Yuku free message boards

Saying "the most important part of a game is its gameplay" is kind of stupid and redundant, but it is not literally saying nothing, because it is a COMPLETELY distinct statement from "The most important part of a game is its graphics." You might say that no one should say that. I might agree. But people DO say that, and it is helpful to be able to put up a contrary view. Whether "gameplay" means play control, level design, challenge, boss fights, battle system, puzzles, etc. (I'd say it encompasses all that are relevant for the given game), it does mean something different than "graphics."

He also seems to think that "gameplay" has only one use, in sentences like, "This game has good gameplay." I've used it in a few (older) reviews on my site. For Duckhunt:

"I've described every detail of the gameplay. "

Is that the same as "I've described every detail of the game."? Not really, because there are details I haven't described, but I described those relevant to how the game is played.



People DO say, "This book is a great read." It does NOT necessarily mean the exact same thing as "The book is good."

What about a dictionary? The value of a dictionary is not reading it from cover to cover.

It might seem like I'm coming up with a ridiculous example, but I don't think that I am. Some books are just written to be easy to read through, cover to cover, while others have different merits: Being informative, having an innovative style, whatever.

People also do say things like, "The most important part of a book is the text." I think "text" could be analogous to gameplay. Anyway, the reason people say that, which sounds redundant for the same reason as the "gameplay" thing, is that in the past critics tried to interpret books using "extra-textual information" (eg., the author's biography), while some modern critics think only the text matters.



I do agree that "gameplay" is way OVERUSED. And even misused (that "gamplay" = "explosions" in the article being an example). But not that it should necessarily be eliminated.

It seems like most of the comments on the forum there disagree with the article.

To summarize:

-"Gameplay" has been used for decades, and has a specific meaning. His example of "bookread" is meaningless, because that term is made up, has no acceptance, and means nothing.

-"Gameplay" is a useful term to distinguish between things that are not related to the game mechanics and what they directly influence and interact with: Graphics, soundtrack, story, etc. (I said this myself above)

-While there are times that "This game has good gameplay" could be elaborated on, general terms have their use in the same way that specific terms do (They gave the example, just because you can break down "religous people" into "buddhists, christians, muslums, etc." doesn't mean that's the best thing to do in all cases)

I found myself using the word naturally when making another post, about differences between the SMB2 prototype and final versions:

It's interesting to think about all the little changes in the game, and to wonder if they really made much of a difference as far as the game's ultimate quality. The one that's really weird is the "change of columns" [in world 7]. Presumably, that was done for gameplay reasons. But the author of that article does not speculate why it was changed.

So, I'll analyse it.

I think changing the word gameplay to "game" in that quote would be retarded -- it wouldn't mean anything. Changing it to "play" would be a little more acceptable, in that it would mean about the same thing, but it doesn't sound right.

As is, it does mean something. I assume the column was removed due to some nuance in how the player would approach navigating in that area, as opposed to the aesthetics of having it there. I imagine the sentence could be completely rephrased to eliminate all reference to "gameplay" -- not that such a rephase is immediately coming to mind -- but would what be the point? If you had an arbitrary gripe against any word, you could try inventing phrasing to avoid it.

A better comparison for videogame sequels, assuming you wanted to defend them, would be television series. After all, those can't quit after one episode.

But the best TV programs seem to be the ones that know to quit when they're ahead. Jim Henson canceled The Muppets when they were still on top, Seinfeld canceled his show when it was still tremendously popular, Arrested Developed quit (granted, not by its choice) on a high note.

And those are all comedies, which can kinda last for a while. Dramas, I think, damn well better have an arc and go somewhere, and then should ideally end. When they don't, I lose interest. Look at House.

I didn't watch it, but it sounded like Dallas was a drama that went on for too long (eventually, a dead character appeared in a shower, and maybe previous seasons were a dream, or ... Anyway, the people I knew who DID watch that show thought it was a joke by then, and most people must have agreed, because it was canceled after that).

Probably the best example of a show that's been on forever (like a game series that has had unlimited sequels) would be The Simpsons, and even that doesn't make the argument that you can have high quality forever. After its peak, episodes' qualities have varied wildly.

I also disagree with his statement that "Are games art?" is meaningless because "games" is vague and so is "art." (He contradicts himself, anyway, by answering the question)

It is possible to give definitions of "game" and "art", and discuss "Are games art?" under those parameters.

First of all, I don't think anyone is talking about anything other than VIDEOGAMES, which makes things easier from the get-go. I don't think Tag, or Hide and Seek, or Solitaire are art, but they're not videogames, either. I don't think Chess, in the broad sense, could be considered art, either. Whether a particular game of chess could be considered art I'll leave to others.

I could further specifically refer to videogames that are played by a single player, and have reasonably clear beginnings and endings ("reasonably clear" hopefully covering cases in which games have an ending that can be played past). Super Mario Bros., R-Type, etc. I think it's pretty clear what is meant here, no?

This further eliminates games like Tetris, or multiplayer only games -- games which are also difficult to describe as art.

As for art, we could be specific about that, too. I've talked about that before.


It is not anything much like the example

When one critic writes, "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality," while another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness," the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way.

In that case, "dead" and "living" aren't *supposed* to be defined. You're supposed to kind of ... get a feeling as to what "dead" means, and if the feeling you get from the word is different than the feeling I get, and if we therefore mean completely different things when we use those words, well, just forget meaning and ... dig on the heaviness, to paraphrase Stephen King when he was writing about a similar thing.

Really, I think "games are fun" is a much more meaningless statement, and one that is INTENDED to be meaningless, and is thus much closer to "This art work has a particular dead quality to it."

You're just supposed to "get a feeling" about what "fun" means, and what you mean by that word might be completely unrelated to what anyone else means by it.

Seriously, it'd be awesome if someone asked him, "Are you playing a game?" and he answered, "'Play' cannot be defined, nor can 'game', so your question is meaningless."

Even Katamari Damacy is a videogame. I don't think it's a very good one, but I don't think it's an anti-game. It has a beginning, an end, obstacles to keep you from reaching the end, the obstacles can be overcome with some kind of skill, etc. I don't think there is anything that is not a videogame about Katamari Damacy.

By that definition, maybe even Quickspot is a game, although, again, not a very good one. I guess this is an example that points to the fuzziness of the definition, though, since, intuitively, it sure doesn't seem like a "normal" videogame.

I'm not sure if Ninten-dogs would be a game by that definition since I don't own it. I doubt it, though.

I think his point is very muddled.

He says you're not supposed to focus on the intro. If it's not relevant, why is it there? His example of "Can a sky be happy?" is also not relevant, because that question is not meaningless because "sky" or "happy" are difficult to define. It has nothing to do with the point he is trying to make about videogames and art.

And does he seriously expect everyone to stop talking about something just because he wants them to?

That's why I quoted that other passage from Orwell above. A difficulty defining something in no way prevents people from talking about it. It is not really possible to define "life", but people sure do talk about it. If someone you knew died, it would not be appropriate to tell you, "Well, we can't define life or death, so you saying that your friend died is meaningless."