Graphics Or Game-play?

[Scapegoat]

Good graphics could improve good gameplay for the whole life of the game, but would only improve poor gameplay for about 20 minutes.

Poor gameplay can ruin a gorgeous looking game, but good can make something that looks like like on-screen vomiting worth playing.

Gameplay > Graphics

[Dudley]

Nope, bad graphics can destroy even the best playing game.

For instance, if the graphics consisted entirely of the word "ARSE" changing colour occasionally. It wouldn't matter if a good game was under there, you couldn't see it.

[Scapegoat]

Nope, bad graphics can destroy even the best playing game.

For instance, if the graphics consisted entirely of the word "ARSE" changing colour occasionally. It wouldn't matter if a good game was under there, you couldn't see it.

Now you are confusing bad with unfunctional. Rogue has "bad" graphics, and I'm pretty sure that, with effort, you could spell out ARSE, but that doesn't stop it being playable.

But the important part is that the "bad" graphics don't get in the way of the gameplay.

[Dudley]

Plenty of games have had non-functional gameplay too. The best game is useless without graphics, the best graphics are useless without gameplay.

Good graphics ENHANCE playability.

The question is like asking "What's best for racing? A fast time round a track or a good top speed."

Obviously the ANSWER is A). But you simply can't ignore than B is a component of A.

Forza 2, Viewtiful Joe, Jet Set Radio, Shadow of the colossus. All would be massively compromised on machines with less power and worst graphics. Graphics are not a replacement for gameplay, they're part of it.

[Bub&Bob]

I think that ICO is one of the most amazing gaming experiences ever. However, I wonder if that would be the case if it had Dragon 32 style graphics? (for the record I think it would)

I wonder if this question will be relevant in 5 - 10 years time though....

[stvd]

I think that ICO is one of the most amazing gaming experiences ever. However, I wonder if that would be the case if it had Dragon 32 style graphics?

Don't know about Dragon 32 graphics but ICO with ZX Spectrum graphics is Ant Attack. And it's still a great game.

[paranoid marvin]

I think that ICO is one of the most amazing gaming experiences ever. However, I wonder if that would be the case if it had Dragon 32 style graphics?

Don't know about Dragon 32 graphics but ICO with ZX Spectrum graphics is Ant Attack. And it's still a great game.

Yeah , but Ant Attack has great graphics!

Graphics which function well = good graphics
Graphics which don't function well = poor graphics

I'm still waiting for someone to name a game with poor , jerky graphics (takng into account the capabiliies of the machine) but which has great gameplay. There are very few that I can think of , where you battle against the graphics because the gameplay is so captivating

[Celebaglar]

I'm still waiting for someone to name a game with poor , jerky graphics (takng into account the capabiliies of the machine) but which has great gameplay. There are very few that I can think of , where you battle against the graphics because the gameplay is so captivating

Elite on the C64 comes to mind. Great game, awfully slow and jerky graphics, specially when things were hectic.

[paranoid marvin]

I'm still waiting for someone to name a game with poor , jerky graphics (takng into account the capabiliies of the machine) but which has great gameplay. There are very few that I can think of , where you battle against the graphics because the gameplay is so captivating

Elite on the C64 comes to mind. Great game, awfully slow and jerky graphics, specially when things were hectic.

Yes , this is one of the games I had in mind. If you were a C64 owner , you persevered because you knew that under the crippled graphics engine , there was a game of pure gameplay

But having all the different machines to pick from , how many people choosing to play this game now would load up the C64 version? Why choose the Beeb or the Speccy or the Amiga/ST , even PC version over the C64?

I thought it was the gameplay and not the graphics that mattered?

[Celebaglar]

I thought it was the gameplay and not the graphics that mattered?

I don't think anyone claimed that. Graphics do matter, but gameplay matters more. Without great graphics gameplay can still get people playing the game, but great graphics without gameplay means you lose interest after about five minutes, no matter how good the graphics are.

To get back to the Elite example, when I did play the C64 version I didn't have the option of playing the others. The C64 was all I had, but despite what were awful graphics I kept playing. Sure I'd prefer better graphics, but that wasn't the question.

[Scapegoat]

I'm still waiting for someone to name a game with poor , jerky graphics (takng into account the capabiliies of the machine) but which has great gameplay. There are very few that I can think of , where you battle against the graphics because the gameplay is so captivating

There was one on the Atari 800 called Journey to the Planets that springs to mind. http://www.atarimania.com/detail_soft.p ... ON_ID=2688

Some of the most gopping graphics you have ever seen (two whole frames of animation!!!), colours that make your eyes bleed, but fiendishly compulsive puzzles that I couldn't stop playing.

This is perhaps one of the most extreme examples I can think of, especially when you consider a combination of graphic and gameplay loveliness like Necromancer was around at the same time:
http://www.atarimania.com/detail_soft.p ... ON_ID=5982

Also, I was under the impression that the discussion was about dull, boring, zero effort graphics that add nothing to the experience, not graphics that are so flawed that it adversely effects the gameplay. Have the goalposts been moved to suit the argument?

[Antiriad2097]

Also, I was under the impression that the discussion was about dull, boring, zero effort graphics that add nothing to the experience, not graphics that are so flawed that it adversely effects the gameplay. Have the goalposts been moved to suit the argument?

Sort of. Its not so much moving the goalposts, just that the discussion naturaly brought it up. Plenty of games have gameplay so bad it 'breaks' the graphics, but its hard to fid an example of a terrible looking game where you persevere because the gameplay has hooked you.

[paranoid marvin]

Well , right from th start , I (as well as Dudley ) have been saying that you can't have one without the other

For me 'good' graphics is NOT a visually attaractive freeze frame from a game - to have good graphics , they miust be smooth and well animated , nice to look at , but not in such a way as to be detrimental to the gameplay

That is why ROTR has terrible graphics , in fact I can't believe that anyone could say they were anything but. Ok , they may look good in a mag , but with about 3 frames of animation , they were appalling in action. If this game had had smooth animation , then the game may not have been half as bad as it was - certainly not still being villified to this day

On the other hand , Prince Of Persia (orignal) looked to have quite basic graphics in the mag - but one play showed how well they were animated , and this made the game into a fantastic experience , with the player feeling that they had total control of their character - any sudden traps could be avoided , and death for the Prince always lay solely in the player's hands

[Dudley]

And PoP would probably now be a footnote without the graphics. The smooth rotoscoped animation was a key feature of the title, it MADE the gameplay.

Sonic 1 is another good example, its gameplay is created by the graphics, as the broken recent GBA port proved.

[GarryG]

Forza 2, Viewtiful Joe, Jet Set Radio, Shadow of the colossus. All would be massively compromised on machines with less power and worst graphics. Graphics are not a replacement for gameplay, they're part of it.

So (for example) why do many people prefer the spectrum version of Bomb Jack above all others then, including the original?
IMO it's because of the smooth game-play, yes the graphics are good for the Specie, but other versions (especially the Arcade board original) had better.

And don't just say 'fanboys' that's a cop-out not an answer

And PoP would probably now be a footnote without the graphics. The smooth rotoscoped animation was a key feature of the title, it MADE the gameplay.

But that’s my point Dudley, the many-framed graphics were a feature of the game and an integral part of the game-play. I agree this approach made what could have otherwise been an average and forgettable game into a classic. I was talking about fancy graphics with little real game, or a very generic and otherwise forgettable game mechanic underneath. In that case I think the graphics are a bit of a quick-fix cheat and the game will not hold any lasting appeal.

I'm still waiting for someone to name a game with poor , jerky graphics (takng into account the capabiliies of the machine) but which has great gameplay. There are very few that I can think of , where you battle against the graphics because the gameplay is so captivating

Many people like 'Blue Stinger' on the DC, more than similar games with much better implemented graphics. They site the game-play of this as the primary reason for liking it more. It has to be said that the graphics do have some fairly obvious problems, and yes IMO the game has to ‘battle against’ these graphics, many people seem to think it manages this admirably!
The opposite end of this coin would be the top-notch graphics implementation of the Shenmue games; again some people don't like these because of the game-play, while others love them!