Support NeoGAF

[BadWolf]

I love amazing gameplay like Vanquish but I also love being blown the fuck away by games like Uncharted so... both.

 

[Mileena]

I want to say gameplay but then I remembered trying to play any SD console on my plasma is pointless and terrible. But still, gameplay

 

[Always-honest]

I see no reason why a game can't have both.

 

[Clydefrog]

this is like asking "Cake or death?"

uhh... cake please!

 

[Opiate]

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Can't I have both?

Interesting question, actually.

They are by no means mutually exclusive. However, it is fair to say that increased graphical fidelity generally incurs increased costs, and increased costs generally limit risk taking.

So while game mechanics are not limited by increased costs, risk taking with new game mechanics generally is. I'm sure you'll notice that the high end of production values also tends to rely on safe, well tested genres, and that a great deal of mechanical experimentation occurs lower down the cost curve. The number of genres capable of sustaining themselves at the high end has become increasingly limited.

Essentially, this is a function of economics. In an ideal world where we could have everything we want, this wouldn't be a problem, but of course, in an ideal world where we could have everything we want, we'd all be doing much better things with our lives and all have the world at our fingertips.

 

[gutterboy44]

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.

Completely disagree. Dear Esther has essentially zero gameplay and it's stunning graphics and environments were a nearly transcendental experience when I first played it. It is nothing without it's graphics.

A game like Mario Galaxy, had incredible gameplay, and I enjoyed it for a bit, but it fell short because there was nothing remotely interesting about it to me outside of the gameplay mechanics so I never could be motivated to finish it.

You can have dull unenjoyable games that by any sound analysis have great gameplay and you can have incredible games that are almost solely a graphical tech demo.

Let's call this thread what it really is, a Wii U final specs coping thread.

 

[insane0hflex]

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.

Great post, and great insight into the Walking Dead

 

[RawkHawk2010]

Does "art style" count as graphics?

Then graphics.

 

[Goldenroad]

You should find some new friends.

That's like saying, "What's the most important part of a novel; the story or the fonts used for the text?" If you vote for the fonts you have no clue about literature and should not even be included in the discussion.

 

[sublimit]

Obvious answer is obvious. Gameplay.

Unfortunately though more and more games play like movies and focus more on their big budget graphics and their stupid hollywood stories than the actual gameplay.

 

[Ryoku]

Gameplay with great presentation (not necessarily graphics) make a great game.

 

[TedNindo]

If I liked graphics over gameplay I would be running benchmarks all day.


Gameplay is the only answer. Graphics make a game with great gameplay even better. It's the cherry on top.

The graphics in Crysis blew me away. But it's the gameplay that makes me consider it a great game. I don't care for Uncharted even though it looks great and has top of the line presentation overal. But the gameplay and mechanics are shallow.

 

[pswii60]

Gameplay first and foremost. But that doesn't mean that graphics (and audio) can't enhance an experience, especially when it comes to atmosphere and immersion.

 

[Diddy Kong]

Gameplay

 

[Mastperf]

For games that need visuals to paint the experience, I would say both are equally needed. I have played games like rpg's where poor presentation made it impossible for me to get into the game. Immersion is extremely important to me and visuals are what brings that immersion.

 

[somesplace]

Graphics are part of the game and thus the "gameplay"

Thread title makes my head hurt.

exactly... this question doesn't even make sense

 

[ManeKast]

Gameplay, but Graphics are one of the building blocks for gameplay ideas. Cant really compare the two as they are complementary to each other.

Some great examples for me, Gears of War, loved the first game and upon reflection, it was because of the graphics, it was new. Gears 3 comes out, same old same old. Whereas say Dark Souls, Mario etc, I will always laud the gameplay many years later whereas Gears is forgotten.

 

[Dr.Hadji]

No one on this forum is going to come in here and say graphics

Idk, after these NSMB and Fuse threads I think a lot more people should be saying graphics.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

HEY GUYS WHATS MORE IMPORTANT TO YOU:
1. THE WIIU TABLET HAS ADJUSTABLE BRIGHTNESS SETTINGS
2. IT HAS AN ACTUAL ONLINE INFRASTRUCTURE

 

[Razek]

Both. If gameplay was truly more important, we would all be playing pacman or whatever our favorite oldest video games were. Both are required to feel like I'm gaining something.

 

[Evlar]

Both. If gameplay was truly more important, we would all be playing pacman or whatever our favorite oldest video games were. Both are required to feel like I'm gaining something.

That doesn't follow. Graphics aren't the only thing that's changes through the years.

 

[Razek]

That doesn't follow. Graphics aren't the only thing that's changes through the years.

I'm not sure what your getting at?

Since the topic is only on graphics and gameplay, new gameplay iterations have been created through the development of graphics. We wouldn't have dual stick first person shooters today if it wasn't for the advances in graphics to give us a view port for our character to see through for example.

 

[Evlar]

I'm not sure what your getting at?

Since the topic is only on graphics and gameplay, new gameplay iterations have been created through the development of graphics. We wouldn't have dual stick first person shooters today if it wasn't for the advances in graphics to give us a view port for our character to see through for example.

I'm saying that we have many other reasons, a quite vast number of other reasons in fact, to be playing something other than Pac Man. The gameplay possibilities opened up by online connectivity are easy examples.

 

[RealDeadOne]

You should find some new friends.

That's like saying, "What's the most important part of a novel; the story or the fonts used for the text?" If you vote for the fonts you have no clue about literature and should not even be included in the discussion.

For a book analogy, I think it'd be better to use "story and content vs. prose and writing".

 

[AstroNut325]

what kind of question is this even

graphics of course

/Thread

 

[Nimajneb]

Gameplay > art design >>>>> graphic tech

Seriously, many of today's games look worse than last generation's games.

 

[Lethality]

I've played 16 and 32-bit games for years. Fk graphics.

 

[that1dude24]

gameplay ~ art design * graphics

 

[Cheddahz]

I've played 16 and 32-bit games for years. Fk graphics.

This is honestly how I feel

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

I'll go a step further and even say that sometimes I even prefer the minimalist look of many 8 and 16-bit games over it's modern counterparts.

 

[Duxxy3]

Has to have both.

 

[Seik]

Gameplay will govern over graphics forever.

A game can be amazingly beautiful, something to blow any minds, but if it plays like shit it'll be shit.

 

[Jawmuncher]

Gameplay.
I've played many a game with shit graphics and still came out loving them.

 

[sp3000]

HEY GUYS WHATS MORE IMPORTANT TO YOU:
1. THE WIIU TABLET HAS ADJUSTABLE BRIGHTNESS SETTINGS
2. IT HAS AN ACTUAL ONLINE INFRASTRUCTURE

Seriously, what an idiotic thread.

 

[teh_pwn]

Both. They are not inextricable. In fact they depend on each other.

 

[kittens]

I'm not playing graphics. I'm playing games. So gameplay. Of course, graphics quality does impact gameplay sometimes, so it's not a clear dichotomy.

Allow me to use an analogy:
Option 1: Smash
Option 2: Bang
Option 3: Smang <--- Winner

 

[Lime]

What's more important you, eating or breathing?

Spoiler

Seriously, this thread is like being in kindergarten again.

 

[Greg]

gameplay, obviously

but when a new generation of consoles come out, I'll play games that I otherwise wouldn't just to appreciate how far the games have come technically

the dullest game mechanics with a new layer of paint has an appeal to me during that stage of a system's life

 

[GDGF]

Always been a gameplay first kind of guy.

Always will be.

 

[H_Prestige]

Gameplay. There's no point in a pretty game that offers no fun.

But I can't stand shitty looking games either.

 

[Coolwhip]

Is this thread still around? Gameplay of course. Try playing a game like Tera. Looks gorgeous, but the game itself sucks. Visuals can keep me interested for 30 minutes, after that I stop caring.

 

[2+2=5]

Is it even necessary a thread?
Gameplay is the only answer, and even if someone here thinks the opposite he will say gameplay to not make a poor figure.
The only reason to say graphics is to troll or to be funny.

 

[Orayn]

Gameplay is more important than anything, including graphics, sound, and story. Those things can be nice additions to a good game, but they can't make up for bad mechanics and I generally have a hard time enjoying them for their own sake.

 

[legacyzero]

No reason we can have both.

 

[gdt]

oh for fucks sake

 

[Barry Burton]

Definitely gameplay. I've played enough gorgeous games this generation that have vanilla, if not completely awful gameplay.

 

[hyduK]

There's no excuse for not having both. It's 2012.

 

[Trevelyan9999]

Graphics can enhance the gameplay experience but that's it really. Gameplay will always trump graphics in the long run.

 

[jonno394]

Rise of the robots looked super awesome and cool with extreme sound and graphics. It played awfully.

"Good" graphics couldn't save it.

I don't think this is an either/or area. The best games have good gameplay and at least adequate visuals.

 

[theviolenthero]

Gameplay.
Graphics only matter for me when it's a multi-platform game (i own a x360 & wii only).