What is more important?

[MarutiaOrtia 0]

Hi guys,

What do you think - graphics or gameplay? What is more important?

For me the most important thing is the gameplay and the overall experience of playing the game. I don`t pay so much attention to the graphics or the sound, but to the gameplay.One of the best gameplays that I have ever seen is COD4.

What do you think?

[Terring 6,473]

What kind of question is this? It's obvious for everybody that even the best graphics are worthless without an at least decent gameplay. OK, not for everybody, since there are many "gamers" out there that support even the most unplayable games just because "they look great", and what scares me a lot is that those "gamers" actually support the game quality decline we live nowadays by their actions.

[Mr Saturn64 742]

What Terring said.

[Duke87 1,070]

Some of the best games ever are 8 bits. Modern graphics are overrated. Gameplay is DEFINITELY more important.

 

This is why I don't get it when people go crazy over Sony and Microsoft's hardware capabilities. Who cares?

[Ocram's Razr 964]

While I believe that graphics are more important than some other people believe, I still know that game-play is most important when it comes to how long a gamer would want to play it and whether a gamer would replay it (if it has a campaign). However, just because game-play is different from a set formula that some people obsess about, does not necessarily mean that the game-play is bad.

 

If you want to talk about City Building Games, you have a couple of extremes in the past 12 years:

1. Stylized 2D game with very complicated simulation and game-play that only became playable after an expansion pack (and modifications) and a pretty steep learning curve

2. Historical games that are highly detailed, in 3D, or both

3. Stylized 3D games with a rich and detailed simulation but style and change in features ticked off some players

4. Realistic, stunningly beautiful, expansive game with shallow game-play more akin to balancing a scale that gets harder the more is put on

5. Open Source games that have a slightly different focus, with overwhelming complicated game-play (simulation and UI) and often the worst graphics of all of them, with steep learning curves.

 

I have played all 5 of these categories. My favorites are type 2, 3, and 4 though type 4 grew boring without mods and deliberate change in playing style (sticking to a single formula to get the most profitable city became boring after a while) and one of the type 3 games I only played for less than 2 years. Before some of the type 3 and 4 games came out and before the best type 2 games came out, my favorites were the type 1 and type 5 games (the type 5 games because I could play them with friends who liked them more than I ever did).

 

I will give a reputation point to everyone who can give an example of each of the types of City Building Games I mentioned.

 

--Ocram

[The Avatar 1,089]

gameplay > music > graphics

 

Take Minecraft as an example. It certainly doesn't have ultra-realistic graphics, but it's unique pixel style gives it its charm. I've played games with much better graphics, but Minecraft is still my favorite.

[jmsepe 2,039]

Gameplay. I don't care about the graphics or anything else for that matter. They are simply just icing on the cake, this is why I always play the game despite it being archaic in some sense.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well, gameplay obviously. 

 

But graphics are important. However, when I say graphics, I really mean 'art direction'. I don't need photorealistic graphics, I want graphics that make the game look like itself. Minecraft would be a good example of that. Yeah the graphics are technically pretty bad, but they gave it its own art style that made the game look unique. So, in its own way, I always felt that Minecraft looked quite pretty. 

[MarutiaOrtia 0]

Some of the best games ever are 8 bits. Modern graphics are overrated. Gameplay is DEFINITELY more important.

 

This is why I don't get it when people go crazy over Sony and Microsoft's hardware capabilities. Who cares?

Exactly

[TekindusT 3,809]

If gameplay wasn't important, people wouldn't get addicted to games like Candy Crush.

[Xenocity 343]

While I believe that graphics are more important than some other people believe, I still know that game-play is most important when it comes to how long a gamer would want to play it and whether a gamer would replay it (if it has a campaign). However, just because game-play is different from a set formula that some people obsess about, does not necessarily mean that the game-play is bad.

 

If you want to talk about City Building Games, you have a couple of extremes in the past 12 years:

1. Stylized 2D game with very complicated simulation and game-play that only became playable after an expansion pack (and modifications) and a pretty steep learning curve Simcity 4

2. Historical games that are highly detailed, in 3D, or both Civ and Anno?

3. Stylized 3D games with a rich and detailed simulation but style and change in features ticked off some players Simcity 2013

4. Realistic, stunningly beautiful, expansive game with shallow game-play more akin to balancing a scale that gets harder the more is put on Cities XL

5. Open Source games that have a slightly different focus, with overwhelming complicated game-play (simulation and UI) and often the worst graphics of all of them, with steep learning curves. Open City (I used Google shamefully)

 

I have played all 5 of these categories. My favorites are type 2, 3, and 4 though type 4 grew boring without mods and deliberate change in playing style (sticking to a single formula to get the most profitable city became boring after a while) and one of the type 3 games I only played for less than 2 years. Before some of the type 3 and 4 games came out and before the best type 2 games came out, my favorites were the type 1 and type 5 games (the type 5 games because I could play them with friends who liked them more than I ever did).

 

I will give a reputation point to everyone who can give an example of each of the types of City Building Games I mentioned.

 

--Ocram

Did I get them right?

 

According to market research over the past few years it breaks down as follows:

 

• Hardcore and core gamers belive graphics are the most important aspect
• Hardcore developers believe in graphics over gameplay
• Casuals prefer gameplay over graphics
• Nintendo owners prefer gameplay at the expense of graphics
• Mobile gamers are split

Many hardcore developers have gone on record claiming gameplay is holding gaming back and gaming needs to free itself from gameplay in order for gaming to reach its true form. 

 

I honestly prefer gameplay, though if you can somehow nail gameplay and still have time to produce great graphics then all the better.

I shamefully admit I have spent countless hours over the past few years breeding Pokemon to get shiny Pokemon (I didn't get any until X).

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Well, the fifth type includes LinCity, OpenTTD (which is more of a transport simulator), and Simutrans and the second type includes Tropico but you named at least 1 correct game per category so I gave you a reputation point.

 

Seeing as I have played games with bad graphics and detailed game-play and I am very much interested in Citybound, means that I put game-play over graphics.

 

--Ocram

[GMT 389]

gameplay

[Huston 5,798]

Is it just me when I say that [this is still dependent on the type of game but] I find a very nice storyline is more important than both, but gameplay comes close to it as well. Graphics is usually negligible, but all being equal would be really nice and all I actually find it difficult to settle into a game with a storyline I can't follow.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Indeed, most of the time I play a game for the story. If the story is stupid, then usually the game becomes boring and stupid, even if the gameplay and graphics are otherwise solid. 

[Xenocity 343]

Indeed, most of the time I play a game for the story. If the story is stupid, then usually the game becomes boring and stupid, even if the gameplay and graphics are otherwise solid. 

This is just sad!

 

Do you find Simcity boring and stupid because it has  a very stupid story?

[GMT 389]

Is it just me when I say that [this is still dependent on the type of game but] I find a very nice storyline is more important than both, but gameplay comes close to it as well. Graphics is usually negligible, but all being equal would be really nice and all I actually find it difficult to settle into a game with a storyline I can't follow.

 

What good is a nice story if the gameplay is so annoying that you throw the disc away after 20 minutes?

been there, done that. literally.

 

on the bottom line, a game should be fun. IF this happens to be with awesome graphics and a great story, that's cool. really cool in fact. if not, at least the game should be entertaining to play.

I mean, look at super mario. great story? nope. awesome graphics? eehhh nope. a fun game to play even after decades? sure as hell!

simulation "games". entertaining? depends on the depth of simulation (=gameplay) but yes mostly, still graphics and story often fall off the back of the trunk.

 

after all, gameplay is what gets you "to settle into a game", not the story, because gameplay is the storyteller. how you interact with the screenplay is what drives you through the story, not the story itself, cuz it's interactive.

therefore, no matter how good the story is written and screened, or the graphics are created, if the actual gameplay isn't even worth flushing it down the toilet, you'd be annoyed playing the game in no time.

 

on the other hand tho, mediocre graphics and a negligible story are no downer if the game plays very well... heck, there's a bazillion of games that don't have either of the 2 and yet are sold in the millions and enjoyed alike.

 

so, again, I say if there has to be a decision made, gameplay is more important than story.

[LexusInfernus 908]

This is just sad!

 

Do you find Simcity boring and stupid because it has  a very stupid story?

 

SimCity actually has a very good story. Namely the story I come up with for my cities. What do you think the City Journals are, if not players inventing an awesome back story for their own cities? 

 

The point is that I need a reason to play a game. The story provides me with a reason. Games that don't have an interesting enough back story don't provide me with a reason to do things, and if I don't have a reason to do something, I get bored and I quit. No matter how well you created your shooter, if you don't give me with a compelling reason to pull the trigger, I don't care. 

[CapTon 592]

Don't believe this is a discussion regarding SimCity, so please refrain from discussing it in this thread in the near future.

 

As for me, I would have to go with gameplay. Graphics matter to me, but gameplay is more important .

[Huston 5,798]

Is it just me when I say that [this is still dependent on the type of game but] I find a very nice storyline is more important than both, but gameplay comes close to it as well. Graphics is usually negligible, but all being equal would be really nice and all I actually find it difficult to settle into a game with a storyline I can't follow.

What good is a nice story if the gameplay is so annoying that you throw the disc away after 20 minutes?

been there, done that. literally.

on the bottom line, a game should be fun. IF this happens to be with awesome graphics and a great story, that's cool. really cool in fact. if not, at least the game should be entertaining to play.

I mean, look at super mario. great story? nope. awesome graphics? eehhh nope. a fun game to play even after decades? sure as hell!

simulation "games". entertaining? depends on the depth of simulation (=gameplay) but yes mostly, still graphics and story often fall off the back of the trunk.

after all, gameplay is what gets you "to settle into a game", not the story, because gameplay is the storyteller. how you interact with the screenplay is what drives you through the story, not the story itself, cuz it's interactive.

therefore, no matter how good the story is written and screened, or the graphics are created, if the actual gameplay isn't even worth flushing it down the toilet, you'd be annoyed playing the game in no time.

so, again, I say if there has to be a decision made, gameplay is more important than story.While gameplay gets you on the wagon, I'm quite the opposite. It still heavily depends on what you look for in a game. For me, I tend to like looking into the story [and I'm not really much of a super Mario fan myself so...] and to throw out an example, one is chiefly for me, Mass Effect 1. The gameplay is really bad in terms of your mobility and it was on the most part, very limiting for a game in its genre. But I liked the story a lot, and I decided to not just pass it. Other games with nice gameplay I tend to dismiss cause there stories bore the crap outta me. But this still does depend on the game.

Obviously arcade games like super Mario, or CTR (a personal favorite from a late retro gaming era) don't need flashy stories to appeal and neither do simulations. So think about it first, since it's obvious they don't need a story. But I for FPS, RPGS, Third person shooters, I'm still out there looking for stories I can follow. It's aver critical thing for me and without it, the game is nothing but a mess of gameplay and graphics.

So for you, maybe you're settled by the gameplay, but I'm not fully bought by that since w/o the story (mostly for games that need one), there's no point in me getting it. And that's a genuine case.

In final, to me, story in a game Is critical, above gameplay and graphics. But keep in mind, that's just me. And apparently a few other people

[Jasoncw 11,840]

Different aspects are important for different games. Puzzle games don't require great stories or music, and only require graphics that effectively communicate the gameplay.

 

For things like RPGs graphics are usually very important (although it's possible to have RPGs that are purely based on gameplay, especially RPGs with job systems ), I don't think this means that the graphics themselves have to look good. For all those 16 bit RPGs, the character sprites didn't have many pixels and only had a few different expressive actions they could do (surprise, sleeping. lots of expressive jumping up and down), but the "graphics" still hold up well over time because the graphics are just symbols, in Final Fantasy for example, for Yoshitaka Amano's illustrations. So you know that everything in the game looks really cool even if you essentially can't see anything. Same with the battles. You know you're in an epic battle that looks super cool and is visually rich, even though all you see on the screen are the icons/symbols/placeholders. And interpreting what is happening on-screen literally reveals that what's happening is often physically impossible and can't be explicitly visualized, even only in imagination. And all of this is very important, and it falls under the category of graphics, even though it's not normally what's thought of when talking about good graphics.

 

Sound is along the same lines imo. For some games you don't need music, and you just need some sound that communicates gameplay. Like if you click on something good, a "good" sound happens that communicates that information to you.

 

And for many of those RPGs you can listen to the OST and have an understanding for what's happening in the story even without playing the game. I think for music, certain music is understood to be related to certain emotions/other things, and so the music clarifies what the graphics and story/text are telling you, and adds additional information.

 

Graphics and music are (or should be, if functioning correctly) in the service of the story. Going along the same lines of the other two, story has the same role for abstraction/placeholding, in the form of archetypes. Archetypical characters, plots, and elements come pre-loaded with tons of information about what's going on, and in the story you're doing you only need to literally include enough that the player's brain can identify the archetype.

 

 

So for all categories abstraction is helpful. For story and music it's sort of built-in, but for graphics it's not, and it's counter intuitive. Making the graphics "better" (more realistic/literal) will actually reduce the amount of information you convey if you don't have the resources to manually and explicitly show all the details that are needed.