Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
GAMEPLAY IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS
Posts
Darken
3952
Darken
View playlists
CloseThis is a little discussion that jumped out of a certain article comment box. Basically the original point:
At first it seems like a very true idea. But from what I've learned in the past year of great gamings is that gameplay is a really dumb word. Do you mean by the core rules (game mechanics) or the actual experience of the player (what the player has played overall)? If you mean core mechanics then it's highly probable that a game can be very uninteresting despite well made rules and balance. For instance, imagine a game where the concept (what you DO in the game) is controlling traffic. Would you really want to play this game even with well thought out rules and balance? And even if you do find traffic very very interesting, think of a game in which you do a very boring task, and apply good rules to it. I mean would you seriously enjoy Forklift Simulator?
Don't think I'm making game mechanics as some horrible thing (like a dude with a 1up t-shirt playing NES games all day would antagonize graphics). But one of the things I'm trying to say: flavor means a lot to the game. Flavor and mechanics aren't always seperated though, that's where the enjoyment comes in. You don't say "I removed the enemy from the game's environment without a weapon object" to your friend after playing MGS, you say "I SNAPPED SOME DUDE'S HEAD OFF." You need graphics/animations, story context, and of course, well constructed rules to convey that. There's no importance displayed on any of the aspects. They are simply there so that the player can snap the dude's head off.
I am about to go into ramble territory as I can go all day pulling out examples from my ass. But like it or not, graphics/story/music whatever you like to cut games up into: are connected to the gameplay and ultimately the enjoyment of the player.
To be honest, the real talent of a game-maker lies only in creating good gameplay. Stories have nothing to do with it.
At first it seems like a very true idea. But from what I've learned in the past year of great gamings is that gameplay is a really dumb word. Do you mean by the core rules (game mechanics) or the actual experience of the player (what the player has played overall)? If you mean core mechanics then it's highly probable that a game can be very uninteresting despite well made rules and balance. For instance, imagine a game where the concept (what you DO in the game) is controlling traffic. Would you really want to play this game even with well thought out rules and balance? And even if you do find traffic very very interesting, think of a game in which you do a very boring task, and apply good rules to it. I mean would you seriously enjoy Forklift Simulator?
Don't think I'm making game mechanics as some horrible thing (like a dude with a 1up t-shirt playing NES games all day would antagonize graphics). But one of the things I'm trying to say: flavor means a lot to the game. Flavor and mechanics aren't always seperated though, that's where the enjoyment comes in. You don't say "I removed the enemy from the game's environment without a weapon object" to your friend after playing MGS, you say "I SNAPPED SOME DUDE'S HEAD OFF." You need graphics/animations, story context, and of course, well constructed rules to convey that. There's no importance displayed on any of the aspects. They are simply there so that the player can snap the dude's head off.
I am about to go into ramble territory as I can go all day pulling out examples from my ass. But like it or not, graphics/story/music whatever you like to cut games up into: are connected to the gameplay and ultimately the enjoyment of the player.
Playing games is about pattern seeking and mastery, so I guess from that gameplay is using the mechanics and rules of the game to generate patterns and novelty with which the player interacts and masters in a fun way.
Or something to that effect.
We are hardwired to find learning fun, and we are pattern-seeking machines. Games are like especially tasty pattern morsels for our brain. It is kind of hard to grasp or explain (at least for me) because the concepts are so nebulous and delve deeply into the realm of psychology.
But in the end graphics, music and story don't make the game - the patterns do. They can, however, make a good game better.
EDIT:
And what you are talking about with graphics really pertains to making the pattern easier to recognize and grasp. If shitty graphics interferes with our ability to pattern-seek, then yes, the game suffers. And, sounds can be part of a game (anyone play that Simon ball where you tap, twist, etc.. on sound cues?).
Or something to that effect.
We are hardwired to find learning fun, and we are pattern-seeking machines. Games are like especially tasty pattern morsels for our brain. It is kind of hard to grasp or explain (at least for me) because the concepts are so nebulous and delve deeply into the realm of psychology.
But in the end graphics, music and story don't make the game - the patterns do. They can, however, make a good game better.
EDIT:
And what you are talking about with graphics really pertains to making the pattern easier to recognize and grasp. If shitty graphics interferes with our ability to pattern-seek, then yes, the game suffers. And, sounds can be part of a game (anyone play that Simon ball where you tap, twist, etc.. on sound cues?).
ashriot
222
From my experience, while gameplay is important, if you don't follow with an interesting story and at least decent graphics, people tend to not care. (In the indie world, I mean.)
I have always felt that great gameplay is the most important aspect of a game, though. A good example, in the commercial market, would be the Mario games. Even the latest releases like Mario Galaxy--the story is almost non-existent and it's obvious that gameplay is Mario's focus.
In fact, if I recall correctly, Shigeru Miyamoto once said that when coming up for a game idea, they tend to use a block or shape as the character and place it in a virtual world where the immediately begin designing the gameplay. They don't start with an epic storyline or a fantastic character design.
I think this is where the design for Kirby came from. He was initially just a little white blob to be replaced by an actual character at a later date, but everyone thought it was such a charming little blob that they kept him. :) I do love me some Kirby!
I have always felt that great gameplay is the most important aspect of a game, though. A good example, in the commercial market, would be the Mario games. Even the latest releases like Mario Galaxy--the story is almost non-existent and it's obvious that gameplay is Mario's focus.
In fact, if I recall correctly, Shigeru Miyamoto once said that when coming up for a game idea, they tend to use a block or shape as the character and place it in a virtual world where the immediately begin designing the gameplay. They don't start with an epic storyline or a fantastic character design.
I think this is where the design for Kirby came from. He was initially just a little white blob to be replaced by an actual character at a later date, but everyone thought it was such a charming little blob that they kept him. :) I do love me some Kirby!
Even gameplay can be bypassed entirely with a good story. And stories are completely optional :p
A Blurred Line often appears to have been mapped by Ray Charles after a heroin relapse, has difficulty that actually scales backwards (as in hard to start, gets consecutively easier as you play), terrible puzzles, itemization is often questionable. It's story carries it past all those flaws (which is saying something as the story is even flawed in that it's unfinished) - it makes reviews of it kind of humorous as everyone tends to make excuses for flaws that other games would get hammered for. The Way series is similar in this regard. There was effort to make a game there, but it's really sterile and takes a back seat to character growth (in a literary sense) and dialogue by a longshot.
Each area of game design is of equal importance I think. They don't really overlap all that much in what they bring to the table.
-Good graphics attract more players (attraction is based on perception afterall). It translates directly into downloads/sales (obvious example of failure here is KC(A)). It's really obvious in the commercial industry as they tend to spend a great deal of time on looks at the expense of just about everything else.
-The gameplay is what will hold the attention and usually translates into recommendations/reviews (Grave Spirit tends to attract people with graphics, but they're usually let down when playing it). I think gameplay is usually held in higher regard simply because the concept of interactivity is what makes it a video game and not a movie. However, I think as long as that interactivity isn't frustrating it's passable. Which is why just clicking a button to advance to the next part of the dialogue is often adequate interactivity.
-Sound is something most RM Games fail to really use to any advantage. Instead most shoot for not being annoying. It controls the mood of the game entirely. I usually use the Aeris death scene as an example. If you hear the song that plays it takes people back to how they were feeling the first time they saw it. If you go watch it on YouTube muted, you tend to focus on how the graphics are a lot worse than you remember.
Edit : If you get high marks in all areas it's when you wind up with triple A titles like the Marios, Zeldas, Metroids, Metal Gear Solids, etc.
A Blurred Line often appears to have been mapped by Ray Charles after a heroin relapse, has difficulty that actually scales backwards (as in hard to start, gets consecutively easier as you play), terrible puzzles, itemization is often questionable. It's story carries it past all those flaws (which is saying something as the story is even flawed in that it's unfinished) - it makes reviews of it kind of humorous as everyone tends to make excuses for flaws that other games would get hammered for. The Way series is similar in this regard. There was effort to make a game there, but it's really sterile and takes a back seat to character growth (in a literary sense) and dialogue by a longshot.
Each area of game design is of equal importance I think. They don't really overlap all that much in what they bring to the table.
-Good graphics attract more players (attraction is based on perception afterall). It translates directly into downloads/sales (obvious example of failure here is KC(A)). It's really obvious in the commercial industry as they tend to spend a great deal of time on looks at the expense of just about everything else.
-The gameplay is what will hold the attention and usually translates into recommendations/reviews (Grave Spirit tends to attract people with graphics, but they're usually let down when playing it). I think gameplay is usually held in higher regard simply because the concept of interactivity is what makes it a video game and not a movie. However, I think as long as that interactivity isn't frustrating it's passable. Which is why just clicking a button to advance to the next part of the dialogue is often adequate interactivity.
-Sound is something most RM Games fail to really use to any advantage. Instead most shoot for not being annoying. It controls the mood of the game entirely. I usually use the Aeris death scene as an example. If you hear the song that plays it takes people back to how they were feeling the first time they saw it. If you go watch it on YouTube muted, you tend to focus on how the graphics are a lot worse than you remember.
Edit : If you get high marks in all areas it's when you wind up with triple A titles like the Marios, Zeldas, Metroids, Metal Gear Solids, etc.
Darken
3952
Gameplay - It's not quite the only thing that matters, but it is the most important.
I am saying that the 'graphics/story/music' very much influences the gameplay, depending on the game. It's hard to place all this in tier lists when they're very much connected. Graphics can make some battle systems more intuitive simply because they're informative enough to reduce the amount of button presses to simply check something for example.
And what you are talking about with graphics really pertains to making the pattern easier to recognize and grasp.
I'm wondering if you played most games with the TV turned off. Graphics don't make patterns easier to grasp, they are needed to grasp. There's a reason why things like dark areas or invisible enemies are not introduced in the very beginning of the game. Make sure your TV is turned on if you don't believe me.
In fact, if I recall correctly, Shigeru Miyamoto once said that when coming up for a game idea, they tend to use a block or shape as the character and place it in a virtual world where the immediately begin designing the gameplay. They don't start with an epic storyline or a fantastic character design.
Yeah but they must have had some story concept however basic it may be. "What do you do in this game" or "What does this block sprite represent exactly? What is his goal?" Of course story final drafts come later, but they didn't just design the game with "ok you are a white block, the enemies are block blocks, you must y+5 and y-5 to remove the black blocks" (i think thats reversed in programing but you get the point). It's really "lets design a game where you jump on turtles" or something. As games get more complex, I'm pretty sure the design process escalates in where you do need some plot outline and how it translates into mechanics.
EDIT:
-Good graphics attract more players (attraction is based on perception afterall). It translates directly into downloads/sales (obvious example of failure here is KC(A))
On the other hand, KCA did a good job at tailoring its graphics to fit the puzzles, the simplicity of Karen grabbing on the rock for the rock pull/push puzzles helps a great deal for the player to instantly say "Oh I know what this rock is for." Imagine if the main character just stood in front of the rock even after pushing the interact key? Some players would get awfully confused.
I can play 20 Questions without graphics. Also, there is no story behind a game of Chess.
The point is that the graphics don't need to be good. Hell, they can be outright bad as long as they get their job done. I think you are purposely missing the point here.
The point is that the graphics don't need to be good. Hell, they can be outright bad as long as they get their job done. I think you are purposely missing the point here.
Darken
3952
I'm actually not trying to miss the point, I'm trying to bring a really strange point that there is a pretty good reason why games have graphics and other "unimportant things".
This doesn't make any sense. How do bad graphics get the job done? Wouldn't graphics be bad if they didn't get the job done?
The point is that the graphics don't need to be good. Hell, they can be outright bad as long as they get their job done.
This doesn't make any sense. How do bad graphics get the job done? Wouldn't graphics be bad if they didn't get the job done?
i can think of many rpg maker maps that look great but are completely terrible because you can barely navigate them
i'm sure the polar opposite of this is
i'm sure the polar opposite of this is
Crystalgate
694
I am saying that the 'graphics/story/music' very much influences the gameplay, depending on the game. It's hard to place all this in tier lists when they're very much connected. Graphics can make some battle systems more intuitive simply because they're informative enough to reduce the amount of button presses to simply check something for example.
This makes me wonder what someone who says "gameplay is the only thing that matters" mean. If gameplay is assumed to be separate from graphics/story/music then I'd go and flat out call that statement wrong. If graphics/story/music are considered part of the gameplay since they influence gameplay, then that statement becomes equal to "everything is the only thing that matters". I'd guess whoever says gameplay is the only thing that matters is going for something in-between, i.e. graphics have to be good enough for you to know what the heck is going on, but making them prettier looking isn't important. Or something like that.
MKID232
435
Wow, Crystal, those are my thoughts exactly. I don't care if graphics are bad by todays standards, so long as they look decent enough so that when I play the game, I can see what I'm doing. Alien Syndrome was a bad graphic game, but I could still see what I was doing. I didn't really like the game, but I could see what I was doing.
"graphics have to be good enough for you to know what the heck is going on, but making them prettier looking isn't important."
This is just it, actually.
This is just it, actually.
Darken
3952
I thought we were talking about the functionality of the graphics. Pretty shiney graphics is not what I'm defending. The thing is, you can IMPROVE the functionality of the graphics so that you can improve the overall functionality of the game. If that makes any sense.
post=151124So, as it pertains to making the pattern easier to recognize and grasp.?
I thought we were talking about the functionality of the graphics. Pretty shiney graphics is not what I'm defending. The thing is, you can IMPROVE the functionality of the graphics so that you can improve the overall functionality of the game. If that makes any sense.
I think we are arguing different sides of the same coin here...
Darken
3952
Yes I would say that there's a threshold where "needed to recognize and grasp" is in place, then beyond that is "easier to recognize and grasp" (But if you were say, add a new class to your DQ3 clone, the threshold would reeappear if you didn't get an appropriate and differing graphic). Would you say the graphics are important to the game even past the threshold?
