Did you ever enjoy a game that had bad gameplay but great story/graphics?

[MadeManG74]

I'm just seeing a lot more commonly now people saying that they are looking forward to games 'for the story and graphics/presentation' and not being concerned about gameplay. Mostly terrible places like Neogaf.


Still, it's a valid point, and I'm trying to think if I've ever enjoyed a game despite bad gameplay or liked it primarily for the story to the point where bad gameplay was overlooked.


I feel like I have succumbed to this in the past, but can't think of any examples.


The one that people often tout nowadays for Sega fans is Shenmue, claiming the game is a snore-fest and has bad gameplay, but I disagree. The fighting mechanics were amazing at the time, mixing VF with scrolling brawlers. While QTEs are tired now, back then they were new and I still stand by my opinion that Shenmue 1 and 2 have the be best QTEs of any game I've played. It had enough variety in between with stealthy bits (warehouses) and mini games like forklift racing to make it enjoyable.


The other examples I guess would be Monkey Island, Grim Fandango and similar adventure games. It could be argued that there really isn't much 'Gameplay' involved, but the puzzles make the game so much more special to me than something like 'The Walking Dead' which is so simple it's basically an interactive movie (also there is basically no consequences to your actions, which is another topic entirely). Admittedly I used to look up guides for these games when getting stuck sometimes, but even so, the puzzles and working things out count as good gameplay IMO.


What about you guys? I'm thinking back to even games that I rank amongst my favourite plots and they still had killer gameplay (Shining Force III & Mafia for example had phenomenal gameplay that could overshadow the story even).

[George]

I did like Heavy Rain for what it was, though I did think the gameplay was really bad and sorta felt like someone that watched a lot of American movies but never really lived in America.

[MadeManG74]

^That game was on my 'To play' list for the longest time, and I never got around to it. I did watch a playthrough of Beyond Two Souls and I didn't think much of it. I was initially really hyped for it, thinking it would be a sort of stealth/action game where you can use the ghost to sneak around and fuck people up, then it turned out to be... well I don't know what it is.

[George]

I haven't played Beyond Two Souls but I heard its even more automated than Heavy Rain, which I found too QTE-esque for my liking. I like a variety of gamplay, say what you will about Shenmue but at least it offered that.

[Aki-at]

Never, I can overlook the faults, like the original Yakuza, because the story was so gripping. But if the gameplay is not fun in equal amounts I just would not stick around long enough with the game.

But it does bother me how popular games for narratives/themes have become, makes me worried the mechanical process in games would be ignored so long as the game has some sort of emotional punch behind it.

[George]

I would say the first Yakuza had bad gameplay in the sense that it was so... stripped down,loading was bad. I can see why people disliked that first game, 2nd one fixed all the issues I had.

That is why I wanted SEGA to released Yakuza 1/2 HD on PS3 in the United States. Also the first game had a really shit translation.

[MadeManG74]

Never, I can overlook the faults, like the original Yakuza, because the story was so gripping. But if the gameplay is not fun in equal amounts I just would not stick around long enough with the game.

But it does bother me how popular games for narratives/themes have become, makes me worried the mechanical process in games would be ignored so long as the game has some sort of emotional punch behind it.

Was Yakuza 1 really that bad? I played that before any others and haven't gone back to it since, but I remember finding it really fun to play at the time. Maybe if I went back to it now after playing 2-4 I would realise it's aged badly?

Either way, I can understand what you mean, what spurred this topic was reading a comment on NeoGaf about 'The Order 1886', where IGN ran a negative preview about the gameplay being poor. Someone commented that they 'Are looking forward to this game for the story, graphics and atmosphere, I don't care if the gameplay isn't great'. Which seemed to be echoed by a few people. I was quite surprised and it made me wonder if I'd ever done the same.

It made me wonder if I'd ever done the same, because I feel like I would have in my younger days at least. But thinking hard on it, I can't think of many examples. Maybe Grim Fandango... but even then it had great puzzles and fun exploration, compare it to Broken Age which had a great story and characters, but very weak puzzles and interaction by comparison. And of course, The Walking Dead which had some decent puzzles, but mostly just fell kind of flat when I realised my decisions didn't change the story in the slightest either.

[Aki-at]

I would say the first Yakuza had bad gameplay in the sense that it was so... stripped down,loading was bad. I can see why people disliked that first game, 2nd one fixed all the issues I had.

Yeah the game would have been otherwise a 6/10 title but the story really pulled it off. It's not a bad game but it's not very good, I could see why people would dislike it.

Was Yakuza 1 really that bad? I played that before any others and haven't gone back to it since, but I remember finding it really fun to play at the time. Maybe if I went back to it now after playing 2-4 I would realise it's aged badly?

Either way, I can understand what you mean, what spurred this topic was reading a comment on NeoGaf about 'The Order 1886', where IGN ran a negative preview about the gameplay being poor. Someone commented that they 'Are looking forward to this game for the story, graphics and atmosphere, I don't care if the gameplay isn't great'. Which seemed to be echoed by a few people. I was quite surprised and it made me wonder if I'd ever done the same.

It made me wonder if I'd ever done the same, because I feel like I would have in my younger days at least. But thinking hard on it, I can't think of many examples. Maybe Grim Fandango... but even then it had great puzzles and fun exploration, compare it to Broken Age which had a great story and characters, but very weak puzzles and interaction by comparison. And of course, The Walking Dead which had some decent puzzles, but mostly just fell kind of flat when I realised my decisions didn't change the story in the slightest either.

Yeah you definitely should try the original again Mang, the latest Yakuza games are just so much more fluid than the original it's not even funny. Add to that the set camera angles (It's pretty amazing that Yakuza even had this, I can't imagine a Yakuza game without a free roaming camera anymore!) and terrible loading time, it can lead to a frustrating experience. I still maintain there's more good in the game than bad but I know why someone would hate it, still for the time the game was refreshing enough from all the other brawlers/jRPG/however you want to define it.

I honestly would not jump on board a game just for its narrative or graphics, I play for the gameplay and if that's not up to scratch well... I'd rather just watch a film or read a book.

[RegalSin]

I don't really care anymore. People have to start somewhere. Good bad whatever. People will purchase it and enjoy it. Nowadays I know Loading times and shaking the CD-unit should not be an issue. Again with Camera angles and such. Again nowadays many studios are rehashing each others code. I doubt their is not an moment where code is not shared. People just say "go implement it.

I could not think of many games with bad gameplay and great stories and or image.

Take a game called "Aidyn Chronicles". It was THQ way of saying "the quest engine was a great idea" ( which is was ). The game itself had some awesome graphics but the technology was pushing for photogenic dark age types. The game itself was awesome you know.

The game itself never really got interesting until the very end. Where one town had a small mini-fetch quest ( which had some secret boss or something ). As well as the island mini-game to stock up on super items.

The Apex of the game was when the Necromancer ( the Jew-boy, Polio ( if you played the game you would understand why I say that. ) ) sacrifice himself for the party. Keep in mind the product was so lame and cheapo they reused sprites from one of the four elementals enemies. So this guy pretty much died for no reason at all. This was also your party most powerful magic wielder.

The game itself sported a jester character. Which could stay in the game through an error. As their is armor for him threwout the game. However no matter what he will always leave the party and betray you. Of course the error keeps him in the party uptill the climax ending.

This is the thing. The gameplay was not so bad. It was just annoying at times. Or it was boring along the way. It was too dad. Like take the begining of South Park: Truth of stick. AT FIRST IT LOOKS LIKE A TYPICAL RPG but then it starts to become more like an Green-Green-J-RPG type game. That is how this game was. Speaking of which Truth of Stick; had bugs. Where the game might freeze in the battles.

I run around and I am running around. Why and what am I looking at. I understand these effects only work in an HD environment. The game was not "bad looking". The game story ( events ) was great and exciting. One moment your walking down the road with a bunch of perverts ready to whip out their golden axe; the next a giant manticore comes out of nowhere because you just tried to pick up an item that was placed their on purpose. Finally approaching the town gate ( which was big because this was an N64 and not an PSX ) you see the super fast moving one-eyed thing in the distance, and you try to avoid it; because it is lighting fast.

Did I mention the dream sequence where everybody was like KILL KILL DIE DIE and so forth. That was okay. The graphics of the witch and the "timed" ( yes try playing the game faster if you can ) grusome slaying of all your castle buddies is okay.

All together you feel something is off. It leaves you with an holly feeling. Oh I know; I just spent -70 dollars on this thing instead of Rival Schools and a PSX. It makes you feel like crap you know.

[max_cady]

That's a good question.

It's a tad debatable but I did quite enjoy the story on Ride to Hell: Retribution.

The game is just awful, but just awful enough to make it so bad, it's good. The story, for example, is your standard revenge story set in the 70's, but everything 'bout is still amazing to a certain extent.

[inthesky]

This is a question, that becomes more pointed with genres where gameplay is easy to put on the periphery or be used as supplement to an experience. Namely stuff like visual novels or adventure games.

Take Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors and Last Window: The Secret of Cape West/the Kyle Hyde games. Both on DS. I loved the shit out of them. Loved the story, loved the visual presentation for both. The gameplay and use of the DS really supplements, facilitates the story experience rather than drive it.

For example, in the first game the DS is about giving you more breathing room for text and visuals in novel segments and an easier way to both track tools and your surrounding room in puzzle segments. There's also the ending....but yeah. With the Kyle Hyde games, you tilt your DS to one side to sort of simulate reading a book, and sometimes puzzles make use of actively manipulating the DS (closing it, blowing.) But still, the art and the story really drove those games. If those elements were half-assed no one would bother.

[MadeManG74]

This is a question, that becomes more pointed with genres where gameplay is easy to put on the periphery or be used as supplement to an experience. Namely stuff like visual novels or adventure games.

Take Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors and Last Window: The Secret of Cape West/the Kyle Hyde games. Both on DS. I loved the shit out of them. Loved the story, loved the visual presentation for both. The gameplay and use of the DS really supplements, facilitates the story experience rather than drive it.

For example, in the first game the DS is about giving you more breathing room for text and visuals in novel segments and an easier way to both track tools and your surrounding room in puzzle segments. There's also the ending....but yeah. With the Kyle Hyde games, you tilt your DS to one side to sort of simulate reading a book, and sometimes puzzles make use of actively manipulating the DS (closing it, blowing.) But still, the art and the story really drove those games. If those elements were half-assed no one would bother.

That's quite interesting, because I wonder if you can even class those as 'games' in the first place? Not to take away from what they are as a product, but they might not be 'games' as such.

In terms of Adventure Games, I think that the quality of puzzles and exploration does have an effect, Grim Fandango and the Secret of Monkey Island for example are more enjoyable than the relatively dry Broken Age. Broken Age still has nice story and presentation etc, but it feels less satisfying to play as the puzzles are all quite simple and the exploration is also more linear.

[inthesky]

Well, I would classify them as games, because the object of both of those games is to uncover a mystery and learn more about what's going on. You can fail to do so in various ways.

with the Kyle Hyde games it's more pronounced because even though you're in a guided environment you can still screw up interrogation segments and such and you have to solve puzzles to move the game forward. You can't fail puzzles, but sometimes you can fail interrogations and crisis sequences where you have to know what to say or in what order. With 999, you can't fail the puzzles but you can get bad endings that impede your learning more about the story. much praise as it gets there's an argument to be made that although you can progress the story forward it's too hard to tell if you're doing the "right thing" because once you play the game enough you learn that the true nature of the plot is super unorthodox and non-linear, but still there was a objective for the game designed deliberately.

[marcoslucas]

I just finished the Wolfenstein game for the ps4 and felt that the gameplay was not the best . But the story is amazing and holds you till the end of the game .
In the current consoles the graphics have usually stupidly perfect , even the least delight in this regard. But I was also already held by games that did not have a good story but they were very entertaining

[TruthEnigma]

Over the past 4 to 5 years, I definitely found myself being drawn more to story than anything else in a game. An example of this is the Mass Effect trilogy. I wouldn't have called them bad, but they are absolutely very run of the mill cover based shooter with RPG elements. The story is what kept me enraptured, right up until the story went off a cliff at the end of ME3, and my desire to play any other game in the series went with it. My favourite game ever is Deus Ex, and the great story is an enormous part of that. I'm not sure I would excuse a terrible game on the basis of story, but certainly an average game I would absolutely tackle if the story was worth it.