Poll: Gameplay vs Graphics

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Depends on what you mean when you say "graphics". If you mean the tech behind it, that's among the least important things about a video game. There's a reason so many video games from a couple of decades ago can still be enjoyed even by the people who weren't around when they came into being.

If you mean the aesthetic, that's different. Art direction is a method of conveyance, and also draws people in to play it in the first place. Most independent games could learn a hell of a lot in this category.

 

[Nazulu]

I'm guessing you mean graphics as in the 3D technology itself, if so then game play is 10 times more important as we never needed that technology to make great experiences. However, if you mean the style/art direction, visually the whole project, then they are equal. Think about it, we've all played those beautiful games with average game play and called them masterpieces, and we've probably all played those really fun games that looks like a repeat of another.

Of course it isn't as black and white, arts never been like that. It usually comes down to the perfect combination I reckon.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Think about it, we've all played those beautiful games with average game play and called them masterpieces, and we've probably all played those really fun games that looks like a repeat of another.

Eh, speak for yourself. Not everyone's done such things.

 

[Nazulu]

Think about it, we've all played those beautiful games with average game play and called them masterpieces, and we've probably all played those really fun games that looks like a repeat of another.

Eh, speak for yourself. Not everyone's done such things.

Eh yourself. Have you never played Myst? Shadow of the Colossus? Anything with a clever art style but kind of annoying game play or just lacking altogether like those?

And I bet you have played a recent shooter that was mostly inspired by one before it and is popular because of the game play.

 

[Estelindis]

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.

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.

The purpose of the third option was to give people a way of saying that they think the question of which of the two is more important is pointless. It's for people who want to stress that games can be good in both categories more than they want to express a preference for graphics or gameplay. For the record, I voted "gameplay."

Anyway, results of the poll seem quite clear so far. No one has said that graphics are more important than gameplay. So are studios who put more and more time and effort into ever-more-detailed graphics wasting their time?

 

[OneCatch]

Think about it, we've all played those beautiful games with average game play and called them masterpieces, and we've probably all played those really fun games that looks like a repeat of another.

Eh, speak for yourself. Not everyone's done such things.

Eh yourself. Have you never played Myst? Shadow of the Colossus? Anything with a clever art style but kind of annoying game play or just lacking altogether like those?

And I bet you have played a recent shooter that was mostly inspired by one before it and is popular because of the game play.

Call me weird, but I kind of like Myst gameplay.
It certainly succeeds in what it sets out to do - can you imagine if it was wasd controls? You'd miss all kinds of clues and perspective hints from standing in just the wrong place, and a lot of those puzzles wouldn't work if you could just go and have a peek around the back or whatever.
I don't think you can get much better than Tomb Raider of Half Life levels of puzzle complexity with standard controls - certainly I can't think of an example.

That said, graphics are still important for creating the general feel of a game, even if overall they're less critical than gameplay.

 

[Nazulu]

Think about it, we've all played those beautiful games with average game play and called them masterpieces, and we've probably all played those really fun games that looks like a repeat of another.

Eh, speak for yourself. Not everyone's done such things.

Eh yourself. Have you never played Myst? Shadow of the Colossus? Anything with a clever art style but kind of annoying game play or just lacking altogether like those?

And I bet you have played a recent shooter that was mostly inspired by one before it and is popular because of the game play.

Call me weird, but I kind of like Myst gameplay.
It certainly succeeds in what it sets out to do - can you imagine if it was wasd controls? You'd miss all kinds of clues and perspective hints from standing in just the wrong place, and a lot of those puzzles wouldn't work if you could just go and have a peek around the back or whatever.
I don't think you can get much better than Tomb Raider of Half Life levels of puzzle complexity with standard controls - certainly I can't think of an example.

That said, graphics are still important for creating the general feel of a game, even if overall they're less critical than gameplay.

Don't take it the wrong way mate. A lot of classic games had great combinations as I said in my original post, and I reckon it suited Myst perfectly, especially to run on my nearly 20 year old Mac.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

so long as a game has atmosphere, good mechanics and gameplay, you can stick graphics up ya bum

 

[SmokingBomber465]

Well, since the best game of all time is still "Sonic the Hedgehog 2", it is most likely gameplay

 

[legendp]

For me it's story,

A driving point. it doesn't necessarily have to be cut scenes but the way the voice acting is done, the music (and visuals and gameplay), that come together to make a good story is what interest me most, to make me feel like I've been on a journey, not downing mindless robots or anymous players for hours. I can play a game whith bad gameplay and bad graphics but good story and music, but I can't usually enjoy a game with good gameplay and good graphics but weak plot as much (multiplayer and arcade games are exempt from this, I am mainly talking about campaign modes).

Although both bioshock infinite and tomb raider (haven't played the last of us) had great music, story, gameplay, and graphics. so we can have it all (at least for me).

however a game look "remeber me" I enjoyed more than skyrim or borderlands becuase the story and visual asethtic interested me more. although I did actually enjoy the gameplay even if others didn't. If I had to choose between the two I would say gameplay but graphics are still important. however what is good gameplay can differ greatly for all people, some people love cods gameplay and many hate it. I personally find many rpg to be far to padded gameplay wise.

 

[Charli]

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

Indeed, do not champion one or the other. Good gameplay uses it's graphics to accentuate itself.

If the two do not mesh, then trouble is had. You can have outstanding graphics and terrible game play, and the other way around.

But if they work together, then you've created something special.

I'm not going to bark like the diehard retro gamers and claim graphics does nothing for a game, it's not true, simplicity is work too, and if an older format or a toned down graphic is what makes the gameplay look it's snazziest, then it's the way to go.

It still MATTERS, and having someone who can discern that, will make a good head of art department rep.

 

[Rob Robson]

Story/ Atmosphere > Overall creativity of concept > Gameplay > Graphics > Polish

 

[Petromir]

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.

I'd go so far to say that they can be intrinsically linked, that graphics can bring new tools to the gameplay box, either by adding options or restricting things. Plenty of gameplay tools and bulshit were invented to get round graphical resrictions, sometimes introducing classsics, but also introducing bullshit restrictions (the handling of stealth/camo and sight is a clear example, so much frustrating bullshit in these systems, often to make up for the fact that graphics arent up to replicating them in a better way).

There are games that have neglected one for the other and these are used as poster boys for the arguments but in reality the two are far more linked.

 

[Estelindis]

I'd go so far to say that they can be intrinsically linked, that graphics can bring new tools to the gameplay box, either by adding options or restricting things.

I think this is an excellent point. In asking my question originally, I was thinking more of the work involved in creating detailed, high-quality graphics compared to simple ones. I didn't think of the gameplay options opened up by graphical innovation. Thanks for sharing the thought.

 

[Yopaz]

You can't really choose one in this. Graphics are important, graphics is the fresh coat of painting that makes something look beautiful graphics appeal to several visual centres in our brains. Of course graphics are important. Games like Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress work despite their graphics not because of them. We like pretty shiny things.

However good aesthetics is probably what should be discussed. A game can have great graphics without looking pretty.

Now if a game has bad gameplay and good graphics it will be a bad game. If we have a game with great gameplay and bad graphics the overall will sadly suffer a little. I would say we can't really pick either, there's a lot of factors in this.

 

[Dagda Mor]

Games are both a visual and participatory medium. Gameplay and 'graphics' reinforce eachother.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Gaming started with gameplay. If we look back at Pong, PacMan, Pitfall for the Atari 2600, and even Super Mario Brothers...those games have terrible graphics by today's standards, but I would go back and play them in a heartbeat.

You can do something like ICO that has simple gameplay and wonderful graphics. Or something like "Closure" for the PSN that has a specific art style, but the gameplay is simpler. It's a puzzle game.

Perhaps the genre should be considered when considering the graphics.

I'm a big gameplay person. Graphics are the icing on the cake. When we get that twisted around, gaming is in trouble.

 

[veloper]

Gameplay vs graphics never was a contest. Zero votes out of 150+ sofar and no surprises there. So a non-issue.
The division here is between the members who value gameplay more and those who value a mediocre story above all else.

My own take is in order of importance Gameplay > atmosphere (gfx, music, etc) > story

 

[hutchy27]

Gameplay is more important but I like the game to look nice to an extent.

 

[Estelindis]

Gameplay vs graphics never was a contest. Zero votes out of 150+ sofar and no surprises there. So a non-issue.
The division here is between the members who value gameplay more and those who value a mediocre story above all else.

My own take is in order of importance Gameplay > atmosphere (gfx, music, etc) > story

Perhaps another poll is in order.