# Graphics or Gameplay?



## Vex L'Cour (Jan 31, 2011)

Alright Guys and girls.

Given I'm on a Games Design course this is a question I find keeps coming up over and over again.

But what IS truly better? Amazing super explosive HD 3D Graphics or 1 trillion hours of Gameplay?

Personally? I go for Gameplay. Games have only RECENTLY got ''good graphics'' and I enjoyed games when they were still badly rendered and looked like a child had drawn it all.


----------



## Ricano (Jan 31, 2011)

I don't prefer one over the other. Some games can look beautiful and yet don't really give you a great experience as one with great gameplay, but eye candy is just as important.
But if I had to choose, I'd pick gameplay.


----------



## -Aaron (Jan 31, 2011)

Gameplay all the way for me.


----------



## Vex L'Cour (Jan 31, 2011)

-Aaron said:


> Gameplay all the way for me.


 
I knwo the feeling.
I made a presentation showing off Minecraft as a Gameplay based game and why it beat heavily Graphics based games.
Now most of my class play Minecraft <3


----------



## «Jack» (Jan 31, 2011)

My main issue with people who say that graphics are completely irrelevant is that they ignore that the two are tied together in small ways. I don't want to have to play a game with the greatest level design if I'm a poorly drawn stick figure jumping onto platforms that I can't distinguish from the backgrounds. For me, the gameplay is enriched by the graphics, but as long as the graphics are at a level where they don't hinder gameplay, I prefer gameplay.


----------



## Thunder (Jan 31, 2011)

Gameplay is more important, but you still need some decent graphics honestly.

Peanut Butter always tastes better with jelly.


----------



## Vex L'Cour (Jan 31, 2011)

?Jack? said:


> My main issue with people who say that graphics are completely irrelevant is that they ignore that the two are tied together in small ways. I don't want to have to play a game with the greatest level design if I'm a poorly drawn stick figure jumping onto platforms that I can't distinguish from the backgrounds. For me, the gameplay is enriched by the graphics, but as long as the graphics are at a level where they don't hinder gameplay, I prefer gameplay.


 
I understand your point. 
But again. Oldschool games with 'terrible' graphics have proven to be the best. Early Mario or early Legend of Zelda games for example.


----------



## «Jack» (Jan 31, 2011)

Aeri Tyaelaria said:


> I understand your point.
> But again. Oldschool games with 'terrible' graphics have proven to be the best. Early Mario or early Legend of Zelda games for example.


 That's an opinion. Some people don't like those games, possibly for the reason that due to lack of graphical capability, things are less clear and therefore harder to understand.


----------



## Vex L'Cour (Jan 31, 2011)

?Jack? said:


> That's an opinion. Some people don't like those games, possibly for the reason that due to lack of graphical capability, things are less clear and therefore harder to understand.


 
I'm taking that MAINLY from statistics and what people say.
I.E many people say Orcarina of time was the best Zelda game. Even though its graphics are pretty low quality.


----------



## Trundle (Jan 31, 2011)

Thunderstruck said:


> Gameplay is more important, but you still need some decent graphics honestly.
> 
> Peanut Butter always tastes better with jelly.


 
i c wut u did thar


----------



## Bulerias (Jan 31, 2011)

Worst debate ever.  Why would anyone choose one or the other?


----------



## The Sign Painter (Jan 31, 2011)

I like a balance of both.


----------



## Psychonaut (Feb 1, 2011)

gameplay, but as i've said before, if the graphics are good, they'll only be beneficial to the gameplay.  ex: TF2 before hats and ****.


----------



## Caius (Feb 1, 2011)

I prefer a bunch of story in my games, kudos if it's sad. But seriously, I'm in game art and I can't imagine how the freaking designers constantly pump out this HQ stuff all the time. It's nauseating to just do a twenty hour render.


----------



## Yokie (Feb 1, 2011)

Gameplay by far. Graphics is just a plus.


----------



## KCourtnee (Feb 1, 2011)

Gameplay.

I played the old pokemon color games for hours and those were definitely not the best graphics, or the best music, but I still loved it 
I miss playing those games... all the ones I had from 11 and 12 years ago have recently been stolen... (


----------



## Ciaran (Feb 1, 2011)

Both.

A truly great game needs both.

Of course, it's a lot deeper than that statement, and the grapics have to match the games direction etc. etc.

But I like both.


----------



## Psychonaut (Feb 1, 2011)

Aeri Tyaelaria said:


> I understand your point.
> But again. Oldschool games with 'terrible' graphics have proven to be the best. Early Mario or early Legend of Zelda games for example.





Aeri Tyaelaria said:


> I'm taking that MAINLY from statistics and what people say.
> I.E many people say Orcarina of time was the best Zelda game. Even though its graphics are pretty low quality.








i like how you actually believe that.
>statistics
>no source
>no way to prove anything
>it's the truth, they're the best, everyone says so


Spoiler: please enjoy this video


----------



## crazyredd45 (Feb 2, 2011)

more graphics but a good storyline is good aswell


----------



## [Nook] (Feb 2, 2011)

You determine how good a game's graphics are by comparing it to games of its era.

I have stupid friends that say that old Nintendo games have bad graphics, but they compare them to CoD, SMG, etc. Newer games.
But when compared to, let's say, E.T. and other games, those had the best graphics.

One other thing you can't do when determining how good a game's graphics is comparing it to games that have a different style of graphics. You cannot compare Call of Duty's graphics and Animal Crossing's graphics, because CoD has realistic graphics, but AC has cartoony graphics. You can't say that AC's or CoD's graphics are better just because you like realistic graphics over cartoony. However, if you compare CoD's graphics to Halo, that's different.

Graphics make it easy to play, unlike E.T. That game had bad graphics, which made it very hard to understand the game and playing it was hard. Super Mario Bros. had very good graphics, because you could understand how to play the game.

Wouldn't it be hard to play The Legend of Zelda if graphics were blurry, made no sense, and were messed up?

Now, let's talk about the people that rage about a game not having God-amazing graphics, but has graphics that makes the game understandable.

It's pretty disappointing, sometimes, but it's not enough to rage over.

Let's bash them!


----------



## Garrett x50 cal (Feb 2, 2011)

Gameplay duh


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 6, 2011)

Aeri Tyaelaria said:


> Games have only RECENTLY got ''good graphics'' and I enjoyed games when they were still badly rendered and looked like a child had drawn it all.


Even though older games aren't anywhere near today's games' standards in terms of graphical capability, that doesn't mean they had "bad" graphics. Those graphics were considered to be astounding at the time. "Good" graphics aren't anything new, the standards for video game graphics have just gotten higher as technology has advanced.


----------



## Psychonaut (Feb 7, 2011)

Tyeforce said:


> Even though older games aren't anywhere near today's games' standards in terms of graphical capability, that doesn't mean they had "bad" graphics. Those graphics were considered to be astounding at the time. "Good" graphics aren't anything new, the standards for video game graphics have just gotten higher as technology has advanced.


 yoshi's island is still beautiful, IMO.  real talk.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 8, 2011)

Psychonaut said:


> yoshi's island is still beautiful, IMO.  real talk.


Yeah, there are many older games whose graphics withstand the test of time. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is certainly one, as are the Paper Mario games. And Kirby's Epic Yarn will surely be one, too.


----------



## Squirrel with Nunchucks (Feb 8, 2011)

Tyeforce said:


> Yeah, there are many older games whose graphics withstand the test of time. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is certainly one, as are the Paper Mario games. And Kirby's Epic Yarn will surely be one, too.


 
Someone once said the harder you try to make a game look "realistic", the worse the game's graphics age. That's why I still find a game like the Wind Waker beautiful, but Twilight Princess hasn't aged so well.


----------



## Wish (Feb 8, 2011)

Gameplay, but I really do get bothered with bad graphics.
Although I haven't really played any games with graphics that bad though.


----------



## Tyeforce (Feb 8, 2011)

Squirrel with Nunchucks said:


> Someone once said the harder you try to make a game look "realistic", the worse the game's graphics age. That's why I still find a game like the Wind Waker beautiful, but Twilight Princess hasn't aged so well.


Exactly. With realistic graphics, you can only make the game look as realistic as the hardware will let you. The big problem with realistic looking games is that no matter how good you make it look, it's not possible to make 100% real. Realistic graphics are going to be compared to real life, and while some realistic graphics may wow you at first, that impression is always going to fade with time. As technology advances, the standards for realistic graphics will keep going up and up, which in turn will make older games look worse and worse compared to newer games.

Games with more artistic and imaginative graphics, however, can stand the test of time much longer. That's because they're a work of art in themselves, they're not trying to recreate anything that already exists. Such art styles include cel-shading games like The Wind Waker and Ōkami, crafty games that are made out of different materials like Paper Mario and Kirby's Epic Yarn, and games that are made to look like a specific art medium, like the pastel-like Yoshi's Island and Kirby's Dreamland 3, the comic-like Ouendan/Elite Beat Agents and WarioWare, and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword with its "living painting" style. And there are plenty more styles and examples, but that's what comes to my mind first.


----------



## [Nook] (Feb 8, 2011)

Gameplay and Graphics must work together to make a good game.

Without good gameplay, graphics don't matter.
Without good graphics, you can't have good gameplay.

And a style of graphics (8-bit, realistic, cartoonish) doesn't affect how good graphics are, and many people don't understand that. Graphics are good depending on how good it uses that style of graphics (E.T. is 8-bit, and it's horrible, Super Mario Bros. is also 8-bit, but it has great graphics of its era and style). What people also fail to understand is that how old a game's graphics is doesn't affect how good the graphics are. What I commonly hear is "Lol CoD has awzum graffix cuz itsnot old loz ocarina of time lol". Those idiots, I'd like to give them poison shrooms to eat. Compared to games of it's era and style, that game was the best at that time, and you cannot compare two styles of graphics, in this case, Realistic and Cartoonish.


----------



## Jake (Feb 8, 2011)

Game play definably.


----------



## Argus (Feb 9, 2011)

Well, actually, The Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask had somewhat of a realistic graphics style, and I still think they look great.


----------



## Vex L'Cour (Feb 9, 2011)

Tyeforce said:


> Exactly. With realistic graphics, you can only make the game look as realistic as the hardware will let you. The big problem with realistic looking games is that no matter how good you make it look, it's not possible to make 100% real. Realistic graphics are going to be compared to real life, and while some realistic graphics may wow you at first, that impression is always going to fade with time. As technology advances, the standards for realistic graphics will keep going up and up, which in turn will make older games look worse and worse compared to newer games.
> 
> Games with more artistic and imaginative graphics, however, can stand the test of time much longer. That's because they're a work of art in themselves, they're not trying to recreate anything that already exists. Such art styles include cel-shading games like The Wind Waker and Ōkami, crafty games that are made out of different materials like Paper Mario and Kirby's Epic Yarn, and games that are made to look like a specific art medium, like the pastel-like Yoshi's Island and Kirby's Dreamland 3, the comic-like Ouendan/Elite Beat Agents and WarioWare, and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword with its "living painting" style. And there are plenty more styles and examples, but that's what comes to my mind first.


 

Two words.
Uncanny Valley. 
Its the easiest way to end this arguement which is likely to spiral out of control.


----------



## Psychonaut (Feb 10, 2011)

Tyeforce said:


> Exactly. With realistic graphics, you can only make the game look as realistic as the hardware will let you. The big problem with realistic looking games is that no matter how good you make it look, it's not possible to make 100% real. Realistic graphics are going to be compared to real life, and while some realistic graphics may wow you at first, that impression is always going to fade with time. As technology advances, the standards for realistic graphics will keep going up and up, which in turn will make older games look worse and worse compared to newer games.
> 
> Games with more artistic and imaginative graphics, however, can stand the test of time much longer. That's because they're a work of art in themselves, they're not trying to recreate anything that already exists. Such art styles include cel-shading games like The Wind Waker and Ōkami, crafty games that are made out of different materials like Paper Mario and Kirby's Epic Yarn, and games that are made to look like a specific art medium, like the pastel-like Yoshi's Island and Kirby's Dreamland 3, the comic-like Ouendan/Elite Beat Agents and WarioWare, and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword with its "living painting" style. And there are plenty more styles and examples, but that's what comes to my mind first.


 i lol at doom and quake nowadays.  not that i played more than 10 minutes of them when they were hot ****.. but it captures your argument quite well.

simply put, video games as art is treated as art, while video games as a realistic medium/simulation are treated as a realistic simulation/are judged more harshly because of what they are doing, though they may do what they are doing well.  hardware will change, update, and upgrade, and you will then have an out-of-date product.  at the time it may be great, but art knows no age, and will live forever.

and oh, right, i forgot to mention this:




the only game/genre where i will accept an abundance of graphics over original gameplay.
damn good times.


----------

