Are you a Storyfag or a Gameplayfag?

[PorkyThePaladin]

I think the answer to this is somewhat nuanced. For example, a lot of people here might answer gameplay, but PST is the #1 game on the codex list, and imagine a game which has great combat and exploration but the story is about a circus clown searching for his one true love in a sheep barn, would you be really able to get into a game like that? So there is a bunch of stuff to consider. How good is the story exactly, how good is the gameplay, how important are the parts that are not as good, and so on. One important reason why PS:T is such a great game is that it minimizes the parts it doesn't do well (the combat is shit but there is very little of it, exploration isn't that great but that doesn't diminish the experience), and there is so much writing that it actually becomes the gameplay in some ways (puzzles solved through dialogue, choosing which options, etc). Likewise, there are lots of great RPGs (like the Gothic games for example), which don't have the greatest writing, but it's good enough to provide the player with the motivation to play the game and let the great gameplay shine through.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

I think the answer to this is somewhat nuanced. For example, a lot of people here might answer gameplay, but PST is the #1 game on the codex list, and imagine a game which has great combat and exploration but the story is about a circus clown searching for his one true love in a sheep barn, would you be really able to get into a game like that? So there is a bunch of stuff to consider. How good is the story exactly, how good is the gameplay, how important are the parts that are not as good, and so on. One important reason why PS:T is such a great game is that it minimizes the parts it doesn't do well (the combat is shit but there is very little of it, exploration isn't that great but that doesn't diminish the experience), and there is so much writing that it actually becomes the gameplay in some ways (puzzles solved through dialogue, choosing which options, etc). Likewise, there are lots of great RPGs (like the Gothic games for example), which don't have the greatest writing, but it's good enough to provide the player with the motivation to play the game and let the great gameplay shine through.

We all disagree on things. I thought PS:T was very story-based. There was so much talking. And the story was weird. I was used to something like Daggerfall where you do a lot of hack/slash and of course Daggerfall was very open-ended. PS:T didn't feel as open-ended, but that's because the world is generally much denser yet smaller, while Daggerfall's is much bigger but sparser. Because there was so much more talking, I didn't feel like I was getting my fill of combat situations. Generally, I like combat, but I prefer tactial situations to be plentiful. Daggerfall's combat wasn't all that good, but I still prefer combat to dialogue. Anyway so I found myself getting bored a lot PS:T and finally quitting. I like Baldur's Gate more. It's good.

You know hte makers of PS:T said PS:T was 75/25 Story/Combat, while BG was 50/50 and Icewind Dale is 25/75--combat heavy. I recently played Baldur's Gate and felt this is true. I haven't tried IWD. I can't locate who exactly said this. Bear in mind I played PS:T before I read that, so it had nothing to do with my negative experience playing it. Because of my bad experience, I researched it. I did the same thing when I read a book and it was terrible. I went to amazon and read reviews.

I don't think I'm centrally an RPG player. To me, epic games are UFO: Enemy Unknown or Jagged Alliance 2 or Master of Orion or Galactic Civilizations or even the Battlecruiser series (if they never crashed) and the X-series by Egosoft.

I also think survival games appeal to me, like Neo Scavenger and somewhat Stalker: SOC. Some RPG-ish games like Realms of Arkania are survival-ish too, even Darklands--I liked Darklands. There's a lot of genre-blurring.

I guess I'm more into tactical/strategy survival gameplay and even some twitch than rolepaying or story.

For many years I've tried to figure out why we all are the way we're. Why're we different. Why do we like different games. It's one thing to figure out what I like, but quite another to understand why someone else likes something. I'm naturaly prejudiced to my own likes and it's easier to research them. It's harder to research something I'm not interested in. It's like having to watch grass grow. But that's how understanding is. It's not fun. Fun has nothing to do with it.

EDIT: I think I enjoyed Soulbringer more than I enjoyed PS:T and nobody remembers Soulbringer.
https://www.gog.com/game/soulbringer

Not to say I enjoyed either very much. Played both about an equal amount. Soulbringer didn't leave a bad taste in my mouth. In fact I've played it twice over the years and I still don't think of it badly. It's an older game with a funky camera and it starts hard. It's not the typical game I like, but compared to PS:T, I think I got more out of it.

It and PS:T came in the same package when I bought them.

 

[Deflowerer]

More of an atmospherefag myself. I am willing to overlook simplicities and flaws if the atmosphere gives me a massive boner (Diablo 1 fits the bill nicely.

 

[sullynathan]

Can't say I am a story fag, some rpgs that I played that would fall under that category had gameplay that was pretty enjoyable. Maybe I'm a gameplay fag, I like talking more about gameplay systems in the long run.

 

[Save Versus Stupid]

70% Gamefag/ 30% Storyfag

Although it's actually more complicated than that. I can play and enjoy a game that has a stupid story if the gameplay is sound, but I can't play a game that has a great story but shitty gameplay.

 

[rhophiehalul78]

Gamerfag. There are few games with great story anyway.

 

[Jools]

Storyfag here. But I'm a whore and I'll play anything, up to 7 times.

 

[ThisNameIsFree]

Gameplay. You can see story only once and books usually better anyway.

 

[aweigh]

neither, i'm a combatfag. the interplay between the game's rpg mechanics != gameplay; however = combat.

op poll is flawed.

besides people change. there was a time when games like Planescape and Baldur's Gate were among my favorites; now I only truly enjoy turn-based grid-based dungeon-crawlers like classic Wizardry. I enjoy the genre so much I play japanese dungeon crawlers without understanding the language because the combat and mechanics are so deep and enjoyable.

right now i couldn't muster the willpower to read through copious amounts of badly written text (PoE), that's a young man's game. I actually finished PoE and I pride myself on skipping every single possible dialogue

I'd rather play wire-frame wizardry 1 on a NEC PC-98 emulator without music than re-play Planescape: Torment. I'm a combatfag through and through.

 

[Konjad]

I like good stories just like I like good gameplay. I can enjoy games with both and enjoy games with either of them. Hence games like Bloodlines, PST and DOS or ToEE are all some of my favourite games

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Most games have terrible story. Good story is nice but not that important. If the gameplay sucks I won't suffer through it even if the story is amazing.

Planescape: Torment is a bad example because it's a game where story informs the gameplay. Talking and interactions lead to combat advantages, powered-up companions, nice items, etc. Exploring the story directly makes the Nameless One better at fighting and killing things. Planescape invented the entire "Solve companion mental problems to make them tougher" mechanic. So really its not an example of a game which eschews gameplay in favor of story, but rather a rare game where they are harmonious.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

but PST is the #1 game on the codex list

And it's fucking ridicolous.

and imagine a game which has great combat and exploration but the story is about a circus clown searching for his one true love in a sheep barn, would you be really able to get into a game like that?

Well if it didn't take it else seriously, I would. Well actuaclly even if it did and the gameplay and content were great, I still would play it happily. :D

One important reason why PS:T is such a great game

No, it's not.

is that it minimizes the parts it doesn't do well (the combat is shit but there is very little of it, exploration isn't that great but that doesn't diminish the experience)

Meaning, it's goddamn tedious to play it.

Likewise, there are lots of great RPGs (like the Gothic games for example), which don't have the greatest writing, but it's good enough to provide the player with the motivation to play the game and let the great gameplay shine through.

Wich makes it a much better game than PS:T.

 

[Mangoose]

Good story comes from good gameplay.

 

[vivec]

I am a 'quality' guy. I like to play games that are made really well in either category.

 

[Jaesun]

Good story comes from good gameplay.

So.. Planescape has a shit story?

 

[Mangoose]

Good story comes from good gameplay.

So.. Planescape has a shit story?

Nope, Planescape's dialogue and its consequences are good gameplay. Those aspects have good mechanics. And results in a good story, because you are involved in it.

PST's setting, storyline, soundtrack, etc are nice but are not why it's a good game.

Edit: OP makes the false assumption that gameplay mechanics only involve combat.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

I wanted to vote #4, but then I just HAD to even out the tally between the first two.

Nope, Planescape's dialogue and its consequences are good gameplay. Those aspects have good mechanics. And results in a good story, because you are involved in it.

PST's setting, storyline, soundtrack, etc are nice but are not why it's a good game.

Dialogue and story are two very different things though. For example, the Divinity games by and large have shit story but excellently written and hilarious dialogue.

It's also usually the setting/world-building that draws one into the story (or not), not the C&C mechanics. That's how it usually works for me anyway - and is the case with a vast majority of JRPGs (cool settings but shit story and/or characters).

Good dialogue mechanics are also important, but they generally fail w/o a decent story. See IWD2.

 

[Mangoose]

Nope, Planescape's dialogue and its consequences are good gameplay. Those aspects have good mechanics. And results in a good story, because you are involved in it.

PST's setting, storyline, soundtrack, etc are nice but are not why it's a good game.

Dialogue and story are two very different things though. For example, the Divinity games by and large have shit story but excellently written and hilarious dialogue.

It's also usually the setting/world-building that draws one into the story (or not), not the C&C mechanics. That's how it usually works for me anyway - and is the case with a vast majority of JRPGs (cool settings but shit story and/or characters).

Good dialogue mechanics are also important, but they generally fail w/o a decent story. See IWD2.

Disagree. In a game, the STORY is that which that the player CREATES via a variety of mechanics. The pre-written storyline is a backdrop. The real story in a game is what the player chooses to do which results in a somewhat procedurally generated end storyline.

Just think about how different the interactions near the end of PST depend on your stats and your choices throughout the game. Especially the final dialogue.

You're missing the point that the most important aspect of story in a game is the story that the game allows the player to create.

This topic made a false dichotomy in that there is only a story only equals pre-written storyline, and that the player cannot evolve his own story via non-combat mechanics.

For example, the Divinity games by and large have shit story but excellently written and hilarious dialogue.

Dialogue does not create story by itself. Dialogue with consequences to said dialogue choices are what create a player story.

Edit: I'm completely at a loss at whether people have played Fallout 1 or 2 in this thread. Like, do you guys actually think combat mechanics are the reason people cared about the story in FO1/2, which is the end consequences of all their choices, whether combat or non-combat, with dialogue that also took into account [Skills] and [Attributes]. <--- Mechanics.

The reason people cared about the story in FO1 and FO2 was because of the journey that your character made and how it influenced the setting.

^THAT. Is a story. Or rather, that is how a story should be defined within the context of a game.

 

[Mangoose]

Oh and JFC, IWD and IWD2 were dungeon-dwelling combat romps.

 

[Maculo]

I fall into storyfag category. I enjoyed PST, Kotor 2, and the Witcher series even though the combat systems were terrible. I can overlook flaws of the game if find the story compelling.

I still like combat, but often I get that fix from RTS games and not RPGs.

 

[Mangoose]

I fall into storyfag category. I enjoyed PST, Kotor 2, and the Witcher series even though the combat systems were terrible. I can overlook flaws of the game if find the story compelling.

I still like combat, but often I get that fix from RTS games and not RPGs.

The thing is that I believe the dialogue, C&C, etc in PST, Kotor2, Witcher, are stuff that I consider mechanics. I wholeheartedly dislike the idea that "game mechanics" must be relegated to combat only.

I assume that you loved PST, K2, and the Witcher because of the character/world interaction (-> procedural storyline) much more than the written "linear" plot.

 

[aweigh]

Jaesun

Grampy_Bone already answered your rhetorical question a few posts above. Grampy_Bone states that PS:T's gameplay is informed (in the literal and figural senses of the word) by its story.

There's no need to get into a mechanical argument about PS:T's gameplay systems. Its gameplay = story: which is NOT the case with the majority of plot-heavy / story-heavy games. PS:T is an EXCEPTION.

And to the poster whose name i'm not bothering to tag: yes i agree it is absolutely ridiculous that PS:T is still ranked #1 as the RPGCodex's favorite RPG. It is a travesty that a more important game to the RPG genre does not occupy that spot.

Treading the line between historical importance and a ranking based on out-of-context merit then I would say the #1 game should probably be one of the Ultima games, or one of the Wizardry games. There would be no RPG genres in neither the West OR in Japan if it weren't for both series.

Coincidentally both series feature perfectly into the storyfag versus combatfag argument.

 

[Mangoose]

PS:T is an EXCEPTION.

Well, yeah, that's why a lot of other games suck harder.

Agreed on Ultima because that is also in a manner procedural "story" because there is also MECHANICAL interaction with the world. In other words, gameplay mechanics extend past combat and even dialogue.

What I would say is non-mechanics story is when the story cannot be affected by you at all, that you are not at all involved.

 

[aweigh]

going solely with your definition i would say that IMO true RPG's have zero need of non-mechanical story yet most are filled to the brim with non-mechanical story because it is a very lazy and effective way to 1) fill game content with filler, i.e. the non-mechanical story; and 2) people who don't enjoy RPG gameplay can usually still read, amazingly enough, so they think the game is for them.
one could snip out every single line of non-mechanical story in Pillars of Eternity and it would only make game BETTER. people who actually *care* about, and i'll continue

EDIT: I do not believe RPG game designers' intention should be "to tell a story". that seems to me the very antithesis of what RPG gameplay is all about. The story should emerge from the gameplay interactions the game allows the player to have with it.

two examples, one from the west and one from japan:

in wizardry the story is made completely by the player as they play game. they have motivation, and there are characters but everything in between is a completely unique story that happens as the player plows through each dungeon floor. this unique story is not a story in the literal sense of the word and this is where we run into trouble with using non-video game nomenclature to describe video game design.

no, the "unique story that happens as the player plows through each dungeon floor" is not a story at all but the players' unique experience that is completely informed by the games systems and gameplay mechanics. the quality of these underlying processes will ultimately determine the quality of the gameplay "story".

over in japan let's take a loot at a game like dragon warrior 1, which was inspired by both wizardry and ultima. the two lead designers of dragon quest 1 created the game based completely on the fact that one was a fan of wizardry and the other was a fan of Ultima and they wanted to create a game but they couldn't do it alone; so they joined forces and the end result was dragon warrior 1 for the NES.

what's the story in DW/DQ? you are a knight and when the game starts the king tasks you with rescuing the princess from the clutches of a dragon-wizard. after that introductory sequence there is _no more non-mechanical story_ ever in the game up until you reach the ending of the game.

 

[laclongquan]

I am a gameplayfag rather than a storyfag. I can play great game with bad story several times but abandon many great story with a bad gameplay experience.

Example: Silent Storm. Many here dislike it because its story, as well as its introduction of mobile mecha infantry into post-WW2 setting. Break their immershun, when you come right down to it. I replay it seven times.
Example: Front Mission 3. Many here dislike it because its story, its characters (being typical Japanese hero archetype). I play it because it's a turnbased. squadbased, character-management, gunporn, mecha game, and that type doesnt grow on trees.
Example: Ring of Red. many players, most of them asian but some of them western, hate it because either it remind them of communist propaganda or real world situation of Korea. Me, I play it because it's a turnbased. squadbased, unit-management, gunporn, mecha game and that type doesnt grow on trees. As for story, pseudo-realism always discomfort the thinskins and the history-ignorants.
Example: Knights of the Old Republic 2. While it's certainly great in writing department, and not bad in gameplay,it's not great either. I abandon it in favour of replaying UFO Afterlight, a game with barebone story but very nice gameplay.

 

[nikolokolus]

I've certainly enjoyed games with good writing and an engaging story, but it has to be pretty fucking good to hold my interest (PST, etc.). Ultimately though, when I look at the games I've played the most and actually bother to replay it has to have some kind of gameplay hook -- either great combat, multipath exploration, or some kind of systemic thing that makes every play through unique.

Case in point, I played Pillars for about 15 hours before I got bored to tears and gave up because of the teeth-grinding mechanics. Conversely, I played through Divinity: Original Sin twice and it has one of the most banal stories I can remember in a CRPG.