Unspoken Words

1. Depends on just how bad the gameplay is. If it's just bad in comparison to better things, then it's excusable. If it's a glitchy mess, then it depends on just how good the story is; some games are like interactive novels, because mediums evolve over time. And since everyone has their own preference, and no one thing is best, then it can work sometimes. But if it's something like Superman 64, or Sonic 06, or the E.T. movie cash in... Yeah, nothing can save that.

 

2. Opposite of what I just said above. =P If a story is a wretched mess and just does not work, the gameplay would have to be good, especially if you have to sit through dialogue. Otherwise, a perfect example is Zero Wing: "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US! YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME!"

 

3. Neutral; there's good and bad DLC.

 

4. By acting as expansions to the game.

 

5. I have no examples on hand of good DLC, but bad would be like. "HEY WE JUST GAVE YOU THIS GAME! NOW PAY 60 BUCKS FOR THE DAY ONE PATCH THAT UNLOCKS EVERYTHING WE ALREADY MADE,BUT WANTED TO MILK YOU FOR!"

 

6. Unsure.

 

7. Mega Man X7, aside form the idiotic Reploid system. xP

 

8. A combination of everything; good story that meshes well together, good gameplay that works and has only beneficial glitches(aka glitches that people like... Sonic 06, looking at you, you could've had great glitches, then you have Sonic randomly drop into lava.), a rocking soundtrack, good art design, and cool levels and characters.

 

Bonus. Immersion basically is like 'can I get into this game and enjoy it well, without having jarring and wrenching moments that break that feeling?', from my understanding. It's used a lot in, like, realistic stuff?

You want good DLC? The Bethesda Fallouts had some really well done DLC that amounted to additional lands to explore and quest through, some of which improved the game dramatically. (See: Operation Anchorage accidentally giving you the best armor in the game with INFINITE DURABILITY) I'd also like to put forward the Mass Effect 3 DLC Citadel as good DLC, because it was pure, 100% fan-thanking joyousness and hilarity.

• Does good story excuse bad gameplay?

  To a point; if you can't enjoy your experience/advance the story, the gameplay must be pretty awful and nothing can excuse that. However, if gameplay is so so so so bad that it's funny... nothing else really matters, does it? So for me, I play for story I guess; I suck at games so the gameplay is usually not really what Im concerned about.

• Does good gameplay excuse bad story?

  Absolutely. Good gameplay means it's fun. I can excuse a mess of a story if it's fun to at least push buttons to make things happen. There's plenty of games where I would ignore the story entirely and just do stuff. Sandbox games especially.

• What is your opinion of Downloadable Content?

  If it's extras, I love it. Always like extra stuff. If it's like, you have to pay to unlock stuff that the game isn't fun without? Just why. It's a dirty moneygrabbing tactic and I don't know what they expect to accomplish with it; more people would be paying to buy the full game than would otherwise not get it cause their favorite characters cost extra or it feels unfinished. I like DLC when the game doesn't NEED it, basically. And when it's cheaper. Or better, free. 

• How can it be done well?

  When your game has been out for a good amount of time and you have amassed enough public opinion to make new levels and fan favorites and stuff that everyone would enjoy. Not only does the game become exciting and playable and new long after you "beat it" but the new content is catered to the people who know what they want. Expansion packs for Skyrim, or the new tracks and characters for Mario Kart, etc. Another way to do it well is to make it reasonable. UMvC3 putting out a handful of DLC packs with only three-ish characters each, with all the best ones convenient spread out through all of them, at a ridiculous per-pack price? Hilarious and depressing. Releasing the DLC as one whole package for a reasonable price (not half the original price for example) is a good way to go.

• Examples of good and bad DLC?

  Whoops, didn't read ahead, already gave examples. Expansion packs in general are good DLC, Mario Kart. UMvC3 was cruel DLC. In general, all DLC is good DLC, since you're getting something new; if it's like, somehow really awful content, then that would be bad, that's a waste of money, but people tend to know exactly what they're buying with DLC.

• A much praised game you think is terrible?

  Uhh... I dunno, I love everything and I'm not really a gamer, I don't reaaally know what's out or I haven't played anything myself that wasn't for a Nintendo system. Arkham Asylum or whatever one of that series it was didn't seem fun to me; I'm not big on "press these button combos when these baddies turn these colors for a fraction of a second for many long minutes at a time to make Batman perform the same actions over and over are you yawning/horribly frustrated yet".

• A much maligned game you think is actually quite good?

  I don't know what the consensus is on stuff, buuut I know the Kinect gets a lot of flack for mostly existing and I know rhythm games and stuff probably get a lot of hate for existing too, but I played Just Dance 5 on stage with my friends at NYCC and I am a terrible dancer and couldnt keep up and got sweaty and my costume fell apart but I have never felt so alive it's a 10/10 game

• What do you think makes a good game?

  It's fun to play while you play it. It really depends what a gamer is looking for. I really like to look at pretty things, and the kinds of games where I press buttons and the character does things and there are many things to do. I like to have freedom to jump around and make things go boom, or just get that first person feeling where I am the character. In shooters you don't really get that, you feel like a solider, but in stuff like Skyrim or Starbound (sci-fi and fantasy themes really sell a game for me too, I love all the cool possibilities and am a nerd) you feel like yourself, but with the ability to do some crazy stuff and make your own decisions. So I guess a good game is able to really immerse the player, make them feel completely in control and never on a rail or in someone else's shoes, unless those shoes fit really well. A good game makes you happy when you accomplish something. Rather than just "oh man I cant believe I finally finished that endless horde of enemies" or "I cant believe I finally took down that boss" or "I can't believe I found all the things", basically endurance and repetition and a lot of stress and and anxiety and fatigue, games should make you go "I cant believe I just did THAT" or " I can't believe I figured it out" and basically like, you feel like you actually did something, you actually thought and your actions got you somewhere, not the opponents finally running out. Like, in the Portal games, when suddenly the puzzle clicks for you and go whoosh whoosh whoosh and you fly across the screen and you feel really smart and like you got what you wanted, not what the game wanted for you. Another examples is when you're playing an exploration sort of game and discover something cool or theres a story development that you made happen or if in general you just do something super cool. I never played Bioshock Infinite but it looked like it has that "doing some insanely rad stuff" deal. A good game is fun, it's usually very unique, and you can do things and either get cool rewards or the reward is your own satisfaction. Being able to customize your play experience and characters and stuff is very good, and being able to go back and replay a game is super important too; redoing certain fun levels in Mirror's Edge, or restarting your Battle Network game just to go through that again and see how fast you can beat or just enjoy the story or try a new playstyle. A good game can't be made to be memorable, but if it is memorable, you know your game was pretty good.

   

  Bonus Question: Immersion? What's that mean?

  To me immersion is to be able to get lost in the world of the game, to get comfy in its rules and its story. You don't get distracting pointing out things like "that wouldnt happen in real life" or "that looks weird", you basically suspend your disbelief and stop being a grouch, and you get really invested in what happening, be it the characters or the action. It's like... when you read a book, and at a point you don't see the words on the page and you just have the story playing out in your head until you snap out of it and realize hours have passed. A game should interest you and hook you and make you feel like its real the way a good book does. If there's bad and glitchy visuals, or the controls are clunky, or the story is just off or boring, or the music clashes, you're gonna remember you're playing a game or you won't be very interested in it. Usually, games that are full of content and great worldbuilding and little things that make the world feel real and alive are often described as immersive and that ties into the other stuff as well. On proofreading this whole post I noticed that I myself used "immersive" as what makes a good game, so guess it's a really important thing

Does good story excuse bad gameplay?

It depends on what you mean by "bad". Some people think that minimal-to-no gameplay (point and click, visual novels, etc.) constitute "bad", but to others it's just an alternative form of interaction. I tend to prefer my games as games, with a heavy dose of user input. Note that this doesn't necessarily invalidate the above as forms of entertainment, just that the use of multiple senses is key.

 

Does good gameplay excuse bad story?

Again, it depends on how we're defining "bad". A story can be bland, confusing, or downright offensive in some way; all of these are generally subjective. To me, the answer is usually yes; I will take a game that is fun to play over a game that has good story nine times out of ten.

 

What is your opinion of Downloadable Content?

Love it. Just finished a great game? Nuts. More of the game? Excellent. Obviously story-driven pieces are generally more exciting, but as long as they're not nickel-and-diming you, it's cool.

 

How can it be done well?

As mentioned, story driven content. New weapons, levels, etc. is cool and all, but I need a reason to dive back in to what was otherwise a complete experience.

 

Some companies make DLC completely standalone, which I actually quite enjoy; there's no particular reason to do it one way or the other, but it says "I am a new experience" rather than "I am additive to the original experience".

 

]Examples of good and bad DLC?

I can't think of many egregiously offensive pieces of DLC; microtransactions and cosmetic DLC are pretty annoying, but even then, it's rarely an out and out problem.

 

The best DLC's are anything that puts the game you just played in a new perspective; BioShock Infinite's Burial at Sea, TLOU's Left Behind, Infamous: Second Son's First Light (technically a game to itself!), Dishonored's Knife of Dunwall, etc.

 

A much praised game you think is terrible?

Anything Zelda. I mean, as a puzzle platformer, it's aight, but it's hardly amazing or revolutionary.

 

I always feel like such a hipster when it comes to judging games; I'll always think something is slightly better or worse than the public opinion. Not by much, but there's usually some key thing about games that people miss, or are otherwise too self-absorbed to notice.

 

A much maligned game you think is actually quite good?

I feel like most games I like have something people will take umbradge with, but that's the state of the gaming community these days.

 

Taking a brief look at my library I quite liked the FPS "Haze", even though it was widely considered a disappointment. I was interested in it at first, but then bad reviews put me off. I eventually acquired a cheap used copy, and was quite taken with it.

 

People are also very love'em/hate'em on Kingdom Hearts, but anybody who doesn't like it hates fun.

 

What do you think makes a good game?

To go with the obvious answer, anything that blends story and gameplay in a meaningful way. It doesn't even have to be done well; Persona's mix of dungeon crawling and visual novel aspects are tonally inconsistent, for instance, but it ends up making something wonderful anyway.

 

But, as mentioned, something that's just a rush to play; Infamous games are my go-to example for this. Regardless of how you feel about the story, they're some of the most solid action titles I've ever played, and you really can't beat that.

 

Bonus question, because I want to know what people mean when they say this: What does 'immersion' even mean‽

It basically means that you're invested in the story for whatever reason. This is accomplished in many ways; some games make you the protagonist (which is often an issue I have with FPS's, when there are cutscenes and it pulls back to reveal someone other than yourself), other games offer up a compelling story that you want to continue following. Immersion is your emotional attachment to the proceedings.

*cracks knuckles*
 
1) Does a good story excuse bad gameplay?
 
Bad gameplay? No. However it is well worth saying that people have different motivations for playing games. I for one expect any story-driven title to do a bang-up job at its story. If it can get me truly invested in the world and characters, I can much more easily overlook some bugs and balance issues. Example: KOTOR
 
2) Does good gameplay excuse a bad story?
 
Basically, no, unless it's one of those "so bad it's good" deals. You can have some of the most awesome gameplay ever but I'll still feel cheated if I'm peppered with plot holes, underdeveloped characters, and a hollow ending. Example: Dark Void
 
3/4/5) What is your opinion of Downloadable Content? How can it be done well? Examples of good and bad DLC?
 
There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with DLC. The problem is the way it is implemented by most publishers these days. DLC should be used to keep life in a game POST-release. Instead, everywhere we look we have Day 1 DLC and pre-order DLC. This is straight-up foul business practice. When a part of a game I purchase has been held back behind a money-barrier I'm required to either fork over extra money or get less than the full experience. That is some complete and utter Kane Ra dung right there. Pre-order DLC is just as bad if not worse. Remember when we used to get demos to help us decide whether or not to buy a new game? Well now they don't want to risk you deciding against the game so they're going to try and get you to buy-in blind by offering extra content if you make a gamble. If that isn't dishonest then I don't know what is. Consumers should be buying games because they're good games, not because it might be a good game but definitely won't be if we wait until launch day and have entire levels/missions cut out. Example: For crying out loud, just spin a wheel because this happens all the time.
 
Good DLC is made after the core game has already gone gold and is a complete package on its own. It should be used to add extra content to a game, not fill in the holes they punched out themselves. Examples: Darksiders II had additional story levels that came out in following months (I'm not ignoring the fact they did the pre-order bit too). Perhaps an even better example would be Dungeon Defenders. Completely new heroes with new towers/abilities were released over the course of a year for a few dollars. New maps were also released BUT not only were they free if you claimed them within a week or so of its release, but you didn't have to own the map to play on it. Only the host had to have the new map and everyone in the lobby could play. This helped prevent the community and playerbase from getting segmented and breaking apart.
 
The only acceptable reason to pre-order a game is if you are being offered physical goods. Unlike DLC which can be doled out a million times over at no material cost, physical goods are usually of a very limited supply. You can't download a t-shirt at your whim so you'll have to pre-order if that is something you legitimately want. It is still a risk, but at least this time there are grounds for taking that risk.
 
6) A much praised game you think is terrible?
 
Honestly, this list would be far too long for me to include every item. Granted, some of those would be subjective, but even the ones that aren't would be argued as such by those in favor of said titles. In any case, the obvious winners are Candy Crush and Call Of Duty.
 
7) A much maligned game you think is actually quite good?
 
The most recent one that comes to mind is Legend of Korra. It is definitely not a perfect game by any means, but it is nowhere near as bad as reviews, particularly by critics, would make it out to be.
 
8) What do you think makes a good game?
 
This question is entirely too subjective for me to want to tackle. I just want to have fun.
 
Bonus) What does "immersion" even mean?
 
So, here's the deal. Immersion is more or less analogous to "presence". It's about making you feel as though you are actually there and taking part in whatever you're doing on-screen. In essence, you don't feel like you're playing a game anymore; it all feels real. Sorry, Dorek, but it has nothing to do with being invested in a story. I get so disgusted when publishers/developers throw the word around when talking about a game because for them it's just a buzz word to try and garner more sales. Let me tell you something, outside of virtual reality, immersion is extremely difficult to achieve with standard forms of gameplay. There is already an incredible disconnect between the screen in front of you and the controller/mouse&keyboard you are using. Immersion has almost everything to do with atmosphere. My Steam account is 243 games strong and do you know how many of those I ever actually felt immersed in? One and a half (Interstellar Marines is currently in Early Access and is looking to become one heck of a game).

Takuma Nuva

AUGH (Chrome, backspace does not mean I want to go back a page!)

 

Since I've got so much replies, I might as well add my own thoughts and answers.

 

1/2. Already answered.

 

3. Can be done well, and can be done badly. Done badly, it leaves a bitter taste. Done well, it leaves you wanting more. You enjoyed it.

 

4. It can be done well by making it feel like it isn't integral to the game, and by adding a side-story of sorts. Additionally, I think it can be done well when it adds new areas, and adds a decent amount of content. 

 

5. Examples of good DLC:

• Dishonored's Knife of Dunwall/Brigmore Witches DLCs. Together, they were almost the length of the main game while also being harder and almost eclipsing the main game in terms of quality. They felt like a sort of natural side-story of the game - they didn't feel forced or integral, they were if you wanted to play them. To this date, they are probably some of the best DLC I have ever played.
• The TES series' expansion packs. Tribunal; Bloodmoon; Shivering Isles; Dawnguard; Dragonborn. These added things that weren't integral to the same, but added new content, a lot of it, and were very enjoyable. Conversely...

Examples of bad DLC IMO:

• A lot of Oblivion's smaller DLC - although this was when DLC was beginning to rise. 
• Any DLC that feels integral to a game.
• Any DLC that is required to patch a game.
• Any item DLC.
• Any DLC that is there for the sake of making many.
• So much DLC that it's off-putting - looking at you, Dungeon Defenders. 

6. A lot of games, generally ones that are praised endlessly. Like Morrowind, which IMO wasn't that great but if you dare criticise it, you get ripped to shreds. There were quite a few nearly useless skills and it was somewhat awkward in terms of every character having access to a wiki of knowledge that they copied and pasted info from. Don't get me wrong, while I don't think it's terrible, I don't think it's as good as people give it credit for - a lot of praise comes from nostalgia. So does much praise for old games. But then again, a lot of people fondly remember their first games. There's another game more fitting for my answer, but I detest it so much I refuse to type its name. 

 

7. There are a lot of games detested in general, and there are several I like that people detest. I do feel afraid to name them, however. Thanks, internet...

 

8. Subjective, subjective. I think a good game is made up of a primary ingredient, two secondary ingredients and then many tertiary ingredients. The primary ingredient is good gameplay. The secondary ingredients are good story and good controls. Good gameplay doesn't mean anything when you have bad controls. Tertiary ingredients include music and atmosphere and any sub-ingredients of story and  gameplay such as characters (sub-ingredient of story) and mechanics (sub-ingredient of gameplay). I also happen to like enough non-linearity to do what you want, but enough linearity to know the general direction you should be going. In addition, if it keeps you coming back to it for a long time... or gets 40+ hours or so of playtime? Then it's probably enjoyable and good.

1: Possibly. I love the Bioshock series but the shooting mechanics are just awful. And I should never have to be suicide bombing enemies (Freaking big daddies) just to have them respawn. Seriously. I unloaded all my grenades on one of those things and it was still moving.

 

2: Most early games didn't have much of a story, but if the developers are going to bother with it, it should be more then an excuse to fill things with holes.

 

3: It can be good, but usually it's an excuse to suck more money out of their customers.

 

4: Anything that extends an already complete feeling expierience. Mark of the Ninja is one that comes to mind.

 

5: Mark of the Ninja's DLC was good, it added an additinol story mission and some new mechanics, greatly extending the amount of ways you could play.

 

Halo and Destiny are pretty much terrible as far as DLC goes. Buying a map pack on a halo game is darned near useless, and Destiny was obviously butchered to be able to sell DLC.

 

6: Call of Duty.

 

7: Hm. I've only recently started gaming, so I've mostly been going on recommendations anyway. So I don't know. But I'll go with Metal Arms, since that game never got much attention, but it was so much fun.

 

8: Easy to learn, hard to master. This is why I really despise most fighting games, because they are incredibly hard to learn. Whereas smash bros got me n the door by giving me only a few buttons to worry about, but it's still hard for me to be good at it, same with pokemon.

 

Bonus) What does "immersion" even mean?

 

So, here's the deal. Immersion is more or less analogous to "presence". It's about making you feel as though you are actually there and taking part in whatever you're doing on-screen. In essence, you don't feel like you're playing a game anymore; it all feels real. Sorry, Dorek, but it has nothing to do with being invested in a story. I get so disgusted when publishers/developers throw the word around when talking about a game because for them it's just a buzz word to try and garner more sales. Let me tell you something, outside of virtual reality, immersion is extremely difficult to achieve with standard forms of gameplay. There is already an incredible disconnect between the screen in front of you and the controller/mouse&keyboard you are using. Immersion has almost everything to do with atmosphere. My Steam account is 243 games strong and do you know how many of those I ever actually felt immersed in? One and a half (Interstellar Marines is currently in Early Access and is looking to become one heck of a game).

 

 

Takuma Nuva

 

That's what immersion technically means, yes, but the kind of immersion you're talking about isn't even possible with virtual reality. When people are talking about immersion, they're referring to how much your brain can connect with the proceedings on either a physical or emotional level. Since the "physical" is nigh impossible to achieve (not without some incredible psychological trickery), most people default to the emotional.

 

"Immersive" doesn't just apply to video games, it can refer to books, movies, etc. Video games just happen to be the medium that push you closest to the boundary.

Ohhh.

 

That's what immersion means. That's why I was confused, I was always thinking of it along the lines on a physical level as opposed to an emotional level. (I take things very literally) 

 

A lot of things suddenly make a lot more sense to me.

That's what immersion technically means, yes, but the kind of immersion you're talking about isn't even possible with virtual reality.

Oh, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you there.

Takuma Nuva

Well, the question was "what do people mean when they say immersion". Most uses of immersion are going to be how well you identify with what's going on. It's the "why", not the "how", if that makes sense.

 

But hey, agree to disagree and all.

• To an extent. A great story doesn't need deep, involved gameplay, but it has to work. Broken gameplay will always break immersion.

Kind of. A bad story will always stink the game up, but a game can still be fun if the gameplay is amazing. Unless you have a game like the Elder Scrolls games that's all about the story.

Not a fan. If you want me to keep paying, use a subscription system, don't make me pay you $25 every few months. Especially DLC that adds significant content.

I still think Valve has the formula perfect with Team Fortress 2; actual game content is added for free. Microtransactions on nonessential items and cosmetics are the only sources of added transactions. "Downloadable content" you have to buy is entirely optional and mostly aesthetic. The game itself can be enjoyed completely and fully on nothing but the price of admission, but paying enhances your experience in a nonessential way that doesn't create unfair imbalance.

Good: Valve. Bad: EA. I know how generic, trite an argument this is, but it's true; EA seems to love on-disc DLC, day-one DLC, DLC that is required to really fully enjoy the game. Valve gives you a ton of stuff for no additional charge.

Call of Duty. Elder Scrolls games honestly drag on for me and get quite boring. I was not a huge fan of Halo either. Also, the Arkham games are overrated, and I say that as someone who thought Arkham City was a very fun game. I also get really bored with the Lego games.

I have seen a surprising amount of vitriol towards the Mega Man Battle Network games. Yeah the anime's dub was pretty bad, and yeah the story really went downhill in the last few games, but the gameplay was outstanding, and the story for at least the first three was fun lighthearted stuff that could get serious. A lot of Star Wars games, too; there's a lot of rubbish, but the Jedi Knight games get a lot of undeserved flak just because licensed games are automatically bad, right?

I could sit here for a solid three hours writing an essay on the subject, you'll need to be more specific.  

Bonus: Connection. It's when the gameplay is so smooth and fun and intuitive, the story is so involved and emotional and natural, and the characters so deep and well-performed, that you stop seeing it as "This is a fictional thing I'm watching happen that I am doing for fun and I need to dodge those bullets so I don't get a game over" and start seeing it as "This is a thing that's really happening and I need to dodge those bullets so I don't die". It's like any form of media; immersion is when you really start to empathize with the characters, setting, story, etc., to the point that you care as if it were real, rather than taking it in as fiction.

 

So I may have done these backwards