Game development is similar to generic software development. All parts of the whole software must have decent quality to be good software. For example, very good software with terrible GUI will be always less used then good software with good GUI.

Apply this to games - you need good software, good art, good interface, good music, etc. - being terrible in one case means that game will be considered worse.

My opinion about that question is that with high programming skills you are not suddenly able to develop a game. because next the to the ability to code in generally you need more skills. It's not only important that you have good art/concepts/storyline/etc. ... You have to know how to present all that stuff in a combination the user like. And the ability to do that or better the experience how you do that are not connected with your programming skills in general.

I think for example who is used to programm database systems would not be able to create a very good game because of his leck of experience in the field of game programming. So it is not the question about how good your programming skills are it's more a question how much experience someone had in that field or how much passion he have for that field.

And also you cannot be good in anything is a reason to why high skills are not enough

Game development is similar to generic software development. All parts of the whole software must have decent quality to be good software. For example, very good software with terrible GUI will be always less used then good software with good GUI.

Apply this to games - you need good software, good art, good interface, good music, etc. - being terrible in one case means that game will be considered worse.

I can only agree him !!

I once had a bit of a debate with someone I knew. They debated that having better programming skills would lead to making better games. I debated that having programming skills doesn't necessarily mean you can produce a game with good gameplay. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Really I don't think good programming skills do a whole lot for making games. Because there are some workarounds to not being a good programmer and that's all you have to do. You still need programming skills to make a game, but I'm talking novice vs. expert programming skills.

While we're at it, I have another question. In what order are aspects of a game important, in your opinion? Here is how I would list importance:

Good gameplay
Good art
Bug free
Good concept/storyline
Good music
Good sound effects

Sorry for such controversial, potentially subjective questions, but sometimes you can't ask questions beneficial to you without opening a can of worms.

I'd say good programming/math/problemsolving skills are essential for some games but not all, it depends quite a bit on the mechanics you need, how important and complex the AI is, if you need to make a custom engine, etc.

Games that are content/design/story/enviroment heavy (RPGs, Puzzles, Adventure for example) tend to put a lot less pressure on the non-engine programmers than games that are AI or mechanic heavy (management, simulation, strategy, etc).

I would say having better programming skills raises the complexity of the game you're able to potentially create. And it might also help the game, by the virtue of a better programmer generally having fewer bugs than a worse programmer. I would at least assume this is statistically true.

A programmer skilled in gameplay, or in design in general, might have a better understanding of what would make the game better or more fun to play, but a more "general" programmer might be better suited to implement it in a robust and efficient manner.

In terms of rating various aspects in order of importance, I think that's mostly an exercise in futility, especially given how many of the things listed are extremely subjective -- what constitutes good music, for example. Reading reviews will often leave you with "person x really thought the music added a whole lot to the experience, while person y didn't care about it at all", which can be extended for most other aspects as well.

I don't think there is/will ever be a definite list to rule them all, both for the above reason, as well as games are fundamentally different from each other, as well as "gameplay" actually being influenced (more or less) by the other factors.

A story heavy game (e.g. The Walking Dead) has a lot more to gain from a good story and concept than e.g. a twitch competitive multiplayer shooter.

Music might be a lot more important in a music game like Guitar Hero than something else.

Even within a specific (sub)-genre, you can have the game's focus being on something different than the norm, shifting the priorities.

I would think the most general thing to have as a high priority would be a low bug countseverity. Mainly because this can limit the players from experiencing any of the other stuff. Who cares if you've got the best gameplay in the world, if the game crashes on startup.

But even in this case, there are clearly cases where fairly buggy games can achieve a high status, due to its other merits.

To me, it all boils down to being able to recognize what is best suited for the game in question. Although perfect marks in all categories is a noble goal, resources being limited will force the developers to have to prioritize. Given two games, their (correct) choices can be wildly different.