By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Gameplay isnt the most important thing in games.

NoGenlefBhind on 02 March 2015

Before I disagree with you, I'd like to say that was a well written and thought out post. Nicely done.
But... game play IS the most important part of ANY game because it lies at the absolute bottom. Everything we do in a game, every interaction we make no matter how simple, is what enables us to experience it.
You mentioned 'To the Moon' and how it made you feel. Well, you wouldn't have felt anything at all if the developers hadn't provided a basic set of instructions which were there to let you navigate and interact with what they created; not matter how basic it was... that WAS the game play and without it, you would have experienced nothing.
It would seem you're confusing, or for the benefit of doubt, over-thinking what game play is.
"Gameplay" is simply the abridged version for the phrase, 'how we play the game' and without those instructions in place, we'd all be watching t.v.



Around the Network
Mnementh on 02 March 2015
Zekkyou said:
Mnementh said:

And the bolded says it. take away the gameplay, and it transform into something different, not a game. But more importantly, have bad gameplay, and the game is ruined. You say Steins;Gate practically has no gameplay, but it does have one and it works. If the gameplay wouldn't work, the game wouldn't be good, besides story, visuals and whatever. You dismiss this too easily because the gameplay seem simplicistic in your view. But the point is, even simplicistic gameplay can be good. And complicated gameplay can be bad (actually it often is). So my point stays: gameplay plays an integral role. And while the other components are not essential, they still can have heavy impact on the general quality, but while a good game without good sound/graphic/story can exist, a game without at least basically working gameplay never is good.

I covered all of this in my post ^^;

I never said gameplay wasn't important, just that it doesn't have to be the focus of a game. Quote from my last post: "I'd agree with anyone that said having a solid interactive foundation should be the highest initial priority (regardless to how bareboned), but it being the overall focus is optional."

Something being a necessity doesn't immediately make is more important than everything else. If that were the case what i said about video game visuals would be true, yet it's not. The "most important thing" is whatever is motivating someone to play the game. That motivation being built on something else doesn't make the foundation more important, because without that motivation they wouldn't be playing it at all (thus making it its own sort of necessity).

So we basically agree, except in the importance of the foundation.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Cloudman on 02 March 2015

I guess the importance of gameplay depends on the game a team is trying to make. If the game is going for a deep story, then gameplay may not be as important, but the GP still needs to be good enough. If the story is bad ad well as the GP, then there is no point to playing the game. Even if the story is good, bad GP could bog down the overall game.

But usually I`d say GP is the most important aspect of a game. Games are played to be played. If you want to enjoy a good story, a book or a movie could fit that bill.



 

              

Dance my pretties!

The Official Art Thread      -      The Official Manga Thread      -      The Official Starbound Thread

Zekkyou on 02 March 2015
Mnementh said:

So we basically agree, except in the importance of the foundation.

To the extent that the necessity of gameplay makes it important, yeah, we agree ^^ It's just how far that stretches that we disagree on.



SvennoJ on 02 March 2015
hsrob said:

(borrowing from my own post the other day)

Look it's a fair perspective but I can't say that I agree, gameplay is king for me.

Artistic vision and freedom of expression are all well and good but in a game they should be there augment, rather than supplant, the GAMEplay. Games are fundamentally different from most other art forms due to the fact that the observer plays an active, rather than a passive, role in experiencing the medium and are, in fact, an integral part in the realisation of the vision. Anything that hinders that experience and that engagement with the medium such as bad controls, not feeling involved enough in the outcome etc. can be viewed as a failure on the part of the developer, even if aesthetically and narratively the game achieves exactly what it intended.

Now we can have a very broad definition of what qualifies as a game, the same way there is a very broad definition of what qualifies as a movie but ultimately most fall into relatively narrow confines and story tropes that have been around for hundreds of years. You can make a movie with no dialogue and it's still a movie but for many, this change would be too much because you are interfering with something they believe to be fundamental to the movie experience. Some minimalist approaches can work in movie-making but as soon as you start altering the fundamental recipes too much, you are going to disappoint a segment of the audience.

There are games that have successfully changed the balance of the gaming formula and still provide a strong, cohesive experience e.g. Flower and Journey, but from what I've heard it sounds as though The Order hasn't quite gotten it right. It's not simply that it hasn't got enough 'gameplay', it's the fact that what is on show actually gets in the way of the complete experience.

Baraka is in my top 10 best movies all time. No dialogue. Well received movie.
I also enjoyed Dear Esther, no gameplay. Very divisive game yet not a failure at all.

Why do gamers feel threatened when a game comes out that is not in their interest? Why not simply ignore it like I ignore the next superhero blockbuster. Why go to the trouble of trying to argue it doesn't deserve to be called a game.

Getting immersed in a virtual world is king for me.

Gameplay has many forms anyway. Dear esther plays with your mind, trying to make sense of the story fragments. To the moon keeps you involved with the story, and tbh gameplay did get in the way in a few places (That ridiculous horse chase comes to mind) Journey encourages you to share an experience and find ways to communicate with a total stranger. Never alone gives you a glimpse of a different culture. Papa & Yo a deeply personal story. Thirty flights of loving, only 15 minutes long, very inovative story telling. All linear games with minimal gameplay, all great imo.

Now it doesn't look like The order is going to join that list. But I do enjoy it a lot more than something like Dead space extraction.



Around the Network
SvennoJ on 02 March 2015
Cloudman said:
I guess the importance of gameplay depends on the game a team is trying to make. If the game is going for a deep story, then gameplay may not be as important, but the GP still needs to be good enough. If the story is bad ad well as the GP, then there is no point to playing the game. Even if the story is good, bad GP could bog down the overall game.

But usually I`d say GP is the most important aspect of a game. Games are played to be played. If you want to enjoy a good story, a book or a movie could fit that bill.

Proteus is worth playing imo. 80 Meta btw. All you do is walk around a procedurally generated island, no story, hardly any interaction, great experience. Games are meant to be experienced. A book or movie can't give me the experience Proteus gave me.



Cloudman on 02 March 2015
SvennoJ said:
Cloudman said:
I guess the importance of gameplay depends on the game a team is trying to make. If the game is going for a deep story, then gameplay may not be as important, but the GP still needs to be good enough. If the story is bad ad well as the GP, then there is no point to playing the game. Even if the story is good, bad GP could bog down the overall game.

But usually I`d say GP is the most important aspect of a game. Games are played to be played. If you want to enjoy a good story, a book or a movie could fit that bill.

Proteus is worth playing imo. 80 Meta btw. All you do is walk around a procedurally generated island, no story, hardly any interaction, great experience. Games are meant to be experienced. A book or movie can't give me the experience Proteus gave me.

I`m not saying GP is always the most important, and I agree with you. I just thought of something that goes against what I said. I played and really enjoyed LSD: Dream Emulation, which you just walk around and explore different world. You just walk around, but what you can see is pretty great. : ) So yeah, there are games that pull this really well, though not so common, but when they pull if off, man are they great... : )



 

              

Dance my pretties!

The Official Art Thread      -      The Official Manga Thread      -      The Official Starbound Thread

hsrob on 02 March 2015
SvennoJ said:
hsrob said:

(borrowing from my own post the other day)

Look it's a fair perspective but I can't say that I agree, gameplay is king for me.

Artistic vision and freedom of expression are all well and good but in a game they should be there augment, rather than supplant, the GAMEplay. Games are fundamentally different from most other art forms due to the fact that the observer plays an active, rather than a passive, role in experiencing the medium and are, in fact, an integral part in the realisation of the vision. Anything that hinders that experience and that engagement with the medium such as bad controls, not feeling involved enough in the outcome etc. can be viewed as a failure on the part of the developer, even if aesthetically and narratively the game achieves exactly what it intended.

Now we can have a very broad definition of what qualifies as a game, the same way there is a very broad definition of what qualifies as a movie but ultimately most fall into relatively narrow confines and story tropes that have been around for hundreds of years. You can make a movie with no dialogue and it's still a movie but for many, this change would be too much because you are interfering with something they believe to be fundamental to the movie experience. Some minimalist approaches can work in movie-making but as soon as you start altering the fundamental recipes too much, you are going to disappoint a segment of the audience.

There are games that have successfully changed the balance of the gaming formula and still provide a strong, cohesive experience e.g. Flower and Journey, but from what I've heard it sounds as though The Order hasn't quite gotten it right. It's not simply that it hasn't got enough 'gameplay', it's the fact that what is on show actually gets in the way of the complete experience.

Baraka is in my top 10 best movies all time. No dialogue. Well received movie.
I also enjoyed Dear Esther, no gameplay. Very divisive game yet not a failure at all.

Why do gamers feel threatened when a game comes out that is not in their interest? Why not simply ignore it like I ignore the next superhero blockbuster. Why go to the trouble of trying to argue it doesn't deserve to be called a game.

Getting immersed in a virtual world is king for me.

Gameplay has many forms anyway. Dear esther plays with your mind, trying to make sense of the story fragments. To the moon keeps you involved with the story, and tbh gameplay did get in the way in a few places (That ridiculous horse chase comes to mind) Journey encourages you to share an experience and find ways to communicate with a total stranger. Never alone gives you a glimpse of a different culture. Papa & Yo a deeply personal story. Thirty flights of loving, only 15 minutes long, very inovative story telling. All linear games with minimal gameplay, all great imo.

Now it doesn't look like The order is going to join that list. But I do enjoy it a lot more than something like Dead space extraction.

I don't really disagree with anything that you said, I believe there should be room for all kinds of gameplay, or non-gameplay experiencs, as the case may be. I found Little Inferno to be extremely compelling but there's barely a shred of gameplay, in any sort of traditional sense,  in sight.

To be fair the examples you provided are in the minority and at the very least, by your own description, the gameplay generally does well enough to at least not get in the way of the experience, and I think this is the crux of my point. If you are going to do a game that is light on gameplay (or significantly different in any way), you have to do it well and even if you do there will be people who simply don't get it or appreciate it. Wii's motion games received an inordinate amount of hate from self-proclaimed hardcare games even when all those folk had to do was ignore them and play something else.

I also think gamers are more tolerant of new experiences in  the Indi scene and for whatever reason are significantly less tolerant of changes in their summer blockbuster games. I think one issue with The Order, to some extent, was expectations.  What many people wanted Uncharted in a new setting and what they got was something that didn't quite fit the bill.



DevilRising on 02 March 2015

lol....yeah. Gameplay really kinda is.

A shitty looking game can still play awesome.

A great looking game that plays like shit, is still shit.



naruball on 02 March 2015
Mnementh said:

No question - a good game is good because of many many reasons. But it is a game because of the gameplay. Good gameplay doesn't make a good game every time. But no gameplay means no game, and bad gameplay ruin games.


Not necessarily and not for everyone. The Walkind Dead (vita) is a perfect example for me. It suffers from frame rate drops to the point that the game pretty much freezes and you get no time to stop the zombie from attacking you. Then you have to dodge something and it doesn't explain well what button you're supposed to press/what you're supposed to do to save yourself (touch screen controls that involve dragging and holding were also confusing). There were countless times that I wanted to throw my vita out of the window. So, part of the gameplay was asbolutely terrible. But the story was so good that I refused to quit. After I managed to beat it, I couldn't wait to play the next Season. The story was so good that it carried the game. And sure, that was only part of the gameplay and the rest of it was not too bad, but it definitely wasn't the reason I liked it.