Graphics vs Gameplay

[dutchmastakilla]

I am more anal about animation rather than graphics. A game can have great graphics and amazing gameplay but be anime or some sort of tacky visual style and be a definite deal breaker. ( i.e. Bayonetta, Borderlands, Darksiders, and most JRPG'S )

Honestly though its incredible being able to control a piece of art. A lot of developers take the easy way out and just go for their run at the mill FPS or TPS / adventure game that looks like its straight out of a hollywood b movie. So no graphics are not important in the least bit , but they are a nice addition.

A lot of games now a days are trying to pull of the trifecta of graphics,gameplay,animation. Batman AA pulled of the graphics and animation bit but the gameplay really hurt its longevity. I just don't really have fun playing some bulging bat boy spin kicking bad guys around in a unitard while wielding more gadgets than the rich kid from 9th grade homeroom. Id rather the characters be someone whose agile and has freedom of movement and original combat/weapons. ( I.E. Bionic Commando, MW2)

Same goes for Assassin's Creed 2. Ok, gorgeous game no complaining there, but the game wont last because of boring gameplay.
I like how a lot of games now a days ARE focusing on gameplay though. MAG has pretty busted visuals but is a great deal of fun, Bioshock 2 is surprisingly really fun in both multi and single player but is sort of lacking in the graphics department.

And finally there are a select few games that get it right and pull off all three and are some of the best games out there. L4D2, Team Fortress 2, Street Fighter 4, and Im sure tons more games to come. Heavy Rain looks pretty promising.

 

[Eponet]

They're not overly important, but I find that they need to be at least fill the shoes it tries to wear. For instance, Final Fantasy 7 looks horrid, and it detracts from the atmosphere.

However, the graphics in games such as Golden Sun or FF4 don't look bad at all, because it doesn't give the impression that it was even trying to look good, it's the sort of thing that you expect from the game.

 

[Pokeylope]

I see a lot of No-s which makes me happy

Some of my favorite games are things like World of Goo, and Puzzle Quest. Great premises with less than astounding graphics.
Not to mention all the folks dedicated to the 'retro' games thing. I like lookin at pretty graphics, but even an 8-bit game, or a flash game can be beautiful if done correctly.

 

[jamesworkshop]

No, not a vs thread, but rather a question.

Is it really required for a game to have good graphics to be deemed good? I ask this because many reviews I read nowadays bash games if their graphics don't wow the critic.

Why should graphics take priority in these situations? They fill their niche for sure, but they are not integral to a game.

Take for example WOW. Terrible graphics, by today's standards, sub par when the game was released. But does that stop the game from earning millions of accounts?

Or how about Starcraft? It's graphics are a joke, but it is stilled played by approximately four hundred percent of Korea's population to this day.

I suppose this question is more aimed at FPS's, where everything must be compared to either Crysis, or Modern Warfare 2. Why? Why should a game meet the requirements of a super computer, or the newest AAA game to be considered good?

Many of the AVP reviews I have been reading really like to ***** about the graphics. I seriously don't give a shit, the game looks fine. Who cares if it doesn't look as good as MW2? Its functional, it knows what it is doing. Why must it be compared and then declared outdated, simply because it doesn't look as good as something else?

Do you think that Graphics should take priority over gameplay?

Not really sure what you are getting at since no reviewer says things like the graphics of MW2 make the gameplay of AVP boring.
They are comparing graphics to graphics and nothing else, having good graphics makes a game better and since these reviewers clear are not giving games 35/100 just because other games look prettier it's clear that they are not really placing a lot of value in graphics or even spending that much time saying that a game is good on its own merits just because other games exist that are not as good.
The only person equating graphics to gameplay is you.

 

[Agayek]

Good graphics are very nice, and I, for one, am almost certainly going to be more interested in a game with better graphics that I don't know anything else about.

That said, all it takes is for the appearance to not actually grate on my sensibilities and I find it perfectly acceptable.

 

[Straz]

The movie Avatar is the answer to this question.

Nice graphics are lovely to gaze upon, but are not a substitute for good content.

Concur.

 

[end_boss]

I am a huge advocate for Gameplay over Graphics, but I do have to admit that there are some games whose graphics render them unplayable to me now. Alone in the Dark (the original on PC) still stands as one of my favourite games of all time, but since DOSBox came out, I gave it a shot and the graphics were almost indecipherable to me. They were great for the time, but they did not age well at all, and so I now refuse to play it and allow it to exist simply as a sweet memory.

Graphics can also play a role in secondary ways. On one hand, in a game like Pirates! and Pirates! Gold (VGA), they are both the exact same game, but the latter has a graphics upgrade. Given that they're exactly the same otherwise, I simply might as well play the one with the better graphics. But, on the flip side of the coin, Pirates! Gold was then re-re-released with 3D graphics, and so, I bought the newer version under the same rationale. Objectively speaking, the 3D version had "better" graphics than the VGA sprites. But in my opinion, I LIKE the VGA graphics way better! The 3D version became very cartoony, which I really didn't like.

VGA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKNK3SW4-O8

3D: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y36esmVzLp4&feature=related

I do appreciate what they were trying to do, and I did play the 3D version quite extensively regardless (because when I say graphics don't mean that much, that works both ways, and the 3D version had some gameplay tweaks). But on a purely graphical basis, I actually liked the sprite-based and less goofy version better.

 

[Wintermoot]

graphics dont make a game but I have limits I dont play games that where released before the NES (with some exceptions)

 

[Woodsey]

No, but graphics directly influnece gameplay which a lot of people seem to forget when they say graphics don't matter.

 

[geon106]

Personally graphics aren't particularly important however good graphics does help make a game more immersive. I mean I enjoy playing Crysis just to look at the landscape for example but the gameplay isn't particularly good

On the flip side, I often play Transport Tycoon Deluxe, a game from 1994 but is one of the best micro-management games ever.

I think gameplay is what its all about but good graphics can help, I guess it depends on the particular game and yourself

 

[oppp7]

Hell no. Graphics are the last thing you should judge a game by. As long as they don't interfere with gameplay who cares?

 

[Honkymagoo]

I could give a fuck about photo-realism but graphics matter on some level. It's more about whether I find the style to be pleasing or that it works with the game itself. A lot of it has to do with atmosphere.

One argument I always make about graphics is that the 8-bit and 16-bit era was the golden era of video games for a lot of reasons. To this day the SNES still has some of my favorite graphics in video games. My point being that while the PS1 had a lot of great games it's actually a bit difficult to go back and play them sometimes due to how poorly the games have aged. Most games in that era had extremely bland textures and primitive 3D / bad camera angles that made the games very difficult to play. This means games that are much older than PS1 games are still more relevant in 2010.

I think all the shiny HD graphics and all that are really extraordinary and nice to look at but it comes off as more of a gimmick than anything. People are experimenting with new technologies and styles right now to see what they can do (not unlike film makers throughout the early 1900's) so I believe that things will level off eventually and make a more complete package of gameplay and visuals once again. One thing that bothers me is how "cinematic" devs are trying to make their games. I would like video games and film to stay separate, tyvm.

Sorry that this post was so huge.

 

[JEBWrench]

Graphics certainly matter, they help build immersion. They are the primary connection to the game world for the player, and with overly dated graphics, you lose that connection, and wind up just playing with an overpriced calculator for 5-40 hours.

They don't have to be outstanding graphics, no, but they have to be believable in context, and have to be coherent.

Is Gameplay more important? Depends. The look of adventure games can often times help the frequent mechanical shortfalls. (My beloved Myst series, for example, up until it went real-time first-person for the finale).

In most any story-driven game with turn-based combat, shoddy graphics will make the interest in a game gradually decline. Once again, this doesn't mean modern "OMG graphix" per se - Final Fantasy Tactics is still bloody gorgeous, for example - but without an appealing graphical style, it gets dull. (Dynasty Tactics, which also owns a place in my heart, suffers from this shortfall).

 

[Baby Tea]

Graphics(speaking of physics and animation+ detail) are the gateway to better gameplay and storytelling. Would ME2 have even had close to the impact it did if it has subpar graphics and facial animation. WOuld uncharted 2 be as "good" with a static environment with only standard lighting, and animation?

This is an excellent point.
Great graphics helps pull you into the world the developers created.

Obviously that world needs to have some story-telling meat and character that the graphics can actually enhance, but you can't say that graphics don't matter at all. In some cases they don't, but the more complex, the more emotionally driven, and the more 'real' the developers want the game to be, the more it's going to have to look good to get those feelings across.

 

[IntangibleFate]

I think that it is important to see what graphics have done to certain titles. I think a great example of it is the Socom series. Gameplay went down as graphics got better. I think it works this way with a lot of shooter games. Hit detection seems to go down as graphics go up.

 

[Sun Flash]

Meh, Graphics rate below gameplay/story/voice acting but I still want them to be satisfactory.

As long as they are not Eye Gougingly bad (I'm looking at you 1996 Playstation)I'm cool with Graphics.

 

[Kollega]

I will say you what - the "visual department" (technical and design sides) is only slightly less important than gameplay. I mean yeah, the gameplay is what we come in for, but good visuals are important for other reason - so we can play the game without being distracted by poor visual quality.

[HEADING=2]HOWEVER,[/HEADING]

there is a catch. When it comes to "visual department", good design outweighs good technical side by far. I have that one game based on Looney Tunes, Sheep Dog N' Wolf, with PS1-era graphcs. But thanks to clever application of cel-shading, it's graphics are still tolerable - nay, enjoyable - even in this day and age. Or take Psychonauts (yeah, beaten example, i know). It looks better thab Modern Warfare 2 or Darksiders or whatever - because it has original design, as opposed to lame attempts at "photorealism" and "GRIMDAKR" respectively.

So what i'm trying to say is that visuals are important - but it's more about good design than hyperadvanced tech.

 

[Nikajo]

Well lets just say I've been playing baldur's gate recently if graphics really bothered me I wouldn't be touching that with a 20 foot pole! I still think it's one of the best game ever made.

 

[high_castle]

I'm still a regular player of the Baldur's Gate series. Considering the games came out in the 90s, you can imagine the graphical quality. But I play games more for the story than the graphics, so even on current gen titles I'll forgive graphical downgrades if the rest of the game is really good. People complained about Dragon Age, too, and I absolutely adore this game.

 

[Delock]

I'm really tired of this arguement because in truth, both are necessary and any cutbacks really do harm the game itself. You can go on and on about how graphics are unnecessary and how you really do like the story/voice acting/level design/etc. but truth is, if there's a graphics problem, immersion can suffer a huge blow. I'm going to use Psychonauts as an example here (read on before you get angry aboout it). It wasn't that it had bad graphics, in fact the cartoon graphics for the most part were the best defense against the advancing standard of realistic graphics, it was that at points I would be looking at someone who moved so fluidly and seemed perfectly designed, only to meet what looked like a sock puppet later. Also, my game had a problem where Raz would lose most of his detail and have a turquoise body from the neck down that pretty much tore me out of the immersion with a violent jerk. The story, writing, voice acting, animation, creativity, and level design (save for meat circus) made up for it, but I'd like you to note that it took all of those to do that.
Another example I have is the worshipped FF7. Sure it did a lot and is widely loved, but trying to play it now is hard. It's sometimes difficult to tell what is what in the environment, the characters don't seem to fit in at points because the mood is dark but the characters are both bright and chibi like, and the world map looks like so fake that it makes you cringe and want to go back into the place you just exited if only for the scenery to look better. It doesn't really break the game, but you can't say that you can ignore it.

In addition, I'd like to name Metal Gear Solid 4's final segment for graphics making the game better. I'm talking about Microwave tunnel and onwards here. Tell me that if the characters looked like stick figures that you would feel the pain they were going through. Tell me that if you didn't see the effects of that tunnel in those graphics that it would have the same effect. Try to say that watching the battle between the former 2 greatest warriors would be the same if you didn't see what looked so much like real people straining to land those blows (However, animation, sound effects, and voice acting did help this out). It just would be wrong.



Now for an important part of a game no one seems to touch on. The example this time: SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS. This is a game where the graphics have aged (not too much though but still it doesn't look so pretty any more). The game is all about using as little as possible to let you tell the story. This also means that there is not a lot of story or voice acting to compensate. However, I would gladly buy this game again if they do bundle it with ICO for a PS3 edition even if they didn't rework the graphics. Why? Because the real thing that makes the game great is your reaction. Shadow of the Colossus is a game where every time I play it, I feel a different way. The story is not all that unique (damsel in distress, deal with a higher power to defeat those it wants you to kill in exchange for something), the hero isn't really a hero (he's a village boy who doesn't really even know how to swing the sword he has, much less have a mastery of a secret technique), the person you work for doesn't even insult you (he/she/it speaks about 3 lines about the next enemy in all but 2 situations), there aren't many characters, and you really only fight 17 (ending counts) times in the game, but somehow it still finds a way to get to you. Because it features a huge, empty world, you are given time to think. The characters aren't defined enough, so you have to fill in the blanks. The ending is particularly open for interpretation (which of the 3 characters was the real villain? Was you know who really a good person and just misunderstood? Did that person protect the hero, or was that his enemy, or even just an unintended side effect?). When you beat an enemy you either feel satisfaction or pity, and don't think that's all you're limited to or that it won't change with each playthrough. The game isn't exactly a revolution in plot or gameplay (horseriding, shooting arrows, lock-on system, and climbing have all been done before) and the graphics aren't great, but it is an amazing game.

To conclude, I'd also like to say that all games are different: some are meant to be played for fun, where gameplay is more important, while others rely on telling a story, in which graphics can really be a big help to get into a players head. However, the most important thing is that it gives you an experience equal to the amount you paid for it.