“We need to kill gameplay” says Ex-People Can Fly dev

Didn't see anything on this. It's my second thread ever, wooo.

NOVEMBER 8, 2012

The Astronauts developer Adrian Chmielarz, former dev of People Can Fly, explains why developers should “kill gameplay” in order to create a more memorable experience in videogames.

Adrian Chmeilarz said:
“If we understand gameplay as something that a challenge is a crucial part of, then none of these moments features any gameplay. You just walk, or swim, or ride a horse, but that’s it. You cannot die. You don’t make choices that have any long term consequences. No skill is involved. There is no gameplay.”
His conclusion notes that if players are to experience a game that wants to be a “deeply emotional” experience, gameplay must be cut, citing The Walking Dead as his example.
Adrian Chmeilarz said:
“Does it mean that if you want a deeply emotional game, you should drop regular gameplay, with all its core combat loops, gameplay mechanics and other voodoo? Yes. Any proof for that hypothesis? The Walking Dead, for example.”
Source: http://beefjack.com/news/we-need-to-kill-gamepay-says-ex-people-can-fly-dev/
Primary Source:http://www.theastronauts.com/2012/11/why-we-need-to-kill-gameplay-to-make-better-games/

What do you think, GAF?


Official GAF Bottom Feeder
For all the shit this guy has been talking lately his first game out of PCF better be fucking *mindblowing*.
Games can be art. But you have to use the elements of the medium for it to work. Otherwise it's not a game anymore. Cutting out gameplay is an idiotic notion.

Majora's Mask was perfect in this regard, using the gameplay to bolster the story and themes presented.
Eh, I'm all for videogames as a storytelling media (some games that is) but eliminating gameplay completely is not a good idea.

The secret is in finding balance. Imagine Mass Effect with actual varied and engaging gameplay, exploration, variation etc... that would be a good way to achieve a deeply emotional game without sacrificing gameplay in the process.
Games generally contain so little relatable, convincing humanity, that deep emotional experiences are impossible, whether there is gameplay or not.

He's right that The Walking Dead has little gameplay (by his definition) and a relatively strong emotional punch, but a single case isn't good evidence for a sweeping claim like the one he's making.

Nonetheless, he might be right (about the inverse relationship between gameplay and emotion, not that gameplay should be killed in favor of emotion). The cognition involved in traditional gameplay is surely very different from the cognition involved in processing emotional experiences. It's going to take some genius-level ingenuity to create a complex and engaging gameplay experience that also invokes empathy or some richer emotional experience than tension or fear or flow. It might not be possible.


Wanna hear a good joke? Waste your time helping me! LOL!
Why don't Adventure games just make a comeback?

I mean, if that's what people really want then. Maybe find a new way to present them instead of the side/isometric style camera featured in the Monkey Island games that will actually appeal to people.
The purpose of all "gameplay" is to create emotions. This is the case even with Super Mario or Madden. A good deal of people simply don't understand what emotions are and just imitate an understanding based what they perceive (due to advertising) as "emotional" (sad scenes).

Too bad about Adrian. Any respect -> garbage pail. He should use better words than gameplay to describe his point in the first place.

EDIT: I'm quite sick of these developers going through a mid-life crisis.
People are not understanding what he is saying I guess.

He is trying to say in most modern shooters for example, instead of moments you are walking from point a to point b with nothing going on a cutsceen will be there instead, and when the shit hits the fan again BAM right back to gameplay....

Actually sounds like he wants all games to be mgs4 :lol

He can screw himself and I'll go play Platinum's next game.
Sooo you agree with him then?
Well if you want the player to experience your vision, I can't say I disagree. You don't need to worry about the player doing something that you don't want. It's seems kinda pointless to make a game out of that though.
Why can't different kind of games coexist? Not every game wants to be a memorable piece of art. I really loved heavy rain - it even is my gotg actually - but I find myself also enjoying gameplay-only-games or exploring open worlds.
I... don't know.

The Walking Dead is an adventure game. It's a genre that's existed for a long time. It's more adventure and less game than most other entries in the genre, but it makes up for it by being excellently written. It can get away with having less gameplay because the focus is on the story and it's a well done one. Using my rubber chicken on a rope is still gameplay, even if it's not as interactive as popping someone in the head.

On the other hand, a game like Journey, even if you can't die, is full on game. It tells a story and it's still an experience. The adventure and all is still there, just presented much differently.

I love both games, and they impact me similarly on an emotional level. One has more gameplay than the other, but they both still strike the right balance. Neither is better because they simply cut it or left it in.
I agree. Both "gameplay" and "dying" are overrated, and are holding games back. My best gaming experiences in the last 5 years have been Prince of Persia 2008 and Dear Esther, both of which were crticised precisely for their lack of these two elements.


Maturity, bitches.
So he wants to remove the game from games?

So we're just left with a movie with a terrible storyline? Or is he saying remove everything but the "experiences" (explosions and whatnot) so it's a movie with a few QTE thrown in.

In conclusion:
I'm gonna go to metacritic and give you a 0/10.
Let me explain.

My friend (I should say acquaintance, he's more my wife's friend) is a total Sony fanboy. He worships games like MGS4 and Shadow of the Colossus, because in his own words, they are not meant to be taken as simple fun (since they are art, y'know), and to call them fun is a complete insult.
J said:
In other words, game experiences we love to share with others are usually not about the regular second to second gameplay. Our brains don’t consider it worth remembering, and the only thing we usually have to say for it – especially months or years after we finish the game – is that “the gameplay was cool”.

J said:
I think than when we’re focused on overcoming a challenge – we try to kill an attacker or win a race – we go into savage beast’s survival mode and shut ourselves down for any “higher class” emotions. Our vision gets extremely narrow, and we’re no longer multi-tasking. Beating the challenge becomes the only thing that matters.

I've seen this first hand. There are a lot of people (GAF included) who are not capable of recalling gameplay bits. I've been on this for awhile now, but there are a lot of gamers out there that don't love gameplay as much as the gamer's motto "gameplay first" would lead you to believe.
I'm fine with more people consciously avoiding the word "gameplay". That would be great.

This guy is more than a bit off the mark, though.