![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Playability was copied or moved into Gameplay with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Hmmm, this is lacking something. Seems to me that the key thing about "gameplay" in the video game world is that it is something which is subjective, yet can be rated: ie Poor -> Excellent. A review of game is likely to refer to "satisfying gameplay" - it's not the detail of how the game works (the mechanics), or the performance (frames/second, colour depth etc) but the overall effect. It's not easy to put a number on, or describe - or to produce.
Someone like to try to put this sort of thing into the article? Snori 05:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry but the current definition of gameplay seems to be a POV. There are no references, and the article appears to make many assumptions. Dndn1011 13:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me that this article suffers because there's two different contexts in which the term is (apparantly) used.
One is something like "formal game theory", and the other is "evaluationg/reviewing computer games". Even if there's an area of overlap, I think it would be useful to split the article along these lines. Snori 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The article lacks:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.158.241 ( talk) 05:23, April 7, 2007
On one hand, the first sentence says "all player experiences during the interaction". This definition is too broad, it appears synonymous to "playing". In particular, this definition covers superficial aspects such as graphics and sound, which are definitely not included in gameplay. Such a definition should be moved to a separate section which deals with extreme points of view.
On the other hand, the article suggestively states that
current academic discussions tend to favor more practical terms such as "game mechanics".
In my opinion, the notion of "game mechanics" is defined better than that of "gameplay", but is not synonymous with it.
So, the current, implicit definition in the current article is: "Gameplay is the name for those game aspects that are less immediate (less superficial) than graphics, sound, or immediate controls, and more immediate (more concrete, less deep) than the storyline." This is a definition by exclusion. But what is it that is left between surface and depth? There definitely is something, but it is hard to describe indeed.
Attempted definition A: Gameplay covers the in-game means available and used by the player to achieve the game goals.
Examples:
The aspects involved in gameplay may differ between different genres.
Attempted definition B: Gameplay covers the player experience beyond the superficial. How does it feel to be there? What can you do there? How can you do it? How does it feel to do it?
To be continued... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.158.241 ( talk) 05:23, April 7, 2007
A related and sometimes synonymous term is "playability" (how playable a game is). Various sources (as well as existing computer game related articles on the Wikipedia) already use the term to mean more or less the same as "gameplay" in the practical sense. Maybe it could be mentioned in the article, and perhaps in searches it could redirect here, or have its disambiguation page that links here, as I've noted the word is also used sometimes for musical instruments (the ease or comfort with which they can be used). - Who is like God? 05:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Gameplay is a neologoism and shouldn't be on wikipedia. I looked in the OED and Gameplay wasn't even there! I suggest, therefore, that we change Gameplay to Game play for this article and all articles that mention game play. Thanks. Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin ( talk) 21:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No! Definitely two different concepts.-- ArkinAardvark ( talk) 00:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The lead needs a description that will not disintegrate when editors challenge it. The most appropriate description, in my opinion, would be in this starting form:
where "blah" represents statements, such as, "user interaction with the game" or "excludes graphics". Note that first sentence says "is" and deals with concepts that are not denied (alas, may not be mentioned) in each of the notable sources. The second sentence says "may" and deals with elements that may be specifically excluded by other sources.
It is important that more than one notable source supports each of these elements. While this description may not be true or 100% accurate, we are concerned with verifiability and not accuracy. The sources must also explicitly state that they are defining the term "gameplay". Other notable sources that fail to explicitly define the term can be brought up in "Ambiguity of definition" section. Individual elements can then be in detail addressed in the main body of the article.
My hope is that, when enough sources are gathered, the lead will adhere to guidelines (most notably, WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN), provide clear summary of what is and is sometimes accepted by notable sources, and will not be easily criticizable.— H3llkn0wz ▎ talk 23:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |first2=
missing |last2=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |first2=
(
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)So far...
Note that I deliberately omitted "and" in first sentence, as that would be WP:SYNTH. This is merely grouping sources that have explicitly said (not implied) the same thing. — H3llkn0wz ▎ talk 17:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I added this into the lead; let's see how long it lasts. — H3llkn0wz ▎ talk 14:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Another note: Don't associate "gameplay" to "video games" by definition. While it is true that most games for which this word is intended depends on video output, this is not essential to gameplay as such. There are soundbased games, and haptic element might just as well be important to gameplay. A text based games can be read by reader for the blind. If everyone were blind, would there be no such thing as gameplay? It is better to use the word "computer games", which is more general and captures the core of gameplay better, which is play-experiences designed and delivered by computing power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.129.53 ( talk) 20:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm planning on merging playability into this article, any objections? -- Necrojesta ( talk) 15:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it's better a new section for playabiliuty, there is a lot of work in this field, for example, now there is more info about playability, more than gameplay Playability represent the quality in use of a videogame, represent the degree of the player experience. Gameplay is only a part of this player experience: graphics, imputs, challenges, goals, rewards bosses and so on have a lot of inflence in playability, not only gameplay. In Interactive Systems -> Usability -> User Experience -> Quality in Use In Game systems -> Playability -> Playaer Experience -> Quality in Use -- Joseluisgonsan ( talk) 09:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The subject of games is no easier than many other questions in human psychology and sociology. Maybe you should take the subject seriously and consult an expert or two. I wonder if we have any experts in classical and modern narrative, or perhaps classical and modern mythology, lying round, not getting paid? P;D
In the meanwhile, take a look at these pages, and see if they don't help a little.
Kriegsspiel (wargame)
The Interpretation of Dreams
Lucid dream
Play (activity)
Play (theatre)
Narrative
Aesthetic interpretation
Allegorical interpretation
Television Tropes
You could also try reading some of my own material at my eponymous Wiki. You could do worse, look at the childish crap on the gender pages here at WP. --
TheLastWordSword (
talk)
22:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
These sections are by their nature referencing an ambiguous topic, but rather than referencing that aspect in the article itself, the article should be expansive. This page needs to differentiate between game elements and game categories. For instance, the "gameplay types" section as it is now contrasts co-op and deathmatch modes. But then it goes on to classify another "type" called "twitch" gaming, which includes first person shooters, games that employ these modes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordNelsonsTrousers ( talk • contribs) 02:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The following hierarchy might be a simpler solution:
In "Gaming Style" one could address human-game interaction, such as whether there is a pro-gaming scene, the popularity of mods, etc.
Other would be I suppose anything else unique to the game in question.
"Gameplay" has always been separate and distinct from the over-all experience of a game, and from the game's other qualities such as graphics or sound. Check any review site going back to the 90's. You can argue with me about the subjectivity of my statement, but it seems to me that anyone who refers to an entire game's experience as "gameplay" is fairly new to the hobby. 2600:1009:B010:2E9F:871:5366:925D:7D0F ( talk) 07:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
IMO the /info/en/?search=Gameplay article fails to acknowledge two fundamental aspects of Gameplay.
Nearly all forms of gameplay have two core concepts:
1) Correctly judging distance during risk of failure or death: The players skill in determining the distance between pixels when facing death or failure. Examples:
2) Dealing with random chance: Also known as risk management. Examples:
On a side note, are consumers confusing /info/en/?search=Interactive_art with gameplay? Luzarius ( talk) 05:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gameplay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Echaka auf xh 2A02:8071:A684:8280:9CEA:868A:23B3:2ACF ( talk) 15:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
trostorf 2003:DC:7F2D:62DF:1805:8327:7BB2:4D5F ( talk) 16:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Playability was copied or moved into Gameplay with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Hmmm, this is lacking something. Seems to me that the key thing about "gameplay" in the video game world is that it is something which is subjective, yet can be rated: ie Poor -> Excellent. A review of game is likely to refer to "satisfying gameplay" - it's not the detail of how the game works (the mechanics), or the performance (frames/second, colour depth etc) but the overall effect. It's not easy to put a number on, or describe - or to produce.
Someone like to try to put this sort of thing into the article? Snori 05:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry but the current definition of gameplay seems to be a POV. There are no references, and the article appears to make many assumptions. Dndn1011 13:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me that this article suffers because there's two different contexts in which the term is (apparantly) used.
One is something like "formal game theory", and the other is "evaluationg/reviewing computer games". Even if there's an area of overlap, I think it would be useful to split the article along these lines. Snori 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The article lacks:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.158.241 ( talk) 05:23, April 7, 2007
On one hand, the first sentence says "all player experiences during the interaction". This definition is too broad, it appears synonymous to "playing". In particular, this definition covers superficial aspects such as graphics and sound, which are definitely not included in gameplay. Such a definition should be moved to a separate section which deals with extreme points of view.
On the other hand, the article suggestively states that
current academic discussions tend to favor more practical terms such as "game mechanics".
In my opinion, the notion of "game mechanics" is defined better than that of "gameplay", but is not synonymous with it.
So, the current, implicit definition in the current article is: "Gameplay is the name for those game aspects that are less immediate (less superficial) than graphics, sound, or immediate controls, and more immediate (more concrete, less deep) than the storyline." This is a definition by exclusion. But what is it that is left between surface and depth? There definitely is something, but it is hard to describe indeed.
Attempted definition A: Gameplay covers the in-game means available and used by the player to achieve the game goals.
Examples:
The aspects involved in gameplay may differ between different genres.
Attempted definition B: Gameplay covers the player experience beyond the superficial. How does it feel to be there? What can you do there? How can you do it? How does it feel to do it?
To be continued... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.158.241 ( talk) 05:23, April 7, 2007
A related and sometimes synonymous term is "playability" (how playable a game is). Various sources (as well as existing computer game related articles on the Wikipedia) already use the term to mean more or less the same as "gameplay" in the practical sense. Maybe it could be mentioned in the article, and perhaps in searches it could redirect here, or have its disambiguation page that links here, as I've noted the word is also used sometimes for musical instruments (the ease or comfort with which they can be used). - Who is like God? 05:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Gameplay is a neologoism and shouldn't be on wikipedia. I looked in the OED and Gameplay wasn't even there! I suggest, therefore, that we change Gameplay to Game play for this article and all articles that mention game play. Thanks. Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin ( talk) 21:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No! Definitely two different concepts.-- ArkinAardvark ( talk) 00:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The lead needs a description that will not disintegrate when editors challenge it. The most appropriate description, in my opinion, would be in this starting form:
where "blah" represents statements, such as, "user interaction with the game" or "excludes graphics". Note that first sentence says "is" and deals with concepts that are not denied (alas, may not be mentioned) in each of the notable sources. The second sentence says "may" and deals with elements that may be specifically excluded by other sources.
It is important that more than one notable source supports each of these elements. While this description may not be true or 100% accurate, we are concerned with verifiability and not accuracy. The sources must also explicitly state that they are defining the term "gameplay". Other notable sources that fail to explicitly define the term can be brought up in "Ambiguity of definition" section. Individual elements can then be in detail addressed in the main body of the article.
My hope is that, when enough sources are gathered, the lead will adhere to guidelines (most notably, WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN), provide clear summary of what is and is sometimes accepted by notable sources, and will not be easily criticizable.— H3llkn0wz ▎ talk 23:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |first2=
missing |last2=
(
help); Missing pipe in: |first2=
(
help)CS1 maint: date format (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)So far...
Note that I deliberately omitted "and" in first sentence, as that would be WP:SYNTH. This is merely grouping sources that have explicitly said (not implied) the same thing. — H3llkn0wz ▎ talk 17:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I added this into the lead; let's see how long it lasts. — H3llkn0wz ▎ talk 14:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Another note: Don't associate "gameplay" to "video games" by definition. While it is true that most games for which this word is intended depends on video output, this is not essential to gameplay as such. There are soundbased games, and haptic element might just as well be important to gameplay. A text based games can be read by reader for the blind. If everyone were blind, would there be no such thing as gameplay? It is better to use the word "computer games", which is more general and captures the core of gameplay better, which is play-experiences designed and delivered by computing power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.129.53 ( talk) 20:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm planning on merging playability into this article, any objections? -- Necrojesta ( talk) 15:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it's better a new section for playabiliuty, there is a lot of work in this field, for example, now there is more info about playability, more than gameplay Playability represent the quality in use of a videogame, represent the degree of the player experience. Gameplay is only a part of this player experience: graphics, imputs, challenges, goals, rewards bosses and so on have a lot of inflence in playability, not only gameplay. In Interactive Systems -> Usability -> User Experience -> Quality in Use In Game systems -> Playability -> Playaer Experience -> Quality in Use -- Joseluisgonsan ( talk) 09:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The subject of games is no easier than many other questions in human psychology and sociology. Maybe you should take the subject seriously and consult an expert or two. I wonder if we have any experts in classical and modern narrative, or perhaps classical and modern mythology, lying round, not getting paid? P;D
In the meanwhile, take a look at these pages, and see if they don't help a little.
Kriegsspiel (wargame)
The Interpretation of Dreams
Lucid dream
Play (activity)
Play (theatre)
Narrative
Aesthetic interpretation
Allegorical interpretation
Television Tropes
You could also try reading some of my own material at my eponymous Wiki. You could do worse, look at the childish crap on the gender pages here at WP. --
TheLastWordSword (
talk)
22:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
These sections are by their nature referencing an ambiguous topic, but rather than referencing that aspect in the article itself, the article should be expansive. This page needs to differentiate between game elements and game categories. For instance, the "gameplay types" section as it is now contrasts co-op and deathmatch modes. But then it goes on to classify another "type" called "twitch" gaming, which includes first person shooters, games that employ these modes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordNelsonsTrousers ( talk • contribs) 02:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The following hierarchy might be a simpler solution:
In "Gaming Style" one could address human-game interaction, such as whether there is a pro-gaming scene, the popularity of mods, etc.
Other would be I suppose anything else unique to the game in question.
"Gameplay" has always been separate and distinct from the over-all experience of a game, and from the game's other qualities such as graphics or sound. Check any review site going back to the 90's. You can argue with me about the subjectivity of my statement, but it seems to me that anyone who refers to an entire game's experience as "gameplay" is fairly new to the hobby. 2600:1009:B010:2E9F:871:5366:925D:7D0F ( talk) 07:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
IMO the /info/en/?search=Gameplay article fails to acknowledge two fundamental aspects of Gameplay.
Nearly all forms of gameplay have two core concepts:
1) Correctly judging distance during risk of failure or death: The players skill in determining the distance between pixels when facing death or failure. Examples:
2) Dealing with random chance: Also known as risk management. Examples:
On a side note, are consumers confusing /info/en/?search=Interactive_art with gameplay? Luzarius ( talk) 05:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gameplay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Echaka auf xh 2A02:8071:A684:8280:9CEA:868A:23B3:2ACF ( talk) 15:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
trostorf 2003:DC:7F2D:62DF:1805:8327:7BB2:4D5F ( talk) 16:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)