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
Antiriad2097
Posts: 26995
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Post by Antiriad2097 » Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:18 am

I looked around a few weeks ago when my old TV died. Most of the high street stores (Comet, Currys etc) have prices around: £250 = 26", £350 = 32", £550 = 37".

No doubt if you shop around you'll find a little variation in that, but prices keep dropping. Go in, have a look, compare sets to see what suits you.

Asda even had a 42" plasma for £600!

As for graphics vs gameplay, see also Opa-Opa's 'now playing' in Weekend Gamer Audio eXtra:
http://www.retrogamer.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5754&
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.

daverage
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:30 am
Contact:

Post by daverage » Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:47 am

I say gameplay.
A good game with good graphics is what you want though :)

Mind you that said, tetris!!
Andrzej 'daverage' Marczewski
http://www.yetanotherreviewsite.co.uk
Games reviews written by gamers for gamers
Image

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8715
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Dudley » Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:57 am

http://www.it247.com/Product/7102-YT08- ... LCD_TV.htm

Is what I just bought.

You'll find the 32" version floating between £300 and £340 on most sites.

http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/126885

That's it for £324.

There's a lot of crap cheap LCD. This isn't one of them.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8715
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Dudley » Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:57 am

daverage wrote:I say gameplay.
A good game with good graphics is what you want though :)

Mind you that said, tetris!!
But that's the thing, most Tetris have very good graphics. Yeah you could add flashy wooshyness but that would be distracting and would therefore actually be BAD graphics.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
pipoldchap
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 8:38 am
Location: Oxford

Post by pipoldchap » Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:21 am

Let's face it, most retro games' graphics are a bit ropey. But we still play the hell out of 'em. It's gameplay, baby! Hands down!! :D
I WISH I was an Oscar Meyer Weiner...

User avatar
Celebaglar
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 8:34 am
Location: The Fish Mines of Gloom
Contact:

Post by Celebaglar » Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:28 am

The way the question is asked the answer is obvious.

It's true though that graphics shouldn't be entirely discounted as sometimes they are an integral part of the game. OTOH, very frequently they are the only thing of note on otherwise very mediocre games, and a lot more focus and expense goes on glitz and eye-candy these days than on developing good gameplay.

The bottom line for me though would be this: good gameplay and mediocre graphics can still result in a masterpiece. Good graphics and mediocre gameplay never will.

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

Post by sleeper77 » Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:44 am

It very much depends on what the game is about. You can get away with average graphics if the gameplay is the main theme, but if the graphics lack that attention to detail like it should have then it will disappoint. Just think of lets say Gears Of War looking like a 32 bit blockfest, would it have still got the recognition it deserves?

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

Post by paranoid marvin » Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:52 am

Dudley wrote:
daverage wrote:I say gameplay.
A good game with good graphics is what you want though :)

Mind you that said, tetris!!
But that's the thing, most Tetris have very good graphics. Yeah you could add flashy wooshyness but that would be distracting and would therefore actually be BAD graphics.
Exactly , the graphics in Tetris may be basic , but that doesn't make them bad. The fact that all of the blocks are easily identified in shape and/or colour , and scroll smoothly down the screen , help make Tetris the work of art it is. If on the other hand the grpahics were ill-defined with jerky scrolling , the game would have been awful to play , irrespective of the game design
Mr Flibble says...
"Game over , boys!"

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

Post by paranoid marvin » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:01 am

Heavy Stylus wrote:'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.
But the thing is , IK+ is the game with the better visuals - have you seen ROTR moving , it's a complete jerky mess with each robot seemingly only having 3 frames of animation each , whereas Ik+ beautifully animated fighters battle against a majestic backdrop. If the IK+ fighters had moved liked ROTR fighters , then the game would have been just as bad

Imho it's not just about static visuals , it's about animation and using graphics to complement or even enhance the game design

Anyway , with today's technology , there is NO excuse for any game not to have corruption-free visuals and slky smooth animation
Mr Flibble says...
"Game over , boys!"

User avatar
necronom
Posts: 5648
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:23 pm
Location: Middlesbrough

Post by necronom » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:07 am

Dudley wrote:http://www.it247.com/Product/7102-YT08- ... LCD_TV.htm

Is what I just bought.

You'll find the 32" version floating between £300 and £340 on most sites.

http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/126885

That's it for £324.

There's a lot of crap cheap LCD. This isn't one of them.
Not bad at all. Maybe by Christmas, I'll be able to get a 1080p one for a sensible price. It's a bit of a shame getting a HD console and only running it at 720.

Or I might get a Laser TV if they are out by then, and look good.

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

Post by paranoid marvin » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:15 am

necronom wrote:
Dudley wrote:http://www.it247.com/Product/7102-YT08- ... LCD_TV.htm

Is what I just bought.

You'll find the 32" version floating between £300 and £340 on most sites.

http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/126885

That's it for £324.

There's a lot of crap cheap LCD. This isn't one of them.
Not bad at all. Maybe by Christmas, I'll be able to get a 1080p one for a sensible price. It's a bit of a shame getting a HD console and only running it at 720.

Or I might get a Laser TV if they are out by then, and look good.
The thing is could you really tell the difference above 720? - for price vs performance , it looks to be a bit of a bargain.
Mind you ,for tv I have a 37" Viera Plasma which cost £2000 - a lot of dosh , but it's a fantastic bit of kit . When it eventually goes, I'll be replacing it with the same model , as the picture quality is perfect in every way for me. Will always go for plasma over lcd
Mr Flibble says...
"Game over , boys!"

User avatar
golgo13
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:30 am
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Post by golgo13 » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:19 am

Good graphics a good game make not.
Crown the wise, harness the talented and cherish the lucky.

Image

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

Post by paranoid marvin » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:22 am

golgo13 wrote:Good graphics a good game make not.
True , but name a game that has ill-defined , poorly animated visuals , yet has great gameplay
Mr Flibble says...
"Game over , boys!"

User avatar
Antiriad2097
Posts: 26995
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Post by Antiriad2097 » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:26 am

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

Post by paranoid marvin » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:30 am

Antiriad2097 wrote:Doom?
I would say that in it's day Doom had great visuals - I guess whether they were jerky or not depended on the PC you were using
Mr Flibble says...
"Game over , boys!"

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests