Poll: Gameplay vs Graphics

[Abomination]

FUNCTIONAL graphics are important, the game doesn't have to look stunning but that's not an excuse for it to look like arse.

That being said, I would happily play Total War: Rome II in the diplomatic window and fight the battles with the strategic view only. Sure it's nice to see troops mashing into each other, screams of the slain and the whistling of projectiles but I'm more concerned with commanding an army to flank my opponent. The mechanics are far more important than the graphics when you've got the basics down.

The graphics just need to complement the gameplay, not supplement it.

Therefore gameplay is most important? but graphics impact upon gameplay if they are poor.

 

[Hero of Lime]

I wish this poll didn't have the wishy washy answer, we need a direct answer!

I voted Gameplay, granted, a game with great gameplay and graphics is amazing by all means. However, since I'm giving a definite choice between the two, it's simple. A game being as fun as it can be will always be a better option as opposed to being the prettiest it can be.

 

[Berny Marcus]

Dragon Age: Origins comes to mind.

I must have really low standards, because I thought the graphics of DA:O were good.

I didn't say they were bad, but compared to Bioware's games like Mass Effect, DA: O didn't really have that much detailed graphics, they weren't shitty, but not the best.

 

[scorptatious]

Gameplay is definitely more important.

That being said, I do like it if a game also has a decent presentation. Not absolutely amazing, but something that's at least somewhat attractive.

 

[novem]

Gameplay over graphics but I would actually put compelling narrative ahead of both. In order for me to play a game long enough to care about either gameplay or graphics I need a compelling reason to move forward. There are a couple games that get around this with truly unique gameplay experiences but they are pretty few and far between.

 

[Tanakh]

He says that the AI on the old game is superb and makes much smarter decisions than any modern game.

I find this very hard to believe, maybe he likes it best but would bet money on this one http://www.cs.umd.edu/~nau/bridge/ or this other http://www.bridgebuff.com/products.html#bridgebuff are just better at the game. I think your father is into that old program due nostalgia and feeling comfortable in his old ways, which is fine.

OT: I play most of my games on the lowest possible settings, to help me focus on the action, examples of this are SC 2 and SF IV; it's a common practice in PvP games. Also, unlike some fellas on the thread for me gameplay >>>> graphics >>>>>>>> narrative in around 90% of my playtime.

 

[Bonecrusher]

They are equally important. Games need a good balance of both.

I agree. Even a game has the bestest gameplaye evah, if it has a crappy ui, bad visuals, ancient-looking graphics, I'll not play that game.

Most gamers say "gameplay matters, graphics not", but they tend to appraise graphics. Even if it is a 2D game, clear sprites, easy interface, beautiful backgrounds are important.

So I say "False dichotomy; both can be good in the same game"

 

[DementedSheep]

If I had to pick one I'd say gamplay but that doesn't mean graphics (or at least a nice aesthetic that works with the level of tech) are unimportant.
A game that looks like ass can still be very fun. Likewise I can get enjoyment out of a game purely for the visuals so long as the gameplay is bearable (Alice: Madness Returns is pretty much this to me). Gameplay, graphics and narrative are just pieces of the whole. One part being fantastic can cover for the others to an extent but ideally all parts would be good. Gameplay is the most important since I can get good stories and pretty things to look at elsewhere but it takes all 3 to make a truly outstanding game.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Gameplay is always the most important. Even if the graphics are 10/10 and the story is 10000/10 it wouldn't be worth playing if the gameplay was bad.
Graphics, story and such are like seasonings. They make a game much better, but do nothing if the base game is bad.

 

[xyrafhoan]

For me, gameplay is the biggest thing that keeps me attached to a game, and I bundle the interface under gameplay. So long as I can tell what the graphics are meant to represent and don't make me physically ill, I can deal with it. Cumbersome controls and poor menu management are way more likely to turn me off of older games, otherwise I could deal with games that look like they came out of the SNES/PS1 era my entire life. Story and good graphics are the icing on the cake. If it sucks completely, yeah, it'll ruin the foundation. But even if it's mediocre the cake will still be okay. Now if everything is amazing then that's great, but I'm fully capable of enjoying say, Etrian Odyssey more than a lot of other games on the market and it's not exactly groundbreaking in either story nor graphics. The Persona port on the PSP is the only game I can think of where the graphics were almost the deal breaker, and that's to the point where I was becoming physically nauseous just trying to play the game.

 

[Rednog]

I never really understood this "gameplay vs graphics" argument. They really aren't mutually exclusive (except when you start bordering on the fringes of games. You can only go so far with gameplay if you don't have the graphics to support it. More graphics means more objects in the environment to interact with, you couldn't pull off the complexity of gameplay in something like GTA5 if you didn't have the engine/graphics to back it up. Why else do you think a lot of these retro indie style games end up having very simple mechanics? Gameplay and graphics go very much hand in hand, the whole notion that the industry should just completely drop pushing graphics in the medium just makes me sigh.

 

[Scarim Coral]

To me it's always been gameplay over graphic, granted graphic is still important but I value gameplay more.

Example- My brother is the oppersite (graphic over gameplay) and he couldn't get into Knight of the Old Republic despite well knowing how much accliam it has. He reason for being put off is because of the Xbox graphic! I had played and loved that game and not once has the graphic had bother me at all (he was the one who asked me to lend the game to him)!

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I think it depends what it is. For a JRPG for instance, graphics are very important in building the game world and setting the scene for the story. Gameplay is usually robust, but oft just a variation on a tried and tested method. Games like FFXIII realised that distracting the player with menus during combat meant that they didn't get to see the beautiful attacks and therefore developed the gameplay to compliment the graphics.

I play a lot of older games on the PS2 and PS1 too. Some of the games have beaten the test of time, and stayed fantastic (usually platformers) however some games look a bit dated. Games like Unholy War and Jurrasic Park: Operation Genisis however, which now look dated, manage to keep my attention due to the awesome gameplay. Where as others, like Army Men: Sarges Heros 2, which look bland and play terrible don't. Then you have some like Music 2000, which don't need good graphics at all to be played for hours on end! Finally there are games like Medieval and Gex which technically are a bit messy, but I enjoy the visuals to the point where I play to completion!

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Depends on what you mean when you say "graphics". If you mean the tech behind it, that's among the least important things about a video game. There's a reason so many video games from a couple of decades ago can still be enjoyed even by the people who weren't around when they came into being.

If you mean the aesthetic, that's different. Art direction is a method of conveyance, and also draws people in to play it in the first place. Most independent games could learn a hell of a lot in this category.

 

[Nazulu]

I'm guessing you mean graphics as in the 3D technology itself, if so then game play is 10 times more important as we never needed that technology to make great experiences. However, if you mean the style/art direction, visually the whole project, then they are equal. Think about it, we've all played those beautiful games with average game play and called them masterpieces, and we've probably all played those really fun games that looks like a repeat of another.

Of course it isn't as black and white, arts never been like that. It usually comes down to the perfect combination I reckon.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Think about it, we've all played those beautiful games with average game play and called them masterpieces, and we've probably all played those really fun games that looks like a repeat of another.

Eh, speak for yourself. Not everyone's done such things.

 

[Nazulu]

Think about it, we've all played those beautiful games with average game play and called them masterpieces, and we've probably all played those really fun games that looks like a repeat of another.

Eh, speak for yourself. Not everyone's done such things.

Eh yourself. Have you never played Myst? Shadow of the Colossus? Anything with a clever art style but kind of annoying game play or just lacking altogether like those?

And I bet you have played a recent shooter that was mostly inspired by one before it and is popular because of the game play.

 

[Estelindis]

I don't get the poll options. Are you asking which is more important, or if a game can only do one of them? Because "a game can do both" and "gameplay is the most important" are just as true.

The third answer doesn't make much sense to me. Yes, both can be good in the same game, what does that have to do with deciding which is more important? It feels to me like you were trying to say that both can be the more important factor depending on what type of game you're playing. Some games, like Dear Esther, obviously prioritize graphics over gameplay.

The purpose of the third option was to give people a way of saying that they think the question of which of the two is more important is pointless. It's for people who want to stress that games can be good in both categories more than they want to express a preference for graphics or gameplay. For the record, I voted "gameplay."

Anyway, results of the poll seem quite clear so far. No one has said that graphics are more important than gameplay. So are studios who put more and more time and effort into ever-more-detailed graphics wasting their time?

 

[OneCatch]

Think about it, we've all played those beautiful games with average game play and called them masterpieces, and we've probably all played those really fun games that looks like a repeat of another.

Eh, speak for yourself. Not everyone's done such things.

Eh yourself. Have you never played Myst? Shadow of the Colossus? Anything with a clever art style but kind of annoying game play or just lacking altogether like those?

And I bet you have played a recent shooter that was mostly inspired by one before it and is popular because of the game play.

Call me weird, but I kind of like Myst gameplay.
It certainly succeeds in what it sets out to do - can you imagine if it was wasd controls? You'd miss all kinds of clues and perspective hints from standing in just the wrong place, and a lot of those puzzles wouldn't work if you could just go and have a peek around the back or whatever.
I don't think you can get much better than Tomb Raider of Half Life levels of puzzle complexity with standard controls - certainly I can't think of an example.

That said, graphics are still important for creating the general feel of a game, even if overall they're less critical than gameplay.

 

[Nazulu]

Think about it, we've all played those beautiful games with average game play and called them masterpieces, and we've probably all played those really fun games that looks like a repeat of another.

Eh, speak for yourself. Not everyone's done such things.

Eh yourself. Have you never played Myst? Shadow of the Colossus? Anything with a clever art style but kind of annoying game play or just lacking altogether like those?

And I bet you have played a recent shooter that was mostly inspired by one before it and is popular because of the game play.

Call me weird, but I kind of like Myst gameplay.
It certainly succeeds in what it sets out to do - can you imagine if it was wasd controls? You'd miss all kinds of clues and perspective hints from standing in just the wrong place, and a lot of those puzzles wouldn't work if you could just go and have a peek around the back or whatever.
I don't think you can get much better than Tomb Raider of Half Life levels of puzzle complexity with standard controls - certainly I can't think of an example.

That said, graphics are still important for creating the general feel of a game, even if overall they're less critical than gameplay.

Don't take it the wrong way mate. A lot of classic games had great combinations as I said in my original post, and I reckon it suited Myst perfectly, especially to run on my nearly 20 year old Mac.