Pure gameplay examples and why are they fun?

[J T]

I'm very much interested in what makes games fun. Many people point to story, graphics, sound, and music as what is fun, but I don't think anything of these things really have to do with the "game" part of a video game (with the exception of gameplay that involves altering the story, graphics, sound, or music in meaningful ways).

I want to understand what is fun about the "game" part, so some of the best examples to work off of are games with pure gameplay that isn't confounded with any of that other stuff. Games like Tetris... Minesweeper... Othello...

What are some game examples that you guys can think of that are pure gameplay, and what do you think makes any of these games fun?


I was very surprised recently to find that I enjoyed a greatly oversimplified version of Wolfenstein 3D that strips the game down to only a single horizontal line one pixel tall with a character 1 pixel wide. It is called Wolfenstein 1D. You can play it online here. It's not clear to me whether the game is meant as parody or homage, but it expertly gets down to the nitty gritty of what games like this are about. You progress forward, you out-match opponents in some test of skill, and you find supplies to conserve your life bar.

This is Wolfenstein without any of the graphics or story, or even the element of aiming, which is what I erroneously thought was the only critical part to the enjoyability of the game. What makes something like this fun? I wonder the same thing about classic board games like Checkers or Backgammon that don't rely on storytelling or visual appeal to successfully stay entertaining. Is there something innate to us that we like to try to out-maneuver or out-strategize opponents? Is there something in our survivalist makeup that makes us like the back and forth of obtaining and using items in Wolfenstein 1D? Why are games without any narrative or visual substance still fun for their own sake?

[Hazerd]

pretty much any game made by RareWare for the N64, Banjo-Kazooie to be exact, such a perfect example of gameplay.

[o.pwuaioc]

Didn't care for Wolfenstein 1D, but I sympathize with the sentiments. It's also why I love shmups so much. But infuse great gameplay with great storytelling, graphics, music, and whatnot and you have an even better game. It's just that these require more time, so while great gameplay will always be classic, if we have the time to spend on more, why not?

As per your original question, I think early platformers were in large part what you're thinking of. It wasn't the graphics or music that made Super Mario Bros so entertaining. It was the fun of moving and jumping. I think it's the universal consensus that Sonic is at his best when he's moving fast, spinning, or jumping, but *moving*. That's the simplistic part of the platformers, and the best part. So long as the music isn't cacophonous, the graphics aren't painful to look at, and the storytelling doesn't make you cringe, the gameplay is what hooks.

That still begs the question of what in shmups, platformers, or puzzle games (or heck, cards, too!) is fun. I think really it really only boils down to two things: it must be easy enough to handle, yet complicated enough to keep interest; and there must be some attainable, worthy prize, such as getting the princess, beating a human opponent, or setting a high score. This also extends to puzzles like Sudoku where the mere completion of the puzzle is seen as an accomplishment. But the wide variety in "fun" games at least to me indicates there's no one formula. So long as it does the above, it will probably be successful.

EDIT: I should add one more thing: fairness. If a game isn't fair, it's likely to only frustrate the user, and anything that frustrates is unfun.

[msimplay]

My earliest examples of games I didn't really care about story in all honesty I mean look at games like Super Mario Bros on the Nes they are still as playable today as they ever were and yet the story is very minimal.

I like story based games and music adds to the atmosphere but the core gameplay should be priority as the music and story should only serve to enhance the gameplay aspect.
If the game is more reliant on flashy visuals and music then to be honest it's not a game it's more of a movie.

One such example of the perfect blend for me was Zelda 3 the core gameplay was interesting because the story wasn't told to you as such you had to trigger the story and find out what was happening through interaction with the townsfolk and completing tasks.
The music really also created the atmosphere although I think the core factor that made it interesting for me was the progression even though I was able to do whatever I wanted the clever design meant things were easier when done in order I loved the sense of progression in it.

I think this is a core gameplay principle in games I really remember I want some kind of goal otherwise I find it pointless playing the game.

Now that I think of it some of the most addictive games for me this gen have been platformers next to no story and all gameplay.

[Flake]

I view the story in games these days the same way I view plots in modern action movies - these days there is too much set up and not enough reward.

Compare the original Metroid where the entire plot of the game is given to you in a three sentence paragraph. For the next couple of hours that's all you need.

Now look at Metroid: Other M - a game with very solid gameplay and control but a story so heavy handed that you begin to resent the plot for getting in the way.

The story should be nothing more than a reference point to give the gameplay context. That's why the old platformers still work for me - the entirety of the developers attention was on making the levels work and the gameplay intuitive.

[markeconrad]

Angry Birds. Simple and intuitive.

[msimplay]

I view the story in games these days the same way I view plots in modern action movies - these days there is too much set up and not enough reward.

Compare the original Metroid where the entire plot of the game is given to you in a three sentence paragraph. For the next couple of hours that's all you need.

Now look at Metroid: Other M - a game with very solid gameplay and control but a story so heavy handed that you begin to resent the plot for getting in the way.

The story should be nothing more than a reference point to give the gameplay context. That's why the old platformers still work for me - the entirety of the developers attention was on making the levels work and the gameplay intuitive.

I'm inclined to agree but I haven't completed yet I only started Other M last week but Super Metroid and original Metroid I can agree with.

I think Nintendo or Video Game Makers as a whole are experiencing more pressure to bring out games with all of the bells and whistles which they are calling the box product and all else getting relegated to digital download.

But you outline the kind of games I've loved to play and still love to play no wonder I love retro games so much

[MidnightRider]

I wonder the same thing about classic board games like Checkers or Backgammon that don't rely on storytelling or visual appeal to successfully stay entertaining.

Well, the other person on the other side of the board doesn't hurt.

The story should be nothing more than a reference point to give the gameplay context.

This x ∞. If developers stuck to that, I'd actually be interested in gaming beyond the 4th generation.

About the only time it would have to essentially be backward is RPG's. I don't know what the entertainment value is there, but it's certainly not what I'd call "fun." Without the story elements to break up the hunt for exp. with menu driven combat, it'd be boring as all hell. This is why it's one of my least favorite genres.

You want an example of a game that's minimalistic on story, but high on fun? http://www.romhacking.net/trans/507/
This sees you as a photographer trying to snap pictures of every oddity you might com across, while avoiding obstacles that try to hinder your progress. There's one main picture your boss wants, but the real objective is to reach the needed score by the time you've finished playing the stage. Which will end abruptly if you run out of film, so you want to be careful how you use the film. You'll lose 5 pictures/pieces of film/whatever every time an obstacle hits you, but taking pictures of the right object will net you more film, so it almost makes more sense to take a picture of obstacles, which kills them and gets you a few point in the process, than it does to just outright try to avoid them and risk losing 5 instead of the 1 it would take to get rid of them.

[brunoafh]

I agree 100% with the games don't need deep stories thing, but every once in awhile you get games like Silent Hill 2 (just mentioned this in another thread) and Red Seeds Profile/Deadly Premonition. I genuinely cared about the characters and where the story was going the entire time I was playing, something I can only say for probably >10 games.

Then again, those games aren't really dependent on having "fun" gameplay anyway.

[jfrost]

Stories are part of the gameplay in some genres. Adventure and RPG games come to mind. I don't think it makes sense to take them out because of purity of analysis.