Are people who place narrative over gameplay more intelligent than people who place gameplay over narrative?

Are people who place narrative over gameplay more intelligent than people who place gameplay over narrative?

the final redpill is that both are important but good art design trumps all

>trumps all
fuck off back to your containment board, Sup Forums

settle down you're getting out of line

No, because if they were actually intelligent, they would be reading a book instead of playing a video game for the "narrative".

people who play games for the story and the soundtrack and the 'experience' are the ultimate brainlets

nintendo fans

Gameplay and game design, until a writer or game designer comes to set about how one might integrate story into gameplay beyond QTEs, cutscenes, and "interactive cutscenes" that you just sort of walk around, there isn't much that'd you'd be getting from a game that wouldn't be better served by a book or a movie.

You have it backwards. The point of a game is to play it. It must, first and foremost, play well. Otherwise, regardless of how good the narrative is, it is a bad game. Simply being interactive is not enough, if people want an interactive story they can do visual novels. A game is something you must play, you the player, you must have agency and beat the game (I know there are games like DF where you technically can't win them but you get what I'm saying). It is not simply an experience you bear witness to.

wow.

i am not reading all that

Neither are more intelligent than the people who don't consider either greater than each other and just think let a developer make a game however he fucking wants.

Narrative is fine, the forced narrative is shit.
Yes, I'm looking at you TLoU. Interactive cutscenes are not gameplay - it's CoD tier gameplay. If you want to do a cutscene, just make a goddamn cutscene. If you allow me to move around, I should have a better reason to do that than "move from point A to point B".
I like both narrative driven games (Planescape: Torment, Alpha Protocol) and gameplay driven games where story is miniscule (Doom, Quake).

playing for narrative is, by definition, something more intelligent people do. Any idiot can press buttons and claim it's a "skill". Intelligent people look for something deeper that goes beyond mere mindless entertainment through button presses

The Patrician's Choice is gameplay that is also the narrative.

Yes.

hardcore autism

If you're claiming to be "more intelligent" on a taiwanese video game discussion board then you're probably not what you think you are.

If you're playing a game in the hopes of being pedantic you're choosing the wrong medium, dude. Games are for playing and must first and foremost focus on gameplay. I'm not saying games can't have a narrative or even good writing, but all of that must take a back seat to gameplay. What you want from a narrative is what intelligent gamers expect from gameplay - something with depth that actually tests their intelligence as well as reflexes. It is something that demands their full attention in order to succeed. If you only want the narrative element, like I said, don't play games. Watch a movie if you want visuals. Games are made to be played, not just watched.

Why, thank you

Beats me, I'm not even exactly sure what kinds of people fall into each category. Casuals don't have clear stated preferences and it's hard to say what they would prefer. I will say that discussing gameplay indepth is way more demanding of intelligence, experience and creativity though.

Congratulations on your idiocy TL;DRing not only my post but as well.

>discussing gameplay indepth is way more demanding of intelligence, experience and creativity though.
LOLno

yeah maybe dont write a novel next time

assclown

>ADHD and Redditspacing
Nice

way to prove you're a newfag /r9k/ permavirgin

you fucked up kid

Absolutely. There is a reason any dumbfuck english major can do decent story analysis while quality game mechanics analysis is restricted to high IQ dedicated players or people from other fields like psychology.

retard

>any dumbfuck english major can do decent story analysis
dude no. Just stop. Being a pretentious english major "critiquing" a game's story doesn't make you intelligent or even right.

>while quality game mechanics analysis is restricted to high IQ dedicated players or people from other fields like psychology.
AHAHAHAHAHAH

just stop you're embarrassing yourself

harsh but true

The only guy in this thread who gets it.

Not a single argument. Yes that's right, critiquing or analyzing video game stories doesn't make you intelligent because any mongoloid can do it. For mechanics analysis even the vocabulary is lacking and works like Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's Flow are more useful for understanding how people engage with games than any drivel that games "critics" spew.

His book a good read?

It's a must read if you're interested in the subject, though not all of it is relevant for game design

dude.. spewing jargon doesn't make someone intelligent or make their insight more worthwhile

It's a psychology book, so that's to be expected, how would a layman fair with it?

It's written for the layman, check the TED talk for a preview

Will do.

To be honest, if all I wanted was gameplay, i'd be playing the superior and perfect game know as Chess.