Support NeoGAF

[2+2=5]

Obviously yes.

 

[Goldenmoney]

I personally have never enjoyed a game with boring gameplay. I don't care about story in a video game, though atmosphere I sort of agree with. Art style (not graphics), music, and good controls are also key factors, but the gameplay is the most important part to me.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Atmosphere and music can make you enjoy a game with mediocre gameplay (as long as the game isn't very long)
But gameplay makes or breaks a game 99 percent of the time
Without it it's just a poorly voiced, poorly shot and VERY poorly paced excuse for a movie

That or it's just a soullless manipulative compulsion loop that makes people who don't really want to play it , play it anyhow
these are common these days... sadly

 

[Zushin]

Yes, it is I feel. It's why I play games. The fun is derived from the gameplay. Sure, atmosphere and story can be great and aid the gameplay, but if the game doesn't have a good underlying gameplay structure it just isn't fun to me and that defeats the point of why I play games: to have fun. The Walking Dead was a great experience, but not one I'd necessarily call fun and not one I'd play through again.

 

[dark_prinny]

For the most part, yes. But there are some exceptions...

 

[Otakumegane]

If anything Skyrim selling 20million should say no.

The Mainstream doesn't care about gameplay as much.

 

[Schweinehund]

Yes, definitely.

If a game doesn't have strong gameplay it sure as hell better have a memorable story.

 

[Clefargle]

Yes, it is literally the one metric I can use to cull a shitty title from my library without more time wasted. The definition of gameplay is simple, stop trying to obfuscate it for your own ends. Gameplay is simply the mechanics behind how the input is represented on the screen. If it is a QTE, that's a part of the gameplay, if it is the look sensitivity of a FPS, that's gameplay, if it is the height of Mario's jump. THAT'S GAMEPLAY. If a "game" doesn't have much gameplay, I don't argue that is is a bad game. I don't even think it is a game....

 

[dark_prinny]

And the exception is a game that is nearly 100% gameplay? That game barely has any moments where you are not in control of your character.

Well you and I clearly have some diferences at the term "gameplay".

Journey was one of my favourite games last gen, but for its gameplay?

No. Just No.

 

[IvorB]

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.

Yeah it's pretty subjective. Repetition sets in for different people at different times depending on how much they enjoy something I guess.

 

[Comfort Jones]

Even as a Silent Hill 2 fan, I could not disagree more that anything in a game is more important than its gameplay. Well designed gameplay will age better and can add more to the actual experience than any other element.

 

[IvorB]

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.

What makes it a game then? I don't think devs should ever be saying: well, the gameplay is pretty sh*t but, whatever, we have a cool story. And I don't think they do. Even games like Beyond: Two Souls strive to provide engaging gameplay. Sometimes they fail to do this and people love them anyway and that's fine (not taking a dig at Beyond by the way). But gameplay should always be front and centre in a video game. That's not to say people cannot create other types of interactive experiences that are not games.

 

[Timeaisis]

Of course it is. If not for gameplay what differentiates a game from any other medium? Nothing, really. It's that player interaction through rules and systems that makes games a unique medium.

 

[Eusis]

Depends on the game's focus, I'll gladly take something with anemic gameplay but an amazing story or even when cheap an amazing visual experience. But if real gameplay that can get in the way is a significant part of the game then it better be good or at least painless, I didn't mind Nier since the gameplay was just good enough until you'd tire of it, then you got access to an overpowered weapon to mow down the rest of the game with, and Spec Ops worked well enough on Easy and the times I had the most difficulty were when I was the most beaten down emotionally anyway.

I will, however, be VERY irritated if I have to struggle through a shockingly hard or just bad game for a story, when the gameplay isn't even good enough to justify the challenge.

 

[princemarth23]

It really depends on the game. Generally, gameplay is the most important part of a game for me, but when it comes to RPGs I generally prefer the ones with better characters, story etc over more fun battle systems.

 

[NullPointer]

For the most part, yes. But there are some exceptions...

I've been noticing a distinction I make subconsciously in my enjoyment of games. I tend to either love them for their mechanical depth and the ability to make meaningful choices OR I like them as "experience" games, and most of the time it's those two qualities overlapping. I love open world games for instance, even though they are often far more shallow mechanically speaking than linear games, and part of that is that I just like inhabiting that place and doing those things you do in those worlds.

Journey is about the flying and the sliding and the vistas and frolicking and exploration, and that sum total of the audio-visual-anonymous-co-op sensations. Tomb Raider (Moany McMurder Lass and the Uncharted Island of Cultists) doesn't offer much challenge or depth but it controls well and is comfortable to play, and presents a gorgeous world where you can be a bow wielding huntress while shimmying about on things.

I was looking for mechanics in Tomb Raider and got an experience instead. People might have been looking for the same in Journey and so couldn't get into it. These two are very mixed in people's expectations when it comes to a game like Skyrim or Assassin's Creed as well (and many others I'm sure).

They're all games though - they're just asking very different things of the player, with very different levels of engagement and investment and rewards.

 

[GraveHorizon]

I think Dark Souls is an even balance between gameplay and atmosphere. The systems are challenging, fair, and fun, while the design of everything makes me care about fuc*ing ip enemies in that world.

 

[Mman235]

Presentation is definitely important to me, and my favorite games have a combination of presentation I find appealing along with gameplay I find deep, but I have to admit that games with shallower gameplay but more appealing presentation aspects tend to come after that as far as favorites go (as opposed to mechanically rich games with presentation that doesn't appeal to me). So I guess I'd be lying if I said gameplay was the absolute #1 thing for me, although in many cases presentation is so closely intertwined with gameplay it's impossible to separate them.

(Just in case it isn't clear, by "presentation" I mean every "non-gameplay" aspect of a game.)

A few people have brought up Silent Hill 2 as a brilliant game with "bad" gameplay, but I'd say that depends how you're defining the gameplay; the combat is crap, but it also has a lot of exploration aspects that are enhanced by (and enhance) the presentation of the game, along with puzzles that are similar, and survival elements that layer on top the combat and other systems (and can even impact the ending in SH2's case). I'd argue it's an excellent example of horror gameplay, as opposed to shooter or adventure or whatever else gameplay.

 

[Diprosalic]

games should tell stories through gameplay and that's why it's the most important thing.
no cutscenes. never.

 

[grosvenor_92]

It's definitely a really important part but it depends on the type of game I guess

 

[cacildo]

Gaf thinks graphics are the most important thing in a game

 

[flatearthpandas]

Yes, gameplay is most important. I don't think it's hard to define either. It is the interaction between the player and the game. Without gameplay, there is no point in playing a game.

If you find that you enjoy games for things other than gameplay, you should ask yourself if it would have been better or worse in a more suitable medium. Would it have been better as a book or as a movie? If the answer is yes, then maybe it ought to have been a book or movie. If the answer is no, then congratulations, you have some idea that gameplay is more important to a game than whatever else you like about it.

 

[P90]

Depends on the game. P4/G does not have the best battle system of all time, yet it is my favorite game of all time and as been #1 or #2 for a number of years.

 

[delta25]

For me personally I can be pretty adaptable towards different kinds of gameplay so long as the game has a rich atmosphere with a very appealing design.

 

[Currygan]

yes, definitely. Granted, I've played all the most famous point and click games and some of them are among my favourite games ever, but these games had a supremely well written story, which balanced the "simple" gameplay very well. Which brings up another point: what is gameplay? Way I see it, something that gives you a sense of immersion, interaction and satisfaction and cant be replicated in other media; can a point and click game like DOTT give you all of that? I'd say yes, even if I was only clicking some dots on screen

 

[RooMHM]

For the most part, yes. But there are some exceptions...

Certainly not.
Gameplay is what makes games fun. It the gameplay isn t interesting the game isn t fun so yes it kinda envelopes game mechanics and design. And even then, game mechanics are most important to me because it should let you experiment even if design is bad. See speedruns.

 

[Forsaken82]

This is such a silly argument.. Might as well be asking "Is story really the most important part of a novel?"

 

[SenjutsuSage]

It's always a pretty important part. However, anyone that suggests there's a set law or rule to what gameplay has to be like in any particular game would be wrong. Gameplay, whatever forms it may take, I think the amount of pleasure you can get from that aspect of a game is quite regularly dependent on the other stuff surrounding the gameplay.

For example, if I have little interest in much of what's going on around the gameplay itself, I may have very little fun with the game, regardless of how well it may play. I need something to hook and capture my interest. Sometimes gameplay on its own may be able to do that, and it certainly has a few times in the past, but in a number of cases it takes a lot more than that.

 

[akachan ningen]

It obviously depends on the person. There's no right answer.

 

[Trent Strong]

Yes, gameplay is the most importatnt part of a game. By far. Followed by atmosphere and art style. Story isn't important in any way, shape or form. If you like story and narrative, go to another medium.

 

[besada]

It's like asking if acting is the most important part of a movie. Sure. So is directing. So is cinematography. So is the writing.

All parts need to work together to make a good quality game. Mechanics, atmosphere, graphics, etc. Some people find one aspect more important than others, just like in other mediums.

Literary fiction is essentially fiction focused on characterization, while eschewing the importance of plot. Genre fiction often falls the other way. It's okay to find one element more important than the other, so long as we understand that great games/movies/books/music are greatest when all parts are done well and they work in unison towards a common goal. And so long as we understand that the element that's important to us, might not be the element upon which our neighbor is fixated, and neither of us is "right."

 

[Taruranto]

Uh, SH1 gameplay is pretty excellent for SH standards. Good pacing, great level design, interesting puzzles. Too many people think gameplay=combat, methinks.

 

[Platy]

It is the most important because it is usualy what gives the most replayability.

I LOVE Ace Attourney games, but they are basicaly visual novels and when I read a novel I take a LONG time to read it again because forgeting some parts would make it fun again to read.

Compared to that, Mario 64 is pretty much infinite replayability because it is just SO FUN to run and jump and walk in the castle and long jumping and going from a place to another and climbing and canon and top of the castle.

For the most part, yes. But there are some exceptions...

And Journey is the exact oposite of an exception.

Part of the beauty of Journey is walking and jumping and all the gameplay changes when you are getting close to the end,

Spoiler

like how your characer feels heavier

.

 

[Mandoric]

I don't necessarily think is is in all cases, but I think we need a new term and a completely different category of criticism for cases where it isn't. Kind of like how the criteria for thinking about, talking about, and judging a documentary are completely different from a drama or comedy.

On the other hand, it's entirely possible to have intriguing gameplay with nothing but clicking. Adventure games where you're solving a puzzle are a great example.

 

[michaelius]

Angry Birds is a game where you have 100% gameplay.

So yes while gameplay is more important than other factors it alone won't make a good game.

For a masterpiece you need good combination of gameplay, presentation, story and music

 

[Mman235]

Too many people think gameplay=combat, methinks

This is one of the major problems with how "gameplay" is judged in many cases, and it has reached the point where it has been an obvious influence on AAA design with the focus on combat. If something isn't about murdering things it's apparently not real gameplay going by many recent attitudes I've seen. I've even seen stuff like exploration wrote off as "not gameplay" despite it being pure interaction with the non-combat mechanics of a game.

 

[Wensih]

Certainly not.
Gameplay is what makes games fun. It the gameplay isn t interesting the game isn t fun so yes it kinda envelopes game mechanics and design. And even then, game mechanics are most important to me because it should let you experiment even if design is bad. See speedruns.

I don't think you can boil it down to a single factor. I can play terrible games and have loads of fun. So bad gameplay can make games fun too.

 

[inm8num2]

Almost always, yes, but more importantly it's about the gameplay fitting into what the designers want the game to be, or how they want to tell the story.

 

[flatearthpandas]

This is such a silly argument.. Might as well be asking "Is story really the most important part of a novel?"

More than that: "Are words really the most important part of a novel? Some people don't like e-books because they like the feel of a book in their hands, so maybe words aren't as important as we make them out to be."

 

[Mandoric]

Angry Birds is a game where you have 100% gameplay.

So yes while gameplay is more important than other factors it alone won't make a good game.

For a masterpiece you need good combination of gameplay, presentation, story and music

I don't think this is true at all. Many of the most popular games have no story outside of setting, and often completely ignore setting when it conflicts with play.

Music is also iffy - custom soundtracks, anyone? Just having Foobar open during a match? And presentation is often deliberately held back for maximum compatibility.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

It varies for me, but these days I'm definitely more into playing games to experience the world, atmosphere, story etc. than to challenge myself with gameplay.

I love stuff like The Walking Dead, Heavy Rain and so on. I love WRPGs where I can just turn the difficulty down and enjoy the world and questing without getting frustrated at dying or having to grind and level up or put a lot of thought into upgrade weapons or the character skill build etc.

That said, I still enjoy platformers and some other gameplay focused games. So it just depends what I'm in the mood for.

But as I've gotten older, busier and more stressed out, I have less patience for challenge in games and I'm more wanting to take my precious free time to just veg out and relax. So I tend to be a bit more into just experiencing things--be it a game, book or movie--and more drawn to games that lend themselves to that.

 

[LeadenStride]

This is such a silly argument.. Might as well be asking "Is story really the most important part of a novel?"

Story is not necessarily the most important part of a novel. Some might also enjoy a certain atmosphere of a novel for example without caring for the srory all that much.

 

[studyguy]

Everyone saying yes are forgetting games like Dwarf Fortress that have incredible gameplay, but have UIs and mechanics that simply are not intuitive in the slightest. Those can put people off as much as the barebones visuals can.

A game is a sum of all its parts, gameplay, graphics, story, controls etc. To say one is more important or is the only part that matters is absurd and even then there's no accounting for personal taste.

 

[blackflag]

Yes, good gameplay trumps all for me. I can play a game with great gameplay and terrible story (Bayonetta) and it won't sully the experience one bit. A game with great story and not much..or terrible gameplay (Gone Home) I will rage.

 

[RPG_Fanatic]

Depends on the game for sure. In a game like the Walking Dead or Gone Home or whatever? No, it isn't. Story is the focus.

But in any game where the majority of the time is spent with the 'gameplay?' Yeah, I'd absolutely say it's the most important thing. If your story is great (and is your focus) but 80% of your game is mediocre gameplay then you messed up as a developer.

This sums up my feeling as well.

 

[And_Gignac]

Gameplay is as important as melody is for music. Is the foundation, the pillars of everything else.

 

[BumblebeeCody]

I'm willing to sit through a nonsensical crap game if the gameplay is good. Couldn't care about Dante in DMC4 or the irrelevant story that Nero had, but the game is fun as hell.

The gameplay or Forza is boring as hell with nothing interesting even gameplay wise, Burnout takes the gameplay and turns it up to 11. Doing 209MPH with boost around the corner. It's fun.

Fighting Games don't need anything outside of strong gameplay mechanics to considered fun. Music and graphics aren't even factor as to whether the games are good. It's why 25 years later, games like Super Turbo is still being played.

Some games have nothing special about the gameplay because the other areas of design play a major role in the game. Mass Effect for example has generic shooter gameplay, but that isn't to say it's bad. It uses solid mechanics and does them well.

Gameplay (to me) is the most important. It's what makes games...'games'.

 

[Forsaken82]

Story is not necessarily the most important part of a novel. Some might also enjoy a certain atmosphere of a novel for example without caring for the srory all that much.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy good world building in my novels, however I am not reading 500 pages worth of world building that isn't why I read.

I don't read The Lord of the Rings because I want to know what life in middle earth is like, I read it because I want to know how Frodo's journey is going to end.

 

[mclem]

It's the most important part of some games.

If a game has good enough gameplay, it can thrive on the gameplay alone. Tetris. Dwarf Fortress, Minecraft. Nethack. None are lookers, but all are good games through carefully-designed gameplay.

As gameplay gets weaker, it can be compensated for by other things, though. I'm a huge fan of Alan Wake, but the pure gameplay in it is kinda mediocre; yet I still find it a compelling experience due to the atmosphere it instils; it elevates it higher.

There's Dragon's Lair, absolutely *terrible* gameplay, but fantastic production values for the era, and it was a success because of it.

In the end, different people favour different things, as simple as that. Gameplay *can* stand out on its own, but it doesn't have to. Thinking of this *as* a 'most important part' is perhaps the wrong way to go about things; ultimately, it's the *sum* of all parts that forms the metric around which a game is judged.


As an aside: The inclusion of UAKM in the OP is a bit strange, because - more than many other of the era - it's actually got reasonable point-and-click content underpinning the FMV veneer. I'm looking forward to Tesla Effect, and it's not just for HD FMV.

 

[JCX]

Gameplay should be judged by what the game is hoping to do. You wouldn't critique 3D World's fireballs and say "Those would be more accurate in a first person view".

As long as they are video games, gameplay will be the most important factor to me.