Poll: Graphics vs gameplay

Recommended Videos

Fraught

New member
Aug 2, 2008
4,417
0
0
The article you read was written by a complete moron/idiot/retard/bozo/dummy/foolish/stupid/fuckwitted/dipshit'ish/stupid/idiotic person.
Who, even in their wrong mind, would choose graphics as the main course/over gameplay?
Ofcourse gameplay. If I would choose graphics, I would literally be dumb as a stick with a lump of shit on it.

Lockedup said:
You can have all the BRAID you want...but games like Gears of War will always S^*T on it because it combines gameplay and graphics.
Wait, you mean that Gears of War is better than Braid?!

KILL!
 

Repulsionary

New member
Jan 21, 2009
56
0
0
Considering my computer is about three years old and so full of bugs that it would scare off an exterminator, gameplay is the obvious choice. The only game I have been able to play in high quality (at 800x600 resolution on my 1440x900 screen. RAGE.) is Portal. I can't even play Oblivion at full resolution, let alone Assassin's Creed or Saints Row 2. Thus, I've sacrificed the glorious graphics in exchange for (lag-ridden and rage-inducing) gameplay. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
...
Unless I can have both. Without the lag.
 

Gladion

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,469
0
0
000_00_00_00 said:
Gameplay.

Then story. Graphics are the poor cousin on my list but sadly developers think of them as the rich neighbour.
It's easier to get attention for your game if you tard them up with top of the range graphics. But no matter how good they are, they get outdated sooner or later and your game looses itself in obscurity. Anyone remembers Panzer Dragoon Orta or Forza?

If graphics were no big selling point, publishers wouldn't rely on them - but I don't think you will get much of an argument on a forum like this; almost all of us have the same opinion: Nice bonus, but there's more important stuff.
 

JMeganSnow

New member
Aug 27, 2008
1,591
0
0
Eggo said:
JMeganSnow said:
Graphics are awesome the first time you see them. Gameplay is awesome forever.
You haven't seen really good graphics then.
Actually, I have. Frequently. And while they are awesome to look at, they are not what I play a game for. If I just want to look at art, I'll buy a painting.
 

WellyPWNS

New member
Jan 17, 2009
34
0
0
wow people lie if you prefer gameplay over graphics stop playing call of duty it has one of the worse game play i have seen and yet people still play it OH WHY!!!!
 

shadow skill

New member
Oct 12, 2007
2,850
0
0
You know it's called a videogame not gamevideo. Visuals have always been important, however rather than one being more important than the other both are equally important. The best games balance graphics and gameplay to create a fantastic whole.
 

Ace of Spades

New member
Jul 12, 2008
3,302
0
0
One of my friends put it well: "Bad graphics don't take away from a game experience, but good graphics add a little extra to the game experience."
 

Seydaman

New member
Nov 21, 2008
2,493
0
0
plastic_window said:
Where did you read that? That's the stupidest claim I think I've ever heard. If you can't PLAY a beautiful game, it isn't a game - it's an art exhibit.
really? i hear my dip shit friends go on about this all the time, they always tell me x game is bad because it doesn't have amazing graphics.
topic; gameplay is over graphics, graphics are good, but shouldn't be a priority, but say if you finished the game tweaked it looked for bugs and had 3 months extra time, why not work on the graphics
 

MintyFreshBreathGuy

New member
Oct 10, 2008
380
0
0
People play Megaman on the NEs and no one yells at how much it's graphic's suck. Then they tell me they aren't old school gamers because old school games suck and then I walk off becaue new age gamers are mostly idiots.
I just wish my friends would stop complimenting the graphics and help me yell at the gameplay. Honestly I was playing SH5 with a friend and for the whole first level all he could talk about was the graphics. While I was yelling at the game's dodge button for killing me again. I honestly miss the praise for gameplay rather than graphics. Presentation is nice, but if you can't watch the play it, then why do you care?
 

Liverandbacon

New member
Nov 27, 2008
507
0
0
Gameplay. I still enjoy Ultima VII. Hell, I even enjoy text based adventure games, which have no graphics.
 

plastic_window

New member
Jun 29, 2008
1,218
0
0
seydaman said:
really? i hear my dip shit friends go on about this all the time, they always tell me x game is bad because it doesn't have amazing graphics.
topic; gameplay is over graphics, graphics are good, but shouldn't be a priority, but say if you finished the game tweaked it looked for bugs and had 3 months extra time, why not work on the graphics
I'm not suggesting a beautiful game is bad - I'm saying that if you can't play it or enjoy playing it, there's no point in it being a game. Games are interactive, art isn't. If you can't play a game because of bad gameplay designs, you can't interact with it as you would interact with a proper game. It asks the question "why bother making a game if you can't be bothered with the GAME part of it"?
 

Railu

New member
Aug 7, 2008
173
0
0
Ace of Spades said:
One of my friends put it well: "Bad graphics don't take away from a game experience, but good graphics add a little extra to the game experience."
Bad graphics absolutely can be a distraction.
But good graphics mean nothing if you put it down after 1 day because the gameplay is broken.
 

Trivun

Stabat mater dolorosa
Dec 13, 2008
9,830
0
0
Just noticed two people have said they don't play games on the above poll. If that's the case then WHAT THE HELL are they doing on a gaming magazine site?
 

Zetona

New member
Dec 20, 2008
846
0
0
Gameplay is certainly the most important aspect, but having excellent graphics always makes the game better.
 

capgun2713

New member
Jan 15, 2009
27
0
0
Definately gameplay. However, if the graphics are eye searing headache inducingly bad(Two Worlds), I wont play it since my brain is on fire.
 

darthzew

New member
Jun 19, 2008
1,808
0
0
I'd play Mass Effect over Crysis any day.

Actually, that wasn't the best example because both have good graphics. Fine, I'll say KOTOR over Crysis.
 

NickCaligo42

New member
Oct 7, 2007
1,371
0
0
I can't believe we're even having this discussion. This was relevant in 1998 when the PS1 and the N64 were having it out, but today? I guess people are going to be debating this one 'til the cows come home...

What amuses me a lot is how most of the examples people come up with of games with good gameplay but lax graphics are still games that, at the time they were released, were peak graphical achievements and represented some of the best of what people could do with the technology at the time. I'm also amused that NONE of the examples are from the Atari, which had graphics so bad that you couldn't tell what one object on the screen was without reading the manual. Even the examples you could come up with for the Atari are games that had the best and most sensible graphics the Atari could offer because you could actually tell what you were playing.

Meanwhile people keep panning Crysis as if it's positively unplayable junk--well, maybe I'm speaking too soon, seeing as a lot of it is pretty poorly programmed, but it's certainly no Lair. Still, there is a valid argument wrapped up in all this contrived nonsense. There ARE games, like Crysis, that focus exclusively on technology--not graphics, graphics aren't the enemy here--but technology. The worst offender I can think of in recent memory is The Force Unleashed, where the developers spent so much time getting three different middleware physics engines to work together in the same game that nobody really paid attention to the game; what's more, only one of these three was necessary; the one that makes the Stormtroopers grab onto things when you pick them up could have been left out and the one that makes materials respond like realistic materials could've been so easily faked. This doesn't happen all THAT often, though; maybe there's four or five games being developed at any given time where developers REALLY were putting more effort into a physics engine and the game was just an excuse to showcase it. More often than not developers and publishers are just as clumsy as they are stupid.

One last thing: The Wii was supposed to be the champion of this argument, but I have yet to see the Wii mentioned here, let alone a title compelling enough to make me think that graphics are the enemy of gamekind.