Viewing Thread:
"What IS gameplay?"

I was just reading a topic over in chat about what things are more important in a game, whether it's graphics, gameplay, sound, storyline etc, and this got me thinking.

What actually IS gameplay?

Some people put it as a sepearat characteristic of a game. They pigeon hole a game into catagories like, sound, graphics etc.

But surely gameplay is an amalgamation of all of them. Gameplay relies on graphics (not needing stunning graphics, but ones that do the job), sound (again nothing spectacular, but wouldn't it sound weirf if classical music was in a game like UT?) etc etc.

I think gameplay results from all the other factors being good. If the graphics stink, then that will affect the gameplay simply becuase you may not be able to see what you're doing.

What do you think?

What kind of a question is that? Look it up in the dictionary...

Gameplay is what it is...

'cause sometimes gameplay is what it ain't.



(think about it)

Gmeplay is simply how good a game is to play and is the most important thing in an game. If we look back at such greats as Space Invaders, Super Mario Bros and Sonic The Hedgehog. At the time these games would have had the best sound and graphics but over a decade later the graphics or sound quality is none comparable to any currant games. So the graphics and the sound is outdated but these games are still classics, why? Gamplay, yes all the aforementioned games feature excellent gameplay and this is what have made them classics in their time and let them remain classics today.
Looking back at other games now. Tetris another classic timeless game which had naf graphics and annoying sound when it was released and still does today but as for the gameplay, that was simple and addictive. Can any one remember MDK or G-Police? probably not but at the time both these PC games featured immense graphics and six that were unseen at the time (although you did need a Monster pc, especially for Gpolice). Now both games had as said unbelievable graphics for the time and both shifted a few copies but as for gameplay, there was none both games were rubbish (being polite).
Final game now. GTA, what can you say about GTA those annoying outdated graphics (at the time as well as now) but GTA was hugely popular because of its gameplay. So in conclusion if you judge a game purly on its graphics or sound quality then sadly you are sure to miss out on playing some of the best games ever released.

That's what I meant when I said the gaming press have changed the meaning of the word (really, this is only the "tabloid" versions of the GP). It now has a strange, all encompassing meaning, when it is really simply how you play the game.

Isn't this thread is confusing two different terms?

The first term, and the one this topic is talking about, is 'Gameplay'. For me, this is simply what you have to do in a game. For example, the two PS2 games, "Driving Emotion Type S" and "GT3" have the same gameplay - accelerate, brake, left, right and so on.

The second term, and the one which I think people are confusing, is 'playability'. Out of two more-or-less identical games, what makes one more playable than another?

Driving Emotion Type S suffered from bad handling of the cars, so that obviously reduces its playability - but it doesn't change its gameplay at all.

Similarly, and early PS1 game - Moto Toon GP - was by the same guy (Kazunori Yamauchi) and used more or less the same physics engine as the original Gran Turismo game, but it had cartoon-like graphics, and wasn't a great seller. Gran Turismo had 'real' cars and some extra bells & whistles, but was essentially the same game-engine - and it was huge.

Why? What made it more playable? The only obvious reason was that it was more 'realistic'. (Could be a hge hint in there for Nintendo, too - but that's a whole other argument!)

My view is that there can be numerous factors that make a game more 'playable' than another; I couldn't put my finger on exactly what they are, but none of them are any good on their own. Obviously any game that manages to bring several of them together will almost certainly be a 'hit'.

The storyline/plot only has to fit with the style of the game (or is it the other way round?), it doesn't have to be that complicated to succeed. Dr Gonzo, your example with Crazi Taxi shows this; The game has a very simple premise, but being simple doesn't make it bad.

Going back to the film analogy, without mentioning who does what.... :op.

An overcomplicated plotline can ruin a film, as with a game. Simple can be effective.

Tetris anybody?

*FM clocks in and copies/pastes the URL into his browser*

Following up from that, if you would like to make games, (We're looking at you FM.) go to this site:

http://www.gamedev.net /reference/start_here/

There's a nice article by a developer here:

http://www.lupinegames.com/ articles/focus_gameplay.html

which discusses gameplay from a developer's viewpoint when designing a game that plays well.

Gameplay isn't hard to define at all - it is how the game plays. This is an amalganation of both how you interact with the game, and how your reactions affect proceedings. In that context pretty much everything is important then, with extra emphasis being plased on the game mechanic (what you actually do at the most basic level e.g. Crazy Taxi - drive from A to B at the behest of passangers).

Popular gaming press has twisted the term gameplay to include characterization and plot. I would agree with that at all. How do either effect how you play the game? I'm not saying that you don't get enjoyment out of a good story, just that it doesn't really effect how you play the game. To refer back to the Craxy Taxi example, even if there was a plot added, you'd still be driving from A to B.