Graphics or gameplay?

Gameplay. I think they are more dominant, but graphics are always a nice addition. Game like BF3 didn't appeal to me much even though they had great graphics. I would say Minecraft doesn't have that great of graphics, but look where it is now. There are at least 10 million copies sold, and the game offers you unlimited gameplay. More open-world, you can basically build anything even when the graphics are not the greatest.
 
I would take Gameplay over graphics any day.Gameplay will always beat graphics if it is a awesome system. I mean who does not like a game with good graphics? I mean don't get me wrong the game also must have decent graphics but graphics don't usually make or break a great game yanno?
 
Gameplay all the way. You can have a pie that looks wonderful and tastes like chitterling bucket water or you have a pie that looks like someone knee dropped it repeatedly and tastes like the best pie you've had before several times over.

A lot of good games get passed over because they don't have the goods graphically and a lot of adequate at best games get picked up because they look great graphically. My friend always goes for the graphically beautiful games (because graphics sell) and sometimes he gets a potato or a lemon.

"What are you upset about? You wanted a pretty game, right? Of course you did," is my usual response.
 
Ideally, you want both, but if you have to choose, you're gonna go with great gameplay over great graphics every time. Doesn't make sense to play a terrible game just because the characters look like actual human beings(they don't have games like this yet do they? the A.I. revolution might be closer than we think! lol). Gotta enjoy the game, man. I'll still fire up old 8-bit block NES games just because I love/enjoy the game play.

Definitely gonna say game play > graphics.
 
You definitely want both, but normally you'll either get more of one than the other and rarely do you get the extremes (unless you're just uncompromising about graphics). I'm going with gameplay over graphics.
 
Plus sometimes the graphics work for a certain game with specific gameplay. Like games that are supposed to be retro in spirit I wouldn't go expecting or wanting near photo realistic graphics. That would kill the mood/feeling of the game for me even with great gameplay mechanics and storyline. Give me 8-bit, 16-bit, and sweet sweet Mode7. Or if your game is meant to capture the days of PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube make it such.

I'd rather say "That really took me back. It was like I was playing a PS2 RPG or an OG Xbox shooter or a Gamecube platformer," than "Meh it was another WiiBox 3 game. Nothing to see here."
 
Gameplay > Graphics each and every time. I'd love to have both, but if you're getting only one, it's best to have good gameplay. As someone who plays RPGs a lot, I can go with graphics that are probably "dated" for the generation mainly because it would take me back to when games as a whole were fun, it wasn't just about what game/console had better graphics, and when RPGs roamed the land.

For something that is just kill everything that moves and story and gameplay can sit and the backseat, then graphics would get shotgun. That's not saying much though. It's like being gorgeous or handsome yet void of personality, charisma, and grace.
 
lindbergh said:
If you had to choose between a game that has gorgeous graphics but weak gameplay and a game with excellent gameplay but has crappy graphics, which game would you choose? I would personally prefer a game with great gameplay. I don't care much about graphics because IMO, graphics are only secondary when it comes to totally enjoying a game.
Click to expand...

I'd have to go with the game that has better gameplay. Regardless of how amazing the game looks, if it sucks to play, then I'm not going to play it! Some of my all-time favorite games have been ones that didn't really have great graphics in proportion to what technology offered at the time.
 
Definitely the gameplay for sure. Looking back at the past we enjoyed games just fine despite the horrible graphics, it just looks bad now since better quality is out there. As long as you have good friends to enjoy the game with, you enjoy it so much better.
 
I prefer gameplay over graphics. I've only rarely given up on a game because of bad graphics, but I have given up on a lot because of bad gameplay.
 
Definitely gameplay. You can get used to bad graphics, but a bad gameplay will make you stop playing the game.
This is why I still love old games.
 
Gameplay wins every time. I love indie games and they are definitely not known for the graphical fidelity.
 
That's a good point about indie games, they're pretty much the embodiment of old school/retro games and some of them don't deliver that strong on graphics. In contrast to games that are meant to be big, popular titles with digital, discs, and have an actual box and end up not delivering on graphics, those don't have much of an excuse. They either tried to go big with graphics and failed or they decided to focus more on gameplay.

Indie games can actually say "Oh the graphics are meant to be like that because it adds to the gameplay in some way."
 
I think that the "Pull-in, immersive" factor is achieved by a blend of both visuals and quality gameplay. Like the storybook, showmanship is everything to immersion. In that sense I think that gameplay has a more powerful storytelling element than visuals do, and a game could be entirely text-based and still be quite an adventure! Visuals are definitely a plus but are not mandatory.
 
I know that graphics are important, but it just begins to feel more like an animated film than a game when most of what I do is dictated by rapidly pressing one button. I don't know if it's just me, but it really draws me out of the game when that happens.
 
Gameplay all the way. I am playing a game, not watching a movie. Movies need great graphics but games are meant to be played. I can't expect graphics alone to be able to carry me through if the game isn't fun.
 
Gameplay will always be something I would have favoritism over simply because if a game with a good narrative/story can make the experience enjoyable, it's going to be something memorable. Depending on how big the developing team is, sometimes you can find the smaller and underrated teams that make awesome narratives/stories, but have yet to make any awe-inspiring graphics. Of course, I guess that's a matter of opinion since the bigger the group thinking for a narrative, the more likely the game may be better story-wise. But there may be people like David Cage who ends up making games where you're wondering where the gameplay and script are in the first place.

Honestly, if the game is so realistic, sometimes I get more concerned about where to head to next because sometimes it makes me think the game is like a Sandbox game where anything can happen. I admit that sometimes the attempt realism can get one in a state of trance and literally in the moment, but if the gameplay is horrible, I'm going to turn it off without a moment's hesitation.
 
I think that both aspects are important for good gameplay, but if I had to choose between the two, then solid gameplay is more important than exceptional graphics. I think that the storyline, features, options, and such are more important than killer graphics. But having great graphics can only enhance solid gameplay, so it's just as important. I don't know if there is any way to have a solid gaming platform without both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest threads

Back
Top