Is decision making really the heart of videogames?

Especially when it comes to action games?
I was thinking about videogame analysis in general, and it got me wondering how should we analyze videogames. If you take a look at most action games we often talk about them in terms of "depth", which is basically how much decision making there is in a given situation. Do you need to analyze the gameplay always in function of decision making or are there any exceptions? Can a game still be good even if most decisions make themselves? What about other genres? Even puzzle games are games where you need to make decisions in order to give an answer, only that (compared to action games) the execution barrier is low and there are only a few paths that lead to victory.
Platformers on the other hand can be much more rigid, but there are still various shades of decision making you do when playing them, even some of the more rigid ones like Super Meat Boy or Celeste ("Should I start a jump from here or from there?" "If I stop running now I can make a safer jump to the other platform" etc.).
Then you have sandbox games, where maybe there isn't a clear objective except to be entertained, but you're still making decisions based on what you want to do and how you want to spend time in the game.

One exception I can think of is rythm games. There you either get the note or you don't, it's binary, but decision making isn't important because it's replaced by mechanical engagement. You are still entertained because you are always in the game, thinking about the next move to do, even if there isn't any decision making involved. Can this be applied to action games? Where there is one clear strategy but with an execution barrier so high that you still remain engaged in the game?
I believe that there is kinda of a graph for every game, where on the X axys you have mechanical engagement and on the Y axys you have decision making. For a game to be entertaining (purely on the gameplay side) you need to have either one or the other or a healty balance of the two. If you have a game with tons of decisions while also being mechanically difficult it will probably fry some brains. NGII for example is hard but not really mechanically hard, while DMC3 has less difficult encounters but has a higher execution barrier.

And where do walking sims fall in this discussion?
Curious to hear what you guys think.

I think it's one part of it, but there's so many elements that intertwine that way it's hard to base it on a single part i'd say. You have decisionmaking, but you also have personal style (ranging from weapon loadout, how to handle foes, positioning, agression level etc.) and also how you play with your tools (efficient, toyfull, epxerimental, risky).

I do feel decisionmaking is a core element since it highlights my favourite part of it, namely how games with large enemy counts are always different. I can replay the first fight in Ch11 from NGII a dozen times, and it's ALWAYS different. Meanwhile some fights in NG:B are the same every time, since it's so different in terms of enemy agression etc.

Is this what you mean?

Depth (which I consider the same as meaningful decisionmaking) definitely isn't the only component. Pacing, "game-feel," visuals/sound, atmosphere, story (when it's good), etc. can all be important. But depth tends to last the longest, and IMO is core to most of the medium.

>Execution
Execution is satisfying on its own to do, but it also creates a "controllable" inconsistency that adds additional decisionmaking. Even if a decision is theoretically simple, having to execute as a human can add lots of small decision points that makes things more interesting. Though I admit that high execution barriers turn me off if they feel "arbitrary," i.e. it's not adding additional nuance and takes a long time to learn.

>Tons of decisions and hard execution
Probably some fighting games have this if I had to guess.

>Rhythm games
A good example that proves the rule for me, I am pretty uninterested in that gameplay style and the music is what makes it actually work. Also for the record, most rhythm games aren't binary hit-miss, they have tiers like Perfect, Good, Fair, etc. as well as miss.

>Walking sims
More leveraging atmosphere, I think that's also one of the greatest strengths of games so if you do it well it's cool.

A good website for depth specifically is this blog, I don't agree with everything but the author has a very systemic style of analysis that's nice to read. https://critpoints.net/about/

>depth
>decision making
I heard it was viable options, the amount of different stuff you can do, and a ton of other descriptions.

And after years of hearing about and arguing it, I don't really give a shit what it is anymore.

I could list some stuff but someone would just come along and say no.

@Raeng
>you also have personal style
I'd place this still under decision making, just a different shade of it.

>Is this what you mean?
Partly yes. I wanted to know your views in seeing decision making as the primary vidya core (especially when it comes to vidya analysis), or if there was something else I was missing from the equation.

@HPE
>creates a "controllable" inconsistency that adds additional decisionmaking
Sure, that also is a factor, but it depends on the game. With Nero in DMC I always want to get a MAX Act when revving the RQ, but have to plan accordingly depending on if I get 1 or 3 gauges.

>Probably some fighting games
I don't think that it's uncommon for MP games to have this (MOBAs, RTSs also have tons of decision making plus a good amount of mechanical skill required), but the discussion was regarding SP games. I feel that MP games already have a decent amount of decision making by default.

>most rhythm games aren't binary hit-miss
Yeah my bad, but the point was that there is no decision in getting the notes. You either do (with varying degrees of success) or you don't.

>critpoints
Read some of it. So far I agree about the general view. What do you not agree with?

@Birdman
I'm not really trying to talk about semantics. When I say decision making I mean it in the literal sense. There is no point in trying to define "depth" but here I've seen that pretty much everyone is one the same page about that.

Are you talking like critical decisions or just decisions? Because when you're playing most things especially action, you're making decisions all the time.

I agree. It's similar to driving. Even if there is only one method in procedure.

>critical decisions or just decisions?
That's a good question. Critical decisions would be decisions that allow you to win the game or get a good score (or any secondary goal encouraged by the game) more consistently, but sometimes you just want to dick around. I don't think you can define that as a critical decision, but it's still something that you think about when playing.
If you have a sandbox game, with no clear objective other than to be entertained, do you still have critical decisions to make?
I think that a better distinction would be active and passive decision making, with the latter being something that you do automatically (like in rythm games). I could be wrong though.

No it is not. There is something equally if not more important than decision making.

That is the response. What happens as a result of your decisions? This is what makes games different. If the simple act of decision making was what we truly craved than Rock Paper Scissors is the perfect video game, and playing anything else is a waste of time.

The ways in which a game responds to our input is what makes a game fun for us.