| Off Topic > Games |
| Graphics or Gameplay? |
| << < (4/10) > >> |
| alex dude:
Gameplay. But it's nice to have some decent graphics aswell. |
| Chrono:
Gameplay. If I wanted to watch something fancy, there's something called movies. --- Quote from: Bisjac on March 03, 2011, 12:25:16 PM ---gameplay is more important. but that does not mean a game cant have equal quality of both. graphics is still important. also, game graphics does not have to = realistic to be considered good. there is way more to it then that. --- End quote --- Very true. People have a major difficulty of telling the difference between theme and quality. |
| yuki:
I hate this argument, because it makes no sense. The two are not correlated. You can have a game that looks excellent and has excellent gameplay, or a game that looks and plays like stuff. People like to bring this up when someone includes graphics as a point of critique, and that's stupid. Graphics are indicative of the amount of effort the team put into making their game shine. There is no reason a game can't play good and look great, it's like saying you can either have a Prius or a '69 Camaro (Prius getting great MPG but looking like a snake and a Camaro looking godly but getting horrific MPG). They are both elements of game design, they are both important. It doesn't matter how innovative and cool your game is if the graphics make it look like a mess. Take HL2 or Portal for example. Excellent visuals, great graphics, great story, great gameplay. If you think aesthetics are unimportant, you're wrong. No, you don't have an opinion in this case, you're wrong. Aesthetics are extremely important when it comes to human nature, the visual qualities of something help people formulate schema an object can fit into. They are both very important elements of game design and they both contribute to creating public interest and maintaining positive opinions of the game. Gameplay takes precedence over graphics, but graphics are still very important, as Bisjac said. It's a stupid black/white argument for a concept that is fundamentally grey and you're stupid for thinking that you can't have both in a game. Really, it's just a way to become an enabler for stuffty game devs to skip out on visuals. --- Quote from: Chrono on March 03, 2011, 01:14:07 PM ---Gameplay. If I wanted to watch something fancy, there's something called movies. --- End quote --- Chrono, I honestly didn't expect such a stupid comment from you. |
| Chrono:
--- Quote from: yuki on March 03, 2011, 04:33:04 PM ----bunch of stuff- Chrono, I honestly didn't expect such a stupid comment from you. --- End quote --- The only way a game will have good graphics and good gameplay is if the developers spend multiple years working on it and then you end up needing a supercomputer for it. They don't want to spend years on making it though, and for a small audience. Instead, they showcase several images of how 'nice' it looks because that's what they've been working on. This usually happens with those big name publishers. The indie developers are usually the creative people, who usually focus on something new, something fun, and don't really have much money to toss at graphics designers, and end up sticking to something like low-res textures and such, to make an '8-bit' game. The car comparison was horrible. To make a car look good you just need to change the shape of it. You can't just send out a new monitor then suddenly the games look better. Making a game look good takes considerable effort. Sure a game can be months of fun and have stunning graphics, but that is rare. You have to at least admit that. And last of all, this topic is not saying only one of each could exist, and which side you would prefer on the extreme. It's asking what you look for in a game. I look for fun. |
| Solid:
--- Quote from: Solid on March 03, 2011, 03:44:03 PM ---unless they're like ps2 quality, i don't care Earth Defense Force 2017 has stuff graphics but i love it still --- End quote --- |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |