Graphics vs Gameplay

[Baby Tea]

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?

This is an excellent point.
Great graphics helps pull you into the world the developers created.

Obviously that world needs to have some story-telling meat and character that the graphics can actually enhance, but you can't say that graphics don't matter at all. In some cases they don't, but the more complex, the more emotionally driven, and the more 'real' the developers want the game to be, the more it's going to have to look good to get those feelings across.

 

[IntangibleFate]

I think that it is important to see what graphics have done to certain titles. I think a great example of it is the Socom series. Gameplay went down as graphics got better. I think it works this way with a lot of shooter games. Hit detection seems to go down as graphics go up.

 

[Sun Flash]

Meh, Graphics rate below gameplay/story/voice acting but I still want them to be satisfactory.

As long as they are not Eye Gougingly bad (I'm looking at you 1996 Playstation)I'm cool with Graphics.

 

[Kollega]

I will say you what - the "visual department" (technical and design sides) is only slightly less important than gameplay. I mean yeah, the gameplay is what we come in for, but good visuals are important for other reason - so we can play the game without being distracted by poor visual quality.

[HEADING=2]HOWEVER,[/HEADING]

there is a catch. When it comes to "visual department", good design outweighs good technical side by far. I have that one game based on Looney Tunes, Sheep Dog N' Wolf, with PS1-era graphcs. But thanks to clever application of cel-shading, it's graphics are still tolerable - nay, enjoyable - even in this day and age. Or take Psychonauts (yeah, beaten example, i know). It looks better thab Modern Warfare 2 or Darksiders or whatever - because it has original design, as opposed to lame attempts at "photorealism" and "GRIMDAKR" respectively.

So what i'm trying to say is that visuals are important - but it's more about good design than hyperadvanced tech.

 

[Nikajo]

Well lets just say I've been playing baldur's gate recently if graphics really bothered me I wouldn't be touching that with a 20 foot pole! I still think it's one of the best game ever made.

 

[high_castle]

I'm still a regular player of the Baldur's Gate series. Considering the games came out in the 90s, you can imagine the graphical quality. But I play games more for the story than the graphics, so even on current gen titles I'll forgive graphical downgrades if the rest of the game is really good. People complained about Dragon Age, too, and I absolutely adore this game.

 

[Delock]

I'm really tired of this arguement because in truth, both are necessary and any cutbacks really do harm the game itself. You can go on and on about how graphics are unnecessary and how you really do like the story/voice acting/level design/etc. but truth is, if there's a graphics problem, immersion can suffer a huge blow. I'm going to use Psychonauts as an example here (read on before you get angry aboout it). It wasn't that it had bad graphics, in fact the cartoon graphics for the most part were the best defense against the advancing standard of realistic graphics, it was that at points I would be looking at someone who moved so fluidly and seemed perfectly designed, only to meet what looked like a sock puppet later. Also, my game had a problem where Raz would lose most of his detail and have a turquoise body from the neck down that pretty much tore me out of the immersion with a violent jerk. The story, writing, voice acting, animation, creativity, and level design (save for meat circus) made up for it, but I'd like you to note that it took all of those to do that.
Another example I have is the worshipped FF7. Sure it did a lot and is widely loved, but trying to play it now is hard. It's sometimes difficult to tell what is what in the environment, the characters don't seem to fit in at points because the mood is dark but the characters are both bright and chibi like, and the world map looks like so fake that it makes you cringe and want to go back into the place you just exited if only for the scenery to look better. It doesn't really break the game, but you can't say that you can ignore it.

In addition, I'd like to name Metal Gear Solid 4's final segment for graphics making the game better. I'm talking about Microwave tunnel and onwards here. Tell me that if the characters looked like stick figures that you would feel the pain they were going through. Tell me that if you didn't see the effects of that tunnel in those graphics that it would have the same effect. Try to say that watching the battle between the former 2 greatest warriors would be the same if you didn't see what looked so much like real people straining to land those blows (However, animation, sound effects, and voice acting did help this out). It just would be wrong.



Now for an important part of a game no one seems to touch on. The example this time: SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS. This is a game where the graphics have aged (not too much though but still it doesn't look so pretty any more). The game is all about using as little as possible to let you tell the story. This also means that there is not a lot of story or voice acting to compensate. However, I would gladly buy this game again if they do bundle it with ICO for a PS3 edition even if they didn't rework the graphics. Why? Because the real thing that makes the game great is your reaction. Shadow of the Colossus is a game where every time I play it, I feel a different way. The story is not all that unique (damsel in distress, deal with a higher power to defeat those it wants you to kill in exchange for something), the hero isn't really a hero (he's a village boy who doesn't really even know how to swing the sword he has, much less have a mastery of a secret technique), the person you work for doesn't even insult you (he/she/it speaks about 3 lines about the next enemy in all but 2 situations), there aren't many characters, and you really only fight 17 (ending counts) times in the game, but somehow it still finds a way to get to you. Because it features a huge, empty world, you are given time to think. The characters aren't defined enough, so you have to fill in the blanks. The ending is particularly open for interpretation (which of the 3 characters was the real villain? Was you know who really a good person and just misunderstood? Did that person protect the hero, or was that his enemy, or even just an unintended side effect?). When you beat an enemy you either feel satisfaction or pity, and don't think that's all you're limited to or that it won't change with each playthrough. The game isn't exactly a revolution in plot or gameplay (horseriding, shooting arrows, lock-on system, and climbing have all been done before) and the graphics aren't great, but it is an amazing game.

To conclude, I'd also like to say that all games are different: some are meant to be played for fun, where gameplay is more important, while others rely on telling a story, in which graphics can really be a big help to get into a players head. However, the most important thing is that it gives you an experience equal to the amount you paid for it.

 

[Wolfram23]

To me it's not about how awesome the graphics are, but I think it really does matter that the graphics are cohesive. There needs to be some art direction. As mentioned about WoW the graphics quality is sub par, but the art direction was fantastic it's very very well done and to me that is the important part. Every area was unique and amazing even if it wasn't "super realistic". So if the graphics are "poor" but cohesive, then story/gameplay is the next big thing.

For instance, imagine BioShock 2 (because I just finished and loved it) if every room had striped walls of yellow and green and floors were pink and blue... ewwwww even if it is as well textured and detailed as it really is, that would have been a game breaker.

 

[end_boss]

I will also actually point out an example I use where better graphics have made games less immersive for me. One of the only real RTS games I've played to any real extent is an old game called Siege. There was no base building, your army is determined from the start of the mission and it's just up to you to manage them. You're either attacking the castle or defending it.

Anyhow, from a screenshot, the units look like they actually inhabit the battlefield, but in action, they are very inanimate, and only have about 16 sprites each - one to face in each direction, and one attacking in each direction. So when you break it down, the "units" are actually more like icons than anything, even though at first glance you can believe that they are existing in the space.

This was, oddly enough, the most immersive RTS game I've really played, and I really believe that it was due in large part to the graphical limitations. Given, another large part of the immersion was that I didn't have to really juggle resources and building, and so I was able to focus entirely on micro-managing my army, but when I played it again recently, I realized a strange feeling that I have never experienced in any RTS after this. Because the graphics were so limited, my mind was filling in the blanks that the computer couldn't fill. And so, when my troops went out to battle and one particular section was defending the main enemy entrance point against several waves, *I started to feel tired for them.* With each fresh new wave of enemies that flooded in immediately after the survivors of the last wave were retreating, I could feel the fatigue of my soldiers as they tried to stand their ground.

Sometimes, they would need to hold their position in time for their reinforcements to arrive, but the game will automatically cause them to retreat to the hospital once they got too weak. With my troops not too far behind, I instructed my army to hold their ground instead, and hold off until the new wave arrived so that they enemy wouldn't leak into the stronghold, and my mind could almost actually hear the commanders yelling and shouting to the troops as they wearily obey.

Next, we'll look at Command and Conquer. I played this a little, before I realized how much I suck at it. But the troops are well animated, and a few sound bytes allow the units to communicate to me that they have received their orders. From a technological standpoint, the game is several generations above Siege. But because the graphics were good and the animations made them more lively, the context jumped over to "what you see is what you get." Now, the troops run, duck, fire, and die with some flashy effects, but my mind no longer fills in what I think SHOULD be happening. When they run into a barrage of gunfire, they don't duck for cover, clutch at their wounds and fire in desperation, because the game no longer gives me the option to believe that they do. Their animations don't factor in fatigue, wounding, etc, so they really only have three states: alive, attacking and dead.

They have life bars, but I don't feel the empathy to call them back from battle, and so I leave them to fight until they are fully spent. When I do tell them to move positions to escape enemy fire, I no longer hear commanders shouting to the troop, because they vocally address me with "Affirmative."

So, although not every game can be summed up as analogous to this situation, this is an example that I always think about when somebody brings up the debate of graphics vs gameplay. This doesn't really take particular sides in the debate, but it does illustrate that graphics can be important, if we don't limit the view to "better graphics make better games."

 

[Alarien]

Gameplay always trumps graphics, however graphics shouldn't be ignored either. If you have the capability to do both, then do both. MMO's get away with sub-par graphics due to the technical constraints of the MMO format and having to push the polygons for large numbers of other players on the fly.

That said, some of the most "fun" I have is still in Dungeon Keeper 2, just because it's stupid fun, that's why. And the graphics are long since out of date.

 

[The Heik]

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?

Never, as the only thing that makes a game a game is your interactions with it. The game could be equivalent to the Mona Lisa and have a story that could make Genghis Khan cry, but if the gameplay is so broken that you can't even play it then all that work is never seen and becomes pointless.

By all means make the game beautiful, but never sacrifice the gameplay for graphics/story, because if you do you'll just have a movie that forces you to stop every little while to meddle with the settings.

 

[Uber Evil]

IMHO I like good graphics, but I don't need them, but for games where it is supposed to have adequate graphics, bad graphics can get distracting. Take 1213, Yahtzee's game, for example. Wasn't supposed to be up-to-par with todays graphics, so I didn't care that much.

 

[traineesword]

I am in agreement of Gameplay over graphics, but i do disagree with a few people saying things along the lines of "They could be 2-d stick figures and if the gameplay is good, then i'm happy" to which i can say i'm not in entire agreement.
An example that comes to mind is the Metal gear series. The first one i played was the 3-d one for Playstation, "metal gear solid", and i thought it was amazing (back when i was probably too young to realise how much crap was in the storyline). Later on, i played the original "metal gear" for some older platforms, and they were absolutely awful in my opinion.

Point i am trying to get across is, that sometimes graphics can make the gameplay. The metal gear sucked because it was 2D, i couldn't tell how "in-line" i was with the peoples visions. whilst with the 3D, it made the gameplay a lot more fun.
But as i said, this is only really one case, and the jump between 3D and 2D is a pretty large jump. Graphics-wise, i think the games can stop as far as Resident evil 4 (even on GC) graphics. Because i felt quite sick watching Sweaty-muscles-Chris bop around... it just...glistened... lol, i'm joking of course, but i remember thinking "Graphics aren't going to get much better than this!"... how wrong i was.

(what i found truly amazing about Resi 4 was exploring the terrain with the infinite launcher, which i could do as it didn't affect your accuracy. I was suprised to find that actually, you could hit anything that looked solid with a rocket, no matter how far away it was and there wasn't an "invisible wall" in the sky or anything, it just didn't explode. Okay, so thats probably pretty basic stuff even for back then, but i thought it was good!)

 

[Katana314]

GRAPHICS are not required, but good visuals ARE. And they can be achieved without supreme graphics, though they aren't always. For example, a game attempting to depict very realistic characters with low graphics is simply not going to succeed. However, if despite your low poly count you have some very visually distinctive and solid-color characters, it can still work.

Trying to say graphics just DON'T matter is just being ignorant. Even Braid, a game filled with impossibly amazing game mechanics, would not have been nearly as interesting if it had looked at all like those 'concept levels' he has on the development blog (which basically looked like a half-assed GameMaker and MS Paint product) Even though it was a 2D game, they spent enormous amounts of time getting the amounts of shaders and particle cloud effects right (technically it uses a 3D renderer, even if all the graphics are 2D)

 

[Plurralbles]

No. Duh. And I prefer Style over polygon count. Meaning the Wind Waker> Modern warfare

 

[Vern]

. I do appreciate the fact that I started playing games in the 8 bit era, so I can look past graphics. Hell, even SNES, N64, and PS1 games can still look good to me. In fact, even Gargoyle's Quest II still looks good to me.

I was expecting a "kids don't know how lucky they are" from you then, ha ha.

Well I don't think kids are lucky because they grew up with more graphically advanced games. And I'm sure I'll be viewed as a curmudgeon in the years to come, but I'm glad I can appreciate games for their gameplay, and the graphics they achieved at their time with the software available. I've had more fun with 2D games than any 3D game.