Lets settle this: Graphics or gameplay?

[firey]

ugh overrated games, I don't get the fandom about them, the gameplay isn't and wasn't that great in them. 

For you, I personally really enjoyed HL:2, and the episodes.  All of which had awesome graphics at the time.

[BajiRav]

Need third option

A good gameplay with great graphics.

[.Ruby]

If there was an option I'd say both a good developer has a vision for each of them

 

But I'd choose gameplay, if I had to choose. Take COD for example (ignore what others might think about milking the franchise)) but it's a very well made FPS even though it graphically isn't comparable with Crysis it still has a lot of variety going for it and it has a great sense of balance between all the weapons, and perks. The same could be said with Halo before Halo 4

[compl3x]

Gameplay. Would you rather a plain Jane who was a demon in the sack or a beauty queen who was frigid?

 

Having said that, this is a false dichotomy. Why does it have to be either or? Beyond that, "graphics" is a vague metric. I am playing Rayman Legends on 360 right now and I think the aesthetic is wonderful. It's bright, colourful, engaging and entertaining. Does that fall into the graphics department? Or by graphics do you simply mean pushing hardware to its absolute limits to recreate realistic physics and environments?

 

Additionally, when comparing graphics are you only allowed to compare contemporary examples or can you compare modern graphics to graphics from 5 years ago? That seems unfair. Or can you compare how well graphics were done in a certain era with the hardware they had to how well graphics are done now with the tech we have? Like a comparison of ingenuity.

 

Even gameplay isn't exactly straight forward. We have a general idea what "gameplay" means (responsiveness, intuitiveness, creativity, multiplayer, replayablilty, difficulty, "fun") but considering the variety of different genres it isn't all that easy to always choose gameplay over graphics. A beautiful, meticulously detailed racing sim to a platformer fan wouldn't impress them much. A mediocre platformer with sexy graphics would rate much higher.

[riahc3]

Hello,

ugh overrated games, I don't get the fandom about them, the gameplay isn't and wasn't that great in them.

:huh: OK....

[jerzdawg]

If you use stock graphics.  I use nice HDR graphics that make it look super realistic and nice.   Also, there are people that find nostalgia in old graphics.  Personally I have skipped past a lot of indie titles purely based on the graphics.   I have also bought games purely based on the graphics.

right but it doesnt need that to be a great game.  As for indie titles.. you may be missing out on some gems.  DirtyLarry convinced me about the greatness of Pixeljunk shooter and it quickly became one of my favorite ps3 games.

[Decebalvs Rex]

Balance must exist , for a game to be great. If that game has it all , gameplay , graphics , sounds and theme = GOTY.

Let's not forget about engine , port quality , controllers.

Play a game with a nice story , lovely graphics and crap engine with crap action buttons/interface. Ex : Game of Thrones game .

[Buttus]

gameplay of course!  look at the old bard's tale or ultima games, or the old ad&d games.  their graphics are horrible compared to today's games and they're still playable.

[firey]

right but it doesnt need that to be a great game.  As for indie titles.. you may be missing out on some gems.  DirtyLarry convinced me about the greatness of Pixeljunk shooter and it quickly became one of my favorite ps3 games.

I'm sure I am missing out, but I am willing to make that sacrifice.. if the games I am playing I find fun and are visually appealing.  There are plenty of games I am sure are fun, but have crappy graphics I don't even bother with.  For example: Second Life.  I know people that spend crazy amounts of money on it, have lots of fun, had/has a large player base.   However I never got into it because I didn't like the graphics.  There were also other games where you couldn't do jack but the graphics were nice and I liked looking at the scenery. 

 

I would like to get into game development, I work as a software developer, so I get that the gameplay and raw code means a lot.  But I have a hard time getting into the game code when I don't have nice graphics to compliment what I am writing.  I hate using "developer graphics".  But that's just me.

[Dotdot]

There`s no debate here.

Gameplay.

Anyone who says otherwise is full of tripe!!

[DavidM]

I think you need both, it's hard to get drawn into a game if it's hideous to look at, conversely a beautiful game with bad gameplay is just as easy to get turned off of.

 

 

There`s no debate here.

Gameplay.

Anyone who says otherwise is full of tripe!!

 

Ah, the opened mindedness of the internet at it finest... :laugh: :laugh:

[Dotdot]

I think you need both, it's hard to get drawn into a game if it's hideous to look at, conversely a beautiful game with bad gameplay is just as easy to get turned off of.

 

 

 

Ah, the opened mindedness of the internet at it finest... :laugh: :laugh:

Give the people what they want :p

I think were all also getting "art style" and graphics confused aswell tbh.

The "art style" of a game is purely subjective to the individual, i.e some people are put off by "kiddy" art styles (not graphics)of some games, despite it having great gameplay. And ofc the opposite is also true.

For me "bad graphics" would be games where there is little or no art direction and/or there are major visual bugs.

Gameplay on the other hand is much less subjective to the individual as we can quantify this a little by how games are reviewed and how the games internal systems work aswell as how well they are implemented(free from bugs etc).

So to summarize. Whilst there will always be a little wiggle room in why people gravitate to game x, over game y, due to art direction (or as everyone says graphics).

Theres much less wiggle room for broken systems (bad gameplay).

Thus gameplay is the more important factor, its not the only, but its deffo the most important and largest slice of the argument pie.

[HawkMan]

 

Games Before 3D and those 8 bit 2D games cannot be said to have great graphics but those were some Great games .

 

 

 

 

But they're not that great any more, at least not if you actually think of it compared to modern games and not how you used to enjoy it back when they where awesome. nostalgia is a powerful hallucinogenic. 

[Lord Method Man]

When you place a greater importance on graphics over gameplay you get crap like Ryse or any of Crytek's other glorified tech demos.

[Sandor]

Both, therefore PC.

[Max Norris]

But they're not that great any more, at least not if you actually think of it compared to modern games and not how you used to enjoy it back when they where awesome. nostalgia is a powerful hallucinogenic. 

Some of those oldies are still very good, I still find myself playing the old Baldur's Gate series, etc etc, gameplay still rivals todays games and visually they're pretty crappy by today's standards.  Nostalgia isn't always the motivation.  Not saying that isn't always the case as it does apply a lot, but it's not a 100% cover answer to debunk all classic gaming.

[richardsim7]

It's simple. Better graphics can enhance gameplay, but are not essential.

[Colin.B]

Honestly, both. I know, I know, that isn't an option. But you get people out there who own the PS3 or the 360 (or both) and a decent gaming rig and really what is your deciding factor? The game will generally play identical across all platforms unless it's a really shoddy port or has a lame FPS cap on the PC. Do you go with the comfort of gaming in your living room on a big T.V? Personally, I have the PS3, 360, Wii (which just collects dust) and a PC with a GTX 770. The funny thing is, despite having a load of games from Steam, I don't play on my PC as often as I should given the money I've spent on the games. I find myself doing the most gaming when I move my computer in to the living room and play on the T.V So really, I think it comes down to comfort. I never notice how crappy some console games look until I fire it up on my PC minutes later. And that's good enough for me. Out of site, out of mind. It also might have something to do with the fact my PC is in the garage on a makeshift work bench that my chair is nowhere near level to so I'm cold and uncomfortable haha,

 

...Did I even answer anything?

[Charisma Veteran]

Gameplay, for sure. I was just thinking about this the other day--how long it's been since a game really grabbed me and pulled me in. I like the storyline and subplots and humour in the Borderlands games (art style is great too!), but too often there really isn't much of a story. I can enjoy a silly old pixellated platformer or a really immersive FPS with great graphics, but in both cases there's generally a flimsy storyline as an excuse for the mechanics of the game.

 

I like when it's almost a film that you're playing out.. a plot, character development and interactions, something emotionally engaging that makes you laugh or cry or both, maybe a twist or two that takes things off the expected path, a climax in the action, and a resolution at the end (or cliffhanger if there's going to be another). The graphics don't have to be perfect if these elements are present. Just leaves more room for imagination and filling in the gaps yourself, which makes for a more personal, unique, and memorable experience.

[Veiva]

But they're not that great any more, at least not if you actually think of it compared to modern games and not how you used to enjoy it back when they where awesome. nostalgia is a powerful hallucinogenic. 

 

I surely wasn't playing on the NES when it launched, but I can tell you from recently playing games like Metroid and Super Mario Bros that they are enjoyable regardless of their lack of graphical fidelity.

 

And it's not like I only play a handful of games. Graphics do not matter--it's art style. I am bored of hyper-realistic graphics (most games releasing recently attempt this) and prefer a solid art direction. Example: Kirby on the NES is beautiful, especially considering the limitations. By no means does it attempt to be realistic, but it has such a charming art direction that it doesn't matter.

[Lord Method Man]

 

I surely wasn't playing on the NES when it launched, but I can tell you from recently playing games like Metroid and Super Mario Bros that they are enjoyable regardless of their lack of graphical fidelity.

 

 

 

Still much more enjoyable than most of the forgettable modern crap that comes out nowadays.

[DavidM]

 

I surely wasn't playing on the NES when it launched, but I can tell you from recently playing games like Metroid and Super Mario Bros that they are enjoyable regardless of their lack of graphical fidelity.

 

And it's not like I only play a handful of games. Graphics do not matter--it's art style. I am bored of hyper-realistic graphics (most games releasing recently attempt this) and prefer a solid art direction. Example: Kirby on the NES is beautiful, especially considering the limitations. By no means does it attempt to be realistic, but it has such a charming art direction that it doesn't matter.

 

Well, I was and it seems to me people forget for their time they had "good graphics" AND solid game play, that's why they are considered classics. When we play games from the past on modern hardware we ruin their graphics, SMB original resolution was 256x240, up scaled to 1080 it looks like crap it can't be helped. You also have to remember, these were console games with strict hardware limitations and specs.

 

As a High schooler in '85, getting a NES after playing on an Atari for years, I was blown away at the graphics. I was even MORE impressed in '91 when the SNES came out, but in '97 the N64 just didn't seem to deliever the graphics punch upgrade. The playstation arrived in '95/96 and seemed to have better graphics and games, maybe it was a waning desire to keep playing Mario games. The PS2 hit the store in 2000 and was up to the challenge as far as graphics went. (The actual dates are from Wikipedia, as an aging gamer my dates aren't so good.)

 

The biggest problem with modern gaming in my opinion is we have seen truly amazing graphic advancements so everyone jumps on the band wagon and they forget to develop gameplay to match or they develop an awesome gameplay idea or implementation and decide to pour their cash there and the graphics budget gets slashed.

 

Games like SMB (look how beautiful they look now) realized they need both to work, and when you are limited by the equipment you develop on you push for the BEST graphics you can squeeze out of the hardware. Same for all console games they are limited in what they can achieve, PC game developers have it much tougher a guy running SLI Graphics Cards and a hopped up I7 with 12 gigs of ram or a guy running a single PCI-e graphics card with a i3 and 8 gig of ram make for very different ideas of "good graphics", so obviously concessions have to be made.

 

I guess in the end, you need to have both be good, for a game to ever hope of being considered a classic, they might still be good games in their own right, but can you think of a game released this year you would consider as good as SMB in 20+ years? I can't, Skyrim? GTA4? COD? Saints Row? Dues EX Human Revolutions?

 

Well, that was long and rambling...

[trag3dy]

Graphics and game play.

 

Grapchic (and aesthetics) make some games while game play makes others. Some have both.

[Praetor]

Gameplay of course; if that fails than no matter how good the graphics are, the game is gonna suck.

[redfish]

Generally, I care more about art style than graphics; ie something can look really good but have relatively primitive graphics, and something can look horribly bad and have advanced graphics.

 

But as for graphics versus gameplay -- of course gameplay, but graphics can enhance gameplay. This is like asking regarding movies, which is more important cinematography or story? Cinematography, of course, can be a way to tell the story -- you say a lot through pictures. Graphics in computer games is likewise is often a way to expose the gameplay. Graphics add atmosphere, nuance, depth of information, visual clues, etc.

 

Consider the evolution between Sim City Classic and modern Sim City games. The enhanced graphics facillitate more complex gameplay, do they not? Consider older RPGs and modern RPGs. Many older RPGs are generally all around better than modern ones, but that's despite the graphics. The graphics help bring atmosphere to the story, in any case.