Graphics vs Gameplay

[DustyDrB]

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.

I saw it in a video interview. It was through a translator. I honestly cannot remember where I saw it, I browse around so much. Might have been IGN. http://media.stars.ign.com/media/919/919353/vids_1.html
Try looking there if you really want to.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Graphics are bottom of the barrel. EVERYTHING should come before them.

 

[clutch-monkey]

neither should impede the other.

if they complement each other, all the better.

 

[BattlePope]

I'd have to say that graphics are creating a situation that I agree with in No More Heroes 2, wherein one of the bosses says "I'm tired of this gilded world; all glitter and no soul!"

The problem is that younger gamers won't play some of the classics since the graphics suck. Case in point was how Silent Hill was arguably some of the creepiest stuff you could play, but people couldn't get past the fact that it was on the PS1 and displayed such graphics. Story, characters and their development, as well as gameplay and atmosphere/setting are what should matter the most right now, but most casual gamers wouldn't ever want to give Fallout 1 or 2 a chance since they aren't as pretty as their younger sibling.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Graphics(speaking of physics and animation+ detail) are the gateway to better gameplay and storytelling. Would ME2 have even had close to the impact it did if it has subpar graphics and facial animation. WOuld uncharted 2 be as "good" with a static environment with only standard lighting, and animation?

 

[Dys]

This thread seems to be done really, really often..

I'll say the same boring thing as the majority, no graphics are not necessary for a good game, they do however add to an already good game. Unfortunately I'm far too uncool to hate progress, so I'm going to call bullshit on everyone who will inevitably claim that good graphics are a bad thing (the typical reasoning is that if more time is spent tuning the graphics, less time is spent tuning the gameplay, I disagree with this logic). There's no excuse for a AAA title to not have good graphics (having visual bugs or crappy meshes just screams of laziness), that doesn't necessarily mean shiny high res images, but they should be consistent with how the game should look (the zelda games on DS are an example of what I'd call exceptional graphics compared to the often buggy, boring graphics used in prototype).

The AVP example is an interesting one, from what I've played the graphics are ok for a multi platform game, however the serious games on multiple platforms often put in more effort, rather than releasing a gimped version on platform X (more often than not the PC) devs should learn to leave it on the platform(s) it was designed for. The graphics, coupled with the controls and general atmosphere are not up to par with well received games (even if I do tend to bash a lot of the, especially MW2), though from what I've played the gameplay is of a far lower standard than the graphics (the fact that I'd rather play AvP2 than the new one screams out to the quality of gameplay).

Graphics are bottom of the barrel. EVERYTHING should come before them.

And as such one can only assume you're a massive fan of text based games, most 'gamers' are not. The majority of us like having satisfying kill animations complete with ragdolls and blood splatter or seeing smoke spurt from the back of our exotic sports car or whatever other visual/atmospheric pretties are included in the game so as to add something.

Another example of "mKay Graphics and Great Gameplay' is Team Fortress 2. Yes, the graphics are good in their own right, but they are also quite simple.

Yet if I was asked I'd argue that team fortress two has far above average graphics, running on an updated version of the source engine with what's probably the most detailed cell shaded rendering I've ever seen really adds a lot. Just because it's not trying to be photo realistic or overly cluttered (I wouldn't go so far as to call it simple) doesn't make them bad.

 

[TheRocketeer]

Of course they shouldn't take priority over gameplay, but they certainly aren't unimportant. Bad graphics can make a good game aggravating, and great graphics can make a bad game bearable.

A game that stands out on the strength of its graphics alone will, of course, be hastily forgotten as it is displaced by the non-stop procession of improvements we are so lucky to be subject to. But if a game's graphics complement an already-strong base of gameplay or narrative, then they can only serve to make an enjoyable experience better.

No one will remember Crysis in a few years once its graphics are quaint by comparison and its staid gunplay is judged on its own merits, but on the other hand I worry what will happen to genuinely strong games that are dwarfed, graphically, even by their contemporaries. Even a great game can prove difficult to enjoy if it feels like you're being poked in the eye by Steve Buscemi, and a lot of games may not get a fair shake by future generations due to how poorly they've aged visually.

All graphics will show their age eventually, but some games definitely age much worse than others, and it's not often obvious why. For example, the more sophisticated graphics of Final Fantasy VI certainly must have humbled the series' previous SNES offerings when it was released. Looking back on them now, Final Fantasies IV and V's appearances hold up remarkably well, while Father Time has really taken his sledgehammer to their successor's more sophisticated visage. And 3-D graphics have a much worse shot at gracefully aging than simple sprites.

I wonder if any developers or game journalists have taken a weather eye at what exactly contributes to the deterioration of games' appearances, and what can make contemporary games, similarly appealing upon their release, weather the years with such greatly differing aptitude? I have a scant few ideas about it, but I've already wandered far enough from the topic at hand.

 

[squid5580]

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.

There is a reason behind this illogical logic. We were perfectly content with our NESes until the day. The day when they tell us look at the 16 bits you can have over the 8 bits you are playing now. I mean come on look how shiny 16 bits are compared to the 8 bits and it can be yours for a few hundred more dollars (software not included). So since we tossed out our old 8 bit console for a 16 bit we expect to be able to see a tangible difference. And then the day comes that our 16 bit game doesn't look much different than the 8 bit game of the past. Essentially saying "ha we screwed you out of hundreds of dollars for 8 extra bits of nothing" And then the reviewers (who are our voice in the industry) slam on it. And even if you didn't notice the 8 missing bits you do now. And start passing the message to others who may or may not have noticed. Until the devs get the message that graphics are soooo important and everything else is a waste of time.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Gameplay is more important then graphics, but graphics should not be abandoned.

 

[Chris Sharka]

Gameplay is more important then graphics, but graphics should not be abandoned.

Truth.

You can easily have a great game without great graphics. I still play Lolo, Dr. Mario, and Tetris regularly on my, somehow, still working NES.

You can easily have realistic graphics and gameplay. I'm told Forza Motorsports is great for this reason.

However I would much rather play Mario Kart for the SNES than Forza. I'm not big into racing, whether it be games or in meatspace.

 

[DustyDrB]

Gameplay often dictates graphics, as well. It's rarely the other way around, unless someone develops an engine and just has to find an excuse to show it off. Think of Psychonauts, realistic graphics just wouldn't fit for it. Likewise, cartoonish graphics for a Call of Duty game would just be cheesy.

If we're just talking about the quality of graphics rather than style, then very few games released today truly have bad graphics. There may be some glitches, texture pop-in, etc. Dragon Age: Origin is not considered to have good graphics for a current gen game, but it still looks good to me.

 

[Ritzkreig]

My example of gameplay over graphics (with respect to nowaday's obsession with graphics) would be Goldeneye for the N64. I know a lot of gamers whom have not played the game due to it not having "graphics similar to Final Fantasy." The graphics of the game compared to a lot of games strictly for the PS3 are almost barbaric, but it is still one of my most favorite FPS, and is even better than (sadly) some FPS that I have played recently. What other game can you pimp slap a person to death or infamously shoot a hat off of a guy's head and him not notice?

To me, gameplay is the backbone of a game. Graphics add the muscle, although if you have a strong backbone it is not needed (case in point: Goldeneye). Without a backbone, you just have a pile of mush.

 

[keillord]

I grew up on 2d games so graphics really don't mean anything to me. The characters could be stick men for all I care, as long as the gameplay is solid.

 

[Veylon]

Graphics should be good for the gameplay. Graphics are what you're looking at, so the first priority is to have graphics that are nice on the eyes and clearly represent what's going on. Ever seen those fancy chess sets? Even though they have better "graphics", it can be harder to tell which is which with them. It's better to have stylized graphics than realistic ones, for gameplay purposes. The units and buildings in Starcraft are scarcely realistic in appearance, but you can distinguish them at a glance.

 

[Callate]

This is one of those questions that has a politic answer and a realistic one.

(Ahem) No! Gameplay is king! Game design is art! No amount of chrome can take the place of an inspired vision, revolutionary thinking, and dedication to the experience of the player!

...Okay... Now that we got that out of the way, how many people paid money to play a primarily sprite-based game on any system other than the DS last year? (For the uninformed, "sprites" are game objects created out of two-dimensional images, in contrast to the later development of "voxels" or the polygons that make up most game graphics today.) I'm going to hazard a guess that it isn't very many. And those who did paid a pittance on something like Wiiware or Steam.

Without a major license or long-standing reputation, it's very hard to sell a game these days. A beautiful screenshot can sell people, especially if you only have a few seconds to convince them.

As a gamer, I recognize that a state-of-the-art graphics engine isn't remotely the be-all-end-all of a good game. But as a pragmatist, I recognize that the chances I'll even hear of a game that doesn't carry the latest graphic bells and whistles isn't very high.

 

[aPod]

I am very shallow, and graphics actually are important to me. Although good graphics never excuse poor gameplay, whereas good gameplay can excuse poor graphics. I still play many many games on my playstation and old school PC games.

 

[Daniel_Rosamilia]

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

So, taking all that into account, that puts graphics at about eighth on the list?
Fair enough, makes sense.
But anyways, graphics should not take place over gameplay.
MW2 had a seriously good graphics engine, but the gameplay was a bit, ah, on the iffy side.

 

[Mcupobob]

Graphices are used for "immersion", don't lie and say you were sucked into the grimy looking graphics of the first fallout compared to the wide desolent wastland in fallout 3. That does not mean graphices should come before gamplay but instead need to be equal to create a perfect illusion for all those escapist of reality out there.