Whats more important to you?

I value a game's fun factor much more than its immersion. Vaynel mentioned the Arkham games - many people like them because it truly feels like you're playing Batman (not that I'm minimizing this claim, but I'm not familiar with the character enough to either
agree or disagree with this claim). Me? I just enjoyed subduing enemies without them seeing me. It made for some quite tense moments, but it was immensely satisfying.

I still need to find it within me to finish City... :-/

 

Whilst I agree that in terms of story and gameplay, Arkham City improved even more over Arkham Asylum.

But the reason I rate Asylum higher, is purely because the flow of gameplay is always there. Backtracking never felt like a chore, and you never really got lost. The flow was perfect. The map big enough to admirer what the devs put in, as well as giving
you a feeling that on-foot isn't a tedious task when going from one location to the next.

Arkham City gave you more freedom, but so much so that you could drift away from what was supposed to be happening.

Spec Ops: The Line, Dead Space 2, Darksiders. These are some of my favourite shorter type games. The action is always there and the stories are very well written.

 

Getting lost was a thing on Batman: Arkham City? Everything had clear, sequential waypoints. Back-tracking was more a thing on Asylum because it had fewer areas, so most were reused. Side-quests can be ignored if you're interested only in the
main quest. It takes two minutes to get from one side of the AC map to the other. Heh.

I think that's the Bethesda complaint - thing. Players complaining there's too much loot in the games. It's a problem that can be solved when the player stops looting absolutely everything. S'not the game so much as how it's played. {XD

To each their own though. We have very similar tastes Brako, I think. =)

 

The best games are the fun ones but fun is a subjective thing.

"Destiny" is really fun for over 3 million people but some people would rather die than admit that we're enjoying ourselves and carry on for pages trying to convince us that we aren't really having fun... we're just not smart enough to realise that we're
not?

"Oblivion" and "Skyrim" are 2 very different games.

The former was amazing fun for me. "Oblivion" was a character driven game where your character was the star. Everything was so open ended that you came up with your own backstory, your own character history, your character's motivations and these shaped
how your character experienced the story. As a result you could play the game several different times with dramatically different results making one of the greatest RPG's ever made.

Unfortunately you were given so much rope in "Oblivion" that many players simply ended up hanging themselves. They needed someone to come in and tell them what to do. What to think. Why they wanted to do this or that and ended up wrecking their game stupidly
pursuing +5 multipliers instead of playing the game and enjoying the experience.

To cater to these people who couldn't roleplay in "Oblivion", "Skyrim", in contrast, delivers a Story driven experience in which the player's character is just a part. Not as engaging for me personally but it was just what a lot of people needed.

Rather than resent "Skyrim" for not being the game I wanted it to be I applaud the developers for developing. While it's easy to cry "Oh, they just dumbed this down" at least they tried something new. The game grew and evolved into something different.
Related but not "Oblivion II" anymore than "Oblivion" was "Morrowind II".

Fun is the big factor. Fun and attention to detail.

That's what makes "Ryse" such a fantastic experience and show me someone who thinks "Ryse" is boring and repetative and while I'll applaud them for knowing what they like and what they don't like I'll also clock them as someone who doesn't know what "fun"
is.

 

@Azrael008uk, Never could quite put my finger on why Skyrim didn't capture me in the same way Oblivion did, you may have just got it spot on though

 

Awesome comments everyone. I personally loved the first Mass Effect best. The second was good in most respects but I liked the first better. The third I started and got as far as Ashe being in the hospital before being distracted by other games. Still need
to finish that one.

Come to think of it I never finished morrowind either. Both Epic and Fun but a bit of a grind. I think my biggest problem, if you can call it that, with Epic games is they are hard to put down because I want to know what heppens next. Next thing I know I'm
just going to bed when I should be waking up. lol

A simple game thats easy to turn off after a few matches might reduce the bags under my eyes.

 

Hmm... that's hard to decide, both have their pros and cons. Short simple games like Halo have a decent replayability in the campaign, especially since you can later choose the levels that you liked most and skip the boring ones. However, you can only play
through the same levels so many times. (There are exceptions of when you just explore and find shortcuts, glitches and easter eggs, but my point still stands)

But games like Skryim and KOTOR has high replayability because you can somewhat change the plot. The downside, however, is that you have to invest much more in games like Skyrim and KOTOR than you do in a game like Halo.

 

I want a game that's strong in all categories. From great gameplay, great story, fun factor, replay ability, easy to get used to controls, etc. Good graphics are nice, but are not necessarily needed.

 

Personally, a game can have great lore and story, but if the gameplay is not great, it's a bad game.

For me, gameplay is most important, followed by story.

Zombie Army Trilogy was so repetitive and had little story, but the gameplay was awesome so I enjoyed the game. Sniping nazi zombies? Yessssss.

 

I don't think i could ever say if i preferred a good story or good game-play, it needs to be a mix of the two, if they compliment each-other then your on to a winner!

 

I think your two options are interchangeable. For example, certain aspects of a serious game can make it fun, like a great story, and some fun portions of games can make them a lot more engaging, like small puzzles that get frustrating at times. What I'm
trying to say is that both styles can each be enjoyable through different aspects.

For me, I like having that sense of completion once I finished a game. You know you've got a great game when even during time away from it you keep thinking about it. Another way I know is when I purposefully avoid the main story and complete a lot of side
missions in a strange way to try and savor the game.