I thought the biggest reason we play video games for the majority is for the gameplay and not the story. I don't mind a good story, but seems games that have an average story while having great gameplay and replayability get shitted on. Nintendo seems to be on the worse end of this to be honest. Nintendo games are about pure fun and yet everyone seems to give it lower reviews because of sparse story. I can understand if the story is innapropriate, but if the gameplay and replability is there and the rest of the game is average it deserves a great review by default because it succedds at suceceeds what being a video game is all about. FUN.

Is that why Super Mario 3D World got a 93 metacritic? Its compelling and deep story? Or Super Smash Bros. 4's 92?

The bigest reason I play videogames is because it's a whole package. Games evolved and story is a big part of them now, there are plenty of games out there that are pure gameplay (Marios and such) and they have theyre space (and generaly review well) but we moved past the days that that was enought. Gamers are also older and therefore apreciate a story way more than they did on the infancy of the industry.

Bottom line is, if it werent important ppl wouldnt be giving as much atention to it as they do, so story matter.

If the game is trying to focus on the story as one of its main aspects, critics will talk about it as such. TellTale games will be judged more for their story than a game more focused on gameplay. TellTale's The Walking Dead and Mario Kart 8 have a very similar Metacritic score, and are both very different games. (Critic score for TWD 89; score for MK8 88)

Maybe here ( ? - I didn't check any VGChartz reviews yet), but reviews typically have separate gameplay & replayability value bars which are then summed into total score.

How much accent you want to put on this as opposed to that is, OFC, a matter of taste.

They do, the Order 1886. Everything except replayability and length was the problem with it

Are you guys saying for most games story should be weighted just as much if not more than the gameplay? Because if a game has good gameplay and replability it should more than likely get a good review automatically.

Because story is just as important?

If a game wants to tell a story, if the story is an important part, but fails, it stands to reason that it will eat a good chunk of the score, no matter how good the gameplay is.But if a game is all about gameplay, like any Mario game, or even better titanfall, the story isnt as important to the score as gameplay.It really depends on what the game is trying to achieve

Of course it should be waited as much as gameplay, if the game is trying to tell a story.Storytelling is a gigantic part of gaming now.Sometimes the story in a game make or break the game.Look at Earthbound for example.The game isnt praised by its gameplay or repleability.It is praised for its world, writing, and theme.Hell, there is even a genre called visual novels where there is basically just story.If you fail in the story section, the game is just plain bad.

If a game dosnt try to tell a story and focus on pure gameplay, then thats ok not to judge the story.Otherwise, it is a factor as important as any other

Yes, and if the developer decides to focus on a good story, he takes the risk to fail, so when they succeed to the story, it's logical that they receive a great Score. More than a game wich have great gameplay but without risks, like a platformer.