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

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

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Wonktonodi said:


The story isn't part of the gameplay. The choices are. The story is the why. Rescuing Princess Peach is story not gameplay. 

I was going for the overly simple definition of gameplay there to make the point that most people who say it's the all important part often include much more than gameplay when they say gameplay.


Then clearly you don't know what the one and only definition of gameplay is. Just because the story in Super Mario tends to be separated from the gameplay you can't use that one example to dismiss all prominent examples where the opposite is the case.

You don't play The Walking Dead simply by making mindless decisions. You play it by following the story, putting yourself in the characters' position, analysing the situation and then picking the preferred option that is available to you. To throw all the rest away and claim that only that last part can be considered gameplay is absurd. Like I said before, it is just as absurd as the claim that the way you play cards is by moving your hands around. In both these cases, the thinking process is the core of the gameplay.

The gameplay in walking dead is not the story itself, the story leads to how people choose to play and the story adjust because of it, but that doesn't make the gameplay the story. Walking around solving puzzles and dialog choices are gameplay.

You want games where story is the gameplay? Table top role playing games.



Around the Network
Normchacho said:
Mnementh said:

Well, many things are important, but good games can exist without good graphics or music, but not without good gameplay. Even if people here are easy to dismiss the gameplay of Walking Dead or Journey: it is actually good, it works well.

Just working doesn't make gameplay good. The gameplay isn't the draw of those games. Nobody is buying Journey going "thank god, I've always wanted a walking simulator!".

The gameplay takes a back seat in games like The Walking Dead. The gameplay is there mostly because it needs to be. Does that stop those types of games from being great? Of course not, because gameplay doesn't always need to be the most important part.

I didn't say gameplay is the main draw of these games, but if the gameplay would suck the games would be ruined despite being good otherwise. And while you may like Journey for other qualities than gameplay, a good functioning gameplay is still essential part of the game, otherwise it wouldn't work. So you dismiss gameplay to easily on these games, while it isn't in the main focus.

If you like a house, you may say that are many parts of the house important for your liking it. But if the roof is broken and rain is coming into it, then you will dislike it, even if other qualities are present.



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, 2024

10 years greatest game event!

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

LudicrousSpeed said:
The Order is judged by its story and setting. And they both fail miserably. Unfortunately it also happens to have literally no gameplay elements that are above average to fall back on. So if the narrative fails (which it does), there's nothing else to save the game.

And gameplay is by far the most important aspect of any game.


no, i'm pretty sure the order was judged by it's length and amount of gameplay. i think you're very much in the minority when it comes to judging the order by it's story and setting.



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).



Gameplay is still the most important factor cause if its shit and absolutely not fun why even bother with its existence?



Around the Network

I disagree.



http://www.whoisjesus-really.com/

Wii U + PS4 

Consoles>Mobile

(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.



Wonktonodi said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


Then clearly you don't know what the one and only definition of gameplay is. Just because the story in Super Mario tends to be separated from the gameplay you can't use that one example to dismiss all prominent examples where the opposite is the case.

You don't play The Walking Dead simply by making mindless decisions. You play it by following the story, putting yourself in the characters' position, analysing the situation and then picking the preferred option that is available to you. To throw all the rest away and claim that only that last part can be considered gameplay is absurd. Like I said before, it is just as absurd as the claim that the way you play cards is by moving your hands around. In both these cases, the thinking process is the core of the gameplay.

The gameplay in walking dead is not the story itself, the story leads to how people choose to play and the story adjust because of it, but that doesn't make the gameplay the story. Walking around solving puzzles and dialog choices are gameplay.

You want games where story is the gameplay? Table top role playing games.


I never made the claim that the story = gameplay in The Walking Dead. I made it perfectly clear that the thinking process, i.e. decision making is the core of the gameplay.



Simply put, content is and will always be king.



Pixel Art can be fun.

Ka-pi96 said:
But... how it makes you feel is largely because of the gameplay, no? So then gameplay is still the most important...


Not in all games.