Poll: Gameplay vs Graphics

[Sight Unseen]

Gameplay is more important than Graphics IMO, but a game needs both to some extent for me to want to play it. I have a really hard time playing really retro games (or certain games that try to LOOK really retro) because the graphics simply don't cut it for me anymore. Granted part of the reason I don't play the older games is also because the gameplay has become dated. Stuff like Journals and interface were often really really clunky and unintuitive, but if I don't enjoy looking at a game, it will affect my enjoyment of it. Aesthetics are still more important than pure graphical fidelity though, because some old games ( Windwaker as a good example) still look really good to me because they chose a really good art style that still looks good even though the graphics are pretty basic.

 

[spartan231490]

Gameplay is vastly more important. That's why they're games and not movies. Meaning, in a low budget game where they can only have one be at a high level, it should be gameplay, but for most games it is a false dichotomy, both can be achieved.

 

[Jadak]

They are equally important. Games need a good balance of both.

I've seen plenty of games with good gameplay and shit graphics that are great. I've yet to a game with shit gameplay be good, regardless of how good the graphics are.

In other words, not at all equal.

 

[Annihilist]

While graphics are necessary to convey a certain degree of realism and believability to the story in order to cement the player's personal investment in the game, unless there's good gameplay to back it up, the graphics are literally worthless.

The poll is kind of a moot point. Yes, you can have good graphics and gameplay, but the former takes precedence. It's a style over substance question - and really, there's no debate to be had. Good gameplay can hold up a game with bad graphics on its own - the reverse cannot be said. (Cf. Halo 4 vs Halo 2)

 

[Abomination]

FUNCTIONAL graphics are important, the game doesn't have to look stunning but that's not an excuse for it to look like arse.

That being said, I would happily play Total War: Rome II in the diplomatic window and fight the battles with the strategic view only. Sure it's nice to see troops mashing into each other, screams of the slain and the whistling of projectiles but I'm more concerned with commanding an army to flank my opponent. The mechanics are far more important than the graphics when you've got the basics down.

The graphics just need to complement the gameplay, not supplement it.

Therefore gameplay is most important? but graphics impact upon gameplay if they are poor.

 

[Hero of Lime]

I wish this poll didn't have the wishy washy answer, we need a direct answer!

I voted Gameplay, granted, a game with great gameplay and graphics is amazing by all means. However, since I'm giving a definite choice between the two, it's simple. A game being as fun as it can be will always be a better option as opposed to being the prettiest it can be.

 

[Berny Marcus]

Dragon Age: Origins comes to mind.

I must have really low standards, because I thought the graphics of DA:O were good.

I didn't say they were bad, but compared to Bioware's games like Mass Effect, DA: O didn't really have that much detailed graphics, they weren't shitty, but not the best.

 

[scorptatious]

Gameplay is definitely more important.

That being said, I do like it if a game also has a decent presentation. Not absolutely amazing, but something that's at least somewhat attractive.

 

[novem]

Gameplay over graphics but I would actually put compelling narrative ahead of both. In order for me to play a game long enough to care about either gameplay or graphics I need a compelling reason to move forward. There are a couple games that get around this with truly unique gameplay experiences but they are pretty few and far between.

 

[Tanakh]

He says that the AI on the old game is superb and makes much smarter decisions than any modern game.

I find this very hard to believe, maybe he likes it best but would bet money on this one http://www.cs.umd.edu/~nau/bridge/ or this other http://www.bridgebuff.com/products.html#bridgebuff are just better at the game. I think your father is into that old program due nostalgia and feeling comfortable in his old ways, which is fine.

OT: I play most of my games on the lowest possible settings, to help me focus on the action, examples of this are SC 2 and SF IV; it's a common practice in PvP games. Also, unlike some fellas on the thread for me gameplay >>>> graphics >>>>>>>> narrative in around 90% of my playtime.

 

[Bonecrusher]

They are equally important. Games need a good balance of both.

I agree. Even a game has the bestest gameplaye evah, if it has a crappy ui, bad visuals, ancient-looking graphics, I'll not play that game.

Most gamers say "gameplay matters, graphics not", but they tend to appraise graphics. Even if it is a 2D game, clear sprites, easy interface, beautiful backgrounds are important.

So I say "False dichotomy; both can be good in the same game"

 

[DementedSheep]

If I had to pick one I'd say gamplay but that doesn't mean graphics (or at least a nice aesthetic that works with the level of tech) are unimportant.
A game that looks like ass can still be very fun. Likewise I can get enjoyment out of a game purely for the visuals so long as the gameplay is bearable (Alice: Madness Returns is pretty much this to me). Gameplay, graphics and narrative are just pieces of the whole. One part being fantastic can cover for the others to an extent but ideally all parts would be good. Gameplay is the most important since I can get good stories and pretty things to look at elsewhere but it takes all 3 to make a truly outstanding game.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Gameplay is always the most important. Even if the graphics are 10/10 and the story is 10000/10 it wouldn't be worth playing if the gameplay was bad.
Graphics, story and such are like seasonings. They make a game much better, but do nothing if the base game is bad.

 

[xyrafhoan]

For me, gameplay is the biggest thing that keeps me attached to a game, and I bundle the interface under gameplay. So long as I can tell what the graphics are meant to represent and don't make me physically ill, I can deal with it. Cumbersome controls and poor menu management are way more likely to turn me off of older games, otherwise I could deal with games that look like they came out of the SNES/PS1 era my entire life. Story and good graphics are the icing on the cake. If it sucks completely, yeah, it'll ruin the foundation. But even if it's mediocre the cake will still be okay. Now if everything is amazing then that's great, but I'm fully capable of enjoying say, Etrian Odyssey more than a lot of other games on the market and it's not exactly groundbreaking in either story nor graphics. The Persona port on the PSP is the only game I can think of where the graphics were almost the deal breaker, and that's to the point where I was becoming physically nauseous just trying to play the game.

 

[Rednog]

I never really understood this "gameplay vs graphics" argument. They really aren't mutually exclusive (except when you start bordering on the fringes of games. You can only go so far with gameplay if you don't have the graphics to support it. More graphics means more objects in the environment to interact with, you couldn't pull off the complexity of gameplay in something like GTA5 if you didn't have the engine/graphics to back it up. Why else do you think a lot of these retro indie style games end up having very simple mechanics? Gameplay and graphics go very much hand in hand, the whole notion that the industry should just completely drop pushing graphics in the medium just makes me sigh.

 

[Scarim Coral]

To me it's always been gameplay over graphic, granted graphic is still important but I value gameplay more.

Example- My brother is the oppersite (graphic over gameplay) and he couldn't get into Knight of the Old Republic despite well knowing how much accliam it has. He reason for being put off is because of the Xbox graphic! I had played and loved that game and not once has the graphic had bother me at all (he was the one who asked me to lend the game to him)!

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I think it depends what it is. For a JRPG for instance, graphics are very important in building the game world and setting the scene for the story. Gameplay is usually robust, but oft just a variation on a tried and tested method. Games like FFXIII realised that distracting the player with menus during combat meant that they didn't get to see the beautiful attacks and therefore developed the gameplay to compliment the graphics.

I play a lot of older games on the PS2 and PS1 too. Some of the games have beaten the test of time, and stayed fantastic (usually platformers) however some games look a bit dated. Games like Unholy War and Jurrasic Park: Operation Genisis however, which now look dated, manage to keep my attention due to the awesome gameplay. Where as others, like Army Men: Sarges Heros 2, which look bland and play terrible don't. Then you have some like Music 2000, which don't need good graphics at all to be played for hours on end! Finally there are games like Medieval and Gex which technically are a bit messy, but I enjoy the visuals to the point where I play to completion!