whats with this new trend of "omg stoopid! its gameplay>gfx n00b"

[Inspector Jihad]

why cant it be both? Many games do both well. I guess many people are buying into that marketing strategy.

 

[40sTheme]

Hmm... I don't know. Just like i've been asking: Why couldn't the Wii have been as powerful as the 360/PS3 with the motion sensing? Because frankly, Wii games look like original Xbox games. But with lower res textures.... I like gameplay, but if there is something with better graphics and it's still nearly as fun (and not as wear-and-tear on your arms), i'm going to get that one. I'm not much of a consoler though, anyways.

 

[Lonyo]

It's mainly the fact that a lot of new games are just graphics, with no good gameplay, and people are saying gameplay is more important than graphics.
Yes, you can have both, but more often than not, games are only one, and that one is graphics. There are some games that have good gameplay and good graphics, but there is a lot of push towards pretty graphics without concern so much for gameplay.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

yeah i guess, but i wouldnt want to play a game with sh1tty ass gfx even if the gameplay was good. e.g. goldeneye, i found my 64 when I was moving and I tried playing it and it was painful. what i'm saying is that they go hand in hand. gfx can add realism and other factors that make the game more satisfying and indirectly affect gameplay.

 

[LanceM]

But does every game need "realism" in order to be fun?

Besides, Nintendo wanted the Wii available to people that don't traditionally play games. This puts the $300-600 price range (for console only) of the 360 and PS3 way out of reach. Also, I personally don't mind "bad" graphics. Aged graphics are one thing, glitchy is another. I'm perfectly happy playing my old NES just as much as I am playing Gears.

Plus, I refuse to buy a $400 video card on top of what I already paid for my PC just to play a game like Crysis just because you can move the foliage.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
yeah i guess, but i wouldnt want to play a game with sh1tty ass gfx even if the gameplay was good. e.g. goldeneye, i found my 64 when I was moving and I tried playing it and it was painful. what i'm saying is that they go hand in hand. gfx can add realism and other factors that make the game more satisfying and indirectly affect gameplay.

then you're missing out on a LOT of good games, my friend. baldur's gate, deus ex, to name two of the greatest games of all time.

with the emphasis on graphics, games get prettier... but they'll still suck bigtime, regardless of how good they look. most of the "greatest games ever" have relatively horrible graphics, but people replay them anyway because they are so fun.

with physics, i dont care how a tree breaks or how some guy falls to the ground.. just so long as it does. environmental interactivity, while more realistic, can only offer so much, IMO (excepting fully destructable terrain)

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Its the triangle rule, Graphics, Gameplay, Bugs.

You can only pick 2.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: djmihow
Its the triangle rule, Graphics, Gameplay, Bugs.

You can only pick 2.

Wouldn't that be "no bugs"?

I still play NS a lot (HL1 mod), even though it's pretty ugly and dated, but the gameplay is damned good. Gameplay and fun factor means a lot more than graphics to a lot of people.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

ehh to each his own i guess...it just annoys me that some people have this superior attitude when someone else appreciates good graphics and physics. i'm not against playing older games, i just downloaded system shock 2. I dont know how the gfx are, but i'm sure they're decent enough.

 

[CP5670]

SS2's graphics sucked even for its time, but I couldn't care less given how good that game was otherwise.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: CP5670
SS2's graphics sucked even for its time, but I couldn't care less.

damn it...well we'll see if the theory holds up

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
ehh to each his own i guess...it just annoys me that some people have this superior attitude when someone else appreciates good graphics and physics. i'm not against playing older games, i just downloaded system shock 2. I dont know how the gfx are, but i'm sure they're decent enough.

I have no problem with people who appreciate good graphics/physics/etc.

The problem comes when people think such things can replace the gameplay. They might as well sit down for a nice engaging session of 3DMark06

- M4H

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
ehh to each his own i guess...it just annoys me that some people have this superior attitude when someone else appreciates good graphics and physics. i'm not against playing older games, i just downloaded system shock 2. I dont know how the gfx are, but i'm sure they're decent enough.

I have no problem with people who appreciate good graphics/physics/etc.

The problem comes when people think such things can replace the gameplay. They might as well sit down for a nice engaging session of 3DMark06

- M4H

haha, i guess we can all agree that the two arent mutually exclusive...and you need both for a great game.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
ehh to each his own i guess...it just annoys me that some people have this superior attitude when someone else appreciates good graphics and physics. i'm not against playing older games, i just downloaded system shock 2. I dont know how the gfx are, but i'm sure they're decent enough.

I have no problem with people who appreciate good graphics/physics/etc.

The problem comes when people think such things can replace the gameplay. They might as well sit down for a nice engaging session of 3DMark06

- M4H

haha, i guess we can all agree that the two arent mutually exclusive...and you need both for a great game.

But given the choice I would prefer gameplay. Which is what the whole "gameplay > graphics" statement is all about.

- M4H

 

[Chaotic42]

People are bucking the recent trend of making everything super realistic looking but boring as hell. The 3D video card screwed PC games up for years.

 

[TheRyuu]

Prime example of game play>graphics.

The original CoD and CoD:UO.
By todays standards, the graphics aren't the greatest (and by no means bad either) but it's the game play in those games that really bring them to the front.

 

[jman19]

yup, gameplay > gfx, but I'd like both, obviously

 

[CP5670]

I think the best examples of great games that didn't offer much in the way of graphics are SS2 and Thief 2. These games looked well below average for their time but were still some of the best I've played. That being said, there have certainly been games with great gameplay that also had the graphics to match (actually, there are probably more of these now that I think about it). The UT and Freespace games were like that, and Riddick and SCCT are two recent examples.

 

[mrzed]

A while back I returned to visit some of my friends since I had moved. We used to console game every friday night together (Sega DC + Soul Calibur + Pizza + Beer = best gaming ever).

One of the guys had just got one of those little joysticks with a load of first-gen Atari arcade games on it. We played Asteroids for about an hour and a half.

There are a lot of amazing looking games out now that I would never spend that much time on.

I think the point of the complaint is that for any gamer who remembers the early days, it was never about graphics. All games looked like crap, so design was all about the gameplay, as there was nothing else.

Too many game designers these days think pretty environments will sell their game. The sad thing is, in a lot of cases, they are right. So old timers like me get pissed off, because we long for the glory days when we got caught up in a game, but few back that experience. Mostly, I get pissed off at the people buying those craptastic but beautiful games, because they are not forcing the producers to make something better.

The truly sad thing is that all of us crusty old farts are just begging for something really good to come along and sweep us off our feet. The graphic possibilities now are so stunning, all we need is a saviour to come along and combine top-tier visuals with a truly immersive game, then we'll happily upgrade our systems and barricade ourselves in our rooms until we finish the thing, then do it again.

The last game that did that for me was the oft-mentioned Deus Ex. I wait impatiently for the next.

Summary: Gameplay >> Graphics, and I'm not going to apologize for preaching that.

 

[Atheus]

Of course it's more important! A game with bare minimum 'programmer art', but great game code, can still be a lot of fun to play. Something with pretty graphics, but no code to make it work, isn't a game at all.

 

[pontifex]

its not that we don't want good graphics, its that we want good graphics AND a fun game, not JUST good graphics.

i started playing some old games with emulators lately and its been pretty fun.

 

[VIAN]

Originally posted by: mrzed
I think the point of the complaint is that for any gamer who remembers the early days, it was never about graphics. All games looked like crap, so design was all about the gameplay, as there was nothing else.

That is an incorrect statement. I have an old Zelda commercial where a dude comments on the awsome graphics. Remember, Nintendo tried it's best to emulate an arcade machine as that was the benchmark for consoles at the time. The focus on gameplay is also incorrect. Some developers, like the one who released the Back to the Future series for Nintendo, new that a good name was all it took for people to buy it. Especially at that time since the internet wasn't popular. Those games have the crappiest gameplay ever conceived. But I bet the developers got their money's worth.

Way before Nintendo, consoles were always fighting for better graphics and it still remains today. Amazing graphics and realism sells. You can't view the gameplay from the back of the box. I think what many gamers remember is a nostalgic distortion of how reality was really like. It may be that when they were small, they never paid attention to graphics, but the market was always like that.

 

[40sTheme]

I guess I need both... I can't play N64 anymore... it hurts my eyes.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: djmihow
Its the triangle rule, Graphics, Gameplay, Bugs.

You can only pick 2.

Marathon 2: Durandal was probably the best looking game upon it's release, had great gameplay, and was the most stable game I've ever played.

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
haha, i guess we can all agree that the two arent mutually exclusive...and you need both for a great game.

You and the other graphics whores out there may need them but a lot of people don't. I'm playing Fallout for the first time and am loving it, despite being a bland 2D game graphically. Just a few weeks ago I beat Lands of Lore: Guardians of Destiny for the 10th or so time, a 2.5D FPS/RPG hybrid. Hell, my favorite time killer is probably Super Mario Brothers 3.

The only thing less important than graphics is the emotional Max Payne/Baldur's Gate II/etc type of character plot.

 

[sonoma1993]

My cousins and I just finish playing a 1 1/2hrs multiplayer co-op on doom II for windows 95. We were playing them on my windows xp machines. Even though the graphics are really old. We had a great time. We were playing on nightmare difficulty. That was harder than h*ll but it was fun though.

But yeah, I think some games just rely on to much graphics to carry them over. Sure it nice to have nice quality graphics, but if it effects gameplay, the game going to boring then.