Everything about a game is what is most important. It's just some are higher than others. Such as graphics. I don't need 720res to enjoy my Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate. I need good gameplay. Story usually also has a big impact, but not on games like Monster Hunter or Smash Bros. It all depends on the type of game and etc.
[Switch Friend code: 3909-3991-4970]
[Xbox Live: JissuWolfe]
[PSN: Jissu]
Every form of entertainment tries to induce feelings, that's what entertainment for. Be it cinema or a roller coaster.
But there are still different forms of entertainment. Everything has some form to set itself apart. What is a cinematic game without gameplay? A movie. There is nothing wrong with a movie. So why people claim they produce games? Because they can charge $60 for a game instead of $20 for a movie and because most cinematic games still have a lame story compared to movies.
I don't say a game can have cinematic elements. A good game with good gameplay can be enhanced with cinematic experience.
But the defining point of a game is gameplay. If you take away sound effects, music, graphics from a great game, you may end up with a bad game. Take away gameplay and you end up with no game.
DamnTastic said:
So the walking dead and the wolf among us are shit games? |
Do they have shit gameplay? I don't think so. Only because they have a strong storyfocus doesn't mean the gameplay is inexistant or bad.
yoscrafty said:
|
You dismiss gameplay of some games to reinforce your point. But the truth is: point-and-click-adventures and the telltale games have gameplay and it works in many cases. So the point still stands: without this gameplay (may it be minimalistic or simplicistic) they wouldn't be games. With shit gameplay they would be bad games despite other aspects are working well. So gameplay is defining. Good gameplay alone (mostly) doesn't make a good game, like a good motor alone doesn't make a good car. But bad gameplay ruins an otherwise good game.
What makes a game great is several things and a very subjective matter. It's most likely a combination of a number of factors. But a game can ha e crappy graphics, crappy music and no story, but if the gameplay is great, it can still be appreciated by many. Gameplay is a fundament that the rest relies upon and when a "game" becomes more of a semi-interactive movie, I loose interest quite fast.
| 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. |
This.
| 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. |
Gameplay is the interaction. So while the challenge may not be part of the gameplay, the challenge would be impossible without gameplay. Or does someone have difficulties to finish a movie? Even the unexperienced and most unskilled movie watchers can watch a movie from the beginning to the end.
Gameplay is the most important thing. Not the only thing but certainly the most important.
In my opinion.
Normchacho said:
|
Yes it is possible. I don't know if you would refer to ascii-games as graphic, you may. but there are interactive games for blind people, that entirely rely on sound. If you now say sound - there are a lot of games without sound.
| Puppyroach said: What makes a game great is several things and a very subjective matter. It's most likely a combination of a number of factors. But a game can ha e crappy graphics, crappy music and no story, but if the gameplay is great, it can still be appreciated by many. Gameplay is a fundament that the rest relies upon and when a "game" becomes more of a semi-interactive movie, I loose interest quite fast. |
it may still be a good movie ... but in reality it is very unlikely. And movies are a lot cheaper.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
