The difference between a Game and a VIDEO Game.

[StuOhQ]

Metallox said:

ArchangelMadzz said:

I recently posted this in another thread, and I want to know if I'm insane and the only one with this view?

 

Games are all about Gameplay BUT when talking about VIDEO games, it is the culmination of gameplay, graphics, story, sound design and setting. All of these are almost all equally important to me. But if I can't get into the story of a game I just have a sense of 'why am I doing this?'.

Which is why Naughty Dog games, Halo games and Nintendo games are held in such high regard as they have a fantastic blend between all of those 5 elements. So whilst I think they are almost equally important, story is the biggest one for me. Unless I'm playing for mindless multiplayer then it's about gameplay mechanics and balance.

If you are talking about those games then you're talking about video games. Or maybe gameplay isn't an exclusiveve term for the video game scene? 

Gameplay extends into any form of gaming: tabletop, cards, sports, etc. I would argue that graphics (in the traditional sense) do to. Setting and story in certain games. The only one that doesn't play a big role in all games is sound design - but it does in some. 

For me, gameplay takes the cake, then story and setting, then presentation (sound and visuals). If any one of those elements is excellent, however, it goes a long way towards helping me gloss over deficiencies in the other categories. I can even overlook moderately clunky controls for great story and presentation; "Eternal Darkness" anyone?

Nintendo games focus first on gameplay, which is why they are my favorite developer. Their settings and presentation are usually excellent as well. With that strong foundation, they are able to get away with some minimalist storytelling. Their games are fun to play and inspire the imagination to fill in the gaps left in their "plots".