Doom clones, Diablo clones, head-to-head fighters dominated the '90s. not-GTAs in the 2000s, etc. etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Totally agree there. There are some of these games that were very good and it was quite appropriate with their theme. There's also the vast amount of RPGMaker games coming out all the time, some also being good. And the nostalgia some of those brought was enough to even reel me in. But unfortunately those are the exceptions :\
Comment has been collapsed.
yep. for those early successes, the graphics were integral to the theme or gameplay. Minecraft is a great example that isn't retro but still needed retro graphics to work. On the other end of the spectrum, RPGmaker games are limited graphics wise, and the successful ones are successful despite the graphics, not because of it.
But when 8-bit or retro graphics are the first thing mentioned in the game's description, it's a clear signal the game sucks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good controls, a good story, and a consistent feel. That's enough for me to really enjoy a game. I don't really care about audio, I can always mute it and play music. And when it comes to graphics, as long as I can tell what's going on and read the text on the screen, I really don't care whether it's the most beautifully-rendered Elder Scrolls game... or Adventure on the Atari 2600.
Comment has been collapsed.
I find I can play almost any game as long as it has a good story.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dream game
-
Consistence, well explain, and moving story (especially story-driven game), twist is plus, correspondence art is plus
-
Replay-ability (mostly for casual) or long game
-
Challenge, achievement, quest, high score, secret, everything about motivation (or other motivation in story based)
-
Game mechanism + control : easy too understand but not so easy, more advance mechanic provided during game progress, linear learning graph, unique is plus
-
Music and graphical art : fit to the story, it's key for creating good atmosphere to enhance the story
-
On Multiplayer, all about balance
idk what am i talking about
Comment has been collapsed.
All of them, but not necessarily at once, it depends on the game. I can't pick one as my favorite because it just depends on what kind of mood I am in and what I currently feel like playing.
-
Sometimes I enjoy games that are almost 100% atmosphere. These games usually have good visuals and can range from no story to a really good story. Walking simulators usually fit into this category.
-
Sometimes I enjoy really good platforming. These games can have any quality graphics and don't require a story. This could be something like Super Meat Boy.
-
Sometimes I just want to shoot things in a FPS like Doom.
-
Sometimes I enjoy a FPS with really good controls for competition such as Counter Strike.
-
Sometimes I just want a really good story and the graphics are not as important. Most point and click games fall into this category.
It's not easy to do, but if I had to pick one as my favorite, it would probably be atmosphere.
Comment has been collapsed.
I value interactivity over all. Games should keep to minimum things that are here just for decoration. Every item should be interactive in a meaningful way (not just destroyable) and NPCs should react accordingly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Gameplay is the most important part of the game for me and I can forgive bad story so long as the game is otherwise blast to play. When it comes to graphics I think they should fit the game. I like pixel graphics, hand-drawn, 3D, pretty much any type of graphics and artstyle but it HAS to fit the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
The photosensitive epilepsy warning, of course! :)
Joking apart, gameplay is always king for me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Everything is important, one thing fails and it all comes crumbling down. Multiplayer is unimportant to me unless I specifically play that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Gameplay first, everything else after.
Where it should be said that for different genres things weigh in at different levels of performance.
There really isn't any reason to play a visual novel/interactive movie type game if the story isn't good, point & click adventures (and HOGs) really need a cohesive story to weave the various puzzles together and to weave hints into the dialog without breaking the flow of the game.
On the other end of the spectrum, there's score-chasing games like Tetris, Pac-man or the average shmup, which get by perfectly well without a plot showing up in-game. Or outside of it for that matter.
Well, unless you really think Pac-man needs a story like this.
Comment has been collapsed.
The graphics?The story?The gameplay?The complicated system like Baldur's Gate?The atomosphere the game creates?Or 'I just want to join multi-play game and shoot'?
Comment has been collapsed.