Lets settle this: Graphics or gameplay?

[Lord Method Man]

Crysis was only ever used as a benchmarking tool.

[riahc3]

Hello,

Gameplay, for sure. I was just thinking about this the other day--how long it's been since a game really grabbed me and pulled me in. I like the storyline and subplots and humour in the Borderlands games (art style is great too!), but too often there really isn't much of a story. I can enjoy a silly old pixellated platformer or a really immersive FPS with great graphics, but in both cases there's generally a flimsy storyline as an excuse for the mechanics of the game.

 

I like when it's almost a film that you're playing out.. a plot, character development and interactions, something emotionally engaging that makes you laugh or cry or both, maybe a twist or two that takes things off the expected path, a climax in the action, and a resolution at the end (or cliffhanger if there's going to be another). The graphics don't have to be perfect if these elements are present. Just leaves more room for imagination and filling in the gaps yourself, which makes for a more personal, unique, and memorable experience.

Right now, off the top of my head, HL2 (series) and Portal (series). So different but so similar.

 

 

Neither. The storyline, lore, characters and immersion are far more important.

I actually ment by gameplay (besides how the game plays) storelines, character development, etc.....I just didnt choose those words because people wouth nitpick too much.

I personally cannot accept the opinion of a person that said that HL2 was a bad game. You can be a RPG, FPS, TPS, sport, casual, etc gamer but if you sat down, someone played HL2 besided you, and watched, it would be like watching a enjoyable film (more so, better than half the crap that is put out today).

[Noir Angel]

I prefer gameplay, but why can't you have both?

[HawkMan]

I personally cannot accept the opinion of a person that said that HL2 was a bad game. You can be a RPG, FPS, TPS, sport, casual, etc gamer but if you sat down, someone played HL2 besided you, and watched, it would be like watching a enjoyable film (more so, better than half the crap that is put out today).

 

No it woulnd't, it doesn't look good enough to be an enjoyable film, and a lot of the in game cut scenes are to slow and to long, some parts of it is just excruciating to get through. But primarily, I just don't like the story and style of it. 

[threetonesun]

Graphics, per se, don't matter at all. Art direction is more important. Gameplay is most important.

 

There are a lot of older games that aren't super high quality graphically, but the art direction is so good that it doesn't matter. As far as that goes, some of my favorite games from the last generation of consoles were on the Wii, and that could only do a "measly" 480p.

[Houtei]

Well ill just say to me just look at metro 2033 and crysis. Best graphical games out there and I hate all of them

[HawkMan]

Graphics, per se, don't matter at all. Art direction is more important. Gameplay is most important.

 

There are a lot of older games that aren't super high quality graphically, but the art direction is so good that it doesn't matter. As far as that goes, some of my favorite games from the last generation of consoles were on the Wii, and that could only do a "measly" 480p.

 

The thing is old games did graphics to their strengths, people rarely replay games that did graphics that age bad, while certain graphic styles age a lot better and are good even if they're "bad". 

 

Graphics cand be and often are an important part of the experience and immersion. 

[threetonesun]

Kinda useless poll, noone in their right mind could choose graphics alone over gameplay. However just gameplay is wrong, you need both for an acceptable experience. Crysis games are mindblowing visually and lack just as much on the gameplay part. Some got so attached to the way it looks they immersed themeselves in that "great" experience, but its gameplay can be beat by any Call of Duty game. (used COD since it's trendy to pick on it, it's actually miles ahead of bs Crysis)

 

I dunno, some of the gameplay of Crysis was unique when it came out. The suits special powers and the way you could advance through the levels however you wanted were not as commonly seen then as they are today.

 

Crysis's real failing was that after the first few levels, the story went bananas and it almost became an on-rails shooter. But those first few levels were pretty great.

[threetonesun]

The thing is old games did graphics to their strengths, people rarely replay games that did graphics that age bad, while certain graphic styles age a lot better and are good even if they're "bad". 

 

Graphics cand be and often are an important part of the experience and immersion. 

 

The only thing that I can think of is if it's an old enough game that it's still in 4:3. That's obviously distracting. 

 

I was referring more to games like Xenoblade Chronicles, or even the new Donkey Kong Country. They're new, they're not cutting edge by any means, but the art in Xenoblade and the animation in DKC are miles better than most games ever made.

[Dotdot]

Graphics, per se, don't matter at all. Art direction is more important. Gameplay is most important.

 

There are a lot of older games that aren't super high quality graphically, but the art direction is so good that it doesn't matter. As far as that goes, some of my favorite games from the last generation of consoles were on the Wii, and that could only do a "measly" 480p.

YAY! Someone else who isn`t confusing "Graphics" with "Art style".

[Athernar]

I actually ment by gameplay (besides how the game plays) storelines, character development, etc.....I just didnt choose those words because people wouth nitpick too much.

 

Eh, you can't really put story under gameplay, doing so becomes especially problematic when you encounter games which have poor gameplay but good story.

 

Deus Ex is a prime example of this, mechanically DX1 was rather poorly implemented, gunplay is exceptionally poor for instance. But on the other hand, the immersion generated by how responsive the game world is to player choices is still to this day unmatched.

 

YAY! Someone else who isn`t confusing "Graphics" with "Art style".

 

They are too strongly linked to be seperate, but the distinction between the two is important to bear in mind.

 

Non-photorealistic artstyles such as seen in games like Team Fortress 2 and Borderlands are in large part enabled by "graphics", as without the appropriate shaders the artstyle degrades significantly.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Both graphics and gameplay are important but gameplay is the most important. I can still have fun playing Counter-Strike 1.6 and it looks pretty dated compared to Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (GoldSrc vs. Source engine).

[spaceelf]

Both graphics and gameplay are important but gameplay is the most important. I can still have fun playing Counter-Strike 1.6 and it looks pretty dated compared to Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (GoldSrc vs. Source engine).

And CS:GO looks pretty dated compared to pretty much everything else, heh.

[+virtorio MVC]

A game with good gameplay and bad graphics can be fun.

A game with good graphics, but bad gameplay isn't fun.

[Melfster]

Doesn't seem like we have seen a lot innovation in the Console space for while. It seems like PC space you get lot more innovation then consoles.  We seen some unique games like minecraft.  To me innovation is more important then gameplay and graphics. The Call of Duty franchise is perfect example of game that may have gameplay and graphics but very little innovation.

[Darrian]

Blizzard's games = graphics + gameplay

LOL Most of the time, sure, but how do you explain the pile of ###### known as WoW?

[Nick H. Supervisor]

Gameplay. Games like FTL, Loom, The Curse of Monkey Island, all go to show this. The graphics are not mind-blowing, but the gameplay is brilliant. Even something like Kerbal Space Program - slightly different from the titles mentioned before - shows that you don't need top-notch graphics to have a wonderful game.

[+jamesyfx Subscriber²]

I think there needs to be a good balance. If a game has terrible graphics then the gameplay will be hampered by it somewhat. Graphical glitches and texture problems take away from it.

 

These days there is a growing trend of games which use more basic graphics in different ways which make it look appealing. Games like Master Reboot, MirrorMoon EP and what have you.

[cooky560 Veteran]

Gameplay since great gameplay is what keeps people coming back to play your game. 

[Albert]

graphic has to complement the gameplay. by graphic i am referring to the graphic style, not level of realism. even retro blocky graphic may enhance a game if it fits the gamplay.

[Nashy]

Both.

[Growled Member]

I'd rather have some of both but if it comes down to one, I'll take gameplay every time.

[Athernar]

So out of curiosity, those of you that have said gameplay is more important, how many have played Dwarf Fortress?

 

I don't think there is any better example of "pure gameplay and no graphics".