Thread 717614583

Is the density of gameplay mechanics a valid metric for evaluating game quality, or does it privilege complexity over clarity or accessibility?

How do deep mechanical analyses of games risk overlooking emotional, narrative, or experiential aspects that are harder to quantify?

Can a game’s artistic or cultural value be fully understood through gameplay systems alone, or must we also consider player interpretation and affective response?

Does treating games primarily as systems of input and output reduce them to mere interactive puzzles, stripping away their expressive or performative dimensions?

Is it possible for a "mechanically simple" game to be more meaningful or impactful than a "mechanically dense" one?

Why is combat so often centered in game analysis, and what is lost when we ignore non-combat systems like social simulation, exploration, or resource management?

How do elements like mental mapping, puzzle-solving, and strategic foresight contribute to a player’s engagement, and are they undervalued in current critical discourse?

Is there an analytical bias toward or against kinetic, skill-based interactions (e.g., twitch reflexes, combo mastery) over slower, cognitive gameplay?

What does it mean to "play well" in a game with minimal or no traditional mechanics?

Can performance in a game be considered a form of artistic expression, like improvisation in music or acting in theater?

To what extent should a game’s artistic intent shape how we analyze its mechanics?

Is there a meaningful distinction between games that are “played” versus those that are “experienced”?

How do different genres demand different modes of critical engagement, should a platformer be analyzed the same way as a narrative adventure or a city-builder?

Are ludic elements (rules, feedback, systems) inherently at odds with narrative or atmospheric immersion, or can they reinforce each other?

>>717614583 (OP)
you should condense the formatting of your posts man

Yeah fuck you I'm not reading all that
But I will comment on your bait image
It's overly reductive to say that, say, a walking section or cutscene or even a bit of exploration is "not gameplay"
The speed at which you hit buttons, or whether or not you have to hit them reflexively to survive in a game, is not what defines "game play"

>>717614850
What is game play? Waiting through a loading time or a cutscene is game play?

>>717614951
Loading screens are not gameplay, not unless there's some kind of significant contribution to the presentation within it.
Cutscenes ARE gameplay because they're required viewing that continuously recontextualizes the gameplay experience. Gameplay is often thought of as "how" you do things in the game, but the "why" can be equally important.
You still engage with the content of the game during cutscenes, just not with the buttons.

>>717614583 (OP)
Density of gameplay mechanics allows for a developer to demonstrate that they can not only get to the point, but also build towards it. A focused core with a learning curve that can fully play out a good premise dunks on the average moviegame, not just in terms of gameplay, but also in terms of narrative and experience.
Modern lack of density can be traced to shit writing and abysmal management.
Most of your criticisms leveled at mechanically dense games are far more applicable to the moviegames you've placed on the other end of the spectrum, since they truly do treat gameplay as just an obligatory addition of inputs and outputs stapled to a mediocre visual novel, which is why they're so commonly overrefined TPS games.

>>717614583 (OP)
Depends on how good the narrative is, and how good the gameplay is. If both are good, as in MGS1 for example, the interruption that cutscenes bring is fine. But most games have bad gameplay and bad story, like most snoyslop. There are a few games with good gameplay but bad narrative, a recent example that comes to mind is Deliver at all Costs, a game with pretty fun and creative gameplay, constangly interrupted with mediocre written and badly acted cutscens, it really drags the game down a lot, from like a 7 kind of game to a 4 out of 10 kind of game

downtime is an important aspect of a lot of genres
of course modern AAA slop stretches their shallow content as far as possible which leads to a lot of downtime

>>717614951
Gameplay is anything I decide to be gameplay.

>>717614583 (OP)

the answer to most of these is "yes, look at breath of the wild" but honestly too much faggotry

Format your text properly if you want me to read it.

As for the image it's just bait (the original is something like phone/console/arcade), but even so it's displaying a a layman's failed attempt at verbalizing something they observe and feel in video games.

What they're actually trying to refer to is a combination of depth and pacing. How many options you have in a given moment to choose from, how hard it is to choose the right option, how long you have to choose, and how often you have to do so on average.
These factors all directly impact the mental load of a game.

>>717614583 (OP)
If the gameplay is some boring shit you dont like then it doesnt matter how dense it is

>>717614583 (OP)
Wtf is this bullshit? There's no way you're a real human, fuck off AI

>>717615447
You're mostly on point, but I think there's a nuance you're missing-mechanical density only shines if it's coherent with the game's thematic and emotional aims. A dense system with no soul just becomes busywork. Yeah, moviegames often graft shallow input schemes onto flashy assets and call it a day, but there's also games with minimalist systems that land like a gut punch because they actually understand pacing and resonance (think Shadow of the Colossus or even something like Journey). Meanwhile, something can be loaded with systems and still feel dead-Ubisoft games practically run on that formula. Density should be in service of meaning, not a checkbox on a dev spreadsheet.

>>717614583 (OP)
>Exploring isn't gameplay

>>717615246
>required viewing
skip

>>717619241
>Exploring

>>717614583 (OP)
>Is the density of gameplay mechanics a valid metric for evaluating game quality, or does it privilege complexity over clarity or accessibility?.
It really depends on the genre
JRPGs main draw tend to be story since gameplay don't really stand out much
>Can a game’s artistic or cultural value be fully understood through gameplay systems alone
It can. I mean, look at Souls games, they're pretty influential. I'm not sure if its gameplay mechanics are artistic
>Is it possible for a "mechanically simple" game to be more meaningful or impactful than a "mechanically dense" one?
It can. Look at Klonoa. The game has a simple control scheme that can fit on a NES controller, but it's carried by the level design and enemy variety
>What does it mean to "play well" in a game with minimal or no traditional mechanics?
Probably not losing combos and getting hit.

>>717614583 (OP)
Now post the Nioh pic

>>717614583 (OP)
How good is the Ninja Gaiden 2 remake?

One day retards will learn that there exists a plan of existence beyond one dimension, and that there are more interrelated characteristics to one that seems at face value to be a useful all encompassing strict narrow value.
And that a game can be "dense" and yet structurally weak and brittle.

>>717620569
damn god of war looks like THAT???!?

>>717620716
>JRPGs main draw tend to be story since gameplay don't really stand out much
This is wrong. smtV is rpg with mechanics. mehtaphor is the meh type of jrpg that coasts on story. MEHtaphor (outdid myself here, noting this one down) exists, and worse disgraces exist too, but ultimately rpg is a gameplay genre.