The Gvs.G debate (Graphics vs. Gameplay)

[Lionheart_0]

So we got our graphics, and we got our game play. These days it seems to be about the former. With next generations being just released, we are put into a world that is starting to almost become realistic (Almost, not quit).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the thing is, do these upgraded graphics really bring us anything? Take the ps3 for instance. Sure it has some of the best graphics of all time, but what is really there? Any good games that help motivate players to play? Or are game companies expecting that the look itself will reel in the big bucks?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I myself find thinking that the later is what entices me to play a game. Take for example Kingdom hearts. Sure it does have good graphics and what not, but thats not the point. The battle system is the best way of fighting in an RPG that ive ever seen. Sure i love the old ATB system the FF series has (X and XII being the exceptions), but the upgrade in the way i can play is what has drawn me in. I attempt to still play some of the old FF's, but the old game play is what I have problems with now, not he degrade in graphics (8 and 16 bit FTW!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just so others dont say "Oh he is using Square enix products again", ill use another genre. I know not everyone likes Halo games, but the difference in game play between Halo 1 and Halo 2 is astounding. When i play 1 now, i have problems dodging fire and aiming my weapon. Why? Because the game play has been sped up from 1 to 2. Sure when i did see the trailer for Halo 2 i was like "Omg, Epic game!!!!", but when i saw the trailer, something else caught my eye that made me want to play more. The simple questions addressing the continuation of the story line are what drove me home, and made me want to play.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, enough of me, which side do you chose, and why?

[gryphon618]

Well, IMO, graphics and gameplay are like bread and butter- one's not more important than another, they both need each other for a good game.

 

 

 

This is also based on time. Like one of the classic Nintendo games (Ice Climber) would probably be considered "crappy," but it was OK for its time period. Back then, there wasn't technology great enough to make a Halo game. I judge by time too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What use is playing a game with great graphics but a horrible gameplay? I mean, sure, it looks nice, but seriously, who wants to play a boring game?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The vice versa works (to an extent) too. What use is playing a game with great gameplay but horrible graphics? You can play it, but if you can't tell what an item/part of the game is, whats the point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, if graphics are graspable by the audience, but not perfect and precise, I really don't see the problem. Sure, perfect graphics would be awesome, but if not, thats ok by me, as long as its a good game.

[Nadril]

Well, IMO, graphics and gameplay are like bread and butter- one's not more important than another, they both need each other for a good game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quoted for complete truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure, I generaly consider gameplay ranking somewhat higher on the "scale" but graphics are a very important part. I don't know about you guys but with all of the technology we have right now I would be severly disapointed if I saw a new game come out that looked like crap. Sure it could be fun, but graphics allow you to imerse yourself within the gameworld more. It's the same thing as art really. Sure, if it has a great message behind it it's fine but if it looked like someone just took a dump on the artpiece it's not going to get anywhere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I generaly like to point out that the art style, how they use the graphics engine, is what matters. Take for example, Everquest II vs World of Warcraft. Two very graphicaly different games. Most people you'd talk to would consider WoW higher up graphic wise because of the art direction. Everquest II on the other hand, while it has a very advanced rendering engine, simply looks boring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, I'd have to say that generaly I consider everything on a scale, but everything needs to be good for a good game. The scale could look like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gamepaly

 

 

 

Controls

 

 

 

Graphics

 

 

 

Story

 

 

 

Sound

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But to say sound isn't important at all compared to gameplay isn't right, it's still very important and a game needs all of these good to pull together a game. What it does mean is if a game has amazing gameplay, controls and graphics than it can always be excused for not the best sound or story line.

[Lionheart_0]

Hmm, i guess my rating would be:

 

 

 

Gameplay

 

 

 

Story

 

 

 

sound

 

 

 

Controls

 

 

 

Graphics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But still, i can eat the bread by itself, and its fine, the butter is just there to add a little extra.

[____]

Hmm, i guess my rating would be:

 

 

 

Gameplay

 

 

 

Story

 

 

 

sound

 

 

 

Controls

 

 

 

Graphics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But still, i can eat the bread by itself, and its fine, the butter is just there to add a little extra.

Aye; and it usually doesn't taste right if you got too much butter on there \

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My order of preference:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gameplay

 

 

 

Story

 

 

 

Controls

 

 

 

Sound

 

 

 

Graphics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've tried playing a lot of RPG games; and the only ones which have REALLY had me playing where those which had a story which actually worked within the confines of the game's universe.

[unknownmasterofnothing]

Gameplay definitely is more important than graphics. Graphics only enhance games. Even with if a game has crappy graphics, if it has excellent gameplay, it'd be fun. But if it was excellent graphics and poor gameplay, who cares if it looks nice. And even high def games, the people look like plastic. I prefer a balance of both or good gameplay.

[RebelAssassin]

Well, IMO, graphics and gameplay are like bread and butter- one's not more important than another, they both need each other for a good game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so all classic games are complete crap?

[How2PK]

Gameplay, of course. Dont'really see how you can discuss that. Sure, they're both important. But graphics work for the gameplay. Not the other way around.

[jgrazotis]

gameplays way more important

 

 

 

my order is

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gameplay

 

 

 

story

 

 

 

controls

 

 

 

graphics

 

 

 

sound

[Lionheart_0]

Gameplay, of course. Dont'really see how you can discuss that. Sure, they're both important. But graphics work for the gameplay. Not the other way around.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You would be surprised. I have some friends at school who will not play any system that has graphics worse then the ps2's, and if i try talking about new games to them, the first question asked : What are the graphics like?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When i respond with "I dunno, i guess they are good, ive seen better. does it matter though?" most of the time they say "Err if it doesn't have good graphics, im not playing."

[Korla]

Up until I started playing WoW it was something like

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gameplay and story

 

 

 

controls

 

 

 

sound and graphics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

now with WoW's awesome controls and lack of decent story, I had to re-do that abit to match my views of WoW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gameplay and controls

 

 

 

story

 

 

 

graphics

 

 

 

sound

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This, cause I tried to play NWN 2 abit after WoW, and the controls absolutely sucked, but the graphics were better (a little), the sounds better, and the story much better IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It works for most genres as far as I'm cconcerned. I still find that I enjoy SNES games and N64 games more than most new games, take for example Mario Kart for N64 compared to any racing game out there.. well, any racing game with catch-up, as that flaws the entire game. One exception is Planescape: Torment which climb on to my all-time-top 3 list, 99% storyline, but that's ok, it's special.

[limpbizkit]

depends really but graphics get so out of hand you cant play a game for over an hr sometimes they get to good.

[Bubsa]

I think gameplay is far more essential than graphics for a game. It could leave a lot to be desired, but still be very fun to play with good gameplay (Olympic Soccer, old FF series, Chrono Trigger, all come to mind).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conversely, a graphics engine could maximise the consoles full potential, but without any decent gameplay, all it would make the game is look really crap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Take note, Ps3.

[indy500fan]

I always enjoy seeing good graphics on newer games. Like everyone else pretty much agreed, gameplay is more important though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, IMO, graphics and gameplay are like bread and butter- one's not more important than another, they both need each other for a good game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That I can't entirely agree with. I can play a game, such as Tetris, with basically no graphics at all. Just squares. I can play a lot of very simple games with not so good of graphics. If something has great graphics but no gameplay, I would probably look at it and admire the graphics for a few minutes, then never play it again.

[CRAIGMEANIE]

I think that both are as important as each but each Next-Gen consol has something very unique about it but the supirior(sp) Wii's way of gameplay would probably make anyone happy for the price it costs :thumbsup: (im too cheap for a ps3 or 360).

 

 

 

The 360 has good graphics but thats microsoft what do you expect and the PS3 is sony, they make T.Vs -.- anyway im going off topic now but i think gameplay over takes graphics as id rather have a 8 bit masterpiece then some pile of excretement which gets a personal rating of 3% \

[yomom1919]

The gameboy pocket pokemon and zelda games are my favorite games ever. They are classics; excellent gameplay, excellent story (well mabye not so much pokemon, but that was preety creative). Obviously, the games dont have good graphics, but they still are my favorite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In order of importance:

 

 

 

out of 200%

 

 

 

Gameplay (90%)

 

 

 

Story (60%)

 

 

 

Graphics (30%)

 

 

 

Controls (10%)

 

 

 

Sound (10%)

[gryphon618]

 

Well, IMO, graphics and gameplay are like bread and butter- one's not more important than another, they both need each other for a good game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so all classic games are complete crap?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nadril's post really cleared up what I was trying to say:

 

 

 

Sure, I generaly consider gameplay ranking somewhat higher on the "scale" but graphics are a very important part. I don't know about you guys but with all of the technology we have right now I would be severly disapointed if I saw a new game come out that looked like crap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I meant, is with recent technology, a game has to at least look DECENT. In those day, Halo-type Graphics were impossible. The "crappy" classic graphics were the best, and yeah, I judge by time also. I won't say "OMG that Ice Climbers game was so stupid because da graphx suxs!!!!" No! It was good for its time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I realize the confusion of my point. I'll edit my first point.

[Mr_Putter]

It really can't be generalized into just Gameplay, graphics, controls etc. Example, there's a far better story in say, Planescape: Torment, than there is in say, Return to Castle Wolfenstein. But the actual gameplay of RTCW is far more action packed and fun than that of PS:T. But I still like PS:T better. See what I'm getting at?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't compare these things across genres. In an RPG game I would see story as more important than say, sound. But in a dark survival horror game (say, F.E.A.R. or something like that), story may not be as important when things like sound (and the other 3) are at their prime (that's not to say F.E.A.R. has a bad story, I've only played part of it).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Controls in an RPG or adventure game (point-and-click-anyone)? Hardly important at all. Controls in a face paced game like UT or Quake 3? Extremely important.

[Nadril]

 

Well, IMO, graphics and gameplay are like bread and butter- one's not more important than another, they both need each other for a good game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so all classic games are complete crap?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generaly, no. However what I was trying to say if a game came out *today* with the graphics of 10 years ago it would leave me a little unsatisfyed, even if it was a decent game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll still play a game if it's a great game and has shoddy graphics. Generaly, however, I like them both and think both of them are needed for a truely great game. The fact is is that a truely great game is one that brings together everything into one package, and something that can truely imerse you in the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also I think I mentioned about art styles somewhere. Games such as the old chrono trigger or isometric games I would still play today because the art style is so developed. For an incredibly old game it simply looks good. I care less about the actual sophisticated-ness of the graphics and about how well they used the technology of the time. I would consider some games from near 10 years ago to have better "graphics" in that sens e than some recent games that have no developed style.

[BlueTear]

I think it has a lot to do with the genre of game. In many turn based strategy games, sequels were they've improved the graphics can ruin the downright ruin the gameplay and controls; For example, although it's prettier, it makes it harder to gain a clear view of what's going on, thus decreasing gameplay. A simpler, uglier, graphical solutation could - and does in some cases - make the game better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In an MMORPG, the concern with scaled up graphics can instead be system requirements. I had to run my graphics with a troubleshooting option enabled to get the graphics down to a level my RAM could handle in SWG. WoW even chose not to go for the all-out graphical improvements - much the same way they did with Warcraft III - in order to improve playability. Allowing control customization via xml also makes the UI of WoW a significant improvement in gameplay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MMORPG's also generally have more "content" than your average game, which means the gameplay is going to be bigger. I've never been a fan of single player RPG's or first person shooters, but in my opinion, graphics in those games are more important than in games with content on a scale of your average commercial MMORPG.

[degertz]

well rockstar chose gameplay over graphics with there GTA series because they coulda made the graphics wayyyy better for the PS2 but they chose gameplay.

[limpbizkit]

well rockstar chose gameplay over graphics with there GTA series because they coulda made the graphics wayyyy better for the PS2 but they chose gameplay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 second please say you were being sarcastic that only applies for gta 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the others are graphic dominated

[Lionheart_0]

 

well rockstar chose gameplay over graphics with there GTA series because they coulda made the graphics wayyyy better for the PS2 but they chose gameplay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 second please say you were being sarcastic that only applies for gta 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the others are graphic dominated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just finished playing about an hours worth of GTA SA, and i would have to say that those graphics are pretty crappy, but the game play is extremely sweet, which is what makes me play.

[limpbizkit]

 

 

well rockstar chose gameplay over graphics with there GTA series because they coulda made the graphics wayyyy better for the PS2 but they chose gameplay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 second please say you were being sarcastic that only applies for gta 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the others are graphic dominated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just finished playing about an hours worth of GTA SA, and i would have to say that those graphics are pretty crappy, but the game play is extremely sweet, which is what makes me play.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gta sa is a rubbish game in my opinion and i think majority of people play for the graphics

[timmay929]

 

 

 

well rockstar chose gameplay over graphics with there GTA series because they coulda made the graphics wayyyy better for the PS2 but they chose gameplay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 second please say you were being sarcastic that only applies for gta 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the others are graphic dominated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just finished playing about an hours worth of GTA SA, and i would have to say that those graphics are pretty crappy, but the game play is extremely sweet, which is what makes me play.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gta sa is a rubbish game in my opinion and i think majority of people play for the graphics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graphics? GTA games have horrible graphics compared to other games. In those games it's nothing but gameplay. Vice City and San Andreas have amazing storylines. Graphics is a whole different story.