Gameplay = game - representation.

Take a look at old-school games like Doom 1, then look at the newest versions of these games like Doom 3. Now subtract everything except for what they have in common.

Remove everything that represents your game to the player. Models, sprites, sounds, music. Whatever is left is gameplay. You should be able to completely change the representation (sprites intead of models, generic sounds, different music), and the gameplay remains constant.

I still believe that the representation can have a huge impact on gameplay, though. Really nice models can make your game feel more enjoyable. If my character is really ugly, I might not care if he dies often. If an armor is really cool looking, I'll likely pay more for it and keep it longer. If the music is pounding away at me, I may end up charging forward for all out glory instead of strategically finding my way through.

Yeah but, models, sounds, UIs, etc still have a big impact on gameplay.

Say you take Doom, and get rid of the HUD. That will effect gameplay dramatically, the player no longer has an idea of how much ammo they have, or, if they are near death and need to find more health.

Or you make the models have cammo (or same texture as the walls), this will effect the gameplay by making it harder for the player to spot enemies.

Changing little things like these don't directly effect the game, but still have an impact on how the player plays the game - gameplay.

I have always seperated Play and Gameplay. They are not equal. Gameplay is play in a structured environemnt (rules), whereas Play is more open.

Take for example playing in a swimming pool. If you start splashing each other, then this is play. It is fun, but there is no real structure (there might be a few like don't punch each other, etc). But if you add in a few rules, the play sudenly becomes a game. Thus gameplay.

The rules are what turns Play into GamePlay. Gameplay emerges from the rules and the aim/goal/winning condition of the game (you can have a game withint a winning condition, but it must then have an aim or a goal - something with which to measure success or failure).

Quote:

Original post by Johnny123 Say you take Doom, and get rid of the HUD. That will effect gameplay dramatically, the player no longer has an idea of how much ammo they have, or, if they are near death and need to find more health.

The HUD information is part of the gameplay. The HUD graphics, the fonts, the transitional effects, are not. A future version may allow you to look at your side and actually see your ammo. IE, no use of a HUD display.

Quote:

Or you make the models have cammo (or same texture as the walls), this will effect the gameplay by making it harder for the player to spot enemies.

It doesn't stop there. You can find a way to describe every single graphical pixel on the screen and every sound wave variation as a part of gameplay (I sniped the pointy poly edge of that tank commanders arm where it was sticking out from the tank armor). I was just speaking generally that the major portion of gameplay is under the hood of the game.

Quote:

Changing little things like these don't directly effect the game, but still have an impact on how the player plays the game - gameplay.

Science perspective vs art perspective. Well, if you want to go the science route, then there is no game element that is not gameplay. The whole game is gameplay. Happy? :) Let's do it. And let's go ahead and call all games RPGs while we're at it. If you want to take it to the extreme science level, you'll eventually realize there is no such thing as gameplay. Fun itself doesn't even exist. It's a freak'n chemically induced illusion.

Graphics and music DO influence the gameplay. How can FEAR be fearsome with all the lights turned on? How can Mario give people happy feelings if it didn't play those tunes while you were running?
Those elements contribute to the experience of the gamer, and that experience is gameplay.

Gameplay is the whole experience of the game, including the menu, ingame HUD, models, background music, sound effects, goals, controls and graphics. A game like Killer7 [GCN] would not be so amazing to some if the graphics were plain old non-cellshaded.

It's amusing to see so many different opinions on the meaning of such a widely accepted term. I'll throw out one which I came up with myself, just for the hell of it. Pick it apart as you will.

Gameplay: The ability of a game to influence the emotional, mental, or physical states of the player through means of interaction between the player and the game.

Quote:

Original post by Pipo DeClown Gameplay is the whole experience of the game, including the menu, ingame HUD, models, background music, sound effects, goals, controls and graphics. A game like Killer7 [GCN] would not be so amazing to some if the graphics were plain old non-cellshaded.

Then that pretty much makes the term pointless.

Take a look on Wiki. I personally like this description:

Quote:

On the other hand, some game critics feel that gameplay is in fact to games as story is to book, the very essence of the game to which elements such as story are added to.

And this one:

Quote:

Generally, the term "gameplay" in video game terminology is used to describe the overall experience of playing the game excluding the factors of graphics, sound, and the storyline.

Gameplay is the player's experience of a game, much like a child's fantasy concerning his/her toys or board games.

Games like Tetris and Pac Man are good games despite their lack of graphics because they are symbolic games. They let the player fill in the details in a way that works best for him/her. Games with more concrete graphics (first-person-shooters) are more liable to break a player's immersion, because they must get all the details right.

And no, Shutes and Ladders is not a game, although it does have a subjective experience like gameplay. The same goes for the card game "War".

The card game war is not a game?

What is the world coming to?

Once again, I find myself breaking out a dictionary for you poor unfortunate souls who don't believe in magic.
Game.

I've always gone with the 'series of interesting choices'. The problem comes that gameplay doesn't exist in a vacuum. Games by definition are a series of rules along with a state. The combination of rules with other rules and the game state gives rise to the various choices (interesting and un-interesting alike).

Generally, more player interesting/meaningful choices are better.
Generally, less rules are better.

Game design then should be evaluated based on the ratio of choices to rules (and uninteresting choices).


A game like Go is very elegant, providing complexity enough to prevent effective computer players, with only about a half-dozen rules (playfield, white goes first, capturing, the rule of Ko/snapback, how the game ends, scoring).

Graphics, music, plot, atmosphere, realism, immersion, and the such are not gameplay. They can help present information, making more choices interesting/meaningful (since un-informed decisions are often not interesting). They can certainly help the user experience, but that still does not make them gameplay. Gameplay is that which sets games apart from just movies, music and other art.