What defines "good game play"?

What defines "good game play"?
As in, what characteristics of the player input process makes a game smooth and enjoyable to play?

Attached: 1523166749391.webm (720x405, 1.79M)

Attached: 1625107636393.png (514x613, 19.54K)

good god super was so fucking ugly

Yeah they pull a budget out of their ass for the last like 10 episodes but everything up to that is an eye bleeding nightmare.

when you Play the Game and it's Good

Tight controls that don't lock you into animations that last seconds. Everything the player inputs should be registered and reacted to ASAP.
Think about swinging a greatsword and being vulnerable the whole 3 seconds you take the swing VS. swinging a greatsword and being able to roll mid-swing. RDR2 has your character take almost a full second to turn around before you actually move after you tilt the stick. That's bad gameplay.
Doesn't really matter what the gameplay itself is as long as it's well implemented and polished.

TLDR;
Good gameplay = player gets what player expects when giving an input
Bad gameplay = player doesn't get what he expects when giving an input
Assuming the player is giving the correct inputs.

>i want to get hamburger in real life every time i press X!
>press X
>dont get hamburger in real life
>WTF MY EXPECTATIONS WERE NOT MET! BAD GAMEPLAY! BAD!

Bejita it's training time! Get into the Time Chamber. I WILL drag you if I have to.
You'll die? Don't be silly Bejita-san, we have Dragon Balls!

Attached: 1654528168690.png (605x461, 166.18K)

The main universally good trait I can think of is good controls. You want enough control to do what you need, not so much that you constantly overcorrect. is half right but considering games that have uncancelable animations in combat for balance purposes to be anywhere even close to games that have uncancelable animations at all times for "cinematic" purposes is flatly retarded.
The second universally good trait I can name is variety. You want to challenge the player in different ways throughout the game, not just let them default to one or two strategies. The variety has to change up the input they're expected to put in and the mindset they apply, not just ask them to switch to equipment set #3 to deal with a different enemy type or whatever.
Ironically, I think this universally-good quality also exposes something that's universally a flaw- too much freedom. Feels counterintuitive, but think about it- If you design the game such that the player can take a bunch of entirely different approaches to solve every problem, both the problems and any given player's ultimate solutions to those problems are entirely likely to wind up samey.

Jesus christ that animation is ugly

Everything from freedom of movement to variety in enemies is a matter of personal taste.
The only realistic and universal trait of "good gameplay" is informing the player sufficiently about the controls and making sure inputs given by the player is reacted to the fastest way possible while delivering the closest iteration possible of what the player expected to happen.
The player can be playing a forklift simulator or a fighting game, it all comes down to what the player is trying to achieve through their inputs vs. what the game translates those inputs to be.
Life has the best gameplay and that's what games are trying to imitate. Player control over the game world, albeit with restrictions because it isn't a game if it doesn't have rules. Everything else falls into personal taste.

Bejiiiiiiiitaaaaaaa...... BEJIIIIIIIIIIIIIITAAAAAAAAAAAAA....

Attached: Run.jpg (383x379, 47.95K)

you have to take into account when the player expects the input to have an effect
if it's too quick it'll feel too unnatural, for example in sm64 when mario punches he does a quick wind up first before punching
but if it's too slow it'll feel sluggish and hardly like you're controlling the character at all
balance responsiveness and just... what makes sense, really

The Tournament of Power was fun. I'm glad 17 won.

But the thing you're describing, inputs always being responded to and doing exactly what the player expects, goes against what is normal and balanced for fighting games.

What did they use to animate this garbage, Adobe flash?

I didn't bother with Super but it's bad that I have to wonder if that's a real webm from the show or some Youtube fan """animation"""

I watched the final episode of the tournament because I saw the Japs say it had twice as many cuts as the average Super episode and it still didn't look particularly good.
Most of it was aura and rubble effects, Z actually had a lot of fight animation.
And it just looked better overall.

Attached: 1644900850165.webm (638x720, 2.93M)

I'm not talking about what the player wants, I'm talking about what the player expects within reason. Reaction can't be too sluggish and it can't be weightless or else it feels off and becomes unrealistic.
There is a golden area in terms of tightness to the controls but I'm talking about what the player expects after tightness has been established.
When you're playing, you don't consciously think about the time your character takes to respond to your input unless that expectation is clearly broken.
Using a physics engine like Euphoria to control your character gives realistic weight behind the character model but at times can feel like you're shoving your character forward. This kind of procedural motion has nothing to do with design and everything to do with narrowing a random number to make something functional.
As long as the player is informed about the movement and expects the character to function like a fumbling idiot when you jump at a wall, it's good gameplay. The expectation is intact.

good gameplay just like good design is a meme. it just stands for it has mass appeal

It's easier to define what is bad gameplay than good.
There's endless ways to make a game a joy to play, but less so of making it crap.