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

[default]

Gameplay for me personally is still the most important thing. If I'm not enjoying my experience playing the game most of the time it doesn't matter to me how good the story is or how wonderful or interesting this world is. I think these days a lot of developers are just trying to focus on creating a moving experience within an interactive medium, which is why we're seeing games like TLOU that don't exactly have groundbreaking unique gameplay but good stories and atmosphere. Perhaps they're trying to prove to 'the art world' the medium can tell a moving story and create profound moments. I'm looking forward to when both gameplay AND story are considered equally as important and are implemented seamlessly. I often get very tired of the usual cutscene, gameplay, cutscene structure most games these days go for. It can be very jarring. I'd like to see story and gameplay implemented alongside each other with each complimenting the other as opposed to being presented in totally different mediums.

We'll get there. Games are just going through an experimental phase right now, akin to an art movement.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

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.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Though it will be unpopular statement, I will unequivocally say that anyone who answered "Yes" to the poll is wrong. Good gameplay is the most important factor in a video game by a huge margin. In fact, gameplay is the very definition of a game. The fact is that a game can be great without anything other than compelling and enjoyable gameplay, while a game with shitty or non-existent gameplay a) would be boring and tedious or b) wouldn't be a game any more.

Take out gameplay and at best, you're left with an "interactive experience" like Heavy Rain or Dear Esther and at worst, a "movie". It's also the reason why games that take control away from the player, such as with animated takedowns, QTEs and things like SC: Conviction's "Mark & Execute" are awful practices that need to stop. We aren't in control, we aren't playing the game at that point...we're either telling the game what we want to do and have it do it for us (removing our skill and agency) or simply watching stuff happen passively.

To prove the point, I will name entire genres in which story, characters, graphics, sound and the rest are (while nice to have), ultimately secondary. RTSs, sports, driving, fighting/beat em up, puzzle, sim, 4x. Every game in these categories, and likely others, can be great without any story, characterisation or the like. But have a great story and shitty gameplay and you'll have a shitty game (which at best, could be called a "flawed gem", like VTM: Bloodlines, Alpha Protocol and the like).

Examples of unqualified successes with little to no (or simply token) story and fluff: Diablo 2/3, Torchlight, Borderlands, Minecraft, Forza Motorsport, FIFA, Guitar Hero/Rock Star, Wii Sports, etc.

I'm not inferring that good story and characters cannot or do not make a good game better or make a game world more immersive or compelling. I am saying however is that any suggestion that gameplay is anything other than the single most important factor in what makes a good game good, is outright, objectively wrong.

 

[Hero of Lime]

Gameplay is the only thing that makes me come back to games over and over again. Story driven games are only great once or twice to me. A game made with giving me the best experience as a player will be the one I come back to over and over again.

In a perfect world, I would ask for a healthy balance of gameplay and story, until then the best parts of video games will be the "game" part for me.

 

[deathbydeath]

It doesn't matter. It has never mattered. What's more important in a game is up to the game to decide, not you. Whether or not people play games for the story/gameplay is a matter of personal taste, much like how one person might prefer fighting games over shooters and vice-versa.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I don't see either as being more or less important overall. It really depends on the individual game and the intended experience that the game has. The most important thing to me is really just that the gameplay and whatever other elements are in place fit together in a harmonious whole.

 

[DragonStorm247]

Good story is often an extension of gameplay, I find.

 

[TheNewGuy]

Honestly, I've always prefered graphics over gameplay, with few exceptions, if a game doesn't look nice I can never seem to get into it. That being said if they put good effort into the graphics they usually do to the gameplay as well so it all balances out.

 

[josemlopes]

Gameplay is the only thing that makes me come back to games over and over again. Story driven games are only great once or twice to me. A game made with giving me the best experience as a player will be the one I come back to over and over again.

In a perfect world, I would ask for a healthy balance of gameplay and story, until then the best parts of video games will be the "game" part for me.

Basicly this, Im still sad that Max Payne 3 only has 2 survival maps (and that they were DLC) since the gameplay is so good yet I am not really planning on replaying the story mode as it is full of unskippable cutscenes and the really cool combat scenarios only show up in some specific situations (the last level is still probably the best for replay value).

I really miss when games had more gameplay focused modes for people that just wanted to jump straight in (basicly challenge modes or something similar), or at least in Max Payne 3 case just have bots for multiplayer since it would eventualy die and be unplayable.

 

[Conner42]

The way I see it, a game has not set of rules in order to be good. As long as I'm engaged in any sort of way, then the game has done its job.

Sometimes a game excels in story and others in gameplay. Sometimes both, but only sometimes(I think Bioshock Infinite does really well in both regards). Most of the time, I guess some games rely on gameplay, except, sometimes it feels like I've played the same game before a thousand times over because the game decided it didn't want to do anything interesting, so then my mind starts wanting to pick apart the story as well because it has to entertain itself somehow.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

This is a bit like asking if sci-fi is the most important element of stories. Well yes, it can be the most important element, but not all stories have sci-fi elements and not all sci-fi stories use that element heavily. What I'm basically trying to say is that, someone that plays Cookie Clicker is playing it for a different reason than someone playing The Walking Dead. What is the focus of the game and what do people want out of the game?

 

[klaynexas3]

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.

Hey, that's not fair, using a game that is as poorly put together as Dear Esther. If you want a good idea of a game where the gameplay really is just minimalistic and yet it does it properly, the Stanley Parable is where it's at.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Yes and no.

Good gameplay can carry a bad overall game, but a good game can carry mediocre gameplay (Bioshock Infinite is a good example).

I don't think a good game can really carry flat out bad gameplay though.

You also have to define "gameplay", as in games like The Walking Dead the gameplay is the story, and in Dear Ester where the "gameplay" is just meant to provide a sense of presence.

 

[Callate]

I don't really think that's the sort of thing I can just make an absolute statement about and call it pat. I mean, sure, story was really important to Last of Us, and a lot of people (myself included) really enjoyed The Walking Dead despite it occasionally falling prey to some unfortunate artifacts of puzzle-adventure gaming. But on the other hand, we're sure as hell not playing Bejeweled or Plants Vs. Zombies for the story, and while the graphics are fine, they're not what we're there for. And some of the more number-and-mechanic-intensive RPGs are just going to fall apart at the seams if the underlying gameplay isn't carefully balanced and crafted, no matter how shiny the graphics or how epic the story.

I don't think gameplay is ever going to be entirely unimportant. It's sort of like the food wagon of an army brigade on campaign: people might not talk about it after an epic battle, and they might downplay or even disparage it. But everything else quickly becomes irrelevant if it isn't there at all.

 

[mitchell271]

I think that gameplay is the most important. I love Bioshock Infinite and The Last of Us and the gameplay in both games, but can't stand The Witcher series. I know that there's supposed to be a great story and incredibly deep crafting systems in that series, but on the 3 separate occasions I've tried the second game, I can't play for more than 3 hours because the combat is so clunky and boring.

Other games that are entirely gameplay focused like Super Meat Boy or Street Fighter are great games. Sure, not the greatest games of all time, but famous in their own rights and will withstand the test of time.

 

[neoontime]

I didn't answer the poll because I rather say depends rather than yes. It honestly matters from person to person and game to game. I heard of a lot of people who prefer graphic (maybe hard to believe when comparing to early generations) above all else. I prefer the story and atmosphere but if the gameplay if bad and gets to the point that it hinders every other great element, I will disregard the game even for how good everything else was. I do enjoy a gameplay much and even games with simple gameplay and not much story such as Hotline Miami and Rouge Legacy are ones that I really enjoy even though they do have a fun atmosphere to go with it.

The issue is that we're defining vidya gaems as one thing. I don't see any good argument why it should not have all the elements of movies, books, and more if they can do them all greatly, as previous titles have proven. The vidya gaem is more than just a game with video elements and we should treat it as such.

 

[FoolKiller]

People will say gameplay is the most important, but then claim TLOU and BI are the best games this gen.

And last year was Mass Effect according to the forum, so it's one more game with emphasis on everything that's not gameplay.

For me, its more that the gameplay shouldn't get in the way of the story if the game's focus is on story. I love Mass Effect because while the gameplay is objectively bland, it doesn't take away from it. The Last of Us sucked so much with its gameplay flaws that the story couldn't force me to finish that attrocity.

 

[IamGamer41]

Look at games like Taletell's The Walking Dead. It has next to no game play, no challenging puzzles or ability to keep people alive past said parts of the game. However people seem to believe the story makes up for all of that. Personally I think that's horseshit. That game as a whole is lack luster at best. Worth one or two play through and that's it. Not to mention they want you to pay full price for the game before its completely released(back when it was just 1 episode but they are doing the same with the second season).

 

[loc978]

Not sure how to answer either... I suppose it depends on who you ask. If the person's focus is the commercial success of the game in question, gameplay is one of the last concerns that person should have. If they're an avid gamer, it's all opinion... and there are as many of those as there are avid gamers.

So here's mine:
I'm a pretty mechanical gamer, bad game mechanics are one of the first things that will make me ragequit and burn a disc in effigy (I have a stack of coasters made over the years for this purpose)... but are those game mechanics the most important part of every game ever? No. There is no single "most important part" as far as I'm concerned. A game can have genius gameplay mechanics and still bore me to tears... or it can have mediocre, recycled mechanics and be one of my all-time favorites.
Truly bad mechanics are still unforgivable, though.

 

[Spiridion]

In my opinion, engagement is the most important factor. This can certainly be reinforced or undermined by solid or shit mechanics and with certain games you're definitely getting your engagement almost entirely from gameplay. However, I find it very easy to forgive somewhat unpolished or lackluster mechanics if the story is engaging enough.