How much would you trade graphics for gameplay?

[josemlopes]

Basicly the idea is to go as low as possible while mantaining a visual that still manages to appeal to you. The more "basic" looking it is the more of the rest (more AI, bigger maps, more crap going ot at the same time, more "behind the scenes" things going on, more in-depth gameplay,...) there is due to the fact that the visuals aren´t as heavy, the creation of the models is cheaper for the developer meaning more content, etc...

Kind of what Dwarf Fortress already does (at least from what I have heard, never played the game) or what happened with Morrowind and Oblivion (better visuals, less game)

Go here if you want for a list of some games throughout the years (its basicly an evolution of the graphics list) if you are having trouble finding the right balance
http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2008/12/video-game-design-between-1990-2008/


For me I would go with the 2001/2002 look where the 3D starts to look solid and crisp. Max Payne, GTA 3, Halo CE, Timesplitters 2 and Splinter Cell. The cartoony look of Timesplitters makes things even easier providing a better overall look.

The scenery getting detailed and varied enough without getting messy (Deus Ex), confusing with the use of repetetive textures (Perfect Dark) or too static and square (System Shock).

For me this looks good enough for a game that would have a bigger scope in terms of size and interactivety with the ingame world then most games currently have


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

 

[wabbbit]

I can easily play games like Splinter Cell but find that the UI in that game is what drives me nuts (Seems a bit clunky compared to say, Chaos Theory)
I will also happily play Rainbow Six on PC even if if everyone has triangle faces because the story is decent

Looking at that list I would easily still play games like Heretic/Doom etc and still get a yearly(pretty much) playthrough of GTA2.

I will generally play anything regardless of age as long as the graphics aren't super pixelated.
Oddly - as i mentioned above, It tends to be the gameplay that puts me off more than the graphics. For example, I LOVED GTA3 when it first came out and could easily do a playthrough, but it's simple things such as cars being like tissue paper that make me more likely to stop my playthrough!


Edit: Is it just me or do a lot of those screenshots seem "HD-i-fied"? I don't remember some of those games looking that good!

 

[Roguelike]

Fill in the hitboxes and colour the walls

 

[ClockworkUniverse]

Hmmm...

Well, my favorite games include Ultima IV and Dwarf Fortress.

So...I guess graphics don't really matter to me at all as long as the game is good.

 

[Zhukov]

I would not particularly mind if graphics didn't get any better than they are now.

The one exception is facial animation. The uncanny valley has got to go, one way or another.

 

[perkl]

All the way. Try 9:05 or Shrapnel from Adam Cadre to see what I mean.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's not graphics that are the stumbling block, it's the UI.

Dwarf Fortress, I am looking in your direction.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Considering that I love Phantasy Stars Online and Ocarina of Time (haven't played the remake) so it isn't much of a problem for me.
My brother on the other hand may find that question more difficult (he like FF13 while he refuse to play KOTOR cos of the graphic).

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

I still play and enjoy the NES Mega Man games. That should be a pretty sizeable gameplay-for-graphics trade these days, right? Sadly not yet.

Really it's more the detail and completeness of the world than the quality of pixels/polygons that I'd make my sticking point for absolute minimum graphics. Regardless of the year of release you can see games with choppy generic repetitive graphics and the ones where the developers put more time into making sure there was no pop-up or visual effects that look fake compared with the rest of the game and thus pull players out of the experience (such as bad skyboxes). Even if we're sticking to 3D games, titles as early as Banjo-Kazooie created massive detailed worlds with a minimum of clipping or poor draw distance, though I have heard people complain some of its worlds like Clanker's Cavern are too dark and muddy to see properly.

Agreed with the facial expression thing above though. If it's a human character you're going to have to put in a lot more effort to make them not seem robotic.

*Wiggles eyebrows and flies off*

 

[MBurdock]

I see video games to need to have at least one of the following to be decent: gameplay, story, or spectacle. I can do with crap graphics if the gameplay is great (see FTL). I can do with crap gameplay and spectacle if the story is great (Eternal Darkness is still interesting to play despite graphics and sort of boring mechanics). I can do with crap story and gameplay if it is a real spectacle (I'd put a lot of FPS here because they don't do much that's interesting or new with gameplay, even though, at their core solid FPS are solid games... they just don't stand out).

The last is the biggest risk for longevity. Games aiming for realism in graphics ten years ago, look sort of crap now and I expect that trend will continue. That's why Sonic 1 still looks good still while Virtua Fighter 1 looks like hot sick.

 

[blackrave]

My graphical minimum is Quake2
Every improved graphic is considered bonus
That's why TES2aggerfall is slight torture for me
Graphically it is slightly lower than Quake2
I only play it for gameplay and setting

Animations on the other hand is "the better-the better" thing

 

[Haukur Isleifsson]

Back to 8 bit if the rest is good enough. And lets not forget that graphics matter a whole lot less if you just abandon the goal of photo-realism and go for a more stylish look. What really looks like crap is the stuff that tries to be photo-realistic but hasn't got the graphics to pull it off.

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

But I'm already still playing SWAT 3 every weekend.

 

[fix-the-spade]

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

I wouldn't!

Nobody's improved the FPs genre since Timesplitters 2 (which is broadly Perfect Dark at 60fps) on consoles and Battlefield 2 on Pcs. Sequels have brought more stuff, but none have particularly improved on anything.

On the other hand, Morrowind with 1080p and high res skin mods is fantastic.

 

[Something Amyss]

I play Pokémon games with no issues. I know they've received a bit of a graphical update over the years, but they'll never compete with a high end PC title. Ever.

It depends on the game, though. Some games I feel I need better graphics than others, mostly to see better nuances. And some graphics styles age better than others.

Still, I could live on PS1/2 era graphics for most titles for the rest of my life, if it meant bigger worlds and better gameplay. For some, I'd go back to like, the Atari days. Hell, my Steam library is lousy with games with "retro" graphics.

 

[veloper]

About 10 to 20 years backwards technology wise is acceptable to me for a great gameplay experience.
I don't expect such a game to sell for full price though.

The specifics depends on the game. If we have an interface with alot of small text or many small icons or figures, then 640x480 is the minimum to make it all surveyable for me.
Playing point&click adventure games I can live with 320x200 MCGA. For a small indie title that's still cool.

 

[barbzilla]

Honestly I still go back to my NES games occasionally for games that are fun. I really don't think graphics matter all that much depending on the genre. I love my old text based adventure games on Dos, and I love my side scrolling games on the 8bit and 16bit machines. Rpgs were king on the snes, and shooters didn't become good until around the end of the ps1 beginning of the ps2 era. So it really depends on genre, I'll give you my list though.


Adventure: any provided the game is good, I still play some text based adventure games


RPG: I am okay down to the 8bit era, anything before that just didn't have the oomph to run the type of game I liked


Racing: Ps1 but less because of graphics and more because of physics and control. I like to feel like the car isn't on rails being told to maneuver left and right, I prefer it to feel as though I am actually in control of the car in a 3d environment


Shooters: really shooters this generation, there isn't much you can do with gameplay other than add more interesting guns effects and AI.


I think that covers the main genres, and the sub genres would vary as well, but I don't feel like making that long of a list.

 

[drzoidbergmd]

I honestly wouldn't mind going back a bit. I'm perfectly fine with graphics tech these days, and some games legitimately blow me away with how nice they look, but I will almost always choose gameplay over graphics.