Feel like arguing? Come in

[marurun]

kingmohd84, you seem to be associating setting with story. The story and setting are very different. The story is the plot, often intertwined with character dialogue. Setting is just where everything happens. Story and setting are related but completely separate. Reviews often give us setting: "warrior from the desert", "underwater city falling apart". Reviewers generally don't give us much plot and story.

The thing is, you are right about setting being the thing that often gets people to try games. The lack of demos, or the trouble downloading huge demos, usually means we don't get a taste of a game before we buy and then commit to it. So reviews and setting are often what we have to go on. But if a review describes the setting and the setting sounds interesting to us, but the review also says the game controls badly, how likely are we to buy the game even though we might like the setting?

I don't think people bought GTA IV because they cared about the story. I think they bought GTA IV because they loved the GTA III games. They wanted more GTA gameplay. Most of the people I know who played GTA III didn't go through the story missions until they had owned the games for months. They spend most of their time just exploring the gameplay. They jacked different cars to see how they drove. They explored the sandbox parts of the game that had nothing to do with story. They would see how many stars they could get and then hijack a tank. They would try to set up big car crashes. They were just playing with the gameplay of the game. The missions and story came later after they were done exploring all the different ways to play the game.

Heck, most of the people I know who bought recent Metal Gear Solid games bought them because of gameplay and in spite of the story. MGS has become infamous for annoying cut scenes that go on forever and plot lines that are total philosophical nonsense. Most people just want to play the game, use some stealth, shoot some guards. They don't want to sit through that story nonsense. They play the game for the gameplay and in spite of the story.

[Ack]

I guess I should be ashamed that I play GTA games for the story...

That, and jacking riding lawnmowers.

[RCBH928]

Well I guess its different point of views
but I see why people are picking gameplay since gameplay is important to me too

[RemyC]

Well I guess its different point of views
but I see why people are picking gameplay since gameplay is important to me too

That doesn't sound like arguing.

Why isn't GAMEplay the most important part of a video-GAME?
If you saw why I was choosing gameplay over story, you would choose it too.

[marurun]

Well, here's one way to compromise a little. For some games, like RPGs, story can be just as important as gameplay. But for other types of games gameplay is the single most important factor. An RPG with great gameplay and poor story is likely to end up being "just another RPG".

[RCBH928]

Well I guess its different point of views
but I see why people are picking gameplay since gameplay is important to me too

That doesn't sound like arguing.

Why isn't GAMEplay the most important part of a video-GAME?
If you saw why I was choosing gameplay over story, you would choose it too.

actually we have been arguing for the last couple of pages in this topic. We have to stop somewhere. I still think story is more important, others believe gameplay is important. I am not an RPG fan, surprise surprise, but if I want to keep going on in a game I want to know what is going to happen and more not just repeat what I did during the other levels.

[Overload]

I'm going to have to disagree. Gameplay is, for the most part, the most important part of a game. If you go back to the days of the 2600, did people play them for the story? No. People were playing games like Yar's Revenge for the gameplay.

[marurun]

kingmohd84,

I wonder if you aren't using a much more broad definition of "story" than many of the rest of us are. Your "story" seems to include more than just plot and dialogue, but implies design decisions, too. This may be a component of the disagreement in this thread.

I see story as being largely unrelated to the design of the game itself. Story, by my definition, does not affect gameplay, level design, game interaction controls at all. Story is cut scenes, character dialogue, and window dressing and that's it.

[RemyC]

Well, here's one way to compromise a little. For some games, like RPGs, story can be just as important as gameplay. But for other types of games gameplay is the single most important factor.

I don't agree with this. I really believe that you could remove the story from ANY game ENTIRELY and it would still be a good game...given that the gameplay were good. The story in an RPG really only gives reason for all the killing.
Even if an RPG had a story written by an elite team of super monkeys, but the gameplay was broken...I wouldn't want to play it.

An RPG with great gameplay and poor story is likely to end up being "just another RPG

As a I said in a previous example: I played through grandia strictly, because I enjoyed the battle system. Everything else got on my nerves.

We have to stop somewhere

But No one has been declared the winner.

if I want to keep going on in a game I want to know what is going to happen and more not just repeat what I did during the other levels

What games do you play? To a certain extent every game pretty much has you repeating what you have been doing for the entire game. A good example being the Legend of Zelda series. Go to the dungeon, kill enemies, solve the puzzle, kill a mini boss, get the item, use the item to get the boss key, kill the boss (repeat for as many dungeons as necessary).
Then they throw in some side quests for some extra trinkets to try and change up the game a little bit. You normally get these trinkets through doing something that you would normally be doing within a dungeon (blowing up a hidden place, archery competition, playing someone a song.) The story just fools you into believing that your doing something totally different.
...really you're doing all this stuff, because you enjoy the gameplay so much and want more of it.

[RCBH928]

Well maybe there is no winner...

You said that zelda is just repeat of action, it is true. But why would I want to repeat that action? Because I want to see the ICE monster , or see the dungeon of fire, or meet princess Zelda. If all I care about game play, why do I just not go through the same level over and over and over again, all I care about is the gameplay right? They should do 1 level games.

A lot of people are saying that I would play a game with some gameplay but not story, but no one will play a game with story but not gameplay.

I never said which is better to you, gameplay or story? Because then we will be arguing between movies/books compared to games(video or non video) , but I said in a videoGAME. So there must be some aspect of gameplay for it to be a videogame.

Some people did argue about gameplay in puzzles and shooter with no story, well how about games like Dragon Lair and point and click. Is it that exciting to point and click? But what keeps you doing it ? the story...

For me the story is not level design. But it is the settings, the characters, what you interact with, and what happens. If you go into a snow mountain and suddenly its an avalanche that you have to run from, running from it is gameplay but the the avalanche is part of what is happening in the story.
Like if RE was in a cave, or in a grass field, would it be as big as when they made it in the mansion? Plus a lot of people complain about the gameplay "tank controls" they call it.

Yes I do mean by story more than just the plot, I mean characters, level setting(in a house, in a castle, in galaxy?) tools you have to use(do you use a key to open the dungeon door or do you use the special dark metal key?) all that matters... with out a story ,just repeat the same level.