Graphics or Gameplay?

[alex dude]

Gameplay. But it's nice to have some decent graphics aswell.

[Ad Bot]

[Chrono]

Gameplay. If I wanted to watch something fancy, there's something called movies.

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.

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.

Gameplay. If I wanted to watch something fancy, there's something called movies.

Chrono, I honestly didn't expect such a stupid comment from you.

[Chrono]

-bunch of stuff-
Chrono, I honestly didn't expect such a stupid comment from you.

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]

unless they're like ps2 quality, i don't care

Earth Defense Force 2017 has stuff graphics but i love it still

[yuki]

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.

No person would look for visual quality over fun.

Sure a game can be months of fun and have stunning graphics, but that is rare. You have to at least admit that.

Unfortunately, but that's the result of laziness, and we shouldn't be enabling developers to not put in a good amount of time and effort in making their game look good. Yeah, it takes longer, but the end product is of better quality for it. I'm not saying make every game look like Crysis, don't get me wrong, I'm saying that today, the lowest bar for graphical quality from a team of developers should be, at minimum, HL2 Source Engine quality, unless pursuing another art direction out of aesthetic principle and not primarily to save on development time.

Also, I'm not talking about indie developers when I said what I said above, I was strictly speaking of development teams and companies. Indie games will naturally pursue gameplay over graphics, simply due to a lack of resources, which is why you see games like Minecraft, which are building wealth and a team, gradually become more aesthetically pleasing.

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.

That's my point.

It's a stupid black/white argument for a concept that is fundamentally grey

[IkeTheGeneric]

Wow yuki being a loving idiot.

Because you completely got the point wrong, I asked what is more important to a game.

[ChexGuy331]

Wow yuki being a loving idiot.

Because you completely got the point wrong, I asked what is more important to a game.

No person would look for visual quality over fun.

Though I'd like to rephrase that as "No intelligent person"

[rkynick]

Chrono, I honestly didn't expect such a stupid comment from you.

Haven't you learned anything about chrono

[Flying Ace]

big awesome post

I agree with that statement but some of the wording is off some games can look 'bad' to some people but are still really good in gameplay

or do you mean take into account of when they were developed like the 90s?
in that case at the TIME they were made they were topnotch and fun to play

cause for a second I thought you were meaning a game won't be fun if it looks terrible



also about the above statement no one said you cant have both in the game they only asked 'which do you prefer'

[ChexGuy331]

Chrono, I honestly didn't expect such a stupid comment from you.

It's from Pure Pwnage, but the original comment was about storylines and not graphics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7VAhzPcZ-s

[Tom]

Gameplay is usually worthless without believable graphics. Graphics are what allow you to me more immersed in the gameplay. The more believable the graphics are, the more you will forget about reality and be absorbed in the game.

Minecrafts gameplay is great, but I honestly don't have a whole lot of fun with it because after awhile the graphics literally hurt my eyes.

[oromis]

Cortex Command trades in dynamic lighting for having every pixel be a piece of a destructible environment that reacts to bullets (which also turn into the environment when they stop moving) and rockets.

Minecraft sacrifices fancy 3d models for having every block in the world that can be as big as 8x the surface of Earth be a block that can be destroyed, taken, replaced, or crafted.

As long as I can recognize an enemy when I see one, the graphics are fine. Anything that is made with ~80% quality allocated to graphics and ~20% to gameplay is pretty much a tech demo.

[Hiiro3293]

I clicked Graphics to troll. hahah

[IkeTheGeneric]

I clicked Graphics to troll. hahah

Admittance to trolling?

ONE OF THE UNWRITTEN RULES...

BROKEN...