Epic Battle - Graphics VS. Gameplay

[Mundane]

It's a question that arises in several debates. Whether your arguing which console has better graphics or better games, or whether the Wii's lower graphics really matter. I want some angry people in here, I want to solve it once and for all, hopefully by the end of this we can come to a resolution.

I'll start off. Gameplay FTW. I think that a game needs to entertain. A game needs to hold my attention for more than one hour, or 15 minutes. If a game has amazingly sexy graphics, but no gameplay, what is the point? Take into consideration Assassin's Creed: the game has some of the most beautiful graphics ever seen, and it has some very good gameplay. How about BioShock? The same thing, the game has wonderful graphics and exceptional gameplay.

Now let's look at some others. Gears of War. The gameplay was pretty amazing with it's cover mechanics for about three months, and then Rainbow Six: Vegas showed it up entirely. The only thing that I enjoyed from GoW was how sexy it looked. I hated running around in a big suit and shooting stupid aliens who had horrible AI.

Did you ever wonder why you're paying 60 smackers for a game? Graphics. All the extra time next gen consoles require to mold their high poly models and sharp HD textures in the dev process up the cost. I know 10 bucks isn't upping the ante so much, but it gets tedious. It makes you wonder if they spent more time on the graphics rather than the gameplay, or spent equal time, that shiney visual masterpieces like BioShock or Assassin's Creed wouldn't be as good? Do you think BioShock would have won so many Game of the Years and awards if the guys at Irrational Games weren't so dedicated on polishing the gameplay. They could have easily made the graphics better, but no. They took the time to polish the gameplay.

My point is simply this: graphics should not be a trade off for poor gameplay. If a game has good graphics it should be backed up by better gameplay. I want to pay 60 bucks for a game that I will play long enough and be ENTERTAINED by in an interactive way. I don't want to be entertained visually; sure if the graphics suck it will turn me off, but this is where the gameplay can save it. The DS, for example, doesn't nearly have the graphical expenditure that the PSP has, but who has sold more units? The DS. Why? because it has a crazy amount of fun games. Most of these fun games aren't even in 3D and don't even simulate depth.

I leave it to the opinions of you now. I won't be swayed, per se, but I think we can get a nice debate going here. I ask the permission of the Moderators to allow the intensity of this debate to get pretty high, but not beyond certain limits. Let's get it on!

Have fun, argue, cuss, and bitch,
Mundane

 

[BellGoRiiing]

Have fun, argue, cuss, and bitch,
Mundane

That made me laugh, lol.
Anyway I agree with you, gameplay is more important than graphics. It's one of the main reasons I'm on Nintendo's side, I have more fun with their systems than either Microsoft's and/or Sony's.

 

[Achantion]

Gameplay thats the thng you need ...
ever played FF2 those graphics really where bad , but in my opinion its the best ff form the whole serie !

also ..
there are a lot of games that have nic graphics and suck .. (death by degrees anyone ?)

also
There are a lot of games with good graphics and nice game play
(Star oceaan: till end of time / jak and daxter serie )

 

[GhastlyMasquerade]

Ok... Depends what you call fun... Every single console got fun games and bad games. That's a fact.
Nowadays, isn't as different as during the years of the super nes... remember all those crappy games that came out on the snes? yet, how many mesmerizing ones were released as well? There's no point in fighting for consoles... That's a fact not all the games will be as good as bioshock, system shock, deus ex.. chronno trigger, etc etc.
Obviously the game mechanics are one of the most important aspects of a game, but good gameplay without good ambiance (lights, mood, sound effects, graphics, music) is nothing as well.

Some games got good gameplay but factors like risk and reward are simple ridiculous, then the game gets boring as well.
the perfect symbiosis between gameplay, game mechanics, overall mood, graphics will be what will separate a good game from a bad game.
Don't forget that games like chronno trigger p/exemple, when they came out they had better graphics than most of the games around. What made them special? All these elements put together in a great way.

 

[Achantion]

(thats deep),
AGREED .

 

[Mundane]

My point exactly. What makes me angry is that I'll be talking to a friend about BioShock, and the thing he won't shut up about is how cool it looks. BioShock is a game that has such good balance of gameplay and choice of a moral or immoral way of playing. Then I got to think about how different BioShock would have been with out the Art Deco posters, and the pimped out tommy gun, and the water. It would be fun, but would you feel connected? Not as much. That's where it reaches a point where if you have gameplay and story depth that requires a graphical masterpiece, where do you draw the line?

It becomes a point where BOTH sides of the dev process should receive equal attention. Such is so for Halo 3 IMO, I think they overly amped up the gameplay. I personally don't think they made a immersing world. I think they inticed TOO much with gameplay. I think if your going to add the harsh lighting and bump maps that have self shadows it should fit the world around it. If you own the game, open it up, put it in, and take some time to look at the textures. You'll notice that signs are sharper closer up than walls. Look at the sky boxes in Standoff(which Bungie claimed it wasn't using for H3), you can clearly see the corners of the world. This where graphics become a distraction, for both sides of the field. They can be too nice, or bad. Equality I say! Equaility! Balance! To all developers, here me! Spend the long two years balancing, not throwing gameplay at us or graphics at us.

I degress once more...It seems as I am two faced, but I realize where I stand now. Reason for overly visual games depends on the gameplay. In the case of specific games, the visual aspects are over used, and amazingly are advertised over - let's say an new ingenious battle system.

Balance. One word. Balance.

 

[GhastlyMasquerade]

2 years balancing a game? If that could be financially possible, they would, but the main problem is how much a game costs.

 

[rexxzecutioner]

Anyone who beleives graphics are more important than gameplay is severely deluded and has their priorities completely inverted. There is a reason it's called a game and not an interactive movie.

 

[Marcus]

I want some angry people in here

Hello.

Have fun, argue, cuss, and bitch,
Mundane

okay.

I degress once more...It seems as I am two faced, but I realize where I stand now. Reason for overly visual games depends on the gameplay. In the case of specific games, the visual aspects are over used, and amazingly are advertised over - let's say an new ingenious battle system.

You just answered your own question but you seem to fail to understand something important.  Videogames are one half visual, one half interactive.  Someone who picks up a game case will judge the game based on the visuals because there's no way to tell how the game plays without fucking playing it.  Games require attractive design and appearance because the average gamer who has no knowledge of a game in advance won't bat an eyelash if the game is otherwise ugly or unattractive.

Good example is Ico.  I never heard of the game until I played it in a Summer 2001 demo disc.  I played it for 5 minutes and instantly preordered it; this was the first and ONLY time I ever did that.  However, when I picked up the Ico game case, I almost instantly threw up.  The box art was ATROCIOUS and horrible.  If I had never played the game before and set eyes on it's muddy graphics and obnoxious design, I wouldn't have bought it.  Ever.

I agree with you that balance is important, but you have to understand that without good graphics you instantly cut your fanbase in half.  Like you said, BioShock would have lost all meaning if it didn't have the visual impact it did.

Anyone who beleives graphics are more important than gameplay is severely deluded and has their priorities completely inverted. There is a reason it's called a game and not an interactive movie.

Anyone who believes graphics aren't just as important as gameplay is severely deluded and has their priorities completely inverted.  There is a reason it's called a video game and not just a game.

Did you ever wonder why you're paying 60 smackers for a game? Graphics.

I don't know what it is with this generation of gamers and complaining about game prices because I'll tell you this: GAMES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN EXPENSIVE.

Back in my day, I had to pay up to 70$ for videogames.  Final Fantasy 2 (or as you newer gamers would refer to it as Final Fantasy IV) has a list price of 69.99 in the back of the original Final Fantasy 3 (or FFVI to you newer gamers) players guide.  Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, and Secret of Mana were all 60 bux new.  Super Man 64 on the N64 sold upwards to 80$ new.  The base price of NES games was set at about 55$ and computer games for the commodore 64 and Amiga were the same price. 

How many of you remember the 3DO which sold for 800$ or the NeoGeo home console who's game carts sold upwards to 200$ a piece.  200 smackers for a game, people.  It wasn't until the PS1 era that games were "set" at about 50 USD but even then games would still spike in price (the Lunar games, for instance, were about 70 dollars new).

The price of games is the development cost.  The time it takes to program the gameplay is just as expensive as developing the graphics.  Animation (especially CG animation) is stupidly cheap and animating in 2D is actually more expensive because you have to animate everything by hand (hence why Odin Sphere had such a high production cost).  In fact, a game's soundtrack costs almost (if not more) to compose than the graphics itself which is why a lot of developers refer to midi tunes instead of orchestrated soundtracks.  Ever wonder why Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess used midis?  It's because Nintendo needed to cut back on development costs since the game was delayed for almost two years past the original launch date.

Marketing is the biggest money grubber and publishers are the biggest wallet suckers.  Advertising and distribution steals most of the value that the original developers would normally receive which is why big developer/publishers like EA are so powerful.  In order to make a profit, you have to sell A LOT as in "millions of units" otherwise majority of the money goes to the publisher and the developers themselves receive a small cut which is never enough to satisfy the costs to make the game in the first place.

The video game business is not a business for getting rich and everyone needs to stop that thinking.  The video entertainment world works almost on the same scale as the comic book industry; you have a select group of individuals who dominate the market and only the strongest products have any hopes of turning even the slightest profit.

 

[rexxzecutioner]

Anyone who believes graphics aren't just as important as gameplay is severely deluded and has their priorities completely inverted.  There is a reason it's called a video game and not just a game.

They are by far not just as important. The graphics have their place and it is not equal to the gameplay aspect by any means.

 

[Marcus]

Anyone who believes graphics aren't just as important as gameplay is severely deluded and has their priorities completely inverted.  There is a reason it's called a video game and not just a game.

They are by far not just as important. The graphics have their place and it is not equal to the gameplay aspect by any means.

Bull fucking shit.  Graphics directly tie in to how fun a game is.  Take Dead Rising for instance; a game about killing mass hordes of zombies in a mall using any weapon possible.  If that game were made on the PS1 it wouldn't have the same effect; the character models would be blocky, there would only be a handful of enemies onscreen, and there wouldn't be nearly as many items to use.

Graphics don't equate just to polygons and people need to stop thinking.  Graphics are the raw processing power of the game itself.  What would Oblivion be without it's open, sprawling world?  Just another generic RPG.  What would Final Fantasy VII be if it didn't have the cinematic processing power of the PS1?  It wouldn't have been nearly as influential to the gaming industry.  If all we did was watch silent black and white movies shot on 16mm cameras, where would the movie industry be?  Back in the fucking stone age.

You can say graphics are unimportant or not as important all you want, but the graphics are the mold that holds up the gameplay itself.  You cannot tell me that Chrono Trigger doesn't look good.  Even as a 2D game, the graphics are highly polished with great attention to detail.  Now if Chrono Trigger was a gameboy game with a grayscale palette, limited memory, small maps, and only a handful of words per message box it would have been pure garbage.

Anyone who says graphics aren't more important or even just as important are completely delusional are kidding themselves.  All those games that you play with 2D graphics that everyone spouts out (because being retro is cool am i right?) were graphical bastions in their day and there were just as many dumbasses who complained about "lol gameplay over graphics" back then too.

 

[Cruelty]

GAMES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN EXPENSIVE.

Back in my day, I had to pay up to 70$ for videogames.  Final Fantasy 2 (or as you newer gamers would refer to it as Final Fantasy IV) has a list price of 69.99 in the back of the original Final Fantasy 3 (or FFVI to you newer gamers) players guide.  Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, and Secret of Mana were all 60 bux new.  Super Man 64 on the N64 sold upwards to 80$ new.  The base price of NES games was set at about 55$ and computer games for the commodore 64 and Amiga were the same price.

I always wondered how much NES games where back in their prime.
thanks for that piece of info =D

 

[GhastlyMasquerade]

When the first Prince of Persia was created (1987), Jordan Mechner tried to incorporate new ways to create games. That's why the animation looked so nice. I think most young people got a tendency to forget that most old games that were good had good graphics for THEIR own time. Most of people that talk about new games and the new graphic trend tend to forget that in the 80's games could'nt have the same level of graphic complexity since programs that allowed this simply didn't exist.
Now, whoever said graphics aren't as important as game play is merely talking non sense. Mr. Oliver Sykes, who already worked for Sony , and presently works for EA in Montreal, who happens to be my teacher of game design, said that every single factor matters when developing a game.
For instance, game play, game mechanics, graphics, environments, mood, sound effects, music, etc... All those things are needed to create a game. The problem is balancing them properly.