Official Off-Topic Thread

[Helm]

Are you implying I'm somehow more ignorant just because of this hunch? That I'm less of what you perceive as a gamer in your mind?

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?

Games ARE gameplay, believe it or not

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.

The main component a game needs though is good, core gameplay and obviously story, graphics, sounds, etc. can help to compliment that, at the end of the day you still need interactivity to make it a video game.

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.

[EyeCraft]

My opinion is, if the combat becomes challenging and exciting, the game will be better off than if it didn't. The exploration and interaction seemed solid. The walking across water puzzle probably would have had me stuck for a while. I'm sure they could really expand on that aspect of it, too.

The role of the videos I think is to appeal to a broad audience, which is something they state as part of the games objectives. Given this, I think it's difficult to really make any solid judgements based off watching them. They can't make it look too much like a game that only "gamers" are going to play.

That's just my guess, anyway. But I can see definite room there for a fun game. 

[Gil]

Games aren't art, they're so much more. Until the large companies realize that, we're never getting rid of the current industry.

Game development is catching up to hollywood? It should be the other way round by now. We have a visually strong industry, with loads of writing opportunity, interactivity and far greater social opportunities than watching a movie.

Game development will eventually surpass hollywood in revenue and famousness by a league.

Art is just a part of all that. Not even an important part.


Gameplay is about 10% important nowadays and it should be. It should never be bad though. I rather play a game with no gameplay than one with bad gameplay.

[huZba]

With games there's a power to communicate something really powerful without the things we normally consider language. Movies are linear, written with verbal language (well most of the time). A game I think is simply something interactive where you can make a difference (as opposed to information storages, like websites, they're not games even though you can browse them)

Gameplay I would consider as the control layer between you and the gameworld. Not just the buttons, but the ways the buttons make things happen. Pretty simple huh?

[EyeCraft]

I rather play a game with no gameplay than one with bad gameplay.

Not to be argumentative, but I think this statement is logically impossible. In order to be able to actually play a game, it must have some form of gameplay.

I would define gameplay as the set of rules/constraints that govern the interactive experience. You must always have at least some constraints, since a game must be bounded in at least some way, be it the length of time it is played for, the method of input and response, or the complexity of causal relationships between actions and reactions within the game space.

There must also be some kind of goal or point to the game, or its just a kind of aimless daydream. I'm not saying aimless daydreams are bad (since they occupy quite a bit of my time ), I'm just saying an aimless daydream is not a game. By definition, a game has some aim.

Ehhh should probably think about it more before I post something like that, but I need to rush off to work. 

[Gil]

Not to be argumentative, but I think this statement is logically impossible. In order to be able to actually play a game, it must have some form of gameplay.

What I mean is that I rather watch 30 minutes of cutscenes followed by 2 minutes of good gameplay, rather than playing something that handles like a brick.

[7321551]

Seems like a bit of a false dichotomy, I'd rather spend 32 minutes with the good gameplay. 
I don't begrudge anyone liking cutscenes, though.

[TomF]

I can kind of see it from both sides on the whole gameplay thing. Like I'm in two states of mind about knytt stories, because on the one hand I'm wondering around the world thinking mmmm this is a lovely little relaxing experience, really enjoying the atmosphere. Then on the other hand I think, "hey wait a sec, where the hell is my "gameplay"?"

Then you have something like Super Metroid that has all the exploration and atmosphere, on top of those core mechanics that some say are essential to a game. But you could say that if knytt had a smilar structure it would be overkill, and actually end up taking away from the whole relaxing atmosphere thing. So it's a tough call, do I prefer the simplicity of Knytt, or the more intense Metroid? I say, it depends what mood I'm in. I can appreciate both. 

[alspal]

Seriously, you guys need to read this:
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/
There is also a forum topic attached to the essay if you need more to read. Get that word out of your vocabulary.

[Jorund]

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/

What he says is nothing new. This is the main problem, I quote:

Besides, it seems that different people have different ideas of what gameplay is supposed to mean; there is nothing like a widely accepted definition

which actually happens with a LOT of words. For example: art, love, etc.

I mean, he's right, maybe gameplay isn't well defined, but there's so much words which aren't, that you can't write about one in particular.
It's useful though the proposed solution, try using other words. But that's what words are for, you use gameplay because you think it's the best word out there to define what you're thinking.
You say this is a piece of art, because you think thats better than: this thing is very creative and makes me feel happy because of the colours and that little thing there.
Which isn't right, because then... what's creative? what do you mean by happy? why the colours? what about the little thing?

I don't know... maybe what i'm writing is obvious