Poll: Graphics vs gameplay
- Thread starter buddee1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
While it would be great to have all of them in one glorious whole I would have to place the greatest importance on gameplay.
Why was Alien Trilogy great? Because it was fun to play. Why was Unreal Tournament great? Because it was fun to play. Why was...you see where I'm going with this.
Why was Alien Trilogy great? Because it was fun to play. Why was Unreal Tournament great? Because it was fun to play. Why was...you see where I'm going with this.
Case and point, the sonic games. 2D, fantastic, 3D, steaming pile of dung.
But sacrificing graphics to the extreme for game play is just as moronic. I don't want a 2D side scrolling shooter even if it cures cancer! Graphics can be sacrificed, and should be, to a point. Once game play is solid, up the graphics.
But sacrificing graphics to the extreme for game play is just as moronic. I don't want a 2D side scrolling shooter even if it cures cancer! Graphics can be sacrificed, and should be, to a point. Once game play is solid, up the graphics.
Gameplay is a lot more important. Look at FF VII or the Medal of Honour series when it was on the Playstation, ie when it was good. Amazing games but the grahpics (for the most part) suck. Then you look at games like Black or Haze. Both look really nice, especially Black considering it's a PS2 game, but both are absolutely shite.
Gameplay always comes before graphics, but it's nice that many developers can tie them in together.
The article you read was written by a complete moron/idiot/retard/bozo/dummy/foolish/stupid/fuckwitted/dipshit'ish/stupid/idiotic person.
Who, even in their wrong mind, would choose graphics as the main course/over gameplay?
Ofcourse gameplay. If I would choose graphics, I would literally be dumb as a stick with a lump of shit on it.
KILL!
Who, even in their wrong mind, would choose graphics as the main course/over gameplay?
Ofcourse gameplay. If I would choose graphics, I would literally be dumb as a stick with a lump of shit on it.
Wait, you mean that Gears of War is better than Braid?!Lockedup said:
KILL!
Considering my computer is about three years old and so full of bugs that it would scare off an exterminator, gameplay is the obvious choice. The only game I have been able to play in high quality (at 800x600 resolution on my 1440x900 screen. RAGE.) is Portal. I can't even play Oblivion at full resolution, let alone Assassin's Creed or Saints Row 2. Thus, I've sacrificed the glorious graphics in exchange for (lag-ridden and rage-inducing) gameplay. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
...
Unless I can have both. Without the lag.
...
Unless I can have both. Without the lag.
It's easier to get attention for your game if you tard them up with top of the range graphics. But no matter how good they are, they get outdated sooner or later and your game looses itself in obscurity. Anyone remembers Panzer Dragoon Orta or Forza?000_00_00_00 said:
If graphics were no big selling point, publishers wouldn't rely on them - but I don't think you will get much of an argument on a forum like this; almost all of us have the same opinion: Nice bonus, but there's more important stuff.
Actually, I have. Frequently. And while they are awesome to look at, they are not what I play a game for. If I just want to look at art, I'll buy a painting.Eggo said:
You know it's called a videogame not gamevideo. Visuals have always been important, however rather than one being more important than the other both are equally important. The best games balance graphics and gameplay to create a fantastic whole.
One of my friends put it well: "Bad graphics don't take away from a game experience, but good graphics add a little extra to the game experience."
really? i hear my dip shit friends go on about this all the time, they always tell me x game is bad because it doesn't have amazing graphics.plastic_window said:
topic; gameplay is over graphics, graphics are good, but shouldn't be a priority, but say if you finished the game tweaked it looked for bugs and had 3 months extra time, why not work on the graphics
People play Megaman on the NEs and no one yells at how much it's graphic's suck. Then they tell me they aren't old school gamers because old school games suck and then I walk off becaue new age gamers are mostly idiots.
I just wish my friends would stop complimenting the graphics and help me yell at the gameplay. Honestly I was playing SH5 with a friend and for the whole first level all he could talk about was the graphics. While I was yelling at the game's dodge button for killing me again. I honestly miss the praise for gameplay rather than graphics. Presentation is nice, but if you can't watch the play it, then why do you care?
I just wish my friends would stop complimenting the graphics and help me yell at the gameplay. Honestly I was playing SH5 with a friend and for the whole first level all he could talk about was the graphics. While I was yelling at the game's dodge button for killing me again. I honestly miss the praise for gameplay rather than graphics. Presentation is nice, but if you can't watch the play it, then why do you care?
Gameplay. I still enjoy Ultima VII. Hell, I even enjoy text based adventure games, which have no graphics.
I'm not suggesting a beautiful game is bad - I'm saying that if you can't play it or enjoy playing it, there's no point in it being a game. Games are interactive, art isn't. If you can't play a game because of bad gameplay designs, you can't interact with it as you would interact with a proper game. It asks the question "why bother making a game if you can't be bothered with the GAME part of it"?seydaman said:
