For you - why is it so difficult for you to see other people's points of view?

Exaclty. And Mario Sunshine would play exactly the same if you took out the cutesy characters and replaced them with more realistic ones that cussed (assuming nothing else is changed).

Some people who might enjoy the game are turned off by cutesy characters and graphics and can't enjoy the gameplay because of it, and that's fine.

That stuff doesn't matter to me, because I only care about the gameplay (what you do in the game) it doesn't matter to me if the graphics and characters are cutesy as that doesn't affect what you do in the game.

Definitions are factual, not opinoins or points of views. Words can mean slightly different things to different people.

But when it comes down to it, everytime "gameplay" is used, it means, on the most basic level, what you do in the game.

There's really nothing else it can mean, the only real variance is what things people lump under "what you do in the game."

Why does the character have to cuss in order to be more realistic? This goes back to the Ending the Kiddy vs Adult thread I started and where I indicated that an adult game doesn't have to mean boobies or blood or cussing for that matter. Anyway - I don't want this to stray off topic... it's a good discussion so far.

Cussing doesn't make a game more realistic, but it does make it less cutesy. It just came to mind because there are people that liked Conker, but have any interest in Mario Sunshine. The only difference is that Conker cussed.

I was just making the point that content doesn't change the gameplay, whether it be through more realistic characters or "mature" things like cussing.

Okay, but like I said - not everyone's definition is the same and just because I said I thought your definition was fitting and appropriate, you've managed to repeat yourself in every subsequent post as if you'd won some kind of award for saying "omlette du fromage"... it reminds me of that episode of Dexter's Lab. Anyway - yeah, I think that's a fine and appropriate definition, but it's not like it's a word in the dictionary that has an official definition and not everyone thinks the word means exactly the same thing you think it does.

Okay - well at least we know what you mean when you say "gameplay", but as is one of the purposes of this thread - I'd like to find out what everyone else thinks the word means and perhaps what they mean when they say it.

Considering the roots of the word, this is exactly what I would say.

Well, if we're taking a poll then I'll say that my definition of the term 'gameplay' falls in line with Josh Hinkle's definition.

gameplay is pretty much how the game plays... this is pretty obvious, and non-debatable.

gameplay is a what we call in english a compound word, meaning two words strung together to create one meaning. game+play = how a game plays...

Games don't play... people play games. duh.

If I play a game for hours on end and can't wait to pick it up again because I enjoy what I'm doing I consider that good gameplay.

If a game is more eye candy like DOA3 or Spider Man I might be impressed at first by the look of the game, but I will soon find I really don't want to come back and play it over and over. I would consider the gameplay (or what I do in the game) to be lacking. Spider Man was okay, but it really didn't interest me as much as better games like GTA3. DOA3 is also an okay game, but the fighting engine has no where near the depth of the superior Virtua Fighter 4. DOA3 looks better, but Virtua Fighter 4 plays better.

In GTA3 I loved driving around the city trying to find jumps, hidden packages etc, I loved the high speed chases, the shootouts, many of the missions, driving the ambulance. I guess I really just loved the things I could do in the game and I consider that the gameplay. The Graphics of the game really had the least to do with it. It was what I could do that was important

With Mario 64 and Zelda Ocarina of Time I loved the exploring, the puzzles like figuring out how to beat enemies, trying to find secrets and hidden items or places, and the basic action aspects of the game and the ease of the controls. I liked the look of game, but it and the sounds were the least important.

With NBA2K2 its about the way the players move, shoot the ball, and how easy it is for me to pass and defend. If while I'm playing a sports game the controls become second nature and I can just feel part of the game, I consider it good gameplay. NBA2K2 also looks good, but the way the players move and the plays are run and executed is why I consider it a good game.

I guess I'm saying that what I do in the game is what equals gameplay for me and not always how the game looks or sounds, but with something like Resident Evil that can be more important.

baseball is a game that people play... the art of playing baseball is throwing, hitting, pitching etc... if you do not enjoy these things, you don't enjoy the game of baseball....

take that to the video game world.... a video game is a game that people play, you are correct, but GAMEPLAY, would be the subtlties that make the game what it is... so that was my point...

Snide remarks like that are why your discussion threads devolve into arguments.

It's a pretty simple definition, really. Gameplay is any interaction with the game that's meant to result in entertainment for the player. So watching a cutscene-- not gameplay. Flipping through a menu-- not gameplay, unless it's in-game and meant for strategic/item/etc purposes. Non-approachable mountains and other objects in the background of a tactical shooter don't add to gameplay, they're just eye candy; conversely, if you can approach them and use it for any purpose whatsoever (hence interacting with them, ie using them to snipe from, for cover, whatever), it adds to the gameplay.

A game's overall gameplay is the culmination of all those interactions.
That's the more mechanical defintion.

Really? I always thought it was your snide remarks.

Nethack. 99% gameplay
1% graphics and everything else. No coincidence that people have been hooked on this game for DECADES

But see my snide remarks are generally in response to your snide remarks.

But seriously, the dude could have phrased his opinion a little better, but it was still clear what he meant. No need to jump on him with smart ass remark and IMO.

i COULD have phrased my opinion better, but i wanted to make sure he was still here trying to figure out what good gameplay was when i was on my way to the store to purchase Super Mario Sunshine

i want to make sure there is a copy in the store when i get there....

any new insight on "gameplay"?

Nope, I still say it's just what you do in the game, or the games interactive features. Basically what you have to do physically to play the game like move your character, make them jump, shoot, run, etc. It's also the thinking involved, coming up with a good strategy to get past an area, choosing the right plays in a sports game and so on.

A big part of the term "Gameplay" to me is the over all design and most importantly BALANCE. A full game of hack and slash isnt good gameplay. No matter how great the hackin and slashin. Deep complex fighters like Street Fighter or Virtua Fighter have better gameplay than a button masher like Tekken.
I dont think its as simple or subjective as "level of fun" like some of you are defining it. I think it refers more to the total package and how it affects you.

It's definitely subjective.

I prefer the gameplay in Tekken over that in Virtua Fighter any day, as I like fighting games anyone can pick up and play as I prefer playing with my buddies, who aren't super avid gamers and would struggle with something like VF. Plus I'm not a huge fighter fan and prefer something I can get decent at pretty quick.