How much would you trade graphics for gameplay?

[aguspal]

Yes, graphics dont matter, gameplay is 1ST place in every single case and blahblahblah, yeah thats true... mostly.


While I agree than gameplay should always be in 1st place, I wouldt personally trade super ultra B gameplay while getting graphics like, say, Minecraft (NOT impling that Minecraft has super B gameplay because it is shit, in fact. Pretty shitty in both graphics AND gameplay). Thats a little TOO extreme. We should find a good balance and start from there.


That being said, if you have a superB game and want to add some great graphics along with it (without sacrificing gameplay for it), then by all means, go for it.

 

[Awesomesauce123]

As long as I can tell what everything is, I'm fine.

 

[Genocidicles]

I'd be fine with PS1/N64 era graphics.

 

[Bazaalmon]

I can still play old games without problems (Super Mario, Final Fantasy games, Legend of Zelda, etc.) but in general, I prefer the era of true 3D (like 1998 or so?) It really depends on the game though. Some looked like crap compared to other games that came out that same year, never mind games as they are currently.
And of course there are those games that replicate an old-school look with a more current generation's power. Cave Story anyone?

 

[Lunar Templar]

i still go back and play NES games, so yeah, i good with reduced graphics if it'll handle better

 

[AngloDoom]

I'm thinking Final Fantasy VIII is my limit. People kind of have faces, but I can still enjoy the game from there.

I personally prefer stylised art styles over attempting to copy realistic ones anyway, since you can lower the graphics to Tamegotchi levels and it'd still look good if that's the intent.

 

[Brad Calkins]

I've played MUDS as recently as 2011, what does that tell you.

 

[Mordekaien]

So, how low would you go to have more in-depth gameplay?

Quite low actually, I tend to replay older titles, for example the first Thief, Neverwinter Nights. Baldur's gate etc. So I don't have problem with low graphics. if the aesthetics are good, I'll stick with the game.
Recently I play a lot of Binding of Isaac, Frozen Synapse and Dynamite Jack, and those games are not quite graphically powerful, but their overall aesthetic makes a lot for the game feel.

 

[Sylveria]

One of the best games I played this year was Cthulhu Saves The World.. which looks like an early SNES game. So I'll happily take 16bit graphics if it means the games are better.

 

[DazZ.]

I'd actually have no graphics at all if that meant it was the most fun game to play in the world.

So long as the interface is usable.

 

[Rumpsteak]

If one arbitrary point of graphic fidelity lost is equal to one arbitrary point of gameplay gained I would go all the way back to text-based games.

That's unfortunately not how it works.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I still get a lot of enjoyment out of Castlevania 3, Mega Man 2, Adventure Island etc. I'm also of the mind that the future of gaming could get to the point where indie developers wanting to be really unique will make their games for steam but also have a simultaneous S/NES cart release. I would love to see another top-down Zelda for example and if the cost of producing sprites is low enough the game content could be padded to the point that it could potentially be bigger than every other Zelda up to now if it's a full U release...hm...my brain says top-down perspective for one screen with an OoT style 3rd person view on the other...where it's possibly to switch which screen is on the game pad with the tap of a button (or screen)...yeah, I want that.

 

[fenrizz]

Everything 2D is fine.

As for 3D I find that worse graphics = less enjoyment.
Though there is a cutoff point about early PS3 where it does not need improvement for me.

 

[babinro]

Depends on the game and the genre.

Something that looks like the original Final Fantasy (NES) can still make for an epic RPG.
I wouldn't go back to Wolfenstein 3D for epic FPS gameplay for headache reasons.

To answer the crux of the question. I always want graphics to take a backseat to other elements of a game.
#1) Control
#2) Gameplay
#3) Story (if the genre calls for it)
#4) Graphic
#5) Sound

 

[Kinitawowi]

If I could only have one or the other, I go all the way. Gameplay is all and anybody who's willing to toss gameplay out of the window for the pursuit of slightly more polished 3D deserves all the garbage the games industry can throw at them.

Specifics; Nethack and Sensible World Of Soccer are the two games that spring most immediately to mind in this conversation. Nethack has practically no graphics to speak of (it's all ASCII) and SWOS aims solidly for functional rather than aesthetically pleasing (the players are about nine pixels high), but damn if they aren't the best playing examples of their type.

Doesn't mean they have to be exclusive, of course; Bayonetta looks stunning (particularly in Paradiso) and is a ball to play, and my favourite game of all time is still one of the first to strike the right balance (Head Over Heels, 25 years ago). But if I'm playing the game, I want to be enjoying myself and shock-and-awe graphics lose their appeal very quickly.

 

[devotedsniper]

Personally? If i had the choice then i would gladly go back to Final Fantasy XI level of graphics if it could mean that i could get more than 6 hours of single player, games focus too much on multiplayer now a days, yes multiplayer is a good thing but i remember days where i got a proper story with at least 20 hours of gameplay through the whole campaign, the only games which have that now is when there is no multiplayer at all.

 

[Solo-Wing]

I will play 8-Bit as long as the game Plays great and sounds great.

VVVVVV is a good example.

Plus my favorite game of all time is a PS1 game. Final Fantasy IX.