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.

Panama said:
My childhood defining game was The Neverhood. So ya know...

Dude.

DUDE.



Currently playing:

Bloodbath Paddy Wagon Ultra 9

Around the Network
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.


That's not really a good reason for gameplay being the most important part of a game...without graphics a game wouldn't be a game either, would it? Does that make graphichs the most important part of a game?

The main point here is that for a game to be excellent, the gameplay doesn't need to be excellent. Realistically, all the gameplay needs to do is allow the player to go from the beginning of the game, to the end, without any major issues. As long as the gameplay does that, it's fine. A perfect example of this is Journey. You litterally walk from one end of the game to the other, but it's fine, because that's not the focus of the game.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

No, gameplay is the most important in games. It's even in the name.



Normchacho said:


That's not really a good reason for gameplay being the most important part of a game...without graphics a game wouldn't be a game either, would it? Does that make graphichs the most important part of a game?

The main point here is that for a game to be excellent, the gameplay doesn't need to be excellent. Realistically, all the gameplay needs to do is allow the player to go from the beginning of the game, to the end, without any major issues. As long as the gameplay does that, it's fine. A perfect example of this is Journey. You litterally walk from one end of the game to the other, but it's fine, because that's not the focus of the game.

For some people, it is (which I think is the point that the OP is trying to make, and I'm not necessarily disaggreing with him).

I was explaining why a large percentage of the gaming community believe that gameplay is the most important element for judging a game. Because gameplay (aka interaction) is the defining characteristic for a game being a game and not another medium.

Journey's gameplay might not be its strongest point, but that same interaction is what makes Journey a game and not something else. And therefore that same interaction should be judged accordingly. That's all I'm saying.



Wonktonodi said:
I would love to see people define gameplay, because I imagine those that define it very narrowly won't see it as important as those that define it more broadly.
Is Tetris great because of the gameplay? Or because the challenge of it getting harder and harder? Without the challenge of the difficulty increasing it would get pretty boring. But is increasing difficulty part of gameplay? I'd argue no. But I define gameplay very narrowly and thus make it only one part of many that makes a game good to me or not. Games that have no story need to have some challenge to them or some other way to feel rewarding for interaction with the controls, otherwise they're just boring.



Tertis is great because of gameplay. 

Increasing speed of falling blocks is a game mechanic or system that influences gameplay.
Yes, difficulty is also a system or game mechanic that influences gameplay.



Around the Network
Smeags said:
Normchacho said:


That's not really a good reason for gameplay being the most important part of a game...without graphics a game wouldn't be a game either, would it? Does that make graphichs the most important part of a game?

The main point here is that for a game to be excellent, the gameplay doesn't need to be excellent. Realistically, all the gameplay needs to do is allow the player to go from the beginning of the game, to the end, without any major issues. As long as the gameplay does that, it's fine. A perfect example of this is Journey. You litterally walk from one end of the game to the other, but it's fine, because that's not the focus of the game.

For some people, it is (which I think is the point that the OP is trying to make, and I'm not necessarily disaggreing with him).

I was explaining why a large percentage of the gaming community believe that gameplay is the most important element for judging a game. Because gameplay (aka interaction) is the defining characteristic for a game being a game and not another medium.

Journey's gameplay might not be its strongest point, but that same interaction is what makes Journey a game and not something else. And therefore that same interaction should be judged accordingly. That's all I'm saying.

Where does the OP state that graphics are the most important for anyone in a game? He just says the feeling a game gives you, whch can be pretty much anything or a combination of many things in a game.



No way.



Smeags said:
Normchacho said:


That's not really a good reason for gameplay being the most important part of a game...without graphics a game wouldn't be a game either, would it? Does that make graphichs the most important part of a game?

The main point here is that for a game to be excellent, the gameplay doesn't need to be excellent. Realistically, all the gameplay needs to do is allow the player to go from the beginning of the game, to the end, without any major issues. As long as the gameplay does that, it's fine. A perfect example of this is Journey. You litterally walk from one end of the game to the other, but it's fine, because that's not the focus of the game.

For some people, it is (which I think is the point that the OP is trying to make, and I'm not necessarily disaggreing with him).

I was explaining why a large percentage of the gaming community believe that gameplay is the most important element for judging a game. Because gameplay (aka interaction) is the defining characteristic for a game being a game and not another medium.

Journey's gameplay might not be its strongest point, but that same interaction is what makes Journey a game and not something else. And therefore that same interaction should be judged accordingly. That's all I'm saying.

I guess I understand what you're saying but I don't understand how it would have any bearing in this discussion...Not to harp on you specifically, as I know you're just explaining the viewpoint, but I see that as the same as saying that motion is the most important part of a movie, because otherwise it would just be a series of pictures. It's technically true, but I don't think there has ever been a debate about whether or not to have gameplay in a game, the debate is how much of a priority does it need to be.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

bananaking21 said:
Ka-pi96 said:
But... how it makes you feel is largely because of the gameplay, no? So then gameplay is still the most important...


no. take to the moon or heavy rain for example. each have different gameplay yet both are very basic, and both are amazing games. 


True. I suppose, I haven't played them. But I have played some that fit that bill. 

There is a simple gameplay aspect of both of them. They did what they set out to do. Sometimes simple is better. It doesn't disuade from the story but it allows it to ebb and flow. If the simple gameplay in those games were fundamentally flawed you likely wouldn't have been able to finish either of them. There are some points you can easily over look, then others no so much. As simple as it is, just directionality in games can be a huge factor. If you press a direction and go a different direction, or the input takes a second to work, or it doesn't do what it was meant to do that is failing a fundamental gameplay mechanic. Especially with old style games like the first one you mentioned. If you stop pressing a button will it continue to do what it is doing. With that hinder the performance of the next button press? I have recently played a game that unfortunately has almost all of these issues in it. Alphaeda Genesis. The controls are terrible, and as basic as the gameplay is in an old RPG like this, it is a huge part of the game and not much different from what you were talking about with Stars and Moon or whatever it's called (I'm not trying to downplay the game, I just can't remember the name at the moment). If you press right on the control pad you expect the character to go right. This is the case for the most part, but every once in a while, maybe it's how I'm pressing the button, but the character will go up or down. This isn't something new in video games, but it does happen regularly. There can also be a slight pause before moving forward, or a delay after, consistantly after, letting go of a direction and the character will continue to do a walking animation and in that time I am unable to interact with anything. The fighting sequences are fine so far, but the controls are bad enough I could never recommend this game. It shares the same idea of movement in many old style SNES RPG type games, but it's flawed even for a game where the controls and gameplay have never been anything much beyond the normal standard and that's acceptable. 

However, another game that is EXTREMELY simple with a simple story but becomes oddly addictive is Little Inferno. You do nothing more than drag items from the side and drop them into the fireplace to burn them. It's arguibly a simpler control scheme that moving around a character to different points on a screen to talk to people. The game might not be right for someone with a lack of patience but I don't think the games you mentioned would be either. It becomes easy to get enthralled in the experience and slight story that follows the enjoyable gameplay mechanic. If the controls were screwed so that it was harder than it needed to be to drag something into the fire place it could destroy the entire game due to a little annoyance. That is where the gameplay is concerned. In more complex games the levels have their share in the gameplay, so if something becomes tedious or irritating it can destroy the whole experience. A game is about how it makes you feel, but with bad gameplay you won't be able to experience what the game was envisioned you to experience. It might cause irritation instead of enjoyment, or anger instead of loving. Some games are designed to be harder and somehow warrant and encourage you to continue past the the potential irksome moment and somehow reward your hard work, but again for that to happen, there cannot be anything fundamentally wrong with the gameplay. I'm thinking the likes of the Donkey Kong Country series, or DK:TF. Hard games but you feel a sense of accomplishment after finishing them. There are others of course, these just came to mind because I have been playing DK:TF again recently. Super meat boy fits that bill as well. Sharp reactive controls that do exactly what they are meant to do without hindering the rest of the experience. 



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.

DerpSandwich said:
Panama said:
My childhood defining game was The Neverhood. So ya know...

Dude.

DUDE.


Haha so awesome!