Poll: Gameplay vs Graphics

[Insideout Ink Demon]

so long as a game has atmosphere, good mechanics and gameplay, you can stick graphics up ya bum

 

[SmokingBomber465]

Well, since the best game of all time is still "Sonic the Hedgehog 2", it is most likely gameplay

 

[legendp]

For me it's story,

A driving point. it doesn't necessarily have to be cut scenes but the way the voice acting is done, the music (and visuals and gameplay), that come together to make a good story is what interest me most, to make me feel like I've been on a journey, not downing mindless robots or anymous players for hours. I can play a game whith bad gameplay and bad graphics but good story and music, but I can't usually enjoy a game with good gameplay and good graphics but weak plot as much (multiplayer and arcade games are exempt from this, I am mainly talking about campaign modes).

Although both bioshock infinite and tomb raider (haven't played the last of us) had great music, story, gameplay, and graphics. so we can have it all (at least for me).

however a game look "remeber me" I enjoyed more than skyrim or borderlands becuase the story and visual asethtic interested me more. although I did actually enjoy the gameplay even if others didn't. If I had to choose between the two I would say gameplay but graphics are still important. however what is good gameplay can differ greatly for all people, some people love cods gameplay and many hate it. I personally find many rpg to be far to padded gameplay wise.

 

[Charli]

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

Indeed, do not champion one or the other. Good gameplay uses it's graphics to accentuate itself.

If the two do not mesh, then trouble is had. You can have outstanding graphics and terrible game play, and the other way around.

But if they work together, then you've created something special.

I'm not going to bark like the diehard retro gamers and claim graphics does nothing for a game, it's not true, simplicity is work too, and if an older format or a toned down graphic is what makes the gameplay look it's snazziest, then it's the way to go.

It still MATTERS, and having someone who can discern that, will make a good head of art department rep.

 

[Rob Robson]

Story/ Atmosphere > Overall creativity of concept > Gameplay > Graphics > Polish

 

[Petromir]

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.

I'd go so far to say that they can be intrinsically linked, that graphics can bring new tools to the gameplay box, either by adding options or restricting things. Plenty of gameplay tools and bulshit were invented to get round graphical resrictions, sometimes introducing classsics, but also introducing bullshit restrictions (the handling of stealth/camo and sight is a clear example, so much frustrating bullshit in these systems, often to make up for the fact that graphics arent up to replicating them in a better way).

There are games that have neglected one for the other and these are used as poster boys for the arguments but in reality the two are far more linked.

 

[Estelindis]

I'd go so far to say that they can be intrinsically linked, that graphics can bring new tools to the gameplay box, either by adding options or restricting things.

I think this is an excellent point. In asking my question originally, I was thinking more of the work involved in creating detailed, high-quality graphics compared to simple ones. I didn't think of the gameplay options opened up by graphical innovation. Thanks for sharing the thought.

 

[Yopaz]

You can't really choose one in this. Graphics are important, graphics is the fresh coat of painting that makes something look beautiful graphics appeal to several visual centres in our brains. Of course graphics are important. Games like Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress work despite their graphics not because of them. We like pretty shiny things.

However good aesthetics is probably what should be discussed. A game can have great graphics without looking pretty.

Now if a game has bad gameplay and good graphics it will be a bad game. If we have a game with great gameplay and bad graphics the overall will sadly suffer a little. I would say we can't really pick either, there's a lot of factors in this.

 

[Dagda Mor]

Games are both a visual and participatory medium. Gameplay and 'graphics' reinforce eachother.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Gaming started with gameplay. If we look back at Pong, PacMan, Pitfall for the Atari 2600, and even Super Mario Brothers...those games have terrible graphics by today's standards, but I would go back and play them in a heartbeat.

You can do something like ICO that has simple gameplay and wonderful graphics. Or something like "Closure" for the PSN that has a specific art style, but the gameplay is simpler. It's a puzzle game.

Perhaps the genre should be considered when considering the graphics.

I'm a big gameplay person. Graphics are the icing on the cake. When we get that twisted around, gaming is in trouble.

 

[veloper]

Gameplay vs graphics never was a contest. Zero votes out of 150+ sofar and no surprises there. So a non-issue.
The division here is between the members who value gameplay more and those who value a mediocre story above all else.

My own take is in order of importance Gameplay > atmosphere (gfx, music, etc) > story

 

[hutchy27]

Gameplay is more important but I like the game to look nice to an extent.

 

[Estelindis]

Gameplay vs graphics never was a contest. Zero votes out of 150+ sofar and no surprises there. So a non-issue.
The division here is between the members who value gameplay more and those who value a mediocre story above all else.

My own take is in order of importance Gameplay > atmosphere (gfx, music, etc) > story

Perhaps another poll is in order.

 

[Something Amyss]

Gameplay is more important. That's not to say, however, that I'm against good graphics or want bad graphics.

Still, I'd put gameplay first. I'd also like to have a sizable world/levels to play in.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Well, gameplay will always be above graphics in terms of importance. After all, this is a game, and we are likely playing it to have fun, not appreciate artwork.

With that said, graphics still have their place. They, along with other things, can drastically aid the atmosphere. Better graphics have helped us give more complexity to the level/map design of FPS games without having to worry about overly-obscuring the targets.

Erm... really?

If anything, level design has massively dumbed down in all the major shooter franchises of today. Even long-runners like the Deus Ex series suffers from this. And most shooters now really are just glorified corridors funnelling your from one enemy spawn point to the next.

I was thinking along the lines of, say, a sniper in Battlefield. They are capable of hiding decently without their pixelated selves standing out too much against the bush, but they also aren't so similar to the bush that the enemy can't spot them. If you played some of the older Battlefield games, playing a stealth sniper was actually decently challenging in just finding a spot, as it was too easy to see snipers in most locations, which limited them to finding obscure areas (made not so obscure as time continued) or staying far enough away that other players simply could not spot them. As decent hiding spots became more apparent in later games (i.e. vegetation increased) the sniper's role was made a little more versatile, even without the ridiculous gadget inclusions of the later games. There are a few other ways that certain strategies can change with better graphics, but that's the one that sticks out the most in my mind.

It is minimal and we have likely passed the point where any graphical updates can aid us (except maybe in getting smoke and lighting physics down better), but it is one I noticed during the transition from Battlefield 2 to Battlefield 3. Admittedly, I had a bad choice of words to convey that.

Better animations certainly help make it easier to read enemy movements in hack-n-slash games

Animation can exist separate from graphics. FFIX has better monster animation than the vast majority of RPGs out there now, and that's a PS1 game. The Monster Hunter games are renowned for their monster animation, and those are games that constantly re-use PS2 assets.

As for hack-and-slash games, that bar was already set with Devil May Cry 3 and Ninja Gaiden Black. If anything, the most recent entries in those franchises have suffered for trying to push visuals over gameplay (DmC's 30fps, Ninja Gaiden 3's... everything). Bayonetta is the only game this gen which I would say really steps things up over DMC3 and NGB, and even then the animation there isn't noticeably better than either previous-gen game. In terms of mechanics, it's essentially a souped-up Devil May Cry, which is by no means a bad thing, but doesn't exactly make the case for the requirement of better technology or graphics.

I guess I should have separated aesthetics and animation.

Again, as I stated at the end of my post, there comes a point where graphical updates no longer have a bearing on gameplay, and, in most cases, we have certainly passed up that point.

not to mention they also help us understand our own movements better. Fighting games could also benefit from this, provided the style of fighting and timing you wish to encourage.

The vast majority of modern fighting games (Mortal Kombat, Injustice, etc) have absolutely crap animation compared to the godliness that is the animation from Street Fighter II and III. I'm not even kidding, entire essays have been written about how good the animation is in those games, as well as other 2D classics like Darkstalkers. Those games were animated with an eye for detail and an awareness of the principles of animation. The rise of 3D, and the ability to quickly mo-cap moves, has led to an abundance of clumsy, poorly strung together animations which simply don't look as good in motion.

See the last point on animation.

With that said, there is certainly a need for better technology. After all, AI has a long way to go in terms of helping to enhance gameplay.

Game AI is inherently difficult, and doesn't magically get better thanks to higher-clocked CPUs. AI is a matter of scripting, and how complex AI is depends on how detailed a script the developers wish to program for their game. You're not going to see enemies magically start using advanced tactics because Sony decided to chuck a 3GHz CPU in their system instead of a 2GHz one. Conversely, games like Killzone 2 were already praised this gen for how advanced their enemy AI was, because of how much effort Guerilla put into programming a detailed script for them.

Most developers simply do not have the resources or time to program the super elaborate AI script that gamers fantasize about. Not when they're still going to be working on two-year schedules or less next generation.

I understand that better technology doesn't automatically transfer into better AI, nor that there hasn't been some incredible feats of AI programming in the past that seem to have been lost as we continued to advance technologically (I'm still pissed that the F.E.A.R. franchises' AI got so bad after the first game had such an incredible one).

Also, better AI technology doesn't automatically mean I'm talking about better console hardware, just like we didn't need to keep updating our current-gen consoles over the last 5-10 years regardless of the graphical updates.

 

[Shuguard]

i favor gameplay over graphics any day. Now if a game has the best gameplay, but has something like Starcraft 1 graphics I may have to back off. I can pretty much play any game that has the quality of ps2 graphics or better even with starting ps2 games like ico or jack and daxter.

 

[Matthewmagic]

Good graphics complement a game well but, every game at its heart comes down to its game play. If you just want to make good graphics then make a movie, or paint something.

But to say that graphics do not contribute to making good game play would be bullshit. Are the enemies easy to figure out based on their design. Is there enough contrast between the road and the wilds people don't get lost to easily.

for this reason a game with the most amazing high resolution graphics can have "bad graphics" if the designs don't aid or even trick the player.

Graphics are a vital piece of the puzzle, but that doesn't mean that they have to be ultra realistic with billions of polygons. I would argue that a game like FTL has better graphics than a game like Oblivion. Because the graphics serve their purpose better.

 

[kasperbbs]

Gameplay ofcourse, but if the game looks like crap then theres a high possibility that i will ignore it over something that both plays and looks good.

 

[DocHarley]

Define "good graphics". If they work in the sense that you can tell what things are then that's good enough, gameplay is far more important.

Pretty much this. Every time I see beautifully-rendered, FOM-shaded water in a game, I wonder how many man years of programmer effort that took and which gameplay elements were scratched off the list to free up that time.

But then I still play text adventures and roguelikes so maybe I'm just a grumpy old man.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I was close to saying false dichotomy but in the end, a game is made up by how fun it is to play. Games like Braid and Super Meat Boy couldn't hope to stand up to the most current games coming to the market but they're more fun to play than something like Heavy Rain which was like The English Patient of gaming: Everyone was taking about it for one season a couple of years ago but its time has come and gone.

Graphics really aren't that important in my opinion considering how quickly today's excellent graphics quickly become yesterday's collection of oragami-people with cardboard clothes.