And tell me, what exactly is wrong by labeling games ON THEIR GAMEPLAY? Does labeling a game as a "horror game" even tell me how I'm going to play, or is it just going to tell me that there are zombies or "oooh SCARY" things in it?
Tactical decision making? Just simplify it to decision making, which is a logical process, not a physical one. Prioritization? Again, a logical process. Quick to hands? That'd be a physical or reflex trait.
You can break down what you do logically, but I'm saying that there is logical thinking in the gameplay.
I understand that there are other features ADDED to gameplay, but these features by itself aren't gameplay. You can take graphics by itself, but if there isn't rules as to what to do, it's not a game. If you take sounds, but if you don't do anything with them, it's not a game.
Gameplay is the number one ingredient in a game. That's why classics like chess don't require OMG XBAX 340 graphics, or HAX0R SURROWND SOWND. Better yet, you only need sound to play Marco Polo.
Again, things like plot, sound, graphics, whatever can be used or NOT in games. Gameplay, or the what you need to do to win is what has remained constant and exists in EVERY game.
That brings me to my point again. What is your problem against classifying a game by it's gameplay?
To be open-minded, one must admit the possibility that anything and everything is wrong.