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

[Directionless]

Well gameplay should be gaming's suit. If you're going into story, you'll have a hard time convincing me the advantages it has over shows, books and movies.

Interactivity

As for the poll. i voted gameplay. But saying that, games like the Walking Dead and Wolf Among Us have enjoyable gameplay, not a lack of gameplay. Dialogue choices, QTEs and divergence through choice is the gameplay of those games. And i believe it is top notch gameplay.

So when i say gameplay, i don't mean a wealth of mechanics with 4 hour shooty bits.

 

[babinro]

Gameplay is still king for me.

I can always point to exceptions (Resident Evil 1 & 4, The Walking Dead Season One), but game play is still the primary driving force. I prefer Diablo 3 to other loot hunt games with more depth like Torchlight 2 and Path of Exile simply because of it's far superior game play.

 

[Something Amyss]

Believe it or not, the Smithsonian agrees with me on the 1st point.

And Roger Ebert says games aren't art. I can't help but think neither are important.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Well gameplay should be gaming's suit. If you're going into story, you'll have a hard time convincing me the advantages it has over shows, books and movies.

Interactivity

As for the poll. i voted gameplay. But saying that, games like the Walking Dead and Wolf Among Us have enjoyable gameplay, not a lack of gameplay. Dialogue choices, QTEs and divergence through choice is the gameplay of those games. And i believe it is top notch gameplay.

So when i say gameplay, i don't mean a wealth of mechanics with 4 hour shooty bits.

I agree with you and I apologize for that not seem obvious in my post. Gameplay is most important as it's needed to drive a story of a game.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Depends entirely upon the game. Take, for example, League of Legends - there is certainly a story present but that game lives and dies entirely upon it's various systems of systems. In other words, it is a game where gameplay (that is, the set of systems that define the rules and mechanics) is ultimately king. Then consider Tell Tale's The Walking Dead - it is largely devoid of mechanics beyond the simplest possible. Because that mechanic is simply to alter a narrative path, the story ultimately is the only important thing.

Most games, at least most single player games, sit somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. Mass Effect or Skyrim, for example, rely heavily upon narrative elements to bolster a core set of mechanics.

Of course, there is always the highly pedantic argument that games, by fundamental requirement of interactivity, must always have gameplay no matter how rudimentary. Your mileage may vary on how much interaction is required of course but were the Walking Dead is likely an example of just how little play can be present in a "game". By contrast, it is entirely possible to make a game that has no narrative elements whatsoever though this can be tricky. Tetris has absolutely no narrative element whatsoever while Missile Command or Space Invaders at the very least gives a modicum of context (of nuclear war and alien invasion respectively). Thus, on a very fundamental level, by virtue of the fact that the medium absolutely requires interaction (that is, gameplay) it will remain the most important feature of any game. After all, without the play, you don't have a game.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

Gameplay all the way. Without gameplay there is no game...without story there is still gameplay. It really is that simple for me.

 

[suitepee7]

depends on the game. i love painkiller and i love the walking dead. i love one for gameplay and one for story... guess which

 

[LAGG]

Gameplay is Mechanics, Dynamics and - when caused or affected by those - Aesthetics (emergent story is still gameplay, not mere plot/writing)*. You're talking as if gameplay is just the pressing of buttons. It's not, but it seems there's a huge misunderstanding going in the thread about what gameplay is. Gameplay is the part of the game that can be gamed. If you can game the story, the story is gameplay, if you can't, then it's just mere plot/writing.

* http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf

Gameplay is the most important but it's harder for the big publishers to make a business out of it. Evergreen games makes players keep on playing them for longer instead of buying new games (many players only play CoD, or Madden, or League Of Legends, or World Of Warcraft, or Counter-Strike, or Quake, or Startcraft, or Dota, and don't buy - keyword "buy" - any other games for years), and it's also harder to put out a new fresh gameplay every year in comparison to putting a "fresh" plot/writing (usually cliche with a new coat of paint) and get people to pay you for it. But at the same time it's harder to get people to pay $60 for a movie or novel.

So it's in the interest of publisher that plot/writing is considered the most important part of a "game", because it's better for their business models.

 

[Darmani]

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?

Quoted for agreement and to ask for link to those commercials about the cops.

Mind the issue seems to be having an appealing narrative/presentation ala superheroes into mainstream movies.

Hell I don't even have a problem with it most of the times. But often it feels rather than BEING in the story you are watching it. Its weird. I mean technically there is only ONE ONE out come to super mario brothers, hell the original you couldn't even move BACKWARDS, but some games seem more railroady and limited or not even grounded enough.
I just caught a quick look of Samurai Gunn. Its atari level in graphics but in presentation, understanding of material and set up very evocative with lots of variety in gameplay and setting. Admittedly only if you're a fan of Joust meets goonies painted with lame Chanbara-pastiche. In many ways my favorite games used to be big on story but now with movie quality graphics and voice acting that doesn't feel as unique and I want more gleeful gameplay that is rewarded and has an effect. Often it feels the story is confining gameplay or completely seperate in cases.

Oddly enough I do like the restrictiveness of Other M as its a unique blend of story and gameplay, one informing the other, and ties into the themes of power versus helplessness and individual versus collective and independence and dependence.

 

[beastro]

Mount and Blade single player is nothing but gameplay and it prevents it from being enjoyable for extended periods, but the combat system is so enjoyable it more than makes up for how shallow the rest of the game is.

 

[laggyteabag]

I would happily play a game where the gameplay is exceptional but the mechanics are pretty much non-existent or vice versa, Im just happy as long as one more than compensates for the other. Hell, I love The Walking Dead even though it's more of an interactive story more so than a game, yet I still love it, and I enjoy multiplayer games even though more often than not there is no story to speak of. I do however find myself playing games that are mechanically better more so than the games that focus on the story, as I generally only play the latter once or twice. However, If a game has poor gameplay and I am exposed to it more often than I would like, it can bore me to the point where I just dont have any enthusiasm to continue on, even if the story is engaging (more often on subsequent play throughs of a game).

Graphics aren't really that much of a concern to me, not to say that its not nice when the graphics are amazing, but I cant exactly expect high quality graphics from every game that I play. I enjoyed my fair share of games like Baldur's Gate, Halo: Combat Evolved (2001) and I only completed my last play through of Knights of the Old Republic a few months back, so whilst graphics might age, story and gameplay certainly dont.

 

[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?

Quoted for agreement and to ask for link to those commercials about the cops.

Mind the issue seems to be having an appealing narrative/presentation ala superheroes into mainstream movies.

Hell I don't even have a problem with it most of the times. But often it feels rather than BEING in the story you are watching it. Its weird. I mean technically there is only ONE ONE out come to super mario brothers, hell the original you couldn't even move BACKWARDS, but some games seem more railroady and limited or not even grounded enough.
I just caught a quick look of Samurai Gunn. Its atari level in graphics but in presentation, understanding of material and set up very evocative with lots of variety in gameplay and setting. Admittedly only if you're a fan of Joust meets goonies painted with lame Chanbara-pastiche. In many ways my favorite games used to be big on story but now with movie quality graphics and voice acting that doesn't feel as unique and I want more gleeful gameplay that is rewarded and has an effect. Often it feels the story is confining gameplay or completely seperate in cases.

Oddly enough I do like the restrictiveness of Other M as its a unique blend of story and gameplay, one informing the other, and ties into the themes of power versus helplessness and individual versus collective and independence and dependence.

Commercial is prolly not gunna live up to the hype.

Spoiler

<youtube=Sr0aamzrDtI>

I just play all sorts of games, personally. Not necessarily great at them, but still.
I recently picked up a 2ds a few months ago, then played Pokemon, Senran Kagura, and Starship defense mostly.
Starship Defense, graphically looks like drawings from inside a notebook, so it's not the most graphically intense game ever, but it's still fun so long as I'm in the mood to play it.

I've still got a GB/GBC/GBA emulator, and an NES emulator. I keep most of my consoles hooked up, which includes a ps2, ps3, 360, and wii u. I kinda wade around in both ends of the graphic pool as much as I do in the plot pool.

 

[gorfias]

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.

I think Dear Esther has great gameplay. Not the best, but it is something I like. I'm controlling it and having an interactive experience.

I've played good games where I honestly didn't even know there was a comprehensible story. On the other hand, The Last of Us is supposed to be GOTY material, and I just know that the gameplay isn't for me, so, it's a pass.

Bioshock Infinite might not have the best gameplay that made it GOTY material, but it is good enough to make people want to play.

So to me, gameplay is make or break. If it isn't good enough I wont play. On the other hand, if story and tone are missing, but the game is fun, I'll play anyway. I do agree with Movie Bob to this extent: things are better when they are actually about something.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

RPG's being my favorite genre when it comes to gaming I prefer the story to be better than the gameplay.

I would take a well written story with choppy gameplay any day of the week.

 

[Jusey1]

Honestly, none of the factors themselves is the most important...

The most important thing is a balance between all factors that depends on what the developers aim for. (FYI: some games, like Minecraft, have pixel-graphics, or something else, on purpose for a reason).