Proving Graphics Are More Important then Gameplay.

Why is it 9 out of 10 games that are considered classics, or win GOTY awards or just in general receieve tremendously high scores have exceptional graphics? Or had exceptional graphics at their time of release, Halo CE, Goldeneye, MGS, Crysis, UC2 ME2 etc etc etc.

Why is it so rare to find one of these high scoring GOTY winning games that do it on great gameplay alone? Can't even remember one atm...

SW needs to understand something, obviously it's interaction(gameplay) that makes this medium what it is, but it's graphics that takes that medium to new heights and suck you in. If you look at the games this generation for example, think of the gameplay of your favourite games, I bet you it's extremely simple, especially when talking about console gaming, it's the production values, the graphics, the sound and how all that comes together that really make games shine.

Now don't take this to absolute extremes cause that's just dumb, ofc if a game is broken and you can't play it it'll suck, but so do browser games with no graphics whatsoever. And if it has REAALLLY bad graphics, or no graphics at all, the gameplay is going to suffer, graphics are an even bigger piece of the gaming backbone then gameplay I'd say. And a lot of the great games we consider classics would have gotten WAAAY lower scores if the graphics had sucked.

Don't think SMG won GOTY on graphics over gameplay. Graphics are important, no one is saying they aren't (atleast no one with common sense), we're saying the teh best graphics aren't going to trump awesome gameplay. If we could have both all the time that would be awesome. Realistically though, we can't so that is where the divide begins.

World of Warcraft didn't have great graphics and won goty so your logic has failed.

Well Demons Souls had gamespot game of the year and those graphics kinda sucked. Horrible textures...yentlequible

[QUOTE="yentlequible"]Well Demons Souls had gamespot game of the year and those graphics kinda sucked. Horrible textures...AzatiS

World of Warcraft didn't have great graphics and won goty so your logic has failed.

Vaasman

You seem to forget that the games you mention have outstanding gameplay as well. Usually, not all the time, but usually, developers who invest so much time into graphics usually care so much for the game they are creating on a personal level that they try to perfect every aspect of the game (gameplay, sound, music, graphics, etc.) God of War 3 has great graphics and great gameplay, hence its great score. The same can be said for Alan Wake and Uncharted 2. What about Super Mario Galaxy 2? While it looks great, the graphics aren't exactly it defining feature, but rather its unique and fun gameplay. It isn;t the graphics of SMG2 that are garnering all of the 10/10's it's been receiving. Demon's Souls is another. Again, it looks great. However, it is the gameplay that makes it so compelling, the atmospheric brilliance that hooks us. It doesn't have insanely awesome visuals, and wasn't rated as such. It achieved GOTY on its gameplay merits.

So no, graphics are not more important than gameplay. They are, however, and important aspect of any game, just as important as sound, music, and presentation, no more important, and no less.

Well Demons Souls had gamespot game of the year and those graphics kinda sucked. Horrible textures...yentlequible

Don't think SMG won GOTY on graphics over gameplay. Graphics are important, no one is saying they aren't (atleast no one with common sense), we're saying the teh best graphics aren't going to trump awesome gameplay. If we could have both all the time that would be awesome. Realistically though, we can't so that is where the divide begins.

ActicEdge

World of Warcraft didn't have great graphics and won goty so your logic has failed.

Vaasman

OMG am i reading this you are saying graphics are more important than gameplay!!!!! There is no hope left anymore:cry: Why do cows only seem to care about graphics these days! Is because that is all your games have that make them slightly better than the competitions.

No, SMG, Demon's Souls, Everquest, etc proves you wrong.

Graphics =/= better game. However, graphics = developper talent (usually), therefore a good game tends to have at least pretty good graphics, be it artistic or technical.

World of Warcraft didn't have great graphics and won goty so your logic has failed.

Vaasman

Well Demons Souls had gamespot game of the year and those graphics kinda sucked. Horrible textures...yentlequible

DS looks amazing. I'll admit it has nothing to do with the tech though :)

Oh and MGS4 did'nt receive any awards for tech either. GS were just impressed by the..... Impression it left them with.

You seem to forget that the games you mention have outstanding gameplay as well. Usually, not all the time, but usually, developers who invest so much time into graphics usually care so much for the game they are creating on a personal level that they try to perfect every aspect of the game (gameplay, sound, music, graphics, etc.) God of War 3 has great graphics and great gameplay, hence its great score. The same can be said for Alan Wake and Uncharted 2. What about Super Mario Galaxy 2? While it looks great, the graphics aren't exactly it defining feature, but rather its unique and fun gameplay. It isn;t the graphics of SMG2 that are garnering all of the 10/10's it's been receiving. Demon's Souls is another. Again, it looks great. However, it is the gameplay that makes it so compelling, the atmospheric brilliance that hooks us. It doesn't have insanely awesome visuals, and wasn't rated as such. It achieved GOTY on its gameplay merits.

So no, graphics are not more important than gameplay. They are, however, and important aspect of any game, just as important as sound, music, and presentation, no more important, and no less.

Khadaj32

[QUOTE="yentlequible"] DS looks great though. Imo at least.[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Don't think SMG won GOTY on graphics over gameplay. Graphics are important, no one is saying they aren't (atleast no one with common sense), we're saying the teh best graphics aren't going to trump awesome gameplay. If we could have both all the time that would be awesome. Realistically though, we can't so that is where the divide begins.

Mestitia

World of Warcraft didn't have great graphics and won goty so your logic has failed.

Vaasman

It was still the worst looking game up for GOTY. And really, that poll was right, its just that a poll will never be better than written opinions supporting the vote. The people that voted gameplay don't necessarily think graphics are useless.

No, SMG, Demon's Souls, Everquest, etc proves you wrong.

Graphics =/= better game. However, graphics = developper talent (usually), therefore a good game tends to have at least pretty good graphics, be it artistic or technical.

RavenLoud

[QUOTE="yentlequible"] DS looks great though. Imo at least.[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Don't think SMG won GOTY on graphics over gameplay. Graphics are important, no one is saying they aren't (atleast no one with common sense), we're saying the teh best graphics aren't going to trump awesome gameplay. If we could have both all the time that would be awesome. Realistically though, we can't so that is where the divide begins.

Mestitia

World of Warcraft didn't have great graphics and won goty so your logic has failed.

Vaasman

Actually, YOU fail dude. I played WoW since it launched, and the game has never been grpahically overpowering. It looks alright, but it takes an extreme backseat to even PS2/Xbox games. Even with an amazing rig at the highest resolution and like 70 fps, the game just looks average. Its jagged surfaces and clumsy character models are very apparent. The reason why it is still so successful is because it has the tightest controls and smoothest combat of any MMORPG ever released, which is gameplay.

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

World of Warcraft didn't have great graphics and won goty so your logic has failed.

AzatiS

[QUOTE="yentlequible"]Well Demons Souls had gamespot game of the year and those graphics kinda sucked. Horrible textures...Filthybastrd

DS looks amazing. I'll admit it has nothing to do with the tech though :)

Conversely, there are more games with great graphics that don't win GoTY awards.

For example, Crysis lost to SMG in 2007.

You seem to forget that the games you mention have outstanding gameplay as well. Usually, not all the time, but usually, developers who invest so much time into graphics usually care so much for the game they are creating on a personal level that they try to perfect every aspect of the game (gameplay, sound, music, graphics, etc.) God of War 3 has great graphics and great gameplay, hence its great score. The same can be said for Alan Wake and Uncharted 2. What about Super Mario Galaxy 2? While it looks great, the graphics aren't exactly it defining feature, but rather its unique and fun gameplay. It isn;t the graphics of SMG2 that are garnering all of the 10/10's it's been receiving. Demon's Souls is another. Again, it looks great. However, it is the gameplay that makes it so compelling, the atmospheric brilliance that hooks us. It doesn't have insanely awesome visuals, and wasn't rated as such. It achieved GOTY on its gameplay merits.

So no, graphics are not more important than gameplay. They are, however, and important aspect of any game, just as important as sound, music, and presentation, no more important, and no less.

Khadaj32

Conversely, there are more games with great graphics that don't win GoTY awards.

For example, Crysis lost to SMG in 2007.

Kickinurass

[QUOTE="Khadaj32"]

You seem to forget that the games you mention have outstanding gameplay as well. Usually, not all the time, but usually, developers who invest so much time into graphics usually care so much for the game they are creating on a personal level that they try to perfect every aspect of the game (gameplay, sound, music, graphics, etc.) God of War 3 has great graphics and great gameplay, hence its great score. The same can be said for Alan Wake and Uncharted 2. What about Super Mario Galaxy 2? While it looks great, the graphics aren't exactly it defining feature, but rather its unique and fun gameplay. It isn;t the graphics of SMG2 that are garnering all of the 10/10's it's been receiving. Demon's Souls is another. Again, it looks great. However, it is the gameplay that makes it so compelling, the atmospheric brilliance that hooks us. It doesn't have insanely awesome visuals, and wasn't rated as such. It achieved GOTY on its gameplay merits.

So no, graphics are not more important than gameplay. They are, however, and important aspect of any game, just as important as sound, music, and presentation, no more important, and no less.

AzatiS

I also said it looks great, but as a non-HD game, its graphics aren't going to carry it very far. It's the gameplay and innovation it presents that has brought it so much success.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

Conversely, there are more games with great graphics that don't win GoTY awards.

For example, Crysis lost to SMG in 2007.

Mestitia

Oh it is. But Crysis destroys it, showing that more that graphics were not the end-all-be-all criteria for deciding GoTY.

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

[QUOTE="yentlequible"]Well Demons Souls had gamespot game of the year and those graphics kinda sucked. Horrible textures...yentlequible

DS looks amazing. I'll admit it has nothing to do with the tech though :)

That's what I said. The game manages to not be technically proficient in the graphics department while it still gives off the impression that it's beautiful. It's just such a good game that you don't care about the resolution of xxxx texture.

/Praise off

/edit: It's probably the best game this entire gen.

[QUOTE="Mestitia"][QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

Conversely, there are more games with great graphics that don't win GoTY awards.

For example, Crysis lost to SMG in 2007.

Kickinurass

Oh it is. But Crysis destroys it, showing that more that graphics were not the end-all-be-all criteria for deciding GoTY.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

Conversely, there are more games with great graphics that don't win GoTY awards.

For example, Crysis lost to SMG in 2007.

Mestitia

It sure is, but it had the gameplay to match. Just like my GoW, Alan Wake, and UC2 examples. Go and find a game that absolutely sucked gameplay wise but had amazing graphics that recieved high ratings. You won;t find one.

Oh, and your opinion doesn't count. Like, you can't say that God of War was gorgeous but the button mashing gameplay sucked. Find me a review that states the game has horrible gameplay, but great graphics, and achieves a rating of ~8.0.

[QUOTE="AzatiS"][QUOTE="Vaasman"]

World of Warcraft didn't have great graphics and won goty so your logic has failed.

Vaasman

It's also important to remember the difference between technical and artistic gfx excellence. Arma II has "better" gfx than most games, but I prefer the look of games like SMG or Mass Effect.

Why is it 9 out of 10 games that are considered classics, or win GOTY awards or just in general receieve tremendously high scores have exceptional graphics? Or had exceptional graphics at their time of release, Halo CE, Goldeneye, MGS, Crysis, UC2 ME2 etc etc etc.

Why is it so rare to find one of these high scoring GOTY winning games that do it on great gameplay alone? Can't even remember one atm...

SW needs to understand something, obviously it's interaction(gameplay) that makes this medium what it is, but it's graphics that takes that medium to new heights and suck you in. If you look at the games this generation for example, think of the gameplay of your favourite games, I bet you it's extremely simple, especially when talking about console gaming, it's the production values, the graphics, the sound and how all that comes together that really make games shine.

Now don't take this to absolute extremes cause that's just dumb, ofc if a game is broken and you can't play it it'll suck, but so do browser games with no graphics whatsoever. And if it has REAALLLY bad graphics, or no graphics at all, the gameplay is going to suffer, graphics are an even bigger piece of the gaming backbone then gameplay I'd say. And a lot of the great games we consider classics would have gotten WAAAY lower scores if the graphics had sucked.

Mestitia

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

Conversely, there are more games with great graphics that don't win GoTY awards.

For example, Crysis lost to SMG in 2007.

Mestitia

[QUOTE="yentlequible"][QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

DS looks amazing. I'll admit it has nothing to do with the tech though :)

Filthybastrd

That's what I said. The game manages to not be technically proficient in the graphics department while it still gives off the impression that it's beautiful. It's just such a good game that you don't care about the resolution of xxxx texture.

/Praise off

/edit: It's probably the best game this entire gen.

[QUOTE="Mestitia"][QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

Conversely, there are more games with great graphics that don't win GoTY awards.

For example, Crysis lost to SMG in 2007.

Khadaj32

It sure is, but it had the gameplay to match. Just like my GoW, Alan Wake, and UC2 examples. Go and find a game that absolutely sucked gameplay wise but had amazing graphics that recieved high ratings. You won;t find one.

[QUOTE="Mestitia"][QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

Conversely, there are more games with great graphics that don't win GoTY awards.

For example, Crysis lost to SMG in 2007.

Duckyindiana

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

[QUOTE="Mestitia"] Is SMG argueably not the best looking Wii game? Mestitia

Oh it is. But Crysis destroys it, showing that more that graphics were not the end-all-be-all criteria for deciding GoTY.

I consider the topic itself to be an extreme, seeing as how you only focused on the best of the best games, which have both outstanding gameplay and strong graphical direction.

You completely ignore all games that come with great graphics, yet lackluster gameplay and breaking glitches. You also ignore fantastic game with great gameplay that don't have the strongest graphics (To throw a name out there, I'll say Halo). Lastly, you completely ignore the fact that most great games, the so-called classics, have outdated graphics yet still retain their charm due to amazing gameplay, ala PD, OoT, HL2, etc.

[QUOTE="Mestitia"][QUOTE="yentlequible"] The lines get blurry, I guess I'm just rying to prove that the SW polls showing Gameplay destroyiung graphics are wrong, Galazy is also one of the best looking Wii games.[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

World of Warcraft didn't have great graphics and won goty so your logic has failed.

Khadaj32

Actually, YOU fail dude. I played WoW since it launched, and the game has never been grpahically overpowering. It looks alright, but it takes an extreme backseat to even PS2/Xbox games. Even with an amazing rig at the highest resolution and like 70 fps, the game just looks average. Its jagged surfaces and clumsy character models are very apparent. The reason why it is still so successful is because it has the tightest controls and smoothest combat of any MMORPG ever released, which is gameplay.

[QUOTE="RavenLoud"]

No, SMG, Demon's Souls, Everquest, etc proves you wrong.

Graphics =/= better game. However, graphics = developper talent (usually), therefore a good game tends to have at least pretty good graphics, be it artistic or technical.

Mestitia

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

[QUOTE="AzatiS"] WoW had good and cute graphics along with strong presentation and art plus great animations back then . THE best there were out of ANY mmorpg at its time... ( and no im talking about teh crap Korean games of 2002-2005 that had great models and that was all about them... ) I was beta tester and im mmorpg freak in general.. So you failed...AzatiS

[QUOTE="Mestitia"][QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

Oh it is. But Crysis destroys it, showing that more that graphics were not the end-all-be-all criteria for deciding GoTY.

Kickinurass

I consider the topic itself to be an extreme, seeing as how you only focused on the best of the best games, which have both outstanding gameplay and strong graphical direction.

You completely ignore all games that come with great graphics, yet lackluster gameplay and breaking glitches. You also ignore fantastic game with great gameplay that don't have the strongest graphics (To throw a name out there, I'll say Halo). Lastly, you completely ignore the fact that most great games, the so-called classics, have outdated graphics yet still retain their charm due to amazing gameplay, ala PD, OoT, HL2, etc.

Why is it 9 out of 10 games that are considered classics, or win GOTY awards or just in general receieve tremendously high scores have exceptional graphics? Or had exceptional graphics at their time of release, Halo CE, Goldeneye, MGS, Crysis, UC2 ME2 etc etc etc.

Why is it so rare to find one of these high scoring GOTY winning games that do it on great gameplay alone? Can't even remember one atm...

SW needs to understand something, obviously it's interaction(gameplay) that makes this medium what it is, but it's graphics that takes that medium to new heights and suck you in. If you look at the games this generation for example, think of the gameplay of your favourite games, I bet you it's extremely simple, especially when talking about console gaming, it's the production values, the graphics, the sound and how all that comes together that really make games shine.

Now don't take this to absolute extremes cause that's just dumb, ofc if a game is broken and you can't play it it'll suck, but so do browser games with no graphics whatsoever. And if it has REAALLLY bad graphics, or no graphics at all, the gameplay is going to suffer, graphics are an even bigger piece of the gaming backbone then gameplay I'd say. And a lot of the great games we consider classics would have gotten WAAAY lower scores if the graphics had sucked.

Mestitia

[QUOTE="AzatiS"][QUOTE="Vaasman"]Uh, Everquest 2 ring a bell? EQ2 creams WOW graphically and came out 2 weeks before it.

Vaasman

never said was awesome technically but on the other hand it wowed many of us back then in every new region we entered. Technically impressive , i wouldnt say so. All the other graphically attributes? ... Easily the best back then.

And ofc in the end gave us the best impression , way better than EQ2 or "higher technically " graphic games.

Same goes for SMG2 this very moment. Without exaggerations and ultra lighting etc etc is eye candy. For a wii game that is

Go play Lair!!!

After you do, come back and tell me what is more important.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

[QUOTE="Mestitia"] That's not what I'm argueing, I said int he OP don't go into extreme's...Mestitia

I consider the topic itself to be an extreme, seeing as how you only focused on the best of the best games, which have both outstanding gameplay and strong graphical direction.

You completely ignore all games that come with great graphics, yet lackluster gameplay and breaking glitches. You also ignore fantastic game with great gameplay that don't have the strongest graphics (To throw a name out there, I'll say Halo). Lastly, you completely ignore the fact that most great games, the so-called classics, have outdated graphics yet still retain their charm due to amazing gameplay, ala PD, OoT, HL2, etc.

I disagree. Following the 75/25 split you propose, I believe the game will be a short, shallow experience that only exists as the "flavor of the month". we've seen this in the case of Lair, Heavenly Sword, Dante's Inferno, and other games this gen. These games will never be considered classics, at most being just passable at the time of release. MW2 has great graphics, but the game obviously has some fundamental gameplay problems. Once the sequel comes out, no one will mention MW2 again, because the gameplay just isn't up to the "timeless" standard.

PD, OoT, and HL2 on the other hand remain popular because they have awesome gameplay. They're graphics may have been great years ago, but argubably occupy the bottom of the barrel at this point. They are still considered great games because its easy to go back to the game and have fun - I'm playing through PD right now the game is a blocky mess. But its fun because of gameplay ideas which were far ahead of its time.

Halo 3 didn't have superb graphics yet it scored high AAA. San Andreas had awful graphics and that score high AAA...Stevo_the_gamer