Poll: Gameplay vs Graphics

[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.

 

[tranceformat]

200 votes in and not one single person has chosen the "Graphics" option yet.Whoa.

obviously this forum isn't populated mostly by kids under the age of 14 therefore gameplay is going to count for more,most people here were playing games back in the early days of gaming - photorealistic graphics are only just starting to emerge.

but I think one should complement the other.ultimately I guess I would have to say gameplay matters a lot more,since one of my favorite games ever is Quake III Arena(although I play quake live now,mostly casually on pubs) and I purposely made the game look as simple and easy on the eyes as I could to make spotting stuff easier.I'm not kidding when I say simple,single color textures,bright full-green enemy models all that.But it's fun!Fast,exciting and very much skill based so the graphics practically don't matter.

And let's face it,not everyone (including me) can afford top of the range hardware to run graphically intense games for more than what? 2 years? technology is moving so fast these days,unless you are overburdened with disposable income,why bother.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

If the poll would of been gameplay vs story I would of chosen story.

Although I do would like to have both good gameplay and graphics, when the latter can't happen I will choose gameplay over graphics most of the times.

 

[veloper]

200 votes in and not one single person has chosen the "Graphics" option yet.Whoa.

obviously this forum isn't populated mostly by kids under the age of 14 therefore gameplay is going to count for more,most people here were playing games back in the early days of gaming - photorealistic graphics are only just starting to emerge.

Let's not pat ourselves on the back here. There's still plenty gfx-whores in the closet so to speak, they just won't identify as such.
Ask a little deeper and you'll probably find out that the majority cannot appreciate a classic game when it's limited to MCGA/VGA or even 640x480 SVGA. Did that poll years ago. Most likely we've become even more spoiled in the last couple years.