Support NeoGAF

[Senor Kami]

Gameplay is so a vague word. The act of playing and experiencing a game always needs to be captivating. I hesitate to use words like "good" or "fun" because I think of movie's like Schindler's List that are great but could never be described as "fun" so I don't want to use that word and exclude games of a more serious and dark nature because they are "fun". So anyways, captivating. Able to hold your interest. I think gameplay should always be that and that is the most important aspect.

The gameplay of Street Fighter is the fighting mechanics. The gameplay of Beyond is walking around making story choices. I don't think one is inherently better than the other. Beyond is never trying to be a 1vs1 fighter. Street Fighter is never trying to be an interactive movie. Judging it that way to me is silly and on par with judging an action movie by the quality of the romance scenes and judging a romcom by the number of explosions and quality of the car chase. Then saying that both of them are missing these elements, therefore they have bad stories, therefore story isn't important in movies.

Gameplay is more than combat mechanics just like how the story of a movie is more than just car chases and romance scenes.

 

[IvorB]

I apologize for using your post as a tangent, but this is something that seriously bothers me. People often say "such and such game is repetitive" which always has me wondering, what game isn't? I mean a shooter is just about repeatedly pointing your gun and shooting someone/something while moving from place to place. An RPG is a series of listening to quest-givers and going out and killing what they want you to kill. Hell, the only types of games that I can think of that are not repetitive are puzzle games, at least in this case every puzzle is completely different. Why is this even a point that can be made against some games but not others?

Games tend to escalate and change. Even if the core action remains the same the context and circumstances change (e.g. shooting new enemies). When they don't it becomes repetitive.

 

[Holy Order Sol]

The only problem is the talk of "non-games" and conversely the implication that games where gameplay is not the focus are somehow about "advancing the medium" and "pushing the envelope" and that kind of shit. Without that this discussion probably wouldn't even exist.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

Well, I definitely don't agree with this and I don't think it reflects a real evaluation of the medium.

There are two words in the phrase "video game." There's video and there's game. You are suggesting "gameplay" is what makes a video game a video game. Obviously not. Lots of non-video game games have gameplay. Chess is not a video game but has gameplay.

What makes a video game distinctly a video game is actually the video part of the phrase. No other type of game has the visual data output and interaction model that video games have.

So my conclusion, then, is that video is actually pretty important.

I think the term gameplay is rather nebulous. What are you referring to? Controls? Core mechanics? Player feedback? Game feel? As you've highlighted in the OP, lots of video games are appreciated for various reasons, and often it isn't directly related to any of these categories.

Too often (even in this thread) I see gamers take a fundamentalist approach to this. GAMEPLAY IS KING!!111 is such a meaningless platitude. What exactly are we talking about? Why is the game part explicitly more important than the video part? Can we separate them?

I just think it is lazy.

"Video" is an adjective in the case and "game" is a noun. The video part is in service to the game part. However, I agree that a term like "gameplay" isn't so easily defined. Every aspect of a game has potential to effect gameplay, including graphics, sound, story, level design, animations, controls, etc.

I guess for me it's usually a matter that I prefer playing over watching, showing over telling.

 

[GiantEnemyGoomba]

I can't speak for others, but it is every single time for me except in a few cases. Very rarely will I enjoy a game that doesn't have at least OK gameplay.

 

[Llyrwenne]

'Interaction' i'd say. That pretty much encompasses gameplay and the alternatives focuses a developer might have.

Lack of interaction makes a bad game.

But what about games like Dear Esther or Journey? They feature minimal to no interaction beyond walking around in their worlds, but they are well received and well rated games (75 and 92 metacritic respectively). What they lack in interactivity, they make up for in other aspects, thus providing unique experiences that, while not for everyone, are not objectively 'bad'.

 

[sbkodama]

I think this is the most important even if I'm very interested for stories,
but the gameplay isn't the only thing that a game must do or they are just toys.

Imgaine a movie without a story, many would complain because of that, but the fact is that a story isn't the most important in a movie, the most important is its visual then its audio.
The stories isn't the most important in a book too, its how it's write which is important.

Because all video game stories are trash and stuff. Because I played this one game and paid attention to the story, and it was bad. Movies are the shining beacon of story. All movie stories are better than all video game stories.

Spoiler

/s

Sorry but no all movies stories haren't better than all games stories, lot of movies have bad stories too.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

Simple answer, not always. Just look at the massive praise for Last of Us. Its gameplay is fairly average.

I don't disagree that it's gameplay was (below) average, but in the massive praise it got, most people praised the gameplay nearly as much as the story and characters.

 

[Dusk Golem]

Sorry but no all movies stories haren't better than all games stories, lot of movies have bad stories too.

(he was being sarcastic)

 

[SandTorso]

For me personally, yeah, gameplay is by far the most important part of a game. There have been some exceptions (Killer7 was just so bizarre I had to continue playing it, but even then I found the gameplay to be enjoyable), but the reason I'm playing a game is rarely the story or anything other than the gameplay.

Spec Ops: The Line is a perfect example of this. I keep hearing it has this amazing story and that I have to keep playing it, and yet I can't go back to it because it's a boring 3rd person shooter. From the other perspective I remember a lot of people knocking Dishonored for its story, and all I could think was "well I'm having so much fun I really don't give a shit." I also enjoyed Bioshock Infinite's gameplay more than other people apparently did, as it didn't bother me that I was eating hot dogs out of the trash, I was having fun flinging around skyhooks using vigors on enemies.

It's not that I can't appreciate a good story, but when just about everyone says The Last of Us was the best game of the year despite having "alright" or "pretty-good" gameplay I just don't understand it. Or when people say they like DmC more than DMC3 or 4 because "the story in the older games was just so bad" I have to wonder why they're even bothering playing the genre.

 

[Thrakier]

Every single time. Yes. It's the most important part. That's what makes a video game a video game in the first place.

Gameplay first > anything else

Then how is Silent Hill 2, which as pretty shit gameplay, such a huge hit?

Videogames are ALWAYS the sum of it's part. That's why people dismissing technical/graphical factors always crack me up.

 

[Principate]

Well, I definitely don't agree with this and I don't think it reflects a real evaluation of the medium.

There are two words in the phrase "video game." There's video and there's game. You are suggesting "gameplay" is what makes a video game a video game. Obviously not. Lots of non-video game games have gameplay. Chess is not a video game but has gameplay.

What makes a video game distinctly a video game is actually the video part of the phrase. No other type of game has the visual data output and interaction model that video games have.

So my conclusion, then, is that video is actually pretty important.

I think the term gameplay is rather nebulous. What are you referring to? Controls? Core mechanics? Player feedback? Game feel? As you've highlighted in the OP, lots of video games are appreciated for various reasons, and often it isn't directly related to any of these categories.

Too often (even in this thread) I see gamers take a fundamentalist approach to this. GAMEPLAY IS KING!!111 is such a meaningless platitude. What exactly are we talking about? Why is the game part explicitly more important than the video part? Can we separate them?

I just think it is lazy.

I'm sorry but this reasoning doesn't make sense you can add visual sound and story elements to a board game there's absolutely nothing stopping that. Chess is not and will never be the be all and end all of board games.

The difference between a video game and normal games is that it's completed in a digital medium. That's mostly it.

I'm not saying this means gameplay must the most important that's down to personal preference but there's nothing intrinsically different from a video game and normal game in which you can alter priorities of the visual and story focus because they are essentially the same.

 

[Kiote]

OP, I think you have missed the reason Gameplay is considered the most important aspect of a video game. Games are not required to have new, innovative, complicated or skillful Gameplay to be considered good. There are hundreds of examples of good Gameplay, but, with few exceptions, the common trait is precision. Gameplay is really only defined as bad when it directly impedes your ability to enjoy other aspects of a game, beyond a reasonable learning curve.

Gameplay is the most important aspect of a Video Game, not because Good Gameplay makes Good Games, but because Bad Gameplay ruins Good Games.

 

[SapientWolf]

The problem is that a game with terrible gameplay and an excellent story would be better as a film or a book. It's being uncomfortably shoved into a game even though it's not a good fit. Could it still be a good experience? Sure. Does it appeal to me personally, as a gamer? Not in particular.

 

[Exploding8]

To me, no single aspect of a videogame is the most important part of every videogame. Gameplay can be the most important part, but it could also be the graphics, the story, the characters, the music, or a mix.

I like AudioSurf because I enjoy listening to music, the relatively relaxed gameplay of Ninja mode and the visuals enhance that.

I like Mount and Blade Warband because it has unique multiplayer gameplay.

I like To The Moon for its touching story

FFXIII was somewhat enjoyable to me for the limited time I spent with it simply because of how pretty I thought it was.

I like the Persona games because they mix a fun story with fun characters and great music, even though I don't particularly enjoy the style of gameplay.

Etc.

Plus, just the simple element of interaction makes things more engaging imo. To The Moon hardly had actual gameplay but I don't know if it would have had the same impact if it was just a story I was reading or a visual novel (although a visual novel might've been able to get close).

So really, as always, the most important part of every videogame depends entirely on the developers making it.

 

[Y2Kev]

"Video" is an adjective in the case and "game" is a noun. The video part is in service to the game part. However, I agree that a term like "gameplay" isn't so easily defined. Every aspect of a game has potential to effect gameplay, including graphics, sound, story, level design, animations, controls, etc.

I guess for me it's usually a matter that I prefer playing over watching, showing over telling.

I'm not sure why it matters that video is a modifier...I didn't say there were two nouns.

Umm what I'm sorry but this reasoning doesn't make sense you can add visual sound and story elements to a board game there's absolutely nothing stopping that. Chess is not and will never be the be all and end all of board games.

The Difference between a video game and normal games is that it's completed in a digital medium. That's mostly it.

I'm not saying this means gameplay must the most important that's down to personal preference but there's nothing intrinsically different from a video game and normal game in which you can alter priorities of the visual and story focu because they are essentially the same.

I'm not sure I said any of what you are saying I said in the first part of what you said.

1. Adding visual or sound to a board game does not fundamentally change the way the player interacts with a board game, which should be a pretty obvious and clear distinction that I didn't and don't think I need to address.

2. I didn't say chess was the be all and end all of board games.

But the last part..."there's nothing intrinsically different" except what is intrinsic to what it is. I think that's a really weak unpacking.

 

[AppleMIX]

The problem is that a game with terrible gameplay and an excellent story would be better as a film or a book. It's being uncomfortably shoved into a game even though it's not a good fit. Could it still be a good experience? Sure. Does it appeal to me personally, as a gamer? Not in particular.

Not true, especially when player agency is taken into account.

 

[PensivePen]

Depends upon the game, I will say though that I don't think it's fair to put games like Deadly Premonition and such up there. Sure, the game is not the most mechanically deep. But if you didn't have the ability to drive around town, explore, interact with the townsfolk and whatnot it would lose a ton of its charm. Just being fed the dialogue directly without all that would make the game much worse off. So yes, in effect, the gameplay is pretty important there. Maybe not the 'most' important, but it's an incredibly valuable part of the full experience. Same is true of point-and-click adventures. If you couldn't select dialogue, or advance at your own pace, they'd lose a ton of value I'm willing to bet. To some people though the only thing that counts as 'gameplay' is the combat systems, which I think is ridiculous.

I apologize for using your post as a tangent, but this is something that seriously bothers me. People often say "such and such game is repetitive" which always has me wondering, what game isn't? I mean a shooter is just about repeatedly pointing your gun and shooting someone/something while moving from place to place. An RPG is a series of listening to quest-givers and going out and killing what they want you to kill. Hell, the only types of games that I can think of that are not repetitive are puzzle games, at least in this case every puzzle is completely different. Why is this even a point that can be made against some games but not others?

Because some games don't go out of their way to make encounters feel unique. For example, in a strategy game if it's well made each encounter will feel unique, put you under particular conditions that you don't feel like you can solve by just doing the same thing you did last time. That, in effect, makes it work just like a puzzle game, you're looking for an answer to the dilemma you've been given, and if the game is good you won't just be able to force the square peg into the round hole. The same is true of shooters, the game should put you under unique conditions when you go up against enemies so that you have to think about how to tackle problems.

 

[Whompa]

It just has to fairly balance out the experience like most everything involved in creating a videogame.

 

[Omega]

The gameplay of Street Fighter is the fighting mechanics. The gameplay of Beyond is walking around making story choices. I don't think one is inherently better than the other. Beyond is never trying to be a 1vs1 fighter. Street Fighter is never trying to be an interactive movie.

When people like me refer to a gameplay, we're talking about actual games.

You even said it yourself. Beyond isn't a game. It's an interactive movie.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

I'll always play a game that has great gameplay and a terrible story, but a game has to have a really good story for me to continue playing if it has bad gameplay.

There are exceptions, but gameplay is more important 95% of the time.

 

[Llyrwenne]

OP, I think you have missed the reason Gameplay is considered the most important aspect of a video game. Games are not required to have new, innovative, complicated or skillful Gameplay to be considered good. There are hundreds of examples of good Gameplay, but, with few exceptions, the common trait is precision. Gameplay is really only defined as bad when it directly impedes your ability to enjoy other aspects of a game, beyond a reasonable learning curve.

Gameplay is the most important aspect of a Video Game, not because Good Gameplay makes Good Games, but because Bad Gameplay ruins Good Games.

But this is true for any aspect of a game. Bad graphics can ruin good games, bad art direction can ruin good games, poor narrative can ruin good games, etc. Any single bad element of a game has the potential to ruin that game; that is not necessarily limited to just gameplay.

 

[Steel]

Games tend to escalate and change. Even if the core action remains the same the context and circumstances change (e.g. shooting new enemies). When they don't it becomes repetitive.

Often times games that do escalate are called reptitive though. Perhaps it's the way they escalate? But in this case that's purely a subjective thing, and can easily be turned toward almost any game in existence if you have a different perspective on gaming. I'd argue that the way repetitive is used in gaming discussions is stretching the definition of the term to articulate an objective reason that you found such and such game boring, when from certain perspectives that terminology is easily used on any game that you might find to not be repetitive.

For example, I've played with people who play COD a lot. Some of them found RPGs in general to be too repetitive, just a series of fetch quests and hack n' slash. When I pointed out in response that all he does is play team deathmatch in cod barely ever changing loadouts, he just says "Oh, well the enemies are humans, so that adds an element of variability in the gameplay. And I do play zombies a lot."

Mind you, I'm not applying that exact usage to everyone who uses the term repetitive, I'm just saying that the term is often applied for opinion validation.

 

[Cizeta-Moroder]

I'll quote my previous thoughts on the matter:

I think it isn't enough that a game checks all the boxes: good gameplay, good music, graphics, story... It all needs to be integral to be worth anything. There needs to be a vision that is supported by all aspects of the game.

Story is completely worthless unless it's the only way to complete the gameplay. Otherwise you could just bundle the game with a storybook.

 

[Vlade]

Even the games that tell stories do it best using the gameplay. Last of Us did this really well, parts felt desperate because I played through it and the gameplay changed dramatically to mark it. Same with walking dead. Watching my

Spoiler

meter break apart as I tried to close the door

was a brilliant way to convey what was happening and make me want to stop it.

In games stories are better related by having me do it. That is still gameplay and it is important in making a great game.

 

[Principate]

I'm not sure why it matters that video is a modifier...I didn't say there were two nouns.




I'm not sure I said any of what you are saying I said in the first part of what you said.

1. Adding visual or sound to a board game does not fundamentally change the way the player interacts with a board game, which should be a pretty obvious and clear distinction that I didn't and don't think I need to address.

2. I didn't say chess was the be all and end all of board games.

But the last part..."there's nothing intrinsically different" except what is intrinsic to what it is. I think that's a really weak unpacking.

A game is a game whether you progress through your imagination (choose your path books), or with images, video's sound cues.

Video games are akin to games like like movies are akin to novels. One can use your imagination or one can use sound and moving images. Very different methods of communication but at the base level they are the same, (they're both trying to tell a story).

You cannot completely separate video games from normal games as it's the same concept conveyed in a different manner.

 

[ZSeba]

Every single time. Yes. It's the most important part. That's what makes a video game a video game in the first place.

Gameplay first > anything else

What if I don't care if it's actually a video game or not? :s

 

[Y2Kev]

A gane is a game whether you progress through your imagination (choose your path books), or with images, video's sound cues.

Video games are akin to games like like movies are akin to novels. One can use your imagination or one can use sound and moving images. Very different methods of communication but at the base level they are the same, (they're both trying to tell a story).

You cannot completely separate video games from normal games as it's the same concept convey in a different manner.

But I'm not separating them from regular games; I think video games are still pretty clearly games. But what makes them unique and worthy of their own subclassification? It's the video.

If you had a board game that had audiovisual cues or output, would you consider it a video game? Why or why not?

Maybe we're not really disagreeing.

 

[Qassim]

I don't think gameplay should necessarily be the most important part of a "game" because that just limits the potential for video games too much. I think many games, gameplay should be the most important part, but there should be plenty of room for other types of games.

 

[Wazzy]

I think visual appeal is up there with gameplay. I don't care how good gameplay is, if it's ugly to look at and doesn't resonate with my tastes at all then it's unplayable.

 

[Kiote]

But this is true for any aspect of a game. Bad graphics can ruin good games, bad art direction can ruin good games, poor narrative can ruin good games, etc. Any single bad element of a game has the potential to ruin that game; that is not necessarily limited to just gameplay.

This is not true at all. Video Games have proved time and again that none of those things listed are even necessary for making a Video Game, let alone a Good or even Critically acclaimed Video Game.

Minecraft has arguably Bad Graphics, Bad Art and No Narrative.

Super Meat Boy got rave reviews with some of the worst art in existence.

Thomas Was Alone is a Color Square, pong ball style, moving around a blank world.

These kind of things appeal to or turn off specific groups and their specific tastes. Bad Gameplay is universal. If the game is designed so poorly that you can't play it right, no one is going to like it.

 

[Principate]

But I'm not separating them from regular games; I think video games are still pretty clearly games. But what makes them unique and worthy of their own subclassification? It's the video.

If you had a board game that had audiovisual cues or output, would you consider it a video game? Why or why not?

Maybe we're not really disagreeing.

I'm talking more about the relative importance of features. Going back to a book movie example. Let's look at games in which you imagine actions say D&D in comparison to a games which simply show you your characters actions. How important do you feel the imagination aspect is in those games. Now compare that to how important you feel simply the visual aspect is in video games.

Would you rather have more imagination and less thinking about rules mechanics and thought process, or less. Both are unique their mediums, but the most highly regard physical game is chess. Why is that?

 

[Steel]

I'm talking more about the relative importance of features. Going back to a book movie example. Let's look at games in which you imagine actions say D&D in comparison to a games which simply show you your characters actions. How important do you feel the imagination aspect is in those games. Now compare that to how important you feel simply the visual aspect is in games.

Would you rather have more imagination and less thinking about rules mechanics and thought process, or less.

The way you put it makes it sound like you think gameplay and story are mutually exclusive.

 

[SapientWolf]

Not true, especially when player agency is taken into account.

There are ways to make films and books that still allow for agency. It takes more than agency to make a good game.

 

[Sotha_Sil]

It is different for every game. Some games can thrive on gameplay alone with a crap story and atmosphere, some do exactly the opposite.

 

[Principate]

The way you put it makes it sound like you think gameplay and story are mutually exclusive.

That's not what I'm talking about at all I think you completely misunderstood, gameplay and story can have the same importance in visual and physical just like their games that are essentially books. I'm talking about the why should treat the too differently when they're both representations of the same concept, realised in different manners.

Movies are a realization of imagination but that doesn't mean books bother to paint a picture within our imagination with descriptive texts.

 

[Wazzy]

This is not true at all. Video Games have proved time and again that none of those things listed are even necessary for making a Video Game, let alone a Good or even Critically acclaimed Video Game.

Minecraft has arguably Bad Graphics, Bad Art and No Narrative.

Super Meat Boy got rave reviews with some of the worst art in existence.

Thomas Was Alone is a Color Square, pong ball style, moving around a blank world.

These kind of things appeal to or turn off specific groups and their specific tastes. Bad Gameplay is universal. If the game is designed so poorly that you can't play it right, no one is going to like it.

Gameplay can also be a divisive opinion. I've seen plenty of games where people either hated the gamplay or loved it so it can easily fall in with opinions on art, narrative, etc.

I won't touch Moe games even though plenty have good gameplay and that's all because the art style is a huge turnoff.

 

[maxcriden]

In a broad sense when objectively talking about the best games of all time, yes it is.

However, that doesn't mean my personal favorite games necessarily have the best gameplay. I rank Kirby's Epic Yarn near the top of my favorite last-gen games for its art-style and OST. Just a delight to play, though has little depth to speak of if you're not 100%-ing the game.

Yes! Literally working on 100%-ing the game right now. Well, not literally. But we did play some of it just a little while ago today! Amazingly under-appreciated game.

 

[Steel]

That's not what I'm talking about at all I think you completely misunderstood, gameplay and story can have the same importance in visual and physical just like their games that are essentially books. I'm talking about the why should treat the too differently when they're both representations of the same concept, realised in different manners

I didn't say that you thought one was more important than the other. You simply made it sound like if you have more story, you have less gameplay and vice versa. And this comment actually further reinforces that thought. I believe a game can have good gameplay with good story.

 

[Principate]

I didn't say that you thought one was more important than the other. You simply made it sound like if you have more story, you have less gameplay and vice versa. And this comment actually further reinforces that thought. I believe a game can have good gameplay with good story.

Nothing about what I'm talking about refers to that at all. I'm not talking about story or gameplay at all. I'm talking about why should we treat video games from physical game. I think you somehow confused imagination with me referring to story. That's not what I'm doing.

So people do some people don't I'm asking why.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

For me, yes.

If I wanted a movie, I'd watch a movie. games don't do story well so I really don't give a shit about that either. Until developers realize they're making video games and not movies, video game stories will always be shit.

Devs don't do atmosphere like they did in Silent Hill or older games. Which is sad, you would think that as tech improved, experiences would.

I think using atmosphere and setting to "show" the story is a much better way than cutscenes to "tell" it, so I agree. Games like Silent Hill allow you to conjure up parts of the story based on what's there and what you absorb, and fill in the blanks with your own thought. They give you more than enough to work with, the real story is in exploring the environment and piecing things together.

I'm also very perplexed that there are very few games that go this route. Give the player a scenario and a world full of myth, and they can use the myth as they feel fit to play out the story as they want. Of course, since there is myth already there, it will subconsciously guide them towards certain ways anyhow, but at least the method is a lot more hands-on and engaging.

It's why, for example, Snatcher works so well. I don't actually find it's presented story (basically Blade Runner 1.2) too nifty, but the database you have access to, the logs detailing the history of the universe, technology, drugs etc...that is very immersive. It gives you the chance to enrich the story at your own pace.

Now if there was a game that combined that with an open-ended narrative structure that didn't rely on cutscenes to present the bulk of the content and took into consideration your gathering and applying of the myth in the story you'd come across? That'd be bliss (well, if it's a genre I care for anyhow xP).

 

[Mona]

everything else combined is more important then gameplay,

individual parts though? maybe.

 

[Cyborg]

NO!
For me its Gameplay, Graphics and Story. Those elements combined make it worth to replay a game

 

[oneida]

ya

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

As long as it's got any emphasis at all, even for people who conflate "quantity" with "quality" in narrative.

 

[MiamiWesker]

Its always gameplay, will always be gameplay.

"most people dont think gameplay is the most important", that is crazy. You think 20 million people are buying Call of Duty every year for the story? You think GTA would be huge if it didnt have a fun open world to play around in? You think Mario is the greatest selling franchise ever cause of people like the story of Mario? You think Minecraft is selling a bazillion copies cause of a reason other than how it plays?

Gameplay is BY FAR the most important aspect of gaming and it absolutely is the main reason most people play games.

 

[thepotatoman]

I'd say interactivity is the most important part of any game. Interactivity can mean dialog choices or exploration as well.

If the interactivity isn't good, I do question why they don't just write a book or make a movie instead.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Does this argument not require the definition of gameplay, and is it not arguably made moot by subjectivity and contextual relevance?

If we simply state gameplay is the art of interactivity within virtual environment, then gameplay is paramount to everything else as it defines the medium. The depth of that gameplay is a subjective matter; it's easy to argue Gone Home is minimalist or lacking in gameplay. But for Gone Home the act of interacting with its virtual environment and having some form of agency in your exploration of the house and non-linear discovery of information (and by extension information collation and analysis by the player) is so integral to the narrative's development and delivery of themes that further restricting it, either through totally linear delivery and/or minimalist (or totally absent) interactivity would damage the art's intention. The narrative would not work the same way, nor deliver on its premise as intended, without the level of gameplay it has.

Additionally, there's not much argument that Gone Home's narrative would benefit from "deeper" gameplay, such richer complexity to mechanics, puzzle solving, challengers, or whatnot. Gameplay depth and its value is contextual; it depends on the teams overall vision, what they intend to deliver with their project, and how much relevance deeper gameplay mechanics have. Gone Home would not benefit from RTS macro/micro unit management. Quake 3 Arena would not benefit from a complex RPG stat system. Europa Universalis IV would not benefit having its grand strategy, mathematical game design stripped down to a barebones point-and-click linear adventure.

"Video games" are no different to any other medium; film, television, literature, painting, sculpting, stage, and so on. That is to say there's no one right way or one right component that is quantifiable and measurable and objectively enriches all content within the medium. The worst thing that can happen to "video games" is stagnation; domination of the entire medium by one particular design philosophy, even if that philosophy may be favourable to yours or my taste. Like other mediums, many, many components can go into the creation of any one projection. It's contextual, and dependant on what that project is. Not every game needs a story, but some benefit greatly. Not every game needs an orchestral sound track, but some are enriched. Not every game needs cinematics and voice work; some are more efficient and moving through text. Not every game needs a mouse, or a control pad, or a waggle wand, or anything. It depends on the project, the art, the intention of the creators.

So either gameplay isn't the most "important" part of a game, because "gameplay" is a subjective construct valued by contextual relevance to the project itself.
Or gameplay is the most "important" part of a game, an abstract concept with no real objective and measurable definition except for the art of interactivity, and thus defines the medium as a unique quality, and by being naturally present in every work of art classified as a "video game",

Love how no one even wants to touch this post. Bravo EatChildren.

 

[Phediuk]

I feel like I'm the only person left who doesn't really care about story in games. Even the best stories in games are mediocre imitations of movies or books. The strong point of video games, and the thing that makes games interesting, is their interactivity. I don't want to watch a movie where occasionally I get to press a button. I don't want to have to sit through through 20-minute cutscenes of the 5 billionth derivative zombie apocalypse story to get to a part where I get to (sort of) participate. I want to play the damn game from start to finish.

With that said, obviously, the presentation of a game is a huge influence on how enjoyable the game is. Games are more than a series of hitboxes. And there are things like framerate that are on the visual end of games but have an immediate, obvious impact on how a game controls in almost every game. It's pretty hard to draw the line between grapjics and gameplay, and I feel like this division is never consistently defined. Some people will says thing like, "What's more important, framerate or graphics?", as if those are separate things. Perhaps "visuals" would be the better term. Or people will say, "Would you rather have a fun game or a pretty game?", as if aesthetic pleasure is not a major determinant in what we find fun.

So my answer for the topic is that yes, gameplay is the most important part of a game, but the term "gameplay" is a meaningless construct that cannot be separated from the way the game is presented to the player.

 

[Llyrwenne]

This is not true at all. Video Games have proved time and again that none of those things listed are even necessary for making a Video Game, let alone a Good or even Critically acclaimed Video Game.

Minecraft has arguably Bad Graphics, Bad Art and No Narrative.

Super Meat Boy got rave reviews with some of the worst art in existence.

Thomas Was Alone is a Color Square, pong ball style, moving around a blank world.

These kind of things appeal to or turn off specific groups and their specific tastes. Bad Gameplay is universal. If the game is designed so poorly that you can't play it right, no one is going to like it.

Wait, what? I'm not saying that there are no games which lean more on gameplay than other elements, nor am I saying that games need to have perfect art direction and such to be considered of good quality. The only thing I am saying is that there is no single most important element in game design. One game can be great because of its great gameplay, another game can be great with compareably poor gameplay through great art design and narrative. The quality of a game cannot be judged by taking one of its elements and judging it by that one element only (be it gameplay or any other element), that's simply ridiculous.

Also, I don't think you understand what makes the games you just listed so great. Minecraft does not have objectively bad art, it just went with that art style because that worked with the tone of that game perfectly, as well as the blocky style helping with the gameplay. Thomas Was Alone is unique because of its simplistic art style and narrative and how those interact with the gameplay, not just simply because the core gameplay is good. Take away that art style and the narrative, and TWA would be a relatively unremarkable game.

You, and other people in this thread, seem to completely ignore that the playability, feeling and experience of a game are not just decided by the single element called 'gameplay', but rather by all elements of the game and how they interact with eachother. How does the gameplay support the narrative (if there is any narrative; again, I'm not saying a game needs to have great narrative or even narrative at all to be considered good), how does the narrative support the gameplay, how does the art style support the general atmosphere, how do the sound effects support the visuals, etc. etc. All of this is different for every game and all games have different priorities in what they want to achieve, and thus you cannot say that there is by definition one element that is more important for game design than another.