19 replies to this topic

[Koh]

Time for another subjective polling of the community, sponsored by your very own Tamer Koh!

 

This time we delve into the aspects of games that can either make or break the game for you.  What this means is, for some games, you're willing to overlook everything else if this one (or group) of aspects shine, or in reverse, it means that if the game is underwelming in either of those aspects, then the game gets thrown to the bottom of the barrel with most of the unlicensed Chinese games.

 

Cast your votes and provide your explanations so we can understand~

Edited by Koh, 03 June 2017 - 08:34 AM.

[Anthus]

Gameplay first, for me. Nothing else matters if the game is broken, or not fun, imo.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

Gameplay to me is what makes up the experience of playing a game. A lot goes into that, and just calling it 'gameplay' is to be a simplification that in this context makes it impossible for me to 'pick' one over the other. Music, visuals, design, story, all of this goes under the "umbrella" that is gameplay.

 

So I can say that I think 'gameplay' is the most important aspect of what makes a video game good. But you can't have gameplay without visuals, design, music and story. You can combine those elements and use them differently for each project, sure, but to try and make one more important than the other, that to me shows a lack of understanding of the topic at hand. Gameplay can't exist without its ingredients, and if you want to fairly judge a game you have to take all of its contents into account.

 

So when someone tells me that 'the gameplay is good', that doesn't really tell me anything. Sure, it tells me they've likely enjoyed the game on some level, but it says nothing about the how and why, and about what makes it great. Gameplay isn't "more" important than graphics, because the graphics is a part of the gameplay. To see a good example of what I'm talking about here look at a game like Journey. That game has a lot going for it, but if you boil the moment to moment 'gameplay' down, it becomes nothing more than a 'walking simulator'. It is the visuals, and more importantly the music, that makes that game work. If you strip it of those two elements, the 'gameplay' suddenly loses its edge, and there's really nothing left to enjoy about it.

 

What I'm trying to say here, is that saying that 'the gameplay is good' is effectively the same as saying 'the game is good'. But it skips the interesting part, which is why.

[Koh]

I can see what you're saying, but there's a reason why it's separated out.  Think back to the arcades, like PacMan or Street Fighter 2.   Or even puzzle games like Tetris, Columns or Puyo Puyo.   Most of these games don't have a story that goes beyond an intro wall of text, if even that at all.  The visuals are what they are, but back then, it was purely about the gameplay; there were no cutscenes and no character depth.  This is why they separate it out.

[Joelmacool]

A good game for me must have all of these aspects, it creates a better experience for the player and makes it seem more realistic, so you'd care more about the game. A bad game would, obviously, be the opposite of this, so I chose all the options. 

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

I can see what you're saying, but there's a reason why it's separated out.  Think back to the arcades, like PacMan or Street Fighter 2.   Or even puzzle games like Tetris, Columns or Puyo Puyo.   Most of these games don't have a story that goes beyond an intro wall of text, if even that at all.  The visuals are what they are, but back then, it was purely about the gameplay; there were no cutscenes and no character depth.  This is why they separate it out.

What is a story? Does it have to be lines of text? Journey doesn't have a single letter but it still manages to have a rich story. That said, I don't think you need a story, but the lack of a story doesn't suddenly change the meaning of the words gameplay. And gameplay isn't its own thing, it doesn't make sense to separate it like you've done here. It limits the conversation even, I'd say, because it forces you to choose between options that doesn't really work on their own. Gameplay is the result, it's the end product of mixing the different ingredients into its own thing.

 

The fact that there exists games that doesn't try and tell you a story doesn't really go against anything I've said.

 

Think of it like this: you can't just have story. It wouldn't be a game anymore, it'd be a written story. Same with music, you can't have music without gameplay, then it's just music. Visuals become art without the gameplay... see where this is going?

Edited by Migokalle, 03 June 2017 - 09:47 AM.

[Shane]

Why does it have to be one universal factor that matters? If it's an action game "gameplay" matters mostly but if it's a story driven experience having a mediocre story could break the game while an action game can get away with it. Not a black and white question really.

[Koh]

Well they did back then is what I'm telling you.  There were no real graphics back then, especially in those categories like Tetris or Columns.  Squares and gems don't change the fact that you make lines and connect 3 for example.   Street Fighter 2's art style might be iconic, but what sold it was the solid controls and such, you see?   If the game played like shit like Street Fighter 1, it'd have just faded into obscurity despite how good it looks, lol.  Trust me, I understand completely that you're saying a game as a whole is defined by each of these aspects put together.  But, the question itself isn't about that, it's about what pieces individually would attract you to or repel you from a game .

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

Well they did back then is what I'm telling you.  There were no real graphics back then, especially in those categories like Tetris or Columns.  Squares and gems don't change the fact that you make lines and connect 3 for example.   Street Fighter 2's art style might be iconic, but what sold it was the solid controls and such, you see?   If the game played like shit like Street Fighter 1, it'd have just faded into obscurity despite how good it looks, lol.  Trust me, I understand completely that you're saying a game as a whole is defined by each of these aspects put together.  But, the question itself isn't about that, it's about what pieces individually would attract you to or repel you from a game .

What? There were real graphics in tetris. Now you're just pulling at straws. There were real graphics in Pong, I mean...

[Koh]

For me, the graphics are an important factor in the advertisement of the game, but they don't matter to me as much when it comes to actually playing a game.   If it the game is too much of a chore to get through, like say, Hydlide, it doesn't matter if the game looks like a Picasso work, it's going right to the bottom of the barrel, lol.   I can tolerate the gameplay being subpar if, and only if, the music is actually really good.  This is the case with a lot of LJN titles actually.  The games are mediocre to play, but they've got some nice compositions, like Nightmare on Elm Street.   Story I don't really care much about, but if there is going to be one, it should be a good one.  IF they're going to forego one altogether like Tetris or PacMan, then that's okay with me, it just means the gameplay better be good and not boring.

Edited by Koh, 03 June 2017 - 10:02 AM.

[Norzan]

There are no universal factors to me because it depends on what i expect from each game. A RPG can have great gameplay but if the story is so badly written with the majority of the characters being annoying or unlikable i'm not gonna want to continue. I expect good gameplay from a puzzle game but if it doesn't, i don't want to continue playing.

[Architect Abdiel]

I think what Koh refers to as gameplay is along the lines of...

How the controls work.
How the discovery, combat, exploration, puzzles are executed.
How enjoyable those aspects.
Perhaps the game's execution at its objective?

Honestly, I don't think there's a word for it, even though I get where you're coming from.

My main factors are enjoyment and success in execution.

I can say on the note of Pong. It does have stuff vaguely resembling a story and it does have graphics. It's just simple an execution, and it worked.

[Cukeman]

Sorry but there's no question. Without gameplay you don't have a game, the other elements belong to books, music and paintings, all wonderful, excellent things of course, but a book (or music or a painting) will never be a game and vice-versa.

[Haylee]

Pretty much if 50% of the game is shit regardless of like, category for me, it's not something I'm gonna enjoy.

 

I feel like if the gameplay to a game is average, but has an outright fantastic Story, Characters and Soundtrack, I'm still going to enjoy the game.

[Anthus]

Sorry but there's no question. Without gameplay you don't have a game, the other elements belong to books, music and paintings, all wonderful, excellent things of course, but a book (or music or a painting) will never be a game and vice-versa.

Quoted for truth. If I want to hear good music, I'll listen to an album. If I want a good story, I'll read or watch one. If I want to play a game, I want it to be good and solid, and fun to play. For me, nothing else about it will matter or stick with me if it's not a good game, or engaging and fun within its genre or otherwise.