Ideally, graphics and game play should go hand and hand, supplementing each other. But graphics will show their age faster than game play. Pong, Space War, Asteroids, Tetris, Galaxia, Pac-Man are still lauded as a great games despite having very simple graphics. Games like Crysis have amazing graphics are a testament to how far computer tech has advanced but with moderately enjoyable game play that does little to improve on the FPS will only be a good looking game but not a classic.
Quake continues to have players despite having been out since 1996. What draws players to it is the ability to modify and initiate game play rather than being dragged around some simple narrative a la Halo 3. By game play, I mean creating an interactive experience where a player can improvise actions and achieve desired goals that usually lie outside of the games perimeter. its one thing to beat the game. Its another to demolish it!
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6kgOITx27I)
Team Fortress 2 combines unique and delightful visuals with enjoyable game play, some which push past what the game was meant to do. Looking at their design vids, you can see how detailed their art design went toward aiding the player rather than creating a spectacle. Also, the game is very lenient toward what can be accomplished within the game. It create potential choices for players to discover such as a means to climb up to a shed without a ladder or the rocket jump.
Beyond the TF2, the player can create their own experience that allows other to participate. Some cases are harsh, like spawn camping, but others are enjoyable by all, like watching spy crabs scuttle along into a hail of bullets. Who would think to uber a medic while s/he builds up with the uber saw co create a uber chain medsaw? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEmHBIqi18E)Then there is Machinma (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRARcZL-4XM)but that's for another topic.
If a game looks good, great. It can sit next to a painting or something. if a game looks terrible, as long as the graphics don't get in the way (Resident Evil Gaiden), the game will last as long as the mechanics work well. Lets ues the Ape Escape series as an example.
Most PS1 games had substandard graphics. Ape Escape had Ok graphics but they never got in the way. The presentation was done so well done along with fine tuned mechanics that worked worked with the narrative. The game was charming and a blast to mess with. The levels design crated a platformer crossed with an adventure game and a scavenger hunt. Spike was able to maneuver his environment with little difficulty (except form the camera) but the levels challenged the player to discover new means of accomplishing the level goals, from using a gadget or net slamming. The cutesy aesthetic and minimalistic story allowed the player to entrench themselves in the game world without feeling bogged down. If you look, the most district part of the game were the massive levels that hinted a some larger story but never forced it down the player's throat.
When the series went to the PS2 however, it started to tank. While way better looking, the levels were sub par, the mechanics were not as tuned or interesting, and the story got in the way alot with over the top cut scenes. The other iterations also pushed the monkey angle too far and made the story more about them than the player character.
Overall, a game can look lite turd but if the mechanics are tight and the levels are well designed, then good graphics provide the tasty topping on your dessert. Otherwise, its mouth full of foam used to wash down the terrible taste of bad game design.
Quake continues to have players despite having been out since 1996. What draws players to it is the ability to modify and initiate game play rather than being dragged around some simple narrative a la Halo 3. By game play, I mean creating an interactive experience where a player can improvise actions and achieve desired goals that usually lie outside of the games perimeter. its one thing to beat the game. Its another to demolish it!
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6kgOITx27I)
Team Fortress 2 combines unique and delightful visuals with enjoyable game play, some which push past what the game was meant to do. Looking at their design vids, you can see how detailed their art design went toward aiding the player rather than creating a spectacle. Also, the game is very lenient toward what can be accomplished within the game. It create potential choices for players to discover such as a means to climb up to a shed without a ladder or the rocket jump.
Beyond the TF2, the player can create their own experience that allows other to participate. Some cases are harsh, like spawn camping, but others are enjoyable by all, like watching spy crabs scuttle along into a hail of bullets. Who would think to uber a medic while s/he builds up with the uber saw co create a uber chain medsaw? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEmHBIqi18E)Then there is Machinma (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRARcZL-4XM)but that's for another topic.
If a game looks good, great. It can sit next to a painting or something. if a game looks terrible, as long as the graphics don't get in the way (Resident Evil Gaiden), the game will last as long as the mechanics work well. Lets ues the Ape Escape series as an example.
Most PS1 games had substandard graphics. Ape Escape had Ok graphics but they never got in the way. The presentation was done so well done along with fine tuned mechanics that worked worked with the narrative. The game was charming and a blast to mess with. The levels design crated a platformer crossed with an adventure game and a scavenger hunt. Spike was able to maneuver his environment with little difficulty (except form the camera) but the levels challenged the player to discover new means of accomplishing the level goals, from using a gadget or net slamming. The cutesy aesthetic and minimalistic story allowed the player to entrench themselves in the game world without feeling bogged down. If you look, the most district part of the game were the massive levels that hinted a some larger story but never forced it down the player's throat.
When the series went to the PS2 however, it started to tank. While way better looking, the levels were sub par, the mechanics were not as tuned or interesting, and the story got in the way alot with over the top cut scenes. The other iterations also pushed the monkey angle too far and made the story more about them than the player character.
Overall, a game can look lite turd but if the mechanics are tight and the levels are well designed, then good graphics provide the tasty topping on your dessert. Otherwise, its mouth full of foam used to wash down the terrible taste of bad game design.
