Poll: Graphics vs gameplay
- Thread starter buddee1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Why would it be any different for this generation then the last ones? SNES>NES in terms of graphics and it was exciting. N64>SNES in terms of graphics and that too was exciting. Etcetera.Lockedup said:
To say that gameplay isn't leaps and bounds more "important" then graphics is to say that games from previous generations are inferior, or not as fun to play. Which is not an opinion I would share.
It's funny that you chose Gears of War of all games, because it's my usual example of a game hitting the pinnacle of mediocrity.
Yes. Well opinions are opinions. I may not have played a ridiculous amount of games. I'm not one of those people who spew on about Tetris and the original Mario and stuff like that being better than current games.runtheplacered said:
AND more importantly. I DIDN'T say that graphics were more important. I'm saying that the marriage of the two of them makes for a fantastic game. Whether you like 'Gears of War' or not is beside the point. I'm sure you could point out some game that suffers graphically or is 'retro' that I would think was absolute rubbish. That is all just opinion.
Too many people think that companies spend too much time on graphics than games.....but I believe people are failing to realise that console (and PC) gaming is advancing far quicker than when it first came about. Gaming systems are realising the potential for gaming graphics and are trying to USE it to make good games. Yes, they may hit and miss in terms of quality....but they are experimenting with new graphics.
I love a game with good gameplay, but if it's a game that relies solely upon it in THIS generation, then I believe it shouldn't be as successful or as critically regarded as one that tries to marry the two together. And I say TRIES to marry them.....There have been few successes so far...but there will be one. That is guaranteed.
(Sorry for the rantiness... The restrictions of being a journalist and journalistic writing make me verbose in other circumstances)
(Also I don't intend to start a flame war, so apologies for any offense, this is merely my opinion)
I have both Fallout 3 and 2 on my computer, and, while Fallout 3 is clearly superior, I still enjoy the quirky old dog Fallout 2.
Interestingly, bad graphics are far more forgiving in comparison to other games than bad gameplay. For example, while I can play Fallout 3, and then switch back to Fallout 2, the difference is glaring, but at the same time I really enjoy playing Fallout 2.
However, whenever I play Call of Duty 4, and then switch over to Farcry 2, I get incredibly pissed off. The controls for Farcry 2 are so much worse, so less intuitive- the guns are stupidly innaccurate, the aiming is difficult, and, on the whole, the game's actual mechanics feel glaringly inferior. I actually have to wait several hours before I can play Farcry 2 if I've played COD4, or indeed Fallout 3, before I play Farcry 2.
(Interestingly, wouldn't the Fallout 3 engine be an excellent choice for Farcry 2. The added flexibility would seriously improve that game.)
Interestingly, bad graphics are far more forgiving in comparison to other games than bad gameplay. For example, while I can play Fallout 3, and then switch back to Fallout 2, the difference is glaring, but at the same time I really enjoy playing Fallout 2.
However, whenever I play Call of Duty 4, and then switch over to Farcry 2, I get incredibly pissed off. The controls for Farcry 2 are so much worse, so less intuitive- the guns are stupidly innaccurate, the aiming is difficult, and, on the whole, the game's actual mechanics feel glaringly inferior. I actually have to wait several hours before I can play Farcry 2 if I've played COD4, or indeed Fallout 3, before I play Farcry 2.
(Interestingly, wouldn't the Fallout 3 engine be an excellent choice for Farcry 2. The added flexibility would seriously improve that game.)
I agree game play does play a very important part of any game. I think that along with a story make an awesome game. Of course there are accpetions like Left 4 Dead. Which has awesome game play.
I prefer to play a game with a superior storyline, Half-Life 2 was the best game I have played to date and it had nothing to do with the graphics, same with RTCW.
Look at every game Crytek has made, they have the worst story lines because they aren't original in any way but great graphics that have to be turned down to low because we don't have super computers. Also Far Cry 2 is another shining example of rubbish game play but great graphics and sequels are starting to become more and more frequent because no one has a new idea.
But combining genres (RPG, FPS, RTS, etc) is a very sensitive matter and if you get the wrong genres mixed then the storyline, no matter how brilliant, can fail catastrophically. See Mirror's Edge, Burnout Paradise, etc. But on the other hand 2 brilliant combinations could fail because the game is poorly executed. See Fallout 3, Halo 1, 2 and 3, etc.
Originality is lacking in today's game market and it's slowly starting to happen with movies with special effects being a higher priority than the storyline.
Look at every game Crytek has made, they have the worst story lines because they aren't original in any way but great graphics that have to be turned down to low because we don't have super computers. Also Far Cry 2 is another shining example of rubbish game play but great graphics and sequels are starting to become more and more frequent because no one has a new idea.
But combining genres (RPG, FPS, RTS, etc) is a very sensitive matter and if you get the wrong genres mixed then the storyline, no matter how brilliant, can fail catastrophically. See Mirror's Edge, Burnout Paradise, etc. But on the other hand 2 brilliant combinations could fail because the game is poorly executed. See Fallout 3, Halo 1, 2 and 3, etc.
Originality is lacking in today's game market and it's slowly starting to happen with movies with special effects being a higher priority than the storyline.
Whoever voted graphics only.. You make me sick. Haha. I went for gameplay only. Right now I'm playing Counterstrike 1.0 and having fun.
You should look at the zero cordanation natzze, the spoof of zero punctuation of the great yhatzze I cant get a link right now beaucse of my collages filter but im shure some one else has one.
Here's a question...
Are the Totally Awesome(tm) graphics of, say Gears of War, or Force Unleashed, only visible in HD?
Because I've watched my brother in law play those games on his 360 in standard def, and they still don't look as good as Colussus in stnadard def.
Are the Totally Awesome(tm) graphics of, say Gears of War, or Force Unleashed, only visible in HD?
Because I've watched my brother in law play those games on his 360 in standard def, and they still don't look as good as Colussus in stnadard def.
Gameplay definitely. I think a lot of game developers have just gone with the graphics route to make their games more visually appealing. I on the other hand would prefer to have crappier graphics if the developers would instead focus their time on creating better gameplay.
Gameplay all the way. Then Story. Finally Graphics.
If the controls work the way they should and are expected to and I don't feel like a tank...and the story is deep, thought-provoking, and well-written then the game could use Miis for characters and it would still be awesome.
But...it wouldn't be too immersive...that's where graphics come in.
After playing through the first Condemned, I wanted to go get some coffee at the Dunkin Donuts two blocks away from my house. The whole walk I was completely paranoid and my attention was grabbed by every sound. If the game DID use Animal Crossing Graphics...that would never have happened.
If the controls work the way they should and are expected to and I don't feel like a tank...and the story is deep, thought-provoking, and well-written then the game could use Miis for characters and it would still be awesome.
But...it wouldn't be too immersive...that's where graphics come in.
After playing through the first Condemned, I wanted to go get some coffee at the Dunkin Donuts two blocks away from my house. The whole walk I was completely paranoid and my attention was grabbed by every sound. If the game DID use Animal Crossing Graphics...that would never have happened.
While it would be great to have all of them in one glorious whole I would have to place the greatest importance on gameplay.
Why was Alien Trilogy great? Because it was fun to play. Why was Unreal Tournament great? Because it was fun to play. Why was...you see where I'm going with this.
Why was Alien Trilogy great? Because it was fun to play. Why was Unreal Tournament great? Because it was fun to play. Why was...you see where I'm going with this.
Case and point, the sonic games. 2D, fantastic, 3D, steaming pile of dung.
But sacrificing graphics to the extreme for game play is just as moronic. I don't want a 2D side scrolling shooter even if it cures cancer! Graphics can be sacrificed, and should be, to a point. Once game play is solid, up the graphics.
But sacrificing graphics to the extreme for game play is just as moronic. I don't want a 2D side scrolling shooter even if it cures cancer! Graphics can be sacrificed, and should be, to a point. Once game play is solid, up the graphics.
Gameplay is a lot more important. Look at FF VII or the Medal of Honour series when it was on the Playstation, ie when it was good. Amazing games but the grahpics (for the most part) suck. Then you look at games like Black or Haze. Both look really nice, especially Black considering it's a PS2 game, but both are absolutely shite.
Gameplay always comes before graphics, but it's nice that many developers can tie them in together.