Poll: Is gameplay no longer the most important factor in a game?

[Bug MuIdoon]

I tell that to people who like this game. Mind you, the whole thing is on YouTube.

I'm going to defend Dear Esther here, because I actually really enjoyed it. It is a game and viewing it on Youtube is not the same experience. Yes, it's pretty linear but there is still a huge feeling of exploration, and it's an exploration that isn't forced upon you. There are things to find off the beaten track, whether they're the typical diary entries or bizarre scrawlings on cave walls. There are no dramatic FMV sequences that make you watch them or character interactions that remove your exploratory immersion. You can stop and look at the, quite frankly, amazing scenery and incredible locations at your own will and pace. Yes you can do this in pretty much any game, but Dear Esther is one that focuses on this as its core mechanic, not as a by product of a 'lack of game' but one intended to do so from the start. Watching someone else play it on Youtube is just not the same experience. If it was then the same thing could be said about any game. While it may not be a 'game' in typical sense, it's definitely not a movie either.

Sometimes I like to walk to work through the park. Nothing interesting happens, I don't pick up items and try to combine them to open a locked door, I don't have a shoot out with aliens. I might hear some birds singing or see a squirrel and it's nice, but would I want to watch that on Youtube? Nope.

 

[sumanoskae]

People often mistake gameplay for things like combat; the fact is that throughout most of gaming history we've spent a lot of time on a very narrow set of gameplay mechanics, and some people are so used to them that they don't even recognize gameplay in atypical forms. Take The Walking Dead for instance; one might argue that QTE's are the primary gameplay feature in the Walking Dead, but the story takes priority. However, the story in The Walking Dead is interactive, it is itself a gameplay mechanic simply because it engages with the player.

In my opinion, gameplay and story should not be conceived as separate from one and other; they affect one and other even when they are not intended to, and this interaction should not be ignored or downplayed. Developers should make gameplay decisions that benefit from the story and vice versa.

Dark Souls is a game with not much of a plot, yet what little story there is is bolstered and emphasized by it's gameplay.

What we think of as gameplay can tell a story, and what we think of as story can be gameplay.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I'unno, call me crazy, but can't we have both? Kinda reminded about those "and vs or" commercials. Like cops protecting or serving instead of protecting and serving.

I mean people's taste's vary. Heck sometimes a person's tastes varies from time to time.
Sometimes you want a complex game that keeps you thinking, and on your toes, sometimes you just want stress relief easy maulings, or to see something pretty, and less interactive.

In the long run, both are kinda important to a degree either in combination, or one or the other, but combination of the two tends to be best.

Gotta sate your moods. It's kinda rough playing only one, or the other, isn't it?

 

[Right E O]

Its an odd state we are in.

Even when players tell you they want gameplay, they still want story more. I think that with this generation of gaming has come an urge to be validated as gamers. The most recognizable feature for non gamers is a good story, and so this generation has adapted to want nothing but good story. Of course, the legitimacy gaming has supposedly received has come with extremely increased cynicism from these gamers who are looking for a good story above all else. Of course, this cynicism has shown how few games some hopeful game critics have actually played.

Simply put, high quality games are being made in all genres, and with these games come new and interesting stories. To be a "true gamer", one must know about all of these genres, even if that genre isnt very entertaining for that person. It has led to a lot of misplaced and misinformed criticism of games over mechanics that these new critics have very little experience with, which has led to some public dissent for games with pretty decent gameplay.

OT: I think gameplay should be more important, and while many games have been criticized for mediocre gameplay lately, some genres of games always get away with bad design (mostly strategy games as it were). Either way, I hope this changes soon.

 

[DementedSheep]

Games are broad and different games do different things and have different priorities. The gameplay a part of the game isn't always about a challenge. Some games use the interactive elements to draw you into a story or setting for you to explore. For example The Walking Dead uses the interactivity to draw you into the story and make you a part of it. By having you controlling a character and make decisions it is putting you in that characters shoes more directly than another medium would and forcing you to think about the choices presented. It wouldn't be the same as a Tv series, movie or book.

Problem is when you get a game with a lot of more of what is traditionally seen as gameplay but it sucks. In that case the story can somewhat make up for it and it can still be very memorable and worth a playthrough but the shit gameplay is always going to be large mark against it. What makes a game good or bad is if the elements in it all come together to do what they are intended to do and if it is enjoyable.

 

[Robot Number V]

I just want to point out that the question in the thread title and the question in the poll are reversed. I know you clarified what each option means, but still...Some people aren't great at reading comprehension, and your poll is probably gonna get a lot of mistake votes.

OT: I don't think gameplay is as important as function. People tend to rag on games for being "simple", but that complaint, I think, misses the point. For me, gameplay only needs to do a few things to be good:
-Function properly: This is pretty self explanatory, think.
-Compliment the story-Of course, if you're just making a Super Smash Bros. game, then you don't have to worry about it. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But if story is a big part of your game, then the gameplay HAS to work with it in some way.
-Be enjoyable-Self explanatory and entirely subjective.

See, people have complained about games like Bioshock Infinite, The Last of Us, or The Walking Dead Game for being to "simple" in the gameplay department, but I never really understood that as a complaint. Complexity or simplicity doesn't really factor into it for me. I like Civilization 5 because of how complex it is because it makes me think and strategize. But I ALSO love "Journey", a game you can beat by pushing the analog stick forward and occasionally hitting the circle button. These games have different focuses, but they're both good focuses. They both accomplish totally different things, but they're both good games all the same.

But I suppose I still haven't really answered this thread's titular question. My answer is no. Or yes, depending on whether I'm answering the poll or the title. My point is, gameplay is NOT the most important part of a game to me. I know that because I like The Walking Dead game, even though it's basically just a slightly interactive movie, because it has a fantastic fucking story. Although I feel I should repeat that I also like Civ V, a game which HAS no story. If it has a good story, great. I'm in. If it has great gameplay, great. I'm in. If its got both, fantastic.

 

[Saltyk]

I don't think gameplay is secondary. But a game is more than just gameplay. Especially these days.

Games can have story, atmosphere, controls, an element of fun, voice acting, graphics, and any number of other elements depending on the game. If a game lacks in one category, it can still be a great game. No one would tell you a classic game, like Mario is bad because of the graphics or lack of story and voice acting for example.

I hate to make this comparison, for obvious reasons, but think of a movie. A movie can have a great script, but have lousy special effects or acting. And you may still like it, or it maybe laughable. Take The Fifth Element as an example. That movie was certainly not a great movie. More of a B movie. But it reveled in it's B movie status and was an enjoyable romp. In fact, plenty of great movies lack in some departments.

So, is gameplay not most important? I wouldn't go that far. But a game can still be good with lackluster gameplay. But great gameplay can make a game, just as easily. Resogun is addictive and that's all it has.

 

[astrogamic]

Gameplay has not become secondary. It's just that stories have become a stronger factor in gaming. That's called maturity, and I, for one, am a strong advocate of this. Devs are finally seeing that their should be a balance between the two, as opposed to flashy looks and repetitive sword/gun play being the only element driving the story forward. Imo, TLOU and BI had amazing combat and fight scenes worth playing through a dozen times. Neither the gameplay nor story is devalued by incorporating a plot worthy of interest. If anything, it's a positive for both aspects, because they tend to complement each other well. Just because their are two important pieces of the whole doesn't necessarily mean that one takes priority or precedent over the other, it only shows that each piece plays it's own pivotol role to create the final vision. And just because a few recent GOTY nominees have great stories, that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of games that still put storytelling on the backburner (i.e army of two, batman games, cod, battlefield, splinter cell conviction/blacklist, dishonored, etc.)

 

[Entitled]

If we define gameplay as control mechanics, it has never been the most important in the first place. It's notable if it's messed up, but all people ever wanted for it to seemlessly function in the background. The very reason our genres are codified by gameplay rather than setting and plot (sci-fi, comedy, drama, superhero, etc.), is to codify the basics, and focus on the actual experience.

On the other hand, it still gets talk about a lot, because sometimes by gameplay, people mean "the overall experience of playing a game", which is obviously the most important, in fact there is nothing to contrast it to.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Watching someone else play it on Youtube is just not the same experience. If it was then the same thing could be said about any game. While it may not be a 'game' in typical sense, it's definitely not a movie either.

Sometimes I like to walk to work through the park. Nothing interesting happens, I don't pick up items and try to combine them to open a locked door, I don't have a shoot out with aliens. I might hear some birds singing or see a squirrel and it's nice, but would I want to watch that on Youtube? Nope.

This is a very important point. Even with simplified or focused gameplay mechanics there is still interaction and immersion. Interaction is not defined by how many keys or buttons you hit per minute, or how many brain crunching puzzles you solve through out the course of the game. It's about the experience of being part of that world. Many people say that you can get the full experience of "walking simulators" like Dear Esther and Gone Home by just watching them on Youtube, but that is most definitely not the case. Even though the gameplay interaction may be at times minimal in titles like those, it's just enough to put you there and bring you into the experience.

 

[Vern5]

GAMEPLAY.

Good gameplay is the only insurance I have that the game I just shelled out my hard earned money for will still be fun 15 years down the road.

A game that looks good is only valuable until the next generation of graphical power, which could mean a year or two. A game with a good story is only valuable until I've beaten it once. A game with good music is only valuable until I have the soundtrack.

Gameplay trumps all.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

It's all important - if a game has bad gameplay, it's hard to redeem it with just story, and if it has bad story, it's hard to redeem it with good gameplay. However, modern gaming has a habit of making story take a backseat to gameplay, so a bad story is more forgiveable due to a lack of presence (for a counterexample, see Metroid: Other M), and when a really good story comes along people jump all over it. We've come a long way since the wall of text cutscenes of the NES era, but games are a long way from maturing to a point where interactivity and story are properly merged.

If gameplay is secondary, then it's hard to make the argument that gaming is "art".

If gameplay is secondary, then it's not really a game. Especially when you can watch these games on YouTube.

You tell that to everyone who loved telltale games like Walking Dead, or anything similar.

I tell that to people who like this game. Mind you, the whole thing is on YouTube.

If your argument is that Dear Esther is a bad game because of a lack of gameplay, that's a really poor example. Why is Dear Esther any less of a game than, say, Duck Hunt? Is shooting things somehow inherently superior or more 'game' than walking?

Duck Hunt is way more hands on, and way more variable because it doesn't have a story. So videos on YouTube would only yield different ways to play, which doesn't spoil the game in any way. With games like Dear Esther, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, etc, you play the game once and then discover the other story lines on YouTube. Story driven games are not worth the investment unless there's something else motivating the player to play the game. I beat ME2 and DA2 and then sold them back for another game. Not worth it at all, and I'm not going back to either franchise unless something changes in the gameplay.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

I tell that to people who like this game. Mind you, the whole thing is on YouTube.

I'm going to defend Dear Esther here, because I actually really enjoyed it. It is a game and viewing it on Youtube is not the same experience. Yes, it's pretty linear but there is still a huge feeling of exploration, and it's an exploration that isn't forced upon you. There are things to find off the beaten track, whether they're the typical diary entries or bizarre scrawlings on cave walls. There are no dramatic FMV sequences that make you watch them or character interactions that remove your exploratory immersion. You can stop and look at the, quite frankly, amazing scenery and incredible locations at your own will and pace. Yes you can do this in pretty much any game, but Dear Esther is one that focuses on this as its core mechanic, not as a by product of a 'lack of game' but one intended to do so from the start. Watching someone else play it on Youtube is just not the same experience. If it was then the same thing could be said about any game. While it may not be a 'game' in typical sense, it's definitely not a movie either.

Sometimes I like to walk to work through the park. Nothing interesting happens, I don't pick up items and try to combine them to open a locked door, I don't have a shoot out with aliens. I might hear some birds singing or see a squirrel and it's nice, but would I want to watch that on Youtube? Nope.

For you (based on what you describe) gaming is like a parallel realistic universe. For me, there's no escape in that whatsoever. Bring on the aliens. More specifically, bring on the gameplay. I can get the same thing you're describing by watching someone else play Dear Esther. Yes, the game is pretty. Do I need to play it? No b/c gameplay is not the focus.
Visual art is the focus.
But the Smithsonian says that "Art is in the Gameplay" when it comes to gaming. I put up a thread about it that everyone ignored because they'd much rather disagree with the Smithsonian.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

Its not that story has surpassed gameplay in importance, just the industry has finally realized story is equally important as gameplay.
The problem happens when you are forcing your self through bad gameplay to get to the next part of the story like grinding in JRPGs or playing BI and TLOU for people who don't like the combat.

 

[Seracen]

Not a yes or no question, so I didn't vote. As others have stated, it depends on the game. For my money, I need a storyline as robust as anything else, better than average gameplay, and competent graphics.

That's my personal pecking order. I'm more willing for forgive lackluster gameplay, as opposed to story. However, unless both are present, I'm not willing to deal with poor graphics.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Watching someone else play it on Youtube is just not the same experience. If it was then the same thing could be said about any game. While it may not be a 'game' in typical sense, it's definitely not a movie either.

Sometimes I like to walk to work through the park. Nothing interesting happens, I don't pick up items and try to combine them to open a locked door, I don't have a shoot out with aliens. I might hear some birds singing or see a squirrel and it's nice, but would I want to watch that on Youtube? Nope.

This is a very important point. Even with simplified or focused gameplay mechanics there is still interaction and immersion. Interaction is not defined by how many keys or buttons you hit per minute, or how many brain crunching puzzles you solve through out the course of the game. It's about the experience of being part of that world. Many people say that you can get the full experience of "walking simulators" like Dear Esther and Gone Home by just watching them on Youtube, but that is most definitely not the case. Even though the gameplay interaction may be at times minimal in titles like those, it's just enough to put you there and bring you into the experience.

I agree that it's not defined by how savvy you are for sure.
I look at it through this question: How important are your decisions to the overall scope of the game?

If it's a story driven game, the answer is that your decisions mean very little because the plot can't change beyond what the writers have laid out. Even if it's a game with multiple endings, you're confined to certain outcomes. Thus, when the game is beaten, there's no reason to revisit it unless some time has passed and you've forgotten the story.

Dear Esther doesn't need to be played, it can be watched. It's a pretty game. It's emotionally stirring. Many of the other games in the vast cannon of gaming require your own individualized play style, which according to the Smithsonian, makes certain games art. I also learn from watching others play games where the in-the-moment skill is what matters.

 

[alphamalet]

Anyone who thinks gameplay is secondary/unimportant are:

1) Under a grave misapprehension as to why they actually enjoy video games
2) Are under no misapprehension, and would then be far more entertained by other mediums of entertainment that are better suited for story and show consistently better writing than video games.

Gameplay is the quintessential element that makes games unique. No other medium has it. A game with no story is still a game. A game with story but no gameplay IS NOT a game. Of corse gameplay is the most important part of a game. Anyone who says otherwise is proof of just how flawed introspection can become.

 

[BrotherRool]

The most important aspect of a game is whatever that particular game chooses to be most important. I refuse to believe there can be one standard for a 'good' game when I've played Bastion for it's music, Chess for it's gameplay, Limbo for it's atmosphere, The Walking Dead for it's story, Bioshock for it's atmosphere, Uncharted for it's visual spectacle, Metal Gear Solid for it's madness.


Gameplay clearly is not the be all and end all most important factor for a game and it hasn't been for over a decade (are you telling me people played Planescape: Torment for it's gameplay?). I don't even care that the vote goes against me, because I know that there are countless games out there that no-one would ever play if you removed it's setting/story/visuals/writing/music etc (Thomas Was Alone?).


Maybe for gamers, since they gamers rather than sci-fi geeks or audiophiles or romance addicts tend to play games which value gameplay the most but even then Best of Year lists and the actual sales often contradict this. Videogames are a composite medium and any one or any mixture of those components can be why it excels. And if any part can be why you want to experience that game, how can one be more important than the others?

 

[J Tyran]

Games can get away with gameplay being a secondary consideration as long as the gameplay isn't absolutely atrocious and other aspects stand out, Bioshock: Infinite gets away with its average and mediocre gameplay for example. Games like Ryse: Son of Rome and Knack have not, nothing else in those games really knocks your socks off so the mediocre gameplay don't get a free pass. Even when a game does just about everything else right it can earn criticism the way Killzone: Shadowfall did, the visuals are gorgeous and the story is solid yet one of the most common remarks is how its simply another shooter that just has a shiny paint job. BSI gets continual praise though, it has a solid story[footnote]Yes, "solid" is as far as I will go with the description. Its good but not the "best story evar!11! some people slap onto it.[/footnote] and shiny paint job but gameplay wise its simply another shooter as well but the feel of the world and the characters make the whole package just that bit more appealing and give the mediocre gameplay a bit more leg room.

When it comes to "interactive experience" games like Gone Home different rules apply, there is the ongoing argument about whether they are games or not of course but even though the gameplay is virtually non-existent the way games like that are judged is different but even then other aspects of the game need to stand out. If the experience as a whole is engaging or interesting enough the lack of and/or quality of the gameplay doesn't matter, when its not very engaging then it becomes much more important. The criticism received by Amnesia: A Machine For Pigs would be an example of that while the Stanley Parable shows how players are willing to ignore lack of gameplay when the game is engaging in other ways.