
Originally Posted by
Zenicetus
I think the difference here is that if a game developer isn't going to bother to do a really good story, then they should do the minimal story necessary as a rationale for the action, and then keep it out of the way. Don't insult the player's intelligence (and good taste) with a terrible story that just distracts from the gameplay. Dead Space is a recent game that doesn't have a very original storyline, but the devs mostly kept it in the background, so you could enjoy their different take on FPS games.
If the story and game world is compelling enough, I can overlook somewhat mediocre gameplay. The Witcher game is a good example of that. I sure didn't play it for the combat, which was repetitive and too easy. Bioshock was similar... basically just a so-so FPS game, but an interesting story and very interesting environment that kept me playing the game.
It's much harder for the gameplay to be so good that I'm willing to forgive a stale or juvenile storyline. Mass Effect and Fallout 3 are almost, but not quite in that category for me. Assassin's Creed definitely was. That game had some interesting mechanics (the whole rooftop jumping thing), but the story was just terrible; especially that constant flipping back and forth to the modern world. I couldn't finish it, because I just stopped caring about the story wrapper for the action.
Another example would be the two Kohan fantasy RTS games. As strategy games they were great, but the backstory and game world were cringe-inducingly awful. I never finished the campaign for the second game because I just couldn't take it any more (and it still worked fine in the alternate sandbox mode). I'm keeping my fingers crossed, and hoping Stardock has some good writers for their upcoming fantasy TBS game. It's so easy to write terrible fantasy storylines and game worlds, and apparently it's hard to write it well.
Bookmarks