Home    General Stuff    General Gaming
#1

Gameplay or Graphics?

Archive: 39 posts

Which is more important to you in a video game: gameplay, graphics, or a mixture of both?2010-08-28 17:54:00

Author:
Testudini
Posts: 3262

gameplay...
for example, I see a lot of people bash minecraft because it looks so ugly...it costed me like ?10 and I've gotten way more out of it than most ?60 games.		2010-08-28 18:09:00

Author:
oldage
Posts: 2824

Balanced.

Let's take a flying game:

- If the graphics are AWESOME and the gameplay shucks, you crash because the controls and the HUD and anything else is poorly designed.
- If the gameplay is AWESOME and the graphics shucks, you crash because of objects that are only drew when your reaction time is gone.
- And if it's balanced, you crash because of your incompetence, but your incompetence is not the game's fault.		2010-08-28 18:09:00

Author:
gdn001
Posts: 5891

gdn, graphics arent the same as depth perception in games

Gameplay all the way!
Way back when, on the SNES and Atari/all the other old consoles, the graphics were bad but the gameplay was AMAZING. Today we seem to be going in the opposite direction, the focus is on getting the latest graphics and the gameplay sucks because of it. I would take JK3 from 2003, over ANY modern TPS or FPS. That game is 7 years old, has graphics from the 90's but the gameplay was way ahead of its time, and imo hasnt been matched yet.		2010-08-28 18:45:00

Author:
Bremnen
Posts: 1800

gdn, graphics arent the same as depth perception in games

Thats not depth perception it's hitting an object like a tree because its graphics don't load until after you hit it.		2010-08-28 19:23:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot
Posts: 6728

Thats not depth perception it's hitting an object like a tree because its graphics don't load until after you hit it.

Yeah, I remember my days of playing GTA San Andreas:

- Flying on a Hydra at full speed with "Free Bird" playing on radio;
- "Coz I'm freeeee... Biiiird... Yeah!";
- Tree spawns infront of me;
- OMGZ!!! EJECT!!1one
- Ka-booom! Wasted!!!
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_1Hd42HPD8lc/S_bWYk7a3aI/AAAAAAAAJuo/BMBGGzB7AL8/s576/blogdofu_rageart%20(1).jpg		2010-08-28 19:27:00

Author:
gdn001
Posts: 5891

Kinda a mixture of both. If a game has bad gameplay, it ruins it for me no matter how good the graphics are. If it has bad graphics, but good gameplay, it doesnt ruin it that much.
and lol @gdn001..		2010-08-28 19:29:00

Author:
Ninjaferret22
Posts: 1403

Lets think about this for a moment. Why is it that, no matter what I play, I always go back to old games? Because while the graphics are pretty, and captivating, if your game doesnt keep my interest through gameplay, I'm just going to leave. All flash and no substance.

A lot of people all go back to playing Chrono Trigger, Old final fantasies, etc. etc. Why? Because the gameplay captiavtes them. The storylines are good. The graphics by todays standards? Not so! Video Games, before they become ANYTHING else, need to be FUN. I don't care what new engine you're using, and I don't care if the physics match reality, if your game is not fun, I simply will not play it. Disgaea is my favorite series of all time, because I find its gameplay to be extremely fun. I dont care that all the characters are sprites, I still love the crap out of the game.

I am not saying to completely ignore graphics, no not at all. Just don't let them overtake the idea that video games are for fun: Not for watching. In short: Gameplay>Graphics.

That is all =P		2010-08-28 22:46:00

Author:
Laharl
Posts: 152

If you won't play a game because it's graphics aren't 'The Best', then you don't deserve to play it.2010-08-28 23:48:00

Author:
Kog
Posts: 2358

Yeah, I remember my days of playing GTA San Andreas:

- Flying on a Hydra at full speed with "Free Bird" playing on radio;
- "Coz I'm freeeee... Biiiird... Yeah!";
- Tree spawns infront of me;
- OMGZ!!! EJECT!!1one
- Ka-booom! Wasted!!!


you just summed up my first GTA SA experience		2010-08-28 23:48:00

Author:
oldage
Posts: 2824

i prefer gameplay over graphics. but Crysis have AMAZING graphics, and very good gameplay!
i think they are the only one who have made a game, with that good graphics and gameplay mixed.
And LBP ofc

Just look at final fantasy, amazing graphics, but medicore gameplay.		2010-08-29 00:14:00

Author:
Jonaolst
Posts: 935

Thats not depth perception it's hitting an object like a tree because its graphics don't load until after you hit it.

Actually, it totally is. If you have a bunch of untextured and unshaded objects even parallax is not much help... Furthermore, improper perspectives will mess with you as well.

Anyways, the vast majority of people that claim to only care about gameplay are simply in denial. They don't want to be considered a "graphics snob", even if they actually are.

I am a mixture of both, granted I regard them as completely separate things. For instance, I purchased Killzone 2 solely for the graphics in the game. I have a fascination with computer graphics, and Killzone 2 is quite impressive... I certainly do not have it for its gameplay (it's not bad, but it's not fantastic either). On the other hand, I love nethack. Nethack has no graphical elements, and it happens to be one of my favorite games...

That being said, there are definitely instances where the graphics in games have ruined it for me... Not because they were just bad, but because they have gotten in the way of the gameplay (by making it hard to see, just plain hurting my eyes, etc...). There are some graphical problems that irk me somewhat, and they stay in the back of my mind and pester me... Such as in the new Ratchet and Clank games... They don't shadow map everything, so there are times where the shadows look really weird. Say the character is standing on a cube... You will get shadows on the end of the cube of the character that would not normally be exposed to the light, in the real world the whole side would be shadowed. Instead you end up with an outline of the character that looks really out of place. This is, however, forgivable... Why? Because it's a stylistic choice. The game would look a lot darker if everything were shadowed, or the shadows would have to be a lot less noticeable. The problem lies in the fact that they are essentially combining two entirely different lighting systems in the same image. One is a more cartoony way of lighting, with every surface being lit with about the same amount of ambient light. Essentially with this method the light from a source will go through an object and illuminate sides that would normally be occluded. The other method, which is more similar to how light works in our world, has it so that the light can be blocked by objects. This allows for shadows, while the former method does not. The shadows on the game are definitely a nice touch too, though. They add an extra bit of depth and give the player a little extra orientation on the trickier jumps. Also, the shadow mapping in the games is exceptionally well done. The occasional artifact simply can't be helped, however. Ultimately these artifacts aren't very noticeable, and they certainly don't ruin the game. It was a design choice, and it made a compromise (a few artifacts). The choice to include shadows for the characters made the game feel much more polished to me, though. It adds more visually than it took away.

Back on track... There are also visual glitches that I find inexcusable. Things that could have been fixed quite easily, or should not happen in the first place. For instance, I find really terrible aliasing artifacts to be just plain wrong these days (and they're very common too, at least on consoles). I realize that anti-aliasing is a relatively expensive process, but I would gladly have other graphical goodies scaled back in order to provide some decent anti-aliasing. There are still exceptions to this, though... Like, infamous for instance. It uses a method of deferred shading, which would likely mess with anti-aliasing.

My point is that it's annoying to be subject to a significant amount of eye-gouging graphical flaws that make the game hard to look at. I have nothing against "bad graphics", really. I would gladly play a relatively "simple" looking game if it had decent anti-aliasing and whatnot (which is certainly not out of reach with current hardware). I hate it when developers seem to make stupid design choices that leave the game in a graphical wreck. Nethack, for instance, is not a problem. It's clear what everything is. It's not hard to parse visually, well once you learn how to play, unlike some of todays games. That's the main problem I have with graphics actually, when they make it difficult to see and focus. In other words, when the graphics actually get in the way I have a huge problem with them. When they aren't actually damaging the gameplay I don't care too much, but a little eye-candy is still a nice touch sometimes. There's certainly no harm in a little eye-candy, at least.

The real problem, however, is people who greatly over exaggerate the graphics in certain games... To the point where they are absolutely blinded by it. "OH MY ZOMG, KILLZONE 2 DESERVES GAME OF THE YEAR!!!" is simply untrue. Killzone 2 might not actually be a bad game, but the biggest thing it has going for it is the graphics, really... It simply doesn't deserve game of the year just because of all the flash and whatnot. It is, after all, supposed to be a GAME of the year, not a painting.

Whenever somebody refuses to play a game, or mocks it because of its graphics (like nethack)... I think that's an issue to, but hey. Their loss.

edit:

Oh man, am I the only person who was completely disappointed by Crysis? I was extremely unimpressed by both the gameplay, and the graphics.		2010-08-29 00:55:00

Author:
microchirp
Posts: 412

Holy mother of paragraphs!

Anyway, I like a mixture of both. These days I really don't care just as long as the game is playable and bearable. In other words, I want my money's worth of the games I purchase.		2010-08-29 01:22:00

Author:
siberian_ninja15
Posts: 444

Oh man, am I the only person who was completely disappointed by Crysis? I was extremely unimpressed by both the gameplay, and the graphics.

graphics are awesome, story is just complete BS.		2010-08-29 01:42:00

Author:
oldage
Posts: 2824

I think that it would be a mixture for me. Although the stuff that oldage said about minecraft earlier, that game really is great! I wouldn't say it's ugly though, just simple.2010-08-29 01:47:00

Author:
eagerneph
Posts: 1536

It sort of depends on the game, but gameplay should always be the first priority. Some games only become as memorable as they are because their graphics are able to properly frame the experience they provide, but too much emphasis on graphics over gameplay is almost always a mistake. Conversely, some games actually benefit from using more antiquated (but time-tested) graphics if it is part of the point of those games in question, but a game with noticably sloppy graphics that serve no point other then to make the game's presentation worse then it could be can make a game not only look bad but play bad as well.2010-08-29 07:00:00

Author:
Dapiek Absaroka
Posts: 512

Graphics.

I love eyecandy.		2010-08-29 15:23:00

Author:
Alec
Posts: 3871

The key word of video game is video, ie. what you actually see (and hear). Graphics IMO are a part of the gameplay because it's how the game is communicating the game world to you. I feel that "bad graphics" has nothing to do with polygon count or texture resolution, or fancy shaders or whatever, but it has to do with A) Art Direction B) the ability to process what's going on in the world.

Some elements of "Bad Graphics" in my opinion:

A) Bad Camera - ruins ANY game.
B) "Pop in" - when objects kind of pop into view when you get near them.
C) Unclear User Interfaces - makes any game more frustrating than it has to be
D) Bad Lighting - Games that are too dark or otherwise make it hard to see where you're going.
E) Bad Frame Rate - I would gladly take away a few polygons or textures if it meant a consistent 60 frames per second.
etc.

This all is part of the graphics, it's all part of the rendering portion of the engine, and it also has a direct impact on gameplay. So in my opinion graphics is part of gameplay.

What I think the OP means and most people when they say "good graphics" ... is stuff like really high resolution bump mapping on characters, all the "realistic" effects that make the game look like it's being viewed by a cheap camera, brown (real = brown), etc.

In this case, it's definitely more important to focus on gameplay but like I say, it's a package deal.




Oh man, am I the only person who was completely disappointed by Crysis? I was extremely unimpressed by both the gameplay, and the graphics.

Funny, I always thought the same thing. Crysis looks so "good" only because they use really high resolution normal maps and what not, like that's so hard to do. "Let's see how much we can stress the hardware without being anymore artistic than the competition!" While ironically a lot of the game looks... flat. Especially the vegetation, it looks so flatly lit.		2010-08-29 15:32:00

Author:
Foofles
Posts: 2278

Oh man, am I the only person who was completely disappointed by Crysis? I was extremely unimpressed by both the gameplay, and the graphics.

I liked it

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb88/waaagh_my_ride/crysis.jpg

Okay so this screenshot may be a bit bright but compared to other games on the market and considering how old the game is I think it deserves the praise its received.

Also its very modable and that of course brings us extra levels and gameplay so I think crysis was overall a solid game (forget the campaign ending, or in fact anything after the aliens ><). Warhead I would certainly say was a much better experience though so I would recommend it if you haven't tried it.

On the poll I go for a bit of both but I would also say that story and audio will also affect how good a game is; deus ex has aging animations and character models but the story means that the game is still great even today.		2010-08-29 16:42:00

Author:
Shermzor
Posts: 1330

Both, but not necessarily all the time. For example, old megaman games were nothing to look at in amazement, but they were very fun. On the other hand, games like Shadow of the Colossus wouldn't of been as epic had they not had such awesome graphics to capture the atmosphere and scale of the world around you. At times it's just a pleasure to look at the landscape, as it's so beautifully created.

Also, I can run Crysis on max and I must say it's very nice to play a good game that also looks stunning.		2010-08-29 18:39:00

Author:
ryryryan
Posts: 3767

graphics are awesome, story is just complete BS.

What choo talkin' bout? The story was amazing: 'Kill the Koreans, oh no aliens. BOSS.'		2010-08-29 23:07:00

Author:
Kog
Posts: 2358

I believe that the Game Play is the most important because if the game is not fun and entertaining, who would want to buy it?
Take Super Mario 64 for example. It is a really fun game to play even though the graphics are not as great as today's games. The game is huge, it has a storyline and it was a top seller of its time!
I really enjoy games that have a great storyline even if the graphics suck.		2010-08-29 23:17:00

Author:
theonlybub
Posts: 690

Gameplay > Graphics (within reason)2010-08-31 12:05:00

Author:
Unknown User

Both, if I can get it


Both, but not necessarily all the time. For example, old megaman games were nothing to look at in amazement, but they were very fun. On the other hand, games like Shadow of the Colossus wouldn't of been as epic had they not had such awesome graphics to capture the atmosphere and scale of the world around you. At times it's just a pleasure to look at the landscape, as it's so beautifully created.

I'd have to agree. It really does depend on the game. I've played both megaman games and SotC and loved both. Especially on the megaman side, I loved the old battle network games, and they never really had graphics. I liked SotC because of the amazing graphics, the gameplay was okay, but the graphics really helped the game. That, and crawling all over a giant monster and stabbing it to take it down. 		2010-09-06 16:32:00

Author:
AdenRalumdan
Posts: 296

Mixture of both. I love pretty stuff. But the pretty stuff needs something fun to be pretty as well.2010-09-06 21:07:00

Author:
moonwire
Posts: 1627

Depends on the game. Heavy rain would suck in 8 bit graphics 2010-09-07 01:37:00

Author:
TheJollyRajah
Posts: 466

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb88/waaagh_my_ride/crysis.jpg


That is the sexiest game screenshot I have ever seen.		2010-09-07 01:43:00

Author:
Bremnen
Posts: 1800

Depends on the game. Heavy rain would suck in 8 bit graphics
Haha, no way man! It would be intense.

That would be so interesting to design...		2010-09-07 02:32:00

Author:
microchirp
Posts: 412

Of course it's a mixture of both because a game without graphic or without gameplay cannot be playable!

However, I think gameplay is more important. It's possible that I like a less good looking game for its gameplay but no matter how much beautiful you paint on your bad game, it still stays a bad game.

.		2010-09-07 02:38:00

Author:
RangerZero
Posts: 3901

Of course it's a mixture of both because a game without graphic or without gameplay cannot be playable!

However, I think gameplay is more important. It's possible that I like a less good looking game for its gameplay but no matter how much beautiful you paint on your bad game, it still stays a bad game.

.
What about Zork? What about Nethack?		2010-09-07 04:15:00

Author:
microchirp
Posts: 412

The first thing I do when I get a new PC game is play with some sound mods. The graphics can be really poor but poor sound bugs me more.

Gameplay is more important than both sound and graphics, but what I find exciting (simulators) might not be exciting gameplay for other people, so there's a lot of variation in what constitutes good gameplay as well as graphics/sound.		2010-09-07 06:20:00

Author:
Ayneh
Posts: 2454

What about Zork? What about Nethack?

Never played those games. Should I ?

.		2010-09-07 17:57:00

Author:
RangerZero
Posts: 3901

Gameplay. If you put Graphics, go buy a Blu-Ray movie.2010-09-07 18:42:00

Author:
kirbyman62
Posts: 1893

Gameplay. 2010-09-07 18:44:00

Author:
Boomy
Posts: 3701

Gameplay because a game can have bad graphics, but if the gameplay is fun, solid, and enjoyable, I'll play it, and enjoy it. by bad graphics, I mean it to a certain extent in which as long as stuff just don't spontaneously appear in front of me and kill me, or if I don't enjoy go near the object and die, I'm fine.2010-09-07 21:24:00

Author:
Phosphorus15
Posts: 463

gameplay. fire pro wrestling FTW2010-09-07 22:23:00

Author:
TheAdipose
Posts: 533

Never played those games. Should I ?

.
Yes. Yes, you should.

Nethack is probably a better example of how graphics most certainly do not make the game.

http://alt.org/nethack/

Do note that there is a steep learning curve, there's a lot to learn at the start... There's a lot to learn in general, since there is so much that you can do. The game is also pretty difficult, but it's really worth it, I think.		2010-09-07 23:46:00

Author:
microchirp
Posts: 412

I always like a good balance.2010-09-10 03:06:00

Author:
X-FROGBOY-X
Posts: 1800

Graphics matter but gameplay comes out on top. Both are really important though, baring in mind that "good graphics" doesn't necessarily translate to "realistic graphics" you can't have one without the other.

I'd rather bare with a little eye bleeding if it meant fun gameplay than play something painfully boring with good graphics.

I'd say it goes:

1. Gameplay
2. Graphics
3. Music/SFX
4. Story/Narrative

I know their are a lot of story lovers out there but you can't say that something like Mario is ruined due to a bad story. All of those can contribute towards making a game better or worse. For me it's those top 3 that can make or break a game, a good story is just a nice bonus.		2010-09-10 05:12:00

Author:
Dexiro
Posts: 2100


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.