Which is more important? Graphics or Gameplay?

In general, gameplay is more important. There comes a point though when graphics are too bad for the game to be enjoyable. So, I gotta say both equally, but it all starts with gameplay.

I'm looking for a PS1 now if that tells you anything.ken_gamer

It tells me that you're looking for a PS1 I guess.

In general, gameplay is more important. There comes a point though when graphics are too bad for the game to be enjoyable. So, I gotta say both equally, but it all starts with gameplay.

whoisryanmack

I'd say it depends on the standard of the time.

But gameplay, definitely.

[QUOTE="ken_gamer"]I'm looking for a PS1 now if that tells you anything.soulsofblayck

It tells me that you're looking for a PS1 I guess.

Didn't you get the memo?

Sales are the only thing that makes games fun.

Didn't you get the memo?

Sales are the only thing that makes games fun.

t3hTwinky

Yaaaa, it's just that we're putting coversheets on all TPS reports now, so if you could go ahead and try to do that from now on that'd be great. I'll make sure you get another copy of that memo.

A game with great gameplay and horrid visuals is more enjoyable than a tech demo with great visuals and bland gameplay.

It's nice to have both, however. Nice graphics contribute to the mood, atmosphere and a player's immersion.

AAA titles have both, but if I had to pick one I'd say gameplay obviously.

Well, think about it.

Without graphics, you're playing nothing.

Without gameplay, you're just watching the "game."

However, no game needs to have "T3h greatest graphx evar!1!" or "T3h greatest gmeply evar!1!" to satisfy me. That's why I can get satisfied with a game on any system (unless it's crap, of course).

I am very surprised that people aren't choosing the 3rd option.

O_O

I am very surprised that people aren't choosing the 3rd option.

O_O

Shad0ki11

Maybe it's because they really aren't equally important.

I am very surprised that people aren't choosing the 3rd option.

O_O

Shad0ki11

Sure, they're both important, just visuals to a MUCH lesser degree than gameplay.

Hence, I chose option #2.

I am very surprised that people aren't choosing the 3rd option.

O_O

Shad0ki11

[QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]

I am very surprised that people aren't choosing the 3rd option.

O_O

mjarantilla

Maybe it's because they really aren't equally important.

I can see why they would be. Great graphics are a big factor for alot of people to even consider a game. You can't really see good gameplay before you buy. It may not be a sound criteria to judge a game, but it does help to create excitement, and can tun the tides on a games popularity. That's pretty important.

Hell, even after I buy, great graphics do alot to keep me interested. There are quite a few good games with gameplay that takes some getting used to, that I only stuck around to get used to because of the graphics. (I'm thinking of DIRT right now, but there are others)

Improvement in graphics and hardware in general doesn't mean only aesthetic improvements, which people seem to forget to take into consideration.

Both are equally important. Unless everyone who got Halo 3 today would be just as happy to play it with 8-bit graphics.

Improvement in graphics and hardware in general doesn't mean only aesthetic improvements, which people seem to forget to take into consideration.

Both are equally important. Unless everyone who got Halo 3 today would be just as happy to play it with 8-bit graphics.

Thompsonwhore

Halo 3's gameplay wouldn't be possible with 8-bit graphics.

Now, if you'd said N64 graphics, then there might be contention, given that some people still think GoldenEye is a better FPS than any of the Halo games. (Probably fanboys.)

Gameplay > Graphics (stylistically) > Graphics (technically)Hoffgod

We have a winner!

[QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"]

Improvement in graphics and hardware in general doesn't mean only aesthetic improvements, which people seem to forget to take into consideration.

Both are equally important. Unless everyone who got Halo 3 today would be just as happy to play it with 8-bit graphics.

mjarantilla

Halo 3's gameplay wouldn't be possible with 8-bit graphics.

Now, if you'd said N64 graphics, then there might be contention, given that some people still think GoldenEye is a better FPS than any of the Halo games. (Probably fanboys.)

I think that's his point?

[QUOTE="Hoffgod"]Gameplay > Graphics (stylistically) > Graphics (technically)ArisShadows

We have a winner!

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"]

Improvement in graphics and hardware in general doesn't mean only aesthetic improvements, which people seem to forget to take into consideration.

Both are equally important. Unless everyone who got Halo 3 today would be just as happy to play it with 8-bit graphics.

whoisryanmack

Halo 3's gameplay wouldn't be possible with 8-bit graphics.

Now, if you'd said N64 graphics, then there might be contention, given that some people still think GoldenEye is a better FPS than any of the Halo games. (Probably fanboys.)

I think that's his point?

Not really. 2D graphics need to be judged separately from 3D graphics, because they're two different art forms. It's like saying Reboot (that old 3D cartoon) had better visuals than, say, Samurai Champloo, or Akira.

[QUOTE="ArisShadows"]

[QUOTE="Hoffgod"]Gameplay > Graphics (stylistically) > Graphics (technically)ken_gamer

We have a winner!

I could give you that.. I do like fun, unique looking games.

It all depends on the genre and your preference...this is what people are forgetting. For example, I can't play System SHock 2 no matter how hard I try, even if the game has an amazing story/environment because the graphics are below even sub-par standards in my view. On the other hand, I regular play RPGs from SNES/NES fine and enjoy them immensely. This can be said for pretty much other genres as side-scrollers, beat em' ups and schmups. So for me, if a FPS has terrible graphics, I will NOT play it.soulsofblayck

thats too bad because refusing to play great games based on their graphics not being good really limit your experience.

any real gamer i would assume would say gameplay in any circumstance no matter what to answer the TC's question

[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"]

Improvement in graphics and hardware in general doesn't mean only aesthetic improvements, which people seem to forget to take into consideration.

Both are equally important. Unless everyone who got Halo 3 today would be just as happy to play it with 8-bit graphics.

mjarantilla

Halo 3's gameplay wouldn't be possible with 8-bit graphics.

Now, if you'd said N64 graphics, then there might be contention, given that some people still think GoldenEye is a better FPS than any of the Halo games. (Probably fanboys.)

I think that's his point?

Not really. 2D graphics need to be judged separately from 3D graphics, because they're two different art forms. It's like saying Reboot (that old 3D cartoon) had better visuals than, say, Samurai Champloo, or Akira.

But why? If 20 years ago, we all decided graphics didn't matter and it was all about gameplay, we'd still be playing sprite based 2d sidescrollers. We didn't decide that, so the polygon was invented, and now gameplay options have been opened that were just not possible before. If graphics have begotten gameplay, then it's hard to argue that gameplay is more important.

Gameplay is a necessity! graphics are nice to have. case and point= wii. Halo would still be halo if it wasn't as easy on the eyes. No one plays halo just because of the graphics.viewtifuljon321

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="whoisryanmack"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"]

Improvement in graphics and hardware in general doesn't mean only aesthetic improvements, which people seem to forget to take into consideration.

Both are equally important. Unless everyone who got Halo 3 today would be just as happy to play it with 8-bit graphics.

whoisryanmack

Halo 3's gameplay wouldn't be possible with 8-bit graphics.

Now, if you'd said N64 graphics, then there might be contention, given that some people still think GoldenEye is a better FPS than any of the Halo games. (Probably fanboys.)

I think that's his point?

Not really. 2D graphics need to be judged separately from 3D graphics, because they're two different art forms. It's like saying Reboot (that old 3D cartoon) had better visuals than, say, Samurai Champloo, or Akira.

But why? If 20 years ago, we all decided graphics didn't matter and it was all about gameplay, we'd still be playing sprite based 2d sidescrollers. We didn't decide that, so the polygon was invented, and now gameplay options have been opened that were just not possible before. If graphics have begotten gameplay, then it's hard to argue that gameplay is more important.

Are you sure people were looking for "better graphics" when they developed 3D technology? If you ask me, you could arguably say that most 2D games of the early 90s looked much better than the 3D games of the time, yet 3D games were the ones that tookoff. I mean, Doom was developed as proto-FPS instead of a Contra-style shooter to better immerse the player into the game by giving them a realistic perspective. Compare the aesthetic look of Doom with Super Street Fighter II Turbo, and it's clear which one "looks" better. In fact, for most of the N64/PS1 generation, 2D games had more detail, faster gameplay, and better art styles. But 3D games had the newer, more dynamic gameplay.

[QUOTE="viewtifuljon321"]Gameplay is a necessity! graphics are nice to have. case and point= wii. Halo would still be halo if it wasn't as easy on the eyes. No one plays halo just because of the graphics.ken_gamer

I think sheep know that if they mention the Wii, the thread will automatically turn against them because the Wii is the pariah of gaming.

[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="whoisryanmack"]

I think that's his point?

mjarantilla

Not really. 2D graphics need to be judged separately from 3D graphics, because they're two different art forms. It's like saying Reboot (that old 3D cartoon) had better visuals than, say, Samurai Champloo, or Akira.

But why? If 20 years ago, we all decided graphics didn't matter and it was all about gameplay, we'd still be playing sprite based 2d sidescrollers. We didn't decide that, so the polygon was invented, and now gameplay options have been opened that were just not possible before. If graphics have begotten gameplay, then it's hard to argue that gameplay is more important.

Are you sure people were looking for "better graphics" when they developed 3D technology? If you ask me, you could arguably say that most 2D games of the early 90s looked much better than the 3D games of the time, yet 3D games were the ones that tookoff. I mean, Doom was developed as proto-FPS instead of a Contra-style shooter to better immerse the player into the game by giving them a realistic perspective. Compare the aesthetic look of Doom with Super Street Fighter II Turbo, and it's clear which one "looks" better. In fact, for most of the N64/PS1 generation, 2D games had more detail, faster gameplay, and better art styles. But 3D games had the newer, more dynamic gameplay.

I consider what you are describing as graphics, to be art style. Whether or not you like the aesthetic "look" of a game does not change the fact that polygons represent improved graphics. There is more visual information being processed.

Anyway, the move to polygon based graphics was done in the name of improving gaming. Early attempts may not have been as pleasing as the polished 2d equivelants of the day, but the intention of better visuals was there all along.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Are you sure people were looking for "better graphics" when they developed 3D technology? If you ask me, you could arguably say that most 2D games of the early 90s looked much better than the 3D games of the time, yet 3D games were the ones that tookoff. I mean, Doom was developed as proto-FPS instead of a Contra-style shooter to better immerse the player into the game by giving them a realistic perspective. Compare the aesthetic look of Doom with Super Street Fighter II Turbo, and it's clear which one "looks" better. In fact, for most of the N64/PS1 generation, 2D games had more detail, faster gameplay, and better art styles. But 3D games had the newer, more dynamic gameplay.

whoisryanmack

I consider what you are describing as graphics, to be art style. Whether or not you like the aesthetic "look" of a game does not change the fact that polygons represent improved graphics. There is more visual information being processed.

Anyway, the move to polygon based graphics was done in the name of improving gaming. Early attempts may not have been as pleasing as the polished 2d equivelants of the day, but the intention of better visuals was there all along.

So was the intention of better gameplay. Like I said, the 3D era should be considered to be almost completely separate from the 2D era for this reason. EVERYTHING changed all at once. Controls, gameplay, game CONCEPTS, graphics, etc. Pretty much everything started from scratch. But once the prorotypes had been set and equilibrium established, gameplay took the forefront again.

Graphics are an aspect of gameplay.

Which is more important - a car or the wheels?
subrosian

I'd say the graphics are more analogous to the body, or the hull, or the seats.

[QUOTE="viewtifuljon321"]Gameplay is a necessity! graphics are nice to have. case and point= wii. Halo would still be halo if it wasn't as easy on the eyes. No one plays halo just because of the graphics.ken_gamer

fine but when there is a good wii game its really good. the wii's killer apps really are killer. Metroid and zelda and mario and brawhen they come out. my point was the best of the wii's library can easily compete with the best of the 360's and ps3's library gameplay wise.

Graphics are an aspect of gameplay.

Which is more important - a car or the wheels?
subrosian

You could read "aspect" a few other ways than the essential wheels of a car. What if it's a top, or windows? Graphics in some form are pretty much essential, but I think the reference is good graphics in this thread. Those aren't necessarily essential, Mario Bros. was fantastic, and still is.

In general, gameplay is more important. There comes a point though when graphics are too bad for the game to be enjoyable. So, I gotta say both equally, but it all starts with gameplay.

whoisryanmack

I agree with you, you eally do need bothe in a game, imagine if halo 3 had awful graphics. the game would be like last gen. And if it had awful gameplay it wouldnt be a good game. so gameplay comes first but you need a good mix of bothe for a Descent game.

[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Are you sure people were looking for "better graphics" when they developed 3D technology? If you ask me, you could arguably say that most 2D games of the early 90s looked much better than the 3D games of the time, yet 3D games were the ones that tookoff. I mean, Doom was developed as proto-FPS instead of a Contra-style shooter to better immerse the player into the game by giving them a realistic perspective. Compare the aesthetic look of Doom with Super Street Fighter II Turbo, and it's clear which one "looks" better. In fact, for most of the N64/PS1 generation, 2D games had more detail, faster gameplay, and better art styles. But 3D games had the newer, more dynamic gameplay.

mjarantilla

I consider what you are describing as graphics, to be art style. Whether or not you like the aesthetic "look" of a game does not change the fact that polygons represent improved graphics. There is more visual information being processed.

Anyway, the move to polygon based graphics was done in the name of improving gaming. Early attempts may not have been as pleasing as the polished 2d equivelants of the day, but the intention of better visuals was there all along.

So was the intention of better gameplay. Like I said, the 3D era should be considered to be almost completely separate from the 2D era for this reason. EVERYTHING changed all at once. Controls, gameplay, game CONCEPTS, graphics, etc. Pretty much everything started from scratch. But once the prorotypes had been set and equilibrium established, gameplay took the forefront again.

It doesn't matter what the intention was, all that matters is the effect that it had. We found that better graphics afforded better gameplay, whether or not that was forseen.

[QUOTE="whoisryanmack"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Are you sure people were looking for "better graphics" when they developed 3D technology? If you ask me, you could arguably say that most 2D games of the early 90s looked much better than the 3D games of the time, yet 3D games were the ones that tookoff. I mean, Doom was developed as proto-FPS instead of a Contra-style shooter to better immerse the player into the game by giving them a realistic perspective. Compare the aesthetic look of Doom with Super Street Fighter II Turbo, and it's clear which one "looks" better. In fact, for most of the N64/PS1 generation, 2D games had more detail, faster gameplay, and better art styles. But 3D games had the newer, more dynamic gameplay.

mjarantilla

I consider what you are describing as graphics, to be art style. Whether or not you like the aesthetic "look" of a game does not change the fact that polygons represent improved graphics. There is more visual information being processed.

Anyway, the move to polygon based graphics was done in the name of improving gaming. Early attempts may not have been as pleasing as the polished 2d equivelants of the day, but the intention of better visuals was there all along.

So was the intention of better gameplay. Like I said, the 3D era should be considered to be almost completely separate from the 2D era for this reason. EVERYTHING changed all at once. Controls, gameplay, game CONCEPTS, graphics, etc. Pretty much everything started from scratch. But once the prorotypes had been set and equilibrium established, gameplay took the forefront again.

In any case...

The purpose of further advancing graphics today is not only for aesthetic purposes, but in effect they are also giving us new mechanics to play our games with.

Gameplay and technology are inseperable in advancement. And this thread does that evolution an injustice. Luckily, developers aren't as naive to think in such a way and we're given games like Crysis.