Mnementh said:
As I said, there are already games without graphics, that rely on hearing. That is used by blind people for instance. Also many would say, that a purely text-based game (Infocom) has no graphic. |
I'd personally consider text a graphic (and would never play an Infocom for the gameplay lol), but for the sake of simplicity let's just say 'visuals'. A video game without visuals is not a video game. Does the necessity of visuals mean it should be a primary focus for every game? Of course not. As long as the visuals do a good enough job of presenting the experience, it's fine for a game to put more weight in other things. The same applies to gameplay.
Heavy Rain is a particularly good example of this. Much of its gameplay is very rudimentary, but is good enough that it can present the story without bringing attention to itself (the story being the key reason most people play it). As long as you can hit that 'good enough' mark with anything, gameplay included, you can focus on other things. 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.
Heck, one of my all time favorite games (Steins;Gate) has literally no gameplay other than making story choices, yet i enjoyed it more than almost every gameplay focused title out there. Does the inclusion of choice make me enjoy it more than if it were a book? Yep. Is it the reason i'm enjoying it? Nope, that would be the story and characters. That i or anyone else is able to say "i'm playing this for the [not gameplay]" is all the proof i personally need that a focus on gameplay isn't inherently necessary, despite the necessity of its basic presence.
That all said, i would agree that gameplay is more frequently the "most important thing in games" than anything else. I just don't believe it's a universal truth.
