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

[Chaos Isaac]

No, gameplay is not most important. While it should help the game, and be good, sometimes it messes up, but I can't harp on a good story, music, characters for that.

Like say... BioShock Infinite: My god, the combat sucked. Was a drag, and just made me want to have a skip button for the scenery bits where I can walk around, and when story happened. It didn't even add to the game.

However, for the original, the gameplay was spot on.

Uh, let's look at Persona 3/4. Kinda the same. Characters were good, or at least interesting, I liked the story, but the gameplay can really kinda... die in a hole. At least the combat, which is kinda the weakest part of the game. However, having the interactive bits was nice and added to it.

Heck, Dragon Age kinda suffers from this too, with boring gameplay but decent roleplaying and lore and stuff.


That' snot to say it should be disregarded or anything, but the gameplay is not always the most important factor. But it is a very very important one. In games like Call of Duty, Devil May Cry or Borderlands, that the story doesn't really matter. Or is trying to be intense. The gameplay is the most important bit.

 

[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.

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.

LOL but you prove my point! Gameplay in Dear Esther is kinda not there. Kinda.

 

[Conza]

Gameplay... in a game... No, why would that be important? Don't see why, not like its the actual point of the medium contrasted to other methods of story telling, just bright lights and magic colours for me thanks.

EDIT: And what are people talking about in terms of Bioshock Infinite and the Mass Effect series not having great gameplay? They epically rocked at gameplay, they just happened to tell great stories AS WELL.

The story to Gran Turismo 6 however, is irrelevant, the story to many a fighting game, is irrelevant, I want them 'just' for gameplay. Yezuz.

If you just have good gameplay, great. If you do both, that's double great.

If you only have a good story, why are you a video game? Why aren't you a movie, or a web series, or a book, if I want a story where my interaction isn't satisfying, I'll do one of those, if I want to be a part of a story, I'll play a video game.

 

[Fireaxe]

I guess it depends on if you consider a choose your own adventure book with film graphics a game or not.

Also it looks like Black Flag is going to beat The Last of Us on the Escapist poll, probably due to the quality sailing gameplay.

 

[Fox12]

It depends on what you consider game play. The Last of Us used game play mechanics to make you sympathize with the characters. When you played as the little girl you felt vulnerable and scared because you (she) could not protect yourself. You had to rely on other people for protection, and you hoped someone would come to your rescue. When you tried to protect Joel's daughter you sympathized with him because you wanted to protect her, and because there was nothing you could do except run. You felt vulnerable because you had to rely on Tommy to protect you. When you played as Ellie during the snow storm you sympathized with her because you were unarmed and disoriented, just like her. The game play mechanics that you had relied on, like the hearing mechanic, didn't work anymore because the white silhouettes blended into the background. Therefore The Last of Us used its game play to actually tell the story. To me this means that TLoU had great game play. However, other people claim that the game play was simplistic, or even bad.

The same goes for Mass Effect. The decision making nature of the game meant that I was more involved in the narrative. I consider this part of the game play, but other people say the game play was bad because of the shooting mechanics. Adventure Games like The Walking Dead used game mechanics to make you sympathize with the characters, and some people will claim that the game had terrible game play as a result.

For me these games were attempting to use game play for a different purpose than Mario or Zelda. In TLoU the game play was meant to inform the story, but was not the best in a mechanical sense. In Zelda and Mario the game play was good in a mechanical way, but was terrible in a plot way. I think both game series are great at what they do. Some people prefer plot focused games like TLoU, and some people prefer mechanical games like Zelda. The only people who are wrong are the people who insist that a "good" game has to be one or the other. Both have their merits.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't think there is one specific "most important" thing. More often than not, I think gameplay is a primary draw.

I think you can enjoy a game despite gameplay issues, and I think you can appreciate it for more than gameplay, but it should be a sizable factor.

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

How so? If anything, I could see your second point being arguable, but not the first.

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

That makes more sense to me.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

I don't think there is one specific "most important" thing. More often than not, I think gameplay is a primary draw.

I think you can enjoy a game despite gameplay issues, and I think you can appreciate it for more than gameplay, but it should be a sizable factor.

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

How so? If anything, I could see your second point being arguable, but not the first.

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

That makes more sense to me.

Believe it or not, the Smithsonian agrees with me on the 1st point. I posted a thread about it - you should check it out if you want to discuss that particular point.

 

[Mikeyfell]

My opinion is always the most important. (Ahoyhoyhoy)

There are very few games that can impress me with Gameplay alone (Mirror's Edge, Xcom, Minecraft... um... Puzzle games...)
Other than that if there's not a story or something to keep me interested I'll check right the fuck out.

 

[Psychobabble]

I honestly feel you need to rethink this idea OP. I find it far too narrowly focused considering the massive variety in game styles. It also fails to explain or define exactly what constitutes "game play". Do you mean game mechanics?

Anyway until you flesh out exactly what you are asking for I find this far to vague to give a definitive answer.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Gameplay SHOULD be primary but it seems like more big publishers are more concerned with marketing. It seems like more is put into telling people why a game is great instead of using those same monetary resources to make awesome games. Cash is pumped into convention presentations, commercials, etc all while the game itself is stuck to a firm, unflinching time-tables which ultimately ruin those games.

This isn't everywhere but it was a pretty big problem this past gen...

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Depends on the game. Yes, if you talk to people about story-driven games that they liked they will mention the characters and plot as strong points. Story-driven games are not the whole of modern games, are not the future of gaming, are not a representative cross-section of games, are not the more popular games of the moment exclusively. There are gameplay-driven games, like Armored Core, Monster Hunter, most FPSs, most indie games, most fighters, and if you talk to people about those who liked them, they'll say the gameplay is the source of their enjoyment. Basically, they're both important, but if it's story-driven, that's enough for their market. I don't particularly go for story-driven games, so for me the gameplay tends to be more important. It's not like videogames are evolving past gameplay or something. It's part of what makes videogames the unique medium they are and it will continue to be important in the future. Not that I have anything against the story portion catching up, considering the tripe that sometimes passes for character development these days.

 

[Aesir23]

It vastly depends on the individual and the game but in a general sense I would still say the gameplay is the most important. It isn't really a game without it, just a glorified movie or novel.

That said, in terms of my personal preference, there are very few games that I would give a second look if they didn't have a story accompanying it. While I love the act of playing a game, it's often the story and the desire to see what happens next that provides the motivation for going further into the game. Without stories in video games, my personal collection of games would either be much smaller or I wouldn't be playing video games at all.

Maybe this just reinforces the idea that I'm more of a story-centric gamer but while I have come across games where the gameplay has made up for a bad story, I have also come across games where a bad story has nullified good gameplay for me. One example would probably be Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep. My friend would not stop talking about it so I gave it a try. I don't think I got more than a few hours in before I put it down because I just couldn't stand the story and the dialogue.

 

[Guffe]

This is a difficult one...
Because as much as I love to say gameplay is the most important part, a very boring story or a bad one, will have me remember the game as bad.
Then again I liked Trine2 a lot, and the story basically is; follow light, destroy everything in your path, save girl. The gameplay mechanics were fun and well put together (on the WiiU at least) and I thoroughly enjoyed it even if the story wasn't that special.

 

[Itchi_da_killa]

For me it's game play first... because it's a"game". I don't like interactive movies. There has to be challenges and obstacles. I want to be able to start playing a game and master it; not just complete a game, and go on to the next. Each play through being quicker and more professional feeling than the last, because of the techniques I have developed along the way.

 

[loa]

Gameplay has never been the "most important" factor of the game because games have always been more than just gameplay.
They're the sum of many parts, each of which can ruin the experience when done poorly.
Imagine a game with the most perfect gameplay ever with godawful music and sound effects that you can not mute.

Singling gameplay out as the "most important" factor is not a healthy way of looking at games and holds them back as a medium.

So yes, it is "no longer" the most important factor because it never was and none of the others really deserve the label "most important".

 

[RedDeadFred]

No, gameplay will always be the most important factor. It's what sets it apart from books and TV/movies. I loved Infinite's story (I'm voting for it to win) but if I hadn't enjoyed the gameplay, it would have felt like a chore (TLOU) and even then, it tied with Saints Row 4 for my favourite games this year and the best part of Saints Row 4 was easily its gameplay.

If story was what I cared about most, I probably wouldn't play many video games. Books and movies/TV just do it better. I mean, if I were to list my 20 favourite stories of all time, I don't think a single video game story would be there. Don't get me wrong, story is definitely important to me in a game but gameplay tops it.

 

[Blaze the Dragon]

Well I said gameplay since I believe that if Gameplay isn't the first most important thing, it's at least the second. The only other thing that qualifies in my book for #1 spot is immersion. Unlike books and movies, games have a much greater ability to immerse a player, simply through offering choices to the person experiencing the medium. Sure a movie or book can be immersive and make you want to live in that world, but a game actually lets you experience that world for yourself and make choices in it. However I still say gameplay is more important because in order for a world to accomplish that immersion, it should also offer a solid gameplay experience. it doesn't have to be complex or advanced, just solid enough to get across what it needs to accomplish whatever the game is going for. If there's too little interaction, then I wonder why they didn't just make a movie or TV show, and if there's bugs and glitches, then it takes me out of the game. It also lends to an internal consistency. The gameplay must make sense with the rest of the game. If in a battle I'm able to throw massive fireballs and heal the recently dead, then how come I'm suddenly not trying to revive X person who was just plot killed? and vice versa for when cut scenes do badass things that I have no hope of doing when I'm in control. But the key point is that the gameplay must help serve the immersion just as much, if not more than the story and aesthetics.

Now, a good story is a good story, and a story can in fact survive on it's own; I like to call those things books. And graphics and/or cut scenes can be pretty appealing as well on their own too; I call those movies. But if you want to experience something for yourself (without actually doing it) then I turn to games. The only thing that games can really survive on its own with, is Gameplay. After all, that's basically how gaming survived until the technology to be able to even add other elements in any more than a minor sense.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

Personally, everything comes secondary to story. Tell me a good story and everything else will be fine by me. Well, okay, maybe don't shirk on them *entirely*, but just make sure that you know what you're going for.