No I am implying that you're reproducing canned points on the 'art games versus gameplay games' argument that's been going on on the internet for a while now most of which (from either side) do not stand up to serious inspection, and for what? Just to have an argument?
There is no art games vs gameplay games argument, a game is a game, you just should recognize that the gameplay is the most important part of it, without any interactivity, it does not make it a game, therefore it is the essential component to making it a video game. Not to imply graphics, sounds/music, story are all important, but without gameplay, its just a movie, not to say story cannot DRIVE the game but ultimately without interactivity it isn't a game.
statements like this 'games are what I say whether you believe it or not' are my problem with this debate. Gameplay is a nebulous term, I'm not sure what it is, I'm not sure what you think it is. Interactive systems predate games, and games are informed by interactive structures quite outside of the concept of 'fun' which is also highly subjective. I played a text adventure a long time ago named 'A Mind Forever Voyaging'. My reflexes were not challenged. There weren't many clever puzzles. I did not have fun. But it was a deeply impactful and sometimes shocking experience and I remember this game 10 years later. I don't remember very many Treasure games as fondly although they were fun to play.
You had interactivity with the story, you could change things or perhaps, attempt to meet the demands of your goal, either way without interactivity you would have just been reading a book. Also, as for you implying 'games are what I say whether you believe it or not', this is my interpretation of what a game is, I shouldn't have to state its my interpretation at all, we're not arguing whether the sky is blue or not, its much more complex and varies from person to person. Thinking about this, you seem to act as if I'm an ignorant individual for my own views, as if I've completely dismissed this game to the side, where I was just saying I was skeptical and didn't look like much going on, obviously I sounded more hostile so I apologize for that.
A potent piece of art is more than the sum of its parts. This approach to prioritizing 'content' in game design belongs to AAA studios working for the man.
I'm not saying ADD EXTRA GUNS = MAKES IT BETTER, no I mean, good core gameplay elements, which by the way the general gaming community prefers, seems like most of the community feels the best games have not only the best story/graphics/among other things but ultimately, their simplicity in all those things with gameplay coming first, i.e. Megaman 2, Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Contra, Pac-Man, Tetris, Super Metroid. But obviously, whatever it may be, the story and gameplay can go hand in hand but its not a game without gameplay (i.e. interactivity, being able to change certain elements within a limited amount of options), as stated many times previously.
As for the whole 'gameplay' thing, obviously it is a vague term but I just do it to save time, like anybody doesn't get what I mean. Its like people who say 'shading', all shadows are is the absence of light, so its impossible to 'shade' anything, just lighting/rendering, but obviously you still GET what the person is saying when he says 'shading', so I don't see the problem.
PS - I seem to be repeating a lot of statements, sorry about this, I'm a bit tired.
