Proving Graphics Are More Important then Gameplay.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Your logic fails hard TC, all of this GOTY games have something else than just graphics, actually they won GOTY because they have the entire package, graphics, gameplay, etc, is not like they won only with TEH Graphics.
You people fail at reading comprehension, I never argued that, I said not to get into extreme's, my point is most of these games have relativly simple gameplay, dev's spend a lot more time on graphics and presentation. Deep complex GAMEPLAY is extremely rare on consoles, even on the PC...Your logic fails hard TC, all of this GOTY games have something else than just graphics, actually they won GOTY because they have the entire package, graphics, gameplay, etc, is not like they won only with TEH Graphics.
madsnakehhh
[QUOTE="madsnakehhh"]You people fail at reading comprehension, I never argued that, I said not to get into extreme's, my point is most of these games have relativly simple gameplay, dev's spend a lot more time on graphics and presentation. Deep complex GAMEPLAY is extremely rare on consoles, even on the PC...Your logic fails hard TC, all of this GOTY games have something else than just graphics, actually they won GOTY because they have the entire package, graphics, gameplay, etc, is not like they won only with TEH Graphics.
Mestitia
And who needs that, you only need a fun good friendly gameplay, i think that is far more difficutl to achieve than graphics.
You people fail at reading comprehension, I never argued that, I said not to get into extreme's, my point is most of these games have relativly simple gameplay, dev's spend a lot more time on graphics and presentation. Deep complex GAMEPLAY is extremely rare on consoles, even on the PC...[QUOTE="Mestitia"][QUOTE="madsnakehhh"]
Your logic fails hard TC, all of this GOTY games have something else than just graphics, actually they won GOTY because they have the entire package, graphics, gameplay, etc, is not like they won only with TEH Graphics.
madsnakehhh
And who needs that, you only need a fun good friendly gameplay, i think that is far more difficutl to achieve than graphics.
Your basicly saying you rather play say a sports game with bad graphics because the gameplay is fun, over a game like Heavy Rain, because Heavy rain's gameplay isn't really what makes it great, it's the graphics and presentation and the way the interaction cuts into that. That may be true to you, but it isn't to a lot of people, even though they think they prefer game play.
[QUOTE="charizard1605"]One GotY that had excellent gameplay, and not excellent graphics? Super Mario Galaxy. Oh, and MGS, Crysis, Goldeneye, UC2, ME2... wait... NONE of those games you listed have ever won GotY, what the heck are you talking about? :?MestitiaMy OP was also talking about high scoring games and classics, and Galaxy is arguably the best looking game on the Wii so what are you talking about? Pokemon Red/Blue. BAD Graphics. Praised to hell and back. Resident Evil. ATTROCIOUS graphics. Immortal classis. Super Mario Bros 3. MY EYES! Immortal classic, highest selling non bundled non handheld game ever. Halo. Not remarkable at all, even for its time. Look what Halo managed to do. The Legend of Zelda. Ugly, ugly, UGLY AS HELL. The most influential game ever. Sim City. Graphics=lolz. AND... again, one of the most influential games ever. Seeing a pattern here? Warcraft. Graphics= :lol: gimme a break. And... yeah, no, Warcraft managed to do and/or achieve nothing. Chuck it. Scratch that last. Oh, and all those games you listed? ALL OF THEM? Remembered for their- you guessed it GAMEPLAY, not graphics. Except for Crysis, which isn't remembered at all except for on System Wars, where Hermits use it as a trump card. I guess this ends the arguement.
Lost Planet 2. Counter example to TC. Beuatiful game, according to reviewers. Technically and art style wise, it looked fantastic. The gameplay was horrible. 6.0. Verdict. bad game.
on IGN it got a 9.0 for graphics and yet got a 6.0 overall... shows that graphics are NOT more important than gameplay.
Also, classics tend to have great graphics, because games that have more time and effort put into them TEND (not always) to have better graphics.
[QUOTE="Mestitia"][QUOTE="charizard1605"]One GotY that had excellent gameplay, and not excellent graphics? Super Mario Galaxy. Oh, and MGS, Crysis, Goldeneye, UC2, ME2... wait... NONE of those games you listed have ever won GotY, what the heck are you talking about? :?charizard1605My OP was also talking about high scoring games and classics, and Galaxy is arguably the best looking game on the Wii so what are you talking about? Pokemon Red/Blue. BAD Graphics. Praised to hell and back. Resident Evil. ATTROCIOUS graphics. Immortal classis. Super Mario Bros 3. MY EYES! Immortal classic, highest selling non bundled non handheld game ever. Halo. Not remarkable at all, even for its time. Look what Halo managed to do. The Legend of Zelda. Ugly, ugly, UGLY AS HELL. The most influential game ever. Sim City. Graphics=lolz. AND... again, one of the most influential games ever. Seeing a pattern here? Warcraft. Graphics= :lol: gimme a break. And... yeah, no, Warcraft managed to do and/or achieve nothing. Chuck it. Scratch that last. Oh, and all those games you listed? ALL OF THEM? Remembered for their- you guessed it GAMEPLAY, not graphics. Except for Crysis, which isn't remembered at all except for on System Wars, where Hermits use it as a trump card. I guess this ends the arguement. First off you listed a ton of games that had remarable graphics for their time, so I won't even get into your little list. And the games I listed are remembered because of the impact they had when they came out, and that impact is a combination of all their aspects, not just gameplay... The discussion is about how important graphics were in making those games what they were, and how a lot of them had relativly simplistic gameplay, that was intensified but the graphics and presentation. At least try to understand what I'm argueing so we can have a decent discusion...
First off you listed a ton of games that had remarable graphics for their time, so I won't even get into your little list. And the games I listed are remembered because of the impact they had when they came out, and that impact is a combination of all their aspects, not just gameplay... The discussion is about how important graphics were in making those games what they were, and how a lot of them had relativly simplistic gameplay, that was intensified but the graphics and presentation. At least try to understand what I'm argueing so we can have a decent discusion...MestitiaLet's assume I accepted your arguement. I shall now quote a specific part of your post again.
And the games I listed are remembered because of the impact they had when they came out, and that impact is a combination of all their aspects, not just gameplayMestitiaIf the impact is a due to a combination of all factors, care to explain how graphics are more important than gameplay? And of the games you listed, which one had simplistic gameplay? All of them were incredibly complex for their time. Like you factor in the time equation for graphics, factor it in for gameplay as well. THEN we'll talk, and have a decent discussion.
I don't know about more important, but I can't remember how often I used to hear "gameplay not graphics!" when the Wii came out. I would always respond, "gameplay AND graphics!". Why anyone would want to compromise either is beyond my understanding.
A game with bad graphics (at the time of release!) never was acknowledged as 'game of the year'. Likewise, a game with bad gameplay has never won game of the year.
...That said, frankly, I would rather play a game with bad graphics and great gameplay than a game with great graphics and bad gameplay. That doesn't mean I didn't wish the game with bad graphics had better graphics, of course. But it means I can overlook it if, for example, the storyline blew me away, the dialogue made me laugh, or I just had an incredible amount of fun playing it. I do expect games with lower production values to be priced accordingly.
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
By your logic........Lair was a good game. :roll:
[QUOTE="Mestitia"]
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.
the-wii-gamer
By your logic........Lair was a good game. :roll:
How the ****? How did you come to that conclusion? How did you pick that up from my OP?[QUOTE="the-wii-gamer"][QUOTE="Mestitia"]
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
By your logic........Lair was a good game. :roll:
How the ****? How did you come to that conclusion? How did you pick that up from my OP?I see you didn't respond to me.
The majority of gamers have tastes that can be easily summed up as "insultingly superficial". Gamespot's reviews are commercialized and therefore designed to appeal to a large group of gamers. Do the math.
Demon Souls won game of the year, and it's gameplay is definately not simple, nor is it as good looking as Uncharted 2 (which is a more simple game than DS).
The majority of gamers have tastes that can be easily summed up as "insultingly superficial". Gamespot's reviews are commercialized and therefore designed to appeal to a large group of gamers. Do the math.
Barbariser
This is the best post i've seen here all day.
[QUOTE="Mestitia"][QUOTE="charizard1605"]One GotY that had excellent gameplay, and not excellent graphics? Super Mario Galaxy. Oh, and MGS, Crysis, Goldeneye, UC2, ME2... wait... NONE of those games you listed have ever won GotY, what the heck are you talking about? :?charizard1605My OP was also talking about high scoring games and classics, and Galaxy is arguably the best looking game on the Wii so what are you talking about? Pokemon Red/Blue. BAD Graphics. Praised to hell and back. Resident Evil. ATTROCIOUS graphics. Immortal classis. Super Mario Bros 3. MY EYES! Immortal classic, highest selling non bundled non handheld game ever. Halo. Not remarkable at all, even for its time. Look what Halo managed to do. The Legend of Zelda. Ugly, ugly, UGLY AS HELL. The most influential game ever. Sim City. Graphics=lolz. AND... again, one of the most influential games ever. Seeing a pattern here? Warcraft. Graphics= :lol: gimme a break. And... yeah, no, Warcraft managed to do and/or achieve nothing. Chuck it. Scratch that last. Oh, and all those games you listed? ALL OF THEM? Remembered for their- you guessed it GAMEPLAY, not graphics. Except for Crysis, which isn't remembered at all except for on System Wars, where Hermits use it as a trump card. I guess this ends the arguement.
As far as i know , since i played these games on day 1 of their release RE wasnt ATTROCIOUS at all.
In fact was awesome because wasnt full 3d ( backgrounds ) and was way les jaggie than everything back then. Amazed all of us , what are you talking about?? Did you play the game day 1 of its release or you comparing a game with what you have now?
Come on now.... Im not saying RE had the best graphics of its time , but it was eye candy game to say the least , especially RE2 when it comes to competition. Dont bring "bad graphics" when you comparing different generations...
Also , Halo had crappy graphics? Woot?! Warcraft had crappy graphics? Did you ever play these games on their release? SMB 3 was a classic platformer on its time , couldnt had better graphics at that time....
I mean come on guy , its like laughing with pacmans graphics in 2010 when in 80s pacman/tetris were way better than 99.9% of Ataris 2600 games. I mean come on...
EDIT: Also i can counter your point with at least 10-20 PC games that had 0 game mechanics ( point and click adventures , or simplistic games ) that praised because of their story/ graphics and puzzles. And yeap , without gameplay mechanics at all. Just point and klik with your mouse.
Let's use GameRankings to test this theory...
1. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time=Definitely is a top-tier game graphically. Some of the best visuals on the N64 are contained in this game. The visuals have aged pretty well too.
2. Super Mario Galaxy 2=Probably the best looking Wii game out there.
3. Super Mario Galaxy=Looks almost exactly the same as 2, so...
4. Grand Theft Auto IV=Has rough edges, but is exceptionally pretty for a sandbox game.
5. Metroid Prime=Had top-tier graphics when it came out for GC.
6. Soul Calibur=Had top-tier graphics when it came out for the DC.
7. The Orange Box=Some of the games in the collection are definitely not graphical marvels, but Half-Life 2 has amazing graphics for its time.
8. Uncharted 2=This one needs no explanation. It is considered the current console graphics king.
9. Super Mario 64=One of the best look titles on the N64.
10. Metal Gear Solid GBC=Looks very good for a GBC game.
11. Tekken 3=Easily one of the best looking games on the PS1.
12. Super Metroid=One of the best looking games on the SNES.
13. Mass Effect 2=There's better looking games, but it is still top-tier.
14. Resident Evil 4=One of the best looking games of last gen.
15. Grand Theft Auto: Double Pack=OK, this one sort of breaks the trend. GTA games weren't all that attractive last gen.
16. Goldeneye=Top-tier for its time, thought it hasn't aged particularly well visually.
17. Half-Life 2=see the bit about The Orange Box.
18. Out of the Park Baseball 2007=Don't know this game.
19. Fallout 3=This game is definitely good looking, but it's not top-tier. This one goes against the trend somewhat.
20. Halo: Combat Evolved=Although the Halo franchise is no longer anything close to visually top-tier, the first game was a top-tier title visually when it released.
21. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess=Not the greatest looking game on the GC, but the visuals definitely have that Nintendo first party sheen.
22. Chrono Trigger: One of the best looking games on SNES.
23. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas=This game has too many visual weaknesses to really support the trend. As great as the game is, some of the character models are horrid.
24. Maniac Mansion: Day of the Tentacle=Don't know this one.
25. Red Dead Redemption=Even better looking than GTAIV, which as I said, is considered to be extremely good looking considering what it has to render.
26. Grand Theft Auto III=Last gen GTA games weren't really lookers as I said.
27. Bioshock=This game definitely was a visual stand out when it released.
28. Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty=Easily one of the best looking PS2 games.
OK, I'm tired of listing these games now, but there is definitely some truth to what the TC is saying, if we're going by reviews. His thread title was kind of dumb, but there is a definitely correlation between critical reception and very good graphics. I think that this trend supports the notion that graphics are important as well as gameplay even if it doesn't support the silly thread title.
Thats why Lair scored so high.
Oh wait.
[QUOTE="Mestitia"]
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.
the-wii-gamer
By your logic........Lair was a good game. :roll:
Jesus Christ. Did you actually read the OP?
games that are considered classics and win GOTY normally excel in ALL areas, not just graphics.
[QUOTE="Barbariser"]
The majority of gamers have tastes that can be easily summed up as "insultingly superficial". Gamespot's reviews are commercialized and therefore designed to appeal to a large group of gamers. Do the math.
Kandlegoat
This is the best post i've seen here all day.
I disagree. That post was too smug to be the best of anything.
[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]
Thats why Lair scored so high.
Oh wait.
GreySeal9
The OP didn't say that excellent graphics guarantees a great score.
Like I said, thread title was kind of silly, but these kind of responses are probably even sillier.
Oh geeze im so sorry for responding to the topic title. The TC disproved himself in the OP, i usually dont expect that to happen.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]
Thats why Lair scored so high.
Oh wait.
Zerocrossings
The OP didn't say that excellent graphics guarantees a great score.
Like I said, thread title was kind of silly, but these kind of responses are probably even sillier.
Oh geeze im so sorry for responding to the topic title. The TC disproved himself in the OP, i usually dont expect that to happen.
Maybe you should respond to the content of the thread. If you had done so, you'd see that the TC never said that great graphics guarantees a high score, making your response look irrelevant and like a total misfire.
[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
The OP didn't say that excellent graphics guarantees a great score.
Like I said, thread title was kind of silly, but these kind of responses are probably even sillier.
GreySeal9
Oh geeze im so sorry for responding to the topic title. The TC disproved himself in the OP, i usually dont expect that to happen.
Maybe you should respond to the content of the thread. If you had done so, you'd see that the TC never said that great graphics guarantees a high score, making your response look silly.
Misleading titles generates mislead replies. ;)
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]
Oh geeze im so sorry for responding to the topic title. The TC disproved himself in the OP, i usually dont expect that to happen.
Zerocrossings
Maybe you should respond to the content of the thread. If you had done so, you'd see that the TC never said that great graphics guarantees a high score, making your response look silly.
Misleading titles generates mislead replies. ;)
That's no excuse to not read an OP.
[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
Maybe you should respond to the content of the thread. If you had done so, you'd see that the TC never said that great graphics guarantees a high score, making your response look silly.
GreySeal9
Misleading titles generates mislead replies. ;)
That's no excuse to not read an OP.
Oh yes it is. It shows that his main point is that graphics>>>gameplay.
Does it make you feel special calling people silly?
[QUOTE="madsnakehhh"]You people fail at reading comprehension, I never argued that, I said not to get into extreme's, my point is most of these games have relativly simple gameplay, dev's spend a lot more time on graphics and presentation. Deep complex GAMEPLAY is extremely rare on consoles, even on the PC...Your logic fails hard TC, all of this GOTY games have something else than just graphics, actually they won GOTY because they have the entire package, graphics, gameplay, etc, is not like they won only with TEH Graphics.
Mestitia
Wrong try looking beyond the mainstream where its aimed at the lowest common denominator and you'll find plenty of games with deep gameplay.
As for you suggesting games move to 75% graphics 25% gameplay great lets turn every game bollocks.
Graphics don't matter just because critics award goty to something with good graphics doesn't mean that matters to the gamers. Look at the DS, Wii and PC and you'll see that graphics don't matter to most people only the vocal few.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]
Misleading titles generates mislead replies. ;)
Zerocrossings
That's no excuse to not read an OP.
Oh yes it is. It shows that his main point is that graphics>>>gameplay.
Does it make you feel special calling people silly?
It has nothing to do with feeling special. I'm just using the most appropriate adjective.
I fail to see how neglecting to read the OP is a good thing.
Even if we take the thread title and only the thread title, your response still doesn't make that much sense. Saying that graphics are more important than gameplay doesn't neccesarily mean that a game with bad gameplay will score high.
Oh yes it is. It shows that his main point is that graphics>>>gameplay.
Does it make you feel special calling people silly?
Zerocrossings
Actually the TC was trying to say that great games can become exceptional with the aid of superb visuals (though his title was misleading).
[QUOTE="yentlequible"]Well Demons Souls had gamespot game of the year and those graphics kinda sucked. Horrible textures...AzatiSNot as horrible as you sound of but ok Yeah Demon's Souls had nice graphics and brilliant atmospheres, but it's not a graphical powerhouse, so the point still holds. This is a good joke of a thread. Thanks for the laugh... so much PROOF in that statement...
[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
That's no excuse to not read an OP.
GreySeal9
Oh yes it is. It shows that his main point is that graphics>>>gameplay.
Does it make you feel special calling people silly?
It has nothing to do with special. I'm just using the most appropriate adjective.
I fail to see how neglecting to read the OP is a good thing.
Even if we take the thread title and only the thread title, your response still doesn't make that much sense. Saying that graphics are more important than gameplay doesn't neccesarily mean that a game with bad gameplay will score high.
Thread Titile: I liek turtles.
OP: No actually i dont.
Replies: Yeah i like turtles too!
You: Lulz you're silly didnt read OP im so coool
:lol:
If gameplay can hold its own without good graphics(eg, Godhand), than i suppose if graphics>>>gameplay, it doesnt matter if the gameplay sucked.
Those same CIassics have an even more impressive core set of mechanics to back it. Presentation and production values can carry many games for sure, but most games will live and die by there game mechanics and how the game is designed around those mechanics. Graphics are certainly one part of the equation but one that is a larger piece of gamings backbone? **** NO.
Half Life 2s immersive plot would be pointless if it wasn't fun to use the gravity gun, if the action wasn't tightly paced, if the level design for the most part wasn't on point(shaky levels here and there).
Crysis while a massive graphical showcase is a more impressive gameplay showcase because of how versatile the action is in that sandbox. The game(especially the expansion) delivers on a simple concept of "I came, I saw, I conquered"
Uncharted 2 with all its beauty is a great title more so because the shooting mechanics are honestly the best of any third person shooter(yeah I said it), and the pacing of the experience was damn near perfect. Ladies and gentlemen the game may not have much in terms of originality, but man does Naughty Dog know how to craft a kickass game. Makes you wonder why Uncharted 1 was such an average experience(spare me the stupid scores)
Bungie's Halo series has entirely been about it's accessable but hightly satisfying and entertaining gameplay.
Mario, Zelda, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden, Demon's Souls, Mass Effect 2(A superior sequel because the GAMEPLAY is greatly improved), and the list goes on. DO graphics matter? absolutely More important than gameplay? **** no.
The gameplay and game mechanics themselves dictate and drive the entire experience. Everything else is more so to amplify not make up for it. IF it's making up for it. That's not really a good thing.
I swear...people get so irrational whenever somebody dares to make a point favoring graphics over gameplay, like gameplay is some sacred element or something.
GreySeal9
Thats because it is. ;)
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]
Oh yes it is. It shows that his main point is that graphics>>>gameplay.
Does it make you feel special calling people silly?
Zerocrossings
It has nothing to do with special. I'm just using the most appropriate adjective.
I fail to see how neglecting to read the OP is a good thing.
Even if we take the thread title and only the thread title, your response still doesn't make that much sense. Saying that graphics are more important than gameplay doesn't neccesarily mean that a game with bad gameplay will score high.
Thread Titile: I liek turtles.
OP: No actually i dont.
Replies: Yeah i like turtles too!
You: Lulz you're silly didnt read OP im so coool
:lol:
If gameplay can hold its own without good graphics(eg, Godhand), than i suppose if graphics>>>gameplay, it doesnt matter if the gameplay sucked.
Actually, the TC never really backed off his opinion that graphics are more important. He just sort of qualified it with an explanation. So your little joke about what went down in this thread is pretty flawed. It still seems like you are trying to distract from the fact that you neglected to read the OP. And yeah I am cool but that's besides the point.
Where are you getting this notion that if one thinks that graphics are more important, they must think that gameplay doesn't matter at all?
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
I swear...people get so irrational whenever somebody dares to make a point favoring graphics over gameplay, like gameplay is some sacred element or something.
Zerocrossings
Thats because it is. ;)
No, not really. Gameplay mechanics without other compelling elements are pretty hollow.
It's probably the most important overall, but the other parts are very important as well.
[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
It has nothing to do with special. I'm just using the most appropriate adjective.
I fail to see how neglecting to read the OP is a good thing.
Even if we take the thread title and only the thread title, your response still doesn't make that much sense. Saying that graphics are more important than gameplay doesn't neccesarily mean that a game with bad gameplay will score high.
GreySeal9
Thread Titile: I liek turtles.
OP: No actually i dont.
Replies: Yeah i like turtles too!
You: Lulz you're silly didnt read OP im so coool
:lol:
If gameplay can hold its own without good graphics(eg, Godhand), than i suppose if graphics>>>gameplay, it doesnt matter if the gameplay sucked.
Actually, the TC never really backed off his opinion that graphics are more important. He just sort of qualified it with an explanation. So you're little joke about what went down in this thread is pretty flawed. It still seems like you are trying to distract from the fact that you neglected to read the OP.
Where are you getting this notion that if one thinks that graphics are more important, they must think that gameplay doesn't matter at all?
I thought it endorsed the fact that i didnt read the OP.
If gameplay can produce good games with mediocregraphics, then i suppose great graphics can produce great games with mediocre gameplay, you know, since they are more important.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
I swear...people get so irrational whenever somebody dares to make a point favoring graphics over gameplay, like gameplay is some sacred element or something.
Zerocrossings
Thats because it is. ;)
While I'm not in complete agreement with the TC(backbone? really?) Gameplay like anything else is just one aspect. Technically speaking what was really all that wrong with the first Assassin's Creed in terms of core mechanics?(besides the combat being a bit shallow and unsatisfying) or the core mechanics of Mirror's Edge? Nothing really mechanically both games were fine. SO yes the gameplay itself worked for the most part. What didn't work was how the games were paced, how the level design was in each game, the difficulty curves, the mission structures, etc. ultimately leaving the games as more missed opportunities(although ME is kind of cool) than great gameplay experiences. I'm still not siding with graphics though. This gen has too much of an issue with that. Too much focus on graphics. Not enough on the fun and the god damn basics(I'm looking at you Ubisoft. STOP BEING UBISOFT)Those same CIassics have an even more impressive core set of mechanics to back it. Presentation and production values can carry many games for sure, but most games will live and die by there game mechanics and how the game is designed around those mechanics. Graphics are certainly one part of the equation but one that is a larger piece of gamings backbone? **** NO.
Half Life 2s immersive plot would be pointless if it wasn't fun to use the gravity gun, if the action wasn't tightly paced, if the level design for the most part wasn't on point(shaky levels here and there).
Crysis while a massive graphical showcase is a more impressive gameplay showcase because of how versatile the action is in that sandbox. The game(especially the expansion) delivers on a simple concept of "I came, I saw, I conquered"
Uncharted 2 with all its beauty is a great title more so because the shooting mechanics are honestly the best of any third person shooter(yeah I said it), and the pacing of the experience was damn near perfect. Ladies and gentlemen the game may not have much in terms of originality, but man does Naughty Dog know how to craft a kickass game. Makes you wonder why Uncharted 1 was such an average experience(spare me the stupid scores)
Bungie's Halo series has entirely been about it's accessable but hightly satisfying and entertaining gameplay.
Mario, Zelda, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden, Demon's Souls, Mass Effect 2(A superior sequel because the GAMEPLAY is greatly improved), and the list goes on. DO graphics matter? absolutely More important than gameplay? **** no.
The gameplay and game mechanics themselves dictate and drive the entire experience. Everything else is more so to amplify not make up for it. IF it's making up for it. That's not really a good thing.jg4xchamp
I think graphics are somewhat more important than you do (I don't think it's meant to amplify the experience, I think it's an integral part of the experience that cannot be separated out), but I have to give you props on writing a logical response free of strawmen. Most people in this thread have given a knee-jerk "OMG you dared to put graphics above sacred gameplay! Damn you!" sort of response, so it's nice to see this kind of response.
[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
I swear...people get so irrational whenever somebody dares to make a point favoring graphics over gameplay, like gameplay is some sacred element or something.
jg4xchamp
Thats because it is. ;)
While I'm not in complete agreement with the TC(backbone? really?) Gameplay like anything else is just one aspect. Technically speaking what was really all that wrong with the first Assassin's Creed in terms of core mechanics?(besides the combat being a bit shallow and unsatisfying) or the core mechanics of Mirror's Edge? Nothing really mechanically both games were fine. SO yes the gameplay itself worked for the most part. What didn't work was how the games were paced, how the level design was in each game, the difficulty curves, the mission structures, etc. ultimately leaving the games as more missed opportunities(although ME is kind of cool) than great gameplay experiences. I'm still not siding with graphics though. This gen has too much of an issue with that. Too much focus on graphics. Not enough on the fun and the god damn basics(I'm looking at you Ubisoft. STOP BEING UBISOFT)What is your definition of gameplay? It should involve pacing, level designand such, thats why AC isnt good. Its gameplay isnt good.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="Zerocrossings"]
Thread Titile: I liek turtles.
OP: No actually i dont.
Replies: Yeah i like turtles too!
You: Lulz you're silly didnt read OP im so coool
:lol:
If gameplay can hold its own without good graphics(eg, Godhand), than i suppose if graphics>>>gameplay, it doesnt matter if the gameplay sucked.
Zerocrossings
Actually, the TC never really backed off his opinion that graphics are more important. He just sort of qualified it with an explanation. So you're little joke about what went down in this thread is pretty flawed. It still seems like you are trying to distract from the fact that you neglected to read the OP.
Where are you getting this notion that if one thinks that graphics are more important, they must think that gameplay doesn't matter at all?
I thought it endorsed the fact that i didnt read the OP.
If gameplay can produce good games with mediocregraphics, then i suppose great graphics can produce great games with mediocre gameplay, you know, since they are more important.
Some people would argue that Bioshock's visuals negated some of the gameplay shortcomings.
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]
Those same CIassics have an even more impressive core set of mechanics to back it. Presentation and production values can carry many games for sure, but most games will live and die by there game mechanics and how the game is designed around those mechanics. Graphics are certainly one part of the equation but one that is a larger piece of gamings backbone? **** NO.
Half Life 2s immersive plot would be pointless if it wasn't fun to use the gravity gun, if the action wasn't tightly paced, if the level design for the most part wasn't on point(shaky levels here and there).
Crysis while a massive graphical showcase is a more impressive gameplay showcase because of how versatile the action is in that sandbox. The game(especially the expansion) delivers on a simple concept of "I came, I saw, I conquered"
Uncharted 2 with all its beauty is a great title more so because the shooting mechanics are honestly the best of any third person shooter(yeah I said it), and the pacing of the experience was damn near perfect. Ladies and gentlemen the game may not have much in terms of originality, but man does Naughty Dog know how to craft a kickass game. Makes you wonder why Uncharted 1 was such an average experience(spare me the stupid scores)
Bungie's Halo series has entirely been about it's accessable but hightly satisfying and entertaining gameplay.
Mario, Zelda, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden, Demon's Souls, Mass Effect 2(A superior sequel because the GAMEPLAY is greatly improved), and the list goes on. DO graphics matter? absolutely More important than gameplay? **** no.
The gameplay and game mechanics themselves dictate and drive the entire experience. Everything else is more so to amplify not make up for it. IF it's making up for it. That's not really a good thing.GreySeal9
I think graphics are somewhat more important than you do (I don't think it's meant to amplify the experience, I think it's an integral part of the experience that cannot be separated out), but I have to give you props on writing a logical response free of strawmen. Most people in this thread have given a knee-jerk "OMG you dared to put graphics above sacred gameplay! Damn you!" sort of responses, so it's nice to see this kind of response.
I understood what the TC was getting at. I just had a real disagreement with the backbone line :P If a game has poor visuals, poor framerate(this is technically part of how it looks and run no?), texture pop ins, or just serious lack of polish it annoys me to no end.Lack of polish is a pet peeve that I honestly let only Stalker get away with(and probably Cryostasis if I could ever play it). Very rarely do you have such a thing as a good game that didn't have at the least pretty good visual work for the platform it was on.Be it exceptional visuals or just good art direction or just an overall polished visual game. There's just rarely a game where the game mechanics are made up for enough that the game is fine. I mean Half Life 2 is my favorite whipping boy for piss poor gunplay(that crap was awful in 04) but the game design overall is on point. Valve made up for it for the most part, plus the gravity gun made up for the gunplay. Bioshock is a little shaky in the gameplay department, but again great presentation, strong atmosphere, good writing(Besides the third act), and just enough variation to keep you entertained from start to finish. I'm just very pure with my games I guess. Above all else be a satisfying playing experience.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment