What's more important in a CRPG?

[octavius]

What is most important for you to enjoy a CRPG?
Story, combat (both system used and encounter design) or setting?

 

[Captain Shrek]

None of the above and all of the above.

All of the above if you have a fixed target in mind. None of the above since WTF? How does it even make sense outside of rigid genres to justify bad elements of a game?

 

[octavius]

None of the above and all of the above.

All of the above if you have a fixed target in mind. None of the above since WTF? How does it even make sense outside of rigid genres to justify bad elements of a game?

Well, what games are your favourites, and why are they your favourites?

 

[hoverdog]

I voted for the third choice, though combat = story > setting would be the best.

Anyway, a good story can make a great game out of a cliched and bland setting (like MotB), but even the most captivating world means nothing if the plot is a bioware-y "go to four places in search of five macguffins" with terrible writing. Setting is thus of secondary importance.

Combat is another story (pun not intended). A game can have bad combat yet still be good or great overall (see: Torment, Planescape, and Arcanum, Arcanum), though of course I wouldn't mind a better one in both examples (especially Arcanum). On the other hand, interesting combat without story could, but is not a sure way of saving an otherwise washed up game. ToEE had an absolutely shitty plot (if only they made one themselves, not used an outdated module) and despite being a d20 turn-based goodness I really wasn't able to enjoy it. KotC was similar in that regard, yet the final result was much bigger than the sum of its parts - the difference being encounter design (do you include it in the 'combat' part?).

 

[The Bishop]

The most important thing is that all of the above form a solid whole.

 

[tuluse]

I don't like your options. Story is very important to me, and I think you can tell a good story in any setting. However, when it comes to a game, I like to have input on said story. It's like that thing the codex is always talking about, something about having choices affect what happens.

 

[Rpgsaurus Rex]

Combat > story > setting for me.

I enjoy a well fleshed-out setting, but I can live with a totally generic one if it's good in at least one of the other departments.

Combat and story are about equal, though combat is a bit more imporant. I can bear with mediocre combat if the story promises good things along the way (PS:T, PSX Personas). I can bear utter shit story (or minimal story, or no story at all) if the combat is decent, e.g. JA2 or Eador, or wargames. I prefer when games do well in all departments, though (Final Fantasy Tactics... OK I've run out of ideas).

edit: I unconsciously included games that aren't CRPGs at all... I guess CRPGs shine when they borrow combat ideas from strategy games.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Combat is the most important, because the gameplay of computer roleplaying games primarily consists of combat. The adventure and exploration aspects of P&P roleplaying are difficult to do well in a cRPG so they generally make up a very small portion of gameplay.

Story is not very important, but it is slightly more important than setting. When it is done well, story can help keep the player interested and give him a bit of additional motivation to slog through (short) boring parts of the game. When it is done poorly story can anger the player or bore him with endless cut scenes or pointless text.

Setting is apparently not very important. Almost all cRPGs are set in silly settings that don't make any sense and have little or no similarity to the settings that humans lived in in the past, live in in the present or will live in in the future. But the stupidity of the Dragonlance setting didn't ruin Champions of Krynn, so apparently setting isn't a big deal. Try not to have cat people or robots in a medieval game though.

 

[BobtheTree]

The answer is clearly yes.

 

[King Crispy]

The most important thing is the number of facial features sliders, duh.

 

[Gregz]

I voted the majority vote without looking first, kinda surprised me.

 

[sea]

Ultimately I am a bit of a storyfag, but really more of a settingfag. A game with the best combat in the world can rarely keep me coming back to it if the setting is extremely boring, the game has no exploration, the characters are weak, etc. I am much more willing to tolerate a game with great setting and story even if it means putting up with bad combat.

 

[Aeschylus]

A good setting can improve a game, but can't make up for shit gameplay or a ridiculously poorly conceived story. So setting is probably the least important.

For me, good combat is most important, which expands to good gameplay in general. It is, after all, a game and not a book. A good story is more of a bonus in my eyes, since I never really expect one in a video game, except maybe classic adventure games. A ridiculously stupid story throws me more than a boring setting though, so I'd rank story as #2 among the three choices.

 

[Excidium]

Setting is what attracts me to an RPG, the systems are what keep me playing. Story for me is just the game's motivation to go there and do shit, it sets your objectives in the adventure. It only affects me if it's a waste of the setting's potential.

So setting, combat and then story I guess?

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

I like being able to create different character builds and have them affect the story and gameplay in various ways. I voted story, setting, then combat. Combat itself for me is probably the least important thing, but I do like having a complex character building system and would probably find an RPG without one to be lacking, even if I think the story is great.

 

[evdk]

I have survived Arcanum mostly because of the interesting world, so I guess setting > combat and story. Combat is a bit more important then story, but not by much.

 

[Metro]

Why is combat the only actual gameplay element you mention? Anyway, I would say the gameplay elements (combat being only one of them) > setting > story with story and setting being distant concerns.

 

[Temaperacl]

Assuming all three are present in a game, Enjoyability of combat definitely comes in first place for me to enjoy a CRPG. A game with a "bad" combat system (in the sense that I don't like it) will make the game far less enjoyable or even unplayable for me - PS:T (Actually, most of the IE games) fell into this category for me. On the other hand, a game with great combat, even with an absurd setting and storyline can keep me coming back.

Setting would come in second for me - it can't fix bad combat, but it can make up for "mediocre" combat while a game with a non-interesting or non-intentionally internally inconsistent setting can knock a mediocre game down into the "not interested" category.

Storyline comes in last as far as I am concerned - in a game involving an interesting setting and/or combat, I find it easy to ignore a bad storyline. On the flip side, I haven't encountered a game yet where the storyline alone was enough to make me enjoy a game in the face of mediocre combat and setting when I've been in a normal state of mind.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Mechanics (mainly combat) > Story (mainly encounter design and the "flow") > Setting

 

[Gozma]

Might and Magic has shit combat, shit story, and shit setting... but I still like it, so something is wrong with the question

 

[octavius]

Why is combat the only actual gameplay element you mention?

Because...well, you do the maths.

 

[Excidium]

Well, yeah. But you should have used a more encompassing term. Setting and story cover a variety of things.

Might and Magic has shit combat, shit story, and shit setting... but I still like it, so something is wrong with the question

This is an example. M&M games are simple but have really tight gameplay and a variety of places to explore that is p. addictive.

 

[Volourn]

All of them equally.

 

[Severian Silk]

Combat, then story, followed by setting

I was able to enjoy ToEE (though it probably helped that the game is also fucking beautiful to look at), whereas Arcanum got on my nerves a lot.

:shrug:

 

[octavius]

Well, yeah. But you should have used a more encompassing term. Setting and story cover a variety of things.

It's not meant to be scientifict. I was just wondering about the combatfag to storyfag ratio on the Codex.