The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
"To buy or not to buy? That, is the question."
"Well what's the gameplay like? That, is the answer."
So what exactly is this abstract concept we refer to as gameplay? Taken literally it means 'how good the game is to play'. Lets look at some classic examples that are widely accepted to have good gameplay. First up, Micro Machines (I couldn't resist). Simplistic graphics and an overhead racing view, with the simple idea (as with most racing games) of getting as far in front of your opponents as possible. What made this game so enjoyable? Probably the muliplayer mode. Next example, Tetris. Simple idea, simple graphics, hugely addictive. One of the best selling games of all time. Still very difficult to point out exactly what made this game so great, it just was. Okay, a more modern example now. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Graphics were good enough on the DC, and not too shabby on the PS by it's standards either. Strangely enough I still can't pinpoint what made this so entertaining either. One more example: (well...several) The Zelda series. The earlier versions had little action, unimpressive graphics, but nonetheless were very good fun......so...does this mean it had good gameplay?
More recent veriosn of zelda have everything, action, puzzles, graphics, sound (maybe), and...gameplay.
Right, now to decide what gameplay is. We know that it can exist without sound, graphics, puzzles or action. Perhaps gameplay is in the eyes of the perceiver? People complain games sell with graphics but no gameplay, but surely gameplay has to be a matter of opinion.
If you don't like a game, would you ever admit it has good gameplay?
If you do like a game, will you ever declare it to have poor gameplay?
Broadening your views a little, try to apply the concept of gameplay to activities other than computer gaming. I'll be interested to see what opinions you come back with....
"Well what's the gameplay like? That, is the answer."
So what exactly is this abstract concept we refer to as gameplay? Taken literally it means 'how good the game is to play'. Lets look at some classic examples that are widely accepted to have good gameplay. First up, Micro Machines (I couldn't resist). Simplistic graphics and an overhead racing view, with the simple idea (as with most racing games) of getting as far in front of your opponents as possible. What made this game so enjoyable? Probably the muliplayer mode. Next example, Tetris. Simple idea, simple graphics, hugely addictive. One of the best selling games of all time. Still very difficult to point out exactly what made this game so great, it just was. Okay, a more modern example now. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Graphics were good enough on the DC, and not too shabby on the PS by it's standards either. Strangely enough I still can't pinpoint what made this so entertaining either. One more example: (well...several) The Zelda series. The earlier versions had little action, unimpressive graphics, but nonetheless were very good fun......so...does this mean it had good gameplay?
More recent veriosn of zelda have everything, action, puzzles, graphics, sound (maybe), and...gameplay.
Right, now to decide what gameplay is. We know that it can exist without sound, graphics, puzzles or action. Perhaps gameplay is in the eyes of the perceiver? People complain games sell with graphics but no gameplay, but surely gameplay has to be a matter of opinion.
If you don't like a game, would you ever admit it has good gameplay?
If you do like a game, will you ever declare it to have poor gameplay?
Broadening your views a little, try to apply the concept of gameplay to activities other than computer gaming. I'll be interested to see what opinions you come back with....
There are loads of versions on tetris out there... but the GB one is considered the best... although they all have pretty much the same graphics, sounds, etc... the gameplay of the GameBoys version has been tweaked to a point of superiority.
Gameplay depends on the feel of the game, the responsiveness of the controls, the level design, how much fun it is to play the game.
People keep mixing up graphics with gameplay, there not the same things, a 3D game requires faster graphics processing than Tetris, this doesnt make the game better or worse to play... there are plenty of Quake 3 mods that arnt half as much to play as many of the Doom 1 mods... better graphics provide better presentation, not better gemaplay, which is why people go for performance over graphics when there graphics cards cant handle the higher res... because if the game is unplayable, the nice graphics are pointless...
Gameplay depends on the feel of the game, the responsiveness of the controls, the level design, how much fun it is to play the game.
People keep mixing up graphics with gameplay, there not the same things, a 3D game requires faster graphics processing than Tetris, this doesnt make the game better or worse to play... there are plenty of Quake 3 mods that arnt half as much to play as many of the Doom 1 mods... better graphics provide better presentation, not better gemaplay, which is why people go for performance over graphics when there graphics cards cant handle the higher res... because if the game is unplayable, the nice graphics are pointless...
This post is too good to disappear without a response.
Basically I see 'gameplay' or 'playability' as the factor that will keep you coming back to a game.
I don't think that 'gameplay' is something a game can have or not, just like that, but something that is derived from a number of other factors.
I think that all of the following, and more make up the gameplay:
Story
Graphics
Sound
Level layout / design
controls
GUI's
presentation
Difficulty
There are so many other factors that make up the gameplay, it is not something that the developers can just say "This game sucks, what can we do about it? I know, lets put more gameplay in!"
Basically rating the gameplay, is really rating the game as a whole.
In movies you can say, it was a great film, but the special effects were terrible, and it wouldn't be too bad, but if a film has great special effects but not much else, you'd complain about it. It would be like a game with great graphics, but other factors of 'gameplay' lacking.
meka_dragon PQMS8/0
Basically I see 'gameplay' or 'playability' as the factor that will keep you coming back to a game.
I don't think that 'gameplay' is something a game can have or not, just like that, but something that is derived from a number of other factors.
I think that all of the following, and more make up the gameplay:
Story
Graphics
Sound
Level layout / design
controls
GUI's
presentation
Difficulty
There are so many other factors that make up the gameplay, it is not something that the developers can just say "This game sucks, what can we do about it? I know, lets put more gameplay in!"
Basically rating the gameplay, is really rating the game as a whole.
In movies you can say, it was a great film, but the special effects were terrible, and it wouldn't be too bad, but if a film has great special effects but not much else, you'd complain about it. It would be like a game with great graphics, but other factors of 'gameplay' lacking.
meka_dragon PQMS8/0
"To buy or not to buy? That, is the question."
"Well what's the gameplay like? That, is the answer."
So what exactly is this abstract concept we refer to as gameplay? Taken literally it means 'how good the game is to play'. Lets look at some classic examples that are widely accepted to have good gameplay. First up, Micro Machines (I couldn't resist). Simplistic graphics and an overhead racing view, with the simple idea (as with most racing games) of getting as far in front of your opponents as possible. What made this game so enjoyable? Probably the muliplayer mode. Next example, Tetris. Simple idea, simple graphics, hugely addictive. One of the best selling games of all time. Still very difficult to point out exactly what made this game so great, it just was. Okay, a more modern example now. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Graphics were good enough on the DC, and not too shabby on the PS by it's standards either. Strangely enough I still can't pinpoint what made this so entertaining either. One more example: (well...several) The Zelda series. The earlier versions had little action, unimpressive graphics, but nonetheless were very good fun......so...does this mean it had good gameplay?
More recent veriosn of zelda have everything, action, puzzles, graphics, sound (maybe), and...gameplay.
Right, now to decide what gameplay is. We know that it can exist without sound, graphics, puzzles or action. Perhaps gameplay is in the eyes of the perceiver? People complain games sell with graphics but no gameplay, but surely gameplay has to be a matter of opinion.
If you don't like a game, would you ever admit it has good gameplay?
If you do like a game, will you ever declare it to have poor gameplay?
Broadening your views a little, try to apply the concept of gameplay to activities other than computer gaming. I'll be interested to see what opinions you come back with....
"Well what's the gameplay like? That, is the answer."
So what exactly is this abstract concept we refer to as gameplay? Taken literally it means 'how good the game is to play'. Lets look at some classic examples that are widely accepted to have good gameplay. First up, Micro Machines (I couldn't resist). Simplistic graphics and an overhead racing view, with the simple idea (as with most racing games) of getting as far in front of your opponents as possible. What made this game so enjoyable? Probably the muliplayer mode. Next example, Tetris. Simple idea, simple graphics, hugely addictive. One of the best selling games of all time. Still very difficult to point out exactly what made this game so great, it just was. Okay, a more modern example now. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Graphics were good enough on the DC, and not too shabby on the PS by it's standards either. Strangely enough I still can't pinpoint what made this so entertaining either. One more example: (well...several) The Zelda series. The earlier versions had little action, unimpressive graphics, but nonetheless were very good fun......so...does this mean it had good gameplay?
More recent veriosn of zelda have everything, action, puzzles, graphics, sound (maybe), and...gameplay.
Right, now to decide what gameplay is. We know that it can exist without sound, graphics, puzzles or action. Perhaps gameplay is in the eyes of the perceiver? People complain games sell with graphics but no gameplay, but surely gameplay has to be a matter of opinion.
If you don't like a game, would you ever admit it has good gameplay?
If you do like a game, will you ever declare it to have poor gameplay?
Broadening your views a little, try to apply the concept of gameplay to activities other than computer gaming. I'll be interested to see what opinions you come back with....