[StarSlayer]

Probably depends on the genre.  Lets face it RPGs are centered on its atmosphere and story.  You generally are already banking on limited game play in favor of interesting plot.  If the gameplay is fantastic and there is piss all plot then you'll probably be unsatisfied.  On the other hand an FPS is based on murdering lots of dudes.  If the thing is a Shakespearean epic yet its a complete crap shoot so far as the gameplay your probably going to toss your controller through the screen.  If the FPS has a gun that shoots shurikens and lightning does it really need a plot?  If the RPG has a plot that moves you does ho hum gameplay matter as much?  It really comes down to what you were expecting out of the expierance.

[SpardaSon21]

I'm undecided.  An excellent plot can rescue an otherwise unpalatable game, and excellent gameplay can save a game that has a horrible or nonsensical plot.  It really all depends on whether or not the gameplay or plot overcomes the shortcomings of the other.

[castor]

Gameplay for sure. Otherwise it would be more convenient to just go read a book,

[Titan]

  If the FPS has a gun that shoots shurikens and lightning does it really need a plot? 

It would be better if it had tits and was on fire. 

But heres something for you: Remember that old arcade game Missle Command? Remember the cities you had to protect? Originally, each one would have a little name over it; New York City, Washington DC, Philadelphia, etc. Would that game have been improved or ruined by that?(Though either way it would have been rather haunting)

[CP5670]

Gameplay. There are a number of games I like with great stories and poor gameplay, but I will usually prefer something with superior gameplay. The games I keep coming back to over the years are the ones with outstanding gameplay, and may or may not have a good story. I think among my top 10 games, at least half have a thin or nonexistent story.

However, I like to have some variety between my games, with some excelling in story and others in gameplay (if I have to choose between them).  I wouldn't want all games to be one or the other. I think there are too many modern games that try to focus on story and not enough that concentrate on gameplay.

[Scotty]

A balance is required.  However, that balance is made of several factors for either part.  Gameplay wise, I refuse to fight bad mechanics, but I can live with repetetive combat/minigames.  Story wise, originality isn't exactly the biggest need for me, but it ABSOLUTELY has to be presented in a good way.

Mass Effect is a perfect example of the above.

[Roanoke]

gameplay. every time.

[blackhole]

Gameplay is more important then story. Just look at mario. SAVE THE PRINCESS! SAVE THE PRINCESS! CLEAN UP DELFINO ISLA-OH WAIT SAVE THE PRINCESS AGAIN! JUMP AROUND ON PLANETS AND SAVE THE PRINCESS

That said, as long as you have awesome gameplay, a good storyline will only make your game better. The trouble starts when you start sacrificing gameplay for story, which one should never, ever do.

Games are a very unique medium for telling stories, and the best game's take advantage of this without forgetting that they are supposed to be fun. When these two elements combine, you can get some seriously amazing stuff. Cave story is a superb example of this.

[TrashMan]

Both have to be good for me to like a game.

Both have to be excellent for the game to be a legend.

If either one lacks, I might still play the game a bit, but it won't be the game I return to.

[Vidmaster]

both of course. However, I tend to be more forgiving if the story is good than vise-versa.

[Stormkeeper]

I actually had to click the reply button for once.

Play COD4, let me know what you think afterwards.

I did. It was fun, good AI. There was a story, but it really wasn't that big, imo. It was just there, you know, and not really interactive. I'll admit I enjoyed it. What about it?

So I was reading a Gamespot article [...]

Why would you do something as silly as that? 

I had time while so I decided to tweak my Gamespot settings instead, and ran across that one.

Seems like most people are divided on this.

I agree that if there is good gameplay it might contribute to a plot, but if the actually story is bad, the gameplay wouldn't be contributing much to the plot, would it? While normally a bad story can undoubtedly be rescued by excellent gameplay, it'd be different if the game relies on gameplay to expand on the story, like say Indigo Prophecy? For a game like that, the gameplay is essential for the story to be revealed. Most if not all are like that, but your interaction has little effect on the story, which moves along at its own pace.

I don't really know how to explain it, but that's what I think anyway.

[Flipside]

I'd also say the two are interlinked in the case of computer games to be honest, since the gameplay defines, to a large extent, how involved and enjoyable the story is. but, not so much a bad storyline, but a poorly executed one, can ruin it.

For me, I find wooden-sounding voice acting will kill a game for me very quickly, I can cope with low-range graphics, but if there's talking in the game, for God's sake, don't make it sound like it's being read from a blackboard by a Russian manic depressive. I prefer text to bad voice acting, possibly that's my audio background kicking in there though.

I'll say this though, a good story is more likely to make me tolerate bad gameplay, purely to find out what happens, but I'm not sure that would make it a good game, successful, certainly, but a good game needs to be able to balance the two, so the gameplay makes you feel you are participating in the story, and not simply trying to get to the next bit, and the story itself is compelling enough to make you want to get to the next bit.

The Morrowind series is a good example of balancing the two, whilst it's fun to perform the storyline, which is, as a whole, quite a good one, there's a lot of unrelated stuff that you can do purely to exploit the gameplay, and it's quite fun to do even with the storyline waiting for you to get back to it.

[BloodEagle]

The only problem that I really have with Morrowind is that all of the areas seemed to be independently designed. E.g., there's no level balance between some nearby areas. This is especially prevalent around towns or in the first cave near Seyda Neen.

Side note: Pretty nice (if buggy) horror mod.

[Flipside]

I suppose, even with those problems, I still preferred Morrowinds style of tackling as much as you felt prepared to handle over Oblivions 'baby spoonfulls' concept. I use Martigens Monster Mod on Oblivion now, and it's improved it vastly, but I'd still say, of the two, that Morrowind is the better game as far as gameplay is concerned.

[Stormkeeper]

... Oblivions 'baby spoonfulls' ...

You mean the levelled lists?

[Flipside]

I think that's what they are called, yes, basically, the fact that, in Oblivion, the monsters level around the main character rather than the player having to level up to face them. It kind of made levelling pointless to a certain degree in my opinion.

[BloodEagle]

I loathe level scaling. A lot. The worst part is when they scale the effectiveness of equipment. Nothing worse than finding out that that brand-spankin'-new frost shortsword would have been five times as strong if you'd waited three more levels. 

[mxlm]

Any good gameplay tells a story, so it's kind of a false dichotomy.

Right, but not really a good story. I mean, I had lots of fun in the Battlefield mod Eve of Destruction taking unarmed NVA choppers and ramming them into fully loaded Hueys. Over and over again. So, what, 'kamikaze! Respawn! Kamikazee! Respawn! Kamikaze!'

I guess it's a story. It's just not a story I'd have the slightest interest in if I weren't the kamikaze.

[Flipside]

True, but was that Multiplayer? Because multiplayer games, I think, work differently to single player ones. Because it immediately becomes "What would happen if you took a bunch of bored kids and put them in this environment?", the answer would inevitably be various forms of 'Kamikase! Respawn!' depending on the game in question

[NGTM-1R]

You mean the levelled lists?

The real problem was that NPCs did not level with the lists. Or you. Sure, guards are supposedly always five levels up on you, but tell it to the guy with the 40+ fire/lightning enchanted sword and see how hard he laughs.

Also, Morrowind did have leveled monster lists, but they were for wider brackets. And if you just go wandering in the Ghostfence at low levels you get what you deserve.