Hasn't the entire lesson of 2009 thus far been that every game that relied on snazzy art (MadWorld) or clever story has fallen on its face because it had shoddy gameplay? You can't build a house on a swamp man.
Silicon Knights President: "Gameplay Isn't Everything"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I suffered through Too Human and it is quite obvious gameplay isn't important to them. Although neither was story or graphics. Or enemy design. So is loot collecting the only thing they deem important in a game or did I miss something?WrongSprite said:
I didn't play Too Human, but did play Eternal Darkness - naturally, I'm more inclined to be favorable to this guy. I don't think that gameplay is always more important than story, but in order for story to compensate bad gameplay it needs to be AMAZING. Eternal Darkness pulled that off pretty well (though i didn't actually hate the gameplay, it was decent) but if Eternal Darkness had a generic storyline I surely wouldn't have remembered it or cared for the sake of it's RE2 derivative gameplay.
I agree that yes games are art its not worth playing if it isn't going to be enjoyed this may work in other art forms but gaming is different
A good game is like a good recipe.
It's not about just one part of it that makes every game/recipe work.
To say that graphics make a good game, or just it's gameplay, or even a new element/ingredient that no other recipe has is what make every single games good is a lie.
It's how all the ingredients that a game has to offer mix and compliment eachother.
All recipes are different.
Some games emphasize on audio, some put more work into graphics, but if it all blends well, then you have a good game.
It's not about just one part of it that makes every game/recipe work.
To say that graphics make a good game, or just it's gameplay, or even a new element/ingredient that no other recipe has is what make every single games good is a lie.
It's how all the ingredients that a game has to offer mix and compliment eachother.
All recipes are different.
Some games emphasize on audio, some put more work into graphics, but if it all blends well, then you have a good game.
First off, I do agree that I think games are art. Yes, gameplay isn't everything, but if I stop and think about the games that I would consider "art" gameplay was one of the bigger reasons it felt like art. Shadow of the Colossus stands out in my mind, it had gorgeous visuals for the time. The story was actually kind of light, but it kept you guessing, so it worked for me. The gameplay though, really stood out. It took a chance, did something different, pushed the boundaries a bit, to me, that's what art does.
Gameplay isn't everything to a game, but if you want your game to stand out as "art" gameplay is going to be important. I'll agree that a game is the sum of its parts, just make sure no part fails.
Gameplay isn't everything to a game, but if you want your game to stand out as "art" gameplay is going to be important. I'll agree that a game is the sum of its parts, just make sure no part fails.
But I don't WANT games to be movies.. that is why I play the game instead 
Gameplay makes a game, as much as graphics make a game. If you think gameplay isn't important, tell me the gameplay in this doesn't look interesting?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg4yQkXJF2o
Noby Noby Boy proves it is all the gameplay heh.
Gameplay makes a game, as much as graphics make a game. If you think gameplay isn't important, tell me the gameplay in this doesn't look interesting?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg4yQkXJF2o
Noby Noby Boy proves it is all the gameplay heh.
"If you look at the most popular games today, they are far more narrative-focused,"
This made me laugh so bad!
This made me laugh so bad!
You know, I do not think that there could have been a better analogy of the subject. Even tough I'm standin in the opposite side of the argument from you. (At least I assume so.)Eatbrainz said:
I am reminded of a quote from The Dig, when an alien known as The Creator talks about the life giving crystals that are prominent in the game's story line.
I can't remember the exact line and I my searches on the Internet turned up with nothing, but I think it went something like this:
Anybody with better memory than mine or access to the game and time to dig up the scene, feel free to corret me on this one.
Interactivity is what distinguishes a game from the other forms of
entertainment or art.
If you remove it, then it might still be enjoyable, but it's not a game.
So it should follow that you can make good art or entertainment with a
little interactivity or a lot of it.
Therefor good games can run the gamut of interact-ability.
If you truly want to be an artist and an innovator in games,
it seems to me that you would concentrate on the part of the art which adds a
new level to the medium.
As a corollary if you look at some of the most important films,
you would see that they have elements which cannot be reproduced
in another art form.
Star Wars, for example, would not work as well as a play or a novel.
The power of the medium itself propels it, and humanity, into a new world.
For this reason I don't think that games will trend more towards the
movies any more than movies have trended towards the theater.
So yes Mr. Dyack, game play isn't everything, but for someone who
runs a GAME DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and seems to want to think of video
games as an art form, you should probably concentrate on innovating there first,
and worrying about what works in movies second.
entertainment or art.
If you remove it, then it might still be enjoyable, but it's not a game.
So it should follow that you can make good art or entertainment with a
little interactivity or a lot of it.
Therefor good games can run the gamut of interact-ability.
If you truly want to be an artist and an innovator in games,
it seems to me that you would concentrate on the part of the art which adds a
new level to the medium.
As a corollary if you look at some of the most important films,
you would see that they have elements which cannot be reproduced
in another art form.
Star Wars, for example, would not work as well as a play or a novel.
The power of the medium itself propels it, and humanity, into a new world.
For this reason I don't think that games will trend more towards the
movies any more than movies have trended towards the theater.
So yes Mr. Dyack, game play isn't everything, but for someone who
runs a GAME DEVELOPMENT COMPANY and seems to want to think of video
games as an art form, you should probably concentrate on innovating there first,
and worrying about what works in movies second.
If gaming is to follow the trajectory of films? I call bullshit. The film industry has the same amount of story-less pulp as it always has and the same ratio of actually good stuff, same with games. Even if movies now are more "narrative based" it still doesn't stop their narratives from being flaky or just generally bad.
As for gameplay isn't everything, I can agree. Radical Dreamers showed me that. On the other hand, there is no reason to excuse obviously bad gameplay for the sake of putting another element in higher prominence. Yes story and art direction are important, but shoveling gameplay as an afterthought is stupid. You shouldn't settle for mediocre games just because the story is good. You should constantly be trying to make it better rather than settling on mediocrity.
As for gameplay isn't everything, I can agree. Radical Dreamers showed me that. On the other hand, there is no reason to excuse obviously bad gameplay for the sake of putting another element in higher prominence. Yes story and art direction are important, but shoveling gameplay as an afterthought is stupid. You shouldn't settle for mediocre games just because the story is good. You should constantly be trying to make it better rather than settling on mediocrity.
The second I beat Left4Dead, I looked at the clock and grumbled that I couldn't play it again. It wasn't the story that got me into it, it was the gameplay.
First, allow me to admit to being biased: I'm one of those people who wants to feel like the character than being someone just observing the character. I like building a character more than having Cloud Saint Dante Altair thrust upon me and told that's who I need to be cheering for. I get more exciting in doing things than having cutscenes take away the sweet actions I wish I could do on screen.
As deep as a story can be, a lot of times it serves only to take me out of the game experience. Especially with cutscene heavy games, as that's what designers nowadays seem to think "having a story" is: A deluge of non-interactive cutscenes.
It is like a movie. Take [Rec] versus 28 Weeks later. With [Rec] you don't know what's happening. You're basically stringing along the rules of how to keep your ass alive before oh crap, more badness on the way, just think about running. 28 Weeks later spelled a great deal of it out for you, taking away the urgency and even some sympathy for the characters because they are doing dumb things (that you know to be dumb) which the movie so graciously spelled out how dumb it is.
Now, take Halo 3 over Left4Dead. I recently played Halo 3 from the beginning again (since my Live was out) and soon became loathe to do so. I couldn't take the story any more. Personally, I can spend a day playing Left4Dead because it's not as scripted and all I need to know is survive. That's fun to me. That's immersive.
I want detail and story more in a book because I am a voyeur into their lives. I do not want to feel like a voyeur in my gaming life. I want to feel like I am the game. That's why I'll personally argue for game play over all, although I do agree on the importance of the others in varying degrees.
First, allow me to admit to being biased: I'm one of those people who wants to feel like the character than being someone just observing the character. I like building a character more than having Cloud Saint Dante Altair thrust upon me and told that's who I need to be cheering for. I get more exciting in doing things than having cutscenes take away the sweet actions I wish I could do on screen.
As deep as a story can be, a lot of times it serves only to take me out of the game experience. Especially with cutscene heavy games, as that's what designers nowadays seem to think "having a story" is: A deluge of non-interactive cutscenes.
It is like a movie. Take [Rec] versus 28 Weeks later. With [Rec] you don't know what's happening. You're basically stringing along the rules of how to keep your ass alive before oh crap, more badness on the way, just think about running. 28 Weeks later spelled a great deal of it out for you, taking away the urgency and even some sympathy for the characters because they are doing dumb things (that you know to be dumb) which the movie so graciously spelled out how dumb it is.
Now, take Halo 3 over Left4Dead. I recently played Halo 3 from the beginning again (since my Live was out) and soon became loathe to do so. I couldn't take the story any more. Personally, I can spend a day playing Left4Dead because it's not as scripted and all I need to know is survive. That's fun to me. That's immersive.
I want detail and story more in a book because I am a voyeur into their lives. I do not want to feel like a voyeur in my gaming life. I want to feel like I am the game. That's why I'll personally argue for game play over all, although I do agree on the importance of the others in varying degrees.
Hey hey hey,
more wise guys on the run.
why is it that everybody TRIES to question what makes up good game this week?
There is indea behind that:
all those stupid articles wnat to to sell us "little bit interactive movies" for what
games used to be from the start: the long hard fun road to travel all by YOURSELF.
Like all the good examples given here in the comments.
may it´s the Fauvism time in the gaming industrie. The try to break though the bourgoise rules we want to remain intact. Doing something really WILD - like taking the participation out of games and make us watch NATAL pick daisies or something.
Yes GAMES are an ART but one Dyack will never understand.
stupid day number 2.
more wise guys on the run.
why is it that everybody TRIES to question what makes up good game this week?
There is indea behind that:
all those stupid articles wnat to to sell us "little bit interactive movies" for what
games used to be from the start: the long hard fun road to travel all by YOURSELF.
Like all the good examples given here in the comments.
may it´s the Fauvism time in the gaming industrie. The try to break though the bourgoise rules we want to remain intact. Doing something really WILD - like taking the participation out of games and make us watch NATAL pick daisies or something.
Yes GAMES are an ART but one Dyack will never understand.
stupid day number 2.
A few guys have already touched on this but it makes me laugh that in an attempt to make games more like movies they do indeed do it at the expense of gameplay. Games cease to flow and just become crappy action sequences linked together by AWFUL cliched and stereotyped dialogue. The one thing a game has over a movie is immersion - feeling like your part of the game - and these retard devs basically take it all away by making your avatar a character you have no real control over, bar the action sequences. (and if your Peter Molyneux a few very, very basic yes/no options)
Gameplay is 100% the most important thing in a game. You need to feel in control of what you are doing or it destroys everything, Its akin to going to the movies to see a film and for every 30 seconds of film you get 5 seconds of static. Its the equivilent of saying the PLOT of a film isnt the most important thing.
Games can be art, but it requires it to be as much a game as it is art otherwise you've just got a polished turd, which we all know doesnt work.
Gameplay is 100% the most important thing in a game. You need to feel in control of what you are doing or it destroys everything, Its akin to going to the movies to see a film and for every 30 seconds of film you get 5 seconds of static. Its the equivilent of saying the PLOT of a film isnt the most important thing.
Games can be art, but it requires it to be as much a game as it is art otherwise you've just got a polished turd, which we all know doesnt work.
Ok, we get it. Your trying to cover up for Too Human being shit.
But if you've got bad gameplay, you must have some to replace it. Too Human didn't.
But if you've got bad gameplay, you must have some to replace it. Too Human didn't.
In general games are getting to anchored in film culture, with games like Gears of War and Halo being so enamored with the summer blockbuster formula. But I kind of see where he is coming from and how the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Games always strive for advancements in graphics, gameplay and to a lesser extent audio, why not in writing?