as Yahtzee says, "anyone who sacrifices gameplay to make an artistic statement is obviously stuck so far up their own ass that they're in danger of choking on their own head"
Poll: Graphics vs gameplay
- Thread starter buddee1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That might actually be the best Yahtzee quote ever. And one I totally agree with.Mr0llivand3r said:
Gameplay, hands down. The FIFA series is a franchise that has suffered greatly because of this very issue. They have sacrificed a great deal in gameplay to appease the graphics nerds. I for one, and deeply disappointed. I don't need great graphics to enjoy a game, but what I do need, is superb gameplay!
Graphics are but skin deep. I could go as far as to say that really badly done graphics take away from the gameplay, but that would be an argument that the GUI level was problematic, and it falls more into the realm of gameplay.
The only real evidence I need of this is knowing that if I were to give a good C-64 game a spin [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPHCLPlWIA0] right now, it'd still pack an ample amount of entertainment value.
If there's any good reason to get excited about graphics at all, it's that they bring an opportunity to explore whole new concepts of gameplay. Unfortunately, this is an opportunity rarely explored.
The only real evidence I need of this is knowing that if I were to give a good C-64 game a spin [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPHCLPlWIA0] right now, it'd still pack an ample amount of entertainment value.
If there's any good reason to get excited about graphics at all, it's that they bring an opportunity to explore whole new concepts of gameplay. Unfortunately, this is an opportunity rarely explored.
That is the ultimate of bull crap, where on earth did you read that? On Midway's homepage (*snap* yeah, I went there).buddee1 said:
Graphics do play a role in gaming, sometimes an important role, but you cannot separate a game from game-play, the metaphor makes no sense, graphics would be more suitably represented by french fries. Without fries you still have the main entree of the burger, but without game-play what you have is definably not a game.
This gets back to the failed systems of yor'. The Intellivisions and Genisises. A system is not made on the technology it's made on the games.
If the above statement held true, The Genesis CD peripheral would have driven the system into the lead and we'd be playing games on the Sega holographic projector today.
I point to Tetris.
Play that diamond in a see of cubit zirconium and tell me graphics are more important.
Tell me.
Play that diamond in a see of cubit zirconium and tell me graphics are more important.
Tell me.
I hate this argument as people assume that you can't have good gfx and gameplay, or even that having worse gfx makes the gameplay better.
I'm not saying that all games need high end graphics to be fun, just that they can increase the over all experience of the game. It doesn't matter much what a puzzle game looks like, but for a game thats trying to put you into its world highly detailed objects and people work much better then bland untextured pollys. Fallout 3 would not be as good if you could only see 20 ft in front of you and enemies all shared the same bland models that would just vanish when you shot them. Driving games are more fun when cars look like cars and not a square object with wheels. Many games are much more enjoyable at 1400x1050 then 640x480, text is easier to read, and its much easier to identify objects
Most NES games had horrible gameplay, most of the ones that had good gameplay also had outstanding graphics for its time. Zelda, Super Mario 1/2/3, Metroid, Mega Man, Contra; were all considered top of the line graphically when released
I'm not saying that all games need high end graphics to be fun, just that they can increase the over all experience of the game. It doesn't matter much what a puzzle game looks like, but for a game thats trying to put you into its world highly detailed objects and people work much better then bland untextured pollys. Fallout 3 would not be as good if you could only see 20 ft in front of you and enemies all shared the same bland models that would just vanish when you shot them. Driving games are more fun when cars look like cars and not a square object with wheels. Many games are much more enjoyable at 1400x1050 then 640x480, text is easier to read, and its much easier to identify objects
One of the most infuriating things some developers do is to concentrate on graphics hoping it'll save the game when it comes to market sales; put out a flashy ad, etc. What's the bloody point and who was managing your asses?
But I do wish someone somewhere would work out how to avoid clipping - i.e. when two or more graphical elements collide in an unnatural/unrealistic fashion. elbows through walls, guns through torso... that sort of thing, though not crucial to a game by any means, really should have been worked out by now. And what's the deal with Saints Row? What a load of pants that is - has anyone tried playing GTA IV on a Mac through Parallels? Just a minor query - message me if you have the results, cheers.
But I do wish someone somewhere would work out how to avoid clipping - i.e. when two or more graphical elements collide in an unnatural/unrealistic fashion. elbows through walls, guns through torso... that sort of thing, though not crucial to a game by any means, really should have been worked out by now. And what's the deal with Saints Row? What a load of pants that is - has anyone tried playing GTA IV on a Mac through Parallels? Just a minor query - message me if you have the results, cheers.
I got a say you can have the best game graphically but if the gameplay sucks the game not worth it.
no more polished turds thanks
*cough* crysis *cough*
tho it is one of the nicest looking turds you'll ever see
*cough* crysis *cough*
tho it is one of the nicest looking turds you'll ever see
As a strict PC gamer who owns a merely mid-level machine, I'd have to say gameplay over graphics, not only because the gameplay is what makes a game enjoyable for long periods of time, but also because games with what are currently considered next-gen graphics look like they're made of plasticine and cardboard when the graphics are turned down low enough to run on a midlevel machine. Red Alert 3 is the only exception I've seen, where at the lowest quality settings it looks merely like a game made in 2003. Assassin's Creed gets even grayer, Unreal Tournament 3 appears staged on a low-budget b-movie set, and Crysis looks like a wild spritefest.
My point is, I much prefer a lower level of max graphics detail and smooth, sophisticated gameplay to a veritable slideshow of beautiful visuals.
My point is, I much prefer a lower level of max graphics detail and smooth, sophisticated gameplay to a veritable slideshow of beautiful visuals.