What's more important in a CRPG?

[Zombra]

I reinterpreted the word "combat" to say "mechanics". If a game has terrible mechanics, it doesn't matter how good the story is, I am probably better off reading a good book or watching a movie. Fun mechanics are most important.

As to story and setting - a great story in a bland setting still keeps me engaged. On the flip side, bad writing is bad writing no matter how cool the setting is. So ... story trumps setting.

Of course, if anything about the game is amazing, I am more inclined to forgive its shortcomings. I have played more than one game with poor mechanics because I loved the setting or whatnot. But I never replay those.

 

[Darth Canoli]

1. Combat + character development first (also meaning TB and party-based)
   
2. Then quest design
3. Setting
4. Story (if it's not retarded, it's good enough for me if the previous 3 are all good)

 

[Beans00]

I don't think anything is necessarily more important. I do think if a game has a significant flaw it needs to make up for it in leaps in bounds in other areas.

Arcanum/PST have bad combat but great setting, story ect. Those(especially arcanum) are some of my favorite games ever.
Dungeon rats, which I also enjoyed quite a bit, Good combat, Good setting and virtually no story.
TOEE, a game which I found mediocre at best. Great combat, boring setting and boring story.

Really it also depends how much of the bad element is shoved down your throat. Morrowind had a cool setting and terrible combat, problem was the combat was like 80% of the game.

 

[S.torch]

Story, always. I only enjoy greatly games that offer me that. I can't stand anything that doesn't take itself seriously.
The second thing is the setting, because it's descends from the story.

For me, the mechanical part is subjected to the story, all I request from mechanics is that they don't get in its way. If they can help it, I will be happy too.

Mechanical centred games are supposed to be about fun. But they've never resonate with me, and I've never had fun with them.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Exploration is paramount in CRPGs, even above its fellow gameplay pillar of combat, with story and setting largely extraneous, except to support the other two.

 

[KafkaBot]

I'd generally say all three are equally essential, but a quick assessment of my priorities in CRPGs tells me that I can easily forgive/tolerate shitty combat mechanics if the story and/or setting are above average, while a game with a bad story and/or setting will need to have EXCEPTIONAL combat for me to not grow bored as all hell in a few hours. As a result, I voted for "Story, then setting, followed by combat".

Story comes before setting because it's not all that uncommon for competent writers to create good stories even with subpar material, but an interesting setting with no tales to do it justice turns into a beautiful, but incredibly boring playground more often than not.

 

[Pocgels]

Setting has the chance to perform well in a game compared to other media. An RPG gives the player a chance to actually explore and interact with the setting - whereas a novel or movie is more like a Potemkin village, where your entire view of the world is restricted to a 2-hour or 400-page track. That said, a good setting can complement a story and vice versa. Whatever story DA:O had lost me when I realized I didn't actually care one way or another about a single location or NPC.
Combat goes in the middle because I haven't actually been able to get more than 10 hours into a new character in Morrowind for about seven years now

 

[WhiteShark]

Combat first, because if the mechanics suck it's no fun to play. Story second, because without a narrative there's nothing pushing you to engage the mechanics. Setting third, because a generic setting with a good story is way more compelling than a bad story in a unique setting.

 

[octavius]

I see the poll results are quite even, suggesting that the Codex is a hive of diversity.

 

[Dodo1610]

In recent years I came to the conclusion that the actual main story is kinda irrelevant for me. If a RPG has a well made believable world filled with characters you want to interact with and the mechanics make interaction with said world fun. Then it's kinda irrelevant why your character even left his home to go on an adventure in the first place

 

[sigma1932]

Combat Ruleset/Mechanics, settting, story got my vote.

Ruleset/Mechanics are more than just "combat"... in addition to shooting/stabbing/hitting things with objects with the intent to do damage, there's also Stealth/espionage mechanics, Dialogue/social skills, Crafting systems, etc. to be considered. Regardless of the capacity of all of this, this point is essentially the defining factor of a CRPG, as they differentiate the "role" of one character within the game-world from the next.

Setting comes next after that....set some over-arching "ground-rules" (for lack of a better term) for the lore of your IP that the characters have to function within as they play out their stories.

Story is least important of the three, but still shouldn't be taken for granted or overlooked... gotta give the player something to direct the characters to use their abilities to do/accomplish/etc.... something to keep them at least loosely engaged with the game-world.

 

[JarlFrank]

I voted Setting > Combat > Story back in the day.

I still stand by that vote.

 

[eli]

i value each by how they keep me engaged with a game. for example, a story attracts my attention to even do anything, the setting can keep me engaged by giving me interesting story elements to explore (characters, history etc) and combat gives me the means to engage with a game beyond seeing and hearing. each game should capitalize on its strengths.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Warlord: This is good, but what is best in RPGs?
Warrior: Collaborative story-telling, choice & consequences, cinematic narrative, and companion romances.
Warlord: Wrong! Conan, what is best in RPGs?
Conan: To crush your enemies, explore their dungeons, and to see the glitter of their treasure.
Warlord: That is good. [crowd cheers]

 

[Trithne]

Systems > Setting > Story.

Combat is, as has been pointed out, just one part of Systems. The most important part of any game is that the world presents as many believable and consistent options to the player as possible, and reacts to those options in consistent and believable ways.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

1. Combat = Overwhelming majority of game play. It's a game, not a visual novel. This is #1.
2. Setting. Dumb settings are more likely to produce dumb subject matter, which will influence the kind and quality of game play mechanics.
3. Story. Everyone loves a captivating story, but if the game play is good, there need be no other motivator. If story is your primary motivation, there are other mediums and genres to satisfy this. RPG are games, first and foremost.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Combat > Setting > Story

Combat is what you (should) spend most of your time doing in the game. I'm playing a heroic adventure game of some sort where I want to murderhobo to my heart's content. I didn't come to play Hugbox the Gathering. RPGs without combat are like chicks without dicks. Incomplete.
Setting is more important than story because that's a large part of what provides the atmosphere and hook of the game. And even though I understand that Pokemon has reasonably deep mechanics and is enjoyable from that perspective, I can't wrap my mind around the idea of playing a teenager raising cartoon monsters.
Story is the least important because unless it's outstanding in its presentation and content, it's more or less completely irrelevant and I've probably forgotten about it by the time the game ends, and possibly even before reaching the end of the game, depending on how long it is. Seriously, go read a book or watch a movie if you want a good story.

Good/interesting stories in games that actually helped raise the games somewhat are PST (although I still generally hate this game, I did find parts of its story memorable), parts of NWN2: MOTB, etc. In fact, those are the only ones I can think off the top of my head. I'm fairly certain there are a few others I'd agree to, but they're few and far between.

 

[Thonius]

The setting is really important, if the game is about gays fighting in space over control of big space butt, rest assured that if that game got top-notch combat and story? I won't play it. The setting is too much intertwined with the story so might as well be one. Also setting is deeply connected with visuals too. Can't stand anime visuals and surprise surprise if your setting is kind of animu-tier retarded you'll probably got animu visuals and monster design.
Yes, I realize that combat is 90% of the activity in 90% of CRPG's. But Setting is the Bait, combat is the Hook that keeps you playing and the story is like a Line that leads you to the shore into the fisherman's hands.
Shitty setting? I won't bite. Shitty combat? I'll run. Shittty story? At least I'll enjoy combating a bit and if shit is going to be too retarded I'll bail.

 

[RNGsus]

Combat first, story or setting second. Ideally, all three make for good gameplay.

 

[NeptuneGames]

For me it's like this:

1. Combat (if the gameplay isn't fun, you don't play the game)
2. Story (if the story isn't good, you aren't motivated to go on)
3 Setting (a good setting, makes the story more immersive)

 

[anvi]

Stories are the worst thing to happen to gaming. Even more than EA and EA.

 

[undecaf]

I’d replace combat with gameplay (meaning the overall design including ruleset implementation, combat, non-combat activities, exploration, etc), and then it’d be ”gameplay > setting > story”.

Gameplay rules the game, a good story is an icing on the cake. Setting is pretty much what one likes, and it (and the story) can be tolerated as mediocre or even worse if the game is fun to play.

 

[JarlFrank]

Setting is much more important than many people realize. From the choice of setting, everything else flows: the story and the gameplay.

An RPG with a high fantasy setting is gonna play differently from an RPG with a low fantasy setting because the availability of magic will be different. And it's gonna play totally differently from a historical setting without magic. And sci-fi is gonna be different from either of those.

Even something like the choice between making a WW2 spy thriller or Cold War spy thriller will influence which kinds of weapons are available, and what the scale of conflict is likely to be (bigger battles are possible in a WW2 setting, but there won't be any assault rifles unless it's set at the end of the war, while a Cold War game would have assault rifles as the mainstay of the arsenal).

Everything else in a game derives from the setting. Therefore setting is most important.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I have trouble separating story and setting tbh.
Even a reused setting is very different when written by a different author.

 

[Falksi]

Without a good setting I'm not drawn into the game enough to bother with good combat or story.

Without good combat I can't be arsed to progress to see the story.

Most RPGs have shit stories.