Are graphics and gameplay equally important to you?

Graphics help immerse the players while the gameplay makes it enjoyable but should they be equal in importance when it comes to games or should one be prefer over to another.

I don't care.

If the game is pretty, I'l get it.

If the game plays good, I'll get it. 

That is all.

Game-play will always be more important.

I don't care.

 

If the game is pretty, I'l get it.

 

If the game plays good, I'll get it. 

 

That is all.

parkurtommo

no1 is gameplay..

No Gameplay is far far more important. If a game just looks like garbage obviously I'm not going to like it as much but games like crysis and killzone are examples of games that look pretty but suck ass. 

Gameplay is far more important.

Graphics complement gameplay. 

obviously many people care about graphics just like cows lately using tech demos to claim ownage or consolities in general who claim graphics don;t matter but make threads trying to convice themselves they have better graphcics than pc. Gameplay should come first than graphics one should not be ignored

gameplay is most important. Art style is more important than technical graphics.wolverine4262

gameplay is most important. Art style is more important than technical graphics.wolverine4262

In terms of graphics, I'm still okay with games from the PS2 era and very happy with most games released in the PS3/360 era. The art direction is what matters to me. 

And of course gameplay is most important. 

obviously many people care about graphics just like cows lately using tech demos to claim ownage or consolities in general who claim graphics don;t matter but make threads trying to convice themselves they have better graphcics than pc. Gameplay should come first than graphics one should not be ignored

CroidX

consolities will be consolities

No. I do like graphics probably a bit more than I should but gameplay is still the determining factor. 

That's why I don't like Crysis 3

Always gameplay.

Graphics help immerse the players while the gameplay makes it enjoyable but should they be equal in importance when it comes to games or should one be prefer over to another.

TheFadeForever

Well, there is no hard and fast rule for me. Let's just say that different games can have different mixtures of good graphics and good gameplay and achieve enjoyable results.

Generally gameplay is the more important ingredient, but in some games narrative and atmosphere (created through graphics and sound) can be far more important. Take Dear Esther, for example. I really enjoyed that game even though it doesn't have much that you would typically consider gameplay, at least not in the traditional video-gamey sense of the word.

They're both important, and at some times, graphics CAN affect gameplay, since you'd have to take into account the silhouette of certain game objects to make said objects easy to recognize.

Why not have both?

gameplay is most important. Art style is more important than technical graphics.wolverine4262

They go hand in hand...

If you want gameplay and no graphics, stick to pac-man, pong, tetris.

Graphics can make a good game better, but can't make a bad game good.

Gameplay>everything else. I'd rather play a well programmed stick man fighting game than a pretty cutscene that's not fun

[QUOTE="Jonwh18"]

No Gameplay is far far more important. If a game just looks like garbage obviously I'm not going to like it as much but games like crysis and killzone are examples of games that look pretty but suck ass. 

kalipekona

Killzone and Crysis don't suck ass. This **** bandwagon of saying those games are "horrible" and other such nonsense needs to die. 

They generally have received good review scores. Personally, I don't think either franchise is amazing or even great, but they are good games. Certainly not garbage games or even mediocre games.

A mediocre game to me is something like Fuse or Deadpool which have scores averaging in the low 60s. A crappy game would be something like Dark with average scores around 38.

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

[QUOTE="Jonwh18"]

No Gameplay is far far more important. If a game just looks like garbage obviously I'm not going to like it as much but games like crysis and killzone are examples of games that look pretty but suck ass. 

Jonwh18

Killzone and Crysis don't suck ass. This **** bandwagon of saying those games are "horrible" and other such nonsense needs to die. 

They generally have received good review scores. Personally, I don't think either franchise is amazing or even great, but they are good games. Certainly not garbage games or even mediocre games.

A mediocre game to me is something like Fuse or Deadpool which have scores averaging in the low 60s. A crappy game would be something like Dark with average scores around 38.

Gameplay is more important, but with that said i can't really play a game with horrible graphics.

gameplay is most important. Art style is more important than technical graphics.wolverine4262

gameplay is most important. Art style is more important than technical graphics.wolverine4262

Without graphics you will be looking at a totally black screen and only getting sound.

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

[QUOTE="Jonwh18"]

No Gameplay is far far more important. If a game just looks like garbage obviously I'm not going to like it as much but games like crysis and killzone are examples of games that look pretty but suck ass. 

Jonwh18

Killzone and Crysis don't suck ass. This **** bandwagon of saying those games are "horrible" and other such nonsense needs to die. 

They generally have received good review scores. Personally, I don't think either franchise is amazing or even great, but they are good games. Certainly not garbage games or even mediocre games.

A mediocre game to me is something like Fuse or Deadpool which have scores averaging in the low 60s. A crappy game would be something like Dark with average scores around 38.

Well, people like you say it as if it were a fact. Which goes to show that you are just trying to be abrasive and rude to people who happen to like those games.

If I personally have a negative opinion about a game that generally received positive scores I try to be respectful and make it clear that it is my own opinion, and I will try to give at least some indication as to why I feel that way.

There is a big difference in attitude between saying something like "I didn't personally enjoy that game" and saying "that game is a crappy game".

Gameplay and story are more important.

[QUOTE="Jonwh18"]

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

Killzone and Crysis don't suck ass. This **** bandwagon of saying those games are "horrible" and other such nonsense needs to die. 

They generally have received good review scores. Personally, I don't think either franchise is amazing or even great, but they are good games. Certainly not garbage games or even mediocre games.

A mediocre game to me is something like Fuse or Deadpool which have scores averaging in the low 60s. A crappy game would be something like Dark with average scores around 38.

kalipekona

Well, people like you say it as if it were a fact. Which goes to show that you are just trying to be abrasive and rude to people who happen to like those games.

If I personally have a negative opinion about a game that generally received positive scores I try to be respectful and make it clear that it is my own opinion, and I will try to give at least some indication as to why I feel that way.

There is a big difference in attitude between saying something like "I didn't personally enjoy that game" and saying "that game is a crappy game".

[QUOTE="Jonwh18"]

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

Killzone and Crysis don't suck ass. This **** bandwagon of saying those games are "horrible" and other such nonsense needs to die. 

They generally have received good review scores. Personally, I don't think either franchise is amazing or even great, but they are good games. Certainly not garbage games or even mediocre games.

A mediocre game to me is something like Fuse or Deadpool which have scores averaging in the low 60s. A crappy game would be something like Dark with average scores around 38.

kalipekona

Well, people like you say it as if it were a fact. Which goes to show that you are just trying to be abrasive and rude to people who happen to like those games.

If I personally have a negative opinion about a game that generally received positive scores I try to be respectful and make it clear that it is my own opinion, and I will try to give at least some indication as to why I feel that way.

There is a big difference in attitude between saying something like "I didn't personally enjoy that game" and saying "that game is a crappy game".

Gameplay is far more important.

Michael0134567

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

[QUOTE="Jonwh18"] enjoy your vacation. Also I decide what gave are good based on my own opinion not by what score they get. 

Jonwh18

Well, people like you say it as if it were a fact. Which goes to show that you are just trying to be abrasive and rude to people who happen to like those games.

If I personally have a negative opinion about a game that generally received positive scores I try to be respectful and make it clear that it is my own opinion, and I will try to give at least some indication as to why I feel that way.

There is a big difference in attitude between saying something like "I didn't personally enjoy that game" and saying "that game is a crappy game".

Ok, if I had to guess you probably don't much like shooters in general. Which wouldn't mean they are crappy games, just that they aren't your kind of games. What kind of games do you like? 

gameplay is most important. Art style is more important than technical graphics.wolverine4262

Nailed it in the first post. The most important aspects a game can focus on is gameplay, level design, and challenge IMHO. All three are musts although you have to define level design a bit loosely in order for it to fit all genres.

Gameplay is most important, and to this day, Minecraft is a perfect example. The game does not have great graphics or art style, IMO, but it excells in creating a great gameplay experience.

Depends on the game. I'm replaying Ghost Recon (2001) right now and it looks fine to me, but I'd be disappointed if a new release looked like that.lowe0

Yeah I don't need a game to be Crysis 3 or Metro Last Ligth level of visuals when they come out these days but I expect them to be at least somewhat decent for a modern game

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"]gameplay is most important. Art style is more important than technical graphics.ShaineTheNerd

I like both.

Gameplay takes precedence over sound takes precedence over graphics.  But graphics are still very important, and I disagree that technical proficiency is not as important as artstyle.  I think that's a copout used to excuse laziness.

Why not have both?

crimsonman1245