Graphic or Game-Story?

1.Do you think that the game is better if it has good graphic (and bad game-story).

2.Or it's better with bad graphic (but good game-story)

3.Honestly I like both good. lol

GOOD GRAPHIC AND GOOD GAME-STORY.

NOTE:You can't answer with 1. AND 2. or WITH 3. JUST with 1. or 2.

Story. Half the time I don't notice graphics in a game, but I love a good story.

Story. Good graphics enhance the story though...

Well couldn't good visuals also give a better representation of the story?

So you're the only one who gets good graphics and good story? You tyrant!

Story > Graphics

it depends.when one wants a spot of casual gaming (which i do more oftern), a heavy story isnt what you want. still needs some sort of story tho. i rarely get really sucked in. mafia, the witcher, call of juarez bound in blood are a few rare exceptions.

Story... Most of the time Story and good graphic's dont go hand in hand. (mainly because the devs either focus on story or on graphics)

Ok,Ok,

For an example:Assassin's Creed

I don't think that game would be good without good graphics(no offend on story)

I think that good graphics makes 55% of a good game.

Another example:Cod 4(good story too)

I would rather have a game that has great game play and amazing visuals than a game that has great game play and great story.

Example: I would rather have LoZ:OoT which had insane graphics and amazing gameplay but a shallow story over FF7 which had amazing game play / story but kind sucky graphics.

You can't answer with 1. AND 2. or WITH 3. JUST with 1. or 2.vaczec

well, i take a good story of graphics anyday. but good graphics do help.

I prefer a good balance of both. ;)

[QUOTE="vaczec"]You can't answer with 1. AND 2. or WITH 3. JUST with 1. or 2.CellAnimation

Story is most important to me, but good graphics are nice. The one thing that can completely tank a game is horrid controls that I can't change.

Gameplay is much more important.. but then after gameplay i would rather see nice graphics rather than a very indepth story (movies and books if i want that). I don't mind playing a game with no story aslong as it is fun and challenging to play and looks suitable for the type of game.

I bet most of you wouldn't play your favoruite game franchises if the Graphics were horribly bad.. Graphics are important in a game, more so than Story. Now i am not saying good graphics = Crysis, but the graphics do have to be suitable for the game at hand. If every game was simply stickmen drawn with no transition between movements would you still play the game? nope i doubt you would.

Graphics and gameplay. The story is cutscene filler.

I bet most of you wouldn't play your favoruite game franchises if the Graphics were horribly bad.. Graphics are important in a game, more so than Story. Now i am not saying good graphics = Crysis, but the graphics do have to be suitable for the game at hand. If every game was simply stickmen drawn with no transition between movements would you still play the game? nope i doubt you would.

RiseAgainst12

diablo 1 and 2, terrible graphics (your limited to 800x600 lol) but i still play both frequently, and another one, the longest journey (1st) was a point and click game with bad graphics (not for its time, but today they are horrible) but a fantastic story....

so i guess i'm a story/gameplay > graphics kinda person.

Story so that everything you do in the game actually has some context and significance to it. A game can be about purely shooting (Max Payne/Modern Warfare) as long as there is a reason for what you are doing. Both those games do it very well because they have strong narratives.

Something like FEAR, although it is also purely a shooter, has some very lazy, fragmented storytelling.

Story.If it has good graphics aswell that's a bonus.But if it doesn't yet delivers in the story department i could care less.

[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"]

I bet most of you wouldn't play your favoruite game franchises if the Graphics were horribly bad.. Graphics are important in a game, more so than Story. Now i am not saying good graphics = Crysis, but the graphics do have to be suitable for the game at hand. If every game was simply stickmen drawn with no transition between movements would you still play the game? nope i doubt you would.

willx10121013

diablo 1 and 2, terrible graphics (your limited to 800x600 lol) but i still play both frequently, and another one, the longest journey (1st) was a point and click game with bad graphics (not for its time, but today they are horrible) but a fantastic story....

so i guess i'm a story/gameplay > graphics kinda person.

Story so that everything you do in the game actually has some context and significance to it. A game can be about purely shooting (Max Payne/Modern Warfare) as long as there is a reason for what you are doing. Both those games do it very well because they have strong narratives.

Something like FEAR, although it is also purely a shooter, has some very lazy, fragmented storytelling.

biggest_loser

Also look at the most popular games at the minute and why do you like them.. Dawn of war 2? Team fortress? Counter strike: source? Modern warfare? Because they look acceptable and are great multiplayer games. Not because they have story that would blow your mind.

Now i will change my opinion when talking about RPG because they have always basically been about a story.. An RPG can still be good even with bad gameplay and graphics aslong as the story is solid. But RPG's are on a whole different level.. so take it as the majority of games like FPS, RTS, fighting, Sports. all games that are much more enjoyable due to nice graphics and solid gameplay... There will be games that can break the mold from time to time yes.. but in the big picture Graphics and Gameplay are much more important in the majority of games.

[QUOTE="willx10121013"]

[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"]

I bet most of you wouldn't play your favoruite game franchises if the Graphics were horribly bad.. Graphics are important in a game, more so than Story. Now i am not saying good graphics = Crysis, but the graphics do have to be suitable for the game at hand. If every game was simply stickmen drawn with no transition between movements would you still play the game? nope i doubt you would.

RiseAgainst12

diablo 1 and 2, terrible graphics (your limited to 800x600 lol) but i still play both frequently, and another one, the longest journey (1st) was a point and click game with bad graphics (not for its time, but today they are horrible) but a fantastic story....

so i guess i'm a story/gameplay > graphics kinda person.

I see your point now, but if a game had incredible "true to life" graphics but no story would you still pay full price :question:;). It sounds like your talking about a book actually, terrible graphics (or none lol) but great story. I personally would still take the story>graphics over the other choice, but thankfully games don't have as bad of animations as your discribing, and if they do then they certainly won't have a great storyline to them.

Oh, and diablo had pretty average (at best) graphics for its time, Blizzard was trying to not push the graphical boundaries so more ppl could play the game(s) on their current systems.

Edit: I was just reading your post above me and you mentioned TF2 and CS:S, both games i thouroghly enjoy, although i don't think either one looks all that great, they're more gameplay>graphics/story. So i suppose it depends on the game, and choosing say Graphics>Story or Story>Graphics doesn't really work except on a game by game biases.

Story so that everything you do in the game actually has some context and significance to it. A game can be about purely shooting (Max Payne/Modern Warfare) as long as there is a reason for what you are doing. Both those games do it very well because they have strong narratives.

Something like FEAR, although it is also purely a shooter, has some very lazy, fragmented storytelling.

biggest_loser

Gameplay, gameplay, gameplay!

If it had better story and level design, Fear could've been a masterpiece. On the other hand, a combination of great story and great graphics could not save BioShock from it's lackluster gameplay.

Gameplay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Story >>>>>>>>>>>> Sound >>> Graphics

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

Story so that everything you do in the game actually has some context and significance to it. A game can be about purely shooting (Max Payne/Modern Warfare) as long as there is a reason for what you are doing. Both those games do it very well because they have strong narratives.

Something like FEAR, although it is also purely a shooter, has some very lazy, fragmented storytelling.

JackBurton

Gameplay, gameplay, gameplay!

If it had better story and level design, Fear could've been a masterpiece. On the other hand, a combination of great story and great graphics could not save BioShock from it's lackluster gameplay.

Gameplay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Story >>>>>>>>>>>> Sound >>> Graphics

Then why is Bioshock loved so much by both critics and gamers alike?

gameplay always comes first. serviceable graphic is appreciated, and great graphic is a bonus.

yet, in rare case when story is so integrated into gameplay, the best game was born = Planescape: Torment.

Game Story > Graphics for my case,

Gameplay>Story>Graphics.sub-raid

It's a no brainer for me. If a game doesn't have an adequate story then I don't bother to finish it. Oblivion had amazing graphics and average gameplay but I hated every character I met and absolutley loathed the story. In the end I didn't even sink fifteen hours into it.

Baldur's Gate on the other hand, has dated graphics but absolutely phenomenal story and great gameplay and I'm starting my third play through soon. Deus Ex is another case in point - the game looks like garbage - yet I'm still playing.

Of course I won't play a game that has "stickman" graphics (but no retail game I know has those graphics) but they certainly don't need to be state of the art or even good. As long as gameplay and story are there then the game is worth it.

And by the way I think Team Fortress 2 has an excellent story for multiplayer games (same with L4D). Valve is excellent at injecting environmental storytelling that make their games much more interesting then the average shooters.

Story

Gameplay>Story>Graphics.sub-raid

I bet most of you wouldn't play your favoruite game franchises if the Graphics were horribly bad.. Graphics are important in a game, more so than Story. Now i am not saying good graphics = Crysis, but the graphics do have to be suitable for the game at hand. If every game was simply stickmen drawn with no transition between movements would you still play the game? nope i doubt you would.

RiseAgainst12

Graphic and then story

Graphic and then story

nikola96

Ok,Ok,

For an example:Assassin's Creed

I don't think that game would be good without good graphics(no offend on story)

I think that good graphics makes 55% of a good game.

Another example:Cod 4(good story too)

vaczec

Gameplay, then graphics & story. A game with great gameplay can get away with an OK story and graphics, but not the other way around.F1_2004

For me there is 2... Gameplay and storyline.....

I'd rather play Thousand Arms in PSX than WoW clone games........