PDA

View Full Version : Graphics or Gameplay


brady
04-06-05, 05:23 PM
i recently posted in a thread that ive finally admitted to myself that i dont care what the gameplay is, im just looking for the best graphics fix i can find. so i decided to see if anyone else feels the same...

its funny sometimes i just boot up a game just so i can see how sweet it looks. 2-3 minutes and im done. lame i know, but i cant be the only one...or can i?

OWA
04-06-05, 05:26 PM
I'm that way a lot and it's probably why I don't finish a lot of games. Like Far Cry, I love to play that one just to look at graphics. I never came close to finishing it as a game but I've played around on all the levels using the developer mode quite a bit.

brady
04-06-05, 05:27 PM
I'm that way a lot and it's probably why I don't finish a lot of games. Like Far Cry, I love to play that one just to look at graphics. I never came close to finishing it as a game but I've played around on all the levels using the developer mode quite a bit.

yes! im not alone. i too have never finished far cry. i cant think of how many times ive started the first 3 levels over and over again.

SH64
04-06-05, 05:39 PM
Both.

Bad_Boy
04-06-05, 05:58 PM
Both.
what he said.

i cant stand to play a ugly game.
i also cant stand to play a game with poor gameplay.

jAkUp
04-06-05, 06:01 PM
yea both... but I think for me graphics are a little more important... Even if the game is average, it can be made 10x better if it has fantastic graphics.

CaptNKILL
04-06-05, 06:23 PM
I would normally say graphics, but seriously, I play a lot of older games because they are simply BETTER than the newer, better looking (and slower running) games that have come out recently.

Ultima Online, BF1942 DC, Arx Fatalis, Morrowind, and UT2004... those are the newest games I put time into once in a while. Heh, not too long ago I played all the way through Dink Smallwood (2d RPG from 1997... sort of like Zelda with a more realistic setting and a LOT of dumb humor), Doom and Doom 2 (using Legacy Doom of course...).

I havent touched Half-Life 2 or any of its mods in months. I uninstalled Doom 3 a long time ago. And after completing CoR, I let it sit for a while then uninstalled. I have Flatout on my system right now too, but I hardly ever play it at all. I have BF:Vietnam on my shelf, but frankly, it sucks so I dont play it.

Gameplay comes before graphics ANY day for me. I'll take a decent looking game with great gameplay over any mediocre crap with lots of pixel shaders.

That said, I find games a lot more fun when they RUN well. And if I find a game that I really like, I want to make it run and look as good as possible. And thats the main reason I upgrade my system. I rarely, if ever upgrade for games based on graphics unless I know the game is going to be something I'll really enjoy.

Subtestube
04-06-05, 06:27 PM
Mostly gameplay. There's a reason that Civ3 is still my most played game.

Lil Sassy
04-06-05, 06:29 PM
yea both... but I think for me graphics are a little more important... Even if the game is average, it can be made 10x better if it has fantastic graphics.I am somewhat of a graphics fiend myself, and, like jAkUp said, an average game can be much more enjoyable with incredible graphics. That's why we buy new graphics cards. I didn't snag a GT so I could look at 2 year old graphics. If I wanted that I'd still have my Ti4600.

<edit>The swear filter didn't care for the term "graphics w/-/0r3" when spelled correctly.

zoomy942
04-06-05, 06:34 PM
graphics are important, but if i'm not having any fun playing the game, then i dont care to even look at it. :)

de><ta
04-06-05, 06:35 PM
Immersive gameplay is more important.

Graphics is highly dependent on the current technology. So game that make you go "oooh" now will loose its lackluster in a couple of years.

Whereas a great immersive gameplay will still be appealing and entertaining past its technology. Point in case: Chrono Trigger, old FF series et. al.

Creating good graphics is a science while creating a great gameplay is more of an art.

superklye
04-06-05, 06:44 PM
yea both... but I think for me graphics are a little more important... Even if the game is average, it can be made 10x better if it has fantastic graphics.
Exactly, and now that I have seen the wonders that DX9 games have, it's really, really hard for me to go back to an old game (like NWN) and play through again, even if I know it's an amazing game.

-=DVS=-
04-06-05, 07:26 PM
One can't be without the other , must be adequate balance , if one is poor the second must compensate or else its :thumbdwn:

ChrisRay
04-06-05, 07:44 PM
It depends the game and what I am playing. Some games require decent artwork/graphics for me to become immersed in them. Plus gameplay that is enjoyable.

de><ta
04-06-05, 07:45 PM
When Quake 3 first came out a couple of years ago people where fawning at its graphics, but according to todays the standards the graphics are pretty old.

However Alice, that is based on the Q3 engine and has a much better gameplay is still still a decent game to play even today.

So having great graphics is only good for the current time period but having a great gameplay along with the graphics goes a lot further.

Subtestube
04-06-05, 07:50 PM
In response to Dexta, even though I agree with your argument I absolutely disagree with your example. I personally think Q3 STILL looks great, and plays very very well. It, to me, is an example of how good basic graphic design can make a game look a lot newer than it is.

Mr. Hunt
04-06-05, 08:19 PM
They are both very important to me... but gameplay rules all else. I would much rather play a game that doesn't look great but plays perfectly, as opposed to a beautiful game with crappy gameplay... been playing games since the graphics were terrible... so I guess they aren't as important to me as good gameplay... I can still sit down and play Excite Bike ;).

six_storm
04-06-05, 10:52 PM
I used to be a graphics wh0re but gameplay also has a huge impact on me as well. I'm not going to waste my time staring at a game if it isn't going to be fun.

Slyder
04-07-05, 12:30 AM
Tough question.

I just voted for stupid question because we expect both nice graphics and good gameplay on the latest games. However I do like playing on my old Amiga roms which by todays standards has shoddy graphics but brilliant gameplay................ but at the time it had good graphics. :confused:

I think both.

Ninjaman09
04-07-05, 06:57 AM
Gameplay. That's why I still play SNES games. Graphics are very nice, of course, but if the game is no fun then what's the point?

nrs421
04-07-05, 08:02 AM
gameplay for me....graphics are important as well but if we look at a game that has great graphics and terrible gameplay i.e. MYST well see that it has no replayability at all....all myst was a freaking slideshow and while i finished the first game i have never touched it again whereas i have occasionally gotten out one or two of the games i bought during that period and played them

Gentle
04-07-05, 09:28 AM
Graphics will always be improving.

But if a game isn't good, no amount of artwork or graphics will improve it.

Gentle