Gameplay

What is Gameplay

Proposed Definition(s)

Gameplay is subjective. One person's love is another's hate. However, an attempt at defining this most elusive quality is certainly worthy of discussion.

The ability to interact with the (computer) game without concious effort in a manner that is both satisfying and enjoyable. – EntropicLqd

The resultant interaction of imagination between a collective of entities on a linear basis - be they a human player, or a form of Artifical Intelligence. – DJPaul.

Everybody is unique, and anybody's passion for something my be a malevolence of another person. One person may like a lift that takes five seconds and moves diagonally, and another person likes a lift that delays for one second and it takes two seconds to move up. One person would love an incandescent light in a garage, and another person might like a fluorescent light in that same garage. It is only a matter of choice. – Zxanphorian.

Discussion

EntropicLqd: The definition as stated above implies an entirely subjective view of which games have gameplay and which don't. The definition given is also lacking as it completely fails to explain why I really like the "gameplay" of 2 team CTF, but never really liked the "gameplay" of 4 team CTF. It is possible that the quality of gameplay should be defined as a number of axioms rather than a single all encompassing definition. Still, it's a start.

Mychaeel: Oh please, please don't abuse the table syntax for text highlighting. There's always the quote syntax for that purpose.

EntropicLqd: I didn't know about that one. It's not on the Wiki Markup page (unless I've gone blind).

Tarquin: Sorry Mych. It's my fault for using it on Wiki Public Relations.

DJPaul: Corrected some spelling/punctuation. And I changed "our" definition to something I think fits better - hope the original author doesn't mind.

EntropicLqd: heh. Very nice , but it would have been nice if you have simply added yours - that was my intention when I added the (s) after Definition. And I thought we were supposed to be serious about it.

DJPaul: Changed, sorry. And sorry for killing your definition.

EntropicLqd: No sweat. All I have to do is go back to the earlier page revisions and ... viola

Elements of a teamgame

These unique, mutually benefical elements can be split into three sections:

• Competitiveness
• Individualness
• Teamwork

Competitiveness

• Awareness of the other team(s) involvement in the game
• The motivation to change that

Elaboration

As a race, we like knowing what everyone else is doing - we are nosey, and born curious; such a thing should apply in a computer game. In CTF, we know that we have (hopefully - see later) trustworthy teammates, and that we have a common goal - to capture the other team(s) flag. We also know that the enemy will be trying to stop us, and vice-versa.

We do not ask questions (especially "off-topic" ones) as we know everything we need to instantly (Yes, I know new players will have to read a description once - but that's all - a description. Not a "how-to") - asking questions in game, given the the pace of most computer games makes this unsuitable; how often do you hear even a new player ask whether they should attack or defend?

Conversely, we like to go where we are not wanted, and stick our nose in other peoples' business - the core of this is to result in an interaction.

a situation + an interaction = a new result

In our context, this means that we can and, more importantly, want to change the outcome of a game. The mechanics of the game must allow for this, and allow it to be done in an unobtrustic and simple (not necessarily basic) fashion - which brings us nicely on to the first point in the next category.

Individualness

• The ability to make a significant impact on the game (and change the outcome of it).
• The ability to realise and appreciate the involvement of both your teammates and your opponents.

Jailbreak is strong on this. The mere fact of being alive has an impact on the game. Perhaps there's a connection with the emphasis on individuality within the team that created Jailbreak... very deep

EntropicLqd:

If a team game does not allow each player to have a significant effect on the game then it has failed as a team game. Consider CTF for a moment. If a defender simply stops playing then the flag is at risk unless one of the attackers falls back to cover that role. This fall back position then reduces the total attack capability of the team - effectively reducing their effectiveness as a whole.

Team games also allow players to play in the roles that they are most suited to. Some players are naturual defenders, and others are natural attackers.

Teamwork

• To be able to work together to achieve a common goal
• To be able to play as a single entity, with minimal (text-based) communication.

EntropicLqd: I'm not sure I agree with your last point here. Most clans use voice communication software. Not only because it lets them communicate more effectively, but because it also lets them communicate with far greater frequency. Communication via voice comms within a game occurs at least an order of magnitude (probably higher) more often than it would if simple text binds were used.

DJPaul: I had trouble finding words for that last point - I meant to say more that it the an intutive(sp?) teamgame doesn't required objective setting for each parcipitant - I mean, for example in CounterStrike, you don't need to tell someone they need to defuse the bomb - they've read the 'FM' - you both presume you have a common goal (point one), and you work together without saying "Right, Jeff work with Mike, and i'll teamup with Kate".

Perhaps this is more of an extension of the "common goal" point.

EntropicLqd: Swapping players in and out of roles can sometimes be an important tactic. How about these (the first point replaces your second if you see what I mean):

• To be able to play as a single entity, with minimal goal orientated communication.
• To be able to easily and effectively communicate information relating to the completion of the goal.

---

These points are concise, and (DJPaul) will attempt to expand on them (and provide examples) over time.

---

Kuhal: My rant is just because the topic interested me and maybe can do with a revisit from you Lylmik....

There is a very important aspect to gameplay that is arguably the most important when talking about a team game. Balance is the key. A game in which one team is far too strong for the other gives no pleasure for either side nor the spectators. Balance correlates directly to fairness and some of us have an extremely acute sense of what's fair and what's not

On DJPaul's definition, I wonder if it could be made more concise by accepting that when true AI makes it's presence known, then the distinction between human and AI is irrelevant. Only their ability to imagine is important...so....

The resultant interaction of imagination between a collective of intelligent entities on a linear basis.

In the context of most modern games 'that I have seen' there is no AI yet.

On Competitiveness:

We must not forget that inaction (i.e. no interaction) also must lead to a new result or as I prefer to think of it, a new situation, otherwise there is no urgency. Urgency does not mean immediate action as such, more the process of adding some planned action to the list of actions in the imagination and prioritising it. This Urgency may lead to an immediate interaction or may lead to a planned non-interaction (which many would say is in itself an interaction??)

a situation + an interaction → a new situation

a situation + no interaction → a new situation

EntropicLqd: I'd say that a deliberate "non-interaction" was equivalent to a deliberate "interaction". .

Khual - I'm not sure that a game where one team is "far too strong" for the other is a flaw within the game (assuming all players have equal abilities and such) - or that it gives no pleasure to those involved. The number of times my UT clan has been ground into the dust by clans way above us is vast. They obviously enjoy it (and occasionally we have a bit of fun too). The big problem with FPS games generally is that the final scores are generally disproportionate to the actual difference in skill (a 5%-10% difference will make a huge difference in points). It's also interesting to note that the better clans always pick the higher scoring maps to play on (CTF-Gauntlet for example). This is not a flaw within the game, just a balance problem within the ladder/league being played.

Kuhal: Yes the game is not to blame for unbalanced teams of course. And really I am referring to public games where it's assumed the teams are somewhat random. Afterall a clan match generally implies that you are playing for a bit more than a time filler so if the competition you're in is unbalanced, that is more a demonstration of human nature than the particular game.

One of my first game type mods I called "Balanced CTF" and in this gametype I attempted to improve the already excellent CTF gameplay by "helping" the players who were on the superior team, realise just how large the gap between the players really was. I will add a link to my rant page to explain Mod Ideas/Balanced CTF as it's not really on-topic here.

Githianki: A definition for gameplay can't be subjective since the phrases good and bad gameplay are used to modifiy the word, meaning that it is a fixed entity. They are modifying a fixed object with an entirely subjective value. Therefore gameplay must be something objective. I think DJPaul's bit about being linear is sort of redundant, but the rest of the definition gets close. Gameplay is the interaction of the player's control with the systems of the game. It doesn't seem (by the use of the word play which is proactive) to be divorced from the input of a player, nor can it be limited to just encompassing a control scheme. The bog people get into is in trying to pin down what makes for enjoyable or good gameplay or bad, but there is no way to make universal declarations about this since it is subjective. I started to read the other suggestions but they seem to be straying from what seems to me a very simple thing. Gameplay is what it is. The rest is open to debate.

rant on. This is also why I often find the statement "It's all about the gameplay" to be complete rubbish. It is all about the experience. It is people's reaction to gameplay that decides whether they think it is good or bad (an thus colors their perception of a game by how much they weigh that aspect). It is true for some that they are obsessed with only the mechanics and thus gameplay might by the only factor they consider but I put forth that these people are truly exceptionally rare.

Look at it this way. A person finds certain types of gameplay fun and others not. This has nothing to do with any intrinsic value of the gameplay for it has none. It is wholly dependent on whether a person finds such gameplay pleasing or not. For that person "It is all about the gameplay" means does this or that game comply with his or her standards of fun. If that is the ONLY factor in deciding whether they like a game then they have legitimate claim to the phrase for them. But since the evaluation is subjective it cannot hold true for everyone else.

I just can't stand the circular way it is often used. eh. rant off.