About the Gameplay vs. Graphics debate

A game is good as long as it has great gameplay, true. But that isn't necessarily true for videogames. Videogames aren't called videogames for no reason. Essentially, they are supposed to combine the best of television/movies and games: they must both have good gameplay as well as a quality atmosphere.

So, you see, just because a game has good gameplay isn't an excuse for its art style or other aspects to suck. A new game released for the PS3 for $60 could have the best gameplay in years; but, if it had N64-ish graphics, terrible, repetitive music, and virtually no plot/scenario, it would still suck.

That's where I stand on "Gameplay vs. Graphics." A videogame needs to have an even quality in all of its aspects to truly be a memorable experience.

Where do you stand on this?

I'd rather have great gameplay and average graphics than great graphics and average gameplay.

That basically sums up my opinion on the matter.

You don't have to choose. There are games with great graphics and great gameplay, like Gears of War 1 & 2, MGS4, Halo 3, etc.

Originally Posted by Andross

terrible, repetitive music, and virtually no plot/scenario, it would still suck.

I don't see the connection between that and graphics. :O

And yeah. Gameplay>Graphics. That's not to say that Graphics aren't important; far from it. They're just... not as important. After all, if I just wanted to see something pretty with no decent interaction, I would watch a movie. One of the main reasons why I think the PS3 is mediocre. It focuses more on making every minute detail look nice then it does actually making a game. (Not directed to you, Little Big Planet)

Originally Posted by 315

You don't have to choose. There are games with great graphics and great gameplay, like Gears of War 1 & 2, MGS4, Halo 3, etc.

If you had to pick?

Originally Posted by King KK

I don't see the connection between that and graphics. :O

I was arguing how it isn't as simple as "Gameplay vs. Graphics," (Which I used as the title because that is, by far, the most common debate when speaking about what is the "most important" aspect of a videogame) and how a videogame has to have effort distributed to all of its aspects to be good.

After all, if I just wanted to see something pretty with no decent interaction, I would watch a movie.

Videogames aren't supposed to be games in the traditional sense; rather, they take the best aspects of movies and combines those aspects with the challenge and interactivity found in games.

You should expect both a quality art style and decent interaction.

It depends on what you mean by "Graphics", because I think overall "Design" is more important then "Graphics". When everything looks as if I have seen it many times before, however many polygons the game is throwing into my unsuspecting eyes, it doesn't impress me. Okami could have been dull and repetitive (oh wait...) and I still would have loved it. Metoid Prime 3 would have been a pretty poor example of a FPS, Wii controls or not, without the interesting locales and interesting mechanics of the worlds. What would Zelda be without the charming world and characters? None of these games have the best "graphics" of the day, but all have very impressive visuals.

It is this sort of "Graphics" which can make up for a game with unspectacualr gameplay.

But, importantly, I can still play N64 games If they havegood gameplay. However beautifully designed a game it, it wouldn't help if it had actually broken gameplay.

So that's where I stand.

Originally Posted by Andross

Videogames aren't called videogames for no reason. Essentially, they are supposed to combine the best of television/movies

How'd you figure? Even games from the 80's were called "Video Games". They relied purely on gameplay as graphics were a lot harder to manipulate. People survived for years on gameplay alone. Hell, if it were all down to graphics, then The Legend of Zelda would have failed from the get go.

Gameplay is everything, and GFX are just an added bonus.

Where do I stand? I'm very strong on the whole, "Gameplay is much much much much much much much much much much more important" stance.

I couldn't ever care less about the graphics. In my opinion, the quality of the graphics is just a treat. If it's bad, whatevs, as long as the gameplay is good.

Originally Posted by Duncan

How'd you figure? Even games from the 80's were called "Video Games". They relied purely on gameplay as graphics were a lot harder to manipulate. People survived for years on gameplay alone. Hell, if it were all down to graphics, then The Legend of Zelda would have failed from the get go.

Gameplay is everything, and GFX are just an added bonus.

What is important in a videogame have changed. Back then, it was incredibly hard to make a thematic-yet-interactive experience. Now, however, having a quality atmosphere and scenario is a necessity. Times have changed.

So, back then, the artistic qualities or plot of videogames were not as important. Now, however, they are a vital part of the form of art known as "videogames," just as gameplay is an important factor. These aspects are equally important, and a game isn't as majestic if it falls short in certain particular aspects.

I find it in the very simple factor of order:

Graphics - up to five points
Gameplay - up to ten points
with a max of 15. This isn't exactly 100% accurate, though, because a crysis-like game with very mediocre gameplay isn't, in most cases, better than one with ****ty graphics and amazing gameplay. This could do with some thinking.

Originally Posted by Forte

Where do I stand? I'm very strong on the whole, "Gameplay is much much much much much much much much much much more important" stance.

I couldn't ever care less about the graphics. In my opinion, the quality of the graphics is just a treat. If it's bad, whatevs, as long as the gameplay is good.

He basically said what I was going to say.

Originally Posted by Sam250

It depends on what you mean by "Graphics", because I think overall "Design" is more important then "Graphics".

Bravo!

Graphics lately seems to be all about realism, and by realism I mean making everything brown. We've gotten to the point in games where we can't get much closer to realism (I think), and this should mean that games should be branching out into the more interesting or surreal, using that technology to create beautiful games. But a lot of new games seem to pride themselves on.. well, using the most goddamn shades of brown.

I like games with a creative visual aesthetic. Technical graphics are not an issue.

That said, I play a lot of DS games, so my opinion on this is almost irrelevant xD And yes, gameplay is important for me, probably more than visuals.

@Bex
Crysis and Farcry would like to have a word with you.

Man, I haven't played Far Cry for aaaages xD I don't even remember what it was like.

Originally Posted by Andross

A game is good as long as it has great gameplay, true. But that isn't necessarily true for videogames. Videogames aren't called videogames for no reason. Essentially, they are supposed to combine the best of television/movies and games: they must both have good gameplay as well as a quality atmosphere.

Me, I'd focus on the fact that they're videogames, not "videos" .


Really, the trump card here is Super Mario Bros. By modern standards the graphics are really bad. The gameplay, however, is exceptional.

I prefer Super Mario Bros. to, say, Oblivion, despite the latter looking orders of magnitude better.

So, you see, just because a game has good gameplay isn't an excuse for its art style or other aspects to suck. A new game released for the PS3 for $60 could have the best gameplay in years; but, if it had N64-ish graphics, terrible, repetitive music, and virtually no plot/scenario, it would still suck.

See above, SMB holds up exceptionally well because it had good gameplay. Whereas games that looked amazing from the same era (or even much later) but had poor gameplay are all forgotten because graphics don't age well and aren't necessary to have fun, while good gameplay is always key.



However, yes, graphics design also trumps raw graphical ability to me. Okami, despite being graphically pretty average (It was, after all, a PS2 title) looks amazing due to it's design.

Same with, say, Wind Waker, or The World Ends With You which will age very well indeed due to how well stylized they are.

Something like Half-Life 1 hasn't aged well graphically because it goes for a realistic look. It's remembered solely for it's gameplay, not for how nice it looks.

Okami, however, will probably be remembered for a pretty long time based solely on how well it did that "living painting" look.

Originally Posted by John

Me, I'd focus on the fact that they're videogames, not "videos" .


Really, the trump card here is Super Mario Bros. By modern standards the graphics are really bad. The gameplay, however, is exceptional.

I prefer Super Mario Bros. to, say, Oblivion, despite the latter looking orders of magnitude better.


See above, SMB holds up exceptionally well because it had good gameplay. Whereas games that looked amazing from the same era (or even much later) but had poor gameplay are all forgotten because graphics don't age well and aren't necessary to have fun, while good gameplay is always key.



However, yes, graphics design also trumps raw graphical ability to me. Okami, despite being graphically pretty average (It was, after all, a PS2 title) looks amazing due to it's design.

Same with, say, Wind Waker, or The World Ends With You which will age very well indeed due to how well stylized they are.

Something like Half-Life 1 hasn't aged well graphically because it goes for a realistic look. It's remembered solely for it's gameplay, not for how nice it looks.

Okami, however, will probably be remembered for a pretty long time based solely on how well it did that "living painting" look.

I'll argue that the reason we still see Super Mario Bros. as being able to compete with, say, Fallout 3 is because of purely nostalgic reasons.

In 50 years, gamers of that era won't see Super Mario Bros. the same way gamers of this era see it.

Gameplay is the most important.

But the thing is, if a game has fantastic gameplay, then it's more than likely that the devs of the game put the time and effort into making the Graphics/Sound/Control at least good, right?

That's what I think. But I care most about gameplay. ^_^

I think you're right, nostalgia does play a huge part in it. But I wouldn't say it is the whole part. That franchise was just fantastic in terms of 2D platforming.

I think it's nostalgia value actually has more to do with it's perceived visual merit than in terms of gameplay.

Originally Posted by Bex

I think you're right, nostalgia does play a huge part in it. But I wouldn't say it is the whole part. That franchise was just fantastic in terms of 2D platforming.

I think it's nostalgia value actually has more to do with it's perceived visual merit than in terms of gameplay.

I'll put how I feel about Super Mario Bros. in to words.

Super Mario Bros. is like those old silent films of the movie industry. They're respected for being classics, but they aren't seen as defining masterpieces such as Godfather or so on. Super Mario Bros. was an early pioneer; the standards are more defined now.