You told me it had no gameplay, I guess you don't consider making choices gameplay but that's what it is (I believe someone has previously mentioned the point and click genre).
This is not something I would enjoy, and it was one of the problems a lot of people had with Mass Effect 3's ending; that it was pretty much unaffected by any of the prior choices players made. Mass Effect changed the execution of the larger plot a lot depending on the choices made, though and I had assumed this was the same for The Walking Dead, but reading the Wiki page it sounds a lot like all it does is explore specific characters a little more. One thing that does catch my eye though is that the games give you 5 significant choices per game, presumably this is why you are saying it's better as a game than a movie, in which case you are outrightly admitting that it is the gameplay that makes it worth being a game instead of a film as these choices are the gameplay.
It's not always the cherry on top, though. Gameplay can be used to support Story or even Music if the game so desires. Interactivity is at the core of a game, but what the game does with its interactivity does not limit itself to producing fun.
Yeah, see, I'm fine with this. I do feel that gameplay should be the top priority as, in the cases of the greatest stories told through games, the gameplay has always complimented the plot and, in most of these exceptional cases (which are the cases that I play games in order to encounter), been a part of it. A lot of indie writers have most likely only turned to games because of the bias brought about in the current movie industry that has led to a giant wall between different classes of people managing to get in, but that doesn't mean the programmers or the gameplay designers can just say "fuck it, we have an excellent story and everything else is fine so let's just cram in some gameplay even if it sucks hard". I'm not saying the gameplay can't be disjointed from the story (within reason of course; a game with Halo's story wouldn't quite suit a Bubble Bobble gameplay style), but to say that gameplay isn't what makes a game good is wrong. A game without gameplay is no longer a game, a game without a story any deeper than "save the captive" can be good enough to become the most well known video game on the planet.
And none of them would be what they are with out their gameplay aspect. Remove that and you destroy what they are, regardless of what else was put on top of it. Audiosurf is gameplay that adapts to music you put on top of it, it wouldn't be what it is with out the gameplay, not the other way around. Monkey Island had a lot of charm outside of its gameplay, but I wouldn't have enjoyed it nearly as much if it were not for the gameplay aspects which had me dig deeper myself, over come the small puzzles and explore the world, because of gameplay. The characterizations and comedy were rewards for my persistence. Gameplay is the most important factor because with out it, it isn't a game. Without art, its a text based game. Without music or sound its just a silent game. Without story it can be such a wide variety of things. The game is what defines it, the other factors just give it more character.
Well, first of all, you pretty directly called everything but the gameplay of a game disposable. Both in this post and in your last one. That's what the idiom "the cherry on top" means; it's an element that makes something better as a whole but can't be the difference between that thing being good or bad. So I gave you examples of games where the gameplay took a backseat to another element, and wasn't used as the main method of engaging you. While there were puzzles in Monkey Island, it would have been boring without the comedy. It was the main draw of the game, and the puzzles supported it. Audiosurf has some good gameplay, but it would suddenly be incredibly boring if you muted your computer.
I've never seen someone say that modern games are better "because they're better." I don't mean to disrespect classical gaming, it's just less like the Citizen Kane of gaming and more like the Charlie Chaplin or the Marx Brothers of gaming. No one is contesting that they probably made the some of the best sidescrollers we'll ever see (Or at least I hope they're not), but they were almost entirely producing games aimed at lighthearted fun. They did some other stuff here and there, but The modern industry, while admittedly dominated by shooters in a somewhat similar vein, is definitely more innovative in what you can do with a game. Despite what people say about the industry's modern shooter infatuation, it's still producing a way more varied group of games than it was in the 90's, and we even have some independent developers that are experimenting, etc.
...and after seeing that, ummm... well...
How's this:
I think when people talk about the Citizen Kane of gaming, they mean a game that's so good in an artistic sense that it changes how games are made. At least, that's what it means to me.
I think that's what it would mean to most people. We've just not had that, yet, is all.
Oh, no, definitely not. We're definitely moving in that direction, but we're not quite there yet.
The independent/experimental scene is growing rapidly and the tools to make video games are becoming more readily available to those running on a low budget.
DDB's jokes are more like Vogon poetry if you ask me. As a result of that they most certainly do shut people up after a few moments of screaming in agony.
The way I see it, everyone who is a victim of one of DDB's jokes is so stunned by what they just read that they are incapable of continuing with whatever dumb thing they were just saying, for better or for worse. In this case it's better because I actually found his joke funny.
