New Games... Dated Gameplay

[Llyranor]

[alanschu]

Maybe the posts got jarbled in the quote disaster, it certainly seemed to me you were saying all of that "new game features are not new gameplay."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think that was the problem as well. I usually check to make sure my quotes are okay, but it slipped my mind that time.

 

As support that I'm not in his camp, earlier I was in a dispute with him about whether or not Doom was an improvement gameplay-wise over Wolfenstein 3D.

[Shadowstrider]

Maybe the posts got jarbled in the quote disaster, it certainly seemed to me you were saying all of that "new game features are not new gameplay."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think that was the problem as well. I usually check to make sure my quotes are okay, but it slipped my mind that time.

 

As support that I'm not in his camp, earlier I was in a dispute with him about whether or not Doom was an improvement gameplay-wise over Wolfenstein 3D.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It could also be that it was around 2am and I am drunk.

[BattleCookiee]

Loads of post... not even going to try respond to all of them... just mention it if I forgot to answer something;

 

First off all; ofcourse there CAN be ingame differences. As said before; you can play DX as Rambo, Hacker, Stealth and more. But then to say DX Rambo style is the same as Doom3's Rambo style (ShadowPaladin) is wholly incorrect ofcourse. Hell, there is even a gameplay difference between Painkiller and Serious Sam, even if in both games your goal is to "shoot everything in sight as fast as possible"... but there is absolutely NO gameplay difference between SS 1 and 2 and 2 (confusing isn't it...), even if better graphics are added, different weapons, other enemies, different levels and story etc.

 

Now there CAN be huge gameplay differences between original and sequel (see DX and DX:IW for example, or GTA 2 and GTA 3, or NFS3 and 4) but in the ES-series there is no notion of that. Same as saying Kotor2 plays entirely different because of another plot, the influence system, the crafting system or any of the many other extra impentations. Ofcourse making skill points having an actual effect in conversations get's close to being a gameplay change... but in the end it just isn't enough...

 

And I NEVER said that games stay exactly the same or should stay the same... nor did I say that every sequel needs a radical gameplay-change (DX:IW already showed me the dangers of that). I don't figure out how you came to thinking that even if I kept saying that games evaluated indeed with additional features, and that helps from keeping genres stale, but it doesn't alter the gameplay at all, or too slight as to notice any difference when getting through the game...

 

And I still don't agree an showed roof or "splash-damage" weapons added will change gameplay alot. Now there in Quake where they actually made you able to look around 360 like the modern FPS allow, that is a gameplay change...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I wouldn't consider adding a new spell in a game like NWN a change, nor a new character in a Street Fighter game a gameplay change.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A single spell perhaps not(although it depends on the spell). But a mage certainly plays very differently to a fighter in NWN. It depends just how radical the characters abilities vary in say a beat um up. I'm playing Drakengard II at the moment and the characters play quite differently to each other.

 

The game may not change. After all your goal remains the same. It's how you reach that goal which changes and I would call that gameplay.

[BattleCookiee]

Gameplay cannot differ in a single game itself.

 

All what makes a game get's ultimately defined "gameplay"...

 

Even if you play GTA:SA for example the overlapsing "gameplay" would be the same when you drive as when you walk... even if you have to act different in both situations...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

And I still don't agree an showed roof or "splash-damage" weapons added will change gameplay alot. Now there in Quake where they actually made you able to look around 360 like the modern FPS allow, that is a gameplay change...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you don't see how splash damage would change how you play then your not thinking about the features enough.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Gameplay cannot differ in a single game itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Right... A mage plays exactly the same as fighter in an RPG.

[BattleCookiee]

No... but that doesn't change the gameplay.

 

Even if it plays different in DX to sneak as to rambo as to hack yourself to victory there is Still the same gameplay

 

Even if it plays different in SA to drive/walk/dance/game/fly etc. there is still the same gameplay

 

Even if it is different in Kotor2 to play Force User as opposed to Guardian there is still the same gameplay.

 

You cannot have different gameplay in a singlegame due to the definition of "gameplay" (eg. Overall feeling of a game)... it just does NOT allow it...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

No... but that doesn't change the gameplay.

 

Even if it plays different in DX to sneak as to rambo as to hack yourself to victory there is Still the same gameplay

 

Even if it plays different in SA to drive/walk/dance/game/fly etc. there is still the same gameplay

 

Even if it is different in Kotor2 to play Force User as opposed to Guardian there is still the same gameplay.

 

You cannot have different gameplay in a singlegame due to the definition of "gameplay" (eg. Overall feeling of a game)... it just does NOT allow it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Gameplay - you playing the game. If a feature changes how you play the game, its changed the gameplay.

 

Your not even talking about gameplay your talking about the core mechanics or the game itself before any external input.

 

Not so. It's still the same GAME but the gameplay between walking flying and driving is very different. If you try to fly the same way as you walk (without taking into account the Z axis) you will crash.

 

The overall feeling of an RPG will change depending on the abilities of your character. I'd go look for another definition if I were you.

 

This is the accepted definition.

 

Gameplay includes all player experiences during the interaction with game systems, especially formal games. Proper use is coupled with reference to "what the player does".

Edited March 11, 2006 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[BattleCookiee]

Gameplay - you playing the game. If a feature changes how you play the game, its changed the gameplay.

 

You got it right. The "feeling" of a game and the way it is being played. That CANNOT differ inside a game. If a racing game feels X then adding in a car with a slighty other way of handling doesn't make it Y... it keeps playing and feeling like X. If all cars suddenly handle like Y then it feels like Y and you have yourself a gameplay change. DX:IW has other gameplay as DX, with the same core mechanics. NFS4 has other gameplay than NFS3, while keeping the same core mechanics... etc.

 

Your not even talking about gameplay your talking about the core mechanics or the game itself before any external input.

 

No. Wheter you choose it to be a RPG/FPS/Space sim whatever doesn't define the feeling of the game. There are thousands of FPS who all have different gameplay, thousands of RPG's with other gameplay... thousand of Race games with different gameplay etc. Even if they might both have "street racing" as "core mechanic"

 

Not so. It's still the same GAME but the gameplay between walking flying and driving is very different. If you try to fly the same way as you walk (without taking into account the Z axis) you will crash.

 

Yes. But overall the gameplay is "GTA:SA"... which feels the same as "GTA:VC" even if they included all kind of funny features like tuning... more look costumisation and 1000's of other features. And "GTA:VC" plays again the same as "GTA3" even if VC has food, a character that speaks, flying, motorcycles etc. as additional features...

 

The overall feeling of an RPG will change depending on the abilities of your character. I'd go look for another definition if I were you.

 

I will not feel like I play a different game if I walk around with a mage than with a fighter. I may act different in the same game, but I DON'T change the entire way I look towards said game...

 

Gameplay includes all player experiences during the interaction with game systems, especially formal games. Proper use is coupled with reference to "what the player does".

 

Even if that is the definition... would my experience change when having more cars with a slighty other way of handling... nope. Would my experience in a game change when playing a mage. Nope... like said, I may act different in the same game to complete my goals but in no way does it actually change...

 

EDIT:

When searching for the "right definition"

How extremely weird you can come up with "the accepted definition of gameplay" then, isn't it? " :

The final definition of gameplay is there is no definition of gameplay. Learn how gameplay is not a sigular entity but rather a combination of many elements and how its definition moves from defining a term to explaining a concept.

source

Edited March 11, 2006 by BattleCookiee

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You got it right. The "feeling" of a game and the way it is being played. That CANNOT differ inside a game. If a racing game feels X then adding in a car with a slighty other way of handling doesn't make it Y... it keeps playing and feeling like X. If all cars suddenly handle like Y then it feels like Y and you have yourself a gameplay change. DX:IW has other gameplay as DX, with the same core mechanics. NFS4 has other gameplay than NFS3, while keeping the same core mechanics... etc.

 

No. Wheter you choose it to be a RPG/FPS/Space sim whatever doesn't define the feeling of the game. There are thousands of FPS who all have different gameplay, thousands of RPG's with other gameplay... thousand of Race games with different gameplay etc. Even if they might both have "street racing" as "core mechanic"

 

Yes. But overall the gameplay is "GTA:SA"... which feels the same as "GTA:VC" even if they included all kind of funny features like tuning... more look costumisation and 1000's of other features. And "GTA:VC" plays again the same as "GTA3" even if VC has food, a character that speaks, flying, motorcycles etc. as additional features...

 

I will not feel like I play a different game if I walk around with a mage than with a fighter. I may act different in the same game, but I DON'T change the entire way I look towards said game...

 

Even if that is the definition... would my experience change when having more cars with a slighty other way of handling... nope. Would my experience in a game change when playing a mage. Nope... like said, I may act different in the same game to complete my goals but in no way does it actually change...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Arena, Daggerfall and Morrowind have the same core mechanics, but they feel totally different to play.

 

Half Life feels very different to Serious Sam. But they have the same FPS core mechanics.

 

Well just said that flying walking and driving were exactly the same gameplay. Changed your mind on that now?

 

If you played a mage like you played a fighter you would become very familiar with the reload screen If you play a mage in a different way then you have by default changed the gameplay according to the accepted defintion of the term.

Edited March 11, 2006 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[BattleCookiee]

Arena, Daggerfall and Morrowind have the same core mechanics, but they feel totally different to play.

 

Same core yes... very different to play; No. I already went more thorough on this before

 

Half Life feels very different to Serious Sam. But they have the same FPS core mechanics.

 

Yup. Even you have to agree with me here that the gameplay is different... but the core is the same

 

Well just said that flying walking and driving were exactly the same gameplay. Changed your mind on that now?

 

In GTA it is. It is all part of the package that makes GTA feel as it is...

 

If you played a mage like you played a fighter you would become very familiar with the reload screen 

 

Indeed. That is why I play it different... didn't I said so? But that just doesn't change the gameplay of the game

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Indeed. That is why I play it different... didn't I said so? But that just doesn't change the gameplay of the game

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pay particular attention to the words in bold (if you can see them)

 

Gameplay includes all player experiences during the interaction with game systems, especially formal games. Proper use is coupled with reference to "what the player does".

 

Case closed by your own addmissions there you do change the gameplay whether or not you realise it.

[BattleCookiee]

Here is a "definition" of gameplay... as you seem to think your single line adds it all up and is the instant truth...

 

I haven't read all of it myself... but feel free to find anything that proves me wrong and you right...

 

Any game designer should agree that gameplay is the core of the game. Given an ideal world, designers would probably claim that gameplay should be put above all other considerations. And in a lot of cases, were it not for external pressures, these same game designers would attempt to treat the gameplay with the level of importance that it deserves. There's just one problem with this: There is no universally accepted definition of gameplay. Gameplay is an important, if nebulous, concept. Many times during discussions of games, we have heard comments such as, "This has great gameplay," followed by a detailed description of the particular aspect of the game. However, if instead you were to ask the question, "What is gameplay?", most answers would attempt to explain by example. Indeed, explanation by example can be helpful, but it requires that you infer a definition of gameplay by induction. Describing gameplay without using self-reference is similar to trying to explain the concept of red without reference to color. It is difficult to conceive, but not impossible.

 

There is a reason for this difficulty: The concept of gameplay is extremely difficult to define. Each designer has his or her own personal definition of gameplay, formed from exposure to many examples over the course of a career.

 

Gameplay is so difficult to define because there is no single entity that we can point to and say, "There! That's the gameplay." Gameplay is the result of a large number of contributing elements. The presence, or lack thereof, of gameplay can be deduced by examining a particular game for indications and contraindications of these elements. (These terms are borrowed from medical terminology: An indication is a positive sign that implies the existence of gameplay, and a contraindication is a negative sign that implies that gameplay does not exist.)

 

Use of Language

In other fields, such as engineering, architecture, and mathematics, the spread of ideas is facilitated by the use of a common language. Each engineer or mathematician knows how to express ideas

[BattleCookiee]

continuation... didn't fit in 1 post

 

taking advantage of their particular skills, and so on.

 

The business of supporting troops in the field and bringing fresh troops to the front lines is called logistics. Most war games don't bother with logistical challenges such as transporting food and fuel to where they're needed. These activities are generally considered boring and distracting from the main purpose of the game, which is combat. Real armies have whole teams of people responsible for logistics and could never win without this support; computer games have only the player to handle everything, so it stands to reason that he should be concentrating on more exciting tasks such as attack and defense.

 

However, modern real-time strategy (RTS) games have introduced one important logistical challenge: weapons production. Unlike board war games, in which the player commonly starts with a fixed number of troops, RTSs now require the player to produce weapons and to research new ones from a limited amount of available raw material. The production facilities themselves must be constructed and then defended. This has changed the entire face of war-gaming, adding a new logistical challenge to what was formerly a purely combat-oriented genre.

 

In role-playing games, the limited size of the characters' inventories presents another logistical challenge. The player must frequently decide what to carry and what to leave behind. Equipping and balancing a party of heterogeneous characters with all that they need to face a dangerous adventure occupies a significant amount of the player's time. Of course, sometimes this is the fault of a badly designed inventory system, in which an apple takes up the same amount of space as a single coin.

 

On a smaller scale, personal conflict, as a one-on-one or one-on-many challenge, is a key feature of many action games. The player controls an avatar who battles directly against one or more opponents, often at very high speeds. The challenge of personal combat is immediate, exciting, and visceral.

 

The fundamental challenge in any game based on conflict is survival. If characters can be removed from the field of play by death or any other means, it is essential to preserve their lives or effective playing time, or you cannot achieve the victory condition. In a few games, survival is itself the victory condition and no other achievements are required, but in most, survival is necessary but not sufficient to win.

 

Survival is about defending one's self, but many games require that the player defend other things as well, especially things that cannot defend themselves. In chess, this is, of course, the king. This challenge requires that the player know not only the capabilities and vulnerabilities of his units, but also those of the thing he is protecting. He must be prepared to sacrifice valuable units to protect the vital item. Lemmings was an excellent game about sacrificing some units to preserve others.

 

Another important gaming challenge, first used extensively in Thief: The Dark Project, is stealth

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Here is a "definition" of gameplay... as you seem to think your single line adds it all up and is the instant truth...

 

I haven't read all of it myself... but feel free to find anything that proves me wrong and you right...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats not a definition, thats a thesis.

 

Well if you want to change the definition of the term you'd better get reading

[BattleCookiee]

You even missed the first line "There is no definition"... this is as small as any definition will go...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You even missed the first line "There is no definition"... this is as small as any definition will go...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But thats just an opinion.

 

Perhaps you could tell us what is wrong with the definition posted rather than just cutting and pasting ?

[BattleCookiee]

But thats just an opinion. 

 

Perhaps you could tell us what is wrong with the definition posted rather than just cutting and pasting ?

 

Tell me where you found your nicely "universal agreed" definition (which I totally do not agree with)...

[Kaftan Barlast]

Maybe you could include "Game gestalt" in your debate?

 

 

Game gestalt = The pattern of interaction between player and game.

 

 

because unlike gameplay, this can vary slighlty in a game where the character can chose between different classes etc. fighter vs mage being one example

 

GG1 fighter: run up to enemy, attack, drink health, potion, attack, loot body

 

GG2 mage: bring up spell menu, cast spell, cast healing spell, cast magic missile, lot body

 

 

game mehcanics the same, gameplay the same, game gestalt, not the same.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Tell me where you found your nicely "universal agreed" definition (which I totally do not agree with)...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why don't you agree with it ?

 

If you want to find it , run a search I didnt save a link.

[BattleCookiee]

Results:

 

the way in which the gamer can interact with other elements in the game.

www.nvidia.co.uk/object/eswc_lex_uk.html

 

Ambiguous term for the total effect of all active game elements. Refers to the holistic game experience and the ability of the game to command the attention of the player.

www.schwiezer.de/Partners/Dictionary/dictionary.html

 

Game play (or gameplay) includes all player experiences during the interaction with game systems, especially formal games. Proper use is coupled with reference to "what the player does".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay

 

As you might have expected... I choose the second (bolded) definition...

The only one found in a dictionary (reliable) instead of an alter-able (unreliable) site...

 

EDIT; Even funnier... note what your page has to say;

Current academic discussions tend to favor more practical terms such as "game mechanics".

And you try so hard to defend the difference between mechanics and gameplay

Edited March 11, 2006 by BattleCookiee

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Ambiguous term for the total effect of all active game elements. Refers to the holistic game experience and the ability of the game to command the attention of the player.

www.schwiezer.de/Partners/Dictionary/dictionary.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Active game elemets like.

 

Features:

 

Twenty fully customisable, licensed cars are included in the game from Mitsubishi Motors, Subaru, Toyota, and many more

Several unique racing events will be featured in the game including Drag Racing and Street Racing

Hundreds of ways to customize your ride. Pick from major aftermarket parts manufacturers

Need for Speed Underground's amazing graphics will immerse gamers in the world of after hours street racing. The diverse urban nighttime environments are modelled after a variety of highly detailed real-world urban landscapes. A new sensation of speed has been created in the game by the award winning Need For Speed team and an OSCAR nominated Hollywood visual effects expert

Over 100 unique events give racers the opportunity to earn cash, buy more upgrades, and unlock cars and tracks while increasing their street reputation

A diverse collection of high-octane music keeps the game rolling

Online support for up to 4 players on the PlayStation 2 (broadband only) and PC

 

[BattleCookiee]

If all that gives the same feel as the previous game... then NO <_<

Edited March 11, 2006 by BattleCookiee