Graphics vs Gameplay

[MetalMantheRevenge]

I saw the new Goldeneye at E3 and someone said it looked like shit, but someone else said "as long as it's fun like the 64 version, it's fine"

So I propose the question.

Which would you buy? A game that looks like shit, but was fun as hell. Or A game that has the most advanced graphics ever. But was boring.

 

[Crayzor]

Neither. I want a decent balance between the two. It doesn't have to be beautiful, and it doesn't have to be the most fun to play ever, but I like games to display at least a decent quality of both.

 

[cieply]

People are playing minecraft. People are playing starcraf.

It's not about the graphics but art direction and such that can make a game feel pretty even when it's not. But it's gameplay that's most important, indie devs and flash games proove it time and time again.

 

[z3rostr1fe]

A balance of both... Don't force me to only choosing either of the two because you'll need both to have it become awesome...

 

[SirDeadly]

I don't give two shits about graphics just as long as the game is fun

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

I take substance over flash any day.

 

[RadiusXd]

have you played deus ex?
if I went to another planet and i was bringing 1 game, that would be it.

 

[MetalMantheRevenge]

Why post such a stupid question? obviously everyone will say gameplay.

Not so, if you look above you. You'd notice some people said both.

 

[LogicNProportion]

I would like both, but, of course gameplay is more wanted in a game.

Tetris kicks all the ass, and it's literally blocks.

What I do have a problem with, with bad or good graphics, is when the graphics start getting in the way of the gameplay. For example, Mirror's Edge blinding me or some budget game's texture mapping gets big blobs of nonexistence rising and colliding with the camera.

I would play Snake Eater over Guns of Patriots any day, in other words.

 

[Mr Thin]

People are playing minecraft.

Minecraft, wooooh!

Definitely gameplay; graphics are a wonderful, wonderful thing and I love them.

But gameplay is ever so slightly more important when it comes to... you know... a game.

 

[Snork Maiden]

It depends on what you mean by "looks like shit" there are some games that look so bad you can't play them and it physically hurts to try. They're rare and they're unplayable and most people just pretend they don't exist.

Dwaf Fortress really looks like shit - you really have to condition yourself to be used to the graphics, yet its fun as hell.

 

[tombman888]

well, between those two, i would pick the one where it looks shit, but plays well. whats the point of having a nice big world with lovely scenery if i can't do awesome shit to that world.

 

[Penguinness]

Which would you buy? A game that looks like shit, but was fun as hell. Or A game that has the most advanced graphics ever. But was boring.

Well I bought the most advanced graphics game ever, and it was boring (crysis). But I had to buy it to see. As for the fun bad looking games, I haven't really seen them around and I don't buy games for my wii. I prolly will buy goldeneye though.

Either way, both sides profit :/

 

[Jack_Uzi]

Gameplay. I still have a few old games on my computer. I've played out Dune recently for example. But crysis is lurking somewhere on my HD too.

 

[sephiroth1991]

I'll go with the gameplay, as long as it dosn't look too terrible i prepared to forgive it, take Fallout 3 for example it's not the most pritty game but its got solid gameplay and the open world kinda explains the look.

 

[zen5887]

Both are pretty important nowadays. Assuming we're talking about a big dev company there isn't really any excuse for a lack in either.

And indie dev however we can forgive for not having the best graphics.

 

[Safe in the Dark]

Looks like shit. Believe me man, my love for classic games has hardened me against any need for good graphics. If a games gameplay is good, I'll take the graphics no matter how bad they are. They're sort of like sprinkles on a cake. If they're there, great, but if not, no matter.

Granted, I like to see a bit of imagination in my graphics, but it doesn't matter if they're technically deficient.

I second this.

And I would just like to remind everyone....DEUS EX,terrible graphics,but the best stealth/rpt/fps game out there,I prefer a decent game to a pretty one.

 

[TelHybrid]

I expect a game to have both.

By good graphics, I don't mean high levels of detail and stuff like that. I want the style to reflect the feel and atmosphere of the game. I also want to be able to see what everything is clearly, and for the camera angles to be efficient.

Graphics are just as important as any other factor in a game, hence the term video game.

Of course gameplay needs to be fun, that's a given. As it's a video game.

 

[phoenix352]

it has to be Zen (balanced) one cannot dominate the other or it doesn't work, such is life.

 

[Wayneguard]

gameplay by far. I still play unreal tournament goty regularly. Morrowind is one of my favorite games of all time. Decent graphics don't hurt though.