It depends on the game.

The same can be said about games dependant on story.

games that are "story driven" are just games that have shit gameplay and developers/fans want to hide that fact, so they act like its not important. See not that hard.

The difference being you don't need to have a story to make a game.

Totally agree!

Same!

I've loved games with mediocre gameplay purely because of the world.

And this is why gameplay will always have more value than story. You can still have a game with a completely non existent story but a game cannot exist without gameplay.

life vs book

gameplay of course

I would prefer a bad story, if it has bad gameplay then I won't be an owner of the game for long.

True that gameplay is fundamental to constitute a game, but in terms of the value on bring in contrast with the other, I believe story+worlds trumps. That's why the poll options are interesting, because in no case is there "absolutely no" gameplay, since that wouldn't make a game.

I'll take Gameplay over Story. But if the story is bad it will leave a bad taste in my mouth.

In some instances tho a game doesn't need some deep story to motivate you.

*Looks at platformer Mario games*

Expecting grand stories from such a game is kinda much.

What would you consider a bad story or a good story in a game? To me a story is only needed as a basic narrative as to why the player must proceed through a level or journey through a game, once that is established it is all I need to go forward in a game. That being said  take your exampe with NSMB to me the game gives you that narrative to proceed through the levels so they have succeded in giving you a basic premise to go forward storywise. If on the other  hand halfway through the 1st level you happened to encounter Bowser and get peach back then yes it would seem pointless to go onwards through the other levels.