-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
What's more important you, the gameplay or graphics of a game?
- Thread starter Cheddahz
- Start date
Shalashaska161
Member
I like both.
Ein Bear
Member
Sorry man, but it looks like you have to drop all your current friendships and start from scratch. Your current lot are clearly terrible human beings.
Of All Trades
Member
I don't think the OP even realized such a concept, and should. Games largely express themselves to the player visually.
airmangataosenai
Member
I'd assume that he's trying to make a point about the Wii U or something. Obviously no one would answer that graphics are more important than gameplay, but the point that he and people like him miss is how more power under the hood means more to games than just prettier graphics. The worst part is that they themselves know it's true deep down, otherwise they wouldn't be excited about the Wii U in the first place over the Wii. It strips naked their argument that there's nothing the Wii couldn't do that the PS3/360 could and they simply choose to ignore it.
Yup, I think everyone can agree:
Gameplay > Graphical Style > Graphical Power
These are the reasons I put countless hours into many Wii games and about an hour into GTA IV...
I can't tell what anyone means when they use vague non-terms like "gameplay" either. The OP probably confused the people he was talking to.
I also find this somewhat a StealthU thread.
Having high-end breathtaking audio-visual sensation on top of great gameplay is fundamentaly better experience than only having a great gameplay only.
And graphics are only "good" while technology is recent. So complete "graphics" argument is basically valid until you can present-benchmark it, while gameplay is much more universal value. So it is flawed dilemma in foundations.
On the other hand, if OP meant "visual style"... but he didn't say it and I am not a mindreader..
Stealth thread is a stealth thread.
Having high-end breathtaking audio-visual sensation on top of great gameplay is fundamentaly better experience than only having a great gameplay only.
And graphics are only "good" while technology is recent. So complete "graphics" argument is basically valid until you can present-benchmark it, while gameplay is much more universal value. So it is flawed dilemma in foundations.
On the other hand, if OP meant "visual style"... but he didn't say it and I am not a mindreader..
Stealth thread is a stealth thread.
'roll you so cray
dickgumshoe
Member
Definetely gameplay. That doesn't mean that I don't care for graphics though, just that they play second fiddle.. or rather, third, because I think I value sound and music higher too.
Dog Problems
Banned
Ultimately gameplay is the most important but no matter how good some early 3D games are I can't look past the dated graphics and can no longer enjoy it like I could when it originally came out.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
More important? Gameplay, any day.
human onion
Banned
Both. And sound, and performance, and plot.
Depends
I absolutely need some sort of decent graphics, which is why I avoid 8bit/8bit inspired games...cant even touch game like VVVVV where graphics are their for entirely function purposes
But really good gameplay can make me forgive ugly games...like Super Meat Boy
I would say we are blessed this gen with havng a ton of games that dont compromise on either....
I absolutely need some sort of decent graphics, which is why I avoid 8bit/8bit inspired games...cant even touch game like VVVVV where graphics are their for entirely function purposes
But really good gameplay can make me forgive ugly games...like Super Meat Boy
I would say we are blessed this gen with havng a ton of games that dont compromise on either....
TouchMyBox
Member
If graphics include framerate, then graphics would be most important because if a game is great with a shit framerate, you can't enjoy that shit regardless.
Interficium
Banned
SupraDarky
Member
Gameplay.
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
Playing games? Fucking luddites. In 2012 we're watching games. Get with the times, you grannies.
Depends on the game, I'd say. But generally gameplay trumps graphics.
gutterboy44
Member
False dichotomy. It is important that a game is enjoyable to the player.
Ein Bear
Member
It does! Beautiful game! ...Though I generally think that we hit the point last gen where games stopped looking bad regardless of how old they are. The low resolution can be a bit jarring, but all these HD remasters in recent years are doing a great job or sorting that out anyway. I played through Resident Evil 4 HD last weekend, and still kept thinking "This looks fucking amazing"
I can easily play a mediocre game with fantastic visual presentation, as long as it isn't frustrating.
However many of my most played games are not all that good looking, but great playing.
I think all this is a distraction, because there isn't any real link between graphics and gameplay.
It is possible to have great graphics and shit gameplay, but it's not like it's some sort of natural law that you have to balance them, where adding more of one immediately forces you to cut down on the other.
There isn't any connection between being a good game designer, and having a competent technical crew or art team. It is quite possible for a studio to be good at one, and not the other.
This unfortunate delusion came into full force with the launch of the Wii, where Nintendo had to explain it as them focusing on gameplay over graphics.
The truth is that Nintendo, or anyone else for that matter, would be making every bit as good games with more powerful hardware.
However many of my most played games are not all that good looking, but great playing.
I think all this is a distraction, because there isn't any real link between graphics and gameplay.
It is possible to have great graphics and shit gameplay, but it's not like it's some sort of natural law that you have to balance them, where adding more of one immediately forces you to cut down on the other.
There isn't any connection between being a good game designer, and having a competent technical crew or art team. It is quite possible for a studio to be good at one, and not the other.
This unfortunate delusion came into full force with the launch of the Wii, where Nintendo had to explain it as them focusing on gameplay over graphics.
The truth is that Nintendo, or anyone else for that matter, would be making every bit as good games with more powerful hardware.
Dude's totally right. "Gameplay" is too vague, and most of the worthwhile potential replacements for the word leave you with something that isn't cleanly separable from the aesthetics.
"Gameplay or graphics" isn't a question worth spending time on.
radioheadrule83
Banned
While you're right, and I think ultimately - a piece of software can fall short in gameplay terms and still be enjoyable to some people, I think that in general terms - there is a truth that by and large rings true:
A game with brilliant gameplay at its heart will enthral those who play it no matter what.
A game whose only credit are its graphics will do no such thing.
ComputerMKII
Banned
1080p/60fps or go to hell.
test_account
XP-39C²
The graphics are often tied a lot into how a game is enjoyed. The graphics does afterall present the game, the atmosphere and all that. It doesnt mean that you need the most powerful hardware, i guess that is what most people think about when they hear "graphics is important" (which is understandable enough i think). So people who say graphics over gameplay does indirectly mean that the graphics matters to how a game is enjoyed. No one would continue to play a game that they find to be boring even if the graphics looks great.
NullPointer
Member
That this is even a question makes me sad.
But yes - no reason we can't have both. But nail the gameplay first, and fit as much graphical beauty as can be mustered without hindering the performance or screwing up image quality.
But yes - no reason we can't have both. But nail the gameplay first, and fit as much graphical beauty as can be mustered without hindering the performance or screwing up image quality.
insane0hflex
Member
GAF's always gonna say gameplay of course =)
For me, I prefer a good mix - 70% gameplay 30% graphics.
A great example is Mount and Blade Warband and Napoleonic Wars - not the greatest graphics, but excellent gameplay.
For me, I prefer a good mix - 70% gameplay 30% graphics.
A great example is Mount and Blade Warband and Napoleonic Wars - not the greatest graphics, but excellent gameplay.
Polishin8r
Member
Gameplay.
PetriP-TNT
Member
Gameplay by miles.
RealDeadOne
Member
Simple answer: a game with terrible graphics can still be good, a game with terrible gameplay can not.
Complex answer: The above is not actually always true. The part of the Walking Dead you'd call the "gameplay" is really simple, boring and requires next to no input. The game doesn't really have good graphics either. However, the story and characters you're able to interact with make it a great game. So is that part of the presentation, or the gameplay, or neither?
On the other hand, gameplay can be broken down too. Daggerfall is an incredibly deep and complex game, but the actual controls are no fun and the graphics are horrendous even by the standards of its time. So if the controls are bad but the mechanics are great, is the gameplay good?
And then for graphics and presentation, games like Dead Space and Silent Hill rely heavily on creating a frightening environment, and this is done through some gameplay aspects, but the bulk of the work comes from the graphics. If Dead Space didn't have great shadow rendering and lighting, the intensity of the scene would likely be gone. So there are some times when graphics actually are central to the game.
Complex answer: The above is not actually always true. The part of the Walking Dead you'd call the "gameplay" is really simple, boring and requires next to no input. The game doesn't really have good graphics either. However, the story and characters you're able to interact with make it a great game. So is that part of the presentation, or the gameplay, or neither?
On the other hand, gameplay can be broken down too. Daggerfall is an incredibly deep and complex game, but the actual controls are no fun and the graphics are horrendous even by the standards of its time. So if the controls are bad but the mechanics are great, is the gameplay good?
And then for graphics and presentation, games like Dead Space and Silent Hill rely heavily on creating a frightening environment, and this is done through some gameplay aspects, but the bulk of the work comes from the graphics. If Dead Space didn't have great shadow rendering and lighting, the intensity of the scene would likely be gone. So there are some times when graphics actually are central to the game.