well the answer is obvious, the majority of a game is to be measured by the fastest possible gameplay lenght.
That's an odd definition of "obvious". Actually, it's a stretch of the meaning of "obvious".
I don't think there's a particular answer that'd be "obvious". Your answer, in fact, I'd consider - to be frank - a very poor way of doing this.
Average gameplay length, maybe (as in: take N people of varying degrees of "gaming experience", and let them finish the game, then add the time it took them and divide by N). The "fastest possible gameplay length" seems to be a particulary unusual choice. After all, this includes taking advantage of bugs, and as Jibb said, possibly of knowledge from further playthroughs. But I think Jibb's example illustrates the problem with your definition very well.
With this:
no, a speedrun does NOT count. its not how long a speedrunner plays a game but how long the general gameplay is. for example, i can beat super mario bros in under twenty minutes. now if there WOULD be cutscenes for like 30 minutes, it woudl still be a game because there is content in that game that can ake you up to ten hours to do all of it. and thats the point.
heavy rain does not get longer and deeper if you take your time playing it. maybe by a few minutes but not by a long shot. neither does metal gear. resident evil however, you can play one area for hours, finding little secrets and secret locations...
I assume you mean something like "length of an average playthrough that does not go through sidequests and such, and who plays a bit quicker than average" (which of course is far from a definition, but okay). But...
What makes exploring areas in Resident evil different from exploring areas in Heavy Rain?
I think you just want games you like to have a better rating
"The fastest way possible", only not... in Super Mario? What?
Plus, I'm not even sure I agree with the original definition. Here's another question about "interactivity". Take a game that's mostly about dialogs. If I'm reading (or listening, whatever), is that interactive or not? After all, I'm actively acquiring information that I need and that will affect my next decision. The same can be said of some cutscenes. So those scenes clearly ADD to the experience in a "mechanical way", if you will.
So, in the dialog-scene - do we add the time I'm "just" listening to the "interactivity"-total? If not, all that's left is the split second of hitting the button, and maybe a bit of time for thinking what decision to make.
Frank:
Error tried to explain why Diablo is so much different than Minecraft as an example. But the original point was that Spike told, Minecraft has no gameplay and I just told you, that it has a gameplay mechanic...
Yes! That's very true. I agree!
...that it has a gameplay mechanic, similar to Diablo
No.
I mean, yeah, they both have a gameplay mechanic. They're similar in the sense that both have a gameplay mechanic.
I don't think their mechanics are similar, though. But I've written about that before, so I won't bother to do it again. Maybe we just disagree on that, then. No hard feelings, I hope?
action game? well things go down hot!
Wow, thanks. That's really an accurate description that tells me all I need to know.
Tekken? Action! Tomb Raider? Action! Friggin' Mass Effect? Action!
Everything is action under that criteria.
I realize you made those intentionally vague, but that doesn't help much. I think we need to be a bit clearer than THAT in our classification.
