Graphics Or Game-play?

Discuss and discover all the great games of yesteryear!

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, lcarlson, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed

What’s more important for a game?

Good Graphics.
6
13%
Good Game-play.
40
87%
 
Total votes: 46

User avatar
GarryG
Posts: 3249
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:33 am
Location: The cold wet bit above England...

Graphics Or Game-play?

Post by GarryG » Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:17 am

Not an unfair question, as I get the general opinion that a lot of people judge machines by the quality of their graphics!

I think it is obvious that good games are totally dependant on good game-play, so system with lesser graphics capabilities are not necessarily inferior to those with better capabilities, based on graphics alone!

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8716
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Dudley » Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:32 am

A more powerful system isn't just graphics though.

You're asking an obvious question in an incredibly wrong way. Graphics or not, you simply couldn't have done Forza 1 on an Xbox1.

IT also ignores that in many cases, graphics are an integral part of gameplay. Rez, Geo wars, the swirling backgrounds of Lumines all contribute immeasurably to the experience.
Last edited by Dudley on Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
Antiriad2097
Posts: 26998
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Post by Antiriad2097 » Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:32 am

Gameplay.

Spectrum proved that 25 years ago.
The Retro League - Where skill isn't an obstacle
Retrocanteen, home of the unfairly banned
Tom_Baker wrote:I just finished watching a film about Stockholm syndrome. It started out terrible but by the end I really liked it.

User avatar
P-Head
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:57 pm
Location: Vault 13

Post by P-Head » Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:33 am

Gameplay hands-down, but it's best when gameplay and graphics complement each other.
Last edited by P-Head on Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
paranoid marvin
Posts: 14272
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: 21st Century Earth

Post by paranoid marvin » Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:42 am

I agree that graphics are integral to gameplay - I would much rather play Star Wars on MAME than on the Speccy.

But if we're comparing ,say, Dragons Lair MAME to Pirates! Amiga , it would be the latter , the same as Tennis on the C64 to Virtua Tennis

The best games reel you in with the graphics then keep you dangling with the gameplay

I really cannot vote on this issue
Mr Flibble says...
"Game over , boys!"

User avatar
Antiriad2097
Posts: 26998
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Post by Antiriad2097 » Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:43 am

But without good gameplay, all the flashy graphics in the world don't help.
The Retro League - Where skill isn't an obstacle
Retrocanteen, home of the unfairly banned
Tom_Baker wrote:I just finished watching a film about Stockholm syndrome. It started out terrible but by the end I really liked it.

User avatar
Heavy Stylus
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:51 am
Location: Exeter, UK
Contact:

Post by Heavy Stylus » Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:44 am

'Game-play' is such an odd word. I know that generally it's used to define how enjoyable/intuitive a game is to play, but it's odd nonetheless.

You don't describe a good movie as having excellent movie-watch, or your favourite album as having good music-listen qualities...

Hmmm.

Anyway, game-play vs graphics. So that's 'IK+' vs 'Rise Of The Robots' then.
http://www.rgcd.co.uk
8-128 Bit & beyond: Indie game development news for vintage & modern computer hardware.

User avatar
felgekarp
Posts: 9351
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 11:47 am
Location: Earth 3

Post by felgekarp » Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:47 am

Graphics, screw all this gameplay lark just give me something striking to look at :D
Splink!

User avatar
paranoid marvin
Posts: 14272
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: 21st Century Earth

Post by paranoid marvin » Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:50 am

Antiriad2097 wrote:But without good gameplay, all the flashy graphics in the world don't help.
Without any graphics , all the gameplay doesn't help. Otherwise , why did we ever move on from the 2600? Or noughts &crosses?
Mr Flibble says...
"Game over , boys!"

User avatar
sleeper77
Posts: 1494
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:14 pm

Post by sleeper77 » Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:04 am

paranoid marvin wrote:I agree that graphics are integral to gameplay - I would much rather play Star Wars on MAME than on the Speccy.

But if we're comparing ,say, Dragons Lair MAME to Pirates! Amiga , it would be the latter , the same as Tennis on the C64 to Virtua Tennis

The best games reel you in with the graphics then keep you dangling with the gameplay

I really cannot vote on this issue
I agree as well. I am one of those "Gameplay is more important than graphics" people, but what adds the appeal further is the presentation. What if Robotron loved for its colourful graphics was made only in black & white, would it still have that another go factor? Or Metal Gear Solid 2 on PS2. Ok, there are more playable games than MGS2 but I liked it for its very easy gameplay & great graphics including the movie sequences. Replace it with average graphics & I wouldn't have bothered at all with this game. No vote from me either.

User avatar
Sputryk
Posts: 2523
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:16 am
Location: Cobbydale

Post by Sputryk » Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:10 am

We moved on, Marv, because technology allowed us to thereby generating better-looking games and still retaining flawless game-play. Once game-play is dispensed with what compulsion do we have to continue (or even start) play? Game-play wins without question. I'd much rather a poor-looking game with red-hot playability than some overly endowed visual treat that's actually braindead in game-play.
Last edited by Sputryk on Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mickey T
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:36 pm

Post by Mickey T » Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:11 am

Im with Dudley on this one. Graphics bring the worlds to life, if a game has good visuals then there is a strong game engine underneath doing other things that go un noticed to the gamer, but create a far richer experience.
Halflife 2 being a good case in point, the world streams constantly presenting no loading times in game because of the way the engine was built, which creates a continuation of immersion which adds to the experience, the sense of drama created and overall experience of playing the game, because of this you rome around the enviroment feeling free, and as it is so beautifully rendered you start to believe in the world, while you are there of course.

Even if the CBM 64 had the processing power to run resi, it wouldnt have worked with the visual capabilities of the machine.

check this out for the real next gen, and it isnt all about the visulas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhArACnKYys

Its kind of moot discussion too, because to say the Speccy proved visuals didnt matter is wrong. Each speccy release improved on the last, look at Farmer Jack Versus Magic Meanies or Eureka versus Knightlore, as time went on the visuals got better because the consumers wanted better visuals, hence the 48K and 128k machine releases. Something only eveloves if enough people think the original isnt good enough, the speccy mags did give marks for graphics too.

I cant think of a game of the last few yeas with poor visuals, other than the blurfest that was Zelda on the Wii.
ooer

Keeps us off the streets
http://www.purevolume.com/bchordassassins

User avatar
Scooby1970
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:23 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Post by Scooby1970 » Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:15 am

Without a shadow of a doubt gameplay is THE most important factor of any game. I've been playing video games since the late 70's, so like many people my age, gameplay is a must.

I showed a few C64,Speccy and other retro games to a few guys in work who'd never even heard of the machines let alone played them, and they dissed such classics as Uridum, R-type and even Pacman!!! Three classic games that still play amazing today that would not benifit from a hige next-gen makeover! Ahhhh... how youngsters have been robbed of classic gameplay these days.

So, gameplay first then, and graphics the other end of the scale.

:) Mark
http://twitter.com/markyboyo
PS3, 360, PS2, PS1, PSP, Wii, DC, Saturn, Megadrive, GBA, DS & more!

Image

Mickey T
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:36 pm

Post by Mickey T » Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:21 am

Uridium R-Type and Pacman were all visual treats when they were released, and it could be argued that there success came from the allure of the visuals, that they all had tight gameplay was the second discovery for gamers after the visuals.

I used to dream of a home version of Mr Do! that looked and played like the original, it wasnt until 92 that a machine could finally do it.
I think when I realised how important to graphics were to me ,was when Tapper came out on the Spectrum, I couldnt help but compare it unfavourably to the arcade parent despite it playing fine, when I saw it running on the CBM 64 and the visuals were almost arcade perfect, i made the switch.
Graphics have plateued now though, so I dont see the benefit of PS3 over 360, but I will upgrade as sson as the next machine arrives.
ooer

Keeps us off the streets
http://www.purevolume.com/bchordassassins

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8716
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Dudley » Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:52 am

Antiriad2097 wrote:But without good gameplay, all the flashy graphics in the world don't help.
Yes but graphics can be part of gameplay so you simply can't ask this question.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: English Invader and 5 guests