|
While browsing YouTube and checking my subscriptions, I noticed that there was a trailer for the new Wii game GoldenEye, which is an updated version of the greatest FPS games of all-time (insert Kanye West voice here).
I tend not to look at the comments sections (as YouTube is notorious for spammers and whatnot) but against my better judgement, I did. Here is just a few examples of what I found:
seen better graphics on psp
along with:
I'll stick with actually good graphics on my PS3 thank you very much.
and of course:
Fuck the Wii.
Now this is obviously just a petty flame war. People saying that the Wii sucks because of it's graphics or it's "kiddie appeal" (when did children not become gamers? I thought most people transformed into gamers around the time they were kids. Huh) and blah, blah, blah.
But I got to thinking: "What makes the game? Graphics or Gameplay?"
360 and PS3 have got Nintendo beat in the graphics department but, in my opinion, Nintendo has both of them beat in gameplay. So I want to know:
Poll: Which makes a game better?Gameplay (207) 92% Graphics (18) 8% 225 total votes Your vote: Which makes a game better? (Vote): Graphics
(Vote): Gameplay
|
well considering this forum is about a game released in 1998 that people still play, i really doubt that many people will think that graphics are better.
|
Fuck gameplay, I want a fireworks show in my face so I can't even see what I am playing.
|
|
|
Obviously gameplay, but for a 2010 release, those graphics are terrible.
Thanks for the news though. My bro will be happy to hear that one of his fav games of all time is being remade.
|
Gameplay by far.
I was thinking this awhile ago, but all these kids nowdays, their first gaming experiences are going to be the shit, unoriginal-sequel number 3 uber graphics 10 hour long games on 360 and PS3.
And that's just really sad.
I bought both FF13 and Vagrant Story (a ps1 game) and I had a hell of a lot more fun on the latter. Games now days are just soulless, especially console ones.
|
This is a site for people who still play BW in 2010. What do you think the results will be? 
|
Gameplay obviously. For example: final fantasy tactics.
|
Graphics are one of the least important things that should be considered when trying to make a good game. Unfortunately its not because most gamers are only looking for eye candy and have no real grasp on what even makes a good game. This subject actually infuriates me >_<
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On August 21 2010 08:22 Cofo wrote:This is a site for people who still play BW in 2010. What do you think the results will be?
Exactly hahaha. Was typing this out when i saw you already posted it.
|
Gameplay ofc
But ancient graphics without any flare for a unique style or something will hurt the ability of a person to actually enjoy the game, esp if they are irritating graphics.
|
Gameplay, hands down. It can be seen by how often and how enjoyable playing old-school games still is. Like playing mario, zelda, megaman, etc. To some degree, I enjoy a lot of the old-school games more then the recent ones.
It always seemed like this to me. The old-school games were created for the sake of enjoyment and last over the years. While the new games come off as being quick fixes, like we are addicted to games so we need a new game to appease our addiction.
|
This question is always deceptive. It isn't one or the other, it's what combination of gameplay/graphics is optimum. Imagine the most amazing game gameplay wise, but it's all gray scale blocks. Now the other side is a pretty picture, and you walk around an empty room.
I think it's somewhere around 80% gameplay 20% graphics. The graphics create the immersion that is needed to get into and enjoy the story, but once you are inside the game, gameplay is what matters. FF7 is marked as a great as hell game, and really the graphics are pathetic. Look at Morrowind. Immersive, epic, and the graphics are good enough to pull off the feel of the land.
This is why the Wii is crushing the PS3 and XBox, because if people want nice pictures, they'll watch a movie. Same with DS vs PSP. People play games for a challenge, enjoyment, and the story. Now Wii graphics are much worse than they could be, but that is too keep the system cheap. Instead of trying to push the graphics engine of the PS3, developers should make good games (which is why the PS move and Kinetic are doomed to fail).
|
lol you didn't play ff7 when it first game out did you those graphics where pretty high end for the day esp the cut scenes.
|
On August 21 2010 08:22 Cofo wrote:This is a site for people who still play BW in 2010. What do you think the results will be?
Couldn't have said it better.
Out of all of the SC2 posts I have seen at teamliquid.net:
50% complain about balance (gameplay)
30% concern strategy (gameplay)
10% show off the cool shit people can do (gameplay)
5% Single Player (gameplay)
4% I <3 Day[9]! have my babies
1% Technical support my fps is low, graphics slowing down my game (graphics?)
The only time people complain about graphics is when they reduce the gameplay.
I guess in 1999, Graphics were a big selling point for me. You know, when you can actually see the thing your shooting in Golden Eye instead of enemies being slightly different colored blob of pixels in Doom. But we have reached a graphical plateau for new games, where graphics now longer influence gameplay, and only add to artistry. For old games vs new games, graphics sometimes influence my choice of gaming. It is hard to tell do to the nostalgia effect. But I would choose super smash bro. Brawl over original, just because it looks better. But gameplay and nostalgia are far more important factor for me, when I haul out my N64 just to hear Kirby's taunt over and over again.
|
OP do you even need to make a thread about this?
|
At first glance and 5 minutes into the game - graphics, and from there on it's all gameplay.
|
sc2 graphics hinder my playing sometimes. I wish they didnt. (frames drop really low)
|
I voted graphics but I meant gameplay, I dont care if it doesnt look that great as long as it plays well.
|
Some of the greatest games ever looks really really bad.
|
I honestly don't care about graphics too much. If it's really nice and different than the attempt at realistic that companies try nowadays I would be really happy. Honestly gameplay is ten times better. Sometimes people are idiots when they prefer graphics over gameplay.
|
what? srsly making a thread like this .. lol
|
I'm going to say they are both very important and that they are just as important as each other. The whole point of a game is to immerse the player in a new world and the graphics (and sound, physics ect.) go a long way in doing that.
|
Gameplay obviously, if I wanted to see good graphics, I'd have gone to the movies and watch something like Transformers 2 or 2012, both of which were cliché-esque garbage films when it comes to good development outside the visual effects.
|
There is a reason games like SC:BW, CS 1.6 and Quake 3 (Live) are still super popular. Gameplay all the way!
|
On August 21 2010 08:28 Kennigit wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2010 08:22 Cofo wrote:This is a site for people who still play BW in 2010. What do you think the results will be? Exactly hahaha. Was typing this out when i saw you already posted it.
BW still looks pretty slick, though. And I'm personally of the opinion that 2D is better for certain genres of games, such as fighting and RTS.
Still, I'd choose gameplay depending on a few factors. Generally, I don't really care what the graphics look like; I'll still play NES games, Final Fantasy VII, Morrowind, and a bunch of other games that the general "gamer" would bitch and moan about. The only way I'd take graphics over gameplay is if it physically hurts my eyes to play a game. For example, when I first got my GameCube, I was playing SSBB, then went over to my brother's where he had an N64 with SSB. The blurry graphics really hurt my eyes, and I couldn't stand to play it for more than 5-10 minutes at a time. The same with FFVIII, which was always a bit strange to me. I had no problem playing 7 with the blocky graphics, but the blurry full scale bodies really strained my eyes.
|
Gameplay 100%
Graphics are there to help, but gameplay is what keeps the game interesting
|
Assassin's Creed 2. Great blend of both. But I like gameplay as well, but I'm still picky.
|
On August 21 2010 08:50 semantics wrote:
lol you didn't play ff7 when it first game out did you those graphics where pretty high end for the day esp the cut scenes.
I did. everyone was saying how terrible the graphics were.
IIRC when ff7 came out it was decided right at the end of the development cycle to shift it over to the ps1. Development for that console at that point was embryonic obviously as it had only been out a few months, so the planned resolution for the game had to be reduced and the model quality scaled down from what it was meant to be on the N64.
I seriously remember sitting around with my friends making fun of the terrible blocky graphics. The cut scenes were nice though.
|
On August 21 2010 09:03 yeti wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2010 08:22 Cofo wrote:This is a site for people who still play BW in 2010. What do you think the results will be? I guess in 1999, Graphics were a big selling point for me. You know, when you can actually see the thing your shooting in Golden Eye instead of enemies being slightly different colored blob of pixels in Doom. But we have reached a graphical plateau for new games, where graphics now longer influence gameplay, and only add to artistry. For old games vs new games, graphics sometimes influence my choice of gaming. It is hard to tell do to the nostalgia effect. But I would choose super smash bro. Brawl over original, just because it looks better. But gameplay and nostalgia are far more important factor for me, when I haul out my N64 just to hear Kirby's taunt over and over again.
Other than the handful of competitive games I played over the years. Most games are like an adventure for me, like reading a novel or watching a movie, so artistry (graphics, sound, plot and more) overrides the "gameplay" in most cases. A state-of-the-art 1999 game will look irritating standing beside a 2009 big budget production.
|
It depends. For multi-player games gameplay definitely.
For single player, I value storytelling and artistry very highly and graphics are one major part of that. Bioshock was one of my favorite games ever despite the fact that I didn't even like how it played.
I agree with the post above me, although more of my time is spent with competitive games than adventure ones overall.
|
Gameplay of course. Although i'm not sure about this Goldeneye remake, graphics or not it looked a bit dodgey too me. Graphics are very important in some games though, it's key to creating the atmosphere/immersion into RPGS/Some FPS. Though one could argue that is more art direction and design.
I'm playing SC2 on pretty low graphics even though i can run it on high/ultra.
|
graphics are more important
my eyes burn when i try going back to brood war
|
even without taking the release date into consideration, I'd say Super Mario 64 and Legend of Zelda: OoT are still two of the best games ever
|
Actually, I'd go as far as to say Super Mario 64 is better than any of its successors (Sunshine, Galaxy), because the controls are just so smooooooth in that game, and it sticks to the whole mushroom kingdom theme like glue but manages to make it brand new.
|
Gameplay, but graphics are worth something. Maybe like 80% gameplay, 20% graphics. Also, to clarify, my definition of 'good graphics' doesnt necessarily mean the latest shiniest 3d stuff out there. More of an artistic style that's aesthetically pleasing and fits the mood. A weakness in gameplay or graphic is a flaw in a game eitherway.
|
Gameplay all the way. But I do think games can look good without high res / high effect graphics. The way the game is presented I think is more important than that. N64 games are a great example of this.
|
Wii sucks balls, I should know it, I own one. There are two worthy games on that system and that it.
|
On August 21 2010 14:15 ghermination wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2010 08:50 semantics wrote:
lol you didn't play ff7 when it first game out did you those graphics where pretty high end for the day esp the cut scenes. I did. everyone was saying how terrible the graphics were. IIRC when ff7 came out it was decided right at the end of the development cycle to shift it over to the ps1. Development for that console at that point was embryonic obviously as it had only been out a few months, so the planned resolution for the game had to be reduced and the model quality scaled down from what it was meant to be on the N64. I seriously remember sitting around with my friends making fun of the terrible blocky graphics. The cut scenes were nice though.
3d was pretty new in 97' FF7 was considered state of the art graphics...
This is the most dazzling visual experience to date on any console. Film-quality computer-generated cinematics blend seamlessly with pre-rendered background artwork to create the strikingly realistic world of Final Fantasy VII, both beautiful in its grandeur and terrifying in its detail. The overworld and battle sequences are presented in full polygonal splendor with just a touch of texture mapping for good measure. But you haven't seen anything until you witness some of the more powerful magic spells in the game. Massive dragons heed your bidding, dwarfing your gigantic enemies tenfold; an earth titan tears the ground up from beneath your enemies' feet, flinging them aside like toy blocks. Some of these summoning spells cut to over half a dozen different camera angles as the catastrophe unfolds. Meanwhile, a masterfully orchestrated soundtrack - courtesy of veteran composer Nobuo Uematsu - is a major force behind the intense emotion of Final Fantasy VII. The synthesized musical score hearkens Final Fantasy's golden age on the Super Nintendo, consciously staying true to its roots.
Yet for all its top-notch graphics and sound, truly the best aspect of Final Fantasy VII is the plot that these peerless aesthetics help weave.
http://www.gamespot.com/ps/rpg/finalfantasy7/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review
the review is dated 1997
On August 21 2010 16:47 Sunyveil wrote:
Actually, I'd go as far as to say Super Mario 64 is better than any of its successors (Sunshine, Galaxy), because the controls are just so smooooooth in that game, and it sticks to the whole mushroom kingdom theme like glue but manages to make it brand new.
You claim 64 is better then SMG:2
SMG:2 is what i would consider the best 3d mario. 64 is pretty dam good but i'd say smg:2 is the best it's controls are perfect for it's planet themed gravity mobo jumbo.
Anyways you want a good 3d adventure game on the n64 you go to banjo-kazooie, which was less repetitive and frankly had jokes in it and references that are worth while.
|
On August 21 2010 18:14 araged wrote:
Wii sucks balls, I should know it, I own one. There are two worthy games on that system and that it.
Not the wii's fault if all you want is FPS and JRPG games. It has plenty of good games.
|
You ask this on a forum which was dedicated to (well, until recently...) an 11 year old sprite-based game.
|
theres no way i would buy that game. it looks like shit. im sorry but graphics > gameplay when it looks that bad. also cod/halo/anything probably has better controls then that too. as for sc2. i like to see how pretty everything is. playing on low settings feels like its n64 graphics from above, no thanks. some of the death animations are even cut off.
|
Tetris for the gameboy didn't have OMG graphics, but they did a good job of conveying the information they needed to. Minesweeper, breakout and even galaga hold up IMO. Solitaire would be another example where the graphics are immaterial.
The boardgame Go doesn't need fancy graphics, but people still spend fantastic amounts of money on boards/stones.
Nethack is usually used as an example of a game with bad graphics, but for the information density there really is no better way than text.
|
lol i accidentally voted graphics. sorry. of couse gameplay is more important. after all, it is a game, not a movie. most of my friends say the opposite and that makes me want to punch them in the face.
|
I think to a degree, graphics are important but it scales off pretty dramatically. If something looks good, then hell yeah cool man but after being good and making it better, it matters less and less. Sure you have that initial "shit son this looks amazing" on an amazingly looking game but after that you don't really notice it much unless it's melting your eyes with bloom (or more likely it's completely black/grey/brown level because that's "realistic")
|
On August 22 2010 00:46 SilentCrono wrote:
lol i accidentally voted graphics. sorry. of couse gameplay is more important. after all, it is a game, not a movie. most of my friends say the opposite and that makes me want to punch them in the face.
graphics are more important in movies?
|
The graphics need to be just good enough as to not hinder the gameplay. After that all I care about is gameplay.
|
one of the main reasons i don't like sc2 is because of the graphics. they're too flashy, even on low, and its very difficult for me to gauge battles.
is that an argument that makes graphics important or gameplay important?
|
On August 21 2010 18:33 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2010 18:14 araged wrote:
Wii sucks balls, I should know it, I own one. There are two worthy games on that system and that it. Not the wii's fault if all you want is FPS and JRPG games. It has plenty of good games.
The only FPS games I ever played were Q3 Arena and CS and I hate JRPGs with passion. Sadly Wii's prehistoric tech specs and gay and gimmicky control options doesn't allow for enjoyable gaming. With the exception of SMG and Fire Emblem noone of Wii games have entertained me for more than 30 minutes.
|
By this point, good graphics should be a given.
|
Numbers tell everything
Wii > Xbox > PS3 because of gameplay
Also a Wii is something that interests women.
thats like 50% of the market there give or take! lol XD
|
There are no game without gameplay.
|
Gameplay, definitely.
I can spend countless hours on Dwarf Fortress.
Graphics are a plus, but gameplay is the selling point.
|
the story telling and plot.
|
On August 23 2010 20:25 Mykill wrote:
Wii > Xbox > PS3 because of gameplay
yeah wii fit is packed full of fun gameplay
you get to weigh yourself and stuff....
wii is popular because they put the whole weight loss angle on it so alot of women bought it , if people really wanted gameplay over graphics then PC would still be the king of gaming...
|
On August 23 2010 22:24 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:yeah wii fit is packed full of fun gameplay you get to weigh yourself and stuff.... wii is popular because they put the whole weight loss angle on it so alot of women bought it , if people really wanted gameplay over graphics then PC would still be the king of gaming...
Umm PC has better graphics than consoles. It has pretty much always had it. It also has better gameplay in many (most) cases. What it doesn't have is ease of usage and low costs for high graphics.
I voted graphics, due to the fierce competition I can almost always find a game with similar gameplay but better graphics. There are some notable exception, but they are exceptions.
|
Regardless of the poll results, Wii still sucks.
And graphics are pretty important too in some games, as they let you immerse better/see better/enjoy more.
|
Gameplay all the way. There is always that rare treat of a game that provides both. I remember seeing HL2 reveal in 2003 and being blown away and hoping that the gameplay matched the visual advances and it completely met my expectation.
More often than not though, we have games that just look pretty and lack any real depth. It's like the blood and gore argument, eventually you stop noticing it when you are playing and the game (whichever it may be) comes down to strategies and concentration. I feel the same way about graphics, at some point I will stop noticing the beautiful HDR or the texture detail and after that, the game better have a damn good backbone otherwise it's not going to get much playtime afterwards.
|
On August 23 2010 21:55 Aguy wrote:
Gameplay, definitely.
I can spend countless hours on Dwarf Fortress.
Graphics are a plus, but gameplay is the selling point.
Dwarf fortress for the win!
Can't believe this game is in ASCII while being the best game I've ever played.
|
On August 21 2010 08:47 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
This is why the Wii is crushing the PS3 and XBox, because if people want nice pictures, they'll watch a movie. Same with DS vs PSP. People play games for a challenge, enjoyment, and the story. Now Wii graphics are much worse than they could be, but that is too keep the system cheap. Instead of trying to push the graphics engine of the PS3, developers should make good games (which is why the PS move and Kinetic are doomed to fail).
This actually has absolutely nothing to do with why the Wii beats out the other consoles in sales... like, at all.
Ironically, it's the wii gameplay that's probably consistently the worst out of all the systems... by far. The gimmicky nunchuck shit only really works for a handful of games—not anything like COD, Madden or NHL series or any major franchise really. For most games, it's simply more hassle than fun to swing a stupid piece of unresponsive plastic in the air. Wii is almost exclusively built on it's niche market, catering to people who typically wouldn't identify as 'gamers' but find wii sports cool or something like that. The remaining demographic is pretty much just Nintendo fanboys (SSBM, Mario and Zelda was enough for my brother and his friend to buy and then the thing went right into the garbage because the system is junk besides that)
Seriously, I've heard multiple people say they've bought their wife/gf wii sports because the SO enjoys it and it's the easiest way to get her to lose weight without saying she's fat. THAT'S FUCKIN' BRILLIANT MARKETING!!
I definitely take gameplay over graphics, but it's not as skewed as some of you are making it. It's definitely not 90-10. I'm not paying $60 in 2010 for 8 bit graphics. That's why people are dirting on the Goldeneye reboot. It's essentially the exact same game, cept the graphics look like they are from 2005 instead of 1996... it's like every title on the wii actually. A recycled old classic that's completely uninspired but will sell anyway.
|
I think people're lumping too much crap into "gameplay" and making this skewed. I hate pulling out reviewer stuff but I think at the very least you split things into like <story> <graphics> <audio> <system> that sort of thing.
And when it comes to that, I'm not gonna lie - gameplay can take a backseat to other stuff. That's not to say I'll ignore gameplay whatsoever, and a boring game is a boring game, but if a story is compelling, it'll keep me hooked (for a fair amount of time). If the graphics suck (relatively), or the audio is grating, it'll be a huge turn-off and can push me off of a good story/gameplay system.
Personally it's hard for me to rate any of those four ingredient as more important than another. That's not to say I demand top-of-the-line graphics or anything, as I happily appreciate 2D, even bit-sprite games, but I prefer graphics to add to the game, and if the level of immersion demanded by the game involves realism (like Bioshock, FEAR, that sort of thing) then I obviously demand likewise in terms of graphics. And if Bioshock were to have been released with System Shock-level graphics, yeah, I probably wouldn't have played it.
|
Gameplay is most important. But there is no gameplay without decent graphics (I can't imagine anyone buying sc2 if it was in 2d)
|
Graphics obviously , why would you wanna play a fun game that looks bad when you can play a bad game that looks good ?
|
On August 21 2010 08:19 Judicator wrote:
Fuck gameplay, I want a fireworks show in my face so I can't even see what I am playing.
Then you'd like SC2.
|
Gameplay is more important, but thats not to say graphics aren't important either. I like games to look good, there are some older games that I just can't go back to because of their graphics.
|
Both are important. You cannot measure which weighs the most because they're different, just as you cannot compare apples to oranges. Denying either will give you trouble when trying to find or make a good game.
It's cool and fun to stuff your chest and say "I think gameplay is more important because I'm not a superficial girl". But that's a bit immature. The truth is that the graphics are part of the experience and consequently, part of the gameplay.
Most of us played many games just for the gameplay, other games just for the graphics and others for how both worked great together. I think it's impossible to tell which one is more important.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
There are different kind of games.
I can play some older games like XCOM, Doom or Quake and the old graphics doesn't bother me in the slightest, because the gameplay is so fun.
On the other hand, there are very cinematic games, like Mass Effect, that have the visuals as the major component that builds the overall impression. Badly executed visuals would hurt this style of games.
In my opinion a good example of an older game that is very good gameplay-wise but is not as impressive anymore because of the outdated graphics is System Shock 2. If that game had the visuals of e.g. Dead Space, it would be sooo much more scary and atmospheric.
|
Gameplay is a faaaar more important, graphics are just an added bonus.
|
On August 24 2010 00:36 Random() wrote:
There are different kind of games.
I can play some older games like XCOM, Doom or Quake and the old graphics doesn't bother me in the slightest, because the gameplay is so fun.
On the other hand, there are very cinematic games, like Mass Effect, that have the visuals as the major component that builds the overall impression. Badly executed visuals would hurt this style of games.
In my opinion a good example of an older game that is very good gameplay-wise but is not as impressive anymore because of the outdated graphics is System Shock 2. If that game had the visuals of e.g. Dead Space, it would be sooo much more scary and atmospheric.
This!
And to AyJay, i would DEFFINETLY buy Sc2 if it was 2d!
|
wow, is this serious? Game play is the most important thing. BW is the best example for this :D
|
Gameplay, definitely.
But this has nothing to do with the Wii, so the poster up there is wrong.
|
NBA Hang Time for Nintendo 64 us my favorite game, my character was a poorly designed chicken and partner was always a 8 foot tall grandpa doing backflips into a dunk, But the things me and my friend discovered, like how far we can take a combo, was amazingly fun.
Gameplay > graphics anyday
|
On August 23 2010 23:16 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2010 08:47 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
This is why the Wii is crushing the PS3 and XBox, because if people want nice pictures, they'll watch a movie. Same with DS vs PSP. People play games for a challenge, enjoyment, and the story. Now Wii graphics are much worse than they could be, but that is too keep the system cheap. Instead of trying to push the graphics engine of the PS3, developers should make good games (which is why the PS move and Kinetic are doomed to fail). This actually has absolutely nothing to do with why the Wii beats out the other consoles in sales... like, at all. Ironically, it's the wii gameplay that's probably consistently the worst out of all the systems... by far. The gimmicky nunchuck shit only really works for a handful of games—not anything like COD, Madden or NHL series or any major franchise really. For most games, it's simply more hassle than fun to swing a stupid piece of unresponsive plastic in the air. Wii is almost exclusively built on it's niche market, catering to people who typically wouldn't identify as 'gamers' but find wii sports cool or something like that. The remaining demographic is pretty much just Nintendo fanboys (SSBM, Mario and Zelda was enough for my brother and his friend to buy and then the thing went right into the garbage because the system is junk besides that) Seriously, I've heard multiple people say they've bought their wife/gf wii sports because the SO enjoys it and it's the easiest way to get her to lose weight without saying she's fat. THAT'S FUCKIN' BRILLIANT MARKETING!! I definitely take gameplay over graphics, but it's not as skewed as some of you are making it. It's definitely not 90-10. I'm not paying $60 in 2010 for 8 bit graphics. That's why people are dirting on the Goldeneye reboot. It's essentially the exact same game, cept the graphics look like they are from 2005 instead of 1996... it's like every title on the wii actually. A recycled old classic that's completely uninspired but will sell anyway.
After reading all this nonsense about the wii being king of gameplay I was going to post myself but then I came across the above which basically sums up my thoughts entirely; the wii is all about brilliant marketing and product focus. In tapped into the largely ignored casual user base and gave them something gimmicky to satisfy that 15 minute boredom.
The last paragraph says it all.
|
People say gameplay, but nobody buys games for the gameplay. They buy them for the graphics, or out of curiosity, or because their friends are playing them, or because they're hyped.
|
graphics are a bit of a factor in me buying games, I'd expect better ones these days but I still play BW and Age of Empires 1/2+Conqueror's, goldeneye, perfect dark, starfox, Sonic 2/3 for Genesis, NBA jam TE for genesis, simply because I love the gameplay.
|
Gameplay is obviously needed or its not a "game?" but graphics also matter a bit to me. Some games just look to dull.
|
There is no excuse for not having good gameplay and graphics in a game these days but good gameplay will far outshadow poor graphics.
|
Gameplay all the time, I still sometimes play older games that look bad now but are so fun to play.
|
I would rather have great game play and good graphics than good game play with great graphics. It this day and age you need to have Pretty good graphics to get people to play the game long enough to be interested, but if it comes right down to it improving graphics at the cost of game play will lead to a worse game.
P.S. I still pull out my N64 for Perfect dark sometimes. It is a good blend in my eyes.
|
Graphics are important so you can get your arrogant friends to play, but gameplay is definitely what makes it really fun Look at the FPS game "WolfTeam" for example, nothing special about graphics, but definitely one of the top 10 free FPS games.
|
I still play Gangsters: Organized Crime often, the game was released in 99... Yet nothing has matched its nostalgic fun, unfortunately the sequel was terrible. I'll admit that the game has plenty of flaws but again no developer has even matched its depth. Though there were a few similar releases but the pretty graphics didnt compensate for the terrible quality in terms of gameplay and style.
edit: Game is complex and requires plenty of patience, I recommend if you're interested. Prohibition mafia fun!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
