I'm not sure this guy entirely knows what he's talking about -- that, or he so strongly prefers a single type of game that he isn't willing to even acknowledge the existence (or validity) of any others.

Okami has beautiful visuals, wonderful audio, even good CONTROLS -- actually running around is a lot of fun -- but the GAMEPLAY, the actual challenges and roadblocks that the software presents to the user to use his limited interactivity to "pass", is pretty near terrible. In my opinion that doesn't make it a bad game at all.

I guess I should be posting this on the original post, and not here...

We banned the word gameplay from our magazine years ago. I think it did us the world of good. It's a nonsense, lazy word.

I did read this post on Insomni.ac before, gave it some thoughts and think he's right. btw I like Insomni.ac so much that I made a RSS for it: http://feed43.com/7507250800770654.xml

RavenWorks, the way you describe Okami you make it sound like a pretty terrible game!

So if you were reviewing it you could say "Okami is a terrible game, though I must admit that its visuals are beautiful, its audio wonderful, and its controls perfectly responsive".

Also, btw, guys, the site's name is insomnia.ac.

I remember Stu Campbell saying this ages ago - I'll paraphrase, but "saying 'gameplay' when discussing a game is like discussing 'cardrive' when discussing a car." I see Alex using roughly the same argument.

Which I absolutely agree with. As usual with Alex's writing, I couldn't agree less with his tone, but as far as I can see that's the same kind of immaturity that leads to people writing the word 'gameplay' regularly, so I don't hold it against him.

(When it comes to the word, I can't say for sure I haven't used the it ever, though. It's a lazy word that can occasionally slip into anyone's writing, I think.)

"Good gameplay" is a decent enough statement for people who look for nothing more than a few hours of polished entertainment in games. As long as it won't frustrate the reviewer, it's got "good gameplay" and Joe Gamer tends to go with that, as he doesn't care about the intricacies of games. As long as it's a fun ride, it's good.

To hardcore gamers (pardon the expression) such as us, this won't mean much, but then again we wouldn't/shouldn't be reading reviews that incorporate such empty statements in the first place. And if the majority of publications does do that, then, well, I guess their content isn't aimed at us.

"Gameplay" is only "meaningless" in the same way that "fun" is meaningless. Which is to say that they're both extremely vague terms, but they also happen to be extremely vague terms that give you a definite idea of what they don't mean, and that can be extremely useful (meaningful) as shorthand. We're not always in situations where we can get into the nitty gritty of how a game makes us feel, or how a game, er, plays, and in those situations it's especially handy to be able to say something like, "This game is more fun than that one," or "This is a gorgeous-looking game, but the gameplay is terrible."

The idea that "bad gameplay" necessarily implies "bad game" comes from the fact that games have traditionally been all about the gameplay. Chess, for instance, has an identity that's almost completely separated from its visual form. As long as you have a set of properly differentiated pieces, it doesn't much matter what they look like: you're still playing Chess. But the notion of visuals and other elements as separate from the identity of a game has less truck with videogames, which heavily emphasize the particulars of sensory experience as an integral part of what the game has to offer. Thus it becomes possible for a game with "bad gameplay" to nevertheless be regarded as good or worthwhile, because the overall experience it provides remains valuable, as RavenWorks was explaining in his post.

I'm with Alex and Tim. I've argued this case many times, that "gameplay" is a fallback shorthand word that has no place in a serious review of a game. Sure, in conversation you can use it (or even "fun") but when you use it as your silver bullet in a review, you aren't being very useful.

I thought it was pretty widely accepted that gameplay was just a less nerdy way of saying mechanics and the feel of the controls.

When you strip other cursory elements like plot, setting and graphics how does the game play? Gameplay. See?

I find the prejudicial banning of any particular word to be editorially "lazier" and more "stupid" than any particular word I can think of.

I think this is nonsense. Gameplay is used as a general word, isn't it? I can consider its use to generally refer to things such as mechanics, control, level design, etc.

What exactly is wrong with general use? Beyond a personal vendetta against the word.

Is there such thing as a "good game" with "bad gameplay"?

There's comparisons drawn to books, records and movies in the argument but games are not the same. Games contain combinations of those mediums in addition to elements exclusive to games. It might be a lame analogy but you don't exactly talk about cars the same way you talk about sports.

No, there isn’t a good game with bad “gameplay”. There can be a bad game with tight controls and good graphics or a good game with simple puzzles. If we talk about gameplay are we talking about the controls here or the amount of hit player can take before he drops? If you want to refer to mechanics, control, ect in a general way you can call it the game, that makes word gameplay obsolete.

"gameplay" is often used as a stand in for "mechanics", which is a word I prefer. I'm guilty of using "gameplay" as well, mostly out of force of habit. I agree that it's not a very good word at all and doesn't really mean anything, though.

Going by Stuart Campbell's analogy, no one says "cardrive", but you would still want to describe the way a car drives. There are more specific words for this, of course: handling, acceleration, even words like "pep" all exist, and so no one needs to say "cardrive".

The lesson is, I guess, that games journalists are lazy. Also, water is wet, fire is hot, etc.

Of course, Alex makes the same point in his article.

It just occurs to me that this term exists because games are so tech-oriented. I reckon the first time a journalist came across a terrible game with good graphics was when "gameplay" was coined. It's often used in this context (or like, gameplay vs. music, etc), and really only has anything resembling meaning when it's opposed to another, non-interactive element like visuals or music.

My feeling is that "gameplay" doesn't refer merely to the game's mechanics, but also to its dynamics, or how those mechanics play out in motion.

I seriously disagree that it's as problematic a term as it's being made out to be, though. You can certainly abuse the word, but that doesn't invalidate the word itself.

(And yes, you can have a good game with bad gameplay. It's unlikely, but possible. Reasoning in generalities tends to bias us towards our stereotypes, which is why we're strongly inclined to feel that such a thing is a contradiction.)

The issue isn't that we're prejudiced. It's that as journalists attempting to describe the content of a game, there's not really a wide enough vocabulary to describe the actions you take in the game. The gameplay in Company of Heroes is very different to the gameplay in Raving Rabbids - but lumping it all under gameplay (or mechanics if you're posh) doesn't help the reader gather any idea of how the game works, how you play it, or if they'll enjoy it.

Gameplay is pretty clear for developpers, even if we don't agree on specifics.
A definition widly accepted would be :
The challenges presented to a player, and the actions the player is permitted to take to overcome this challenge (fundamentals of game design, Ernest Adams and Andrew Rollings).

So it is not game balancing (life points etc...) and has nothing to do with graphics, it is all about the type of challenges and the tool you provide to overcome them.

If we stick to this defintion, Gameplay makes a lot of sense.

The word is good, it's just that its definition is not commonly shared.

Cheers,
Tom.

Gameplay is pretty clear for developpers, even if we don't agree on specifics.
A definition widly accepted would be :
The challenges presented to a player, and the actions the player is permitted to take to overcome this challenge (fundamentals of game design, Ernest Adams and Andrew Rollings).

So it is not game balancing (life points etc...) and has nothing to do with graphics, it is all about the type of challenges and the tool you provide to overcome them.

If we stick to this defintion, Gameplay makes a lot of sense.

The word is good, it's just that its definition is not commonly shared.

Cheers,
Tom.

Hey Tim, don't know if your comment was directed at mine specifically, but assuming it was, I'm just responding to the argument that "bad gameplay necessarily means bad game, therefore the word 'gameplay' is totally redundant." When I mention the use of stereotypes, I'm not suggesting prejudice, but rather how we reason about categories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_Theory . (That's a link to a Wikipedia article on prototype theory, but one could just as easily refer to prototypes as stereotypes.)

Until buddy comes up with a better term I think I'll continue to use "gameplay". I can tell he's not a game designer, and doesn't really have a critical attitude toward games, because gameplay refers to a specific thing within a game. You can't just use the term "game" if you're trying to get at that element of the game that revolves around the action and flow regarding the decisions you make and the feedback the game gives you. To get rid of the word without proposing an alternative is reductivist and stupid.

i agree that this word should be done away with or clearly defined. there are too many elements in a game to simply describe it in one word. You cannot describe the graphics, the controls, the story line, and the cinematography in one word. especially not the word "gameplay". if you are going to describe a game at least put some effort into it so that the rest of us will have a better understanding. that way we know whether or not to drain our pockets for it.