Gameplay is the only thing that matters

>Gameplay is the only thing that matters

This is a garbage argument and I feel like it's used by people who don't want to spare an ounce of thought analyzing the medium they already dump countless hours into. I mean yeah, you should probably be trying to make something on the basis of super sound and fun mechanical design, but there's so much more to games than that and it feels like a disservice to just wright everything else off. They're a multifaceted medium and I think it's more about how their interactive nature plays into and compliments every other aspect of them that really sets them apart and makes something special. Some of my favorite and most memorable games I'd say were merely average or unspectacular when it comes to gameplay. Look at No More Heroes. On a mechanical level it's a pretty bare bones beat 'em up. Heck, I'd say a number of 2D entries in the genre far outclass it (D'n'D, Ninja Warriors) from a sheer "beatin' dudes up" perspective. But past the mechanics I just keep coming back to NMH. The sense of weight and visual flair of the endless stylized blood makes the simple act of slicing dudes so satisfying. And then there's the memorable bosses, all with unique themes and music and aesthetic, their fights designed to coincide with their personality. It's makes the otherwise simple mechanics shine in a way that other beat 'em ups lack

part 1/2

Other urls found in this thread:

moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/11/29/video-games-14-in-the-collection-for-starters/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

2/2

Or to boil it down more simply, think about FPS games. When I think about what separates a good FPS title from a great one, for me it's how good the guns feel. Not the level deign or the enemy variety (although those are super important), it's about how good clicking on stuff with different types of weapons feel. And how do you do that? Good sound design. Sense of impact. Recoil. And while recoil is definitely a mechanic, the other points are so fucking important to making a gun feel good to use. It can make a game. That's how important and impactful non-gameplay assets can be. Most FPS games are pretty similar mechanically as is so it's really the small touches to make something stand out IMO

I don't know, I guess I'm bringing this up because I just finished Metal Gear Rising. I've played other Platinum games and from my personal experience I'd say MGR, aside from Automata, is the mechanically weakest of their games I've played. There's just not as much to the combat or level design as say Bayonetta. But MGR is the game I've enjoyed the most from them by far. And it's almost entirely because of the music. Fuck, the way the vocal tracks kick in dynamically during boss fight phase changes? It makes everything feel awesome. it makes the fights really have a sense of pacing and build up and climax and just fuck. Boss fights in MGR are so much more satisfying just because the soundtrack hooks you and drags you along and makes everything stand out and I fucking love it.

So does any of this make sense or am I just talking out of my ass?

...

TL;DR but gameplay is the most important element in a video game. But othet factors are needed to.

of course things like music, graphics, story are important but none of it should be prioritized over gameplay. also saying a game has "barebones" gameplay doesnt make the gameplay any less significant. tetris is "barebones" gameplay but you're probably not coming back to it because of the amazing graphics or graphics, you come back to it because the gameplay is fun. the gameplay is the most engaging part that the player feels.
i would rather play a game with a terrible story and graphics but amazing gameplay rather than a game with shitty gameplay but amazing graphics and story. imo the true test of a great game is the replay value, and im not going to replay The last of Us or the order 1866 because of their "amazing" graphics and story

You're just doing a lot of mental gymnastics to say different people enjoy different things. But the fact is sound, graphics, or story cannot singlehandedly carry games by themselves, and must always be backed up by a minimum level of gameplay, while gameplay alone can carry games without the need for the other elements.

Thats like saying story doesn't matter in a novel because the typeface also has to be chosen

But people love ender's game and it has a garbage story

Gameplay is hugely important, but it's by no means "the only thing that matters"

Content > Gameplay > Atmosphere
All three are very important, but if one excels, it can carry the other two (if they're no worse than mediocre). Nothing else matters.

name 1(one) good game that only had good atmosphere.

Ico

and people love fallout 4 and skyrim but they have garbage gameplay

Gameplay is ultimately what matters the most. If it's truly great, you can bear through terrible presentation. If it's truly shit, no level of great presentation can save it.

Presentation however can make or break a game with mediocre or otherwise "painless" gameplay, or further enhance or shit up a good or bad game, and can't be completely dismissed.

are you saying ender's game is the fallout 4 of novels?

still waiting user

>Story is the only thing that matters in a book
This is a garbage argument and I feel like it's used by people who don't want to spare an ounce of thought analyzing the medium they already dump countless hours into.

>hasn't played Ico

What happened?

Because gameplay IS the only thing that matters. If the gameplay is bad then the game sucks and isn't worth playing.

my bad, meant to make a thread

Vampire bloodlines. and i say that as someone that has that game in their top 5 favorite games

Silent Hill 2 has terrible gameplay but everything else makes up for it

>meant to make a shitty thread
what the fuck is wrong with you

That had good characters and writing supporting it though.

Gameplay is important for a game to be good.

It does NOT however create sales. You'll need to rely on visuals and audio for that.

If you asked me I would disagree, I don't like horror games where literally nothing happens or isn't a setpiece designed to let you get away

eh, not consistent enough to say the overall writing and characters were good

Is Tetris an exception, or is there something amazing about tetrominos that I'm missing?

Today OP was a huge faggot.

Games are interactive, all it matters is gameplay. Otherwise games would be casualized by that.

What you really want to mean is the concept of "game experience".

As much as I like NMH, is really lacking in the gameplay department yet as a whole I find it interesting and ultimately good for that.

Gameplay > Music > Graphics >>>> Story

"Gameplay" being satisfying and fun often comes down to factors including art and sound design. You can implement a basic punch attack and it will feel awkward and unsatisfying, but by adding a good "THWACK" sound effect and maybe having the screen shake slightly when your attack connects, or pause the game for a split second when your attack connects, all of a sudden the gameplay feels a lot more satisfying and fun. People aren't very articulate when they talk about games because in all honestly, game design is a lot of smoke and mirrors that most people aren't aware of. But the fact is that the actual game mechanics of most games could be boiled down to a very simple core and that there really aren't very many games that are truly unique. Dark Souls bosses are in some sense just a more convoluted game of Punch Out, any shooter ever is basically just Space Invaders, "gameplay" usually refers to the presentation of the game's mechanics rather than the technical execution.
tl;dr there's nothing new under the sun, most games are actually quite simple and "gameplay" isn't well enough defined in the first place. The craft of making games fun and satisfying is what should be analysed.

>any shooter ever is basically just Space Invaders
this nigga can't be serious

To be fair, a lot of classic books aren't really noted for their story so much as their writing. Like, the plot of The Great Gatsby isn't really all that compelling, so much as the way the book presents a time and place as well as it does.

He has a point. Videogames success is by execution.

Shenmue

And execution requires gameplay substance, something that he's denying, just because some games have similar premises doesn't mean their substance is the same

That's an interesting example because I would argue while the controls aren't what I would call "comfortable" or intuitive, they fit the game well. "Fun" is a weird word that's not very descriptive, a lot of games I wouldn't describe as "fun" necessarily, but they might be satisfying or relaxing. In the case of Silent Hill 2 the game definitely isn't "fun" but it's... engaging? I dunno. The awkward controls make the weird disconnect you feel from the main character narratively more impactfull.

In the same sense that Divekick is basically Street Fighter with all but the most necessary elements of gameplay preserved.

He is not denying it tho.

He literally said that "fun gameplay" mostly derived from sound design or art, which is wrong. Those help to the overall enjoyement of a game but they aren't the real substance in any action-focused game

the setting is the story what the fuck, it is expressed through words right? its fucking story good god

The premise is somewhat preserved, the gameplay isn't.

user did you ever get past 9th grade lit?

Suggesting that any given Call of Duty title is exactly the same as Space Invaders would be idiotically overly reductive reasoning. That said, the fundamental premise of the game "shoot the targets" is the same. Fundamentally, most games boil down to resource management, timing, and execution, with some games leaning towards one axis or another. Street Fighter and Tekken are both games about fighting but the execution of a similar gameplay concept can make or break the games appeal for an individual.

>setting isn't a part of a story
well i guess star wars and space trilogy are the exact same, both just space adventures

The main things that matter are gameplay and music, followed by story then graphics.

My argument was more that art direction and sound design influence what most people would probably describe as "gameplay" even though most people would probably use the word "gameplay" to refer to game mechanics. I didn't really make my argument clear though.

I'd say anything from the early era of games is an exception because games as a whole were still a novelty at the time.

user you said if it's in word form then it's inherently part of the plot structure which is just straight up wrong.

And yes, you can tell the same story with different settings. It happens all the time. Look at Dancing with Wolves, Pocahontas, Avatar etc

Gameplay is the core aspect of a video game is what seperates the medium from every other.
If a game has bad gameplay, it has fundamentally failed at being a game.

When you have a lot of games you need to do stuff to stand out otherwise your game won't attract anyone if it a mere clone.

I enjoy Modern Sonic's games just because of relying on the visuals instead of solid 3d gameplay.

Again similar premise = similar gameplay, even fucking sports and their evolution over time rove that just because they use the same rules doesn't mean they play the same

meant =/=

>not !=

I guess the only point I'm trying to make is that "gamplay" isn't really well defined. I would agree that even street fighter 4 and 5 have different gamplay even though they are extremely similar games, but it's hard to express what makes the gamplay of one different from another. Fighting games are a good example of game where very fine details in the minute of game mechanics is hugely important to fans of the genre. B

Reddit.

I think the argument is that if you took two games, A and B and reduced them to their barest, most basic functions and A was a clear winner mechanically, once you fully dressed them up then game B could still be the better, more enjoyable experience

Where as if gameplay was the only thing that truly mattered then A would win by default every time

Based on what OP is saying, he sounds like the kind of person who wouldn't really appreciate fighting games on a level more than superficial anyway. Most people who play video games probably don't either for that matter.

This, OP was already BTFO. I don't need to say anymore.

no i was mocking op by stating that books shouldn't be about story because that is as ridiculous as he sounds when he says a videogame shouldn't be about gameplay. its exactly the same as saying a book needs to have a good cover or pictures in it, and that those aren't simply supplementary to story. and then somebody stated that story isn't story and that books are about music or whatever. if it were the same story they wouldn't have different settings, if you replaced every mention of districts with motels in the hunger games it would be an entirely different book. setting is a part of story telling just like plot is

>he sounds like the kind of person who wouldn't really appreciate fighting games on a level more than superficial anyway

Are you saying that if you enjoy something like GG over SF in part due to the aesthetic that you don't like fighting games above a superficial level?

And I think that just comes down to personal preference. There are people who would rather play a fighting game with only the hitboxes being rendered than some really cool well presented fighting game that ultimately just came down to button mashing.

Wouldn't you say how satisfying it is to play the game falls under gameplay to some extent? Like the sound and graphic design are feeding into the gameplay, I don't know, you can disagree with me on that point if you want.


I actually agree with you to an extent, I feel a lot of people misunderstand what makes a good game on here, gameplay isn't everything to a game, and that probably sounds like heresy to a lot of people, but how many people truly seek out games because of their gameplay? Not many on here that I can see, people will often play games that are mechanically worse because they are newer and look better, they feature characters they like, they have an interesting story/setting/atmosphere, I'd say these are all elements that add to the "experience" of playing a game and are probably the most motivating factors for a lot of people. Not to say gameplay isn't important, but I don't think anybody plays games on their gameplay alone, I mean, if a game was among the best in its genre in terms of gameplay but the characters looked like giant poorly rendered anuses with no story and the music was lifted from Crazy Bus, then I doubt too many people would play it (maybe outside of a few dedicated fans on this board).

Gameplay is definitely a factor when it comes to my favourite games, but for most of them the gameplay is mostly the anchor the rest of the game is built around, and not the only reason I like them so much. I can enjoy something like Earthbound even though it has pretty bad gameplay (even compared to its contemporaries) because it offers more than just gameplay because of the "experience" of playing the game comes through a combination of all the design elements that weren't solely gameplay related.

I probably sound really gay typing this out, so feel free to make fun of me.

>when he says a videogame shouldn't be about gameplay.

but op didn't say that at all

Thief

if that was your only reason then yeah.

This thread has NeoGAF written all over it.

>gameplay isn't the only thing that matters
yes he did, he is implying there is anything else that matters and therefore it isn't entirely about the gameplay which is false. read a book if you want a book, watch a movie if you want a movie, videogames are video GAMES

>content
Who?

OP here. These are the exact sort of posts I'm talking about

>but it's hard to express what makes the gamplay of one different from another.
Simple, the gameplay mechanics and everthing around it. The "premise" of a game just point out the narrative of what it's about e.g. kill the bad guys, but the way you can do so has infinite options that need to be translated into actual mechanics and player interaction, that's gameplay.
Not an expert in fighting games but I imagine every little difference is important and defines each game, hitboxes, damage output, frames, range,combo options etc.

Dwarf Fortress is proof that gameplay triumphs over all else by a long shot. Some of the most basic level of graphics imaginable, no sound other than two songs, spartan as fuck confusing UI, no tutorials, huge learning curve. And yet it is extremely fun, because the gameplay at its core is incredible.

I find this humorous. There's that one Konami interview (forget who or what) but the point of it was that when any developer in Japan pitches a game, they pitch the gameplay and how it's going to play, and when any westerners tried to pitch a game they always try to start by saying what the "experience" is going to be and what world it's set in first.

But OP literally only mentioned japanese games in his post

a lot of japanese games are style over substance. western games are just hollywood

good job figuring out i disagree with you, videogames do not need to be anything more than what they are. they don't need to be virtual economies or anything just because they have potential to be. i don't go to Sup Forums and say that music should be about music videos in fact i would be against something such as that as well. this is an enthusiast board full of people who enjoy videogames as something to master, not even here do people actually consider things such as visual novels to be games because they aren't

k dont care.

Silent hill 2

Is it? Because not that many people play Dwarf Fortress. It's not like a game that has set the world on fire as THE definitive game to ever exist and no others will be better than it, it's more a curiousity to the vast majority of people who even know about it.

Not to say it's a bad game or anything, it's a great game, but if gameplay truly were everything it would be out of its "internet curiousity" phase by now.

but that has nothing to do at all with what I was talking about. Heck, my favorite genres are shmups and rhythm games.

No where am I saying 'video games should be about the story!'. I'm saying that really good music can make a boss fight more engaging

>I'm saying that really good music can make a boss fight more engaging
no it can't, either you like the boss or you don't. if music makes it so much better for you, you simply enjoy the music and not the boss

It's fine to have other elements, but game play is the most important and is the only factor that can carry a game in my opinion. I ended up playing graphing calculator games when I tried early PS360 movie games like FFXIII. It's that much of a gap for me.

Bruh it was admitted to a museum as part of a "Video Games as Art" exhibit, alongside shit like Myst and Simcity 2000.

This is such a shallow minded post that it baffles me

>is it?

MoMA think it is: moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/11/29/video-games-14-in-the-collection-for-starters/

That doesn't really prove anything one way or another. As I've said, Dwarf Fortress is a great game, and it's good it's getting some recognistion for its gameplay, but if gameplay is truly the only thing that makes a game good or not, then it would be more revolutionary and noteworthy than its biggest accolade being included on a list produced by the Museum of Modern Arts. You can see games on there that have had a bigger impact on gaming as a whole like Portal, is Portal more widely recognised and acclaimed because it has better gameplay than Dwarf Fortress? I mean, I guess you can't compare apples to oranges like that but the gameplay for Portal is a lot shallower than Dwarf Fortress, yet it's had a way bigger impact because of a combination of a bunch of other factors that aren't gameplay.

i have a feeling a lot of things baffle you, might be too hard to understand. i try again; IF THE VIDEOGAME ISN'T FUN NOTHING ELSE MATTERS IT HAS FAILED. NEITHER AUDIO OR VIDEO ENHANCES MY EXPERIENCE OF THE GAME BECAUSE THOSE ARE SEPARATE EXPERIENCES. A GAME SUCH AS QUAKE 3 IS JUST AS GOOD WITHOUT MUSIC EVEN IF I THINK IT SOUNDS GREAT, SIMILARLY YOU CAN PLAY A GAME SUCH AS TEAM FORTRESS 2 WITH THE MOST TOASTER OF SHIT UGLY FUCKING GRAPHICS AND IT WILL STILL BE JUST AS GREAT A GAME

t. person who mutes music and plays on low in literally every single game

Depends on the genre.
Most people don't play H-games for the gameplay.

Did you expect me to read all that shit, autismo?

H-games are also boring as fuck and played by low IQ plebs