Are you a Storyfag or a Gameplayfag?

[Maculo]

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.

I think that is a fair interpretation of game mechanics (if PST had a dialogue wheel.....). As for the second part, I enjoyed PST's plot and character interaction, whereas in K2 and W3, I enjoyed the character interactions. If I genuinely want to learn more about the characters/plot, then I am mostly satisfied with the game. I can slog through combat that I dislike (Witcher 3).

Other examples that come to mind are VMB and Arcanum. I did not necessarily love the combat systems, but I enjoyed settings and the characters.

edit: Nikolokolus reminded me of Divinity:OS. I enjoyed the combat, but after a while it was not enough to hold my interest.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

Well, I don't try to be a "fag" of any kind, but I am most certainly in the gameplay oriented and focused camp right now.

While I do love great stories in RPGs, I have always had a deep fascination with numbers, stats, experimentation in that realm and more.

I absolutely adore games like Baldur's Gate, or Icewind Dale, or Morrowind. These games give you an endless playground of creativity to play around in and experiment with. For that reason I hold that games closer to my heart because that is what I truly love about RPGs.

So, while good stories are nice and can enhance a game, my true fascination is with the gameplay elements and mechanics. That is the bread and butter of RPGs to me.

 

[M. AQVILA]

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.

That's a good point but if the content, aka the setting and story, of that interactivity wasn't creative and interesting then it would be just another boring mechanic. So the story/setting vs gameplay preference still stands. And this comes from someone who doesn't like static storytelling, I can't stand story heavy games without any sort of interactivity. But the same applies to gameplay heavy games.
I prefer a balance between story and gameplay but while I can enjoy a game with a good story and bad gameplay, I can not stand a poorly written game with good gameplay. That's why I voted storyfag.

I can agree that the interactivity was a major reason as to why PST was so good but without the interesting setting and story it would have been pointless.

No I don't. Did you even read the first post? Why do I even bother...

 

[Mangoose]

No I don't. Did you even read the first post? Why do I even bother...

Good question. Maybe you should learn to write.

 

[M. AQVILA]

No I don't. Did you even read the first post? Why do I even bother...

Good question. Maybe you should learn to write.

Oh well, it's not like I can edit/correct it now.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Disagree. [snip]

Well that's a narrow definition if I ever saw one. So linear games without C&C mechanics have no story then?

Oh and PS:T story is still pretty linear with somewhat branching (and wordy) dialogue. But it's really the setting and atmosphere that made it unique, IMO.

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.

I liket FO1/2 for the turn-based combat and the setting The story was pretty 'meh', especially in FO2. Hated the whole 'tribal' angle.

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

IWD2 is a combat romp with a darn good dialogue system. You can't just praise PS:T for "how different the interactions ... depend on your stats" and then dismiss IWD2 because it has the same plus better combat

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.

QFT! Although it's also worth noting that the Pillars' story is taking itself way too seriously at times.

But I have to say that the mechanics have improved by a lot with all the latest patches. Now the only thing preventing me from loading it up are the teeth-grindingly long load times. *sigh*

 

[The Nameless Pun]

This thread doesn't make any sense. Being obsessed with dialogues is a storyfag thing? Really? Dialogues are one of those elements bridging the story and gameplay dichotomy. And what is exploration if not a clever merging of gameplay interactions with various creative locations? And what about choice and consequence, branching stories taking in consideration your various decisions and giving you the power to shape the world according to your tastes. Why do we have these discussions on the codex, really?

 

[Ignatius Reilly]

The dialogue/story should feel like game play. But I've never played a game for the story. Slogging through Xenogears was an experience that scarred me. An extreme example, but a good reminder of what happens when a story takes precedence over anything else. It's a game that has the ability to convert the most devout story fag into a game play fag (what a weird concept btw), possibly to the point they spend the rest of their lives solely playing Call of Duty multiplayer to ensure they are never again subjected to a video game's story.

 

[The Nameless Pun]

From my personal experience I can talk about PST: good story, great characterization, great dialogues. Everything else was piss poor: combat sucked, quests were funny but overall linear and so on and so forth. Why did I keep playing? It wasn't for the story, nor the awesome worldbuilding and atmosphere, it was for the incredibly beautiful dialogues and multiple dialogue choices letting you express yourself in a variety of ways. I repeat, I couldn't care less about story. This, in my humble opinion, is a trivial example of the fact that dialogues are more a gameplay thing than a story thing. Although it depends, in mass effect there are practically no dialogue choices since the game punishes you for not sticking to a particular morality code (paragon or renegade) so dialogues are a part of the storyfag domain in this case. So I would say that choices are what matters in deciding whether dialogue is a storyfag or a gameplayfag thing. Good amount of choices=gameplayfag, few/no choices=storyfag.

I think it boils down to interactivity: if you can interact with something, that something cannot be considered separated from gameplay, it becomes part of it, even if it's the story itself, mirroring player choice with its branching. That's because story by Definition is static while gameplay is dynamic and everything dynamic needs rules covering the basic workings of its machinery. So dialogue (good dialogue with multiple choices) is part of the mechanic component of the game.

Ha, I win.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

We'd have a lot less to argue about if the OP just said "writing" instead of "story"...

 

[Beautiful Clown Painting]

I don't play games anymore, I prefer to talk about them on the Codex.

 

[Klarion]

If I want a good story, I'll read a book.

 

[Llama-Yak Hybrid]

Gameplay only. I don't know how devoid of intellect one must be to play games for story.

 

[l3loodAngel]

I'm curious about the Storyfag to Gameplayfag ratio on the Codex.

Storyfag: Your focus and criticism tends to be directed at the story, setting, characters, art, soundtrack, etc - the creative side. You'll be more likely to complain about the story or the setting over combat mechanics or the loot system.

Gameplayfag: Your focus and criticism tends to be directed at the rules and/or methods designed for interaction with the game - the mechanical side. You'll be more likely to complain about balance or combat mechanics over the story or the setting.

Even if you prefer a balance between the two please pick the one you're leaning towards the most.

Imo story fags are delusional, because you spend more than 50% of time in any RPG fighting and combat encounters. So if the system sucks, encounters suck and combat sucks there is hardly any hope. I say that even as I believe that PST is greatest RPG ever created, but it is singular achievement. There are no games like it. There is almost no comparisons to it's story, setting and writting in games. The only game that come close to it imo is MOTB. However, it falls short due to other shortcomings.

Mechanics (or mostly combat) imo is what makes or breakes a game. That's why BG2 will always trounce Witcher, FONV and other similar titles. No matter how hard phanboys try to "promote" or "vindicate" their garbage. Most of the people who played FO/FO2 know that leveling in those games was plain fun. Now if you add a good/great setting, some C&C and you have a timeless clasic. Sadly, it doesn't work other way around even if there are some exceptions.

I actually believe that companies should stop hiring bullshit designers and start hiring encounter/combat (system) designers as this area is incredibly lacking in new RPGs. Throwing around few mobs for shits and giggles will not get people interested in the game. I believe that it is the main reasong why people don't finish newer games, but replay older games time and time again. I also believe that the reason for this is that the 1990 game designers had PnP knowledge or were a fans of it before getting their game industry jobs and that knowledge translate into better combat design and encounters. They actually understood what they were doing. Therefore, people actually finished the games they made. Nowadays, ADHD and rimming management is sufficient to land a gaming industry job. For this reason alone I will not buy a single RPG from a dev team that does not play PnP or similar games as results will always disappoint, because lack of experiance and knowledge translates into terrible ideas.

TB solves this problem partly as encounters in TB combat are usually picked carefully, because TB combat can become a chore quickly. However, if the combat (system) is designed poorly few people will enjoy the game or let alone finish it. Therefore, TB combat is not a solution and does not guarantee anything if not done properly.

 

[Jacob]

Thinking about it again, it's not "a unique setting that translates to gameplay such as DX or FO" that I really enjoyed. It's the unique gameplay of those games that really matters. If somehow anyone could make a DX gameplay (inb4 Thief, but no, that game lacks RPG elements) in medieval europe setting I'd still enjoy it. When I say I can tolerate a flawed mechanic it's because the concept is already great so I don't mind a few mistake in execution.

 

[Jaklon]

complainfag

 

[Amn Nom]

I voted gameplay, but in the end I'm mixed. These days I can't justify playing a game just for the story if the gameplay is shit because I have a 40 book backlog on my kindle that will be a much more enjoyable experience. If the gameplay itself is just average and the story is exceptional, I can see myself finishing the game if it isn't too long.

While I may play through something once for the narrative, its ultimately the gameplay that keeps me coming back. My first three runs through a Souls game will be piecing together the history of the world, while learning the nuances of every particular area's monsters and bosses. After a certain point I've figured enough about the lore to stop really caring and just want to beat the game with as many weapons as I can.

On the other hand a bad story doesn't bother me. Fire Emblem Conquest has some of the best gameplay in the series, but the story is Two Worlds level garbage. I'll just make up some silly story and enjoy the gameplay for the main run and replays.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

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.

You're probably right.

I voted GameplayFag just because when I don't like a game it's usually because either it's linear or dialogue/story heavy. I'm not saying that can't be fun sometimes. I enjoyed Mario Brothers when I was growing up. I played a lot of railroad games. I can still enjoy a simple shooter or platformer once in a while. But the bottom line is I won't spend $$$ for it or play it longterm. I have to feel like I'm not being railroaded. I also much prefer deeper systems which resemble simulations. Those're what imrpess me and what'll make me spend $$$. Sadly, some developers lose sight of what's important. For examle, I think Sid Meier drifted away from it. I'd purchase Civilization 3 or 4 over the latest one just because I don't trust Sid anymore. Sid seems to want to make games now more than simulations. He's so obsessed with the psychology of gamers he's a psychologist now.

Found a review on PST I can agree with:
https://forums.beamdog.com/discussi...nd-that-is-the-reason-you-should-listen-to-me

While I didn't enjoy PST, I DO respect the large amount of dialogues and story and character conversation. One poster somewhere named it a Gamebook and I feel that's an apt classificaiton for it.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

Well, I don't try to be a "fag" of any kind, but I am most certainly in the gameplay oriented and focused camp right now.

While I do love great stories in RPGs, I have always had a deep fascination with numbers, stats, experimentation in that realm and more.

I absolutely adore games like Baldur's Gate, or Icewind Dale, or Morrowind. These games give you an endless playground of creativity to play around in and experiment with. For that reason I hold that games closer to my heart because that is what I truly love about RPGs.

So, while good stories are nice and can enhance a game, my true fascination is with the gameplay elements and mechanics. That is the bread and butter of RPGs to me.

I have to agree.

But I think we're all different anyway, even when we mostly agree. This is what complicates matters so much. We all want to stand behind what we like and not be marginalized or dismissed. I think the important thing is just to play what you like and--so long as you have something to play--don't get involved in arguments over tastes.

If you DON'T have something to play, you have reason to be more aggressive. Maybe you're not being heard. It truly does suck to be a minority because it's that much harder to find what you like.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

A story doesn't have to be good. It just has to be serviceable. It can be virtually nonexistent so long as it serves to provide context for a game's elements.

There's already a term for storyfag "games": visual novels.

 

[Lilura]

I say that even as I believe that PST is greatest RPG ever created

Only a storyfag could hold this opinion.

 

[l3loodAngel]

I say that even as I believe that PST is greatest RPG ever created

Only a storyfag could hold this opinion.

Read the rest. I heard theres additional justification in text somewhere...

 

[Lilura]

Read the rest. I heard theres additional justification in text somewhere...

What like? STORY, SETTING & WRITTING?

You don't have a fucking idea what you're talking about, just like most storyfags.

 

[l3loodAngel]

Read the rest. I heard theres additional justification in text somewhere...

What like? STORY, SETTING & WRITTING?

You don't have a fucking idea what you're talking about, just like most storyfags. (I am an imbecile, because I think that ad hominems are arguments)

Oh shit was it that hard? Yes the story, the writting and the setting. Wthout the setting PST would never be that good. The writting was also there and so was decent combat system (DnD). Its you who doesn't have a fucking idead what you are talking about.

 

[Lilura]

The writting was also there and so was decent combat system (DnD).

Clunky RTwP combat, by far the stickiest pathfinding of the IE RPGs, atrocious encounter design, non-existent resource management, obscenely OP itemization and spell-casting cutscenes...