Support NeoGAF

[GitarooMan]

Graphics often influence gameplay so it's not a valid question, it's not a strict dichotomy. One good example is viewing distance is certain games. Play Burnout Revenge on 360 and on the original Xbox. The viewing distance and clarity of the game on the 360 changes the playing of the game for the better (IMO) as it's easier to see down the road and avoid traffic and plan routes.

 

[BlackJace]

Good graphics combined with already great gamplay equals an amazing game.

 

[Fou-Lu]

Great Artstyle+Great Gameplay=Perfection

 

[les papillons sexuels]

Graphics often influence gameplay so it's not a valid question, it's not a strict dichotomy. One good example is viewing distance is certain games. Play Burnout Revenge on 360 and on the original Xbox. The viewing distance and clarity of the game on the 360 changes the playing of the game for the better (IMO) as it's easier to see down the road and avoid traffic and plan routes.

Actually good games have gameplay which informs the graphics, where as poorer games have graphics that inform the gameplay.

Even in the example you mentioned, the fact that the developers emphasized the lod and viewing distance instead of upgrading say, the look of the cars (somthing more likely to be noticed), means that it's the gameplay that the designers were trying to enforce not the graphics, and thats why the game plays better.

 

[cajunator]

ahh, that new console war smell.

 

[Lime]

ahh, that new console war smell.

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

I think when it comes to things I look for in a game, it goes like this, from most to least important:

1. Fun - this comes from the controls, how responsive they are, and the overall gameplay. The joy you get from actually controlling the action onscreen. The less control I have over a game, the less fun it is.
2. Sound and music - Yes, even more than graphics or visual style. The music and sound effects of a game leave a much longer lasting impression on me than visuals, and enhance my overall experience much more.
3. Challenge - Very important. I don't want to just plow through a game. Most of my fondest gaming memories come from me overcoming a really tough obstacle or a difficult puzzle in a game.
4. Graphics - art and or tech - important, but art and style are more important than technology. As long as the graphics convey what they're going for, I don't need modern tech or HD or whatever else to enjoy it.
5. Story - not important. In fact, a lot of the time, I could do without it altogether.

 

[Dance Inferno]

I simply ask this because my lady friends, a few of my pals, and I got into this argument yesterday about what's more important in a game and I said the gameplay, because I much rather have a game that's fun to play than rather play a game with excellent graphics that plays like shit. Of course, my friends disagreed with me and said the graphics of a game were much more important than the gameplay

So GAF, what's more important to you in a game?

Stealth brag thread?

Lol seriously though, if you had asked me a month or so ago I would have said graphics because I couldn't get into older games no matter how good they were. But I recently started replaying the Resident Evil games in anticipation of RE6 and now I am much more open to playing older or less graphically intensive games.

I actually am starting to prefer games that have stylized graphics that age well, so that even if you are not playing cutting edge graphics the game is still pleasant to look at.

 

[Tellaerin]

Gameplay vs. graphics is like presentation vs. story in films or novels. You can't have a game without gameplay, just like you can't have a book or movie without a plot. So naturally the gameplay is the most important element in a game. On the other hand, poor presentation (bad writing in a novel, poor acting/direction/dialogue in a movie) can really hurt the final experience, no matter how solid the core is. Conversely, great presentation can elevate a so-so story (book, film) or play mechanics (game) into an above-average experience. So while graphics aren't the most important thing, they definitely carry some weight.

 

[IoCaster]

This is a bit of a false dichotomy in that for PC gamers it's not mutually exclusive. A shit game will be shit on any platform, but on PC it can still manage to look good. A great game will play great and look great on PC so win-win. Look at Dark Souls and you'll see a great game that looked absolutely dreadful until Durante fixed it. It has some really fine textures that were blurred and obscured by sub-HD resolutions. Honestly though if I had to make that choice I would personally opt for refined gameplay and hope for mods/hacks/tweaks to improve image quality post release. The power of PC compels you.

 

[ihearthawthats]

VVVVVV is a perfect example of why gameplay will ALWAYS trump graphics.

no its not because it has good graphics, unless graphics == purely technical aspect.

Graphics are a part of the gameplay, they are not on equal standing.
Better comparisons would be graphics vs. controls, or graphics vs. sound.

pretty much.

 

[Sanctuary]

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

It's also kind of naive to argue that graphics don't matter though. Gameplay might be king, but you can only get so much out of 16 bit graphics. Imagine trying to play Demon's Souls or Uncharted 2 on the SNES. Gameplay matters the most, but not to the point of excluding graphical progress. The problem is only when graphics take so much more priority than a solid foundation of everything else; which just so happens to be the bane of this generation of consoles.

And seriously, who has not played Xenoblade Chronicles without thinking "what if?"? The game would look so much better if it was on any other platform. Playing it through the Dolphin emulator is proof enough and you don't lose out on any of the gameplay.

Stealth brag thread?

Lol seriously though, if you had asked me a month or so ago I would have said graphics because I couldn't get into older games no matter how good they were. But I recently started replaying the Resident Evil games in anticipation of RE6 and now I am much more open to playing older or less graphically intensive games.

You would be better off playing Gears of War if you were trying to prepare for RE6. It's nothing at all like RE1 - 4. Even the Dead Space games are more RE than RE5/6.

 

[Clear]

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

So there's no excuse for not being "pretty enough" in the 21st century?

That's what it basically boils down too in actual practice.

If a game engine is so fundamentally broken that it can't illustrate what is needed for the gameplay (i.e. supply visual cues and general feedback for your actions) then BOTH are broken, because the two phenomena are fundamentally linked.

This is extremely rare however, there may be intermittent instances where problems occur in some games, but almost never do you come across a game where the graphics don't have sufficient functionality to support the mechanics.

Most often, what we actually get is the criticism that game x isn't a shiny and slick as game y. Which is the superficial, "prettyness" argument that I believe ought to be dismissed out of hand.

Resolution and AA tweaks make the visuals prettier, no doubt, but that should never be used a stick to beat a game down with.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

Graphics are a part of the gameplay, they are not on equal standing.
Better comparisons would be graphics vs. controls, or graphics vs. sound.

no, graphics should be an extension of the gameplay, however, many game designers use gameplay as an extension of the graphics.