Quote:

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.

I agree with this. Gameplay is about the play (that is why it is called gameplay). Graphics, sound, etc give a context, but are not gameplay. They can increase the experience of the gameplay.

I think this is where the confusion about gameplay stems form. Through a process of elimination we can define gameplay.

What is ti that games have that other media or play dosen't. Don't include computergames, but also include boardgames, sports, and other forms of play.

Movies have images and sound, play (not playing games) have fun and emotional content (fun), books have plots and stories, but games have rules. Thus gameplay must emerge (or be a part of) the rules.

I'm not sure I agree with the "graphics and audio are separate from Gameplay" debate.

Gameplay suggests "how the game plays", which suggests that the game itself must be presented in its whole, including representation. Bad representation heavily contributes to a bad game. What if Gameplay is not a value to be rated alongside of graphics and audio and input and replayability, but is a factor above this? Perhaps Gameplay is above everything else; Something more closer akin to a final score, rather than an aspect of the game. But alas, I get philosophical.

Curious; Has anybody ever played a game with unpleasant graphics, that still had really good Gameplay? (Note that I said unpleasant, not simple.)

Gameplay contributes to the final score.
Relate it to a living thing:

Knowledge: AI
Physical body: Graphics
Voice: Sound
History & Background: Story
Personality & Soul: Gameplay.

Many people's personalities are influenced by their knowledge, or even their physical body. But that doesn't make those attributes part of their personality. Just a contribution to it. And definitely part of the overall picture of that person as a whole.

Game = gameplay + graphics + sound
Not..
Gameplay = game + graphics + sound.

If gameplay == game, then why are we even bothering to care to use the word?

Quote:

Curious; Has anybody ever played a game with unpleasant graphics, that still had really good Gameplay? (Note that I said unpleasant, not simple.)

I thought the characters in Morrowind were hideous.

Imperialism 2 had largely horrible UI design. Things were hard to find and awkward to use once you found them. Still, good gameplay and fun despite it.

Quote:

What is ti that games have that other media or play dosen't. Don't include computergames, but also include boardgames, sports, and other forms of play.

That's easy. Games have interactivity. You make decisions that change the course of the game.

Kest: That dictionary oversimplifies games.

"An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime"
Sure, War can be fun, but so is watching TV or reading a book. Are those games, then?

War is a noninteractive medium, because there are no alternative courses of action. If you draw an 8 when your opponent draws a 6, you always take his card and put it under your deck. You can play War alone while maintaining the "gameplay" of War. You can program a computer and it can play War better than any human players because it's millions of times faster and it is 100% accurate.

Of course, playing War alone or on a computer loses the social aspect of playing War with a friend, so before anyone says anything: this social aspect is also common to talking over a meal or while doing an aerobic exercise. Does the social aspect make those activities games?

Quote:

Original post by Lukewarm "An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime" Sure, War can be fun, but so is watching TV or reading a book. Are those games, then?

Well, offer up something better. What is your idea of the perfect definition of 'game'? Interactivity? Because nearly everything is interactive. Real war, for example. Was the real world war II a game? Very little seperates many FPS games from real war, other than the fact that they are not real. Is driving to work a game? Then why is Need for Speed? Is it because no one wins or loses? No one wins in The Sims.

You could make driving to work a game simply by making it enjoyable. See how far you get in the wrong lane. Or try to knock over all of the stop signs.

Rolling dice or flipping cards is very random, but so is your lock picking success in most RPGs.

Quote:

Of course, playing War alone or on a computer loses the social aspect of playing War with a friend, so before anyone says anything: this social aspect is also common to talking over a meal or while doing an aerobic exercise. Does the social aspect make those activities games?

Enough beer can make anything a game.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Well, offer up something better. What is your idea of the perfect definition of 'game'?

Quote:

You could make driving to work a game simply by making it enjoyable. See how far you get in the wrong lane. Or try to knock over all of the stop signs.

Alright, I'll start by defining a symbolic game-- that is, anything that uses symbols to represent what's happening, like board games (pieces) or computer games (graphics): A fun interactive simulation.

The word "fun" in that definition is debatable, but how long would a boring game last in the market?

As for knocking down stop signs, the only thing that makes it appealing is that it is (can be) fun. The same with sports like soccer and baseball. There are incidental benefits in each of these: you get to work, you get exercise.

There is also interactivity in each of these: how do you steer your car? Where do I move myself to intercept the ball?

So the attributes these games have in common are fun and interactivity, which ties in quite nicely with the Anonymous Poster's explanation.

Quote:

nearly everything is interactive. Real war, for example. Was the real world war II a game?

And no, WWII was just a war because it was mentally hazardous to the participants, and the main intended purpose of WWII was to deal with Hitler-- not fun.

Quote:

Enough beer can make anything a game.

Never tried that myself, and I hear it's quite dangerous. And it makes you smell bad.

I agree with the op. gameplay is almost a zen like phenomenon. I know when I see, or experience it. There are a variety forms that it takes. its definitely an art form in itself. {just thinking out load as a reply}

I do believe that gameplay can be understood, defined, knowable and capable of being communicated [hence learned].

I like this topic because its fun to think about gameplay from the many games, I have enjoyed.

Some gameplay only works with others present and some only as a solo player versus...? the game itself

Thank you for sharing this.

Quote:

Original post by Kest You could make driving to work a game simply by making it enjoyable. See how far you get in the wrong lane. Or try to knock over all of the stop signs.

I knew I wasn't the only one!

Quote:

Original post by makeshiftwings Quote: Original post by Kest You could make driving to work a game simply by making it enjoyable. See how far you get in the wrong lane. Or try to knock over all of the stop signs. I knew I wasn't the only one!

Join our SSS club! Entry level is the SSS1 (swerve sign stuffers). If you work hard, they move you up to SSS2 (stop sign slashers), then to SSS3 (speed sign switchers).

Quote:

Original post by Lukewarm Quote: Original post by Kest Enough beer can make anything a game. Never tried that myself, and I hear it's quite dangerous. And it makes you smell bad.

It depends on your job. Design itself probably uses mostly the right side of your brain. But game design would likely use an equal ratio. Programmers need to stay far away. Even one beer will throw you guys off. Artists and writers can just go get wasted anytime. They might even work better while they're drunk.