Graphics vs Gameplay

[Soviet Heavy]

No, not a vs thread, but rather a question.

Is it really required for a game to have good graphics to be deemed good? I ask this because many reviews I read nowadays bash games if their graphics don't wow the critic.

Why should graphics take priority in these situations? They fill their niche for sure, but they are not integral to a game.

Take for example WOW. Terrible graphics, by today's standards, sub par when the game was released. But does that stop the game from earning millions of accounts?

Or how about Starcraft? It's graphics are a joke, but it is stilled played by approximately four hundred percent of Korea's population to this day.

I suppose this question is more aimed at FPS's, where everything must be compared to either Crysis, or Modern Warfare 2. Why? Why should a game meet the requirements of a super computer, or the newest AAA game to be considered good?

Many of the AVP reviews I have been reading really like to ***** about the graphics. I seriously don't give a shit, the game looks fine. Who cares if it doesn't look as good as MW2? Its functional, it knows what it is doing. Why must it be compared and then declared outdated, simply because it doesn't look as good as something else?

Do you think that Graphics should take priority over gameplay?

 

[twcblaze]

as a rabid disgaea fan, my answer is an obvious no. the entire series has barely stepped up ps1 graphics, like, final fantasy 8 style only with fewer obvious pixels... but damn I love those games, the gameplay and off the wall humor is more than enough to keep me coming back to it

 

[omega_peaches]

No, I think graphics should be near-lowest priority.
But if the game is really artistic(Killer7, Okami, TF2) then it should add points.
OH, and Disgaea.

 

[thepopeofatheism]

The movie Avatar is the answer to this question.

Nice graphics are lovely to gaze upon, but are not a substitute for good content.

 

[RatRace123]

Graphics are second to gameplay, and story, and voice acting, and writing, and level design, and animation, and programming.

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

Graphics should NEVER take priority over gameplay. If you ask me they should never take priority at all. If I were to review games graphics would almost never get mentioned because they're just not important. Most of my all-time favorite games have absolutely terrible graphics by today's standards, but I still love them because they're fun to play. I don't care how amazing a game looks, if it's mediocre and generic then it's not a good game. I'm looking right at you, Crysis.

 

[FlikViktor]

It's unfortunate but with todays gamers that's all they seem to care about. Things that look shiny but in realty are piles of garbage just shined up to look pretty. I personally prefer a good story told by a game over the graphics. Give me a game with 60+ hours of game time with sub par graphics over a game that could take less then 10 hours of game play but look really pretty any day.

 

[S.R.S.]

Being a fan of the AVP universe I can't really say much against it as long as the predators bleed bright green blood I would call it as having the best graphics evarrr.

Graphics in game are too over thought though. A game should be remembered in 10 years time for its story/gameplay then the graphics.

 

[PureAussieGamer]

Im going to say that Fallout 3 is a great game and the graphics arnt to fancy. Yet it still managed to win game of the year AND it still has a big player base.

But ill agree with you when a lot of reviews say the graphics are shit. But i wouldent say that reviewers base the end result on the graphics. Its one of those things that adds a bonus to the game.

 

[DustyDrB]

Graphics are second to gameplay, and story, and voice acting, and writing, and level design, and animation, and programming.

I agree.
I think in some ways improved graphics have limited the creativity of design in games. Instead of unique art style, everyone is striving for realism.

Shigeru Miyamota's credo is that gameplay is always priority. I agree.

 

[likalaruku]

I usually get a game for the game OR the graphics.

For instance, I am most fons of games that are either in 2D or are from around 2001. Pretty dated graphics. If the story is interesting enough, I really don;t want to be distracted by whether or not I like the graphics. When I played Serious Sam 2, I was so distracted by the graphics that I couldn't win unless I played in god mode, so I do believe graphics can be "too good."

Then there's games like Elder Scrolls. I avoid the actuall gameplay until I've explored the land. Now Morrowind had some pretty ugly graphics, so I added about 300 mods to it & it's far too dazzling & distracting for me to even remember that I'm supposed to be playing it. It does make a good substitute when you plans to go hiking have been canceled.

 

[Knight Templar]

Graphics matter, if I can't tell whats going on or the fourth wall is only an inch high because of facial animations then the story and gameplay suffers.

But if there is no gameplay then its not a game, and if there is no story/context I'm just pressing buttons. Only the simplest of games and ignore story, and none can ignore gameplay.

Everything matters, making your game look good is very important, but that doesn't mean top of the line graphics, it means something that works for the game. For example Legend of Zelda wouldn't be improved by top of the line modern graphics, and Mass Effect wouldn't be improved had it graphics been of the same type as Zelda's.

 

[lasherman]

I think that in this current generation of comsoles, there is no good reason to have to choose between the two. Obviously, gameplay is important, but grphics are too. Gameplay is what makes the game fun, but really, imagine playing a game like Mass Effect 2 with shitty PS1 graphics. It's gonna be alot harder to make anyone care about any of the characters when they're made up of forty polygons.

Edit: Yeah, basically what Knight Templar said.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Graphics can make a good game great, but a terrible game cannot become good by being shiny, no?
Besides, I have always found style to be more important than realism. If I can believe that a virtual world can be real by its own standards, the game's visuals have done their job well.

 

[Valdsator]

Heh, a lot of the time I like older, more crappy graphics. I don't know, but graphics today seem to be affecting the actual gameplay, because now whenever something has nice, new, shiny graphics, for some reason it must feel..."heavier," I guess. Like a character always responds to commands slower. Maybe the developers are just trying to add realism to the controls, but I'm kind of tired of it.

Basically, I don't care about graphics. New graphics are nice, but sometimes I like the style of older graphics.

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

Shigeru Miyamota's credo is that gameplay is always priority. I agree.

When did he say that? I'm not surprised since Shigeru Miyamoto is the man, but this makes him even more awesome in my book.

 

[Jaebird]

I agree with you about how the most popular games aren't the most beautiful things, but you have to look at it from an artistic perspective. It mostly boils down to the developer's choice of artwork that usually makes the final cut for a game. Well, at least when dealing with any genre that isn't of the realistic shooter kind. I think it's pretty much mandatory for a FPS with a military setting to be grounded in a real-world-like universe, and has a visual style that reflects it.

If I had to choose, I would have to say I would prefer the gameplay over graphics. What other reason is there to play a game? That's what the gameplay is there for. I'll give you an example from what I've been playing recently: Iron Man. Here's a game where you fly around a sand-box environment and shoot things. It works for most of the time, although there are a few issues (which I won't delve into). But what about the graphics? Well, the titular character is just about the only thing in the game that looks appealing when you look at him up close. Everything else is muddy mess of textures.

But does that stop me from playing it? No. Why? Because, despite the issues I have with the gameplay, I still find it fun and I'll rent it on occasion when I have nothing else to play.

Given the way things have been during this console cycle, you can see that many developers are too busy poking and prodding the graphics; trying to see just how far they can push that visual envelope. But, in most cases, they lose sight of the overall goal; which is making the damn game.

 

[StevieG]

Graphics provide a nice bonus and add to the overall atmosphere of the game, but by no means are they the most important thing. I've been playing through the new AvP and the gameplay and feel of the game itself are so perfect that the graphics are just fine. Besides, when you're flying around a room as an Alien, you're often moving too fast to notice how shiny something is.