Well the posts I was quoting were all referring to moddability, which is important for people like us who enjoy creating maps and scenarios to play for others. Modders look at the game from their perspective and most importantly if what they put into the map/scenario actually works in play.
I am not saying that modders can't be players, mind you, and my findings are from my own persective and I am more a player of the game though I've tried my share in modding (at which I found I am not that good at... yet).
With playability I mean how well the game functions for those who play it.
On a larger scale: does the game offer the functionality and the expectations one as a player has?
As Apexmod points out quite well: GR has a certain feel to it. But so far we all merely nipped at describing that feel of the game. I know and realise full well that that is hard to do. Yet I think it is very important to do, as that alone may give developpers a good idea of what we as a community want from the game.
Not just what functionality the game offers, but the feel we get from it.
What I like most about GR is that it offers players and modders a full scale of possibilities which not just in modding that scenario but also in playing: it lets you as a player decide fully what route of approach you take. Each and every descision you make determines the lives spent and the outcome of the scenario within the limits of the game.
The boundaries of GR were laid in the scene it was set: warfare in personal combat based on the knowhow of the cold war.
In GRAW(2) they tried to up the ante on that: personal warfare with technology edge on the urban front. Now Urban warfare is much more limited than the previous scene they took, plus you are stuck to the streets as you cannot bound over a building in a single leap. They limited themselves in the game in choosing this scenario.
I am not sure but I think GR was one of the first to take that scene, and blew us of our socks with what the game offered. There was no other game that offered the graphic content, the smooth play, the moddability, the immersion into a reality we (thought we) knew as the cold war and the things we dared dream as black ops. It immersed us into a hard core shooter where one hit could mean your death and failure in the mission. Not a FPS that lets you know you are being shot at because a grenade blew in your face as you reel to find the shooter since in GR you would be dropping to the ground, quite dead and cussing to reload the mission.
The game let you be in control of your actions and moves, you knew the enemy was there but not precicely where nor if they had seen you but if you were careful enough you could suprise them and win the day. But at least you were left to your senses: sight, hearing, tactical sense, patience and wits.
(You had no darned computer gimmick that tells where your enemy is. First thing I did after playing the tutorial in GRAW was switching those triangles off, then went on my way in the campaign.)
I think that scene in which the game is set is one of the key elements what makes the game and in another way how it limits the possibilities therein.
I too want a GR remake, a similar scene with more of today's weaponry: how our soldiers in the field fight.
But I do want that the game expands and outgrows its shortcomings.
Lastly: I am very curious, after all these years and considering this community, how the original developpers wanted this game to be. Is the end result what they truly wanted? And with this day and age's technology in computers, its possibilities and the increase of CPU/GPU power and all that, how they would like to see the game now. Would be wonderful to invite them to this forum!
Does all this give more clarity as to what I mean with playability?
Hop...