Poll: Gameplay vs Graphics

[Estelindis]

A recent experience made me think about the issue of gameplay vs. graphics. My father doesn't play many computer games, just bridge (the card game) and Scrabble. About a month ago, he commented that none of the modern bridge games he's played have had gameplay remotely as good as the first one he bought, Contract Bridge, which we ran on the first computer we ever owned (a Sony MSX). This game was first released nearly 30 years ago; as you can see, the graphics were very basic [http://images.generation-msx.nl/software_game/78d2f6f7.png]. Anyway, I did some googling, downloaded an emulator, and found a way to run the old game on a modern computer. Dad has been playing the old Contract Bridge since then. I asked him tonight if he's considered going back to the modern games with their much higher-quality graphics and he said the thought had never entered his mind. He says that the AI on the old game is superb and makes much smarter decisions than any modern game. He doesn't care about graphics.

Have any of you had similar experiences? Which do you think is more important, graphics or gameplay? Do you think that the expectation of high-quality graphics is helpful in modern gaming, or would you point to indie releases with retro graphics as evidence that games can be successful even with old-fashion looks? Do you think that "gameplay vs. graphics" is a genuine or a false dichotomy?

Personally, I think that gameplay is more important. Pretty graphics are good, but if the gameplay experience isn't enjoyable then they're just icing on a cake of dung.

 

[DazZ.]

Define "good graphics". If they work in the sense that you can tell what things are then that's good enough, gameplay is far more important.

I'm not playing a game to look at pretty pictures, I'd just go look at an art gallery. Provided at no point I'm confused about what I'm looking at after learning the game, or it's quick to find find out, they work perfectly and the game can be fun.

However, if it looks amazing but the game is the bare minimum of a game, it won't be fun for long and I'd load it up look at it for a minute and uninstall.

In games, obviously gameplay is going to be far more important than anything else.

Edit: That's not to say amazing graphics and atmosphere isn't a glorious bonus that can really amplify the fun, but it's still secondary.

 

[TheIceQueen]

Well, obviously card games and games like Scrabble don't exactly need good graphics. You'd need to focus on AI. I mean, after all, how good can cards look? It's not like they're humans, they're just cards. So for this instance, yeah graphics aren't that important.

However, to parrot the person above me, graphics can be quite important. Or, as I more like to call it, aesthetics. After all, you can have great aesthetics without having the best graphics. How a game looks or its given style can contribute massively to the game.

In reality, there shouldn't be a gameplay vs. graphics discussion. A lot of things come together to make a great game. Gameplay is one of the most important of those, but there are many other things to consider than just that.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Gameplay is always paramount, but the importance of graphics depends on the genre. Games like Bridge don't need great visuals, you just need to know what the assets are meant to represent. However, fluid animations and cool-looking effects are extremely important in a game like, say, Devil May Cry. At this point, we don't really need extra fidelity (except maybe in liquid simulation) but visuals are a big part of a lot of genres. It's a visual medium, so the quality of the visual feedback you're given is directly related to the gameplay.

That isn't to say we need amazing tech; there's more to high-quality assets than polygon count and texture resolution after all. But it does help.

 

[TehCookie]

I play games, not watch them. Gameplay is way more important than graphics. Graphics are on the lowest end of what I look for in a game. I'll still enjoy games with dated gameplay and graphics if the story or characters are fun. My imagination works well turning low poly or pixilated areas into an amazing world. Yet I can never self insert as the MC.

 

[Estelindis]

To those who point out that graphics isn't very important in computer versions of card games compared to other computer games, I admit you're right. Graphics are going to be more or less important depending on genre. Even so, I cannot think of a single genre where I'd consider graphics to be more important. (Perhaps there are genres of game where there's little distinction between gameplay and graphics - are there drawing games, or games where you put clothes on paperdolls? - but I can't say I know much about them.)

I suppose that what gets me is that, as has been pointed out, any game has a limited budget, both in terms of overall funding and development time. Time spent making super-detailed 2048x2048 textures with extra layers for various maps is time not spent on other aspects of the game. Time could be saved by buying/licensing pre-existing graphical assets, but then that takes money away from the rest of the game.

I suppose that, ultimately, I am happy with graphics stopping at a point where they still looked good but didn't take quite as long to develop. I'm still happily modding Neverwinter Nights, for instance. The graphics are nothing to write home about compared to current games, but the toolset has such flexibility that there's still a lot of room for creativity with the assets it has. And when I get swept up in the fantastic story of yet another brilliantly-written community-made module, the graphics scarcely matter at all.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Well, gameplay will always be above graphics in terms of importance. After all, this is a game, and we are likely playing it to have fun, not appreciate artwork.

With that said, graphics still have their place. They, along with other things, can drastically aid the atmosphere. Better graphics have helped us give more complexity to the level/map design of FPS games without having to worry about overly-obscuring the targets. Better animations certainly help make it easier to read enemy movements in hack-n-slash games, not to mention they also help us understand our own movements better. Fighting games could also benefit from this, provided the style of fighting and timing you wish to encourage. Ultimately, different genres can benefit from better graphics which can ultimately enhance their gameplay. The problem with making graphics too high of a priority at this point is that they really don't have this level of benefit anymore. Yes, there might be a few ways better graphics can be utilized to determine the way the game plays, such as more realistic smoke and lighting effects and how they deal with our vision. However, on the whole, we really have reached a point where graphics (including animations) don't really need any improvement in order to improve the gameplay. As a result, the importance of gameplay over graphics is really becoming more apparent, as improved graphics can no longer translate into a better experience, whereas improved gameplay still has the ability to do so.

With that said, there is certainly a need for better technology. After all, AI has a long way to go in terms of helping to enhance gameplay.

 

[shrekfan246]

I suppose that what gets me is that, as has been pointed out, any game has a limited budget, both in terms of overall funding and development time. Time spent making super-detailed 2048x2048 textures with extra layers for various maps is time not spent on other aspects of the game. Time could be saved by buying/licensing pre-existing graphical assets, but then that takes money away from the rest of the game.

You've got a point about the budget, but time isn't really an issue except when the entire development of the game is being rushed. It's not like the same people are all working on the world design, AI, textures, controls, and audio, after all. (Well, most of the time; Indie developers certainly often double or triple up, which is a big contributor to why they tend to have such basic graphics.)

Having the graphical artists spend less time making textures generally wouldn't mean there's more time being spent polishing the gameplay or story, because they're often not the same people who would be working on the gameplay or story in the first place.

OT: As a few other people have already said, I find the overall aesthetic of a game to be more important than pure graphical fidelity. I've recently been replaying the Kingdom Hearts games and a few older Final Fantasy titles, for instance, and I'd say that by and large they are all still fantastic-looking games, simply because the art direction behind them is phenomenal (though Final Fantasy X aged like a loaf of bread).

As far as how much I would stress the importance of gameplay, I want it to fit within the realm of reason and within the context of the game. To (again) use Final Fantasy as an example, I feel like VII-X have an overabundance of random enemy encounters occasionally in situations where it seems unnecessary, and I believe that it detracts from the overall pacing of the game. On the other hand, I find most of the equipment-juggling for abilities that you can micromanage to be fairly engaging even beyond the normal pseudo-turn-based combat, so at the end of the day I still find the games fun.

To say which I weigh more heavily, is a very situational answer. There are a lot of older games that I just don't find myself enjoying, and while the visuals are rarely the sole reason, they're almost always a contributing factor. Though things like clunky animations that extend to actively impeding on the control scheme will put me off of something.

 

[LetalisK]

False dichotomy. Just as I won't play a game if the gameplay is boring or dumb, I will not play a game that makes my eyes hurt. Usually this only comes into play with really old games, usually shooters.

 

[Estelindis]

You've got a point about the budget, but time isn't really an issue except when the entire development of the game is being rushed. It's not like the same people are all working on the world design, AI, textures, controls, and audio, after all. (Well, most of the time; Indie developers certainly often double or triple up, which is a big contributor to why they tend to have such basic graphics.)

Having the graphical artists spend less time making textures generally wouldn't mean there's more time being spent polishing the gameplay or story, because they're often not the same people who would be working on the gameplay or story in the first place.

True, but if a studio put less emphasis on graphics (not *no* emphasis, just less) then maybe they'd hire more people to focus on gameplay, story, etc., rather than graphics artists. Or maybe more people with several proficiencies who could double up.

I guess that when a new generation of console or graphics card comes out, people naturally look for fancier graphics to make the most of the most of their capabilities, but I'm wondering if this is actually good for gamers and developers or if it just puts pressure to spend more and more zots on graphics when people would actually prefer them to be spent elsewhere.

 

[Berny Marcus]

Gameplay of course, I don't care if a game that has fun gameplay, but have sub par graphics, I will still play cuz it's fun.

Dragon Age: Origins comes to mind.

 

[Estelindis]

Dragon Age: Origins comes to mind.

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

 

[Silvanus]

I rate gameplay over graphics, because I can greatly enjoy a game that's visually unimpressive, on gameplay alone.


Plot sometimes edges out even gameplay for me, though. I know that's quite odd.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I don't get the poll options. Are you asking which is more important, or if a game can only do one of them? Because "a game can do both" and "gameplay is the most important" are just as true.

 

[Olas]

The third answer doesn't make much sense to me. Yes, both can be good in the same game, what does that have to do with deciding which is more important? It feels to me like you were trying to say that both can be the more important factor depending on what type of game you're playing. Some games, like Dear Esther, obviously prioritize graphics over gameplay.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Obviously both are good, but when it comes down to it I'd prefer a game with amazing gameplay over a game with amazing graphics. There are plenty of great games out there that only use ASCII art in their graphical style.