Gaming trends that irk you

[LibraryOgre]

Even more fun if you need to spend skill points on persuasion skills instead of combat skills.

Part of why I like Bard-types as my PC.

[Anteros]

I find that most games have a happy medium of having skill points in almost everything but diplomacy be almost worthless so you don't feel like you're punished for making your main character the party face. Clearly not a perfect system, and personally I'd rather have diplomacy checks tied to your reputation like Mass Effect 2 and 3 did it. It makes sense that people would be more likely to listen if you have a history of sticking to your word, or following through on your threats. Of course, that works for Shepard because everyone in the galaxy knows who they are. It's a bit harder to justify for your random nobody characters.

[Aotrs Commander]

Maybe a compromise a bit liek PoE 2 does - have dialogue choices by category (like clever or stoic or kind or what-have-you) which give you a reputation or sorts (or a score) for that category and just set it such that later options (which would pass some checks) come up the higher your value for that category is. (I.e., if you spend the game making mostly clever remarks, you might open up some dialogue options (that are the equivilent of the diplomacy check etc).

Possibility?

[Traab]

Part of why I like Bard-types as my PC.

I hate bard types, but only because I got introduced to them playing everquest and kept forgetting to turn off my aoe dd chant before trying to talk to a merchant or guard. They.... they dont like being hit for 2 damage. YOU dislike getting hit for 3x your max hp even more though.

[Keltest]

Maybe a compromise a bit liek PoE 2 does - have dialogue choices by category (like clever or stoic or kind or what-have-you) which give you a reputation or sorts (or a score) for that category and just set it such that later options (which would pass some checks) come up the higher your value for that category is. (I.e., if you spend the game making mostly clever remarks, you might open up some dialogue options (that are the equivilent of the diplomacy check etc).

Possibility?

I think a better solution is to just give the main character a separate set of leadership skills and points that they can spend. So you can choose to be a more charismatic speaker, or coordinate your party better, and a couple other skills that all provide bonuses on par with what you would get with persuasion.

[Anteros]

Maybe a compromise a bit liek PoE 2 does - have dialogue choices by category (like clever or stoic or kind or what-have-you) which give you a reputation or sorts (or a score) for that category and just set it such that later options (which would pass some checks) come up the higher your value for that category is. (I.e., if you spend the game making mostly clever remarks, you might open up some dialogue options (that are the equivilent of the diplomacy check etc).

Possibility?

Sorta...but I don't want to be locked into making certain types of responses just so that I can make sure I unlock the best dialogue options later. You end up with situations like "you didn't make enough jokes when your friend's mom died, so now you can't be witty with the tavern maid".

[Rodin]

I find that most games have a happy medium of having skill points in almost everything but diplomacy be almost worthless so you don't feel like you're punished for making your main character the party face. Clearly not a perfect system, and personally I'd rather have diplomacy checks tied to your reputation like Mass Effect 2 and 3 did it. It makes sense that people would be more likely to listen if you have a history of sticking to your word, or following through on your threats. Of course, that works for Shepard because everyone in the galaxy knows who they are. It's a bit harder to justify for your random nobody characters.

Doing for specific actions related to a given faction is something that I rather liked. For example, there's a hidden reputation store with the Quarians and the Geth that affects how likely you are to achieve peace between them. If you bring Legion with you onto the Quarian fleet, that score goes way down and it does come up later in your negotiations with the Quarians. Holding the player accountable for past actions is something far too few games do.

Maybe a compromise a bit liek PoE 2 does - have dialogue choices by category (like clever or stoic or kind or what-have-you) which give you a reputation or sorts (or a score) for that category and just set it such that later options (which would pass some checks) come up the higher your value for that category is. (I.e., if you spend the game making mostly clever remarks, you might open up some dialogue options (that are the equivilent of the diplomacy check etc).

Possibility?

D:OS2 again got sort of halfway there on this one. Speech checks were done by category, but were also modified by your speech skill. So if you were a huge intimidating warrior facing down a wimpy guy, you could forgo the speech skill and just loom over him with your bulk to get your way. If you try the same thing on a big beefy dude, you would need the extra speech points to out-intimidate him.

Of course, the problem still remains that you can't tell your huge intimidating warrior to step forward when the game randomly decides your wizard is now the party spokesman. At least, not without save scumming.

[GloatingSwine]

Doing for specific actions related to a given faction is something that I rather liked. For example, there's a hidden reputation store with the Quarians and the Geth that affects how likely you are to achieve peace between them. If you bring Legion with you onto the Quarian fleet, that score goes way down and it does come up later in your negotiations with the Quarians. Holding the player accountable for past actions is something far too few games do.

Pillars does that in its first DLC.

There are three possible outcomes for the resolution of the main conflict (return memories to the god of the forge and preservation, forget everything, or return but with a more forward thinking attitude rather than fighting to keep everything the same), and to get the last one it has to be consistent with your previous acts in other quests.

If you try making the arguments that lead to it, but your decisions in other quests contradict it, you will be called out on it and it won't work.


When Pillars does skill checks on one character* it's usually possible to choose what character it is, and it's only locked to the main character if it makes sense for nobody else to be able to help.



* Which often includes class features not just the actual skills, like there's a minor sidequest to rescue people from a burning house, you can choose who goes in, if you send in a wizard with an ice spell they get to use it to bypass one of the obstacles.

[Man_Over_Game]

I still think that once a company does not except to get money from a game anymore that at that point making an extract here version would be nice instead of just shutting down servers and having the game utterly impossible to play for everybody.

They sometimes do that. It's called Abandonware. They're free to download and play to your heart's content. Just search the term and find some old games for you to enjoy.

Many don't though, as the rights usually fall into someone's lap before that happens.

[Traab]

Doing for specific actions related to a given faction is something that I rather liked. For example, there's a hidden reputation store with the Quarians and the Geth that affects how likely you are to achieve peace between them. If you bring Legion with you onto the Quarian fleet, that score goes way down and it does come up later in your negotiations with the Quarians. Holding the player accountable for past actions is something far too few games do.

An example of doing it wrong would be starcraft 2. In the terran campaign you get two different, presumably vital choices to make that alters what mission you get to run. In one you can choose to help the slightly unhinged but loyal leader of a group of special agents you have been working with to free his people from prison. Or you can help the ghosts kill them instead. You would THINK that would have repercussions later on down the line. Nope. Only change is which special unit you can summon, or the crazy guy you betrayed dies. In another you have to choose whether to help this pretty scientist lady protect her colony from the protoss, or to help the protoss destroy it because its infested. Other than a cinematic at the end of the mission, it has absolutely no effect on anything barring a choice of research to gain. You can wipe out the protoss fleet and it wont change how they work with you later, and the scientist lady vanishes with her colony, presumably fine. Or you can help them wipe out the entire colony and the scientist is somehow turned into a zerg on board the ship and you kill her. Either way she isnt on board, the protoss still respect you, and the story moves forward, never to reference the event again.

[Draconi Redfir]

An example of doing it wrong would be starcraft 2. In the terran campaign you get two different, presumably vital choices to make that alters what mission you get to run. In one you can choose to help the slightly unhinged but loyal leader of a group of special agents you have been working with to free his people from prison. Or you can help the ghosts kill them instead. You would THINK that would have repercussions later on down the line. Nope. Only change is which special unit you can summon, or the crazy guy you betrayed dies. In another you have to choose whether to help this pretty scientist lady protect her colony from the protoss, or to help the protoss destroy it because its infested. Other than a cinematic at the end of the mission, it has absolutely no effect on anything barring a choice of research to gain. You can wipe out the protoss fleet and it wont change how they work with you later, and the scientist lady vanishes with her colony, presumably fine. Or you can help them wipe out the entire colony and the scientist is somehow turned into a zerg on board the ship and you kill her. Either way she isnt on board, the protoss still respect you, and the story moves forward, never to reference the event again.

and it doesn't matter anyways because those choices don't carry over to heart of the swarm. Even if you kill the special agent leader in the Terran campaign, you still get a brief glimpse of him alive and well in the background of the Zerg campaign while the Terrans are offering his services to Kerigan.

Starcraft goes by "A-canon", or something. where when given two choices, the first one offered / the one on the left is considered "canon". you can choose the other one if you want, but it won't be canon.

[Resileaf]

and it doesn't matter anyways because those choices don't carry over to heart of the swarm. Even if you kill the special agent leader in the Terran campaign, you still get a brief glimpse of him alive and well in the background of the Zerg campaign while the Terrans are offering his services to Kerigan.

Starcraft goes by "A-canon", or something. where when given two choices, the first one offered / the one on the left is considered "canon". you can choose the other one if you want, but it won't be canon.

It's pretty obvious that they intended at first that the choice you made in the first game would have an effect on the future ones, but either they gave up because it was too complicated, or they didn't have enough time to make it work.

However, I do think there is a slight change if you help Nova and kill the Spectres off. When she captures Raynor at the beginning of HotS, she will say "Well, I guess you helped me, but I still gotta capture you" or something like that. At least, I've seen Youtube videos of her saying it, I personally never did, because I think the game considers the first choice you make to be your choice forever so you can't see a different scene even if you restart the game.

[Dienekes]

It's pretty obvious that they intended at first that the choice you made in the first game would have an effect on the future ones, but either they gave up because it was too complicated, or they didn't have enough time to make it work.

However, I do think there is a slight change if you help Nova and kill the Spectres off. When she captures Raynor at the beginning of HotS, she will say "Well, I guess you helped me, but I still gotta capture you" or something like that. At least, I've seen Youtube videos of her saying it, I personally never did, because I think the game considers the first choice you make to be your choice forever so you can't see a different scene even if you restart the game.

I'll just add that to the list of disappointments with the SC2 campaign.

[warty goblin]

So I've been playing through Spellforce 3 of late, and been having a blast. Everything that's in the game is good, but I think one of the best things about it is what isn't there.

There is absolutely no pointless grindy tedious crap.

There aren't any collect all the floozle quests. There's no crafting, so I don't have to carry around sixteen thousand separate kinds of trash so that one day I might be able to make a +3 Sword of Break The Damn Game, or farm for ingredients, or other forms of let's-pretend-this-is-actual-gameplay. There aren't fifteen separate currencies to keep track of, you don't advance on a bunch of different scales or earn different sorts of XP or anything. You just get XP for doing stuff, and every now and again level up, that's it.

All of which means that the game actually feels like a game. You know, fun. It has space to breathe, and because it doesn't have to be filled to the brim with #content or be infinitely playable, it can actually have pacing and tone and atmosphere. I find myself exploring not because I know there's going to be another batch of sidequests and activities where I can earn powerful rewards, but just because I want to see what's over there. It might just look cool!

Basically it's a game from like 2007, but shoved into an eyebleedingly good looking engine.

[Traab]

and it doesn't matter anyways because those choices don't carry over to heart of the swarm. Even if you kill the special agent leader in the Terran campaign, you still get a brief glimpse of him alive and well in the background of the Zerg campaign while the Terrans are offering his services to Kerigan.

Starcraft goes by "A-canon", or something. where when given two choices, the first one offered / the one on the left is considered "canon". you can choose the other one if you want, but it won't be canon.

The other funny thing is, even the choice of units doesnt matter, or didnt to me, as I never bothered using specters or ghosts in the single player missions, thus making the whole mess utterly meaningless in every way possible as it has no effect on the story outside of a cinematic, no effect on the gameplay as I never use the units, and no effect on the future as nobody cares which paths you picked in the previous game. And so forcing these "choices" into the game just made it annoying. Im sure they could have included both choices in various ways as just the next story point and it would have come off better. You protect dr hansons colony from the protoss and leave, then later on you have to cleanse another colony that actually IS infested. Boom, got both done without pretending like you had a choice that mattered.

At least in HotS they didnt waste time with that, they left it as "Choose a planet to determine what order you will unlock the various units" and the evolution missions which DID make a difference in gameplay! I mean sure 99% of my units were going to be roaches and hydralisks anyways, but the various upgrades were kinda neat even if I rarely used them. No pretending your storyline choice would have any meaningful impact on the, you know, STORYLINE, just "Hey, I figured out a way to upgrade your guys but you can only choose one." And then boom, your guys are upgraded and you move on.

[The_Jackal]

And this is where I trot out the 'Story doesn't matter' argument. Starcraft, and Blizzard games in general do not rest on the merits of their story. Yes, the story can help with immersion, so you're not just playing hi-res Space Invaders, but at the end of the day, you didn't show up to this game for a 'choose your own adventure' book. Honestly, if they were really going to take narrative seriously in Starcraft, why do you need to re-research the same technologies and upgrades in every single mission? Why don't we just take the tech we got on Mar Sara, and just re-use them on Korhal? The answer is 'because gameplay'.

The truth is nobody cares what/whether Raynor and Kerrigan get back together, because the game is about battles between the Protoss, Zerg, and Terrans. It's a war-game, not a rom-com. The subplots they superimpose on the underlying gameplay are there to bid up the dramatic stakes of the gameplay, but they can't supplant the gameplay. If you changed the story at the expense of the gameplay, you'd be making a terrible mistake, because you're emphasizing the superficial aspects of the game at the expense of the fundamental ones.

This was (one of) the mistake(s) that SW:TOR made, and that WoW is making now: Focusing more on narrative, at the expense of the core experience that players actually get to participate in, and this is why games like Dark Souls fare so much better in practice, in spite of the story being so perfunctory/nonsensical as to be completely irrelevant. Take Doom. In the sage words of Yahtzee Croshaw, the story is little more than "Demons over there, kill they ass". And it's GREAT, because the gameplay is pure, savage, adrenaline pumping action.

[Resileaf]

This was (one of) the mistake(s) that SW:TOR made, and that WoW is making now: Focusing more on narrative, at the expense of the core experience that players actually get to participate in, and this is why games like Dark Souls fare so much better in practice, in spite of the story being so perfunctory/nonsensical as to be completely irrelevant. Take Doom. In the sage words of Yahtzee Croshaw, the story is little more than "Demons over there, kill they ass". And it's GREAT, because the gameplay is pure, savage, adrenaline pumping action.

I don't really think that works like that. The story of a game needs to be functional. It needs to interest the player. And it needs to be coherent as well. Take Final Fantasy 14. Amazing story, and it seems to be turning into one of the best MMOs of this generation, and apparently it's getting more popular than WoW, which is hemorrhaging its playerbase constantly.

[Keltest]

I don't really think that works like that. The story of a game needs to be functional. It needs to interest the player. And it needs to be coherent as well. Take Final Fantasy 14. Amazing story, and it seems to be turning into one of the best MMOs of this generation, and apparently it's getting more popular than WoW, which is hemorrhaging its playerbase constantly.

That's true to a point, but if actually playing through the game to experience the story is torturous, then you've fundamentally failed to make a good game. Furthermore, for games like StarCraft, the story is a fairly distant third priority, behind the basic gameplay and multiplayer capabilities. Its a nice thing to have, but its not really what people play the game for.

[Resileaf]

That's true to a point, but if actually playing through the game to experience the story is torturous, then you've fundamentally failed to make a good game. Furthermore, for games like StarCraft, the story is a fairly distant third priority, behind the basic gameplay and multiplayer capabilities. Its a nice thing to have, but its not really what people play the game for.

Yes and no. When I play the game's story mode, I want the story to be interesting. I also want the gameplay to be interesting, since it's a game. I want context to my actions, not just set pieces without explanation between them.

[Keltest]

Yes and no. When I play the game's story mode, I want the story to be interesting. I also want the gameplay to be interesting, since it's a game. I want context to my actions, not just set pieces without explanation between them.

Let me put it this way. A game with fun gameplay and a crappy or thin story can still be successful on the merits of its gameplay. A game with a good story and terrible gameplay is highly unlikely to be successful on the merits of its story.

[Rynjin]

Let me put it this way. A game with fun gameplay and a crappy or thin story can still be successful on the merits of its gameplay. A game with a good story and terrible gameplay is highly unlikely to be successful on the merits of its story.

Eh, it works for every Visual Novel, Walking Simulator, Telltale-style-not-quite-visual-novel Game, and JRPG ever made, so I dunno if it's "highly unlikely".

[deuterio12]

And this is where I trot out the 'Story doesn't matter' argument. Starcraft, and Blizzard games in general do not rest on the merits of their story. Yes, the story can help with immersion, so you're not just playing hi-res Space Invaders, but at the end of the day, you didn't show up to this game for a 'choose your own adventure' book. Honestly, if they were really going to take narrative seriously in Starcraft, why do you need to re-research the same technologies and upgrades in every single mission? Why don't we just take the tech we got on Mar Sara, and just re-use them on Korhal? The answer is 'because gameplay'.

For Starcraft 2's campaigns there were plenty of technologies that remained unlocked for all the campaign once you acquired them the first time.

The truth is nobody cares what/whether Raynor and Kerrigan get back together, because the game is about battles between the Protoss, Zerg, and Terrans. It's a war-game, not a rom-com. The subplots they superimpose on the underlying gameplay are there to bid up the dramatic stakes of the gameplay, but they can't supplant the gameplay. If you changed the story at the expense of the gameplay, you'd be making a terrible mistake, because you're emphasizing the superficial aspects of the game at the expense of the fundamental ones.

Although the story is secondary, it still helps flavor the gameplay. If Starcraft was just factions 1, 2 and 3 consisting of blue, red and green basic geometric shapes shooting tiny dots at each other, I seriously doubt the game would've become as popular as it has.

This was (one of) the mistake(s) that SW:TOR made, and that WoW is making now: Focusing more on narrative, at the expense of the core experience that players actually get to participate in, and this is why games like Dark Souls fare so much better in practice, in spite of the story being so perfunctory/nonsensical as to be completely irrelevant. Take Doom. In the sage words of Yahtzee Croshaw, the story is little more than "Demons over there, kill they ass". And it's GREAT, because the gameplay is pure, savage, adrenaline pumping action.

It's great also because killing demons is great and they explode in gore when killed and whatnot. If instead of demons you just had some white circles that only blink out of existence when destroyed, the game would be considerably poorer.

A good story doesn't need to be super complicated neither be super deep/dense. "Demons over there, kill their ass" is a classic, simple, good story. But you still need something there.

Eh, it works for every Visual Novel, Walking Simulator, Telltale-style-not-quite-visual-novel Game, and JRPG ever made, so I dunno if it's "highly unlikely".

Almost null gameplay isn't the same as terrible gameplay. If a game tells you need to backtrack and grind 100 bear asses that each have a 0.0001% drop rate, that's a lot worst than a visual novel's "press X to instantly collect the 100 bear asses in a few automatic scenes (or press Y to don't collect 100 bear asses and get funny bad end)".

[Anteros]

Let me put it this way. A game with fun gameplay and a crappy or thin story can still be successful on the merits of its gameplay. A game with a good story and terrible gameplay is highly unlikely to be successful on the merits of its story.

That's simply not true. Mass Effect's gameplay was nothing special, but its story and setting made it a huge success. The Witcher 3 is widely lauded as one of the best games of all time, and the gameplay in it is a repetitive floaty mess that's carried by a very strong story. Bioware has made an entire franchise based around strong stories and sub-par gameplay. There's dozens of examples of games that are successful with mediocre gameplay and strong stories.

Also, given that WoW still has millions of subs despite being older than time itself, I don't even think that example works.

A truer statement might be that games with good story and bad gameplay don't appeal to you personally, but gamers have definitely shown that they're willing to sit through boring gameplay to get to a good story.

[Dienekes]

And this is where I trot out the 'Story doesn't matter' argument. Starcraft, and Blizzard games in general do not rest on the merits of their story. Yes, the story can help with immersion, so you're not just playing hi-res Space Invaders, but at the end of the day, you didn't show up to this game for a 'choose your own adventure' book. Honestly, if they were really going to take narrative seriously in Starcraft, why do you need to re-research the same technologies and upgrades in every single mission? Why don't we just take the tech we got on Mar Sara, and just re-use them on Korhal? The answer is 'because gameplay'.

The truth is nobody cares what/whether Raynor and Kerrigan get back together, because the game is about battles between the Protoss, Zerg, and Terrans. It's a war-game, not a rom-com. The subplots they superimpose on the underlying gameplay are there to bid up the dramatic stakes of the gameplay, but they can't supplant the gameplay. If you changed the story at the expense of the gameplay, you'd be making a terrible mistake, because you're emphasizing the superficial aspects of the game at the expense of the fundamental ones.

This was (one of) the mistake(s) that SW:TOR made, and that WoW is making now: Focusing more on narrative, at the expense of the core experience that players actually get to participate in, and this is why games like Dark Souls fare so much better in practice, in spite of the story being so perfunctory/nonsensical as to be completely irrelevant. Take Doom. In the sage words of Yahtzee Croshaw, the story is little more than "Demons over there, kill they ass". And it's GREAT, because the gameplay is pure, savage, adrenaline pumping action.

I think I more or less exist as a counterpoint. I did care about Starcrafts story. Brood War’s campaign remains as one of my favorite campaigns, and Kerrigan rose as my favorite video game villain.

SC2s gameplay in the campaign is much more diverse and unique than Brood War. And yet I’ve never replayed the SC2 campaign because I think the story is stupidly written.

And SW:TOR was only good because of the story. I still remember my Sith Juggernauts and Chiss Spy’s story arc and decisions. But not the gameplay at all.

What makes FromSoft games good is, of course, the right gameplay. But for those who did like narrative the best games had an incredibly deep ones if you decided to look.

[The_Jackal]

I don't really think that works like that. The story of a game needs to be functional. It needs to interest the player. And it needs to be coherent as well. Take Final Fantasy 14. Amazing story, and it seems to be turning into one of the best MMOs of this generation, and apparently it's getting more popular than WoW, which is hemorrhaging its playerbase constantly.

Games don't even need stories at all. They're value added, but not crucial to the act. Chess doesn't have a story, most early video-games lacked a story. Really, it wasn't until Half-Life or Deus Ex that FPS games had anything approaching a story in them. Now a good story will make a good game better, but a bad game won't be redeemed by a good story.

[Anteros]

Games don't even need stories at all. They're value added, but not crucial to the act. Chess doesn't have a story, most early video-games lacked a story. Really, it wasn't until Half-Life or Deus Ex that FPS games had anything approaching a story in them. Now a good story will make a good game better, but a bad game won't be redeemed by a good story.

Bad games are redeemed by good stories all the time though. Look at something like FF6 and tell me it has objectively good gameplay. You can't. At it's core it's just "press x every few seconds to continue the grind". It's carried by engaging characters and plot.

Obviously there's a spectrum here. If your game's mechanic is good enough, you don't need a story to support it. Just like a good enough story can make players push through bad gameplay.

[Ignimortis]

Bad games are redeemed by good stories all the time though. Look at something like FF6 and tell me it has objectively good gameplay. You can't. At it's core it's just "press x every few seconds to continue the grind". It's carried by engaging characters and plot.

Obviously there's a spectrum here. If your game's mechanic is good enough, you don't need a story to support it. Just like a good enough story can make players push through bad gameplay.

FF6 isn't bad gameplay. It has probably the least grindy progression of the first ten games, and it's pretty much a refined version of all the previous FF games. And when you dumb things down to "press x every few seconds", you're neglecting the tactical aspect of weaknesses/magic/special commands that aren't just "press X to attacK".

There's a difference between "not the best gameplay it could offer" and "bad gameplay". First doesn't need you to tolerate in order to carry on with the story, it can keep you engaged on a smaller scale, it's just not something you can make a whole game out of without support from story or presentation.

[DaedalusMkV]

Games don't even need stories at all. They're value added, but not crucial to the act. Chess doesn't have a story, most early video-games lacked a story. Really, it wasn't until Half-Life or Deus Ex that FPS games had anything approaching a story in them. Now a good story will make a good game better, but a bad game won't be redeemed by a good story.

Huh. I didn't know that all those Lucasarts and Sierra adventure games didn't have a plot. I guess I must have been hallucinating the plot to Grim Fandango and Monkey Island back in the day, then. Oh, and Chrono Trigger. I had some clearly non-existent good times with that game. Hum. And all those crazy live-action cutscenes in the Command and Conquer games when I was just a kid probably didn't happen either. Just faulty memories.


To escape sarcasm mode, video games have had plots of varying complexity for as long as they've been more than one-screen gimmicks. Zork predates pretty much everything shy of Pong, and was basically nothing but a mix of problem-solving, riddles and story. Unless you consider the ur-RPG to not be a video game or something, games have had plots for virtually the entirety of their existence, and those plots have been draws to those games for exactly the same amount of time. A good story is a different draw than good gameplay, but never doubt that a mediocre game with an excellent story will still have plenty of fans; just look at Phoenix Wright, which is beloved despite having gameplay pretty much everyone agrees is deeply flawed. An excellent story is an excellent story, regardless of what medium it's being told through. People will appreciate it and recommend it to their friends. Games don't need a story. They also don't really need gameplay, as the walking simulators and visual novels demonstrate. As long as either the gameplay or story is good enough, the final product is still a good game.

[Zevox]

Bad games are redeemed by good stories all the time though. Look at something like FF6 and tell me it has objectively good gameplay. You can't. At it's core it's just "press x every few seconds to continue the grind". It's carried by engaging characters and plot.

Obviously there's a spectrum here. If your game's mechanic is good enough, you don't need a story to support it. Just like a good enough story can make players push through bad gameplay.

While I haven't played FF6 specifically, if it's anything like the other FFs, its gameplay also isn't exactly complete garbage either. Much as I personally dislike the ATB meter and consider it a downgrade from normal turn-based gameplay, most people seem to be more neutral about it, so to most people the gameplay is pretty much standard turn-based RPG gameplay, which plenty of people like.

While I agree that both good gameplay and a good story can make up for weakness in the other area, I do think there is something to be said for it not being a totally balanced equation. A game could have an insultingly awful story and be carried by good to great gameplay no matter how bad the writing gets, while even the greatest story in the world might not make up for gameplay being so badly designed and/or bug-riddled that it becomes nigh unplayable. Superman 64 wouldn't be a good game even if it had a story on par with Persona 3 or 4 (or insert your personal pick for the best story in video games there).

[deuterio12]

Bad games are redeemed by good stories all the time though. Look at something like FF6 and tell me it has objectively good gameplay. You can't. At it's core it's just "press x every few seconds to continue the grind". It's carried by engaging characters and plot.

The FF 6 gameplay is actually pretty nice. The very first boss has an unique pattern where just blindly smashing X every few seconds will just make you lose, and then even basic enemies actually have interesting scripts with many boss battles allowing for different strategies to win (none of which being just spam X). A great example is the Magic Master that is scripted to cast Ultima when it dies as a final "f*** you", so you need to plan ahead so you can survive/negate/evade said Ultima that can otherwise one-shot any party that isn't grossly overleveled. You can summon Quetzalli to jump at the right moment or get a source of auto-life, etc. But just pressing X every few seconds will only lead to game over.