Stories like that of Telltale’s The Walking Dead are so powerful because they’re interactive. If you watched a playthrough of the game as one long movie, it would probably still be good, but it’s made a masterpiece because of the role you have in shaping the narrative and making the hard choices.
Walking dead is an illusion of choice. Get a couple different bits of dialogue depending on what you choose or who you kill. I couldn’t stand the games personally.
First of all what is defined as bad game play? I hope you’re speaking for yourself and not making some ignorant blanket statement as others here have done.
Also I hope you’re not lazily lumping in lack of game play and greater emphasis on story with bad game play automatically, they aren’t the same thing although they can be depending on the game in question. I have a sneaking suspicion that most gamers who claim to not care about story in their games and/or are turned off by an emphasis on story haven’t played games with truly great stories they were invested in.
Off the top of my head none of the truly great narrative heavy games I love have shitty game play, hmmm will have to think on this one.
@Vynce The porn star asshole in your post is assuming that a game with a greater emphasis on story than moment to moment game play would translate equally with the interactive element removed or replaced. Many if not most of gaming’s best stories function as effectively as they do primarily because of the interactivity the medium affords them.
You only need four things to qualify as a game: a goal, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary interactivity.
A lot of times, the illusion of choice is all that really matters, anyway. After all, it’s infeasible to be able to develop continually-branching story paths that each wildly change the direction of the narrative, while still having a focused narrative and staying within a reasonable budget. And at times, the fact that my choices in The Walking Dead lead to a railroaded outcome worked in the narrative’s favor, emphasizing that during the apocalypse, sometimes you actions are ultimately futile despite your best intentions.
I actually bought Killer7 based on it’s style and characters…I kept playing because of the story and I replayed it years later to fully grasp how complex and amazing it was. Gameplay for this game is there but that was the last reason why I played. It’s really a game you will get or never get plain and simple. Just like how people play the direct opposite Minecraft. I’ll never get that game and that’s ok. It’s not my thing. End of story. Bious don’t bother having to say any more.
The fact I can sit here and name great point n click adventure games pretty much shits all over the argument that a great story can’t make for a good game. It may not be YOUR kind of game, but they are still great. Monkey Island, Full Throttle, Deja Vu so on and so fourth shit all over your arguments.
But hey you’re welcome to keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going “La la la, I can’t hear you, you’re wrong.”
A game that is not fun to progress through has bad gamplay. How does this need to be explained?
I can both speak for myself (which I am) and make blanket statements (I’m also doing this by saying games with bad gameplay are bad). It’s not ignorant though. I’ve played all sorts of games and know what I do and don’t like and can talk about what I think is good or not.
Sacrificing gameplay for story is a fast way to make me avoid buying any more of your games.
It’s a subjective argument is the main reason this won’t be settled. That said I’ve never had fun playing a point and click game and will blindly label them all unfun (for me you fucking assholes so don’t argue this point). Also… yes, I’ve given them chances.