The way a player interacts and 'gains' from a game is my interpretation of gameplay. The 'gameplay' you want to achieve, would have to be set before you begin the proccess of the games design. This would apply to all games, console games, board games etc. I do have trouble with the word gameplay though!
When playing through a game the whole proccess of what you are doing, what is happening and what you need to think about all contributes to the gameplay that was set for the game. Thus, Gameplay could be easy, difficult, quick, slow etc.
Sometimes however the gameplay can just be plain annoying.
All of these ideas for a game must be set in the beginning stages of development. You need to know what you are doing before you do it, as has been prooved many times over!! And these days, developers know what they are doing :D
For example, disasters like the E.T game and other titles, were bad for a reason. i read that E.T was purely rushed. So when you rush something you mess it up. I remmber reading a chinese proverb in a little zen book, it read 'Rushing gets you no where'. How right they were. i was shocked to hear that a good game takes 2 years to develop. But 2 years well worth it.
Someone starts with the idea for the game, and in most cases only a few people are given the task of deciding the key factors and what is to be in the game etc.
In the case of metal gear solid, all the team were given a sketchbook to sketch ideas for the game, and many of their ideas made it into MGS2.
I personaly hope to be part of a company who are open to their teams ideas for games, be it games or tid bits inside games!!
For me when I play, Any game I like keeps me playing for many reasons. My taste in games is rather varied, and I constantly contradict myself playing some types as they conflict with my views on life. E.G-
Socom2(strictly),Battlefield2:MC - I love these games so much, I am going to buy a 360 so i can play BF2 in HD. I have it on ps2, and just love it. Theres no gore, & no screaming when you kill an enemy(well I didnt notice). Its just so much fun helping your team win and capture them flags!! And many comedy moments. However, Socom 3 was a big mess and no one I know really liked it. With both games, the ps2 limits the size of the maps I suppose, but for socom, the humble little maps made it cute and fun to stalk someone and get your spongey headshot or whatever. Socom 3's gigantic maps just made it boring running around looking for someone. Same with BF:BC. Ive just bought this game and its nothing like bf2. Im hoping socom confrontation will be fun despite the map sizes.
Now, I just wish socom2 days came back. Bf2 also. Any war game i play today is too realistic. i dont wanna hear death screams. I dont agree with war, i dont agree with killing, I dont agree with violence, its BAD. War will get no one anywhere. And i realy annoy myself. But I cant figure out why these two war games I will always love.
Wipeout/zoneoftheenders/finalfantasy/spyro - All based in a world that could exisit/does exist on a different 'dimension'. love it, im well into that. Love robots and beautiful costume designs. Wipeout fusion was my favorite. Also, all are colourful and I love colourful stuff.
To round this up ill mention that ps3 games are failing to keep me interested at the moment. I think their gameplay is way too realistic. I am wishing games would stay fantasy, quirky, and allow for that comedy moment. I dont think games should be so realistic. I play games to have fun, not witness what would happen if I actualy killed someone. Thats why I HATE Gta.
I sometimes think that this sort of realism is allowed in order to corrupt the younger generations. Your not going to kill someone in real life because thats illegal, but yeah, games make it okay to try it? It makes me so sad to think about it, and angry. *extreem contradiction*
I really want an xbox! they got fluffy games!!!!