quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham

Whats the difference between learning and being shown a new way to approach or think about things?

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

I didn''t really answer that question though. If I''m thinking right you''re saying:

Learning = finding out about a concrete fact

Being shown a new way to approach something = an abstract view of an already-known concrete thing (for lack of a better word)

I don''t really think they''re the same. I agree that humans are able to think of abstract ideas. I was going off on my 5 senses tangent to validate my point that any abstract idea is still constricted by our view of our reality.

quote: Original post by Selkrank

I thus propose again:

Gameplay is everything, everything else is peripheral.

Before you start to flame again, I'll give an explanation. In eg. roleplaying games, the story IS part of the gameplay. In Tetris, graphics, sounds and music are NOT part of the gameplay, except that you have to differentiate the parts somehow. In almost every action game, graphics and sounds are part of the game, to give you information, especially in Thief. Shockwaves, muzzle flashes and machine gun sounds in Quake 3 (does it even have a machine gun, I haven't played? ) give information to the player about explosions and someone shooting.

But here's the catch: It is not very important how good the shockwaves look or how bad the machine gun sound is, as long as you recognize the shockwave as an explosion and machine gun sound as a machine gun. The main goal of visuals and sounds should be that they are functional, not exceptional. Good-looking graphics are just bonus, they do not add anything to the gameplay , even if they add to the experience .

-Jussi

Edited by - Selkrank on September 8, 2000 1:56:23 AM

Hmmm...I like that explaination a lot...
We've tried to define RPG, games themselves...but never gameplay, have we?

Perhaps, what is included in gameplay varies from game to game? Perhaps, gameplay is the part of the game that gives the player information about the goings-on ( the word interaction is nearing the tip of my toungue again)...be it through graphics, sound, text, FMV...

So, when Wav said that the graphics in Thief could be icons...they could, but icons would be no less fluff than the polygonal models in Thief in that they would effectively inform the player of what is going on. Now, if I spoke of how those polygonal models looked much prettier or even looked more real, that would be were the "fluff" comes in...

Selkrank, I think you really nailed it...

Edited by - Nazrix on September 8, 2000 2:09:30 AM

quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham

Well i think that its true to say that the gameplay originates from the game concept. I personally believe that the gameplay is then improved as the peripheral elements are added appropriately to the vision held by the designer of the game. This is just my view. If you've been in the position where you've laid out a plan for a game and visioned it in your mind what it would be like to play and found out later that chunks will have to be ripped out becuase they would just take to long to do, you then know that it won't be as good as you originally thought it would be becuase you've lost some peripheral elements.

I think we're having that problem w/ language again. What does gameplay refer to? The overall gaming experience? The basic foundation and concept? The interaction between player and the environment of the game? I'm starting to think of gameplay as the latter (interaction b/w player & the game's environment), but perhaps it is not.

I don't know how much weight it carries, but the GDNet Dictionary says that Gameplay is "Meaningful interactions during a game." I am leaning toward that defenition, personally.

quote:
Well i think that we can agree with one thing. That being that the concept of abstract has its foundations set in reality. If you take away reality then abstract isn't abstract. Grey ain't grey if you don't have black or white.

Yep, I can agree w/ that

Edited by - Nazrix on September 8, 2000 2:30:03 AM

Selkrank, my friend, you''ve got it there. I''m glad I got my point across.

Sunandshadow - you are a writer, aren''t you? The thought of the story not necessarily being part of the gameplay offends you. That is because you wouldn''t dream of thinking up games without a story.
However, nomatter how you twist and turn, Movies and Books are PASSIVE entertainment. There is NO interactivity there. You confuse emotional involvement with interactivity. Whatever you think or do, it will not change the development of things in the book or movie.

Gameplay == interactivity. Even the GDNet Dictionary says so.

So now onto the counterexamples:
Text-based quake. The graphics are part of the interactivity. What you do influences the graphics. How hard would tetris be if it didn''t show you what the blocks looked like? How come it is easier to play quake at high resolution with high frame rates? Information derived from the interactivity. Without that information, or with less of it ( text quake ), the interactivity is lessened. There is less for you to interact with.

Stories and RPGs. I never said stories couldn''t be part of interactivity. Isn''t an RPG exactly the kind of game where you influence the flow of a story through your actions? The effect of interactivity is the changes on the story. The fact that most CRPGs don''t have much change to the story nomatter what you do shows why they are bad RPGs ( but not necessarily bad to play, yet again, look at Diablo II.. enough non-story related interactivity there to make it worth playing. )

Linear story game with no other interactive elements = an electronic book. You either finish the story or you don''t. You die or you don''t. If there''s no branching, you do not influence the story.

And I know I have been branded a heretic for this now


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

Keith, the point is definitely starting to come together. I agree with everything you said except I still think there's 2 froms of interactivity:

Passive: as in movies, books, etc.

Active: the more concrete, visible kind of interactivity that changes the course of the game in some way.


It's not the same type of interactivity (not really even close), but it is interactivity nontheless.

That's more of a technicality than anything. I definitely get what you're saying.

When you execute an action in an RPG that alters the story, you're actively interacting w/ a part of the gameplay. When you pop out from behind a wall and blast a monster away in Quake, you're also actively interacting w/ gameplay.

What's part of the gameplay varies from game to game I'm finding. I do think that passive interactivity could be an aspect in the gameplay. Although I must admit, that if it didn't have some kind of active part one way or another, I don't think it would be game. If the only active part was press to continue to the next page, then it would be just like a book or movie.

Just as you cannot have 100% active interaction 'cause there'd be nothing to interact w/. I think this is what you've been saying all along here anyway, MadKeith, but I just wanted to make the point that passive interactivity is a part (although a different part) of interactivity too.

Edited by - Nazrix on September 8, 2000 3:46:59 AM

quote: Original post by Nazrix
but I still think there''s 2 froms of interactivity:

Passive: as in movies, books, etc.

Active: the more concrete, visible kind of interactivity that changes the course of the game in some way.

That''s like saying: there''s two types of truth:
1. A lie
2. The truth.

If it''s passive, it''s not interactive. Trust me on this, it isn''t. Interactivity implies action on the part of the receiver. And I don''t mean blinking your eyes or flipping the page...
Dammit let me look it up.

quote: From Dictionary.com
in·ter·ac·tive (ntr-ktv)
adj.
Acting or capable of acting on each other.
Computer Science. Of or relating to a two-way electronic or communications system in which response is direct and continual.
Of, relating to, or being a form of television entertainment in which the signal activates electronic apparatus in the viewer''s home or the viewer uses the apparatus to affect events on the screen, or both.

I.e. in normal books or movies, you can NOT have an effect on what you are presented with. They are NOT interactive.
That doesn''t mean they can''t be INVOLVING, and I think thats where you guys muddle things up a bit.




Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

Perhaps, involving is what I am saying. It probably is unfair to call the 2 the same word, but I still think that it is a superficial way of looking at interactivity...that you must see the result of the interactivity.

Do we at least agree that this passive sort of information can (not nessessarily must) be a part (not the whole) of the gameplay? As in, if we take it out, what we do actively interacted with will be lessened.

Edited by - Nazrix on September 8, 2000 3:55:53 AM

The passive part of the game is the polish, the fluff, the illustrations in the book, the hard cover.
It is not part of the gameplay, but it can improve the experience. It can make the difference between your umpteenth implementation of the FPS GamePlay idea, and having a great atmospheric game. If it is involving, it might even seem a part of the gameplay. A lot of RPGs rely on this at the moment, because interactivity with the story is pathetically limited. There''s only one risk: you might miss the audience completely. If they do not find the story involving, they''ll think it''s a shitty game, because they cannot change it.


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.