Wonktonodi on 02 March 2015
| Smeags said: At the end of the day, games are games because the individual(s) ability to interact with the medium. You mention the end result, which is the feedback that the player receives from the game in question (Whether it be happy, surprised, afraid, disgusted, angry, sad, etc.), but you also mention that what sets games apart from the rest is its interactivity. But interactivity and gameplay are one in the same. Gameplay is described as "the specific way in which players interact with the game". Without gameplay, there is no game. It is a core foundation on which games are created, and therefore many people see it as one of (if not the most) integral functions that a game should be judged by. A game can exist without a story, or music, and any number of things that we see now-a-days. But a game cannot exist without gameplay. That is why so many people (including myself) prize games on how the player interacts within the game world. So I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but just highlighting why many people prize gameplay over all else. |
There is a wide variety of gameplay. some games the emotional feedback is from the struggle and eventual succes of doing something that was hard. Where the gameplay is the challenge, what about games where most the gameplay is making choices? The most important part of those games would be the story that leads to the choices you have to make, the looks sounds and voiceacting my be very important too, to help draw you into the narative. Gameplay might be simple interactions, that without the rest woudn't be fun.
After all video game are just pushing buttons and directional imputs, the why is ususally much more important than the what.
