Graphics over Gameplay...or?

Adagio · March 10, 2003, 13:00

So, what do you think? Do you find graphics the most important thing in games, or is gameplay what drags you to a new game?

For me it's:
"Gameplay is important, but graphics shouldn't be too bad either"

I know I have trouble returning to good old classics, because of the outdated graphics, even though I love the gameplay... but I still play some classic games, from time to time

General Ludd · March 10, 2003, 13:11

Gameplay über alles!

Solver · March 10, 2003, 13:15

Gameplay is important, but graphics shouldn't be too bad either.

Nowadays, after having played games such as Morrowind that have outstanding graphics, I give them some value. However, a game with good graphics might still have low enjoyment value. And yes, I still enjoy playing good old Civ 1

.

General Ludd · March 10, 2003, 13:23

I should say though, that there is a difference between bad graphics and bad graphics.

I don't mind a game that has outdated graphics, but I do mind a game that has ugly or badly made graphics. This goes for alot of the really old, or really badly made 3D games.

FrustratedPoet · March 10, 2003, 13:43

If the graphics are so good that they make the game run badly even on high-end systems (i.e. Morrowind) or are so bad that they make it impossible to work out what is going on then that's a bad thing.
Otherwise I don't really care, although clearly nice graphics are preferable to boring graphics.

Solver · March 10, 2003, 17:00

FP, Morrowind runs at my system just about perfectly with looking awesomely

.

Yep, Osweld has a good point here. This is one of reasons why I hate civ 2. Its isometric view and units graphics made it very hard to understand what is going on, caused confusion in my empire, and I could never get 100% used to those.

Dauphin · March 10, 2003, 17:17

The gameplay is fundamental, the graphics need only good enough to avoid criticism.

Dauphin · March 10, 2003, 17:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
Its isometric view and units graphics made it very hard to understand what is going on, caused confusion in my empire, and I could never get 100% used to those.

The unit graphics were nowhere near award winning but they were passable. And what's wrong with the isometric view? I prefer that to the birdseye view of Civ1.

Static Universe · March 10, 2003, 17:36

"Gameplay is important, but graphics shouldn't be too bad either"

But it's nice when you get the best of both worlds.

pg · March 10, 2003, 18:10

gameplay always trumps graphics. they are called games for a reason you know.

you only need good graphics when gameplay functionality is tied into the graphics. better functional graphics can make gameplay better.

the first choice is kinda an oxymoron, how could you have the best gameplay in a text based game? text based games are so utterly limited due to not being able to have functional graphics which enhance gameplay.

Skanky Burns · March 10, 2003, 18:17

Gameplay is much more important, provided the graphics are functional. Old games with obviously old graphics are still fun to play, and on occasion I still do play them.

Yesterday I had the glory of playing in a VGA 3d wireframe environment. Yay!

FrustratedPoet · March 10, 2003, 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Yesterday I had the glory of playing in a VGA 3d wireframe environment. Yay!

Elite?

Sava · March 10, 2003, 20:30

I'm with you ADG. "Gameplay is important, but graphics shouldn't be too bad either". IMO that's the big problem with console games after the 64-bit systems came out. Gameplay took a backseat to flashy graphics. Most console games now suck, and the few that are good would are much better on PC (or would be if they had PC ports). Because the PC allows customization, modding, and sometimes, direct contact with developers. I prefer PC games because IMO, consoles are for kids and dumbass college kids that can't work a computer.

In the development of a good game, the gameplay needs to be ironed out first, then you can spend your time making it look pretty. Graphics are limited by hardware capabilities, while good gameplay requires a creative group of people. The other plus about PC's and modding is that you can often get improved graphics in the form of mods as well. For example, I download skins and models for Counter-Strike and Day of Defeat that are much better than the default skins. The drawback of PC's is that the games can be hacked and a bunch of dumbass puds can cheat in multiplayer games.

Skanky Burns · March 10, 2003, 20:31

Nice guess, but no.
The game I posted in the Guess the game thread.

St Leo · March 10, 2003, 22:25

TA: Kingdoms graphics > WBC II graphics
WBC II gameplay >>> TA: Kindoms gameplay

Seven Kindoms II graphics > Kohan graphics
Kohan gameplay >>> Seven Kingdoms II

(IMHO, Seven Kindoms II was extremely overrated.)

Adagio · March 11, 2003, 05:32

Quote:

Originally posted by pg
the first choice is kinda an oxymoron, how could you have the best gameplay in a text based game? text based games are so utterly limited due to not being able to have functional graphics which enhance gameplay.

Well, it was only ment as an... ehmm... metafor? Or whatever that is called...

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I'm with you ADG. "Gameplay is important, but graphics shouldn't be too bad either". IMO that's the big problem with console games after the 64-bit systems came out. Gameplay took a backseat to flashy graphics. Most console games now suck, and the few that are good would are much better on PC (or would be if they had PC ports). Because the PC allows customization, modding, and sometimes, direct contact with developers. I prefer PC games because IMO, consoles are for kids and dumbass college kids that can't work a computer.

I couldn't agree with you more

DrSpike · March 11, 2003, 05:32

For me gameplay is most important but if you can have better graphics with same gameplay I'm all for it. People who criticise games for having graphics they cannot play due to their system elicit little sympathy.

Jamski · March 11, 2003, 05:41

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
TA: Kingdoms graphics > WBC II graphics
WBC II gameplay >>> TA: Kindoms gameplay

I thought I was the only one playing WBC2. Shows how wrong I was.

Looking at the votes, its clear to see we all hate flash graphics.

-Jam

Skanky Burns · March 11, 2003, 06:03

I like flash graphics.

Graphics for the sake of graphics don't do much for me (Civ 3 leader heads come to mind), but graphics that detract from gameplay are evil.

FrustratedPoet · March 11, 2003, 06:04

mmmm .... Doom3

MariOne · March 11, 2003, 10:18

Graphics should be just *functional*

Good graphics are *tolerated* as long as they don't get in the way of gameplay.

I know, I am victim of the prejudice that a blonde must be also dumb.

OTOH tho, no graphics, i.e. textbased, might even be better than crappy graphics.

I admit tho, I play Zangband with 16-pix tiles instead of with character-based graphics.

But give me a gem like Stars! all my life, in terms of purely functional graphics and outstanding UI.

PS (I wanted to write "game" and instead I typed "gem". Freudian slip!!!

)

Solver · March 11, 2003, 12:08

In Civ 2, units graphics made it hard to tell which unit is which. Isometric view made it just plain hard to see what squares are adjacent to what other squares, etc.

FrustratedPoet · March 11, 2003, 12:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
In Civ 2, units graphics made it hard to tell which unit is which. Isometric view made it just plain hard to see what squares are adjacent to what other squares, etc.

Do you have the same problem with Civ3/PTW?

DrSpike · March 11, 2003, 12:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
In Civ 2, units graphics made it hard to tell which unit is which. Isometric view made it just plain hard to see what squares are adjacent to what other squares, etc.

I think after a while of playing games with the same setup you get used to it.

Urban Ranger · March 11, 2003, 12:37

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
Kohan gameplay >>> Seven Kingdoms II

Which version of which game?

Urban Ranger · March 11, 2003, 12:40

Quote:

Originally posted by MariOne
I know, I am victim of the prejudice that a blonde must be also dumb.

Your avatar looks like one of the heroes from AoW

Urban Ranger · March 11, 2003, 12:43

Quote:

Originally posted by pg
the first choice is kinda an oxymoron, how could you have the best gameplay in a text based game? text based games are so utterly limited due to not being able to have functional graphics which enhance gameplay.

I disagree. No computer game can hold a candle to paper-and-pencil RPG campaigns, as long as they are ran competently. Words can construct a world like no graphics can.

Incidentally, I voted for option 1.

Ben Kenobi · March 11, 2003, 14:03

I play Nethack.

'Nuff said.

Boris Godunov · March 11, 2003, 14:40

If I want pretty pictures, I'll go to an art gallery. If I want amazing CGI effects, I'll go see a movie.

Computer games are meant to be fun first and foremost, and I don't see any fun in a game that has great graphics but crappy gameplay. I will always point to Ultima IX for the quintessential example. Stunningly beautiful graphics, perhaps the best to date of any game of that type, but the most horrificly bad game imaginable.

All of my favorites are the games with more or less functional graphics and great gameplay. Of course, if the two can be melded and be equally great, that is better than having either dominate.

Boris Godunov · March 11, 2003, 14:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

I disagree. No computer game can hold a candle to paper-and-pencil RPG campaigns, as long as they are ran competently. Words can construct a world like no graphics can.

Incidentally, I voted for option 1.

I think he was confining his sentiments to computer games. A text-based computer game isn't ever going to be as engrossing or complex as a real life RPG, since one can only program so much.

Text games can be engrossing just like a novel can, but I think I need at least functional graphics to get really lost in a computer game.