Can a video game with horrible gameplay be truly considered good?

[Deleted member 11413]

Rule of Rose's combat is a combination of being kind of a janky, low budget game in general and making the player character intentionally unskilled to serve the broader purpose of the game. This is pretty common in horror games, and while Rule of Rose is definitely worse than, say, Silent Hill 2 or Siren, it's still going for the same feel. Probably would've been better had it been more like Clocktower 3/Haunting Ground and focused on running from enemies and environmental traps and such instead of combat, but oh well. It still mostly works for the type of game it is and the type of experience its trying to create.

Similarly, Drakengard is extremely repetitive and monotonous but intentionally so, because it's trying to push the player towards a specific experience.

Other mediums (like literature and film) foster discomfort in the reader/audience to great effect. A novel like Blood Meridian isn't written in a way that makes it enjoyable/easy to read, but the way it is written contributes to the overall theme and experience the author is attempting to create. Players need to be able to accept that games can do something similar.

 

[Deleted member 32135]

It shouldn't be, but people have weird preferences regarding games...

 

[Forsaken82]

I don't play video games for a good story or music or voice acting or art.

If the game play is bad, the game is bad. Simple as that.

 

[Deleted member 1656]

yeah. it's only an aspect of it, just like ugly games can be good.

Click to shrink...

I really appreciate this quote from film director Panos Cosmatos and I think what he's saying applies also to games and to your point:

There's something going on in film today which I kind of refer to as the "tyranny of perfection" which is that on a craftsman's level everything needs to be seen as utterly precise and perfect or it's seen as failure and I kind of like rough edges on things, you know. So sometimes I would allow those to exist and find those more beautiful in a way.

Click to shrink...

Many of my favorite things are seriously flawed and sometimes even ugly from certain perspectives.

I'm loving the fucking hell out of Kenshi right now, and it is an ugly, poorly optimized, glitchy, janky piece of shit. At the same time it has such rich, dynamic beauty and its sandy sandbox world is just breathtaking. I can feel developer Chris Hunt's passion and his everything poured into it. It's one of the most unique pieces of expression I've ever played and its flaws are part of that charm. It wouldn't be the same thing without them.

 

[Jakisthe]

I don't play video games for a good story or music or voice acting or art.

If the game play is bad, the game is bad. Simple as that.

Click to shrink...

This. Games are games.

 

[Ultimadrago]

I watched a narrative analysis of Rule of Rose a year or so ago and was fascinated by such an odd story and series of events making a game. The game itself didn't look fun to play, but the world was eerie and enough to keep me wanting to see the end even as a mere outside viewer. That definitely doesn't always happen.

 

[Undeniablybiased]

I guess for most situations I'd say no it wouldn't be good. Mainly because if the thing you're actively doing 90% of the time is genuinely bad (and not just average or sub-average) then it'd be hard to say that product itself is "good".

But then you'd also have to define good and bad and that's more difficult. Take a visual novel or David Cage style games (whatever those are called) for instance. You could say that has "bad" gameplay but that'd be dumb. Because lots of times they don't really have gameplay at all in the traditional sense. They're often just a series of choices via menu prompts. It's a completely different way of interacting with the software that tradional good and bad parameters can't be applied to them. In order for that to be bad it'd have to lean more on technical issues like slow or laggy menus, or the game choosing the wrong option because there was input lag and you moved to fast for it to keep up. Or the choices themselves would have to be stupid or uninteresting for the story. The thing you're doing 90% of the time is basically just clicking a "next" button based on what you want to see characters do. And for a lots of people who like other types of games, they'd claim that's bad gameplay when in reality it's just something entirely different.

But then say you have an fps. and 90% of the time is spent doing traditional fps stuff, then yeah you don't want that gameplay to be genuinely horrible because you have to suffer through it for who knows how long. At least I don't.

So, sure. I'd say horrible gameplay=bad game in the vast majority of scenarios.

 

[Tygre]

Sure.

The entire Monkey Island series. Hell, a large part of the Adventure Game genre.

The gameplay consists of tedious back-tracking between locations to "solve" what are often utterly nonsensical "puzzles" by rubbing everything in your inventory against everything else.

It all hangs together on the quality of the writing.

 

[Linus815]

We all seem to love Vice City, so sure. 3D GTA ganmes pre-5 never actually had good gameplay, they just had varied gameplay which made the entire package good. Except for GTA4, that was just ass. But the rest of them were essentially good in spite of their gameplay mechanics.

Click to shrink...

For its time, GTA 3- VC-SA had fine gameplay. There really wasn't many open world games, let alone open world games that allowed as much freedom and variety as GTA, so there was nothing to really compare to. But the driving, which is a major part of the gameplay in GTA has always been super great. Honestly, as far as open world games go (that aren't racing games), GTA consistently has the best driving.

 

[Sparks]

Last of us is like that. Gameplay was just blah.

Click to shrink...

I hear that a lot, but like, compared to what?

I don't know many other survival tps' that feel as good and intense.

 

[Phabh]

People like RDR2 so yeah.

 

[Deleted member 25606]

I don't see why not. I am a gameplay trumps all type and even I can see the beauty of a game like Deadly Premonition based on (purposeful or accidentally is what I wonder with that one) the brilliance in other areas. On the other hand while I recognize it I can't play that title myself because I can't get past the bad gameplay but those who can are in for a treat.

I also agree with those who dislike narrow definitions of what gameplay is. In my mind any input from the player is part of the gameplay loop from character creators, to combat, to dialogue options and on and on if it requires input and that input changes something about the software based on your input that's good enough for me. Though I don't agree I will entertain the notion of bad gameplay ruining other aspects but I don't have time for arguments that claim "bad gameplay" for types of gameplay the person either doesn't personally like or recognize as gameplay (such as Gone Home, which is chock full of gameplay it's just it's a loop of walking, exploring, and examining things to let the world and environment tell you it's story. Interactive movie and walking sim seem too reductive for games where you are doing a lot just in a passive or non-conflict sort of way.) because that's just a taste issue and shouldn't be taken in seriously in broader debates or criticism of the medium.

 

[Deleted member 16876]

I like to think of games as an experience instead of a "gameplay focused" medium.
Some games are fun because of their gameplay, some games are great at their story telling, some are great at both.

If the bad parts do not destroy the experience then I would say it is a great game. Deadly Premonition is one game that has really terrible gameplay but you can "side step" the gameplay and focus on the good parts which results in a great game.

 

[Jasper]

Is gameplay not 'playing the game'?

If I laugh at my friends for doing something stupid, is that not gameplay?
If I marvel at the new area I just discovered, is that not gameplay?
If I finally figure out the solution to a tough puzzle, is that not gameplay?
If I choose not to move my character, because I'm still processing what just happened in the story, is that not gameplay?

Defining gameplay as combat and/or jumping on stuff is unnecessary gatekeeping and also quite an outdated view of what video games are.

Life is Strange's 'sit on a bench' mechanic is one of my favourites in gaming.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

Not for me personally, but I can't speak for other people who don't place much importance on the most important aspect of a video game.

 

[Bishop89]

People think rdr2 is good, even goat status, so I guess so.

 

[astro]

I love lots of game with aspects of gameplay I do not like much at all.

The Witcher 1-3 being prime examples.

The experience overrides the issues I have with combat and traversal.

I have heard people say similar things about more striking examples like Nier. I can absolutely get that.

 

[Fjordson]

This is gonna turn into a "lol people like <<inset popular game>> so I guess so!" thread.

If you like it, it's good.

Click to shrink...

Nailed it.

 

[cnorwood]

The Witcher 3 is one of my favorite games this gen and the gameplay is terrible, its janky as hell when you aren't in combat and when you are in combat you feel like you are controlling the most nimble drunk character with frequent pauses for switching signs. GTA V is one of these as well, possibly one of the worst 3rd/1st person shooters I have played but I always go in to cause some shit for a while.

 

[Deleted member 1594]

Yeah, Witcher 3 won many GOTY awards despite its bad gameplay.

Click to shrink...

Because it has fantastic gameplay.

 

[MrNewVegas]

I hear that a lot, but like, compared to what?

I don't know many other survival tps' that feel as good and intense.

Click to shrink...

Movement dosent feel very good nor does the gunplay. Compare it to something like REmake2 it's leagues behind.

I agree it's more generic than bad per se.

 

[Deleted member 29464]

People seem to think gameplay means combat.

The term "games" leads to a bias in people towards "gameplay" which really means combat, controls, and platforming. I can't come up with a better name but if we used a term that meant any form of interactive media, "games" with minimal "gameplay" probably wouldn't be shat on so much for not having the "most important" element.

Gameplay obviously can be important, especially if bad gameplay gets in the way of your enjoyment, but if something that doesnt have good combat or whatever doesn't get in the way of why you enjoy the game, why care.

We should rename games to Perfomas, if performance is terrible, how are you going to play the game, its obviously the most important element, can't play a game at 2fps. Anything sub 60fps is shit. /s

 

[KomandaHeck]

I can't even argue that it has truly excellent gameplay but the level of hyperbole in criticising Witcher 3 as some borderline unplayable mess is wild.

Anyway, Deadly Premonition is more memorable to me than plenty of games that objectively play better so I guess the answer's yes? Fuck it, just like whatever you like.

 

[HK-47]

Yes.

Take Planescape: Torment for example. It's gameplay is basic to the point almost non-existence. It's an interactive book in a way. Yet its story and setting makes it one of the great RPGs. But its shortcomings in gameplay stop it from being in the shortlist of the greatests.

Click to shrink...

Except it is the greatest rpg because the role playing is so good.

 

[SofNascimento]

Except it is the greatest rpg because the role playing is so good.

Click to shrink...

Nah, even if we assume it is the best in the narrative front, which is far from being a given, we woudl still have several games which have narratives that comes very close to its quality. And they do other aspects, like gameplay, much better.

 

[Coi]

Skyrim (Fighting feels like combat the air)
Shadow of the Colossus (PS2 controls like shit)
Silent Hill

 

[Neoleo2143]

Such situations are an extreme minority of good games. Good Gameplay is a broad category, but if the game doesn't have any interesting relevant play states then yeah I'd be inclined to call it a poor game.

 

[motherless]

GTA games, Red Dead Redemption, Quantum Dream games, Witcher III, Elder Scroll games, etc all receive good scores.

 

[Rizific]

Not in my opinion, no. Gameplay is the whole reason I play video games. It sure as shit isn't because of story or narrative. Bad gameplay = bad game.

 

[zoodoo]

Definitely. A few examples:

Eternal Darkness. The melee combat is horrible and reminds me of early ps1 games. Yet I love the unique atmosphere and sanity gimmick

Overblood. A lesser know ps1 title that features tank control, horrible animation and voice acting. But the story and setting are pretty interesting.

 

[cnorwood]

Because it has fantastic gameplay.

Click to shrink...

I don't know about that one chief

 

[SofNascimento]

Such situations are an extreme minority of good games. Good Gameplay is a broad category, but if the game doesn't have any interesting relevant play states then yeah I'd be inclined to call it a poor game.

Click to shrink...

I think most people, me included, answer this thread more like: Can a great game be great even if its gameplay is lacking compared to the rest of it?

Looking at TW3, I think it's absolutely unjustifiable to call its gameplay horrible. But while the game is among the best in narrative, quest design, world building, graphics and others, it doesn't have such a incredible combat. Even if in theory it's better than it is in practice.

 

[MentalZer0]

Yes people like dark souls

Spoiler

Click to shrink...

 

[HK-47]

Nah, even if we assume it is the best in the narrative front, which is far from being a given, we woudl still have several games which have narratives that comes very close to its quality. And they do other aspects, like gameplay, much better.

Click to shrink...

The only rpgs that come close to the sheer writing quality of Planescape is Mask of the Betrayer and Bloodlines. Also games with suspect combat. And convenient that only combat gets considered gameplay.

 

[Deleted member 1594]

I don't know about that one chief

Click to shrink...

I do!

 

[Rosenkrantz]

MGS 1-3?

It seems the worse the series got in terms of story the better it get in terms of gameplay. First 3 games didn't hold a candle to any big stealth franchises out there (even Tenchu had more to its gameplay).

 

[SofNascimento]

The only rpgs that come close to the sheer writing quality of Planescape is Mask of the Betrayer and Bloodlines. Also games with suspect combat. And convenient that only combat gets considered gameplay.

Click to shrink...

That's a hard disagree for me.

 

[cnorwood]

I do!

Click to shrink...

Hmmmmmmm, in a vacuum TW3 has serviceable gameplay but after playing open world (and open world esque) games with good combat, Bloodborne, Souls, Horizon, and Dragons Dogma TW3 seems like a janky mess in comparison.

 

[Sparks]

Movement dosent feel very good nor does the gunplay. Compare it to something like REmake2 it's leagues behind.

I agree it's more generic than bad per se.

Click to shrink...

Well, that literally just came out... and if it was to play more like that, then I feel like a lot of the impact and feel of that game would be lost.

 

[Larrikin]

Personally? No.

Considered by the public?

Shadow of the Colossus. probably others.

 

[Deleted member 1656]

MGS 1-3?

It seems the worse the series got in terms of story the better it get in terms of gameplay. First 3 games didn't hold a candle to any big stealth franchises out there (even Tenchu had more to its gameplay).

Click to shrink...

MGS 1-3 have incredible nonlinear encounter design and pacing. That is gameplay. I would say the controls are unusual, and that the direct combat is clunky in 2 & vanilla 3, but you don't play Metal Gear for the direct combat. You play Metal Gear because it's fucking Metal Gear. You play it for its sandbox-ey stealth and wild story. Gameplay is more than one thing.

 

[Fishsnot]

GTA IV played like an old woman handling an out of control shopping cart, yet look how well it was received!

 

[StrappingYoungLance]

Nier Gestalt/Replicant and Deadly Premonition say yes.

 

[Rosenkrantz]

MGS 1-3 have incredible nonlinear encounter design and pacing. That is gameplay.

Click to shrink...

I would gave it more credit hadn't Thief been released the same year. For what it's worth I'll give MGS' level design an edge over SC1 and Pandora Tomorrow (still think that these games have overall better gameplay).

 

[BrandoBoySP]

I think it depends on the game's purpose, but overwhelmingly, yes. Gameplay can definitely service story, and for some people, it can detract from it, but it's not always the most important thing about a game.

Mario, for instance, is almost always about gameplay. Hell, the first game in the series didn't even have a plot besides "your princess is in another castle", and Odyssey's narrative is barebones.

Final Fantasy VII, though? It's all about the world and narrative. There's combat, but there's a ton more to it; when people talk about it on its own, they usually talk about the world, the characters, and the plot itself before they mention anything about turn-based combat.

Some games use the gameplay to their advantage, like Zero Escape: Nine Persons, Nine Hours, Nine Doors; the story uses the gameplay in a way intrinsic to the story itself. Nier: Automata gets in on that action to a degree, too. But where you might be able to play a clunky game to see a story more (I did it with .hack's first series!), if Mario or Spyro were to feel clunky, slow, and imprecise, there wouldn't be a reason to finish 'em.

 

[Elixist]

If the "gameplay" doesnt get in the way of the games focus then sure.

Click to shrink...

ya this is good answer. plague tales gameplay is garbage but i still really loved it cause of graphics and story, heresy i know, but there it is.

 

[Themaddestgamer]

For me gameplay is almost everything. Everything in a game contributes or detracts though.

Spider-Man and HZD had extremely great gsmeplay and was a big reason I loved those games. Beat Saber is one of the best available in gameplay dept.

Couldnt get into GTA5 though because it felt sluggish.

 

[Deleted member 18407]

I'd much rather a game be interesting over anything else, even if it's considered "bad."

 

[nib95]

Movement dosent feel very good nor does the gunplay. Compare it to something like REmake2 it's leagues behind.

I agree it's more generic than bad per se.

Click to shrink...

Your character in RE moves and controls like a tank comparative to how Joel moves and controls in TLOU, and he's already far from the most nimble of characters. RE's controls in general are a lot more slow, cumbersome, restrictive, unrealistic and limited. Obviously part of that is to add to the sense of suspense and drama, but it's still fear induced partly through restrictive movement and controls.

Gunplay is a different matter, but I'm not sure I'd necessarily say RE's gunplay is far better (especially after you upgrade weapon sway in TLOU), more so that it's just far more gory and superfluous. But unlike TLOU, there is definitely an on the rails gallery shooter element to RE's combat compared to TLOU's more dynamic and frenetic engagements. Both are fun in their own way, but I'd hardly say TLOU's controls, gunplay or movement are leagues behind, in many ways certain elements are better.

 

[Deleted member 2254]

Not really, and it's one of the reasons why some of the GOTY picks throughout the years are baffling to me. Atmosphere and story are important, so are graphics, but first thing's first the game's gotta feel good to play. If it doesn't, it's not a good game. Games like Bioshock or Prey have a great atmosphere and cool ideas, but their gameplay is just dull and unfun, as actual shooting mechanics they are extremely weak, thus in no way I'd consider them anywhere near the greatest games. Games are an interactive form of art, so in first it's the interactivity that needs to be good. With music, if a song is well-written you can excuse a poor production (of course it depends how poor we're talking about). With movies, you can excuse a blurry black and white look from a century ago if the acting's god-tier and the story is brilliant. But in games you are to spend possibly dozens of hours playing, interacting. If the act of interacting is not fun, then the story may be the best in the world but the most important chunk of the gameplay is just not good, so I don't consider games in this situation good enough to be considered for GOTY talks.