Game Rant's Christian Spicer writes: "What makes a game? Is it the gameplay or the story? GDC presentations made by David Cage and Satoru Iwata provide a backdrop for an interesting discussion."
I have always been the type of gamer who is drawn more to the story than to gameplay. While if I start a game I must finish it, I still tend to favor those that I hear have great stories.
I think stories are an important part of any big budget title, but I feel gameplay is more important. Games like Angry Birds and even Mario certainly don't have much of a story, but they are still Triple A games that each define their respective genre – Angry Birds easily defines the slingshotting birds at pigs genre.
For me, a great story can even make up for somewhat troublesome gameplay. Red Dead Redemption for instance. Fantastic story and writing, kept me playing through the at-times monotonous gunplay and traveling just to keep the story going.
Great games tend to have both good gameplay and story, but there are plenty of exceptions. I myself am a gameplay guy. I'd much rather play something with addicting gameplay elements that require reflexes or wits, than "play" a movie. In my opinion, gameplay is of first importance.
"It depends" is the only honest answer to that question.
Gameplay is what should make or break a game, not its story.
This question wouldn't even be asked 10 years ago. priorities are going to a weird place for gaming.
Exactly what I thought when I read this.
Game play. End of the story.
to end this debate we must play Sega CD games!
Story only matter in point and click games.
Why can't it be both ? Gameplay is more important,but the story is what makes a game memorable.Still a mediocre story with great gameplay is a better mix than a great story with poor gameplay.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.