Are You A Games Need Uber Good Graphics Or Story Is Best Type Of Person

[ProfessorLayton]

Story story story. I couldn't care less about how shiny a game is, if it's just going through the motions with no story at all, then count me out. Even Gears of War 2 was a step up from Gears of War 1 where you couldn't telly what the hell you were doing or why you were doing it. I would take Half-Life 2 over Crysis any day.

 

[tehweave]

Frankly, I wouldn't mind if we all just went back a step in graphics and took a look at how good games were during the PS1 N64 era. Even the XboxPS2Gamecube generation had some really good games, but right now, our current generation kinda sucks. Let's stop moving forward in graphics and take some time to make games FUN again.

 

[quack35]

Can we give this topic a rest already?

Gameplay is more important than graphics, no one in the world disagrees with this.

 

[Julianking93]

Good story. I don't care about graphics as long as the story's good.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

I prefer a GOOD story over graphics, but I would quite prefer good graphics over a mediocre story.

 

[Mordwyl]

I don't care about either. Ten years from now, unless the gameplay is good I don't even want to touch the game anymore.

 

[Kurokami]

games that have uber good graphics generally look nice and play nice but the game mechanics most often fail and annoy me. a story blended with a game with uber good graphics keep me entertained and wanting to play again and again even games that have really shitty graphics still keep entertaining for years to come

The way a story is presented is also important, not to mention the gameplay. In falklore, the gameplay didn't bother me and the story might've been good, its just that... I didn't give a fuck! it was so boring to sit there holding down triangle and tapping x just to get to the damn game. I think the most important factor in a game is knowing what you are, ie: not having MGS cinematics in a game like unreal tournament and the like. Anyway, I slightly went over my point there, but games graphics, not as important as story (depending on the game) though in my opinion they should go hand in hand. But the most important part is the gameplay, after all that's what keeps us playing ain't it?

 

[CuddlyCombine]

Is it too much to ask for both?

The majority of people- myself included- want a good story more, I think.

Anyone who disagrees can try explaining to me how the KOTOR series ever made any money even though it's catastrophically ugly.

<- LOOK AT IT! THIS MADE MILLIONS!

KotOR wasn't anything near ugly. For its time, it was near top-of-the-line in terms of graphics, and they even shaved off some to account for the massive world maps and gameplay content. It's ugly to us now, when we've got Crysis and such prancing around, but back in 2003 it was beautiful.

 

[ModReap]

Story>Graphics

/thread

 

[SilverUchiha]

I honestly don't care about graphics (unless it starts giving me some sort of headache). N64s seem to give me a headache anymore (on most games).

But graphics have generally always been irrelevant to me because it just makes the game look pretty. It's like seeing a hot woman walking past me. Sure, just about any guy would go for it, but just because she's hot doesn't mean she's intelligent or anything like that.

A good story is definitely more important than graphics because I'd rather play a game with a purpose than a game that looks nice. If I can get both, great. If not, story takes priority.

More important than both is GAMEPLAY. If you can't enjoy PLAYING the GAME then there's no point in even picking it up. I can watch a movie or read a book for a story. I can think of other things (and women. lol) that look good to keep my attention for a while. Games are about playing games. Therefore gameplay is the most important factor of them. Period.

 

[Aerowaves]

Story is the most important. I can forgive fidgety gameplay mechanics and below average graphics if the story is good enough.

KOTOR is a good example. I haven't had so much fun, or been so sucked in, by any game before or since. Doesn't have the best graphics or combat but it is a seriously impressive game.

 

[domble]

KOTOR isn't bad looking.

This is bad looking. But it was still succesfull, going so far as to spawn several sequels and a multitude of spinoffs. Thats right, the first Civilization.

So no, graphis can't make up for shitty gameplay or lousy story. It can make things pretty, but that fades after a few minutes into the game.

Like Spygon said before me, "you can dress a turd up all you want but its still a turd".

And not all gold glitters.

While that is a good point, and I'm not saying KOTOR is the ugliest thing to ever cross our screens. What I am saying is that the good story made up for graphics that it didn't have- again I need to clarify that Fable and it's ilk had MUCH better graphics, but KOTOR ground them into the dirt with sheer narrative.

Also, can we really accuse an MS DOS game of having bad visuals? I mean its not like there was THAT much choice. Like if Pete Postlethwaite and Amy Winehouse had a baby, we couldn't be that harsh about it being ugly- it never stood a chance anyway.

... That particular thought might actually keep me awake at night.

 

[Zacharine]

While that is a good point, and I'm not saying KOTOR is the ugliest thing to ever cross our screens. What I am saying is that the good story made up for graphics that it didn't have- again I need to clarify that Fable and it's ilk had MUCH better graphics, but KOTOR ground them into the dirt with sheer narrative.

Also, can we really accuse an MS DOS game of having bad visuals? I mean its not like there was THAT much choice. Like if Pete Postlethwaite and Amy Winehouse had a baby, we couldn't be that harsh about it being ugly- it never stood a chance anyway.

... That particular thought might actually keep me awake at night.

True .

And yes, it would have been possible to give KOTOR better visuals.

But like you said, it didn't need them. And therefore I'm glad they made it look a tad worse off and instead focused on the gameplay and story.

To further glarify the point I made with the Civilization: Sure, graphics develop along with the efficiency and capability of the technology it is made for. But in MS-DOS era we had such shitty graphics and yet still played the games with abandon. I mean look at that, I know ten-year olds who can draw better! But we loved it.

Attempting to compare Crysis with original Wolfenstein is like comparing a horse-drawn cart with a fully supped-up rally car. Yet the rally car is not required to get from A to B and most people are quite happy with a motorcycle or a mid-prized car. And if the rally car has shitty gears and a steering wheel that doesn't quite do what you want it to do, then many would in fact prefer the mid-prized cars over the rally car in almost any instance.

And the horse-carts are somewhere in the sidelines, acting as museum pieces and to remind us that we better be glad of what we have, because it could be a lot worse.

 

[squid5580]

Why does it always have to be a choice? It really depends on the game. I have played games that were short on story but had uber graphics and were good. I have played epic stories with crap graphics and they were good. I would like to have both but if that can't be then I will choose story. I am going to forget about how awesome the graphics were pretty quick. If the story is well done though it can last for alot longer in my memory.

 

[JoshGod]

list of most important things in a game
(A)gameplay
(B)story
(C)graphics

See I rank gameplay and story as being equal, I find that if I'm not being driven by a good story then all the gameplay in the world isn't going to disguise the fact that I'm just pressing buttons, and likewise if the gameplay is poor then I might as well just read a book.

That's just me though, I'm pretty fickle.

well i would disagree for instance how important is a story for a multiplayer? how good was the story for mw1?

what was the best story in a game for you. the only one i really loved - god of war 1 & 2

Quote in a quote in a quote here lol

Yeah in multiplayer the gameplay rules supreme, but that's taken purely as a challenge and to interact with your friends, if they play. On the flipside you have puzzle and adventure games which are all story and no gameplay, and they were pretty popular in their times.


And you can have multiplayer with storyline, the result of which is that life eating, monolithic digi-smack World of Warcraft.

Best story? Purely for the amount of times it moved me (i was... 10ish?) Final Fantasy VIII. The characters and their interaction with each other hasn't been equalled in my opinion. I haven't played GOW I or II, I'm afraid, but I've heard good things.

erm puzzle and adventure games do have gameplay. what you mean its a game and you dont interact? that interaction or plaing is gameplay, story is what is not played aka the cutscenes. so really you just said that puzzle games are completely cutscene based.
although you can have story with online look at bioshock 2 that will have a seperate story for online.

 

[domble]

erm puzzle and adventure games do have gameplay. what you mean its a game and you dont interact? that interaction or plaing is gameplay, story is what is not played aka the cutscenes. so really you just said that puzzle games are completely cutscene based.
although you can have story with online look at bioshock 2 that will have a seperate story for online.

Sorry to be fickle, and I don't mean to sound like a dick even if that's the way it comes across, but clicking an object isn't gameplay. If that was the case you'd "play" Microsoft Word. I see adventure games as a book that you solve a puzzle to turn the page sort of thing.

I didn't mean to start a discussion over it, it's just that in my opinion a game needs a good story and good gameplay for me to like it, that's all.

I'm not having an easy time on this thread, am I? Hahaha

 

[Xanadu84]

Neither are necessary. What I look for mainly is good gameplay. If it's inspired, well executed, and enjoyable, that's all I need. Doesn't need to be pretty or have an in depth story. There nice, of course, but not essential.

Second most important is Atmosphere. All those little things that add emotion and character to a plot, without actually advancing the plot. For example, take Half Life 2. These days, it's not the most pretty game, and the story, truth be told, is pretty sparse. If you take all the important plot and character advancement, you could easily fit it into a movie: Yet it takes several hours to play. This is because it is filled with little touches and designs and enforcement of themes that it has a wonderful sense of place and occasion. Even Bioshocks story is eclipsed by the oppressive atmosphere of Rapture. I would say those 2 things are the most important.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Actually a game can be face meltingly pretty and have a story that ranks on par with with a famous novel, but if the gameplay isn't very fun, then I don't like the game. Image the possibility of a broken camera, repetitive combat system and unintuitive menus coupled with confusing controls and poor level design and your game, no matter how pretty and interestingly storied is garbage.