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

Why on earth would it change? S: |

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

Those who say that graphics doesn't matter are hypocrites. Yes, it does matter, let's admit the painful truth. The only thing that's true about graphics is that it can never be a factor when choosing games. You always look for quality. Not what it can offer visually.

I admit I used to say graphics dont matter but that was when I had all nintendo consoles once I got ps3. I think to me all of the people who say graphics dont matter are fanboys of the nintendo type even my freind once I got it I still go over to his house to play his wii all the time (I dont own one wating for wii 2) but he think just cause I lkie good graphics that Im some sony freak and he think that all I care about. In fact he still brings it up almost everytime I see him thouhg he wanted one beofre now he says he never getting one and hraphics are all I think about when its not. Hes realy the reason why I now think people like him or nintenbdo fanboys theyve brainwashed themselfs in thinking graphics dont matter when they realy ad alot to game.

I care for Gameplay.

but my Bro cares for Graphics.

I feel ya man.

@blink83
Graphics do add more to a Game,But
If the game isn't any Fun, then you just have a pretty picture.

I have buy most games base on Graphics, intill I learn the hard way about "How a game is play, and not how it looked "

But games like Fable and Mass Effect have great Graphics and Gameplay, but after playing the Game for a long time, you get used to the Graphics and they don't Wow you any more, but what makes you come back for more is it Gameplay.

I agree with those that say gameplay is most important (the continued popularity of retro classics like Pac-Man and SMB is a testament to that) but graphics do add something to the game. If there are two games in a series that are almost identical in gameplay, I am naturally more drawn to the one that looks better. I'm not overly demanding where graphics are concerned, but I appreciate what they bring to the table when done right.

And what's this Final Fantasy VII game everyone keeps talking about? I watched some YouTube videos of a game with this name, but I think they mixed up the videos with Lego Final Fantasy.

But you do own a DS/GBA/GCN,or are at least thinking about getting a 3DS, right?

I think graphics are great but they aren't necessary. The only problem with them is that they add to more work on the developer which leads to either later release dates or less gameplay(usually it's the first)

btw blink83 you're right he's kind of annoying that way. a standard has been set for people with PS3's by other fanboys that you just care about graphics. which we can't deny that there are people and companies who solely believe in graphics but it's an unfair stereotype.