Are graphics and gameplay equally important to you?

Gameplay and performance are most important to me

Aesthetics of a game, and Gameplay are of equal importance.

Have solid gameplay with shocking aesthetics... you end up with a fun game running at a shocking frame rate, with cheap monotonous sound effects and almost pacman graphics meaning you cannot get immersed in the game so cannot play for longer than half an hour.

Have an amazing looking game with shocking gameplay... you end up with a World that's at least immersive, with great sound effects, runs smoothly and looks incredible... but the game gets boring within half an hour because there is no real gameplay..,,

TL;DR: They are equally needed in many games, and claiming that one is "far more important" than the other is not well thought out.

For me its probaly 60/40 gameplay/graphics. I cant play a pretty game alone for its graphics if the gameplay doesnt intrest me. But the same goes for ugly looking games too. Path of Exile for example I found the gameplay quite good but because of its crappy artstyle generic monsters and dull graphics I couldnt continiue with the game

I am in the minority with this but my order of importance for game features is as follows:

1. Gameplay, NOT story.
2. Story
3. Controls
4. Graphics and/or art design.
5. Multiplayer - if it is actuallty good and not tacked on.
6. Voice acting.

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"]gameplay is most important. Art style is more important than technical graphics.mems_1224

No. What's the point in playing a game that isn't fun? Gameplay will always be more important. Pretty much everyone in this thread have probably had fun with an ugly game sometime.

Hard to play a game without anything displayed on a screen, so yes, it is equally important.:P

I disagree that technical proficiency is not as important as artstyle. I think that's a copout used to excuse laziness.MirkoS77

No. What's the point in playing a game that isn't fun? Gameplay will always be more important. Pretty much everyone in this thread have probably had fun with an ugly game sometime.

Litchie

i dont play ugly games.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"] I disagree that technical proficiency is not as important as artstyle. I think that's a copout used to excuse laziness.foxhound_fox

Art style is more important than technical graphics.wolverine4262

Laziness? The whole reason we have games like Killzone, with the most drab visual aesthetics ever in gaming, is because the market has come to demand highly detailed graphics, rather than a strong, unique and consistent visual aesthetic. foxhound_fox

Nope.

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"]Art style is more important than technical graphics.faizan_faizan

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="wolverine4262"]Art style is more important than technical graphics.parkurtommo

Sometimes they are both good but the game still $ucks .. example Ninja gaiden 2

   I think maybe presentation or direction is more important than the technical level of the graphics.

   You can have very good gameplay but mediocre graphics and still have a great game, but the reverse isn't true: you can't have a great game without great gameplay, even with spectacular graphics.

You can have a great game with bad graphics, but you can't have one with bad gameplay.drinkerofjuice

Give me an example of a great game with such bad graphics, I cannot think off the top of my head. Graphics help towards making a game great. They don't have to be the best graphics in the World, but having profficient graphics helps the game out in more ways than you seem to realise.

[QUOTE="drinkerofjuice"]You can have a great game with bad graphics, but you can't have one with bad gameplay._Matt_

Give me an example of a great game with such bad graphics, I cannot think off the top of my head. Graphics help towards making a game great. They don't have to be the best graphics in the World, but having profficient graphics helps the game out in more ways than you seem to realise.

[QUOTE="_Matt_"]

[QUOTE="drinkerofjuice"]You can have a great game with bad graphics, but you can't have one with bad gameplay.parkurtommo

Give me an example of a great game with such bad graphics, I cannot think off the top of my head. Graphics help towards making a game great. They don't have to be the best graphics in the World, but having profficient graphics helps the game out in more ways than you seem to realise.

Mount and Blade has proficcient graphics, as does Arma, I would say both of those games have equal gameplay to graphics.

I mean a game with BAD graphics, not average. MineCraft even that has well thought out graphics, a lot of effort went into them still, both technically and from an artstyle point of view. 

Maybe people just need to pout gameplay and graphics on the same level, it seems that when someone says "bad" graphics, they are merely meaning mediocre graphics (such as Mount and Blade, it doesn't blow you away, but they more than do the job to add to the gameplay), and when they say bad gameplay they are meaning none existent terrible gameplay such as that found in street cleaning simulator or similar.

I ask you to imagine something for me (sorry, not picking on you, but you have given me the examples), imagine Mount and Blade with no animations, where the environment was a single flat plane with a single low res texture on it, no skybox, etc. Sure the gameplay is unchanged, but the graphiucs are now what we would call BAD. Can such a game exist and still be a great game?

[QUOTE="drinkerofjuice"]You can have a great game with bad graphics, but you can't have one with bad gameplay._Matt_

Give me an example of a great game with such bad graphics, I cannot think off the top of my head. Graphics help towards making a game great. They don't have to be the best graphics in the World, but having profficient graphics helps the game out in more ways than you seem to realise.

This doesn't effect the game's depth or mechanics, however. The game still manages to be extremely engaging.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="_Matt_"]

 

Give me an example of a great game with such bad graphics, I cannot think off the top of my head. Graphics help towards making a game great. They don't have to be the best graphics in the World, but having profficient graphics helps the game out in more ways than you seem to realise.

_Matt_

Mount and Blade has proficcient graphics, as does Arma, I would say both of those games have equal gameplay to graphics.

I mean a game with BAD graphics, not average. MineCraft even that has well thought out graphics, a lot of effort went into them still, both technically and from an artstyle point of view. 

Maybe people just need to pout gameplay and graphics on the same level, it seems that when someone says "bad" graphics, they are merely meaning mediocre graphics (such as Mount and Blade, it doesn't blow you away, but they more than do the job to add to the gameplay), and when they say bad gameplay they are meaning none existent terrible gameplay such as that found in street cleaning simulator or similar.

I ask you to imagine something for me (sorry, not picking on you, but you have given me the examples), imagine Mount and Blade with no animations, where the environment was a single flat plane with a single low res texture on it, no skybox, etc. Sure the gameplay is unchanged, but the graphiucs are now what we would call BAD. Can such a game exist and still be a great game?

[QUOTE="_Matt_"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"] Although I'm against his opinion, I'm afraid there are plenty of examples; Minecraft, Mount & Blade Warband, Arma to a certain degree (has terrible animations and almost non existent visual coherence). There are plenty. But there are no games with good graphics and bad gameplay, when I say good graphics I mean GREAT, like PC levels of greatness. It just doesn't happen because developers aren't nincompoops.parkurtommo

Mount and Blade has proficcient graphics, as does Arma, I would say both of those games have equal gameplay to graphics.

I mean a game with BAD graphics, not average. MineCraft even that has well thought out graphics, a lot of effort went into them still, both technically and from an artstyle point of view. 

Maybe people just need to pout gameplay and graphics on the same level, it seems that when someone says "bad" graphics, they are merely meaning mediocre graphics (such as Mount and Blade, it doesn't blow you away, but they more than do the job to add to the gameplay), and when they say bad gameplay they are meaning none existent terrible gameplay such as that found in street cleaning simulator or similar.

I ask you to imagine something for me (sorry, not picking on you, but you have given me the examples), imagine Mount and Blade with no animations, where the environment was a single flat plane with a single low res texture on it, no skybox, etc. Sure the gameplay is unchanged, but the graphiucs are now what we would call BAD. Can such a game exist and still be a great game?

If it has the basic requirements then I wouldn't really call the graphics bad, as such, just not great. That is exactly my point, with bad graphics it can make a great game pretty poor.

[QUOTE="_Matt_"]

[QUOTE="drinkerofjuice"]You can have a great game with bad graphics, but you can't have one with bad gameplay.drinkerofjuice

Give me an example of a great game with such bad graphics, I cannot think off the top of my head. Graphics help towards making a game great. They don't have to be the best graphics in the World, but having profficient graphics helps the game out in more ways than you seem to realise.

This doesn't effect the game's depth or mechanics, however. The game still manages to be extremely engaging.

The graphics were unappealing sure, but would you really call those graphics bad per say? I would just call them uninspiring, they aren't great, but nor are they bad, they do the job of helping you get engaged into that World. If the graphics were incredible, and the gameplay remained the same, I think the game would be more engaging than it is already.

And likewise on the flipside, if the game had the same character model for every enemy with a single animation each, there were no particle effects, the guns all looked the same, etc... I think that would be very jarring and pull you right back out of the game.

Do you not agree?

If it has the basic requirements then I wouldn't really call the graphics bad,_Matt_

[QUOTE="_Matt_"]If it has the basic requirements then I wouldn't really call the graphics bad,parkurtommo

The basic requirements of graphics helps makes the gameplay more appealing though. I understand your point on speaking relatively, but I would also argue that all games have basic requirements for gameplay then too, either way, people are giving gameplay a lot more merit than graphics, giving very different standards for each.

Are you seriously trying to argue that killzone doesn't have a strong, consistent visual aesthetic? MFDOOM1983

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"]Are you seriously trying to argue that killzone doesn't have a strong, consistent visual aesthetic? foxhound_fox

No way.

Graphics are everything.

Nobody cares if a game is fun, give me a break.

the people who think Graphics are more important are the type of people who probably stand up during movies and go DAMN THAT CGI LOOKED LIKE SHIT AND WASNT CONVINCING...idk...

Gameplay>graphics ---shiny graphics can't hide a shit game, look at crysis

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="parkurtommo"] Yes. :(parkurtommo

Graphics mean next too nothing to me.

No way.

Graphics are everything.

Nobody cares if a game is fun, give me a break.

Vaasman

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

No way.

Graphics are everything.

Nobody cares if a game is fun, give me a break.

TheKingIAm

Yes , its euqllay important as gameplay.... 

Gameplay is more important, but the graphics need to be decent enough for the job of immersion. I don't mind if graphics take a back seat, but not Nintendo piss take level (Wii/Wii U) a gen behind, I think they should at least aim for an inbetween.

I only care about graphics if my hardware can push 60+FPS on the greatest settings.

As it looks effin beautiful when it does.

See below... (enjoy the National Anthem too :P )

Graphics should be as good as the gameplay needs them to be. 

There's really no way to gauge how important graphics are. They're simply a compliment to gameplay no matter if they're 8-bit, mono-tone, artsy fartsy, photo-realistic, anime, or whatever.

All I know is that graphics are involved in just about every single facet of a game's design, so they are very important, but it's impossible to put them on a scale with gameplay.... They're not one in the same, but they are definitely attached at the hip :P

Graphics should be as good as the gameplay needs them to be. 

There's really no way to gauge how important graphics are. They're simply a compliment to gameplay no matter if they're 8-bit, mono-tone, artsy fartsy, photo-realistic, anime, or whatever.

All I know is that graphics are involved in just about every single facet of a game's design, so they are very important, but it's impossible to put them on a scale with gameplay.... They're not one in the same, but they are definitely attached at the hip :P

Ly_the_Fairy

That's a really good way of putting it. Kudos. I agree with what you say here.

Gameplay is more important, but the graphics need to be decent enough for the job of immersion. I don't mind if graphics take a back seat, but not Nintendo piss take level (Wii/Wii U) a gen behind, I think they should at least aim for an inbetween.

HalcyonScarlet

The Experience>Play/Graphics