New Kingdom Hearts II Trailer.

[Light Speed]

I got bored of Lone Wolf pretty fast, which is strange because I played MA1 for months and months. Doom 3 is ok, but the online play kinda sucks, and that is the only real reason to buy a FPS anyway. I heard great things about Chaos Theory but I don't really feel like buying it cause I haven't really been playing much on my consoles as of late. Oh and stealth kinda blows unless you are playing multiplayer.

[Green Gibbon!]

It seems to me that a game's replayability is directly related to the time commitment it requires in the first place. You'll much sooner rewatch a two-hour movie than sit down to re-read a 600 page novel, even if you liked the novel more than the movie, and so it is with games.

It's also related to the number of games you buy in the first place, which depends on how large a slice of budget pie you devote to the hobby, and also on how broad your tastes are.

[Esrever]

It's conventional wisdom to think that the so-called "gameplay" alone is the most important factor, but if you change anything - the visuals, the setting, the music, the character, anything - you get a completely different game. Imagine if Katamari Damacy starred some generic bald sweaty action hero who rolls a metal mace through hell to pick up tortured souls, with bland punk rock playing in the background. I don't think I'd have given the game a second glance. It's true that Katamari has an excellent engine, but it only works because of its wacky light-hearted atmosphere, the pastel, almost muted colors, the blocky characters, and the happy nonsense Japanese soundtrack. The elements all play off each other and create a harmony. It's not a matter of creating a "masterpiece", just creating a cohesive whole.

The world itself is just as important as how you interact with it, otherwise we wouldn't have anything except two-tone games with blocks of various sizes.

Sure, they have the power to destroy good gameplay with their combined suckitude, but what does that have to do with the point I'm making? I didn't say that the other elements combined are less important than the gameplay. I said that the other elements are individually less important than the gameplay.

Take Katamari Damacy for example (again). Imagine Namco had made a game that looked and played completely identically, but had a generic punk soundtrack. Then imagine a game that looked and sounded exactly the same, but played like a generic FPS. Both of those possible changes would haved sucked, but if you honestly feel that they would have sucked equally, then you clearly view games in a completely different way then I do.

[chriscaffee]

That's because you are a half-wit that watches G4!

[Green Gibbon!]

Es, you're totally misinterpreting what I'm saying. Each individual's capacity to forgive particular flaws will vary, but the point I'm making is that if you change any one thing, you will have a completely different game. Maybe you think that would be a better game and maybe you don't, but that has nothing to do with the weight of importance of each element.

No one part of the game carries more weight than how all of the parts work together. I don't think I'm speaking Greek.

[Green Gibbon!]

Another thought that will hopefully help to clarify my thinking process: when you first brought it up, Es, you mentioned "as in any medium", which I also think is an incorrect statement, because my argument holds true for any piece of art.

It seems that the obvious thing to think is that the painting itself is the most important feature, but if you change anything about that painting, and I mean anything at all - another slight dab of paint in the corner, the finish you use to hold it, the canvas you paint it on, the frame you display it in, even its proximity to other paintings and what's around it - you totally change the way the painting is received. A subtle change carries no less weight than a drastic one, because either might be a better solution depending on the situation.

[Esrever]

But isn't a photo of the Mona Lisa in a text book more recognizable, more true to the original than if someone used Leonardo's original Mona Lisa paints, canvas, frame, brushes, finish and hanging spot in the Louvre to make a painting of a bus? The painting itself is definitely the most important feature, even though the other features are still significant.

It's not that I don't understand you (I think), so I guess it's that we just don't agree. I do agree that all of the elements that make up a game are important, and when they don't all come together cohesively the game is flawed. Lord knows my all time favourite games are the ones in which every element excells and compliments each other, like JSRF or Rez. But not every element is going to have as relevant an impact on the total as the others. Some of that will come down to personal preference -- what you are personally more or less willing to forgive -- but some of it is just obvious. The frame is less important than the painting. The sound effects are less important than the gameplay. The moon is less important than the sun. ii's is less different when compared to Akira than Homer Simpson is when compared to Samurai Jack. I just don't think there's any conflict in recognizing that one important thing is comparatively more important than another, even when you can't function properly without both of them.

[Green Gibbon!]

I just don't think there's any conflict in recognizing that one important thing is comparatively more important than another, even when you can't function properly without both of them.

But Es... if you can't function properly without both of them, how can one be more important?

The pieces don't work on their own. One thing affects the other, it becomes a web and the ingredients are inseparable. The game engine, ie, how you interact with the world, is itself determined by the world you are playing in, and vice-versa. The world is affected by the visuals and sound, or lack of, and the sounds will be perceived differently based on the environment. Even the way you interact is affected by the music you're listening to or your goals in the storyline or the character you're playing or any and all combinations of the above.

I'm not going to "agree to disagree", because we're not talking about a matter of opinion, here. Opinion is how you feel about the elements, and maybe there's one thing you don't like or something you feel could have worked better if it were done differently, and of course there is no argument for that because it's simply opinion - apples versus oranges. But you can't deny the fact that there is no stand alone prime ingredient that a game is built on, and if a game is designed with that philosophy, it will be flawed. Every element does have an impact on the others, be it subtle or drastic, and as I've said, that alone does not determine its value.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I will not back down on this point.

[Esrever]

But the gameplay IS the prime ingredient. It's the core of the game, it's where everything starts. Everything else, from the story to the style to the sound, is designed with that in mind. These elements work with the gameplay; when done right, they compliment it, accent it, expand on it, add value to it, elevate it.

But the gameplay, the interactive element, is always at the center of everything. It's the distinguishing feature, the one that makes it a game instead of something else. If you strip everything else away from a modern video game, it's still a video game. A video game with no story, no music, no environment and no concious art direction -- a game with nothing but two long rectangles, a bouncing sphere and beeping noises -- is still a video game. But a video game with lush graphics, perfect music beautiful art direction, intricate story and no gameplay is not a game. It's a film.

That doesn't mean that other elements aren't important, or even vital, to the success of particular games. But still, the element that you need the most is the element you can afford to lose the least. It's not a matter of broad or subtle influence so much as relevance within the nature of the medium. You can make a game with no story, with no sound, even (conceivably) with no visuals, but the gameplay is the one element you absolutely can not function without. Yes, a videogame can be used as a vehicle for sophisticated storytelling and technical visual and aural artistry, but it's all pointless if it's not built on an equally compelling game engine. If you don't have that, you're working in the wrong medium. You've just taken a potentially good film and broken it by adding something it didn't need.

The whole is definitely greater than the sum of its parts. But in video games, one part is particularly key, and by now you're all probably tired of hearing which part I think it is.

[Green Gibbon!]

A video game with no story, no music, no environment and no concious art direction -- a game with nothing but two long rectangles, a bouncing sphere and beeping noises -- is still a video game.

No, that's where you're wrong. That's not a videogame, it's a diversion. A simple time killer that may be fun, but by itself has no place in the realm of art. Without the new possibilities that evolving technology has opened the door to, it is nothing but a simple game of tic-tac-toe, or hopscotch, or checkers, or ping-pong. That's where the medium began, and it's important, but painting also began when some neanderthal slapped mud on a rock.

Your attitude is the typical one, and it's an outdated misconception that needs to die if games are ever to realize their full potential as a medium. It would be wonderful if creating a good game was that simple, a basic 1-2-3 formula where you start with this and add on extra features, but it isn't. There'd be a whole lot more excellent games on shelves right now if that's all it took. All aspects of the work have to come together, and while you may start with the simple idea of something, be it an interactive mechanic or an interesting world, as the concept develops, the separate components play off each other and change each other, regardless of how conscious the player is that the music is altering his mood and changing the way he interacts, or how the world he's in affects the way he plays in it, or how the mechanics he's using are based on the world he's in.

[Esrever]

Of course the different components play off of each other during development. But you have to start somewhere. You need a basic artistic concept so that you can determine the most appropriate medium in which to realize it. If you choose videogames, the reason you made that choice is that your project needs to be interactive. There is no other reason to make that choice... that is the one and only advantage that the medium offers.

Maybe your interactive concept has visual, aural and narrative requirements that are concieved as you just described, directly in tandem with the gameplay because they are integral to the very concept of the game as a whole. Rez is probably a good example of that, right? Or maybe, like in most current game developement, these elements come afterwards, chosen because they compliment the gameplay in the best possible way. That's how I assume Katamari Damacy was completed. But either way, all the elements center around interaction... around the gameplay. How directly connected or integral the other elements are doesn't change that. The center of every game is what it lets you do, and if that is broken, it fails as both a game and as art.

[Baba O'Reily]

My God, I'm surrounded by valid, well-thought out opinions!

[Omni Hunter]

This isn't an arguement, it's a proper discussion!
I see the points on both sides, as GG! said earlier, a burger is made of a bun, patty, lettuce and tomatoes. However even without the later two it's still a burger. In other words everything goes together to form the product but there are still the central "ingredients" that define what it is. It just depends on what the individual looks for in game's qualities.
I mean, everyone has different fillings for thier sandwiches, ham, cheese, cucumber,whatever. No matter how much of or how high the quality of the ingredients, as long as it's filling between two slices of bread it's a sandwich.

[Esrever]

But sometimes a revolutionary comes along, and there is a massive conceptual upheaval that changes everything we thought we knew. Think, for a moment, of the bun-free Atkins burger.

[Locit]

My God, I'm surrounded by valid, well-thought out opinions!

Yes, this thread has been a surprisingly pleasant read.
Bravo, peoples.

However, a bunless hamburger is no hamburger. It is a cooked patty of meat.

[Omni Hunter]

I can confirm that as a chef.

[Green Gibbon!]

The center of every game is what it lets you do, and if that is broken, it fails as both a game and as art.

Okay, but what it lets you do is affected by what you're doing it in, not the simple act of "doing". It's a chain reaction, if one thing is broken, it breaks the whole thing. If you change one thing, it changes the whole thing. A gameplay mechanic with a theme that doesn't work is still a broken game. The weight is equal.

I think you're worrying way too much about defining "videogame" and where the line should be drawn between that and something else, which is unrelated to my point and one that I think is altogether unimportant anyway. There are painters who use alot of construction in their work and people argue whether it's a painting or a sculpture - who cares? My argument is centered around the idea of "art", and the fact that all components must work together. Even if you argue that "interaction" is the defining aspect of "videogame" - which itself could be debated, because where do you draw the line at "interaction"? There are sculptures that you not only observe, but are invited to walk into and move around, etc, etc - again, I don't think this is an important point, certainly not one that's related to what I'm saying - just because it's the "defining" factor doesn't inherently make it the most important factor.

Break away from the term "videogame", think of it as just a piece of art. There is no "most important" element so long as the elements are working together.


It's a good discussion except for the fact that I'm the only one who's right.

[Omni Hunter]

How about we just see it as a whole thing and not go into the different facets? That way we can admire it to it's full potential because after something is catalogued so deeply it loses it's gleam and just becomes a study.
Edit: And no-one ever agrees on studies.

[Delphine]

It's a good discussion except for the fact that I'm the only one who's right.

Hee!

[CE]

I find myself holding an opinion halfway between Esrever and Chris. Just consider me the gun happy Tails doll!

It seems to me that a game's replayability is directly related to the time commitment it requires in the first place. You'll much sooner rewatch a two-hour movie than sit down to re-read a 600 page novel, even if you liked the novel more than the movie, and so it is with games.

I think its more related to what parts of a game one finds enjoyable, which is where I got my theory from in the first place. I find that I can immediately re-play a game if I found playing through the game to be an enjoyable experience, bit I will almost never re-play a game where the enjoyment was seeing all the different sights. When I finally beat the final stage of Bangai-O, after watching the credits, I played the last level all over again, because I found it so fun. But when I beat Space Channel 5, I felt no need to replay the game, and I didn't play the game again for at least six months; possibly more.

Okay, but what it lets you do is affected by what you're doing it in, not the simple act of "doing". It's a chain reaction, if one thing is broken, it breaks the whole thing. If you change one thing, it changes the whole thing. A gameplay mechanic with a theme that doesn't work is still a broken game. The weight is equal.

Break away from the term "videogame", think of it as just a piece of art. There is no "most important" element so long as the elements are working together.

When I say that I consider gameplay to be more important than presentation, I'm not saying that you could completely remove all presentation from the game and it would be just of enjoyable; that's a completely absurd position! I'm saying that if I had to emphasize one feature to the detriment of others (which is what does happen in game development), I would emphasize gameplay over presentation. I assume that is what Esrever means when he considers gameplay is the prime ingrediant.

Think of it like this: If you had to spend a week without food or a week without water, which would you choose?

Of course, real game development isn't as simple as gameplay or presentation; there can be only one. Games are created with a limited set of resources and I know I'd rather see those resources put into improving the gameplay than improving the presentation -- assuming that the gameplay and presentation are both functional *enough*.

[Green Gibbon!]

Games are created with a limited set of resources and I know I'd rather see those resources put into improving the gameplay than improving the presentation -- assuming that the gameplay and presentation are both functional *enough*.

You should improve whichever one is not working, which should come naturally when you develop them in conjunction, which is how it should be done. Obviously you have different teams working on art, sound, programming, etc, but if there's no dialogue between them, none of the elements will mesh, and if none of the elements mesh, no one of them is going to save the game. Not the core mechanic, not the graphics, not the music, not the character design.

I still don't understand how, if everyone agrees with me that it takes all elements to create a finished, working game, any particular element can possibly declare a higher degree of importance than the others. That's a total contradiction. It's not a mathematic formula.

[Esrever]

Gibbon, you are such an art student. :)

[Green Gibbon!]

Exactly, and we're talking about art, I think!

[Esrever]

There are no boudries! There are no genres! Everything is equal!

[CE]

I'm dramatically simplifying things here, but I think my point will still get across.

You have 100 man hours to make a game for which you have already designed the core mechanics for. Allocate the time in the following sections, and explain why you allocated as such:

Mechanics -- implementing and tweaking game mechanics
Presentation -- modifying the look
Stability -- making sure the game acts in the intended way
Usability -- making the design accessable to a wide audience