The importance of atmosphere in a game...

Anybody who has been on SW for a while knows that when arguing about what makes a game it always comes down to graphics and gameplay. This is the basic argument, graphics vs gameplay...

99.9% of people will instantly say gameplay > graphics as you don't actually play the graphics. Many also will agree that graphics can enhance a game dramatically. I believe that this argument is far to narrow as there are much more to the games graphics than just the eye candy. The argumetn graphics vs gameplay completely leaves out sound design, art direction, and general atmosphere of a game.

Now take for instance Bioshock on the PS3, 360, and PC. Now ignoring the complaint that Bioshock is a stripped down clone of System Shock 2, the game still managed to score AAA on the majority of gaming websites and publications. Why is this? Well the gameplay was truely not much special. It was basic shooting with some extras with the plasmids which really didnt cover the fact that the general shooting was boring. Yet it still managed to hold the attention of many gamers to see it through to the end and get AAA even with no multiplayer. Why?! Surely there must be a reason.

Its really simple. The atmosphere that the game created was unique and refreshing. It is a game that doesn't have the traditional feeling of a video game, instead you feel more like you are really living in Rapture. The game didn't just feature amazing graphics, it featured an art style that was really well done and very refreshing from what a traditional gaming experience offers. Its art deco style mixed with some intense lighting and excellent object modeling really made the game world come to life. Not to mention the just downright creepy audio of the game that included both the sound effects and the amazing voice acting by all of the NPCs.

I mean if you didn't like Bioshock and thought it was lame, you were perhaps approaching it wrong or were playing in the wrong conditions. Or maybe you just didnt like it. But the reviews show that the majority of gamers at least thought it was good to play through once.

Take other games for example. Shadow of the Colossus. The amazing atmosphere and graphics of that game really brought the world to life. Again you didn't feel like you were playing a traditional video game, you felt like you were really living in this world created by the developers using graphics and sound.

Now compare those two games with a game like Call of Duty 4. It has amazing gameplay and very tight graphics, but when you play it, you really feel like you are playing a video game. It is a great game don't get me wrong. It just feels like the game machine that we have been playing for years. Same goes with games like Counter Strike Source and Halo 3. They just feel like video games.

Games like Gears of War also are starting to implement some more methods to make games feel less traditional. Removing the hud from the screen, surrounding you in a very complicated environment and using the atmosphere to really enhance the gameplay.

I believe that when comparing gameplay to graphics, you need to consider the atmosphere of the game as well. Thats why I believe that graphics are equally as important as gameplay in a video game, especially a modern video game. Games today need to keep up with new gameplay ideas but they cannot fall behind with the graphics or the entire game loses value. Would you want to have played through Oblivion if it looked just like Morrowind? Hell no.

Completely agree, great post Wasdie.

If it weren't for th atmosphere I wouldn't have even played the first level of BS.

to me atmosphere is one of the most important things that makes a game that I'll love years from now....for instance i can play Half-life 2 + ep 1,2 any time and still get completely obsorbed into its world

another is fable for me....the mood, fantastic music, charming graphics, and just about everything( except for the framerate in #2 lol) comes together and makes a game that makes hours fly by without me realizing it at all .... simply amazing

Right on the stop.

Atmosphere should be one of the top priorities of a game's development, because that's certainly a big different in the factor that draws you in.

Would you rather just look for your boss' stapler on a normal work day, or look for the stapler (which is really a secret weapon) while communists are busting in through the roof with machine guns and aliens are invading?

The atmosphere goes a long way, and it is part of the visual presentation. A game on the visual level of say, Fallout 3, is going to draw you into the world in a bigger way than a game that looks like a PS1 title. Outside of nostalgia, it's hard for old 3D games to compete. However, the gameplay still matters. For example, I loathe Bioshock, the visuals mean nothing to me after the first hour, because I feel like I'm doing the same dull things over, and over, and over again.

Visuals are part of the larger "presentation" of a game, and at the end of the day what makes a game like Bioshock a failure, while a game like Mass Effect is a success, is that Mass Effect takes beautiful scenes and makes you a part of them, while Bioshock leaves you feeling like an observer to a barren world.

atmosphere is mere icing on the cake

it helps but if you don't have the fundamentals for a game it will still flop

for example stalker

The atmosphere goes a long way, and it is part of the visual presentation. A game on the visual level of say, Fallout 3, is going to draw you into the world in a bigger way than a game that looks like a PS1 title. Outside of nostalgia, it's hard for old 3D games to compete. However, the gameplay still matters. For example, I loathe Bioshock, the visuals mean nothing to me after the first hour, because I feel like I'm doing the same dull things over, and over, and over again.

Visuals are part of the larger "presentation" of a game, and at the end of the day what makes a game like Bioshock a failure, while a game like Mass Effect is a success, is that Mass Effect takes beautiful scenes and makes you a part of them, while Bioshock leaves you feeling like an observer to a barren world.

subrosian

exactly.

Nobody not agree? Aww...Wasdie

I disagree, your post is full of failz!

Have you played Dead Space, Wasdie? The atmosphere is absolutely phenomenal in that game. I definitely recommend checking it out if you haven't already.BioShockOwnz

Isn't it ironic that a game in space has great atmosphere?

Man, I'm funny.

I agree.

Not that you had to explain anything, because it won't get through to most people. Most don't even know how to write a review, let alone read and understand one. How many people write "reviews" based on opinions? Whether you like the game or not, you havve to give credit where credit is due, which most people don't do.

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]Have you played Dead Space, Wasdie? The atmosphere is absolutely phenomenal in that game. I definitely recommend checking it out if you haven't already.Chutebox

Isn't it ironic that a game in space has great atmosphere?

Man, I'm funny.

its ironic but not funny :(

I have to disagree a little Wesdie.

atmosphere is a byproduct of gameplay.

i believe any game could come off as atmospheric if they toned down the action in the gameplay and added puzzles that lets you explore a certain enviorment / level without shooting.

Meaning, the fast paced shooting gameplay mechanics in games distract people from the enviorment, as almost every game has an atmospheric enviorment that is far better than Bioshock's unpleasent messy enviorment or SoC's big empty land.

you seem to have pin-pointed the wrong root factor of what makes games engaging to you. Bioshock came off as atmospherically engaging not because of it's unpleasent enviorment, it's because of the gameplay mechanics.

Think about it. Take Halo 3's first forrest level, and you can turn it to come off as having Metroid Prime rich and engaging atmospheric enviorment if you tone down the action to 1 or 2 encounters (or strip the action all together) and let Master Chief wander alone taking his time exploring and looking for ancient artifacts and clues to solve a puzzle.

very interesting post btw, but I believe you pinpointed the wrong root facter of what makes games engaging, as it's not the atmosphere, it's the game play that makes the atmosphere that makes the engaging experience.

hence, i believe the argument of gameplay is what makes games engaging still stands as it's the root factor of atmosphere.

its ironic but not funny :(

jeezers

is one of the reason why I hold Metroid Prime in high regards. Going through the game the first time was super encaptivating since everything from the Metroid world was realized in 3D on a spectacular level, and the gameplay was amazing to say the least. It drew me in as though I were Samus herself.

I agree.

Not that you had to explain anything, because it won't get through to most people. Most don't even know how to write a review, let alone read and understand one. How many people write "reviews" based on opinions? Whether you like the game or not, you havve to give credit where credit is due, which most people don't do.

RobNBankz

All reviews are opinions, attempting to quantify art misses the point. However "giving credit where credit is due" is simply a comment on the skill of the reviewer. A more persuasive, observant, and well-written review is not any less an opinion, it's simply a better formed opinion expressed in a more meaningful way.

Of course, who are we to blame the average person for doing such a terrible job? A good 95% of professional reviews are horribly done, and they are what the masses look to as "quality".

I have to disagree a little Wesdie.

atmosphere is a byproduct of gameplay.

i believe any game could come off as atmospheric if they toned down the action in the gameplay and added puzzles that lets you explore a certain enviorment / level without shooting.

Meaning, the fast paced shooting gameplay mechanics in games distract people from the enviorment, as almost every game has an atmospheric enviorment that is far better than Bioshock's unpleasent messy enviorment or SoC's big empty land.

you seem to have pin-pointed the wrong root factor of what makes games engaging to you. Bioshock came off as atmospherically engaging not because of it's unpleasent enviorment, it's because of the gameplay mechanics.

Think about it. Take Halo 3's first forrest level, and you can turn it to come off as having Metroid Prime rich and engaging atmospheric enviorment if you tone down the action to 1 or 2 encounters (or strip the action all together) and let Master Chief wander alone taking his time exploring and looking for ancient artifacts and clues to solve a puzzle.

very interesting post btw, but I believe you pinpointed the wrong root facter of what makes games engaging, as it's not the atmosphere, it's the game play that makes the atmosphere that makes the engaging experience.

hence, i believe the argument of gameplay is what makes games engaging still stands as it's the root factor of atmosphere.

Mystery_Writer

I agree with this post to an extent. Gameplay, as far as allowing players time to explore, does help the player find points of engaging atmosphere. But to deny that graphics play a hand is simple folly.

My favorite scene from Bioshock is stumbling around Anne Culpepper's dark, flooded apartment, to her bathroom where her charred remains set alone in the room with the ocean leaking in from a large engimatic window. Reading the audio diary by her body reinforced that scene.

Gameplay allowed me to find that area but a combination of technical effects such as ambience, color choice, voice acting, and an isolationist-artsyle brung it to life. The atmosphere of a game is most tied to artsyle, how well the developer can arrange images, sounds, and the enviroment to ensnare the player; to make the player want to explore.

Atmosphere only runs alongside gameplay, it can't improve the gameplay. Vaasman

Sure it can. Mass Effect is a better game because of its awesome scenic visuals than it would have been with PS1 era graphics. All your post did was demonstrate that graphics are not a substitute for gameplay. Look I agree 100% that Bioshock is a terrible game, no question that Metroid Prime was a far better title. However, had Metroid Prime been a PS1 game (again) it wouldn't have been what it was - the difficulty of navigating and visually identfying things would have taken away from its world.

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

I have to disagree a little Wesdie.

atmosphere is a byproduct of gameplay.

i believe any game could come off as atmospheric if they toned down the action in the gameplay and added puzzles that lets you explore a certain enviorment / level without shooting.

Meaning, the fast paced shooting gameplay mechanics in games distract people from the enviorment, as almost every game has an atmospheric enviorment that is far better than Bioshock's unpleasent messy enviorment or SoC's big empty land.

you seem to have pin-pointed the wrong root factor of what makes games engaging to you. Bioshock came off as atmospherically engaging not because of it's unpleasent enviorment, it's because of the gameplay mechanics.

Think about it. Take Halo 3's first forrest level, and you can turn it to come off as having Metroid Prime rich and engaging atmospheric enviorment if you tone down the action to 1 or 2 encounters (or strip the action all together) and let Master Chief wander alone taking his time exploring and looking for ancient artifacts and clues to solve a puzzle.

very interesting post btw, but I believe you pinpointed the wrong root facter of what makes games engaging, as it's not the atmosphere, it's the game play that makes the atmosphere that makes the engaging experience.

hence, i believe the argument of gameplay is what makes games engaging still stands as it's the root factor of atmosphere.

Kickinurass

I agree with this post to an extent. Gameplay, as far as allowing players time to explore, does help the player find points of engaging atmosphere. But to deny that graphics play a hand is simple folly.

My favorite scene from Bioshock is stumbling around Anne Culpepper's dark, flooded apartment, to her bathroom where her charred remains set alone in the room with the ocean leaking in from a large engimatic window. Reading the audio diary by her body reinforced that scene.

Gameplay allowed me to find that area but a combination of technical effects such as ambience, color choice, voice acting, and an isolationist-artsyle brung it to life. The atmosphere of a game is most tied to artsyle, how well the developer can arrange images, sounds, and the enviroment to ensnare the player; to make the player want to explore.

if you add the level you played and felt so engaging while playing bioshock to be part of so many other levels in a run-of-the-mill type of fast paced shooter, you hardly going to notice the art style of the enviorment.

Hence, I believe the gameplay presented that scene to you in a way that made it memorable and made you feel engaged.

if Boishock had a gameplay similiar to doom3, you wouldn't notice any of what you saw in that room you mentioned. cause you'll be busy just killing the same type of monsters teleporting from hell in the middle of the room.

Painkiller is a good example of impressive looking enviorments, but nobody speaks about it's atmospheric effect, cause the only time you notice the enviorment is when you clear all the hordes of enemies swarming at you all at once.

i believe an engaging text (no graphics what so ever) adventure storyline could paint an imaginary picture in your mind more atmospheric than say Doom3 or COD4.

Here's the only way to detemine this...

You can have a good game with great gameplay and hardly any atmosphere... but you can't have a good game with awesome atmosphere and awful gameplay...... It's as simple as that.

Here's the only way to detemine this...

You can have a good game with great gameplay and hardly any atmosphere... but you can't have a good game with awesome atmosphere and awful gameplay...... It's as simple as that.

skingus

Your terms are inconsistent. A game with poor gameplay and great atmosphere is a poor game. A game with poor atmosphere and great 'gameplay' (which is a misgnomer, atmopshere is part of gameplay, therefore gameplay would have to bee less-than-perfect as well ) is a poor game.

A game can't simply fail in both departments, and having better atmosphere (graphics, sound, realism, believability, world design ) is always going to improve a game. In fact, frankly, you can take a cut to gameplay sometime to get a better atmosphere and it still works out okay. That sequence at the start of The Darkness, where the car is driving on rails? Way more immersive, way more interesting than the GTA IV driving sequences, even if GTA IV you're actually controlling the car.

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]Atmosphere only runs alongside gameplay, it can't improve the gameplay. subrosian

Sure it can. Mass Effect is a better game because of its awesome scenic visuals than it would have been with PS1 era graphics. All your post did was demonstrate that graphics are not a substitute for gameplay. Look I agree 100% that Bioshock is a terrible game, no question that Metroid Prime was a far better title. However, had Metroid Prime been a PS1 game (again) it wouldn't have been what it was - the difficulty of navigating and visually identfying things would have taken away from its world.

I disagree as well. Great atmosphere can enhance gameplay... How scary would resident evil be if they had the Mario theme song playing in the background(now that I think about it, that might be pretty creepy), or had cell-shaded graphics?

[QUOTE="skingus"]

Here's the only way to detemine this...

You can have a good game with great gameplay and hardly any atmosphere... but you can't have a good game with awesome atmosphere and awful gameplay...... It's as simple as that.

subrosian

Your terms are inconsistent. A game with poor gameplay and great atmosphere is a poor game. A game with poor atmosphere and great 'gameplay' (which is a misgnomer, atmopshere is part of gameplay, therefore gameplay would have to bee less-than-perfect as well ) is a poor game.

A game can't simply fail in both departments, and having better atmosphere (graphics, sound, realism, believability, world design ) is always going to improve a game. In fact, frankly, you can take a cut to gameplay sometime to get a better atmosphere and it still works out okay. That sequence at the start of The Darkness, where the car is driving on rails? Way more immersive, way more interesting than the GTA IV driving sequences, even if GTA IV you're actually controlling the car.

How about this: A game with mediocre atmosphere, and awesome gameplay... against mediocre atmosphere and terrible gameplay. You see my point? You can have bad atmosphere and still have a pretty good game. I hope this helps.

How about this: A game with mediocre atmosphere, and awesome gameplay... against mediocre atmosphere and terrible gameplay. You see my point? You can have bad atmosphere and still have a pretty good game. I hope this helps.skingus

I don't think you really mean "bad atmosphere" though, I think what you mean is "lower tech graphics". I'm not sure that's quite the same thing. For example, take a game on the DS, like Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia. The graphics are nowhere close to a 360 or even PSP game, yet would you say it as "bad atmosphere"? I would say the music, excellent art design, character models, and flawless framerate all work to draw the player into the game. I would say it has great atmosphere.

Of course arguably with "2D" we've reached the point where most well-executed 2D games should be technically proficient, whereas with 3D we're really just reaching the point where something that's supposed to be, say, a lamp, actually looks like a lamp. So there's something to be said there too - you need a lot more resolution, a lot more technical power, to get a 3D game looking smooth, crisp, and visually cohesive than you do with a 2D game.

Atmosphere is made on the visual side and broken on the gameplay side, if you can't match your pieces together right your going to come out with a mess, the new silent hill is a perfect example if you've seen it.

The silent hills weren't altogether scary games visually on the playstation, what made them was the fact that the design team sat down and thought about ways to improve what they had visually with the gameplay, slowdown the character, limit weapons, change the camera so you don't know where your heading, worked like a charm.

If you had played silent hills where you could massacre things, pickup weapons like candy and see everything that they threw at you it wouldn't have been anything like it was, so with the gameplay they nailed the atmosphere of there title.

Sound while a factor in most things plays a back seat role to the graphics and gameplay when trying to set the atmosphere of a title cause unless you nail the first two you aren't going to have a chance in hell of getting the musical score right for the scene/area/wateva.

Again the resident evils, parasite eves, clock towers on playstation had to solve similar problems that silent hill faced, they all did it in a similar vien but none the less solved the problem which they lacked on the visual side with there gameplay.

People say a game like stalker has great atmosphere because of the graphics, it doesn't, you could play that game on the lowest settings and still get the impact of what the developers wanted to achieve, they not only had the visual quality there if you wanted it but they had all the gameplay elements working together to produce that atmosphere as well and naturally with these parts working correctly they nailed the sound in the game as well.

Unfortunately if you have great visuals and poor gameplay (bioshock fits here) your going to have a poor game, if you have poor visuals and great gameplay your going to have a poor game, your solution is to either find the middle game for your game or make one heck of a title.

You can't focus on one area (graphics or gameplay) to set the atmosphere of a video game, it just doesn't work, you need to be focussing on both to get a proper result (metriod prime trilogy is a perfect example of a title that found a balance).

Wall of text FTL, lol not gonna read that roflmao, it's a waste of precious internetz minutez!!!! /JOKE

I agree Wasdie, nicely written!

It is important, but gameplay is still the most important aspect of any game.

Half Life 2 relies heavily on its atmosphere to carry the single player forward. It's quite possibly the least replayable FPS out at the moment.

So while people shouldn't be quick to throw away the idea of graphics/atmosphere, there is a kernel of truth in saying "I value gameplay over graphics anyday".

This is a pretty valid reason as to why i loved Dead Space so much, but it was 80% of th same thing over and over again. The atmosphere was amazing in that game... however the graphics were good too, so.. :question:Phazevariance

Don't video games consist of the same gameplay over and over again presented in different context?

Seems it's been that way since Space Invaders

[QUOTE="Phazevariance"]This is a pretty valid reason as to why i loved Dead Space so much, but it was 80% of th same thing over and over again. The atmosphere was amazing in that game... however the graphics were good too, so.. :question:FrozenLiquid

Don't video games consist of the same gameplay over and over again presented in different context?

Seems it's been that way since Space Invaders

Yes but the atmosphere keeps you playing, just like assasins creed. Another repetitive game with great atmosphere that i got hooked into.

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="Phazevariance"]This is a pretty valid reason as to why i loved Dead Space so much, but it was 80% of th same thing over and over again. The atmosphere was amazing in that game... however the graphics were good too, so.. :question:Phazevariance

Don't video games consist of the same gameplay over and over again presented in different context?

Seems it's been that way since Space Invaders

Yes but the atmosphere keeps you playing, just like assasins creed. Another repetitive game with great atmosphere that i got hooked into.

Oh no it's just I thought you singled out Dead Space as a game with with highly repetitive gameplay. I just believe all games consist of the same gameplay over and over and over again.

I have to agree that I enjoy Assassin's Creed too.

Atmosphere and graphics are two different things.

Here's a game with OMG MY EYES ARE IN TEH BLEEDINGS graphics, even by 1999's standards, where you actually felt attached to characters, places and even abstract ideas. It is also the only video game that has made me cry:

Exhibit 2:

A GOOD GM/DM/Storyteller is able to create an atmosphere that will make you feel your character's pain, joy, sadness, desperation, fear and many other emotions far better and more life-like than any video game.

Exhibit 3:

Books can create an atmosphere.

Atmosphere and graphics are two different things.

Here's a game with OMG MY EYES ARE IN TEH BLEEDINGS graphics, even by 1999's standards, where you actually felt attached to characters, places and even abstract ideas. It is also the only video game that has made me cry:

Exhibit 2:

A GOOD GM/DM/Storyteller is able to create an atmosphere that will make you feel your character's pain, joy, sadness, desperation, fear and many other emotions far better and more life-like than any video game.

Exhibit 3:

Books can create an atmosphere.

LordQuorthon

I don't even like Paris and I must say this is sorta... different in a good way.

As for the atmosphere, be it part of graphics or gameplay; which I think it's neither of those since to me it's a combination of it's theme/setting, graphics and even the score, it's essential in my enjoyment of a game. It's something that can really boost by a lot the overall enjoyment of a game. The way I see it if every game has an atmosphere, it should try to create a nice one.

Anybody who has been on SW for a while knows that when arguing about what makes a game it always comes down to graphics and gameplay. This is the basic argument, graphics vs gameplay...

99.9% of people will instantly say gameplay > graphics as you don't actually play the graphics. Many also will agree that graphics can enhance a game dramatically. I believe that this argument is far to narrow as there are much more to the games graphics than just the eye candy. The argumetn graphics vs gameplay completely leaves out sound design, art direction, and general atmosphere of a game.

Now take for instance Bioshock on the PS3, 360, and PC. Now ignoring the complaint that Bioshock is a stripped down clone of System Shock 2, the game still managed to score AAA on the majority of gaming websites and publications. Why is this? Well the gameplay was truely not much special. It was basic shooting with some extras with the plasmids which really didnt cover the fact that the general shooting was boring. Yet it still managed to hold the attention of many gamers to see it through to the end and get AAA even with no multiplayer. Why?! Surely there must be a reason.

Its really simple. The atmosphere that the game created was unique and refreshing. It is a game that doesn't have the traditional feeling of a video game, instead you feel more like you are really living in Rapture. The game didn't just feature amazing graphics, it featured an art style that was really well done and very refreshing from what a traditional gaming experience offers. Its art deco style mixed with some intense lighting and excellent object modeling really made the game world come to life. Not to mention the just downright creepy audio of the game that included both the sound effects and the amazing voice acting by all of the NPCs.

I mean if you didn't like Bioshock and thought it was lame, you were perhaps approaching it wrong or were playing in the wrong conditions. Or maybe you just didnt like it. But the reviews show that the majority of gamers at least thought it was good to play through once.

Take other games for example. Shadow of the Colossus. The amazing atmosphere and graphics of that game really brought the world to life. Again you didn't feel like you were playing a traditional video game, you felt like you were really living in this world created by the developers using graphics and sound.

Now compare those two games with a game like Call of Duty 4. It has amazing gameplay and very tight graphics, but when you play it, you really feel like you are playing a video game. It is a great game don't get me wrong. It just feels like the game machine that we have been playing for years. Same goes with games like Counter Strike Source and Halo 3. They just feel like video games.

Games like Gears of War also are starting to implement some more methods to make games feel less traditional. Removing the hud from the screen, surrounding you in a very complicated environment and using the atmosphere to really enhance the gameplay.

I believe that when comparing gameplay to graphics, you need to consider the atmosphere of the game as well. Thats why I believe that graphics are equally as important as gameplay in a video game, especially a modern video game. Games today need to keep up with new gameplay ideas but they cannot fall behind with the graphics or the entire game loses value. Would you want to have played through Oblivion if it looked just like Morrowind? Hell no.

Wasdie

+1

Ppl just dont understand how important it is in game like Bioshock to have a good 5.1 surroung set. It is really sooo much better. I have finished bioshock 3 times and the fourth time i tried to finish it at a friends house, he had a huge HDTV but not surround set... the experience was boring as hell.

Just like an HDTV i cant game without a 5.1 surround set anymore.

I approached BioShock as an atmospheric FPS/RPG.

While the atmosphere is in high note, the gameplay shot the game down and I didn't like it nearly as much as other people. Atmosphere can be reliable but it's just more of an extra than a absolute necessity.

Whenever I play FEAR, which was heavily atmospheric for its time, I don't play it for its immersion or for its atmosphere. It's the gunplay that makes me come back to playing it again because its the redeeming feature of the game.

Doom 3, which was heavily atmospheric was still a disappointing game because of its lackluster gameplay.

You definately need gameplay and atmosphere for a lot of games but gameplay is needed a lot more because it carries most of the game's quality. Atmosphere is a bonus whether it's BioShock or even STALKER.

Minor frame-rate issues, glitches, lower res graphics compares to others systems and so on

That would not bother me if the game is fun.

Fun, fun, fun all the way down

That is most important, than atmosphere and graphics

If the atmosphere doesn't work for me, the game most likely will never be AAA in my books. Bioshock's atmosphere never worked its mojo on me, so the game was dissapointing. But there are expections where gameplay is all that matters, for e.g. in puzzle games.

To me the atmosphere is a combination of sounds, music, details, artstyle, graphics, pacing, story and to some extent even gameplay, so comparing its importance to any of those individually is impossible.