The Throwdown on Graphics VS Gameplay....let's get ready to rumble!!!

Here's a challenging question to both crowds here in this forum:

The 1st group that says: "Graphics don't matter because it's all about the gameplay."

VS

The 2nd group that says: "Graphics do matter and its everything to taking games to the next level."

Here's the example and question:

My PC is weak-sauce, but it's just powerful enough at a minimum level to enjoy some of the latest games for Windows. Titles include Command & Conquer 3, F.E.A.R., Company of Heroes, Oblivion, and Supreme Commander.

Although I can still enjoy these games, I'm happy and sad at the same time because I'm torn between two opposing factors here: gameplay or graphics. Sure, I can enjoy a game like C&C3, F.E.A.R., and Oblivion, but the only way to play it smoothly is to strip everything down to its barest minimum. Doing this makes the games look like Gamecube graphics, but the saving grace is knowing that it's still the same game and still very fun to play.

Even though I'd prefer a pimped out PC that can play these games to its maximum level, I should still be satisfied because I can still enjoy these great titles because the gameplay is still the same, right? Or am I missing out on what could be possible and this empty, longing feeling that tears me up inside for wishing for a more powerful PC proves that graphics do matter more than just gameplay alone?

The Throwdown:

So there's my example and now for everyone's verdict on this age old debate. When it comes to games, what matters most? At one hand, a game like F.E.A.R. for example, can still be played with minimum power, yet in order to get the full experience, such as the shock value, atmosphere, physics, lighting, etc., one needs a more powerful computer. Oblivion is a another good example on why graphics are important. Basically, playing Oblivion with minimum requirements is no better than Morrowind. But the gameplay is the same, so it should be no big deal, right? But at the end, does it matter? What's more important in this situation?

Likewise, how does this question relate to Nintendo's philosphy and success of gameplay first, as opposed to the potential hidden within the PS3 and the 360's continual expanding library? Does the Wii and the DS's phenomenal success nullify all arguments about graphics vs gameplay? It's true that since graphics always enhance, some games can't stand the test of time. But gameplay is the solid foundation that will last forever. Yet, a game like F.E.A.R., and Command & Conquer 3 needs better graphics to get the full experience....

...so the question is: "What matters more, Graphics or Gameplay?

The verdict and answer is in your hands. Let the debate and discussions begin!

It depends on what type of game your talking about. A simple tetris clone really doesn't need shiny graphics to help it out, while a horror game which is trying to establish the mood of an area needs the graphics and sound scheme to effectively create the mood by involving your other senses.

Also, graphics tend to inhance gameplay depending on the game your playing. For example, a FPS where one can choose to blow up a building where the enemy is hiding, rather than have the building be a static part of the enviroment. More powerful hardware allow for more gameplay possibilities to come to life in games that strive to be a little bit deeper than their previous iterations.

But to reiterate what I started off with, it really depends on what game your looking at. A simple game really depends on its gameplay to make it addictive and have the player coming back for more, while other games have many other assets that depend on more powerful hardware to be realized.

In some instances game developers are essentially being forced to provide the latest graphics in their game because it's what makes the game competitive in sales. However, say that game company decided to hold back on the latest graphics engine and decided to rely on gameplay to sell the game (ie STALKER), it would eventually do just as well, if not better. This is because the foundation of a game is its gameplay. I'm not excluding the importance of graphics because the art style of a game is what makes it unique and ultimately attractive. The problem I have with the Graphics argument is that having the latest shaders or high definition resolutions will only last so long. What is most important is how the user can interact with the game world.

Half Life, in my opinion, gained its success through the unique way of telling the story on-the-fly as you play the game in first-person.

Counterstrike was a big hit because of its challenging gameplay and realism of weapons and body damage.

Mario was successful for obivious reasons and it has always been focused on gameplay rather than the latest graphics.

There are many more examples....

Zelda, Guitar Hero etc.

In my opinion, graphics AFFECT gameplay. While they are not needed, one must only look to Crysis to see some examples of this. The devs stated that in multiplayer, you will be able to track down enemy combatants by seeing clouds of dust that got kicked up in a recent battle, or tread tracks and trees that got knocked over from vehicles. I thought I'd come up with more examples, but the coffee hasn't kicked in yet this morning. :P

While my current addiction to FFT on my DS certainly means that great graphics are not needed to give a very rich, satisfying gaming experience, I believe that they are critical in the overall immersion of the player in the world, and in how that world interacts with the player.

Nowadays, graphic become more important. Some games have gameplay similar our favourite but we don't care because it looks ugly.

This is a false dilemma anda pointless debate. There's absolutely no reason we can't have both.nopalversion

Graphics are a part of gameplay....

In order for a game to be really great, you need to have all aspects of a game being good....sound, graphics, gameplay, control...

To say one of those isnt important is just dumb....

And some people seem to forget, graphics isnt just how good a game looks, its AI, Physics, Enviroment Effects, Enemies on screen.....

People that say "GRAPHICS DONT MATTER!!!!" I think are just settling because all they have is a Wii....and they seem to deny the fact that a 360, ps3, PC will have better everything than it...

In fact most likely they are probably capable of better "gameplay" that the Wii....because while Wii has games that are the same exact things as last Gen with a new contoller....PC, 360, and ps3 will have tons of new styles of games, with better AI, Physics, Sotry and all the things that make a game good..

It'd be nice if I could call someone an idiot on this board without getting "suspended" for a week.

321HeadWound

Well, you're not allowed to insult people, which you just did, and could very likely get suspended for.

The gameplay VS graphics-thing again...well there are some genres (like racing games for example) which absolutely depend on the graphics,because if it doesn´t run smooth and looks at least nice overall...there also genre´s (like RPGs)who desn´t depend on graphics to enjoy it.

Gameplay is of course most important,but if a game doesn´t run smooth,it ruins the fun for me in most cases.Even the Textures doesn´t need to be over-detailed as long as the game looks sharp (or at least not too much tearing)and run smooth...does anyone even want Puzzle Bobble with slowdowns???

It's not which is more important. It's which do you need for a game. And that would be gameplay obviously. Even a blind man can play the game of marco polo. Dozens of years of chess have proved graphics don't change the game.

Yes, your gun might look prettier, but that's just the pepper to the soup.