Poll: Question: Context, Challenge, or Gratification?

[Ronin08]

First off, you should read Yahtzee's post about the subject matter before we go on: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/9276-Context-Challenge-and-Gratification

After reading Yahtzee's analysis of criteria to review games, I got thinking about how despite no matter most games having all three types, we definitely have preferences on which part of games we enjoy most.

Brief reminder: Challenge is achieving greater and greater results from the scenario, Context is aesthetics, story and dialogue, and Gratification is the "fun" element that has elements of both (but not all of them)

So despite the fact that you inevitably like all three in some way, which one do you prefer the most, and why?

 

[Xprimentyl]

I'm definately of the gratification line of thinking. Afterall, these are video GAMES; if we can't use them to get away and escape realities and relax and enjoy ourselves first and foremost, what's really the point? I'm not saying I dislike a challenge or care little for context; of course the perfect game delivers all three equally and well, but at the end of the day, I can look through my library and see several games that I enjoyed that fell short in the other catagories.

Most recently, Batman Arkham City. The game was a great amount of fun, but so many people harped that if offered little challenge with it's simplistic combat. I think that's exaclty what made it great! The player is allowed and encourgaed to rake in the aesthetics and the enjoy the fluid combat animations and the experience of being Batman without necessarily beating you over the head with meticulous and complicated combo memorization or teeth-gnashingly frustrating boss fights and mettle-testing choke points.

 

[Daget Sparrow]

Context is a big one for me. It was stories like Bioshock and Braid blew me away and taught me that games can be written just as intelligently as any game or book. Those are a rare treat though, so I play a lot of the gratification category to make up for it.

 

[Xman490]

No one has defended Challenge, but when games like Super Meat Boy make me scream at the top of my lungs and thus get my mom over to shut me up or my computer off, uhh...

Gratification: I'd rather laugh than scream. And sure, it goes well in small doses with Challenge, like the tune right after beating a boss in The Binding of Issac. However, the quick burst of happiness doesn't get rid of the headache I have from failing in the past 10 minutes.

 

[Freyar]

Context is probably the most important, but I also feel that a game isn't a game without some challenge.

 

[Freaky Lou]

Challenge is probably the least important to me because I'm not very good at games. That said, if the context is good enough I'll slog through punishing difficulty to keep the experience going. See Fallout.

 

[arnoldthebird]

Gratification, I play for fun. A story is nice, a challenge is always welcome, but I am only going to play if I am having fun

 

[Joccaren]

Context. I can push through bad gameplay if its got a good story and aesthetic. If the story is absolute balls, and the aesthetic is crap (Not graphics, aesthetic), I can't make myself play it. It becomes painful seeing what could have been, and what is.

 

[loudestmute]

I'ma have to go with Gratification, as that's the one thing that I feel separates games from the rest of our daily lives. Traditional media is great at presenting context, and workplaces do a decent job of offering challenges (often within the context of "feed and shelter yourself"). But games (whether video or physical) give you explicit points when you're allowed to take pride in your accomplishments, much less benefits to seek out those accomplishments in the first place.

Sure, pure gratification is basically a game like Cow Clicker, but it's the element that's been with gaming the longest as well. There's not a whole lot of context for why you're asked to endlessly stack blocks in Tetris, and challenge is increasingly more of an opt-in feature with adjustable difficulty levels and metagame accomplishments.

Also, I have shouted enough profanities at a television due to game designers thinking "challenge = difficult" that I'm convinced I have scars on my vocal chords. Making things harder for the player is one thing, but if that difficulty isn't given the proper context, it just feels like aggravating busywork. A boss character who taxes all of your previously acquired skills in order to advance, that's a challenge. Giving a boss an obscenely large health meter and the power to erase the player from the map with so much as a limp-wristed slap, that's difficult, that's bullshit, and that's why I will continue to remain skeptical of fighting games until the day I die.

 

[JesterRaiin]

Context.
I've enough challenges in real life, thank you very much. And if the story goes on, then i don't care if the hero is king or beggar, so virtual gratifications holds minor value to me.

 

[Antitonic]

Definitely context for me.

What's that? A recent game has next-to-no gameplay or challenge? ...What's the story like?
...
It's brilliant? Sign me up!

Seriously, if the story is good I can forgive a LOT of gameplay issues.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I think I'm probably somewhere in the middle but I chose gratification since I seem to be able to play anything if it wants me to collect things. ie Arrow heads, Eco, Riddlers trophies.
gotta catch em all. If a game is fun I can forgive it's other sins.

I think I'm pretty much an all rounder though. I tend to get bored if it isn't at least a little challenging. I usually play things on hard or above. However, if a game has a good story line I can take it being easy, like Mass Effect.

Yep I'm definitely an all rounder. I'm in the middle of Yahtzee's imaginary triangle graph.