Graphics Or Game-play?

[paranoid marvin]

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

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.
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!

Bombjack is one of a few arcade games , where the likelihood is that most people never actually played it in the arcade , they played it on their home system . Invariably the first version of a game you become accostumed to remains your favourite , irrespective of flashier graphics on a version you'd never played previously.

BTW there's nothing wrong with the graphics on the Speccy version - considering the hardware limitations , the quality of the graphics , and their smooth movement , I would class this as top-notch. If , however , the graphics had been poorly drawn , and Bombjack jerked instead of floating , then perhaps people wouldn't have played it so much

[GarryG]

If , however , the graphics had been poorly drawn , and Bombjack jerked instead of floating , then perhaps people wouldn't have played it so much

I totally agree with ' jerky graphics' because this is just bad/sloppy programming, leading to bad game-play.
With 'poorly drawn' graphics it's a bit more subjective. See my 'Blue Stinger' comment on the last post

I don't disagree that good-looking graphics initially bring more people to a game, hence possibly purchase the game.
Just that in some cases they end up with a good looking 'white horse' that couldn't run to save itself

[paranoid marvin]

If , however , the graphics had been poorly drawn , and Bombjack jerked instead of floating , then perhaps people wouldn't have played it so much

I totally agree with ' jerky graphics' because this is just bad/sloppy programming, leading to bad game-play.
With 'poorly drawn' graphics it's a bit more subjective. See my 'Blue Stinger' comment on the last post

I don't disagree that good-looking graphics initially bring more people to a game, hence possibly purchase the game.
Just that in some cases they end up with a good looking 'white horse' that couldn't run to save itself

but when considering graphics we have to look at the whole package - their animation , definition , functionality - in comparison to what their host machine is capable of . You can't just look at a still shot and say ' that has good graphics' until you see them move , and how they interact in the game they have been designed for

[GarryG]

You can't just look at a still shot and say ' that has good graphics' until you see them move , and how they interact in the game they have been designed for

Again I totally agree with this…
And how they move and interact with the game is part of what makes the game-play. If this is done well it can increase the game overall. But soon the game-play is what takes over and the graphics are merely a window into the game world, and not an end unto themselves.
It’s like well-written text in a book. If you are continually tripped up by the way the text is written in a book you will eventually end up putting it down and getting another because the readability is poor, same thing with poor game-play in games.

[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.

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.

Well then it really is a worthless poll because when the game is good because of its graphics you're going ahead and assigning that to Gameplay anyway.

That's like asking the question "What's better? The Fire Brigade or a Fire" but then crediting the fire brigade when someone uses a fire for good because they didn't come and put it out.

[GarryG]

Well then it really is a worthless poll because when the game is good because of its graphics you're going ahead and assigning that to Gameplay anyway.

Not atoll, not sure how you came to this conclusion ether.

Prince of Persia was a good game because it put a lot of effort into the mechanics of moving your main character. The character could interact with things in may ways, and the collision detection was good.
Obviously this movement had to be implemented with the use of many graphics. This doesn’t mean however that the game was good because of the graphics. The game was good because of the movement mechanic used for the main character; this is good programming not good graphics.
This mechanic made for good game-play. The graphics are instrumental in this but with all well used graphics they become invisible to the gamer, embroiling them in the game-play of the game.

I've already explained this by my book example in my last post!

[Emperor Fossil]

It’s like well-written text in a book. If you are continually tripped up by the way the text is written in a book you will eventually end up putting it down and getting another because the readability is poor, same thing with poor game-play in games.

I think the book analogy works better the other way round.

ie: The overall story in a book is analogous to game-play in a game, while the writing style (and hence how the fictional world is portrayed to the reader) is more akin to graphics.

A good story can make you put up with otherwise poor writing skills (to a certain extent, anyway). Excellent writing skills will only carry a poor story so far before the reader gives up.

But either way, as I mentioned in my post back on page 2, I think good graphics and good game play are usually strongly inter-related. But when I refer to 'good graphics' I don't necessarily mean flashy graphics (or graphics on the cutting edge of technology) -- I mean graphics that suit the game and do a good job of supporting the game-play and communicating what is happening to the player.

[Dudley]

I like that version much better.

[GarryG]

when I refer to 'good graphics' I don't necessarily mean flashy graphics (or graphics on the cutting edge of technology) -- I mean graphics that suit the game and do a good job of supporting the game-play

Exactly, perhaps I should have said flashy graphics VS game-play.

I was especially thinking about the current trend of producing very similar games in terms of game-play, but with increasingly ‘flashy’ graphics, then claming the ‘game’ is better because of the improved graphics. I’m not talking about an ‘improved graphical interface’ here, just improved graphics, higher resolution, more colour. IMO I don’t think this necessarily makes a game better.

The argument some people are trying to make is:
If you have exactly the same game on two different systems, both of which play identically, but one system has better graphics, then the game with better graphics is intrinsically better!

I don’t agree that the ‘game’ is better. Yes the ‘graphics’ may be better, but dose that realy make the game (game-play) better? IMO, no.

[paranoid marvin]

when I refer to 'good graphics' I don't necessarily mean flashy graphics (or graphics on the cutting edge of technology) -- I mean graphics that suit the game and do a good job of supporting the game-play

Exactly, perhaps I should have said flashy graphics VS game-play.

I was especially thinking about the current trend of producing very similar games in terms of game-play, but with increasingly ‘flashy’ graphics, then claming the ‘game’ is better because of the improved graphics. I’m not talking about an ‘improved graphical interface’ here, just improved graphics, higher resolution, more colour. IMO I don’t think this necessarily makes a game better.

The argument some people are trying to make is:
If you have exactly the same game on two different systems, both of which play identically, but one system has better graphics, then the game with better graphics is intrinsically better!

I don’t agree that the ‘game’ is better. Yes the ‘graphics’ may be better, but dose that realy make the game (game-play) better? IMO, no.

I've got to say I totally disagree with you! Back in the day , programmers tried to produce games that were as close to the arcade original as possible - obviously they were unable to make them identical , so they did as good a job as possible. Once they were capable of making arcade perfect ports ie Playstation/Saturn onwards , then producing arcade perfect ports wasn't enough - there had to be more included.the Dreamcast provided this with many of their arcade-perfect ports

There are some games which are better on the 8 and 16 bit home computers than they were in the arcades - a couple of examples include Buggy Boy on the C64 and (in my opinion) R-Type on the Speccy. These versions are better not because of the graphics , but because of the improved gameplay


But if the games play identically , with the same game mechanics and same level of gameplay , them why wouldn't the version that has better graphics and/or sound be better?

For example , Op Wolf on the Speccy was a great arcade port , as was Chase HQ , Paper Boy and Gauntlet - but would you rather play the Speccy version or the arcade version? I know what my choice would be!

The best games for the 8 bits are those designed specifically for those machines , rather than trying to compete with far superior arcade conversions. For example , compare Rambo on the C64 with arcade Commando (which it's quite similar to) . Personally I'd rather play Rambo.

[GarryG]

There are some games which are better on the 8 and 16 bit home computers than they were in the arcades - a couple of examples include Buggy Boy on the C64 and (in my opinion) R-Type on the Speccy. These versions are better not because of the graphics , but because of the improved gameplay

Well that is a good case for game-play over graphics.

But if the games play identically , with the same game mechanics and same level of gameplay , them why wouldn't the version that has better graphics and/or sound be better?

Now this is where it becomes subjective.
It has better graphics, if that means better game to you then that's your prerogative, I'm not arguing the point, because that's your opinion.

What I don't like is companies making the same style of game over and over, with no additional features. This always seems to happen for each newer generation of machines (with better graphics capabilities, etc). Then they say the GAME is an improvement over the original! This could be seen as misleading if only the graphics (and possibly sound) were ‘updated’.
I've seen (and bought) far too many duff games, especially sequels, which were advertised like this as being improved. Then when you play it it’s no better or is some cases plays worse than the previous titles that are practically identical in concept. Sometimes the flashy graphics just detract the player from the awful game play lying underneath.

My basic point being, you can’t make a bad game good by giving it a fresh lick of paint!
But like classic black and white movies, games with good game-play will always be appreciated (by some). There are people who would never watch a film because it is not in colour! More fool them, I say

[paranoid marvin]

There are some games which are better on the 8 and 16 bit home computers than they were in the arcades - a couple of examples include Buggy Boy on the C64 and (in my opinion) R-Type on the Speccy. These versions are better not because of the graphics , but because of the improved gameplay

Well that is a good case for game-play overgraphics.

But if the games play identically , with the same game mechanics and same level of gameplay , them why wouldn't the version that has better graphics and/or sound be better?

Now this is where it becomes subjective.
It has better graphics, if that means better game to you then that's your perogative, I'm not arguing the point, because that's youre opinion.
What I don't like in componies making the same style of game with no additional features for a newer machine (with better graphics capabilites) then saying the GAME is an impruvenent on the origonal. I've seen (and bought) far too many duff games, especialy sequaly that were advertised like this, even given good reviews in some cases. Then when you play it it is no better or is some cases plays worse than the previous titles that are practicaly identical exapt for the newer flashy graphics.

My basic point being, you cant make a bad game good by giving it a freash lick of paint!

I agree - if you polish a turd , you've still got a turd!

[Celebaglar]

It has better graphics, if that means better game to you then that's your prerogative, I'm not arguing the point, because that's your opinion.

Well while I share the gameplay over graphics philosophy, I don't think graphics are completely irrelevant. So the same game with better graphics make for a better game overall.

But the difference is minimal if only the graphics are improved. The game still lives or dies by the standard of the gameplay. And I agree with the trend to keep publishing what is esentially the same game just with flashier eye-candy. It's actually quite destructive, as it eats up a lot of resources and finance which could go into producing something more interesting.

But the problem is the public - if the consumers buy, the producers will keep churning them out.

[paranoid marvin]

One of my favourite games is the original Star Wars game - I would play it on my Speccy back in the day , because it was the closest I could get to the arcade original (ok so StarStrike was a better game , but it wasn't officially tar Wars) .

Now , if I had the choice , I wouldn't consider playing it on my Speccy - that's what MAME is for