The Great Graphics Debate

[TheReverendTholomewPlague]

Graphics vs. Gameplay.

 

Discuss.

 

I firmly believe that graphics should take a backseat to gameplay.

 

Ex:

 

Dwarf Fortress. Ascii graphics, yet it's the most complex game ever made IMO.

 

Crysis. Amazing graphics. The gameplay left a lot to be desired though, didn't it?

[Illiad86]

Ah this...

 

Yeah, gameplay over graphics. One example I've been playing is Terraria. SNES graphics, yet very complex in the things you can do. A classic is Secret of Mana. I can name off some of the most awesome games I've ever played...and most of them were on the SNES and the PSX.

 

Companies are focusing too much on graphics. Seems like all they really care about is how pretty they can make they game without focusing on the mechanics of the game.

 

The only game that I have found that has amazing graphics and good gameplay is The Witcher 2. There is a huge improvement in gameplay from the first one, it's much more fluid. The graphics are just amazing, look at least 2x, maybe even more, better than Skyrim.

 

I would more like to see a focus on storyline again. There are some games that are just burned into my brain because they had such great stories. Graphics have destroyed that too (I'm looking at you Final Fantasy). Games are becoming easier and a heck of a lot shorter because they spend nearly all the development on how nice they can make the game look. I don't care if it's 8-bit graphics, give me a game that has a story that I will never forget.

[Iv000]

Depends on the type of game.

Games focused on story should have a good art style and nice looking graphics.

An example of this is Mass Effect 2, it's got an amazing story and amazing graphics. The gameplay, while it isn't ground breaking, it's solid and that's all it should be.

In ME, the graphics help you to get immersed in the story. Imagine ME with Mount & Blade like graphics, there would be no charm and no desire to continue to play because you just wouldn't care for the characters and the story.

 

Other types of games should have a good art style that attracts the player. Minecraft as an example, the graphics aren't advanced, but it's got an unique art style that keeps you playing and the gameplay benefits from such simplistic graphics.

Graphical games, like Crysis, are a waste of time. It looks sharp and detailed, but the art style isn't special, it isn't innovative and the gameplay suffers because of the huge amount of time put into the graphics.

[ita]

If the writing and other gameplay aspects are good enough, graphics simply cease to matter. I've played text adventures that felt more captivating than recent-day RPG's.

[Jeoshua]

Dwarf Fortress is possibly a bad example of a game with great gameplay and hardly any graphics. Surely it has no real graphics to speak of, but gameplay wise it is nigh unplayable. It is TOO complicated for it's own good, and it's interface makes everything nearly impossible due to the sheer complexity of the interface and the seemingly hostile outlook towards things like "ease of use".

 

I am in the "gameplay" camp. A game should be fun to play, first and foremost. Graphics should always take a back seat to making the game actually playable. That includes such considerations as User Interface, Frame Rate, Stability, and last but not least Fun.

 

A good example of something that goes directly against these principles is Skyrim. It looks really nice and shiny, but ultimately it's a dumbed down version of Oblivion with some mechanics from the Fallout series thrown in. It's fun on it's own merit but it shows very clearly the increasingly graphically oriented viewpoint of Bethesda. They are caring less and less about making truly diverse and expansive worlds in which anything is possible, and are focusing more now on pushing the envelope in terms of polygons-per-inch and high resolution textures.

 

It's unfortunate, really. I sort of look at it like I do with women. Sure, good looks are a great thing, but at the end of the day if there is no CONTENT, you're just not going to stay.

[Thor.]

Consoles stiffle innovation, enough said.

[Nintii]

What's the point of a "pretty" game if the gameplay is lousy ?

I have a fairly decent PC and play everything - so far - at max graphics and so the thrill and pull of the promising eye-candy is my weakness but ...

 

I always find myself trying to interact with the game world and am put off if i can't.

 

Storyline

 

Yet, despite this, I think that the storyline can make or break the game ... for instance, I've just finished Saints Row the Third ... graphics wise it wasn't too bad, the storyline was terrific (well for me anyway) but the interaction with the "world" in which it took place was very disappointing.

Yet on the whole, I would rate the game highly because of the storyline and music.

So the sheer excitement of the story won me over even though graphics and interaction were'nt really to fantastic.

 

Gameplay

 

However, some games are just awful ... Dungeon Siege 3 was so horrible that after two minutes of playing the game I stopped, it was like a perm that belly flopped the second after you paid before leaving the salon,

it was a nightmare.

Darkvoid is another example and so is Darksiders ... the gameplay was awful.

I'm beginning to wonder if games that start with the letter "D" are all rubbish to start with.

 

I keep telling myself to check the games on You Tube before I buy them but seldom do.

 

Graphics

 

I remember playing Warcraft - the ancient blocky looking one - the second one I think it was - and loved it to bits even though it looked the way it did and that includes the game Dune.

Ridiculous looking compared with today's stuff but awesome nonetheless.

 

So it's a combination for me but the one that always wins out in the end is the storyline.

[Thor.]

You know there is a bottom line, its all up to the developers to make a game that has both great graphics and great gameplay. I think both matters to a point. As long it doesn't rely on outdated 6 year old hardware I'm fine with it.

[Vagrant0]

Dwarf Fortress is possibly a bad example of a game with great gameplay and hardly any graphics. Surely it has no real graphics to speak of, but gameplay wise it is nigh unplayable. It is TOO complicated for it's own good, and it's interface makes everything nearly impossible due to the sheer complexity of the interface and the seemingly hostile outlook towards things like "ease of use".

"Ease of use" is essentially dumbing things down. It is a practice of making various aspects of the game less complex so that a broader range of users can enjoy the game. Some of this is through making the UI more polished, some of this is by making nuances in gameplay toned down so that the initial learning curve remains fairly gradual. Dwarf Fortress's learning curve is practically a vertical slope so is probably not a fair argument in either direction. Learning curve however only dictates the first few moments of gameplay where the user has to spend time figuring out how to make the game work without instantly dying. The real value of gameplay happens after one gets far enough along the learning curve to actually play the game. It's just that many games lately have shallow learning curves so getting to that point means at most 2-3 minutes with some on-screen prompts.

 

The value of Gameplay is really in a game where you simply lose track of time and don't feel that sense of things dragging on as you complete objectives. It's a game that is fun to play outside of any learning curve and which keeps you actively engaged. This is unfortunately a more subjective assessment, so the gameplay of one game can be seen differently by different people.

 

One alternative example to Dwarf Fortress would be Minecraft. Minecraft has relatively simplistic graphics, but has a very shallow initial learning curve and is rated rather highly for gameplay. It's a game with a fanatical following and its high ability to suck spare hours from almost anyone who might play it. Compared to say, some newer high graphics games where people only get 20-40 hours of playtime before they complete the game and get bored.

[CadenceOfHerLastBreath]

Gameplay and story tie for first, music second, graphics third. The game has to be doable but not easy, the story absolutely must be engaging (unless it's an Age of Empires kind of game- i.e. strictly mechanics but in an addicting way), the music should be beautiful/cool and not repetitive so as to draw you into the zone and keep you there, and I do like the graphics to be good- but if the first three are good, then they don't really matter so much. Honestly, they don't matter if the first three are bad either. If one or more of the first three fail the game just sucks.