does good graphics lead to bad gameplay?

Recommended Videos

Aprilgold

New member
Apr 1, 2011
1,995
0
0
Lets get this out of the way first, graphics are not what a game looks like, but how powerful its style can be. If your going for photo realism you need a powerful engine, once made you do the textures, then the filming and all sorts of stuff. Obviously you've spent more time on this then on your core mechanic, which will hinder your game and sometimes leave with unfinished garbage.

Would Okami be better if its graphical capabilities were increased is a good question to ask and you will understand why in a minute.

Call of Duty suffers largely from trying to achieve perfect looks, thus bugs and games never changing that far past each other. Okami, on the other hand, looks better then Call of Duty and has a much better mechanic in play that is more solid because of its art-design not being all that intensive.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
What about a game like Bastion? The gameplay itself is nothing new, but the presentation and mixture of awesome visuals and a stupendous soundtrack make up for it. It is an example of how a product can be better than the sum of its parts.
 

FrostyChick

Little Miss Vampire.
Jul 13, 2010
678
0
21
Correlation and causation. You should know the difference by now.

P.s. Take off the rose tinted glasses, the devs of ye olde times had more than their fair share of shitty games. Infact, I distinctly remember that the games industry crashed as a result of an overload of terrible games.
 

Nasrin

Leviathan
May 30, 2011
369
0
0
Soviet Heavy said:
What about a game like Bastion? The gameplay itself is nothing new, but the presentation and mixture of awesome visuals and a stupendous soundtrack make up for it. It is an example of how a product can be better than the sum of its parts.
Yeah but my thinking is... we have no shortage of visually stunning works being pushed out right now. Why is more of that valuable? I'm not saying it isn't, I just worry that an obsession with it detracts from the impetus to innovate in other ways.
 

PrinceOfShapeir

New member
Mar 27, 2011
1,849
0
0
I've played many bad games with bad graphics. I've played many good games with bad graphics. The two are only loosely connected.
 

Squidbulb

New member
Jul 22, 2011
306
0
0
Correlation does not equal causation. Just because these games have better graphics but not better gameplay, doesn't mean the graphics are the cause.
 

Haydyn

New member
Mar 27, 2009
976
0
0
A certain amount of graphics is required for a great game, but amazing graphics are more of a luxury. They are there to deliver the game mechanics. If you have a sweet set up people will be coming back for the mechanics. Games based on graphics are just going to stagnate in whatever time they were in. When you go back to play one of your favorite games from younger years, people are going to play the games that were compelling enough to leave an impression on what you find entertaining.

It's not that games with good graphics have to be bad. It's just that it is financially tempting for a company to make a game that looks real nice to try to rake in a larger market. Playing games from years back doesn't make money, they need us buying new games. Not as much effort needs to go into the essential elements of programming, storytelling, and difficulty. The problem is the market has become so over flooded with similarity because effort has not gone into exploring research to see what it is people like and what keeps them playing. So whenever a method is found it gets exploited and overdone. That's why I can be in a party with people playing MW3, Black Ops, and Battlefield.
 

Imbechile

New member
Aug 25, 2010
527
0
0
Today too much of the budget is spent on visuals and cinematics, thus the gameplay suffers.
And people get surprised when I say older games are better.
Off topic:
Daystar Clarion said:
A lot of animations in that video are awful and unrealistic. A bad example of "good" animation.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,526
0
0
Imbechile said:
Today too much of the budget is spent on visuals and cinematics, thus the gameplay suffers.
And people get surprised when I say older games are better.
Off topic:
Daystar Clarion said:
A lot of animations in that video are awful and unrealistic. A bad example of "good" animation.
Really? huh.

My eyes must be broken then.

I hope the warranty on these things is still valid.
 

A_Parked_Car

New member
Oct 30, 2009
627
0
0
I don't think that is necessarily the case. Crysis 1 is still one of my favorite shooters of all time. I really enjoyed the gameplay, actually, mentioning it just now makes me want to go and play through it again. I also find that the Total War series has been getting better as the graphics have improved.

That being said, graphics should not be the core focus of a developer. After all, no matter how much time you put into your graphics engine, it will still look dated in a few years. Once that happens it better have good gameplay to fall back on. This is particularly pronounced in games that go for a 'realistic' aesthetic like Call of Duty or Battlefield. Games like Team Fortress 2 or World of Warcraft have aged quite well do to a quirky, interesting art direction.

I like to single out Hearts of Iron III as an example of graphics not being as important as gameplay. For those who don't know, Hearts of Iron III is a hardcore grand strategy game. If you looked at it from a purely graphical prospective it is horribly ugly. Just a 2D map and LOTS of stats, menus, charts etc. Yet the gameplay is extremely fun and as a result I will probably be playing it for years to come.
 

ElPatron

New member
Jul 18, 2011
2,130
0
0
Crysis did not have a bad gameplay and only it's story was generic.

The objectives were too repetitive, though. Warhead was a little better on that aspect.

At most it's engine only made the game better by using physics as part of the gameplay.
 

someonehairy-ish

New member
Mar 15, 2009
1,949
0
0
Well, terrible games might occasionally get away with it by showing off shiny shiny screenshots and snippets of videos. But most of the games that I can think of which are gorgeous graphically are also pretty good. Farcry stands out as an excellent example.
Hell, even plenty of great indie games have nice artwork going into em, even if there isn't cell shading and millions of polygons and all the other technical wizardly that AAA games have.
 
Jan 22, 2011
450
0
0
for the love of god no, story/plot/characters/music is what makes a game. Graphics are just eye-candy to spread it out a bit but overall no. Hell I replay Final Fantasy IV every year along with chrono trigger and they are both getting dated now. My new favorite game is corpse party only on the psp/vita which relies heavily on voice acting, music, and story telling for a decent game experience.

 

kingthrall

New member
May 31, 2011
811
0
0
big budget companies tend to splurge on the cgi because they think it is expected. It obviously is not and its probally one of my most hated things about gaming in general. These over bloomed characters and no proper mechanics and details. Skyrim was one of the few exceptions of details such as being able to pick flora and fauna whislt not going too deep into the cgi. Not saying its the best game (cause its not) but they had the right idea of balance.
 

C2Ultima

Future sovereign of Oz
Nov 6, 2010
506
0
0
Somewhat poor title there. A better one would probably be "Does the effort to make graphics look good lead to bad gameplay?". The way it is now, one might think you're saying the presence of good graphics by themselves cause bad gameplay.

Even so, you make a good case for it. I have to agree that developers constantly trying to make the graphics better and better does result in somewhat cut down gameplay, but that reflects more on the developer. If a developer is really good, they'll be able to make the graphics look fine, while acknowledging that gameplay is what matters. The more time you put into something as superficial as graphics, the less success you'll have in the gameplay department.
 

redisforever

New member
Oct 5, 2009
2,158
0
0
No way. Red Dead Redemption, for example, is one of the best looking games I've seen, and it's also one of the best games ever, in my opinion. However, if the devs focus more on the graphics at the expense of making sure the gameplay is fun, then yes.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
Nasrin said:
Soviet Heavy said:
What about a game like Bastion? The gameplay itself is nothing new, but the presentation and mixture of awesome visuals and a stupendous soundtrack make up for it. It is an example of how a product can be better than the sum of its parts.
Yeah but my thinking is... we have no shortage of visually stunning works being pushed out right now. Why is more of that valuable? I'm not saying it isn't, I just worry that an obsession with it detracts from the impetus to innovate in other ways.
But Bastion's graphics aren't what your average Johnny means when he says "good graphics". He doesn't mean aesthetics or stylization, he means the number of polygons, the raw processing power required to render, cause then he can show off his just how much powerful his hardware is than the other guy's. Because his other hardware...no, better not go there.

Does Bastion look good? Definitely. But it's not an example what the kool kids mean when they say they want "good graphics". If anything, the industry should produce more games like that, that look good without having to upgrade your system every three months.
 
Mar 5, 2011
690
0
0
Let's see here, lemme reach into my bag o' answers. Nope it doens't. Half-Life 2 had some of the best graphics of as of 2004 and is still on of the best games ever. I think the O.P. is looking at correlation not causation.
 

Samantha Burt

New member
Jan 30, 2012
314
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Character models in Mass Effect move terribly in cut scenes.
Oh god, I know what you mean, but to me the worst model animation in modern gaming is in Deus Ex: HR. I mean, so twitchy!