GAMEPLAY: The stupidest word in videogames

PyroGamer

PyroGamer

Banned
I found this article in a blog, and I agree alot with it. It's old, but I thought I'd share.

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/

[quote name='Alex Kierkegaard']
I can't remember exactly when this started bothering me, but it recently got to the point where I can't ignore it anymore. I am talking about the word 'gameplay', which happens to be not only astonishingly idiotic and completely useless, but also seriously misleading. But let me explain myself before you start booing.

Consider the following sentences:

This book has good bookread.

This record has good recordlisten.

This movie has good moviewatch.

So yeah, I've just made up three new words: bookread, recordlisten and moviewatch. Now these words may seem stupid to you -- and of course they are -- but that's not all there is to it. These words are also useless. To demonstrate this point I'll rewrite the above sentences without using them. So here goes:

This is a good book.

This is a good record.

This is a good movie.

See where I am going with this? Just keep in mind that people have been discussing books, records and movies in the English language for a long time, without ever feeling the need to invent ghastly word-constructs like "bookread", etc.

Now some will be thinking "But, man, there are just things I wanna say that can't possibly be expressed without using the word gameplay".

You are wrong. There is nothing one might want to say that can't be expressed without using the word gameplay. I could start going through random videogame publications picking examples, but I'll just do one of the most frequently-occurring ones and I'll trust you to figure out the rest. Here it is:

"This game has great gameplay but shitty graphics."

"This is a great game but it has shitty graphics."

And now we come to the misleading part. By far the biggest problem with the word gameplay is that it's too all-encompassing to be of any use. When you say "this game has bad gameplay" you are not really giving me any more useful information than if you had simply said "this is a bad game". Besides, it seems that different people have different ideas of what gameplay is supposed to be -- there is nothing like a widely-accepted definition (check also: dictionaries). So the term has come to basically mean: "I cannot be troubled to specify what I like or don't like about this game".

In the end, sloppy use of words promotes sloppy thinking, and before you know it you are sprouting nonsense like "The most important part of a game is the gameplay". If this sentence doesn't sound dumb to you it's because you've been brainwashed from seeing it in print a billion times. For perspective, this is just as pointless as saying "The most important part of a movie is the moviewatch".

Anyway, I think I've said enough. If you are writing about games on a regular basis you stand to gain a lot by crossing out this useless word from your vocabulary, and replacing it either with the word 'game', or with more specific ones such as: mechanics, controls, level design, etc., as appropriate.


PS. If you find you are having trouble expressing yourself without the darn word, feel free to get in touch with me (either by email or through the forum) and I'll help you out. Just tell me whatever sentences are giving you trouble and I'll rewrite them for you, gameplay-free.[/quote]

Discuss.
 
I've always felt that the vast majority of "gameplay" is the control and how well it works. A component of it is also the flow of the story/difficulty/etc. of the game.

That's hardly a fair cricism to make though. Reading a book, listening to a CD, or watching a movie are all passive experiences. "Gameplay" implies interactivity, and it's a judgment on how well you can interact with the virtual world. I think it's a fair term, just semi-loosely defined in most people's minds.
 
[quote name='daroga']I've always felt that the vast majority of "gameplay" is the control and how well it works. A component of it is also the flow of the story/difficulty/etc. of the game.

That's hardly a fair cricism to make though. Reading a book, listening to a CD, or watching a movie are all passive experiences. "Gameplay" implies interactivity, and it's a judgment on how well you can interact with the virtual world. I think it's a fair term, just semi-loosely defined in most people's minds.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I think whoever wrote this just wanted to make himself feel big on the internets, but hadn't really thought it through. The comparisons he makes to movies & books are just plain silly.
 
[quote name='argyle']I agree. I think whoever wrote this just wanted to make himself feel big on the internets, but hadn't really thought it through. The comparisons he makes to movies & books are just plain silly.[/quote]

Yeah, the guy that wrote the article sounds pretty self aware. Just one question for him, "Who the hell cares?"
 
[quote name='argyle']I agree. I think whoever wrote this just wanted to make himself feel big on the internets[/QUOTE]

His last name is Kierkegaard...he came off like a pretentious bastard before I even started reading the article.
 
Wow, this guy managed to turn a 30 second Seinfeldian observsation into an entire article?

Whats next? A doctoral thesis on why we drive on a parkway, park on a driveway, and fly from a runway?



Question; is 'stupidist' a real word?
 
That's stupid.

A book has one aspect: The writing in the book.

A game has more than one aspect: The way the game plays, the way the game looks, the way the game sounds, among other things.

So gameplay is perfectly usable to describe how the game interacts with the player and vice versa.

I would punch that writer in the face if he ever tried to step over me in a conversation like that.
 
[quote name='daroga']
That's hardly a fair cricism to make though. Reading a book, listening to a CD, or watching a movie are all passive experiences. "Gameplay" implies interactivity, and it's a judgment on how well you can interact with the virtual world. I think it's a fair term, just semi-loosely defined in most people's minds.[/quote]

Good point. It's kind of like saying a book is "poorly written". Well what does that mean? It could be grammatical errors, plot holes, under developed characters, or any number of other things but no body has a problem saying or under standing "poorly written".

I hate it when fanboys and forumites say things like "I don't care about graphics. Gameplay is all I care about". What the hell does that mean? Do you want a game where you can do anything you can think of at any time with no restrictions, like the ultimate open world game? Or are you looking for a tight, focused game like Tetris, where the concept is simple but just going through the motions can be great fun?

I think the problem that this writer (and myself) has about the word, is that it is used as a catch-all. Don't just say "this game has good gameplay". But I think there's nothing wrong with saying "the cover system really adds to the gameplay".
 
I agree with him for the reasons he specified (and what SpreadTheWord said). It's a stupid word because it's basically meaningless because of it's nonspecificity and it's unnecessary. Game = gameplay. Other aspects may help the "experience" so to speak, but they're independent and irrelevant compared to the "gameplay" which is the actual game itself. Graphics, sound, etc. change with time and are shitty comparitively, but a good game is a good game regardless.
 
[quote name='cdietschrun']That's stupid.

A book has one aspect: The writing in the book.

A game has more than one aspect: The way the game plays, the way the game looks, the way the game sounds, among other things.[/QUOTE]

Well, that's like saying a game has one aspect: the game on the disk.

A book (assuming it's a narrative, and not non-fiction) will have characters, plot, theme, etc.
 
The stupidest word in gaming is "hardcore."

This goes along with the assumption that "stupidest" is actually a word. I would have opted for "George Bushiest."

OH SNAPZING
 
If he's advocating terms for better specificity, that's fine, but gameplay is known to refer to the, well, play of the game. Basically encompassing control, pacing, design, etc. Not really worth ranting about.

I guess we should probably stop using the term "graphics," too vague. We need to break that down into resolution, aliasing, animation, contrast, frames per second, etc.
 
[quote name='cdietschrun']That's stupid.

A book has one aspect: The writing in the book.

A game has more than one aspect: The way the game plays, the way the game looks, the way the game sounds, among other things.[/QUOTE]
A game has one aspect: The lines of code in the disk. :roll:

You're completely wrong. The way a game sounds, the way a game looks, and all other things are determined by PLAYING the game. Saying "the gameplay is good" is the same thing as saying "the game is good". Then you can delve into specifics: "though the controls are a weak point, the game is excellent all things considered" or "though the graphics suffer from muddy textures and jaggies, the game shines in all other aspects" or "this is a great game despite iintense difficulty which may turn off some players".

[quote name='daroga']I've always felt that the vast majority of "gameplay" is the control and how well it works. A component of it is also the flow of the story/difficulty/etc. of the game.[/quote]So then you say "the controls are good, but the story flows poorly" or "though the story flows well, you can't get into it because of the brutal difficulty" or you say "despite the immersive story, the riddiculously bad graphics throw you out of an immersive gaming experience into bouts of laughter."

Everything in a game is experienced through PLAYING it. The ONLY way to judge a game is by playing it. People judge movies by watching them. They judge books by reading them. Sure, some books may be held in high regard because of their historical impact, but when you get down to judging how "good" a book is, you fucking read it.

That's hardly a fair cricism to make though.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It's a perfectly reasonable criticism. You watch a movie. You listen to a record. You read a book. You play a game. End of story.

There are not multiple aspects to a game. There is one aspect: the playing of the game. Within the playing of the game, you can seperate things like "storyline", "graphics", "control", "playability", etc.

Like the writer of that article said, if you can't understand why the word "gameplay" is so inherintly stupid, you have been brainwashed. There is nothing about the word that makes since. Besides that the word is highly contested. Since it's so vague and generalistic (since the only part of a game is the playing of it, it's by self-definition an all-encompassing term), there is no way to tell how it is being used.



Also: I've never seen a movie review broken down into "acting", "writing", "special effects", "cinematography". Sure, those are aspects that are definitely delt with when discussing the quality of the film, but don't you agree it would be simply ludicrous to end a movie review with an "out-of-ten" score for elements like "Moviewatch", "Cinematography", "Audio", "Longevity", etc? They score the movie on one aspect: how good it is.

How "good" a game is can be found out in one way and one way only: playing the game. The "gameplay", just like determining how good a "movie" is can be done in one way: watching the movie. The "moviewatch" of a movie.
 
books, music and movies have no user input. they are passive experiences. games have user input so unique terms to describe the game are necessary. right right??
 
I've always understood gameplay being the fundamental mechanics of the game (i.e. control scheme, combat mechanics etc.) independent of other features like graphics or storyline. You seem to be more hung up on the semantics of the word gameplay rather than what the term actually encompasses.
 
[quote name='botticus']If he's advocating terms for better specificity, that's fine, but gameplay is known to refer to the, well, play of the game.[/QUOTE]I fail to see how any aspect of a game is not the "play of the game." Everything in a game, from each visible pixel to each audible wave of noise, is experienced in the PLAYING of the game. Just like how every character, profound statement, lyrical phrase, deep observation, structured plot, and beautifully placed word is experienced in the READING of a book.

[quote name='dopa345']You seem to be more hung up on the semantics of the word gameplay rather than what the term actually encompasses.[/QUOTE]
I'm having a discussion on about how a word is meaningless and stupid and should be gotten rid of... but yeah... I'm bringing to much semantics into the discussion :roll:
 
But if there are, say, cutscenes in a game, which there are often are, you don't play the cutscenes, you watch the cutscenes. I'm just wondering how that would figure into this. Cutscenes/cinematics could easily be separate from gameplay, in my (potentially brainwashed) mind.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']I fail to see how any aspect of a game is not the "play of the game." Everything in a game, from each visible pixel to each audible wave of noise, is experienced in the PLAYING of the game. Just like how every character, profound statement, lyrical phrase, deep observation, structured plot, and beautifully placed word is experienced in the READING of a book.


I'm having a discussion on about how a word is meaningless and stupid and should be gotten rid of... but yeah... I'm bringing to much semantics into the discussion :roll:[/quote]That was for lack of a better general description. As I said, if you're arguing that it's vague, that's fine, but it's no less useful than "graphics" or "sound."

Here's a good overview of my thoughts on it:
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". Arising alongside the development of game designers in the 1980s, gameplay was used solely within the context of video or computer games, though now its popularity has begun to see use in the description of other, more traditional, game forms. 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. The term "Game mechanics" refers to sub-elements of the gameplay, but particularly the primary control and movement features of the game (thus excluding things like level design or AI).
Click to expand...
You can read further as to how some theorists say the better term is "game mechanics," but then you're just using a different word for the same thing, so who cares.

http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Game%20play
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']

Also: I've never seen a movie review broken down into "acting", "writing", "special effects", "cinematography". Sure, those are aspects that are definitely delt with when discussing the quality of the film, but don't you agree it would be simply ludicrous to end a movie review with an "out-of-ten" score for elements like "Moviewatch", "Cinematography", "Audio", "Longevity", etc? They score the movie on one aspect: how good it is.

How "good" a game is can be found out in one way and one way only: playing the game. The "gameplay", just like determining how good a "movie" is can be done in one way: watching the movie. The "moviewatch" of a movie.[/QUOTE]

Actually people who review movies sometimes do break it down by those areas. You often hear people say the movie has great special effects so if you like that go watch that movie i.e. the Star Wars movies. Same as there are movies that have great acting/performances but the story isn't good. And some people will just watch a movie if it has good cinematography.

You seem to have a problem with how games are reviewed. But the scoring of individual elements aren't a fault of the reviewers. If you want to blame someone blame the people who actually look at the points; I mean when I need to know if a game is good or not I'll READ the review. Those who don't are probably the same people who watch Roper and Ebert for their thumbs up, thumbs down review.

And yes the "word" gameplay does sound ridiculous and I also hate it when people simply say " I prefer good gameplay over graphics" without explaining. When used in a review though gameplay generally means control and difficulty, things that affect the actual playing of the game (interaction). Other things like cumbersome menus would also fall under gameplay.

People on boards generally misuse the term and include things like fun factor. Which I don't think can be judged or rated. Fun is based on preference.
 
[quote name='jngx80']Actually people who review movies sometimes do break it down by those areas. You often hear people say the movie has great special effects so if you like that go watch that movie i.e. the Star Wars movies. Same as there are movies that have great acting/performances but the story isn't good. And some people will just watch a movie if it has good cinematography.[/quote]You misread. I made it very clear that I was talking about breaking down each and every game indescriminently into out-of-ten scores in a predefined set of areas.

I'm well aware that a reviewer might choose to say "this movie has fantastic cinematography", and hell, I'd go see it for that, but that's a different thing entirely.

You seem to have a problem with how games are reviewed. But the scoring of individual elements aren't a fault of the reviewers. If you want to blame someone blame the people who actually look at the points; I mean when I need to know if a game is good or not I'll READ the review. Those who don't are probably the same people who watch Roper and Ebert for their thumbs up, thumbs down review.
Click to expand...
Thumbs up and thumbs down is fine. Out-of-ten scores on aribitrarily chosen and universaly standardized aspects is not.

I don't care who I should "blame" for it, it's still bad, and no matter who's fault it is, I can still critisize it.

And yes the "word" gameplay does sound ridiculous and I also hate it when people simply say " I prefer good gameplay over graphics" without explaining.
Click to expand...
Watch out, people here on CAG will lable to a pretentious bastard for having your own opinions.
When used in a review though gameplay generally means control and difficulty, things that affect the actual playing of the game (interaction). Other things like cumbersome menus would also fall under gameplay.
Click to expand...
And it doesn't have to be used in a review. It's misleading for everyone. It's bad and should be taken out. People looking at the reviews would be better off being told: A. What kind of gamer this would appeal to. B. a "thumbs up thumbs down from two or more people" (I should note it's almost impossible to watch Ebert and Roper just for the thumbs up and thumbs down, they invaribly have a sentence or two to say about the film itself, without going into a full Sun Times review) or "out-of-ten" overall score. Not some universally standardized set of aspects, especially not one aspect that is vague, stupid, and sounds riddiculous.
 
[quote name='botticus']That was for lack of a better general description. As I said, if you're arguing that it's vague, that's fine, but it's no less useful than "graphics" or "sound."

Here's a good overview of my thoughts on it:[/quote]It is less usefull. That definition you posted claims that gameplay "includes all player experiences during the interaction with game systems" and then arbitrarily excludes Graphics, Sound, and Storyline... which are all "player experiences during the interaction with game systems".

If you defined "Gameplay" as "controls scheme, combat mechanics, difficulty, game-flow, etc" fine. It's still a stupid word but at least you've defined it. Unfortunately "Gameplay" is not a word that has been thusly defined. "Gameplay" is useless and nebulous, and causes more problems than it solves.

You can read further as to how some theorists say the better term is "game mechanics," but then you're just using a different word for the same thing, so who cares.
Click to expand...
Game mechanics is not equal Gameplay. Go read up:

The term "Game mechanics" refers to sub-elements of the gameplay, but particularly the primary control and movement features of the game (thus excluding things like level design or AI).
Click to expand...

Also, "Game mechanics" isn't a stupid word. It is also self-explanatory and makes sense. Game mechanics is a fantastic, specific, well defined phrase.

http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Game%20play
Click to expand...
Actually that was ripped from Wikipedia.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']It is less usefull. That definition you posted claims that gameplay "includes all player experiences during the interaction with game systems" and then arbitrarily excludes Graphics, Sound, and Storyline... which are all "player experiences during the interaction with game systems".

If you defined "Gameplay" as "controls scheme, combat mechanics, difficulty, game-flow, etc" fine. It's still a stupid word but at least you've defined it. Unfortunately "Gameplay" is not a word that has been thusly defined. "Gameplay" is useless and nebulous, and causes more problems than it solves.

Game mechanics is not equal Gameplay. Go read up:




Actually that was ripped from Wikipedia.[/quote]
Yes it was ripped from Wikipedia, as it says down at the bottom. I guess I can't defend this as vehemently as you can, it's just a word whose meaning is generally understood. And graphics, sound, and story are not included in "what the player does."

I've never seen this word "cause problems." I didn't even know anyone cared about the word until this topic was posted. Just as everyone who discusses games, if you say the graphics are bad, they can go into detail if required. If they say the gameplay is bad, they can go into detail if required.
 
[quote name='botticus']I've never seen this word "cause problems."[/QUOTE]
Case in point:

Games with multiple endings... are multiple endings and their usability and quality included in "storyline" or "gameplay".

Case in point:

Audio and Graphics are for immersion... and yet immersion is always labeled under "Gameplay" in reviews... while Audio and Graphics still get their own seperate sections.



Maybe it's more the idea of fitting every single game into such a specified and arbitary set of review perameters that causes problems.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']seperate...arbitary...perameters[/QUOTE]
If you only cared about spelling as much as "gameplay", what a wonderful world it would be. :lol:
 
Wow, what an idiotic article.

That guy must be one of those "hardcore" graphic whores who hates it when people remind him that his 133t $500 videocard that pumps out 90fps graphics isn't as important as how the game plays ie the gameplay.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']If you only cared about spelling as much as "gameplay", what a wonderful world it would be. :lol:[/QUOTE]

Hey.

I grew up eating arbitary every night. My mom would say "Don't want strong perameters?" And I'd say "OH HELL YES I WANT STRONG PERAMETERS!" and proceed to eat the whole plate.

That's what helped seperate the men from the boys back in the day.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']If you only cared about spelling as much as "gameplay", what a wonderful world it would be. :lol:[/QUOTE]
:lol:

Notice how every other post of mine has been edited at least three times. :lol:

It's so much easier to proofread your typos ocne they're in the post than when you're in the "quick reply" box.

[quote name='Scrubking']Wow, what an idiotic article.

That guy must be one of those "hardcore" graphic whores who hates it when people remind him that his 133t $500 videocard that pumps out 90fps graphics isn't as important as how the game plays ie the gameplay.[/quote]Actually I've just changed my entire opinion on the article thanks to botticus.

I think the author's problem is that he defined "gameplay" as "the playing of the game", when really "gameplay" is something much more specific: the controls, mechanics, level design, difficulty, etc.
 
[quote name='NeoFrank1']But if there are, say, cutscenes in a game, which there are often are, you don't play the cutscenes, you watch the cutscenes. I'm just wondering how that would figure into this. Cutscenes/cinematics could easily be separate from gameplay, in my (potentially brainwashed) mind.[/quote]

Resident Evil 4, Shenmue both have cutscenes that you play. So sometimes you do play them. :D
 
It's just a term one person uses to convey a positive feeling to another about a game. After they do that, the person can learn a little bit about the gameplay elements through word of mouth or a review, and then find out what "good gameplay" really means after playing it themselves. After the person plays the game, they can go back and talk specifics about the gameplay since they have a frame of reference.

For a good movie, you hear it has a good story, you hear about the story, then watch it and find out what "good story" means. then things like cinematography, acting, setting, and all that fill it out, just like graphics, story, voice acting, and sound fill out a game. Some people might place their tastes in varying attributes, but the principle is the same. And no, people don't say "moviewatch" but who cares?

sure, the word "gameplay" is an invention of the gaming community, but that's what happens-- different groups of people will come up with their own vocab and shorthand to describe or quickly reference things they have in common, surprise, surprise. The assumption is that people aren't going to go around boring the hell out of each other with epic descriptions about something that needs to be experienced to be understood, so words like gameplay come in handy as a replacement, even though they are somewhat empty.


so basically, the blogger who wrote this is just bored, anal retentive, and doesn't seem to have a grasp of the culture...
 
gameplay is to games as storytelling is to novels.

also, english is pretty stupid anyway. =P leave the nitpicking of the english language to lawyers.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']Wow, this guy managed to turn a 30 second Seinfeldian observsation into an entire article?

Whats next? A doctoral thesis on why we drive on a parkway, park on a driveway, and fly from a runway?



Question; is 'stupidist' a real word?[/quote]
gallagher.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top