Graphics or Gameplay: Da poll

Graphics or Gameplay

  • Total voters
    120
C

Creepingdeath1977

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
2,135
Well which one guys? I read this article from a 360 site(http://oxcgn.com/2008/12/23/ps3s-graphics-will-streak-ahead-of-360s-in-09-but-does-it-really-matter/) about the how the PS3 will push past the 360 in '09, but does it matter.


1)If your a gamer and a game has OK gameplay, but looks like nothing ever seen, does it make the gameplay better?
example for me:Assasins Creed (I tend to be more like this)


2)Or if you have a game that looks OK graphically, but the gameplay is so fluid and enjoyable it make's the presentation quirks unnoticeable.
example for me:Mario Kart Wii

Of coarse everyone wants a God of War or Gears that's more or less at the pinnacle of both, but that's rarely the case. Hints why these are blockbusters. So both is not an option.
 
I guess gameplay, altho i really have issues playing a game thats supposedly really great if it looks like ass. Zelda on the Wii for example. I just couldnt force myself to look at that trash.
 
gameplay, although i agree with 4saken; even though i haven't played zelda on the wii, i echo those sentiments.
 
i dont know man, people bitch about gameplay when a game has good graphics and then they bitch about graphics when they suck but gameplay is good
 
Well like Killzone 2, if the reviews come out and they say the gameplay is ok but it's the best looking console game ever made will you still buy it?
Just to show people the graphics and to say I own the best looking game eva.
 
Crysis = Gameplay is just ok but it has a really good graphic.

The combination of both is actually important.
 
I would say graphics simply because a game with top of the line graphics tends to have a top of the line budget which naturally produces top of the line gameplay. However a game with shitty graphics tends to have a low budget and extra shitty gameplay except in very rare cases. Its just safer to assume a game with good graphics also has good gameplay instead of the other way around.

How many of the "all time best games" have had shitty graphics when they came out? None.
 
That is a god-awful assumption to make for gaming nowadays. A decade ago, maybe, but since EA's gobbling up everything and spitting out unfinished games, budgets can't be considered for judgments like that.
 
GJSNeptune said:
That is a god-awful assumption to make for gaming nowadays. A decade ago, maybe, but since EA's gobbling up everything and spitting out unfinished games, budgets can't be considered for judgments like that.
Click to expand...

Alright, so what games with really good graphics are also really bad games? And what games with really bad graphics are also really good games?
 
Gameplay

. . . Though I'm one that'll load up classic games from the 80's. I like the eye-candy as much as anyone else, but it's got to have the gameplay if I'm ever to load it up and reminisce a few years down the road.
 
idividebyzero said:
. . .And what games with really bad graphics are also really good games?
Click to expand...

Flash games, It's a market segment were gameplay soundly triumphs over graphics. Though I think everyone is so used to only considering the mainstream releases from the big players that few ever care to think of just how much time they kill by loading up something like Desktop Tower Defense.
 
idividebyzero said:
Alright, so what games with really good graphics are also really bad games? And what games with really bad graphics are also really good games?
Click to expand...

The latter, Deus Ex. When it first came out its graphics were nothing special; the same holds true to this day.

The gameplay, however, is still considered by modern standards to be excellent.
 
JaYp146 said:
The latter, Deus Ex. When it first came out its graphics were nothing special; the same holds true to this day.

The gameplay, however, is still considered by modern standards to be excellent.
Click to expand...

I dont know about that, I still remember my jaw hitting the floor from those reflection effects. The graphics were pretty high up there at the time even though they werent revolutionary.
 
How do you think any game pre this generation still gets played? Honestly say that you wouldn't play super mario 3 or zelda or something... paperboy even, ever again?
 
Need both, without Gameplay it doesn't matter if the Graphics are awesome cause the core game sucks, but you can't just have only gameplay and have have the graphics looks like something from the N64 era, at least make it look good and balance it up with good gameplay.
 
the poll answers should've been this:


1)If your a gamer and a game has OK gameplay, but looks like nothing ever seen, does it make the gameplay better?

2))If your a gamer and a game has OK gameplay, but looks like nothing ever seen, does it still suck?

example:Assasins Creed, Far Cry 2

if you found it repetitive or having crapy gameplay, do you still like playing it?

or even
1) if you have a game that looks OK graphically, but the gameplay is so fluid and enjoyable it make's the presentation quirks unnoticeable.

2) if you have the same game that now looks GREAT graphically, and the gameplay is so fluid and enjoyable, would you prefer one to the other or give them both equal time?
 
idividebyzero said:
I would say graphics simply because a game with top of the line graphics tends to have a top of the line budget which naturally produces top of the line gameplay. However a game with shitty graphics tends to have a low budget and extra shitty gameplay except in very rare cases. Its just safer to assume a game with good graphics also has good gameplay instead of the other way around.

How many of the "all time best games" have had shitty graphics when they came out? None.
Click to expand...

winner
 
there is a reason people play dwarf fortress, and i have a hunch it isn't the graphics ;)
 
idividebyzero said:
I would say graphics simply because a game with top of the line graphics tends to have a top of the line budget which naturally produces top of the line gameplay. However a game with shitty graphics tends to have a low budget and extra shitty gameplay except in very rare cases. Its just safer to assume a game with good graphics also has good gameplay instead of the other way around.

How many of the "all time best games" have had shitty graphics when they came out? None.
Click to expand...

Dion said:
winner
Click to expand...

*shrugs*
*goes back to playing Megaman 9*
 
idividebyzero said:
Alright, so what games with really good graphics are also really bad games? And what games with really bad graphics are also really good games?
Click to expand...

not a console game but Doom 3 crazy budget, very impressive graphics but so so game play, i liked the game very much but its game play wasn't something that made it a instant classic or gave it a lot replay value, as well as Quake 4 you need both and lots of money doesn't mean a win for a game.

now you look at a game like Diablo 2 which even at the time wasn't a killer looking game but the game play was beyond great and still being played a lot even today.

i know these are PC games but i have only been playing on a console for a few months.
 
I still play BF1942, FF8, Star Fox, MKII, Mario Kart 64 ect..ect.. to this day even though they "Look" terrible by comparison. Why? Cause their still "FUN"
 
this thread does not reflect the real opinions of the members of this forum.

how many times have you read members saying how a particular game sucks because the graphics look like halflife 2 or some other crap.
 
This is really a no-brainer.

How many times have you played a game that looked incredible, but just wasn't fun. You keep playing it because the sights are impressive but after a while the game just feels flat.

Next.
 
I'm a graphics guy, me and graphics go hand in hand, but if the game just plain out sucks, well I have to go with game play.
 
Gameplay of course. I would be psyched for an official looking glass sequel to Thief with 5 year old direct x 8 graphics.
 
Mac[X-D];1033496724 said:
not a console game but Doom 3 crazy budget, very impressive graphics but so so game play, i liked the game very much but its game play wasn't something that made it a instant classic or gave it a lot replay value, as well as Quake 4 you need both and lots of money doesn't mean a win for a game.

now you look at a game like Diablo 2 which even at the time wasn't a killer looking game but the game play was beyond great and still being played a lot even today.

i know these are PC games but i have only been playing on a console for a few months.
Click to expand...

But you still liked Doom 3 "very much" which suggests it wasnt a bad game. Doom 3 was disapointing sure, but it wasnt that bad. People tend to confuse disapointing with bad a lot.

And this isnt a rule that applies to 100% of games. Im talking about in general that games with high quality graphics tend to have high quality gameplay as well. For every game with good graphics and (genuinely) bad gameplay you can find 10 more games with both good graphics and good gameplay. Graphics are just easier to do, so a game with good gameplay and bad graphics isnt as common since if a developer cant get the graphics right then they usually wont be able to get the gameplay right either.
 
We're talking about video GAMES here, the GAMEplay is without a doubt most important.

I bet all the people who pick graphics over gameplay drive a PT Cruiser.
 
I think any game that doesn't have both is pretty weak.
There are so many games that have proven that graphics/gameplay don't have to be mutually exclusive.
It's either laziness or weak hardware (Wii) that make for one or the other.
 
DoomzDayz said:
the poll answers should've been this:


1)If your a gamer and a game has OK gameplay, but looks like nothing ever seen, does it make the gameplay better?

2))If your a gamer and a game has OK gameplay, but looks like nothing ever seen, does it still suck?

example:Assasins Creed, Far Cry 2

if you found it repetitive or having crapy gameplay, do you still like playing it?

or even
1) if you have a game that looks OK graphically, but the gameplay is so fluid and enjoyable it make's the presentation quirks unnoticeable.

2) if you have the same game that now looks GREAT graphically, and the gameplay is so fluid and enjoyable, would you prefer one to the other or give them both equal time?
Click to expand...
quoting this because i want some opinions on it.

Also I think it is worth mentioning I'd rather play a game with 2D graphics then a game with bad 3D graphics. Bad 3D graphics just look so bad (like 3+ year old 3D games) while I still love playing like Fallout, worms, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top