Feel like arguing? Come in

[weasels]

in my opinion there really is no answer to what is better. in truth its all based on perception.....as is everything in the world. what i negleted to think about in my other post was games that dont utilize a story as in puzzle or might have a story but not realy on it to much (eg. most shooters). they can be just as good as a game with a story. so yah........perception.

[RemyC]

Why do games allow you to skip cut-scenes, and dialogue?
Even the developers realize that they are merely add-ons and have no real purpose.
They don't allow you to skip gameplay portions...
As I've been repeating for the last while: Stories in videogames merely give off an illusion, that makes you believe that the game is more than it is.

People try to remember: This is not a matter of enjoying or disliking the stories in videogames. It's a matter of their usefulness and importance compared to gameplay.

If story is more important than gameplay in a videogame; then why not just cut out all gameplay, and have a dialogue box cycle for 45 minutes?

[Flashman85]

Why do games allow you to skip cut-scenes, and dialogue?
Even the developers realize that they are merely add-ons and have no real purpose.

Not necessarily. Perhaps the developers realized that people have a tendency to die on the boss fights that follow certain cutscenes, and it's tedious to rewatch the same scene over and over just to give the battle another try. You can skip lengthy sidequests and addictive minigames, too; if they're not required, does that mean that they're also add-ons with no real purpose?

Oh, and a few games do allow you to skip gameplay portions. The Space Quest series lets you skip certain arcade-esque sequences; the Mega Man X series lets you leave a level before finishing it; Super Mario Bros. 3 gives you the cloud that can bypass entire levels...

Just because story might be the most important aspect of a game doesn't mean that gameplay needs to be taken out of the equation entirely; otherwise, video games would just be movies. Knights of the Old Republic is a great example of a game that has complex gameplay and lots of customization, but its plot is (arguably) more important than anything else. If all you want is to explore the story, you can tone down the difficulty setting to the point where playing the game is a breeze and the gameplay barely matters. Or, you can just ignore talking to most people and skip every cutscene and just fight and upgrade your character the whole time. Or, better yet, you can enjoy the story and enjoy the gameplay.

If you don't care about the story, that's one thing, but story and gameplay aren't mutually exclusive; story can be more important than gameplay without gameplay dropping out of the picture altogether. Otherwise, we should be making the argument that graphics are the most important part of any game, because if graphics aren't the most important thing, then there are no graphics at all and you can't see anything. And that just doesn't make sense.

[MrPopo]

the Mega Man X series lets you leave a level before finishing it

Technically, this only worked when you were replaying a level (to pick up a powerup/fill sub tanks).

Not necessarily. Perhaps the developers realized that people have a tendency to die on the boss fights that follow certain cutscenes, and it's tedious to rewatch the same scene over and over just to give the battle another try.

Big agree right here. The most prominant one I can think of is the battle against Seymore on the mountain (who's name escapes me) in Final Fantasy X. You could NOT skip the cutscenes in FFX, and this was a longish cutscene. And the boss battle was annoying, with a lot of things he could do to kill you off if you weren't aware of the tricks to beating him. So I saw that cutscene a lot, and would have welcomed a way to skip it.

[RemyC]

You can skip lengthy sidequests and addictive minigames, too; if they're not required, does that mean that they're also add-ons with no real purpose?

Skipping sidequests and minigames is like skipping items that enemies drop throughout your quests. This is different from skipping dialogue and cut-scenes, because with items you would be skipping something beneficial to the gameplay.

The Space Quest series lets you skip certain arcade-esque sequences; the Mega Man X series lets you leave a level before finishing it; Super Mario Bros. 3 gives you the cloud that can bypass entire levels...

I haven't played space quest so I cant comment.
In Mega Man X I believe you can only use the escape move after you have beaten the level. So it is more of a treat to make your life less of a hassle when going back to search for hidden items.
The same applies to Super Marios hidden areas, they are treats for finding something "hidden".

Just because story might be the most important aspect of a game doesn't mean that gameplay needs to be taken out of the equation entirely; otherwise, video games would just be movies

That is my point. The actual gameplay can not be removed from the equation or else you don't have a videogame.
Therefore, story is less important than gameplay in videogames.
Even in KOTOR you can remove all the dialogue and just cut to the chase where you make your decision based on your stats (the gameplay portion).

we should be making the argument that graphics are the most important part of any game, because if graphics aren't the most important thing, then there are no graphics at all and you can't see anything. And that just doesn't make sense.

Graphics add the visual aspect to the game, but without the gameplay you only have a picture. So story comes in after graphics aswell. I would also argue that audio is more important than story, because sometimes their is an audible cue for traps, or a bosses attack.

[marurun]

Skipping sidequests and minigames is like skipping items that enemies drop throughout your quests. This is different from skipping dialogue and cut-scenes, because with items you would be skipping something beneficial to the gameplay.

I disagree. I find most minigames to be below the gameplay standards of the game in which they are embedded (not all, but most). Minigames should ALWAYS be optional and skippable. They should never be required. Minigames are a distraction and a timeout from the game and can break that flow some people get when playing. Like in an RPG. From a gameplay perspective RPGs are primarily about making tactical decisions in combat. If I play an RPG that's largely what I want to do. So if the developers stuff a minigame into the RPG and the minigame is based on, say, timing something to music or button pressing reflexes, or even an advanced game of memory (why hello, FF6), that's well outside of the experience I'm playing the RPG for. I shouldn't be forced to master a game of memory or timing to advance in a frikkin' RPG. I should be allowed to have the option to skip that section. I know many RPGs these days allow you to advance even on failure, but I don't want to fail. I want to not play the damn minigame.

/RANT

[sakicfan84]

the Mega Man X series lets you leave a level before finishing it

Technically, this only worked when you were replaying a level (to pick up a powerup/fill sub tanks).

Not necessarily. Perhaps the developers realized that people have a tendency to die on the boss fights that follow certain cutscenes, and it's tedious to rewatch the same scene over and over just to give the battle another try.

Big agree right here. The most prominant one I can think of is the battle against Seymore on the mountain (who's name escapes me) in Final Fantasy X. You could NOT skip the cutscenes in FFX, and this was a longish cutscene. And the boss battle was annoying, with a lot of things he could do to kill you off if you weren't aware of the tricks to beating him. So I saw that cutscene a lot, and would have welcomed a way to skip it.

I think it was Mt Gagazet. I have bad memories of going through there the first time I played through the game. The ability to skip cut-scenes should be included in every game, and at the very least, it should be included before facing a boss that stands a good likely hood of killing a player that isn't properly prepared. Having to sit through cut-scenes all over again before I can try another strategy on a boss is just annoying. I'm more likely to just walk away then try again immediately.

I pretty much hated using the summons in FF7, because you didn't have the ability to skip them. I get that the developers might not want you to skip story segments, but how did Square not put the ability to skip summons in the game? Surely somebody testing the game must have gotten annoyed at having to sit for over around a minute each time certain summons were used.

[RemyC]

Skipping sidequests and minigames is like skipping items that enemies drop throughout your quests. This is different from skipping dialogue and cut-scenes, because with items you would be skipping something beneficial to the gameplay.

I disagree. I find most minigames to be below the gameplay standards of the game in which they are embedded (not all, but most). Minigames should ALWAYS be optional and skippable. They should never be required. Minigames are a distraction and a timeout from the game and can break that flow some people get when playing. Like in an RPG. From a gameplay perspective RPGs are primarily about making tactical decisions in combat. If I play an RPG that's largely what I want to do. So if the developers stuff a minigame into the RPG and the minigame is based on, say, timing something to music or button pressing reflexes, or even an advanced game of memory (why hello, FF6), that's well outside of the experience I'm playing the RPG for. I shouldn't be forced to master a game of memory or timing to advance in a frikkin' RPG. I should be allowed to have the option to skip that section. I know many RPGs these days allow you to advance even on failure, but I don't want to fail. I want to not play the damn minigame.

/RANT

These are mini-games that are poorly designed. The type that I am referring to are the ones found within Zelda games. Such as, the Archery houses in Ocarina of Time. Archery is a big part of the game, and getting a highscore within the Archery house rewards you with a larger quiver, and a heart piece.
Or in Ninja Gaiden Black, the Sixty Fiend challenges. Surviving this means that you are very skilled with the combat system of the game. Upon completing the Sixty Fiend Challenges, you are rewarded with a rare item (Health upgrade, magic upgrade).

[jfrost]

Skipping sidequests and minigames is like skipping items that enemies drop throughout your quests. This is different from skipping dialogue and cut-scenes, because with items you would be skipping something beneficial to the gameplay.

I disagree. I find most minigames to be below the gameplay standards of the game in which they are embedded (not all, but most). Minigames should ALWAYS be optional and skippable. They should never be required. Minigames are a distraction and a timeout from the game and can break that flow some people get when playing. Like in an RPG. From a gameplay perspective RPGs are primarily about making tactical decisions in combat. If I play an RPG that's largely what I want to do. So if the developers stuff a minigame into the RPG and the minigame is based on, say, timing something to music or button pressing reflexes, or even an advanced game of memory (why hello, FF6), that's well outside of the experience I'm playing the RPG for. I shouldn't be forced to master a game of memory or timing to advance in a frikkin' RPG. I should be allowed to have the option to skip that section. I know many RPGs these days allow you to advance even on failure, but I don't want to fail. I want to not play the damn minigame.

/RANT

These are mini-games that are poorly designed. The type that I am referring to are the ones found within Zelda games. Such as, the Archery houses in Ocarina of Time. Archery is a big part of the game, and getting a highscore within the Archery house rewards you with a larger quiver, and a heart piece.
Or in Ninja Gaiden Black, the Sixty Fiend challenges. Surviving this means that you are very skilled with the combat system of the game. Upon completing the Sixty Fiend Challenges, you are rewarded with a rare item (Health upgrade, magic upgrade).

Final Fantasy X was the worst in this regard. Playing that damn blitzball game yielded some great prizes, but it was boring and each match was very lengthy. It was a pain.

[Flashman85]

Just because story might be the most important aspect of a game doesn't mean that gameplay needs to be taken out of the equation entirely; otherwise, video games would just be movies

That is my point. The actual gameplay can not be removed from the equation or else you don't have a videogame.
Therefore, story is less important than gameplay in videogames.
Even in KOTOR you can remove all the dialogue and just cut to the chase where you make your decision based on your stats (the gameplay portion).

Ah, so I understand now. You're looking at this from an absolutely funamental point of view. Yes, gameplay is what makes a video game a video game. You can have games without plot, sound, or even pictures, but there needs to be some kind of gameplay. Yes. I agree.

I'm looking at this from a broader perspective of what contributes the most to the distinctiveness and/or appeal of a game. This is kind of like asking what the most important aspect of a girlfriend is: some people think looks are the most important; some people think it's personality; but you sound like the kind of person who would say, "breathing, with a pulse." Fundamentally, yes, but I got the impression that the purpose of this discussion wasn't so literal. Perfectly valid point, though.

The real question seems not to be, "Is story the most important aspect of a video game?" so much as, "What aspect of videogaming is most appealing to you?" If that's how it is, then this is entirely up to personal preference, as people have already said. But everybody's got a different interpretation of gameplay, story, and the point of this argument, which is why we're kinda all over the place here.

My point, regardless of what we're interpreting, is this: The most important aspect of a game is the aspect that is most appealing about the game or that gives it the most character. This will vary from game to game, so there's no one aspect that is universally most important. Some examples of this:

Wii Sports: Gameplay is most important. Without the motion-sensitive controls, Wii Sports is just a generic sports title, even if it does offer a wide variety of sports.

Karaoke Revolution: Music is most important. Without the music, the game is a tedious exercise in trying to get your voice to match the random pitches that fly across the screen. The real fun is in singing along (at least, in my opinion).

Sam & Max: Season One: Though I can certainly see an argument for puzzles (which might fall under gameplay, depending on your definition), I say that story is most important. Maybe it's just me, but I found the majority of the puzzles to be rather straightforward and easy to solve, so the real reason I played was not to challenge my puzzle-solving skills but to enjoy the humor and see all the different and absurd situations Sam & Max got themselves into. Take away the story and you're left with a mundane puzzle game that might not be worth the time to play.