Forums

Topic: Gameplay/Graphics: what's it to you?

Posts 41 to 60 of 142

Cia

Graphics are not too important. Simple proofs are games like Mega Man 9 & 10.

Cia

DrCruse

Seeing that the gameplay quality is already on a steep decline, I don't see how the 3DS could improve the situation.

DrCruse

Bankai

Faron wrote:

Graphics are not too important. Simple proofs are games like Mega Man 9 & 10.

I think people need to learn that aesthetics have nothing to do with highly detailed HD visuals. There are plenty of PS3 games that are uglier than Mega Man 10.

And aesthetics are as important as controls to a good game.

HolyMackerel

JesusSaves wrote:

Seeing that the gameplay quality is already on a steep decline, I don't see how the 3DS could improve the situation.

Firstly, I have no idea where you got that impression. Gameplay has only improved over time. If anything seriously goes wrong, developers can just go back to making games like they were in the 90s (or whenever you think the "peak" was), but I really think everyone would notice the big step backwards in terms of controls, difficulty, balancing and sophistication.

Secondly, the 3DS has the potential to make playing 3D games far easier by allowing true depth perception. We'll finally be able to maneuver in 3D space correctly. It's been one of my major problems with 3D action games ever since they started.

Let's play some Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate! Let me know who you are before you add me.
3DS Friend Code: 4098-3796-9042
× steam

HolyMackerel

WaltzElf wrote:

Faron wrote:

Graphics are not too important. Simple proofs are games like Mega Man 9 & 10.

I think people need to learn that aesthetics have nothing to do with highly detailed HD visuals. There are plenty of PS3 games that are uglier than Mega Man 10.

And aesthetics are as important as controls to a good game.

Yep, that's the magic formula. Graphics =/= art direction. Panzer Dragoon Orta is an example of a last-gen game that looks better than most current-gen titles because of its incredible art direction, even though it runs on worse graphics hardware. I could also go on about the incredible music direction and gameplay, but we're talking "graphics" here, right?

Skip to 3:50 to see the gameplay:
[youtube:uFNOqsZCYPs]

Let's play some Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate! Let me know who you are before you add me.
3DS Friend Code: 4098-3796-9042
× steam

Bankai

Yeah, exactly. I can only think of one game Ive ever played that was genuinely good while having legitmately poor art direction and aesthetics - Final Fantasy VII.

Some games are minimal, or deliberately retro, but those are still visually pleasing. So yes, having good "graphics" is critical to a good game.

Robo-goose

If the gameplay is perfected, the game will be remembered forever.
If the graphics are spectacular, a game with better graphics will be made next month.

Edited on by Robo-goose

"I'm a heartbreaker...
My name... Charles." -The Greatest Man In Driftveil City

Marzipaz

Why on earth would it change? S: |

Lets take his leather pants.

Marvelousmoo

I agree with Robo-goose. Although games can have good graphics and good gameplay, graphics are somethign that simply pleases the eye until better graphics come along. You may have a great view on the side of a highway, but would you want to stay next to that highway looking at the good view forever? No, you wouldn't. You want to see new things. If gameplay of a video game is really good though, you want to keep playing it, or something really similar to it. Super Mario Bros. is a great example of fun gameplay without spectacular graphics. Throughout its entire lifetime, millions have played and loved mario, and the gameplay of the games hasn't changed, save for a few new additions here and there. For a game to last the test of time, it must have great gameplay, not great graphics.

Edited on by Marvelousmoo

Marvelousmoo

Token_Girl

SMB DID have great graphics for it's time though, and it's aesthetic, though retro, is still pleasing to look at today, if not boxy.

I am way too lazy to think of something clever.
My Backloggery
Pokemon Platinum FC: 0517 9582 3270
Pokemon SS FC: 4512 4783 5710
Mario Kart DS FC: 4211 7712 2928

2-D

'Graphics' is sort of neither here nor there.
Art direction's way more important. There are so many games with great graphics but the world's blandest art direction, so they look boring. They might have nice shaders and textures; doesn't stop it being boring as. Check out Bad Company 2 and it's dustyness. Great graphics. Still just dust.
Art direction is almost (but not quite) as important as gameplay - it creates the mood and feel of the game. If you've got a game that plays great but doesn't hook you in with the visual style, it's not going to hook you in at all.

Misfortune subdues small minds.

GoldenEye 007 FC : 3933-1198-0911
2D on deviantart

Hokori

OKAY heres how I think it goes, the graphics, make the game feel better, but not play better, I hate the graphics in M:OM, but I love the game a lot, as for Prime The graphics are how they should look for a metroid in 3D. Okami, Muramasa, LKS, NMH, and Klonoa have graphics that make the game feel good and make the game realistic in the sense that, ITS NOT REAL.
NOW the Halo series looks good, and is ment to look like a Si-Fi Type, and RE and COD are ment to look real, because RE has the horror aspect, where COD is a War Sim.

Digitaloggery
3DS FC: Otaku1
WiiU: 013017970991
Nintendo of Japan
niconico community is full of kawaii!
Must finish my backlagg or at least get close this year
Welcome to my emassary of...

DrCruse

Robo-goose wrote:

If the gameplay is perfected, the game will be remembered forever.
If the graphics are spectacular, a game with better graphics will be made next month.

DrCruse

Chucko

JesusSaves wrote:

Robo-goose wrote:

If the gameplay is perfected, the game will be remembered forever.
If the graphics are spectacular, a game with better graphics will be made next month.

Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate, would you kindly?

CanisWolfred

Can anybody name a game that they liked that had genuinely poor graphics? The only ones I can think of are some NES games, which might have been impressive for its time, The Last Remnant, and Final Fantasy VII, and while I did enjoy those games the poor graphics did take away from the experience a bit, just not enough to keep me from enjoying the game.

Reversing that how many games that had really good graphics that you played that also had genuinely bad gameplay? And I don't just mean graphics that are technically impressive, but also have a good artstyle, and by the gameplay I mean gameplay that was very flawed. The only one I got is Too Human, though I'm tempted to throw on a few more. Hell, Too Human wasn't even technically impressive, it just has a good art-style.

Now, all I'm trying to say here is that often times good graphics and good gameplay tend to go hand-in-hand, and that it's already been said, good graphics can enhance a game just like good music and good gameplay. Maybe the graphics aren't more important, but at the very least they all work together to make a game great, and to say they aren't important is just plain silly.

Edited on by CanisWolfred

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun
Arooo~

Nintendo Network ID: CanisWolfred

DrCruse

Goldeneye's gameplay was good but I found it's aesthetics to be drab. I can't think of any games that had good art design but poor gameplay and were still enjoyable.

DrCruse

Bankai

Good aesthetics (I'll refrain from saying good graphics, because most people mistakingly equivalent technical achievement with "good graphics") are simply a sign of high production values, so it stands to reason that those games will also have good gameplay.

So yeah, I tend to look for good aesthetics when buying games... It's a sign the developer and publisher cares about the project.

Bankai

JesusSaves wrote:

Goldeneye's gameplay was good but I found it's aesthetics to be drab. I can't think of any games that had good art design but poor gameplay and were still enjoyable.

At the time, Goldeneye's aesthetics were appropriate for the FPS genre. It's just that that particular genre has since evolved in a way that has left Goldeneye looking quite poor.

I remember all the reviews of that game at the time talking about how awesome the game looked.

CanisWolfred

JesusSaves wrote:

Goldeneye's gameplay was good but I found it's aesthetics to be drab. I can't think of any games that had good art design but poor gameplay and were still enjoyable.

Goldeneye's graphics were actually very impressive for it's time, and at the very least the art style is consistant with the movie it was based on. Like Waltz said, they haven't aged well, but so have a lot of games. The art design, on the other hand, is still quite pleasing, at least so long as you like James Bond from that era. (I never did, to be quite honest)

I am the Wolf...Red
Backloggery | DeviantArt
Wolfrun
Arooo~

Nintendo Network ID: CanisWolfred

HolyMackerel

I'm assuming that when you say "graphics" you mean technically advanced visuals, not art direction.

Genso Suikoden II is a game with notably bad graphics even for its time (and the artwork was nice but nothing special), but it's among the best RPGs ever made.

It's easy to create technically impressive graphics, not so easy to create good gameplay. There are many games with good graphics and bad gameplay. If not bad then seriously flawed gameplay anyway: Killzone 2, Oblivion, Crysis.

Edited on by HolyMackerel

Let's play some Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate! Let me know who you are before you add me.
3DS Friend Code: 4098-3796-9042
× steam

Top

Sorry, this topic has been locked.