Which is more important to you and why?

I'm struggling to think of a game with really good gameplay and a really good story. Most are skewed heavily in one direction or the other.

The objective answer is both. The idea behind a game is that it keeps you engaged, and that falls on a spectrum of psychomotor interactivity and intellectual stimulation.

When you fall away from psychomotor interactivity, such as a VN, you lose the chunk of the audience that wants to be physically engaged with the medium. Likewise, the games that put too much emphasis on the psychomotor interaction often out-depth the audience with physical complexity (rhythm games etc.).

The best outcome is a game that unifies the two to make you feel like you're doing something really fucking cool. It's the games that make you feel like you invented and executed a solution that keep you happy.

I like how story is illustrated not only with a Fallout 4 image, but with a character that gives you the same copypasted quest for all eternity

I think both are equally important but if I had to choose I'd say gameplay is more important. After all what's the point of playing a game with bad gameplay? I can enjoy a game with good gameplay and bad story but I would rather watch a game with good story and bad gameplay.

Low IQ bait

Saged

Attached: 1532707204187.png (800x800, 21.46K)

Shut up fatass

Gameplay. A game being fun is LITERALLY the only thing that matters about it.

Gameplay, but you can have a good story based game as long as the gameplay isn't intrusive. That's what upsets me about Chrono Trigger. It's this amazing story but there are a ton of little fights that boil down to simply attacking randomly and little else, and healing spells are so cheap that it actually makes more sense to tank the hits rather than using special abilities. Yet, everyone praises the game like it's the second coming. If they at least made healing spells more expensive, then it would make me consider other options. As it is, though, 40% of the game is a really good story, 10% is exploration and some neat side quests, and the other 50% is the combat, most of which just sucks ass. At least a few of the bosses are great. On the other hand, I won't turn my nose up at great gameplay with a shit story.

I have enjoyed more games with good gameplay and a bad story than bad gameplay and a good story.

The game is seen as a masterpiece BECAUSE it is easy. With JRPGs, people want a token challenge between story beats. No one likes the story being suddenly stopped by a stonewall boss. Why do you think Persona overtook SMT?

If you're playing Fallout 4 I hope for your sakes neither.

Yeah, I suppose so. It's such a shame. I figure that the middle ground of difficulty in games should be the most popular. Like, people have the easy games to get started and later move on to harder stuff, with the real ridiculous shit being for niche audiences. What happens instead is that the easiest games end up being the most popular. That seems like such a waste, and I'm afraid of the industry stagnating as long as people keep buying into rehashed and easy shit. I mean, at that point, did Chrono Trigger even have to be an RPG? Make a different genre that didn't need to have so much pointless combat. I don't know, I'm sure there's more to it, but I don't like the reception it typically gets.

fun gameplay will carry a shit story
shit gameplay won't carry a shit story
graphic adventures don't work for this

If the story is actually interesting or the environments are really cool I can forgive shit or very little gameplay. I still prefer to have fun gameplay but I can appreciate some vidya stories and very very few walking sims.

Gameplay > Music > Story

Attached: 1587305462460.png (693x601, 246.8K)

Why not both?
Gameplay is the core, but you still need 'something' to connect it all together, that's the point of a story.

Its like saying which do you prefer, graphics or gameplay. Yeah, theoretically you don't "need" good graphics and can survive on just gameplay. But the same game with better graphics will always be better. That's why the new Resident Evil remakes are always better than the originals in every way.

Attached: 1567353886413.png (1280x720, 1.23M)

Story/Writing. But I don't know why you would ever choose one over the other, why shouldn't games strive to have both strong writing and fun gameplay?

>you need something to put it together
>the princess is in another castle
you dont need anything else ,no 30 minutes shit dialoge or cutscenes

>That's why the new Resident Evil remakes are always better than the originals in every way.
You done fucked up. Not even getting into how the older and newer games play really differently in the first place, the RE3 Remake on its own sucks ass. Extremely linear compared to both RE2 Remake and the OG RE3, and totally fucked up difficulty balancing designed around grinding for points to get your stupid infinite ammo assault rifle. The fact that I can still get an S rank while using special weapons proves to me that they didn't give a fuck about balancing the game.

And? That's still a story.

Something like Bioshock was fun as well being able to go around piecing together journals and finding out more about the world. The story itself was enjoyable and it was more fun than just going around shooting people with electricity because it had that story.

its a video game, the core of it is the gameplay. if you want a good story go read a fucking book with your worthless illiterate ass or play a visual novel.

>bioshock was fun
oh i didn't knew i was talking with a retard
have fun

Because there is no perfect games and we don't have infinite time, manpower, or resources to make anything perfect. Concessions need to be made. The question is, how much? I usually find the best games are those that find a great balance for what they're trying to achieve, but simply saying that both presentation and gameplay should be maxed out isn't how things work.

>didn't like OG bioshock
its time to go back zoomer

Why does that nigger have a Thompson and a gluon gun?

Bioshock's gameplay is shit. It is absurdly easy to die, but that doesn't matter since you can just respawn nearby for free, jump right back into the fight, and enemies don't even heal back up. The final boss was especially a complete fucking joke for this. Not being able to get a game over means that the stakes are really fucking low, and little else takes me out of the experience more than that.

Gameplay every time. If it's not fun, why play?
>Dark Souls
Obscure story that you can happily ignore if your mindset is just "Heres a sword, theres a big scary monster, enjoy"
>DOOM
Rip and tear

> It is absurdly easy to die
Its strange, hearing an argument complaining about something not being as hard as dark souls when they suck this much

This. There is also something to be said about the staying power a strong story gets you. People still talk about Bioshock, Deus Ex, and even FF7. Especially when there's room for interpretation in a story, it can hold interest for far longer than just gameplay would allow.
>you just respawn nearby for free
A lot of games fucking do this, give me an example of a game that does respawning in a way you'd prefer. I mean off the top of my head fucking Doom Eternal has you respawn right outside of an arena if you die.

Nigger but you can't deny that the story ADDS something to Dark Souls, it wouldn't be the same without it. Dark Souls without the story would be a lesser fucking game, just as Doom with a stronger story would be a better fucking game. Why should devs skimp on one in favor of the other when they could have fucking both?

>doom with a stronger story would be a better game
Doom is perfect you god damn zoomer, it has a great story thats told through the levels, episode maps, and rare appearances of flavor text. How the fuck are you talking about the nonexistant story of darksouls lore and criticizing doom for the same thing.

i couldn't give a shit about dark souls lore and i love those games
go read some VNs fucking nigger

Gameplay beats story, always.
You can have a great game with no story.
Games with bad gameplay are usually trash unless the lore/story is absolutely superb.

>Dark Souls
>Story
Ring some bells, kill more bosses. That's the entire fucking story when you talk to the most essential NPCs (Oskar & Frampt). Fuck your story, let me fuck that giant laser beam shooting butterfly up, thank you very much.

Attached: 1566709237921.png (505x427, 90.43K)

>Doom Eternal has you respawn right outside of an arena if you die
The enemies also regain all their health and you essentially have to start the entire arena over again. The player is presented with a challenge to complete a segment without dying, and the game is properly balanced to expect that out of the player. With Bioshock, it's more like Doom Eternal but with infinite extra lives set into the game by default; you might not respawn into the same room but you do pick up where you left off since all the enemies are right where you left them. You might as well spend all your magic meter while your at it, because that fills up when you respawn too. It's clear that the devs didn't care to figure out how to balance the game, and instead made it so that the player can never lose. The fact that there are even multiple difficulties doesn't make any sense with that in mind.

Gameplay always come first. I don't care if I'm playing link related ( youtube.com/watch?v=Wvzyd0OZg1I ) and the context for what's going on is that I'm a demigod and my daughter has been kidnapped by an evil sorceress who has fragmented her soul and locked those pieces behind 100 black glass planchettes while her body has been made into a thrall that gives the sorceress cunnilingus on demand.

I strongly disagree. Doom Eternal greatly emphasized the story and I'd say the game was made worse for it. It's still fucking fantastic, but I much prefer how Doom 2016 was more restrained.

The word "gameplay" will always be stupid.

web.archive.org/web/20110529092923/http://insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/

It leads to stupid dichotomies like the one you just set here. A video game includes both its mechanics and story, among many other things. It's wrong to say that only the mechanics part is what makes a video game a video game.

Your dichotomy is really mechanics vs. story, not "the video game vs. story" or something along those lines that's being suggested. And which one of those is more important to me? Neither. They are both equally important to me. Without the mechanics, I'm watching a movie, and without the story, I'm playing a glorified clicker game or spreadsheet simulator.

Based

Yes that is because doom eternal is a dog shit painkiller clone made by a bunch of people that dont even fucking understand why their 2016 title was a success, let alone how to put together a good fps.

No, MEA broke the whole point of choosing one class.

Gameplay
Dark Messiah for instance

he wasn't talking about ZOOM eternal you retard, he was talking about real doom. no one gives a fuck about your shitty painkiller press E to win garbage

Attached: 1581715171910.jpg (640x960, 87.01K)

Okay? But what I said applies to both Doom Eternal and Doom 2016.

Actually, considering you can slap Oskar for the Estus and Frampt to make way to the final area, you can complete Dark Souls 1 without even talking to a single NPC. Especially when you roleplay as an especially social-anxiety ridden character.