what do u think is more important?? gameplay or graphics?

To me a game with fun gameplay elements and strong art direction will have a better chance at succes than a game that has to much focus on any one element.

Gamers have been demanding better graphics for years now. Its been one of the biggest driving forces behind computer and console development. Something I wish developers would not listen so closely. Most of the so called next gen games I have seen have characters that look like wax museum rejects.

With the sports and shooter genres the gameplay was mostly mastered years ago. All they have left it to impove the packaging. Since people were calling for better graphics the developers have given them better graphics. Sadly, this mentality has been applied to other genres where high end graphics are not that important.

Gameplay.

well for me its obviosuly gameplay. i dont really care if the graphics suk like crazy as long as its fun. hav u ever wondered why we wont good graphics in our games? i still dont know. wats the point of good graphics?? if a game has really good graphics and bad gameplay why dont we just make it into a movie, cartoon or tv show. its called a video GAME so the most important factor in games is GAMEplay.thedudeguardian

Those two have never been mutually exclusive, why have great-looking games that play like crap? On the other hand, why have great-playing games that look like crap? Neither would make any sense. If you've got a good game, make it look decent, just because the gameplay is good it doesn't make it ok for the game to look like ass.

I think they are both very important. But graphics could possibly be more important because graphics can effect gameplay, such as the difference between having destructible environments and not having destructible environments. Gameplay can't really effect graphics...munu9

i'm not someone who can be fooled easily so pretty graphics wont fool me to think a game is great...so for any gamer the gameplay is the most important fact but ask this in PC forums and you'll see graphics answer more...

Of course gameplay is more important, but as long as there are games out there that play great AND look fantastic, why should I settle for less? Gaming's a visual hobby, after all.

1. Gameplay
2. Story
3. Graphics

In that order.

graphics...a good graphic game indeed has agood gamepaly too

Graphics > Boobies > Blood and Gore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gameplay.

I hate the term "gameplay".

Its like saying "moviewatch".

I totally agree with the TC.

Gameplay is more important than graphics. To be honest, I'm already ok with PS2's graphics. I don't need a better one.

I would rather play a great PS1 game than a PS3 game that only offers nice graphics.

BTW, best graphics for me is FF12. I prefer FF12's kind of graphics than current gen's.

I totally agree with the TC.

Gameplay is more important than graphics. To be honest, I'm already ok with PS2's graphics. I don't need a better one.

I would rather play a great PS1 game than a PS3 game that only offers nice graphics.

BTW, best graphics for me is FF12. I prefer FF12's kind of graphics than current gen's.

skp_16

Unfortunately inferior hardware doesn't just restrict graphics quality, it also restricts the size and the amount of freedom one can have in terms of gameplay. A game like Uncharted doesn't only give you better graphics, it also has better enemy AI and more enemies on screen, better friendly AI, the ability to use the environment as cover even while hanging on a ledge or hanging on the top of a wall, the environments become more interactive and there are fewer invisible walls. There's no need to get hung up on last-gen hardware when developers can implement great gameplay AND great graphics on current-gen hardware.

I would rather play a great PS1 game than a PS3 game that only offers nice graphics.skp_16

2D games look leaps and bounds better than PS1 era graphics. Early 3D games didn't look particularly good even back then, and they aged horrifically.

[QUOTE="skp_16"]I would rather play a great PS1 game than a PS3 game that only offers nice graphics.UpInFlames

2D games look leaps and bounds better than PS1 era graphics. Early 3D games didn't look particularly good even back then, and they aged horrifically.

While they are horrible to look at, the ones with good game play are still fun to go back and play. 2D games with good art are also fun to go back and play. While gameplay is king good grpahics/art work do make a big difference.EasyStreet

I've never been a fan of the 'gameplay is king' mindset. They're called video games for a reason. Graphics are important to me, I mean, why would I play a game that plays good but looks horrible? It's not like there's a shortage of games that do both well - in fact, the very best games deliver on all fronts. I look at the entire package, I can forgive shortcommings if a game offers something else in return, but I don't have a list of what's most and least important as it varies from title to title and what a particular game is trying to achieve.

Who wants to play an average-looking FPS? In adventure games, storytelling is king. RPG's - immersion. And so on.

I am under the impression that these types of threads are created by self-proclaimed 'hardcore' gamers that think that ragging on graphics and hailing gameplay as the end-all, be-all will make them get pats on the back from other supposed hardcore gamers. Whatevers.

[QUOTE="EasyStreet"]While they are horrible to look at, the ones with good game play are still fun to go back and play. 2D games with good art are also fun to go back and play. While gameplay is king good grpahics/art work do make a big difference.UpInFlames

I've never been a fan of the 'gameplay is king' mindset. They're called video games for a reason. Graphics are important to me, I mean, why would I play a game that plays good but looks horrible? It's not like there's a shortage of games that do both well - in fact, the very best games deliver on all fronts. I look at the entire package, I can forgive shortcommings if a game offers something else in return, but I don't have a list of what's most and least important as it varies from title to title and what a particular game is trying to achieve.

Who wants to play an average-looking FPS? In adventure games, storytelling is king. RPG's - immersion. And so on.

I am under the impression that these types of threads are created by self-proclaimed 'hardcore' gamers that think that ragging on graphics and hailing gameplay as the end-all, be-all will make them get pats on the back from other supposed hardcore gamers. Whatevers.

Exactly. In fact I actually think that better graphics can greatly contribute to a much more enriching and immersive gameplay experience. For instance, if I'm playing an FPS and I fire a plasma pistol at a target just to watch him squirm and get vaporized in a convincing fashion, then that can classified as fun, albeit in a different sense. Its no different than watching a Star Wars flick and getting a thrill out of the neat special effects going on at once onscreen.

I am under the impression that these types of threads are created by self-proclaimed 'hardcore' gamers that think that ragging on graphics and hailing gameplay as the end-all, be-all will make them get pats on the back from other supposed hardcore gamers. Whatevers.

UpInFlames

Given the attitude I took toward gaming forums and gaming in my teens, I suspect that this thread was made by a teenager with a similar attitude.

Uh... Gameplay. THen sound, then graphics.

Honestly, a games graphics do nothing to make the game in any way more fun or interesting

Gameplay

If I wanted graphics, I could just stare out my window.

Gameplay

Why do people keep asking this question is beyond me. Its like digging up a buried and previously beaten dead horse to beat it yet again.

The reality is that one aspect is not trully more important than the other. A balance must be met. Great games don't have crappy graphics and great graphics does not make a game great.

Uh... Gameplay. THen sound, then graphics.

Honestly, a games graphics do nothing to make the game in any way more fun or interesting

BuryMe

I guess games like Half Life 2, Halo, RE4 etc would still be great if the graphics looked like ass.:|

Why do people keep asking this question is beyond me. Its like digging up a buried and previously beaten dead horse to beat it yet again.

Pedro

I'm wondering the same thing. Based on my own experience several years ago and generalizing from that, the people who bring up this timeless, tired question are probably teens who just discovered GameSpot. The frequency with which this silly question is brought up almost makes me wish there were a sticky dedicated to it, just so we wouldn't have to see thread after thread asking the same thing, with the same naive, obvious, and/or dumb responses.

Gameplay before graphics, all of the time. If the gameplay is fine, usualy the graphics somehow will be also, but there are exceptions every now and then. No one really bought a Wii for graphics, right (well, unless they believed that the Wii was more powerful than the PS3 and Xbox360)?

I play for the story and the gameplay values

Not so much the graphics

The gameplay is more important but graphics now have kind of a standard and if you are below that there really is no exucse