NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been watching the whole video game industry, and something has occurred to me. Far removed from the greats of Final Fantasy VII and Crono Trigger are we. We have gone from games that had (by today's standards) poor graphics but great storylines to games with ridiculously awesome graphics but lacking in storyline.

So, my question to you, NSGers, is which is more important - graphics or storyline?

Also, do you agree that storylines have gone downhill?

It wouldn't be a Galloism thread without a poll

I love a good storyline in a game. I loved the Zelda series for that. Ocarina of Time was the best.

I disagree that modern games are lacking story line. Mass effect? Neverwinter Nights 2? Lost Odyssey? Even ostensibly "shoot em up" games like Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4 have an interesting background to them. Hell, even Fable 2 has a bit of a cool plot line, if you can get past it's "baby's first RPG" interface

I like a mixture of a good storyline and good graphics. I can't play a game that has a good storyline but horrible graphics, or has great graphics but the storyline is as shallow as a puddle of water.

I think the games today have great story lines. I personally think they are better. Plus graphics tell part of the story. They gameplay is a story and the better it looks the more enhanced the story becomes.

In general though I think stories get in the way of me playing. If I wanted a story I would watch a movie or read a book.

I'm not much of a gamer, but to me, the story has to be good. If the story isn't engaging enough, the graphics can be kick-ass and I won't get interested.

I would say they are just as important, in that neither is critical but excellence in either can compensate for failiure in the other. However, both are trumped by setting and gameplay. If those suck, you've got shit.

However, I like a good story, with interesting characters who I like to play/actually give a damn about. So if I had to choose, I'd say story. :)

I'm not much of a gamer, but to me, the story has to be good. If the story isn't engaging enough, the graphics can be kick-ass and I won't get interested.

^This^

Graphics should be focused on enriching the story and not used in place of one. It's a lot like a novel; too much description and needless fluff makes it long-winded and boring and distracts from the plot, but too little of it makes it hard to really immerse yourself in the story.

I would never buy any game solely because of its graphics; that's not to say every game needs a storyline, not by a long shot, but if I want mindless fun and/or violence, I'll just fire up Doom or play Sonic the Hedgehog because quite honestly things haven't changed much in the decade or so since they came out and it really isn't worth throwing down some absurd amount of money to buy the same thing repackaged with PS3 graphics. Hell, in most cases they're way better than their knockoff successors even though their graphics are ancient by modern standards.

I am amused though that even today there isn't a PC on the market that can actually run nuts.wad at anywhere near normal game speed...

neither: playability. Mario Land on the SNES had shit graphics and a pathetic story, but it was an awesome game due to its playability and sheer fun. same with a lot of Wii games at the moment - lots of fun, little (or no) story, poor graphics. lots of RTS or other strategy games have pretty mediocre graphics (like Sim City 3k or 4, or Civ), no story, but are great fun to play.

that's not to say the other two aren't important, but less so for me. too complex a story, like Halo 2, i get bored and don't care enough to keep up. too poor graphics and my eyes bleed. but get a good balance of both, like the GTA games for example, as well as good playability, and you're onto a winner :)


edit:
In general though I think stories get in the way of me playing. If I wanted a story I would watch a movie or read a book.

QFT

Forgive me for linking this with what might initially seem a wholly different topic. But I think a revealing analogy can be made here with the world of porn.

I know. When I went to drink at the ideas fountain today there must have been some gin in the water.

Its like this. In a porno film, whats more important to you? How fit the actors involved are or whether it has a high quality, intellectually pleasing storyline? Its the first, of course. Why is this relevant? Because the people who sit around playing games all day, if I'm not mistaken, are the ones who cannot form meaningful relationships with human beings and therefore spend their time relentlessly fapping. If the graphics are mind-blowing, the player will be far too busy being turned on by the oh-so-seductive realism of the massive explosion from their manly weapon or by using their sword, spear, wand or whatever to conquer the dangers in front of them that they won't care about the plot at all. Its all phallic symbolism. Isn't it always? The game companies know their market. They won't spend money on silly things like a plot that will have so little influence on sales :p

neither: playability. Mario Land on the SNES had shit graphics and a pathetic story, but it was an awesome game due to its playability and sheer fun. same with a lot of Wii games at the moment - lots of fun, little (or no) story, poor graphics.

That's the thing: if you're going to make a game that's just meant to be fun, focus on making the game fun and playable. Don't try to make it something it's not by dressing it up in pretty graphics or unnecessary difficulty because that just ends up disappointing everybody.

The reason why Super Smash Brothers is fun isn't the storyline (if there is one...) or the graphics, it's the satisfaction of beating the shit out of Link with a Snorlax.

graphics and storyline share a symbiotic relationship. if a game has both, which is rarerin todays games, it is a good game generally but if either is lacking the game isnt usually up to par.

Graphics are amazingly overrated.

Now, if you'll excuse me, FFL2 calls.

That's the thing: if you're going to make a game that's just meant to be fun, focus on making the game fun and playable. Don't try to make it something it's not by dressing it up in pretty graphics or unnecessary difficulty because that just ends up disappointing everybody.

The reason why Super Smash Brothers is fun isn't the storyline (if there is one...) or the graphics, it's the satisfaction of beating the shit out of Link with a Snorlax.

that and punching your friend in the head every time he plays as jigglypuff and beats everyone shitless ;)

i agree though. some games shouldn't focus on graphics or the story - it just isn't what they're about. but all games should focus on playability, regardless. of course, 'playability' is probably subjective, but i know what i mean by it... :$

The game companies know their market. They won't spend money on silly things like a plot that will have so little influence on sales.

Considering that some of the highest rated and most popular games of all time have rich storylines and immersive graphics, I'd have to disagree with that. I mean, just look the Half-Life 2 series or Bioshock...they're easily some of the most popular titles of all time with some of the best storylines of all time.

As gaming becomes more popular with more people and it becomes more accepted as an artistic medium, people are going to want games that meet their expectations for plot and content. I mean, just look at movies; the first ones released were hardly profound or deep and were generally little more than cheap entertainment, but within a couple of decades the entire industry had evolved in to as much an art as it was entertainment.

FPS can be some of the worst offender of this. However there are some first person shooters that get it right. Half Life 2 & S.T.A.L.K.E.R. come to mind.

I was reading a Wikipedia entry earlier today about an Infocom text adventure called "Suspended". Which received accolades at the time for it's amazing story delivery.

I played Suspended on a CPM/86 and I concur. Some games were better back when they only had monochrome text and the grinding of the floppy disk loading to rely on for effects.

that and punching your friend in the head every time he plays as jigglypuff and beats everyone shitless ;)

i agree though. some games shouldn't focus on graphics or the story - it just isn't what they're about. but all games should focus on playability, regardless. of course, 'playability' is probably subjective, but i know what i mean by it... :$

Oh yeah, definitely. Just like graphics, developers sometimes use unplayability as a substitute for fun or real challenge hoping customers aren't fooled.

that and punching your friend in the head every time he plays as jigglypuff and beats everyone shitless ;)

Whats wrong with playing as jigglypuff? :eek2:

Forgive me for linking this with what might initially seem a wholly different topic. But I think a revealing analogy can be made here with the world of porn.

I know. When I went to drink at the ideas fountain today there must have been some gin in the water.

Its like this. In a porno film, whats more important to you? How fit the actors involved are or whether it has a high quality, intellectually pleasing storyline? Its the first, of course. Why is this relevant? Because the people who sit around playing games all day, if I'm not mistaken, are the ones who cannot form meaningful relationships with human beings and therefore spend their time relentlessly fapping. If the graphics are mind-blowing, the player will be far too busy being turned on by the oh-so-seductive realism of the massive explosion from their manly weapon or by using their sword, spear, wand or whatever to conquer the dangers in front of them that they won't care about the plot at all. Its all phallic symbolism. Isn't it always? The game companies know their market. They won't spend money on silly things like a plot that will have so little influence on sales.

I'm sorry, but as someone who plays games a lot, I am insulted by your generalization. Some of my favorite games have had poor graphics, at least if you define good as "detailed/realistic". The last thing I want in a game is phallic symbols or sexual indulgence. I don't even nessissarily want to be a hero, or a bad ass. I want a world that's believable, interesting, and compelling. I want gameplay that is comprehensible but interesting, and that rewards skill. I want characters I can give a shit about. And I know, from experience, that I am not alone.

The game companies may market shit to the people you describe, but how long are those games remembered? They may make a ton of money today, but who will be playing them tomorrow? Tomorrow, their will be a new knock-off with better graphics. The games people remember, the games people play for years, the games that are classics, these are the ones where story, setting, or gameplay mattered.

Anyone can make porn, and make a cheap buck. But real, lasting success comes from making something worth a damn. A game won't draw people in if its brokenly unplayable, or if its shallow/stupid to the point of absurdity. And if it doesn't draw people in, engage their interest, any popularity will be short-lived.

Oh yeah, definitely. Just like graphics, developers sometimes use unplayability as a substitute for fun or real challenge hoping customers aren't fooled.

personally i was fooled once too often a few years back. i got pissed off with game developers releasing stuff that looked great, or promised the most epic story ever, but were ultimately disappointing and not fun to play. that's what i play games for - fun. if i want a visual feast i'll watch a movie, look at some art, go for a walk in the forest, etc. if i want a good story i'll watch a movie (again), read a book, talk to people, etc. first and foremost games have to be fun, and any game that forgets that in its search for more uber graphics or a bigger, better story has just lost the plot (forgive the pun ;))

*is all grumpy about games* :tongue:

Whats wrong with playing as jigglypuff? :eek2:

my mate Simmons is way too good with him, that's what. he's good generally, but we're all destined to lose as soon as he gets jiggly's up+B move working (we call it the "schwing")

For it depends on the type of game... For some games the story line is unimportant a lot of my favorite retro games had basically no storyline and very basic graphics - arkanoid comes to mind. The story is important for certain types of games, mostly RPGs & FPSs but others aswell... It's cool how developers made due with so little in the past but IMHO new games are still better than old in every way including story lines. It's already been said but Half Life 2 is pretty gripping.

I'm sorry, but as someone who plays games a lot, I am insulted by your generalization. Some of my favorite games have had poor graphics, at least if you define good as "detailed/realistic". The last thing I want in a game is phallic symbols or sexual indulgence. I don't even nessissarily want to be a hero, or a bad ass. I want a world that's believable, interesting, and compelling. I want gameplay that is comprehensible but interesting, and that rewards skill. I want characters I can give a shit about. And I know, from experience, that I am not alone.

The game companies may market shit to the people you describe, but how long are those games remembered? They may make a ton of money today, but who will be playing them tomorrow? Tomorrow, their will be a new knock-off with better graphics. The games people remember, the games people play for years, the games that are classics, these are the ones where story, setting, or gameplay mattered.

Anyone can make porn, and make a cheap buck. But real, lasting success comes from making something worth a damn. A game won't draw people in if its brokenly unplayable, or if its shallow/stupid to the point of absurdity. And if it doesn't draw people in, engage their interest, any popularity will be short-lived.

Okay. Thats interesting. My insights into psychoanalysis lead me to deduce the following from your divergence from the normal preference patterns of a gamer. You must be into bestiality. I'm sorry, there's no other explanation :p

my mate Simmons is way too good with him, that's what. he's good generally, but we're all destined to lose as soon as he gets jiggly's up+B move working (we call it the "schwing")

Ah. I often used to play as jigglypuff. But I was playing against someone who had had the game for ages...so the game never lasted long enough for me to be able to make a balanced judgment on the abilities of each character.

Okay. Thats interesting. My insights into psychoanalysis lead me to deduce the following from your divergence from the normal preference patterns of a gamer. You must be into bestiality. I'm sorry, There's no other explanation.

My experience with online forums leads me to deduce the following: you are being a troll.;)

starcraft. there was a game that had great graphics (for its day), an excellent and compelling story, brilliant gameplay/playability, and was tonnes of fun. and people actually die from playing it too much, its just that good. and everyone remembers it, too.

Spore: recent game, good graphics (if not cutting edge), great and captivating idea (which could be a substitute for a plot), but (to me) awful playability and even worse longevity. i played it through once, took a week playing through the Space stage, got to the centre of the galaxy, was disappointed and haven't played it again for months. despite a great idea, an engaging story, and good graphics, it was a major letdown and not worth playing in the end. that's why i feel playability/gameplay is so much more important than anything else.

Neither are really essential if you consider playability and longevity. The total war series, for instance, graphics are good, not cutting edge, but good, and there really isn't any story to it besides what you make of it, yet the whole series is bloody incredible and loads of fun to play. The only time I put down Medieval Total War was when Rome Total War came out, equally, I didn't put that down until Medieval II Total War came out, and I probably will hold on to that until Empire Total War comes out this march, but will probably keep it on my computer due to the number of incredible mods for it.

On the other hand, take Crysis. The story line is mediocre, but not by any means bad, and the graphics are incredible, yet it lacks any real replayability and I got bored with it after owning it for a month.

The most long-lived games in terms of fun seem to be the ones which have very little in the way of storyline besides what you make of it and graphics good enough to look nice but not so nice that you can't set them to a higher setting without melting the CPU. Oblivion, the Total War series, Age of Empires series, and some other games here and there are the ones which have impressed me the most insofar as they stayed entertaining long after I bought them.

As gaming becomes more popular with more people and it becomes more accepted as an artistic medium, people are going to want games that meet their expectations for plot and content. I mean, just look at movies; the first ones released were hardly profound or deep and were generally little more than cheap entertainment, but within a couple of decades the entire industry had evolved in to as much an art as it was entertainment.
I'm skeptical of this claim. It's certainly possible to have a well-made video game, but I don't see them ever being seen as "artistic media." Board games have been around for centuries, and no one considers them art. Excellent examples of craftmanship, yes, maybe even beautiful objects. But art?

My experience with online forums leads me to deduce the following: you are being a troll.;)

Woah there. May I respectfully suggest you've judged me incorrectly? My first post was intended to be so ridiculous that everyone would judge it to be parody. Drink clouded my mind to past experience that there are people around stupid enough to say anything with a straight face. It should have had a sticky-out tongue smiley. I'll go back and edit it. And then when I got the reply, I thought I'd run with it, because it looked a fun opportunity to fly higher into the ridiculososphere. But I have a real problem being labelled a troll just because I'm only a few inches tall, have brightly coloured messy hair, and like to have a bit of fun on internet forums. No, sir. That will not do.

FPS can be some of the worst offender of this. However there are some first person shooters that get it right. Half Life 2 & S.T.A.L.K.E.R. come to mind.


So utterly true. I never played S.T.A.L.K.E.R, but I loved Half-Life 2, and original half life for that matter. Great story line, much better than say, Doom III, or Far Cry, or anything else like that, even if it didn't have Far Cry or Crysis graphics.

I've been having to deny myself the urge to buy Far Cry 2. Yes, it will look pretty, but I'll be spending $50 on something which will give me a month of entertainment.

So utterly true. I never played S.T.A.L.K.E.R, but I loved Half-Life 2, and original half life for that matter. Great story line, much better than say, Doom III, or Far Cry, or anything else like that, even if it didn't have Far Cry or Crysis graphics.

I'm curious to play Half-Life, 1 or 2. I don't own a console and have only played Portal, but that was great fun, much more interesting than your standard first-person-shooter. Everyone here seems to like it, too; I'll have to see if there's a PC version.

I'm skeptical of this claim. It's certainly possible to have a well-made video game, but I don't see them ever being seen as "artistic media." Board games have been around for centuries, and no one considers them art. Excellent examples of craftmanship, yes, maybe even beautiful objects. But art?

Depends on your definition of art. How about a 17th century Persian backgammon board with ivory and rare wood inlays? I'd call it art, usable art, but art nonetheless, sort of the same way I consider 1960s Ferraris to be art, especially the 250 GT Lusso, or the even more pretty 250 GTO, and this doesn't even include the utterly and breathtakingly gorgeous Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale, which is one of the ten best looking things mankind has ever produced. On one hand, definitely an example of craftsmanship, but so utterly beautiful and asthetically appealing that it has to be considered art.

I however, agree that video games will never be art. They aren't made for that, there's no independent video game movement which strives for art in the medium, and equally, the buyers of the medium don't really want art, and since the medium is driven by a desire to make money, they won't make anything artistic if it wouldn't sell.

I'm curious to play Half-Life, 1 or 2. I don't own a console and have only played Portal, but that was great fun, much more interesting than your standard first-person-shooter. Everyone here seems to like it, too; I'll have to see if there's a PC version.

HL1 and HL2 both originally came out for the PC. You can probably find copies floating around somewhere either on the internet or in a large store.

Depends on your definition of art. How about a 17th century Persian backgammon board with ivory and rare wood inlays? I'd call it art, usable art, but art nonetheless, sort of the same way I consider 1960s Ferraris to be art, especially the 250 GT Lusso, or the even more pretty 250 GTO, and this doesn't even include the utterly and breathtakingly gorgeous Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale, which is one of the ten best looking things mankind has ever produced. On one hand, definitely an example of craftsmanship, but so utterly beautiful and asthetically appealing that it has to be considered art.

It is a fuzzy line between art and non-art, but I usually think of objects of art being able to stand on their own. That is, I don't need to attend mass at a cathedral to be impressed by its beauty, or talk with the actors in a movie to enjoy it. I can't really enjoy a video game without playing it.
That's just me, though. I don't pretend to know enough about art to say I can say for sure what does and what doesn't fall in that category.

my mate Simmons is way too good with him, that's what. he's good generally, but we're all destined to lose as soon as he gets jiggly's up+B move working (we call it the "schwing")

The only thing Jiggly has going for her is her air game though, so if you can get really good at another character with good air and better range, she matches up quite unfavorably.

It is a fuzzy line between art and non-art, but I usually think of objects of art being able to stand on their own. That is, I don't need to attend mass at a cathedral to be impressed by its beauty, or talk with the actors in a movie to enjoy it. I can't really enjoy a video game without playing it.
That's just me, though. I don't pretend to know enough about art to say I can say for sure what does and what doesn't fall in that category.

I agree. And partially, I'd also say that to be fair, video games will never become an art form. It's entirely done off a commercial motivation rather than an asthetic one, and since art isn't really valued except in the context of graphics, there won't ever be video games as art.

I play video games for the mechanics and strategy. The more arcane and intricate, the better. The Dominions series, for instance, has no storyline and shit graphics, but there are a million things to screw around with, so I go back to it repeatedly.
Given a choice between only the graphics or story, however, I'd pick graphics. Most stories, even the supposedly "good" ones, are the same tired stuff that gets recycled for every fantasy RPG, sci-fi shooter, crime game, or whatever. Oh, there's a sacred artifact beneath Mount Death? And now my employer has turned evil and wants to kill me? Earth has become overtaken by a totalitarian government? My best friend was framed for a crime he didn't commit? Dearie me, well let me just wander all over the fucking Universe and solve your problems for you.

To the OP, storyline is what matters. After all, in the age of multiplayer gaming singleplayer games such as HL, Fallout, and GTA still thrive.

It is a fuzzy line between art and non-art, but I usually think of objects of art being able to stand on their own. That is, I don't need to attend mass at a cathedral to be impressed by its beauty, or talk with the actors in a movie to enjoy it. I can't really enjoy a video game without playing it.
That's just me, though. I don't pretend to know enough about art to say I can say for sure what does and what doesn't fall in that category.


As to this debate over whether video games are art... I'd like to think so. While I do agree that art does need to stand out on its own, does not a game creator derive the same satisfaction when his/her game is played and enjoyed as much as an artist displays his/her works to the world and basks in the glow of accomplishment? Yes, games do need to be played in order to be enjoyed. But when I look on as my younger cousin manipulates the Havok physics system in HL 2 to do his part against the Combine, I feel that the game creator, much as an artist, expresses his/herself to the gamer, just in an interactive medium. How is a video game not art, when it clearly reflects the creators' expression just as a painting reflects that of an artist?

I agree. And partially, I'd also say that to be fair, video games will never become an art form. It's entirely done off a commercial motivation rather than an asthetic one, and since art isn't really valued except in the context of graphics, there won't ever be video games as art.

I don't think you are being very fair to the game developers here. They see it as their canvas! Some companies operate as you describe however, it is true.

I agree. And partially, I'd also say that to be fair, video games will never become an art form. It's entirely done off a commercial motivation rather than an asthetic one, and since art isn't really valued except in the context of graphics, there won't ever be video games as art.

Hypocrisy!!! Did not Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, and Michelangelo sell their services to the Vatican?

I play video games for the mechanics and strategy. The more arcane and intricate, the better. The Dominions series, for instance, has no storyline and shit graphics, but there are a million things to screw around with, so I go back to it repeatedly.

I agree. Ienjoy tactical and strategy games, but all to often they seem a bit short on the tactics or strategy. All too often, it seems like it mostly comes down to is who can rush/spam the other guy to death fastest. Ok, I exaggerate a bit, but is it too much to ask for companies to make games where tactical manuvers and things like moral and terrain are actually worth a damn?


Given a choice between only the graphics or story, however, I'd pick graphics. Most stories, even the supposedly "good" ones, are the same tired stuff that gets recycled for every fantasy RPG, sci-fi shooter, crime game, or whatever. Oh, there's a sacred artifact beneath Mount Death? And now my employer has turned evil and wants to kill me? Earth has become overtaken by a totalitarian government? My best friend was framed for a crime he didn't commit? Dearie me, well let me just wander all over the fucking Universe and solve your problems for you.

I suspect that story isn't so critical as long as the setting is good. I'd probably like a very open-ended game with no fixed story line, so long as the universe/backstory were good.

But it sounds to me like you're dismissing the value of a good story based on... bad (or at least mediocre) stories. Maybe you've never played a game with a really great story. Well, I rarely if ever have either. That doesn't mean that a really good story, if it existed, wouldn't trump good graphics.

*jumps on playability bandwagon*
No amount of eyegasm graphics or braingasm story can make up for a game that isn't fun to play.

Forgive me for linking this with what might initially seem a wholly different topic. But I think a revealing analogy can be made here with the world of porn.

I know. When I went to drink at the ideas fountain today there must have been some gin in the water.

Its like this. In a porno film, whats more important to you? How fit the actors involved are or whether it has a high quality, intellectually pleasing storyline? Its the first, of course. Why is this relevant? Because the people who sit around playing games all day, if I'm not mistaken, are the ones who cannot form meaningful relationships with human beings and therefore spend their time relentlessly fapping. If the graphics are mind-blowing, the player will be far too busy being turned on by the oh-so-seductive realism of the massive explosion from their manly weapon or by using their sword, spear, wand or whatever to conquer the dangers in front of them that they won't care about the plot at all. Its all phallic symbolism. Isn't it always? The game companies know their market. They won't spend money on silly things like a plot that will have so little influence on sales :p
However, in a lecture I heard once given by Neil Gaiman, who knows a thing or two about storyline and graphics and would know something about games, too, if every game company that ever hired him to write for them hadn't gone bankrupt before they went into production, there actually is a need for storylines in porn.

According to him, he was once sent an academic study about porn for review by accident (since he's not a porn professor), but he read it anyway. One of the author's theories that he found very compelling was that feature length porn movies have stories for the same reason musicals have stories -- to link the audience-draw scenes together.

Audiences go to see musicals to hear songs, but studies show that if the songs are just all strung together like a concert, the audience is left unsatisfied with the experience. Having a story to space the songs out and give a nominal context to them makes it more enjoyable.

Same with porn. Audiences go to porn to see sex, but they also want some pacing and a little build up or progression to the sex scenes, so a good porn movie has a storyline link the sex scenes but still keep all the sex from happening at once.

Gaiman suggested this holds true for all pop culture entertainment genres, and I would suggest it holds true for games as well.

So storyline is important.

Considering that some of the highest rated and most popular games of all time have rich storylines and immersive graphics, I'd have to disagree with that. I mean, just look the Half-Life 2 series or Bioshock...they're easily some of the most popular titles of all time with some of the best storylines of all time.

As gaming becomes more popular with more people and it becomes more accepted as an artistic medium, people are going to want games that meet their expectations for plot and content. I mean, just look at movies; the first ones released were hardly profound or deep and were generally little more than cheap entertainment, but within a couple of decades the entire industry had evolved in to as much an art as it was entertainment.
Right. Like the way we've evolved to the level of Vin Diesel movies.

my mate Simmons is way too good with him, that's what. he's good generally, but we're all destined to lose as soon as he gets jiggly's up+B move working (we call it the "schwing")
Phallic. *nods*

I'm skeptical of this claim. It's certainly possible to have a well-made video game, but I don't see them ever being seen as "artistic media." Board games have been around for centuries, and no one considers them art. Excellent examples of craftmanship, yes, maybe even beautiful objects. But art?
Games are art when surrealists make them.

I play video games for the mechanics and strategy. The more arcane and intricate, the better. The Dominions series, for instance, has no storyline and shit graphics, but there are a million things to screw around with, so I go back to it repeatedly.
Given a choice between only the graphics or story, however, I'd pick graphics. Most stories, even the supposedly "good" ones, are the same tired stuff that gets recycled for every fantasy RPG, sci-fi shooter, crime game, or whatever. Oh, there's a sacred artifact beneath Mount Death? And now my employer has turned evil and wants to kill me? Earth has become overtaken by a totalitarian government? My best friend was framed for a crime he didn't commit? Dearie me, well let me just wander all over the fucking Universe and solve your problems for you.
QFFT. I kind of hate video/computer games because they're like being at goddamned work -- some bunch of jackasses I don't know, don't like, don't respect and don't care about, making me do stressful, repetitive, not really all that exciting shit for no good reason, and constantly interrupting and obstructing me while I try to do it. I go through that shit all day long. I don't need to go home and do it for fun, too.

Hypocrisy!!! Did not Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, and Michelangelo sell their services to the Vatican?
No, actually da Vinci was the one that didn't sell his services to the Vatican. He sold his services to secular capitalists like the government of Venice and the Duke of Milan.

But yes, the great masters were all professionals who worked for money. And pretty decent money at that, back in the day. For thousands of years, "artist" was a good, solid trade that paid regular wages, and nobody thought ill of the work produced just because the producers were able to cover their bills from it.

This bullshit about art being non-commercial is a canard invented by independently wealthy fucks like Lord Byron, whose bones I would gladly dig up and feed to a dog if I thought he'd feel it somewhere in another life. (I'm an artist struggling like hell to make a living.)

By the way, fyi, the great Rembrandt worked with a whole team, practically running a portrait factory in which he designed the painting and blocked it out, then a whole assembly line of background specialists, drapery specialists, jewelry and reflection specialists, etc, did their things to it, and finally the master put the finishing touches on it, signed it, and collected the money. Yet nobody calls Rembrandt a commercialized hack. That's how things were done in his day, and even in that context, his brilliance shows through. (However, it's also why Rembrandt paintings are so notoriously hard to autheticate -- so many of his apprentices/employees eventually went to work for themselves, but aping Rembrandt's style.)

I bring that up to forestall claims that games can't be art because they are often a group endeavor.

Given a choice between only the graphics or story, however, I'd pick graphics. Most stories, even the supposedly "good" ones, are the same tired stuff that gets recycled for every fantasy RPG, sci-fi shooter, crime game, or whatever. Oh, there's a sacred artifact beneath Mount Death? And now my employer has turned evil and wants to kill me? Earth has become overtaken by a totalitarian government? My best friend was framed for a crime he didn't commit? Dearie me, well let me just wander all over the fucking Universe and solve your problems for you.

Isn't that like every single work of fiction ever written? I think pretty much all of them draw from the same general archetypes.

Right. Like the way we've evolved to the level of Vin Diesel movies.

Hey, just because there are artists doesn't mean everyone that makes a painting is one...

Isn't that like every single work of fiction ever written? I think pretty much all of them draw from the same general archetypes.

No, I totally had an original idea! There's these things that suck blood, but they're not vampires, I swear!

I think story lines are important, but I like games that make you think about how you're playing. Like The Last Remnant*, Mass Effect, Bioshock, KOTOR, KOTOR 2, etc.

* Speaking of story lines. Square and Enix have been getting kind of repetitive lately.
"Man, didn't we do this shit like three Final Fantasies ago?"

Hopefully FFXIII (Which is coming out on 360, hell, yeah!) will be better.

No, I totally had an original idea! There's these things that suck blood, but they're not vampires, I swear!
Like these?: http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040628/040628_leeches_hmed.hmedium.jpg

*imagines game where you slog through a swamp, then spend 12 hours picking these off yourself.

I suspect that story isn't so critical as long as the setting is good. I'd probably like a very open-ended game with no fixed story line, so long as the universe/backstory were good.
Setting can be nice, and it helps make the game better indirectly (an internally consistent world is better than one that looks like the designer's just threw in whatever came into their minds), but I almost never read that part of the manual or pay attention to the opening movie.
It is similar to if I'm reading a novel, I want to believe that the writer imagined this entire world and can tell me all the details of how magic or warp drives work, but I don't want to read that shit myself.
But it sounds to me like you're dismissing the value of a good story based on... bad (or at least mediocre) stories. Maybe you've never played a game with a really great story. Well, I rarely if ever have either. That doesn't mean that a really good story, if it existed, wouldn't trump good graphics.
I don't really believe you could make a good game with a good story. You'd either have to make gameplay sacrifices by straitjacketing the player (you will love this woman, you will have a moral crisis at this point, you will be turn between your desire for spiritual enlightenment and romance, and, goddammit, you will kill your best friend to save the lives of this busload of jerks you don't know), or you just let the player do whatever and throw a vague frame of plot over the whole mess (You want to kill the king. I don't know why, maybe because you're just a power-hungry son of a bitch, or maybe to prevent some evil or other).

No, I totally had an original idea! There's these things that suck blood, but they're not vampires, I swear!
ATTACK OF THE GIANT LEECHES! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053611/)
Already been done, and MST3K'd, and now it is going to be remade. Sorry.

ATTACK OF THE GIANT LEECHES! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053611/)
Already been done, and MST3K'd, and now it is going to be remade. Sorry.
Ha, beat you to it. :p

Like these?: http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040628/040628_leeches_hmed.hmedium.jpg

*imagines game where you slog through a swamp, then spend 12 hours picking these off yourself.
Feature exists: MGS:3
ATTACK OF THE GIANT LEECHES! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053611/)
Already been done, and MST3K'd, and now it is going to be remade. Sorry.

Awwwww :(

Isn't that like every single work of fiction ever written? I think pretty much all of them draw from the same general archetypes.
In fiction, there is more room to develop things because the writer can control the protagonist and his thoughts. So the protagonist really is driven by his desire to get revenge, he really does care about the people of Sandwichia, loves Claire, etc.
In a game, I'm the protagonist. I'm more driven by a desire to find out what is at the bottom of Stone Mountain than kill the baddie living in it. I could care less how many Sanwichians get torn to pieces by demons (there's a good chance I've killed at least a few Sandwichians just for fun anyway). And I sure as Hell don't love Claire. She's an annoying bitch who keeps triggering cut scenes, interrupting my exploring to talk about our "relationship," and eventually she is going to die, triggering another cut scene and some tedious quest to get revenge on yet another guy I care nothing about.

Ha, beat you to it. :p
But . . . my leeches were giant, and attacking!
:(
Mummy, Muravyets has my thunder and won't give it back!

Setting can be nice, and it helps make the game better indirectly (an internally consistent world is better than one that looks like the designer's just threw in whatever came into their minds), but I almost never read that part of the manual or pay attention to the opening movie.

I'm not talking about the manual or an opening movie. I'm talking about the characters you meet, the places you go through, all the little details that give the game its atmosphere. The basic environment in which its set, the basic concept. All that falls under the term "setting".

It is similar to if I'm reading a novel, I want to believe that the writer imagined this entire world and can tell me all the details of how magic or warp drives work, but I don't want to read that shit myself.

Again, you seem to have misunderstood what I'm talking about. When you write a novel, you don't want to explain every little detail about the world in the course of telling the story, but you want to provide enough description and details, to create a particular feel or image in the reader's mind. That's what I'm talking about.

I don't really believe you could make a good game with a good story. You'd either have to make gameplay sacrifices by straitjacketing the player (you will love this woman, you will have a moral crisis at this point, you will be turn between your desire for spiritual enlightenment and romance, and, goddammit, you will kill your best friend to save the lives of this busload of jerks you don't know), or you just let the player do whatever and throw a vague frame of plot over the whole mess (You want to kill the king. I don't know why, maybe because you're just a power-hungry son of a bitch, or maybe to prevent some evil or other).

I agree that its hard to combine an open-ended game with a detailed story. Perhaps it would be better to create a brilliant backstory with a detailed setting, give the player some broad objectives, and then let them take it from their.

I've been watching the whole video game industry, and something has occurred to me. Far removed from the greats of Final Fantasy VII and Crono Trigger are we. We have gone from games that had (by today's standards) poor graphics but great storylines to games with ridiculously awesome graphics but lacking in storyline.

So, my question to you, NSGers, is which is more important - graphics or storyline?

Also, do you agree that storylines have gone downhill?

It wouldn't be a Galloism thread without a poll

What about gameplay? Does no one care about gameplay here?

I like shiny graphics as much as the next gamer, but shininess is not anywhere near as important as solid gameplay and story. So, for me, in terms of priority:

Solid gameplay

Solid story

Mood-appropriate music/sound effects/voicing/whatever

Shiny graphics.

Unfortunately it seems that the priority list of most gaming companies these days is the other way around, with mega emphasis on the shininess...

Unfortunately it seems that the priority list of most gaming companies these days is the other way around, with mega emphasis on the shininess..."Dude, did you see the blood squirting out of that guy's neck after I popped his face?!"-Random player in Gears of War 2.

What about gameplay? Does no one care about gameplay here?

I know I'm not one to complain about this, but maybe you should read the thread?;)

I (and others) have mentioned gameplay and its importance, I believe.

I know I'm not one to complain about this, but maybe you should read the thread?;)

I (and others) have mentioned gameplay and its importance, I believe.

I have a very bad tendency with most NSG threads to first respond to the original post and THEN read through the thread and follow up on responses to other posts.

But anyway...yah. Gameplay matters. (Though I do like shiny graphics where appropriate. I have nothing against shininess. I just don't want concentration on shininess to take away from gameplay and good music and such.)

Has anyone noted the Shin Megami Persona series? The latest, Persona 4, came out on PS2 Dec. 9th, and I've found it immensely enjoyable. I loved it's predecessors, Persona 3 and Persona 3:FES, and find it to be top-notch with them, even on a PS2. It's this game that's kept me from playing Halo 3, actually.

Well I still love any play the Marathon trilogoy all the time (with Durandal being my favorite). Those graphics aren't so great compared to modern ones but I still find it preferable to many games of today. So I lean towards storyline but the graphics have to at least keep it interesting, but they aren't that greatly important to me.

I've been watching the whole video game industry, and something has occurred to me. Far removed from the greats of Final Fantasy VII and Crono Trigger are we. We have gone from games that had (by today's standards) poor graphics but great storylines to games with ridiculously awesome graphics but lacking in storyline.

So, my question to you, NSGers, is which is more important - graphics or storyline?

Also, do you agree that storylines have gone downhill?

It wouldn't be a Galloism thread without a poll

Yar! World of WarCraft! Yar!

Yar! World of WarCraft! Yar!

I love WoW, but storyline is not really it's strongest suit.

I have a very bad tendency with most NSG threads to first respond to the original post and THEN read through the thread and follow up on responses to other posts.


lol, i do the same... but with this thread i just happened to get there first :tongue:

Has anyone noted the Shin Megami Persona series? The latest, Persona 4, came out on PS2 Dec. 9th, and I've found it immensely enjoyable. I loved it's predecessors, Persona 3 and Persona 3:FES, and find it to be top-notch with them, even on a PS2. It's this game that's kept me from playing Halo 3, actually.

What's it about?

Neither. Gameplay.

Graphics are overrated. So is storyline. *Plays some more "Rogue"*

No, stories are definitely better now. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Justice for All, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Trials and Tribulations, Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney, Hotel Dusk: Room 215, Fire Emblem, Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones, The DS re-release of Chrono Trigger, Tales of Symphonia and Knights of Ratatosk are all great on story


And The Conduit seems like it'll be a great blend of story and action.

I have a very bad tendency with most NSG threads to first respond to the original post and THEN read through the thread and follow up on responses to other posts.

So do I. But its the frustratingly inaccurate fun way!

I've been watching the whole video game industry, and something has occurred to me. Far removed from the greats of Final Fantasy VII and Crono Trigger are we. We have gone from games that had (by today's standards) poor graphics but great storylines to games with ridiculously awesome graphics but lacking in storyline.

So, my question to you, NSGers, is which is more important - graphics or storyline?

Also, do you agree that storylines have gone downhill?

It wouldn't be a Galloism thread without a poll

replayability for me. Doom didn't have much of a storyline nor graphics, but the sheer number of fan made levels made up for that. Diablo, Pretty good graphics, almost predictable storyline, but because the side quests were randomly selected, it offered a degree of playability.

Has anyone noted the Shin Megami Persona series? The latest, Persona 4, came out on PS2 Dec. 9th, and I've found it immensely enjoyable. I loved it's predecessors, Persona 3 and Persona 3:FES, and find it to be top-notch with them, even on a PS2. It's this game that's kept me from playing Halo 3, actually.

I played Persona and Persona 2. great games.

Story is definitely the most important...

Gears of War for example looks awesome...but theres almost no reason for anything going on, and i cant get into it...it just gets boring...

Depends what sort of game it is.

The Fallout games are faves of mine. The graphics in those games, while important, are not as important as the story line.

The Gran Turimos games are another fave, but there is no story line in them. It's all about the driving physics & graphics.