Do you actually look around when you play these games?

[mizeri]

sure, i loved how storm peak looked, in mass effect one when you landed with your mako on random planets, some of the planets had amazing looking environment like one was a moon by a giant planet and the view looked beautiful, some times the music of a specific zone is great too, i kinda liked the hyjal music in cata, in chrono trigger i would just not do anything when schala came along and just listen to her theme.

[Jibjub]

I did not say this actually. I said I go by the map and objectives in answering the thread topic- which I do because I focus on necessary core element of video games; gameplay.

You are just saying that graphics are part of the gameplay. They cannot be separated.

No one would have played WoW if it was just a black screen, a white square with a sword and an amazing minimap with objectives.

Stop being contrarian and admit graphics matter. That's like saying the setting of a book has no affect on the story -- or, the reader's interaction with the story, if that helps you.

[Post]

I did not say this actually. I said I go by the map and objectives in answering the thread topic- which I do because I focus on necessary core element of video games; gameplay.

Following with "Video games are about gameplay", which would mean they aren't as much about the other things. Which is just your personal preference.

I do not play many games for enjoyment; actually I do not like video games too much.

I'm honestly curious how you became a moderator on a video game forum while not really liking video games. That's not a jab at you; obviously you can do your job just fine without liking games, it's just as I said curiosity.

However, one can never make a video game without gameplay. The other stuff (visuals, audio, etc) are not required for a game.

This doesn't make games about gameplay. Refer to the painting analogy.

Again, it's just about personal preference.

[Mister Cheese]

It's why I'm glad the new metal gear doesn't have a minimap and forces you to mark enemies manually. I like being able to take in my surroundings and looking at how detailed stuff can be. It's amazing what some developers can do with environments(AC: Unity's Notre Dame looks fucking amazing) but gameplay can sometimes ruin it.

[klogaroth]

WoW does look great if you want to look around, though if I have an objective in the game I'll focus on that.

If the difference wasn't so great as to start affecting mechanics anything relating to Warcraft could still look like this for all I care:

[Xargoth6634]

Depends on the game. If it's open world like Skyrim, Far Cry, etc. then I pay attention and appreciate the graphics. I used to in WoW, but eh. I remember alt-z'ing in Desolace back in BC and taking screenshots, as well as in Silverpine, Tirisfal, and Thousand Needles. The game doesn't make me feel like that anymore.

[Fencers]

Yea Fencers, gameplay is all that matters not graphics.

I did not say this either. What 'matters' is subjective.

Why are you not a millionaire again for selling millions of copies of text based games since you think they are so amazing by today's standards and still relevant to anyone but you and very few people?

I do not see the relevance of this statement. Seems like an ad hominem and very far off from the simplicity of my reasoning and statement on page one.

It's an opinion that graphics may not matter to you, but it's a damn fact that graphics matter the the industry.

I never claimed this either. Really drawing conclusions here that are not actually expressed in my posts.

You are just saying that graphics are part of the gameplay. They cannot be separated.

They can be separated. One can be created without the other. Though only one is necessary for to play and create a video game.

No one would have played WoW if it was just a black screen, a white square with a sword and an amazing minimap with objectives.

Not my concern or argument.

Stop being contrarian and admit graphics matter.

What? I never said graphics didn't matter.

I am not anti-graphics and pro-blank screens. Kinda silly this appeal you are leveraging at me here.

Following with "Video games are about gameplay", which would mean they aren't as much about the other things. Which is just your personal preference.

I don't know, it seems like the usual end user conception of video game media going on here. I didn't really say any of these wild claims.

It is not a matter of preference.Video games are not like other media, the programming of a game is objective reality, you have to define how they operate. That is not opinion.

I have to create a rule set for you to jump in Super Boshi Bros. Part XIIV if I wish the player to be able to do so. I do not have to render geometry, animate a model, create a SFX or write a story to create a jump function.

I'm honestly curious how you became a moderator on a video game forum while not really liking video games. That's not a jab at you; obviously you can do your job just fine without liking games, it's just as I said curiosity.

There was an open enrollment. I am the moderator of several forums outside of MMOC and this sub-forum coincided with an interest I had in the development of Guild Wars 2 at the time of enrollment.

This doesn't make games about gameplay. Refer to the painting analogy.

Again, it's just about personal preference.

Video games are unlike other media. The expression of gameplay is the modus by which the only criteria of their existence is satisfied in the medium.

A blank canvas can be artful and can be an expression of painting as a medium. A video game that can not be played or made does not exist as a video game.

[Post]

Video games are unlike other media. The expression of gameplay is the modus by which the only criteria of their existence is satisfied in the medium.

A blank canvas can be artful and can be an expression of painting as a medium. A video game that can not be played or made does not exist as a video game.

I feel like you misunderstood the analogy. Paintings aren't about the canvas. Sure they can be to some people, but you can't make a general statement saying that's what they're about. They're about what people make them about.

You're coming into the thread and saying "I don't pay attention to the environment etc. because gameplay is the only required component of a game." It doesn't fit with what the phrase "games are about gameplay" implies. If you say gameplay is all that matters to you then it makes sense, but saying "games are about gameplay" is just wrong.

Yes, gameplay is the most important aspect to the game actually existing. No, that doesn't mean games are about gameplay vs the entire experience and no that's not what the OP was asking.

[Darsithis]

I understand the mundane user associate modern video games with things other than gameplay. Or may regard other elements higher; which is okay from a personal point of view. Though it is 100% incorrect to assert there is anything more paramount to video games than gameplay (the rules and operation that compose play).

I understand that you feel that everyone around you is a "mundane user" not capable of grasping the fine nuances of whatever point of view you hold to the exclusion of all else, but there is one particular point I have to get straight here: you don't get to say that anyone who doesn't agree with you is "100% incorrect" over something so subjective as personal weight of video game areas.

The statement quoted is factual without personal opinion. A video game literally can not be without gameplay. You can not make it, you can not play it. All other elements, while very nice and enriching to a video game, are not expressly necessary for the creation or operation of a video game.

You're making a completely pointless point. Gameplay - the intention for the game, the story it is meant to convey, how it conveys that story, and how everything balances is obviously important. That is not to the exclusion of anything else. It's all important, and the best rated games of the last decade have all been that way because their visuals and audio added a depth to the game that their competitors lack.

Objectively, there is a reason why games have moved closer and closer to realism over the past 20 years. Think back to Zork, originally written in 1977 when the personal computer as we know it didn't even exist. Many computers lacked any sort of ability to display graphics, much less color graphics. It was written for the time it was in and, at the time, was a smash hit. Make a game like it today and you will get nostalgia lovers preening over it but most people are going to say "are you serious?". Move onto earlier CGA and Tandy color games with their 5-color palettes, then EGA and VGA with 16, 24, and 256. Move into 1999+ when the first 3D graphics-card addons came along. Move a little further into full 3D cards of their own that have only grown exponentially more powerful. If environment, visuals, audio, and the like didn't matter, no one would be bothering with it. We wouldn't have the Unreal, Source, and Unity engines out there. Mobile graphics wouldn't have trended into 3D. The whole point is that the environment matters. The visuals matter. The audio matters. The right visuals and the right audio at the right time can immerse a player into an experience they won't forget. Those are the games that make it.

That's not to say that graphics are the ONLY thing in a game. They're not. I will take a great story over impressive graphics but I at least prefer something that looks reasonably well-put-together. That doesn't mean that I can objectively say "environments aren't important and anyone who says they are are incorrect". It means I can say, for me, that the story line and gameplay has to be good enough for me to overlook the visual and audio elements that aren't as amazing.

[BananaHandsB]

I watch the map and objectives. I do not notice the environment unless it is an explicit gameplay element.

Video games are about gameplay.

If you want to make a blanket statement that's true, video games are about playing a game on computer (consoles, phones, etc are all computers), that is all. Maybe for you, it's just about whatever you narrowly define as "gameplay", but for the vast majority of the world, video games are a lot more. For example, this forum, the community, is part of a game (many games actually), and while this may not necessarily be important for you, for many, community is an important part of a video game, hence the trend towards online games. So just to clarify, when you make blanket statements like that, it's important to qualify it with "for me" or "in my opinion".

For me, gameplay is the most important factor for a game, but there are many other factors that I find enhance a game and my enjoyment of it (which is what really matters to me): graphics, community, bug/annoyance level, developer vision/philosophy, longevity, lore, etc: I could list things all night, but to answer the OP, I definitely find myself sometimes just staring at objectives and trying to get thru something just to get it out of the way, but I try to be observant and aware of the visual treats as much as I can, largely to make sure I don't miss any of the useful, interesting, or just plain fun elements that might not be in my direct line of sight, but also because it's just more enjoyable not playing a like a machine and really taking in everything the developers put there for you, not just the narrow line of quests or objectives I happen to be engaging at the time.

[Fencers]

They're about what people make them about.

Paintings no object operation or rule set. Games do.

You're coming into the thread and saying "I don't pay attention to the environment etc. because gameplay is the only required component of a game."

This is misrepresentation.

If you look at the post here: link, take note of what I quote of the OP and how I answer the topic.

Follow up posts have addressed what I meant by this and I explained further.

I specifically focus on the objectives of a game because this is what is most keen to me and coincides with the essential element of the medium; gameplay. Ergo, in my post I stated I do not notice that which is no explicitly part of gameplay (environmental effects and so forth according to the OP's wording).

No, that doesn't mean games are about gameplay vs the entire experience and no that's not what the OP was asking.

I just don't have any interested or care for "matters" or "whole experience". That was not even in the purview of my initial reply. I do not discount one's desire for the "entire experience" (however you define this), because I largely do not care about this at all.

I understand that you feel that everyone around you is a "mundane user" not capable of grasping the fine nuances of whatever point of view you hold to the exclusion of all else, but there is one particular point I have to get straight here: you don't get to say that anyone who doesn't agree with you is "100% incorrect" over something so subjective as personal weight of video game areas.

This seems overly hostile, to be frank.

One would be completely incorrect. There is no subjectivity in the operation of a game. How you feel about the gameplay expressed is the only aspect that is subjective. The super shotgun's fire command functioning by X, Y or Z parameters is independent of how one feels about the rules which govern this function.

Without defining how an asset, environment or function behave, you can not have have a game. There logically can not be anything more paramount to playing a game than being able to play a game.

Gameplay - the intention for the game, the story it is meant to convey, how it conveys that story, and how everything balances is obviously important.That is not to the exclusion of anything else. It's all important, and the best rated games of the last decade have all been that way because their visuals and audio added a depth to the game that their competitors lack.

I have never asserted elements such as sound or visuals are to be excluded. I said elements such as sound or narrative can be omitted and a game can still be created and played. However, a video game sans gameplay can never be created or played.

Visual representation, narrative and so on; are factually not expressly required to create a video game. You even play some of these games right now, still.

In the part of my post you quoted I even said such elements are enriching to games. I did not get into this business of what 'matters' / 'entire experience' or other such wording.

[Post]

This is misrepresentation.

If you look at the post here: link, take note of what I quote of the OP and how I answer the topic.

Follow up posts have addressed what I meant by this and I explained further.

You came in and said "games are about gameplay", then when people said this isn't true you said it is because games cannot exist without gameplay. When you say something like "I do _______", "games are about gameplay" it implies that you do the first because of the second. I feel like the biggest part of this issue is poor phrasing on your part TBH.

I specifically focus on the objectives of a game because this is what is most keen to me and coincides with the essential element of the medium; gameplay. Ergo, in my post I stated I do not notice that which is no explicitly part of gameplay (environmental effects and so forth according to the OP's wording).

This is what you needed to say in the beginning, your specific tastes are geared towards the essential (required, not what games are made for) part of games. Again, poor phrasing.

[Fencers]

You came in and said "games are about gameplay"

This isn't the only thing I said nor is the sentence as written inaccurate to the operation of a game.

Again, poor phrasing.

However, this is a possibility. It made sense at the time of writing and in retrospect I how the added space could be understood as a statement not directly following the above paragraph.

Allow me to change it for clarity.

[ravenmoon]

Graphicial fidelity or accuracy does not invalidate gameplay. Games are still about gameplay, and they can still look or sound great or have a killer narrative. However, it is without question and exception that a video game is played.

.

There are many types of games, some are about just playing ..others are just a fun way to do other things, and we make a "game" of it. Playing is afterall an action, but not necessarily the be all and end all of it, nor necessarily the only or even most important point of it.

one of the highest points of entertainment and the hallmark of fantasy roleplay is to make you the star of the story, a story that you star in, or a movie that you are the star in, and some games are definitely about that, most single player RPGS and in an mmo, SWTOR really made me feel like I was playing movie... while these are also games, you could view it as an interactive movie that is fun to engage with. the genre roleplay and fantasy are more that sort of thing as opposed to a football game (real or video) - and in this category, narrative is the most important element there, and while gameplay is essential, you need great environment, sound etc as you are bringing a world to life, those are all dead essentials. Oh don't act so surprised, how many times have you seen horrible playing games do quite well

now the product can be a lot of fun too and those other things don't matter to you, that's fine, but to say it's not about anything but the gameplay because it's a video game, is a bit...shortsighted.

[Simulacrum]

Play is recreation or enjoyment, thus anything engaged in in a digital format for such reasons is a video game. Ergo, gameplay is unnecessary for a game to be a game. Arguably, graphics might be a more important part of games, as they might provide users more pleasure than other aspects of the video game.

I have now logically disproven Fencer's thesis.

Incidentally, welcome to the glorious world of being able to use words to mean whatever you feel like they mean regardless of their normal usage or formal definitions.

[mizeri]

i see this entire thread has become all about arguing with Fencers

[Zandro]

I tend to focus on the mini-map, however I wish I would look at the environment more. After I have cleared content multiple times and take my time leveling an alt - reading all the questlines - understanding the lore - putting actual focus in to what I'm doing rather than just finishing as quickly as absolute possible, I realize how beautiful the game really is and how much actually goes in it. Every new expansion I tell myself I am going to take my time and relax and just enjoy leveling, but that never happens...

[Coombs]

I turn off mini map and quest objectives in every game I play because all you really do is watch the minimap and use peripheral to navigate the world. Turn it off in GTA 5 and you have to actually know where you are going. Turned almost everything like that off in the Witcher 3 besides the health bar and the game was far more immersive and enjoyable.

[Fencers]

Play is recreation or enjoyment

Not totally correct. Play is most often engaged in for recreation and entertainment among humans. But this is not strictly so- exercise, education and investigation are also in the realm of play and other gains are possible.

Play in the sense of operation, is definitely not strict in gain or usage. As one can create play (engagement) that is neither enjoyable, recreational, educational, et cetera by design.

Ergo, gameplay is unnecessary for a game to be a game.

There is no such thing. All games, even pretend games, have operation to play. You could not play them otherwise. If you can not pretend, for example, you are not playing the pretend game. Literally.

[Pull My Finger]

I never pay attention to the taste of food. Food is about nutrients. In fact, I don't enjoy great taste all that much, it's more the sociopolitical ramifications of preparation of warm meals that fascinate me. And never forget to breathe folks - but only to ventilate your larynx and most certainly not to avoid depriving your brain of oxygen!