Can Story, Wit and Character Growth make up for mediocre graphics in an RPG?

[SKBPinkie]

I kinda miss the 2006-2010 period of gaming forums when people had discussions about what's better - graphics or gameplay?

As dumb as those topics were, the thing is - they at least talked about the gameplay. Fewer and fewer people seem interested in that nowadays.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Ah, I do apologise, the game is made as a hobby and will never be monetised, so I thought it may be allowed. It won't happen again.

There is a User Group for sharing creative projects if you want some feedback though. It's called "The Escapist Creative Society."

But to answer your question, yes it can. Most people play RPGs for their story* and there are tons of examples of successful RPGs that don't meet the technical standards of their day (Persona 5, as a recent example, really isn't a graphical powerhouse even if the visual style is pretty great) and even games with outright bland art can often get away with it, like Spiderweb Software's entire library. Their graphics are functional but not fancy but they have a relatively large fanbase.

*There are weirdos like me who just really like dungeon crawling though.

 

[BarkBarker]

No, it can't. It's a game with a full experience and that experience is underwhelming visuals to great story, wit and character growth. It's the blight on a fantastic story waiting to be told in all the splendor the writing provides, it's why when I see an established story creator or even story itself taken all the way up the mountain with funding or whatever I get to see the majesty that was told in appropriate form.

 

[Chaosian]

I kinda miss the 2006-2010 period of gaming forums when people had discussions about what's better - graphics or gameplay?

As dumb as those topics were, the thing is - they at least talked about the gameplay. Fewer and fewer people seem interested in that nowadays.

It seems that war is pretty much over. What is there to talk about anymore?
There's pretty clearly there is a pretty overwhelming consensus on the matter, as evidence by the responses we're getting even in this thread.
I admit I don't hear too many people discussing "which is better, SNES or Genesis?" anymore - it doesn't mean it was some lost gem of conversational art and healthy gamer attitude.

 

[SKBPinkie]

I kinda miss the 2006-2010 period of gaming forums when people had discussions about what's better - graphics or gameplay?

As dumb as those topics were, the thing is - they at least talked about the gameplay. Fewer and fewer people seem interested in that nowadays.

It seems that war is pretty much over. What is there to talk about anymore?
There's pretty clearly there is a pretty overwhelming consensus on the matter, as evidence by the responses we're getting even in this thread.
I admit I don't hear too many people discussing "which is better, SNES or Genesis?" anymore - it doesn't mean it was some lost gem of conversational art and healthy gamer attitude.

Maybe I wasn't clear. Obviously that discussion had a clear winner. What I do miss is that people don't seem to talk about gameplay very often. This includes games media as well. The moment-to-moment gameplay and controls of a game seem to take a backseat to story / characters / setting, etc.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Yes

The biggest problem with RPGs is gameplay...

I kinda miss the 2006-2010 period of gaming forums when people had discussions about what's better - graphics or gameplay?

As dumb as those topics were, the thing is - they at least talked about the gameplay. Fewer and fewer people seem interested in that nowadays.

RPGs focus on combat way too much when it should be about the role-playing. For example, I didn't care for the gameplay in Witcher 3 at all, even movement alone was pretty bad, the combat was a mismatch of Souls/Arkham combat that focused on humanoid enemies instead of the monster fights making what should be the highlights feel so lackluster. It's like if Horizon Zero Dawn focused its combat system on the human/bandit enemies, then the robot dinosaur fights would suck, which is what the game is supposed to excel at. That's what Witcher 3 did IMO. In general, most action RPGs have at best average combat usually referred to as "good for an RPG". Well, that's a bullshit excuse because you actually fight more in most RPGs than you do in a freaking Platinum game. Say Witcher 3 takes 50 hours to complete with 20 hours being story, dialogue, questing (RPG stuff) and with 30 hours being gameplay and mainly combat. Thus, how is a game "great" if I have to spend 30 hours with average gameplay and combat? I have to fight more in an RPG with lackluster combat than I do in a playthrough of Bayonetta. And, even if the RPG stuff is great (which it mostly isn't due to games having shit writing), why should I play through the bland gameplay when I can just watch a playthrough and just get all the good stuff without any of the bad stuff while taking less time?