I just read the Eurogamer review of Dreamfall in which the reviewer gave a score of only 5/10 based on the poor quality of the gameplay. Now, I’ve seen other reviews give the game a good score because of the story, but that feels a little wrong to me.
I know that a game is much more than just a gameplay experience, but if the gameplay is weak should a review bump up the score to an eight or nine just on the strength of the story (or the graphics)? Shouldn’t a game review, first and foremost, judge a product on whether it succeeds as a GAME?
Or am I missing something?
I keep seeing game reviews or postings on forums which complain about lack of gameplay (not just in adventures, mind). Many trailers for games are more like trailers for films and show nothing of what the gameplay is going to be like. I keep hearing of putting emotion into games and delivering experiences that have the depth of the best Hollywood films.
I can’t help but feel that a large proportion of the budget for many games is being spent in areas that have nothing to do with gameplay and so we end up with weak gameplay or simply more of the same.
Perhaps some companies are moving towards interactive experiences that utilise a gameplay-like interface but which are becoming less and less like games in a traditional sense.
Perhaps Dreamfall deserves an eight because it’s a good interactive experience (intex, anyone? 🙂 ) but only if it’s reviewed as such. Does it deserve a five when reviewed as a game?
At what point in the development of a game does the story take over from the gameplay? At what point does the need to tell a specific story remove the developer’s ability to do so through interesting gameplay, tying the gameplay goals in with the story goals and plot development?
If we’re making games, isn’t gameplay more important than story?