How did we reach the point where games with okayish gameplay get lots of praise?

[Jazzhands]

Why have we reached a point where games with less good gameplay, but an excellent story, are seen as better games than games with great gameplay, but a story that is only secondary or even non-existant?

Just look at the last 5-10 years to see what kinds of games get the most praise, especially among the masses; games with a focus on an emotional story, where the gameplay takes a backseat and is, at most, functional but with a terribly low skill floor AND ceiling which gives you no incentive to play the game over and over again to become better at it.

Games like Red Dead Redemption, The Last of Us 2, Ghost of Tsushima and Gone Home are seen as better games than DooM Eternal, Devil May Cry 5 and Gravity Rush 2 because they focus on invoking emotions rather than giving you satisfying gameplay that asks you to get better and master them.
The games are good on their own merits, but since we are playing GAMES, the most important aspect to them is the gameplay loop and how much flexibility it gives you in improving your skill. So when talking about the best GAME, those games shouldn't even be a part of the equation because their gameplay is like a 7/10 at best, even if their story is a 9 or a 10.

It's crazy that it's 2020 and people still can't differentiate their opinions from facts. Games as a story telling medium has been a thing since always, and not everyone plays games to improve and master them.

[Dezerte]

Not sure I agree with the premise. While I do see where you're coming from I think it isn't necessarily that simple.

I, for example, think Souls-like games have terrible gameplay. And generally speaking the most stimulating gameplay to me is grand strategy, sims or RPGs with in-depth interacting systems. I don't think you can really define gameplay by how hard or complex it is, because it can just as easily be argued that gameplay should be defined by how fun and engaging it is - which ultimately is subjective.

And whether story matters I think it does, as it generally allows for a level of role-play (and thus engaging/fun), and I think it can be an integral part to the gameplay.

[Saltysquidoon]

The ballooning costs of games means it's easier to write a good story and plug it into a walking simulator with 'light' rpg and crafting mechanics so 'games journalists' and johnny normie will lap it up. Then it is to craft new and experimental games systems in the hope that the 'average consumer' will purchase it based on that alone.

RDR2 is a perfect example of this. It's a perfectly safe, serviceable GTA clone with exactly no innovation that is solely carried by its amazing story.

[Dhrizzle]

Videogames broke into the mainstream around 2007ish, old media bought shares in videogame companies and they overtook movies in profitability and the rise of the "moviegame" followed. Compounding this was companies like polaris using actors on sets posing as teens in bedrooms marketing whatever products these people could be easily coerced to buy and theres your one-two punch of the modern "get hype" culture which in reality is just a new media form of advertising. With it came the old media concept of "the blockbuster" and thats where you get your "a talking head told me to get hype for [BRAND] because it is this years [MOST IMPORTANT] game". Whatever that actually means of course.

Games started getting into the mainstream in the 90s with the PlayStation and had definitely made it as a "cool product" by the start of the 2000s with the PlayStation 2. That's also when people started getting familiar with games trying to be movies in the shape of JRPGs like Final Fantasy, or providing an emotional experience over gameplay like Resident Evil. While games before that were definitely seen as more kids things (at least since the end of the 70s when video games were often found in pubs and bars) the 80s wasn't immune to hype over [BRAND] or however you want to term it. Look up adverts for Mario 3 that had kids absolutely crapping themselves with excitement. It's also when there was a lot of "[insert brand] army" (geez dude how do you live with all these buzzwords and phrases?) in terms of Sega vs. Nintendo, Amiga vs. Atari ST and, if you go back far enough, ZX Spectrum vs. the C64

- - - Updated - - -

*adds 85% of Japanese and Korean games here*. Shit graphics and even shittier gameplay and most shitty story with horrible world and character building but still people play the games because either they love the franchise for that one or 2 games that came out in the 90s or they just wanna see "cute" shit.

I don't have anything against anime or anything related to it since I am somewhat weeb myself. But the games that comes from Asia are like watching CGI animated anime with dubs = pure horror and laziness.

It amazes me how often the people who try to be gatekeepers over what games should be also praise stuff like the Final Fantasy series which is 45% walking around, 45% cut scenes and the rest incredibly basic gameplay where you get to decide whether to use your best attack or one that isn't as good.

[vitor210]

Why have we reached a point where games with less good gameplay, but an excellent story, are seen as better games than games with great gameplay, but a story that is only secondary or even non-existant?

Just look at the last 5-10 years to see what kinds of games get the most praise, especially among the masses; games with a focus on an emotional story, where the gameplay takes a backseat and is, at most, functional but with a terribly low skill floor AND ceiling which gives you no incentive to play the game over and over again to become better at it.

Games like Red Dead Redemption, The Last of Us 2, Ghost of Tsushima and Gone Home are seen as better games than DooM Eternal, Devil May Cry 5 and Gravity Rush 2 because they focus on invoking emotions rather than giving you satisfying gameplay that asks you to get better and master them.
The games are good on their own merits, but since we are playing GAMES, the most important aspect to them is the gameplay loop and how much flexibility it gives you in improving your skill. So when talking about the best GAME, those games shouldn't even be a part of the equation because their gameplay is like a 7/10 at best, even if their story is a 9 or a 10.

You had me until the end. I don't know about you but I prefer riding a horse and be a cowboy on Red Dead Redemption than shooting demons over and over again

[Unlimited Power]

You can go back pretty far and find that gameplay has often taken a backseat to story in some genres. Point and click adventures like Monkey Island, text-based adventures like early Sierra games etc. rarely had the most riveting of gameplay.

[Lodreh]

…for the story, really not caring at all for endless loot and events designed to artificially extend the game's life.

This sums up my issues with modern day WoW. Timegating just makes me lose interest and momentum in the story. If I want to bang out an entire covenant campaign over a weekend, let me. Gear treadmills, especially regrinding the same gear over and over, hold no interest for me.

You can go back pretty far and find that gameplay has often taken a backseat to story in some genres. Point and click adventures like Monkey Island, text-based adventures like early Sierra games etc. rarely had the most riveting of gameplay.

Or King's Quest... that was a trip.

[Lakrin]

Why have we reached a point where games with less good gameplay, but an excellent story, are seen as better games than games with great gameplay, but a story that is only secondary or even non-existant?

Just look at the last 5-10 years to see what kinds of games get the most praise, especially among the masses; games with a focus on an emotional story, where the gameplay takes a backseat and is, at most, functional but with a terribly low skill floor AND ceiling which gives you no incentive to play the game over and over again to become better at it.

Games like Red Dead Redemption, The Last of Us 2, Ghost of Tsushima and Gone Home are seen as better games than DooM Eternal, Devil May Cry 5 and Gravity Rush 2 because they focus on invoking emotions rather than giving you satisfying gameplay that asks you to get better and master them.
The games are good on their own merits, but since we are playing GAMES, the most important aspect to them is the gameplay loop and how much flexibility it gives you in improving your skill. So when talking about the best GAME, those games shouldn't even be a part of the equation because their gameplay is like a 7/10 at best, even if their story is a 9 or a 10.

That might be why YOU play games (and that's fair, there are games out there for you), but I like different things. Sometimes I want a game that is high skill so I can show off, and sometimes I want a game where I'm immersed in a story. Different strokes for different folks, yo.

[Dread Pirate Phayde]

Its almost like games have evolved from stomping turtles, to actually telling a (hopefully) well written story that you get to become the hero of.

There are plenty of "skill" games out there still. I'd suggest you buy something you like instead of complaining about something you don't, you're like one of those idiots "reeeeeing" on Twitter over things you have no intention of buying but want changed just because of your fee fees.

I don't like Call of Duty or Sports games, so guess what I don't buy, Call of Duty and Sports games.

[Marrilaife]

If you want to play a great game with excellent game play and no story, and very much skill-based game, then may I suggest chess?

Most people who talk about "skill" in a game talk about fast reflexes, hand-eye coordination and apm. Which means they should rather play basketball or bowling rather than chess. And even these have more strategy involved than mindless shooters where the only "skill" is whether you can aim a headshot in a split second.

The problem with that is not everyone finds it a pinnacle of entertainment to train for hours every day just how to aim a headshot in a split second.

Except that, games usually have a difficulty slider. Which is great. You can make it a walk in the park if you just want to relax, or you can make it grueling experience where you're a 1 hit point wonder while the enemies are bullet sponges or have unlimited resources / OP weapons.

You can enjoy the story / immersive scenery or world / character design etc. on top of the difficulty slider. Games that have only difficulty slider and nothing else were good in the '80s with pong and tetris but technology goes forward and so do expectations.

I'd expect many people play video games for the need of escapism and relaxation rather than "honing their skill" and being competitive. Many people have jobs that are already stressful, competitive and cutthroat, they don't need to have the same after work in some online shooter where the only important part is who's the last man standing. The opposite could be true for people who have extremely dull jobs and want to seek the thrills in competitive gaming.

[Nihilist74]

Seems like the big game makers focus too much on making great graphics than gameplay. I tried playing red dead redemption 2. The controls were so bad that it ruined it for me. Rock star games always have horrible controls. I felt the same about the grand theft auto games.