A moment of clarity: gameplay over graphics [Archive]

RobertR1

06-Aug-2008, 21:19

It's often we're smitten with good looks and thus discuss it endlessly. This isn't just native to games but most things in life. However, for gaming, B3D takes this to another step. I'll be the first to admit that I do love graphics and thus I'm on this site.

However, something happened in the past week that is really changing my perspective on the actual fun aspects of gaming. You see, having bought a Wii a while back; I played with it for a bit and then put it away. Bought Mario Kart and discarded it quickly also. Then recently, I gave Gamefly a shot.

Just for fun, I decided to rent out Super Mario Galaxy. Already I had the perception of "god this is gonna look like crap on a 60inch TV....." and guess what? It kinda does! Then I started playing it...and playing it... and playing it......You get the point. The game itself is downright amazing. I've rescued 3 grand stars so far and the level variety is amazing. There are many parts when I went "how'd they come up with this?" The controls are perfect. Even with a whole new landscape and concept you never forget that it's Mario. Now that I've adapted to it, the graphics don't even stand out because I'm so immersed in actual gameplay. Even then, the colors, textures and environments perfectly suit the theme of the level. Every level I go into, it’s with the excitement of “what will they think of next!?” Count the number of games that can make you say that and you’ll see that it’s a rather small list. (this isn’t list wars, so keep the lists to yourselves)

So as I'm all enamored with Mario Galaxy, I happen to turn on my 360 and download an Arcade game by the name of Braid. Let me openly admit that there is no way I'll be able to translate my thoughts about this game in a coherent manner. Why? Because this game is just so far out there, it’s stimulated thought processes in my head that I have not used in any game ever before. Think linear and you'll never be able to finish this game. Your ability to advance in this game is strictly limited to the limits you impose on your mind. Let it roam free and things will become clear. Let's be clear. While Braid has a unique art style it's still no Banjo or Gears 2. However, it's the game that has pretty much exhausted my mind and I simply want to go home and play it more.

All said and done, my excitement towards the "power house" of games coming up has not waned. I’m still just as much excited but about them. However, playing these games certainly does change my perception of games. Looks matter more when gameplay is routine. Stimulate my brain with amazing gamplay and it'll even start looking good due to the mental satisfaction from advancing in the game or just from the anticipation of what could be next. Both games deserve an easy 10/10. All their technical limitations are easily surpassed by their head and shoulder above the rest mental experience.

Scott_Arm

06-Aug-2008, 21:24

Cool. I was thinking of passing on Braid because of the price, but now I think I'll check it out. Too many great reviews.

I really am a gameplay over graphics guy. I love the eye candy, but it doesn't keep me interested too long if the gameplay is poor. I can play a game despite poor graphics if the gameplay is top notch.

Geometry Wars 2!

NERO

06-Aug-2008, 21:50

I guess I can say that I am a gameplay person because I play games not just view them. On the other hand gameplay and graphics are closely nit depending on what the developer is going for and the preference of the player buying the product. Where the two ends meat (:wink:) can give one an answer as to which they really are - gamer or graphic watcher - although the tag may change depending on mood or an already established gaming preference.

Either way I played SMG and it was the most joy I'd had playing a game in some time. MGS4 was magnificient but I don't know if it gave me the same drooling, b@*sh*t happy joy that SMG gave me when I played it last year (and collected all 120 stars). A lot of this has to do with my being raised on Mario and waxing nostalgic on what seemed to be the truest representation of SMB3/Super Mario World in the 3rd demension.

pjbliverpool

06-Aug-2008, 21:55

I bought SMG for my girlfriend last christmas. She still hasn't taken it out of the shrink wrap!

Its doing my head in because i'm dying to have a go!!! :grin:

-tkf-

06-Aug-2008, 21:57

Braid:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=205102

10/10

scooby_dooby

06-Aug-2008, 22:40

I thought SMG was cool, but a little on the easy side. It didn't seem to have the challenge previous Mario's had. Me and my girlfriend finished it off together, she had some trouble but I breezed through it fairly easily.

I dunno, honestly it left me wanting in the gameplay department quite a bit. The level design was great, and the originality was fun, but actual challenges presented were sortof repetitive to me...

Can't wait to try Braid though, gotta see what all the hype is about...

Rangers

07-Aug-2008, 04:10

I prefer graphics over gameplay.

Any game can have good gameplay, but not any game can look good.

We play in a visual medium, it's foolish to pretend we dont care how it looks.

Scott_Arm

07-Aug-2008, 04:33

I prefer graphics over gameplay.

Any game can have good gameplay, but not any game can look good.

We play in a visual medium, it's foolish to pretend we dont care how it looks.

That's crazy talk. You're the reason we're getting so many derivative games with new graphics slapped on. And when I say, "you," I don't mean people like you. I mean you, specifically. It's all your fault. Ha ha ha. ;)

eastmen

07-Aug-2008, 06:01

-tkf-

07-Aug-2008, 06:12

I don't know why people feel that gamecube level graphics are okay for games. We have high def tvs and these 480p titles look horrid on these things.

And they don´t care just like those that watch DVD´s on HiDef TVs. When i get a Wii it will be on small TV and will i get to enjoy a bucket full of very good games.

I fully agree that the Wii with PS3 or 360 power would be fantastic, but thats just dreaming, so those that play it settles with what they have. At least Braid is a 360 title, i hope it will sse a PS3 release?

eastmen

07-Aug-2008, 06:19

And they don´t care just like those that watch DVD´s on HiDef TVs. When i get a Wii it will be on small TV and will i get to enjoy a bucket full of very good games.

I fully agree that the Wii with PS3 or 360 power would be fantastic, but thats just dreaming, so those that play it settles with what they have. At least Braid is a 360 title, i hope it will sse a PS3 release?

Those that buy the wii for the fad games will simply put the console away after they tire of it. It wont come out again till the next fad game. I see that with my older sister. She jumped from wii sports to mario kart and now wii fit. She has already stoped using it and its back in the closet. If these titles and their hype from the main stream press were on the xbox 360 or ps3 they would sell just as well and I'm sure people would like the graphics more.

I want to add that once you get great control whats next. Wii sports is a fun game... but whats next ? More sports ? The main ones are covered in Wii Sports 1. How about Mario Galaxy. It has great game play but what makes you come back for more. The great gameplay could be 1 reason , but thats only 1 reason and it wont work for everyone because great gameplay doesn't exist in a vacuum. Gears of war had great gameplay , Gears 2 tweaked it and refined it but it also increased an already beautifull game with better graphics and physics. The same could be said about Resistance also. There needs to be more than just great gameplay to get people to come back to a game. Any game can have great game play , beautifull graphics , great features. But few can have all of these things. The wii games will allways lack 1 of these.

I.S.T.

07-Aug-2008, 06:24

I played SMB:G. I couldn't help but think that this game would have been much better on the new systems. I felt the same way with the new Zelda. Imagine Zelda on the Xbox 360 and how much it would add to the story and game play having amazing graphics. I don't know why people feel that gamecube level graphics are okay for games. We have high def tvs and these 480p titles look horrid on these things. Nintendo could have easily released the controller on the xbox 360 and we all would have had an even better play experience.

Hate to nitpick here, but there's no Bros. in Super Mario Galaxy's title/name/whatever other word for name you can think of when not on medication that makes you tired all the time.

>.>

Man, Luigi has been screwed over for years.

Anyway, back on topic... I think graphics can enhance a game. A better GPU can help create much larger worlds and levels. That's what I look forward to with each new generation.

Well, that and no color banding. Damned Nintendo couldn't even fix that for the Wii...

Scott_Arm

07-Aug-2008, 14:56

Truly great gameplay is a rarity. There's enough games with derivative or mediocre gameplay. I'll gladly play a 480p game on an HDTV if it's a really tight game. I'm killing to play God of War 2 on my bros PS2, but he hasn't finished it yet. They nailed everything, except it's last-gen graphics. It's still nice looking. Seriously, in that genre of button mashing action, has anything "next-gen" surpassed God of War yet? Don't think so. Gameplay > graphics.

Edit: And if graphics trumped gameplay, then every game on PSP and DS would by garbage by default. And don't tell me they follow a different set of rules because they're handhelds. Graphics are good or they're not, regardless of the hardware they're running on. If the PSP and DS get a free pass, then the Wii gets a free pass as well.

MJP

07-Aug-2008, 15:26

I played SMB:G. I couldn't help but think that this game would have been much better on the new systems.

I have similar feelings on Wii games. I'm a huge fan of the original Metroid Prime, but I find it impossible to play the third game without thinking to myself "this game would have been phenomenal on the Xbox 360". So much of original's quality came from the atmosphere, and I'd have loved to see what Retro could do with better hardware. It really kills the game for me, unfortunately. :sad:

NERO

07-Aug-2008, 15:36

Freak'n Big Panda

07-Aug-2008, 16:15

Just for fun, I decided to rent out Super Mario Galaxy. Already I had the perception of "god this is gonna look like crap on a 60inch TV....." and guess what? It kinda does! Then I started playing it...and playing it... and playing it......You get the point. The game itself is downright amazing.

Good games are always good regardless of the graphics. I recently started playing mgs2 and had exactly the same reaction. After I played for a bit I just let myself become immersed in the game and I completely forgot that about the low poly models and crappy textures.

Just for the purpose of discussion how are we defining gameplay here? Does GOW have bad gameplay? It's hugely derivative but I'd say that the gameplay is pretty solid for a shooter. Maybe originality is a better term to describe Mario Galaxies strength? That's what I look for in games, give me something I haven't seen before and I'll be happy regardless of how shit the graphics are.

Scott_Arm

07-Aug-2008, 16:31

Just for the purpose of discussion how are we defining gameplay here? Does GOW have bad gameplay? It's hugely derivative but I'd say that the gameplay is pretty solid for a shooter.

This is true. I've been throwing "derivative" around, but it isn't always a bad thing. I thought Gears nailed it, and it was fun.

inefficient

07-Aug-2008, 17:28

Super Mario Galaxy looked like crap on my HDTV when I first started playing it. That first scene where the town is under attack, I was literally shocked how bad it looked. I was thinking: "this is the game that got a 10 by almost every major reviewer?"

But by the time I got to the first boss battle I was really enjoying the game because thats when the cool gameplay mechanics really started to kick in. And the game didn't stop introducing new but very intuitive and obvious game play ideas all the way to the very end. It stayed constantly interesting for me. It's the only Wii game I have manged to play all the way through without losing interest.

Zelda TP also did a pretty good job with the game play. The problem with that game is they stretched it out way too long and the game just got boring toward the end. I think I am near the very final boss battle but I have just not been able to build up any interest to go back to it. And the other problem is that game is so complicated compared to Mario. It also hasa any game play concepts you have to remember. And when you put the game down for a few months and try to come back to it, it is really freaking hard to get back into it.

MP3 I wanted to like, but I kind of hate it. I enjoyed all the puzzle and platforming parts of the game. And hated all the combat! Totally generic enemies, and having to tap a button to shoot every shot is BS.

eastmen

07-Aug-2008, 17:31

I see what some of you folks are getting at but think of it in these terms; A game that looks like crap but plays wonderfully or a game that looks photorealistic but is just a crap Myst iteration? Of course we'd want both, but if one had to chose then we probably would go with the former.

Also, I don't know if I want a photrealistic goomba although maybe I want something better than what the Wii currently produces.

But why do you have to choose. There are many great games with cutting edge graphics. Oblivion , Bioshock , Gears , Mass effect , COD4 and others. None of these play like crap. Mario plays great but looks like Mario sunshine which is now what 5 or 6 years old ? Would Mario Galaxy suck with Kameo + level graphics ? Would it be any worse than it was on the wii ? I think in that situation its almost impossible to make a great game worse by adding graphics.

Just for the purpose of discussion how are we defining gameplay here? Does GOW have bad gameplay? It's hugely derivative but I'd say that the gameplay is pretty solid for a shooter. Maybe originality is a better term to describe Mario Galaxies strength? That's what I look for in games, give me something I haven't seen before and I'll be happy regardless of how shit the graphics are.

How many games have you seen a cover system in akin to Gears before gears came out? Now how many games have you seen where you jump around in a 3d world collecting items and jumping on bad guys heads. I can name at least 2 besides galaxys.... ironicly both start with mario in their title

inefficient

07-Aug-2008, 17:46

Edit: And if graphics trumped gameplay, then every game on PSP and DS would by garbage by default. And don't tell me they follow a different set of rules because they're handhelds. Graphics are good or they're not, regardless of the hardware they're running on. If the PSP and DS get a free pass, then the Wii gets a free pass as well.

I actually bought Metal Gear Solid 1 from the PSN store and tried playing it on my HDTV. It looked like crap and I was having a very hard time enjoying it because of how bad it looked.

I copied the game over the my PSP and the game looked much better! There is really something almost magical about playing on a screen that is 10x smaller that makes the game look so much better.

Likewise I also bought the cable to connect my PSP to my TV via component out. Even the very best PSP games look like crap and completely unplayable to me. While on the PSP screen they are still pleasent enough to look at without cringing.

Dr Evil

07-Aug-2008, 17:51

Braid:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=205102

10/10

Thanks for pointing that out, it just became my first Live arcade purchase. I just completed the first world and I can already see that this should be pretty intriguing experience. Nice art direction and music too.

NERO

07-Aug-2008, 17:57

But why do you have to choose.

Well that is sort of what the thread starter is asking, that if you had to choose what would you choose. Reread the quote that you pulled from me and reread the thread starter.

Really it's all about a gamer's tastes and gameplay and graphics are - obviously - connected.

Freak'n Big Panda

07-Aug-2008, 18:07

How many games have you seen a cover system in akin to Gears before gears came out? Now how many games have you seen where you jump around in a 3d world collecting items and jumping on bad guys heads. I can name at least 2 besides galaxys.... ironicly both start with mario in their title

mgs2 has a similar cover system yet it's not the focus of the gameplay, in firefights it is critical but being a sneaking game and all you don't want to get into all out battles very often. I don't see the cover system as very original but it does make for good gameplay.

I can name dozens of games in which you jump around collecting items and stomping on bad guys. Whats your point?

Scott_Arm

07-Aug-2008, 18:33

I actually bought Metal Gear Solid 1 from the PSN store and tried playing it on my HDTV. It looked like crap and I was having a very hard time enjoying it because of how bad it looked.

I copied the game over the my PSP and the game looked much better! There is really something almost magical about playing on a screen that is 10x smaller that makes the game look so much better.

Likewise I also bought the cable to connect my PSP to my TV via component out. Even the very best PSP games look like crap and completely unplayable to me. While on the PSP screen they are still pleasent enough to look at without cringing.

Yeah, but the PSP and DS graphics still aren't anywhere near the 360 and the PS3, but that doesn't stop people from enjoying them. God of War for the PSP is probably better than 99% of the action games on the PS3 and 360.

eastmen

07-Aug-2008, 18:35

mgs2 has a similar cover system yet it's not the focus of the gameplay, in firefights it is critical but being a sneaking game and all you don't want to get into all out battles very often. I don't see the cover system as very original but it does make for good gameplay.

I can name dozens of games in which you jump around collecting items and stomping on bad guys. Whats your point?

Read the post I quoted.

Scott_Arm

07-Aug-2008, 18:41

But why do you have to choose. There are many great games with cutting edge graphics. Oblivion , Bioshock , Gears , Mass effect , COD4 and others. None of these play like crap. Mario plays great but looks like Mario sunshine which is now what 5 or 6 years old ? Would Mario Galaxy suck with Kameo + level graphics ? Would it be any worse than it was on the wii ? I think in that situation its almost impossible to make a great game worse by adding graphics.

Why do you have to choose? What do you mean? Do you mean choose to play Mario over games with better graphics? Probably because there aren't any better platforming games available. There isn't a high definition equivalent of Mario, so your only choice is to play it on the Wii. There is no choice.

I agree that it would be nice if Mario had high definition, but what's your point? The point the thread starter was trying to make is that the graphics don't always matter. A game can be fantastic despite have "last gen" or inferior graphics.

Freak'n Big Panda

07-Aug-2008, 19:07

Read the post I quoted.

It was my post, I wrote it. Maybe I'm dense but I still don't know what your point is.

ERP

07-Aug-2008, 19:34

Why do you have to choose? What do you mean? Do you mean choose to play Mario over games with better graphics? Probably because there aren't any better platforming games available. There isn't a high definition equivalent of Mario, so your only choice is to play it on the Wii. There is no choice.

I agree that it would be nice if Mario had high definition, but what's your point? The point the thread starter was trying to make is that the graphics don't always matter. A game can be fantastic despite have "last gen" or inferior graphics.

I've always hated the Gameplay>Graphics argument, because it misses the point of what a game is.

Games are the Sum of GamePlay/Graphics and Sound, it's pointless to try and declare one more important that the others.

Graphics matter, in some games more than others, but you can't seperate an individual component out of the whole. The overall game vision and game experience is neither just gameplay nor just graphics.

Mario has an artstyle reminicesnt of old Mario games, it doen't need a massive ammount of GPU power to pull that off, but if it hadn't pulled it off, would you appreciate the game as a whole the same way.

As a developer I commonly see games with placeholder art in, and I can tell you that the way a game "feels" has as much to do with animation and art as it does with gamedesign and code.

patsu

07-Aug-2008, 19:42

I prefer graphics over gameplay.

Any game can have good gameplay, but not any game can look good.

We play in a visual medium, it's foolish to pretend we dont care how it looks.

It's the total package that sums up the experience, but so far people here focused mainly on graphics because this is primarily a graphics technology forum.

I prefer interactivity myself. While "any" game can have reasonable gameplay, I think great gameplay is rare. It is not uncommon for a dev to lose their precious gameplay in a sequel too.

Then there are games that excel in both sensory (visual and audio) and gameplay departments. I like Everyday Shooter and MGS4 for these reasons even though there are flaws sprinkled in them. Then again, because of addictive gameplay above all, I dwell in RFOM the most -- every weekday in fact. So yeah... I think I am a gameplay guy.

EDIT: Hey, ERP has similar views from developer perspective :)
All these gameplay versus graphics statements tell us more about individual preferences.

upnorthsox

07-Aug-2008, 19:47

Scott_Arm

07-Aug-2008, 19:49

I've always hated the Gameplay>Graphics argument, because it misses the point of what a game is.

Games are the Sum of GamePlay/Graphics and Sound, it's pointless to try and declare one more important that the others.

Graphics matter, in some games more than others, but you can't seperate an individual component out of the whole. The overall game vision and game experience is neither just gameplay nor just graphics.

Mario has an artstyle reminicesnt of old Mario games, it doen't need a massive ammount of GPU power to pull that off, but if it hadn't pulled it off, would you appreciate the game as a whole the same way.

As a developer I commonly see games with placeholder art in, and I can tell you that the way a game "feels" has as much to do with animation and art as it does with gamedesign and code.

I can't think of many, if any, games that are really fun to play just because of the graphics and sound. If the gameplay is borked, you're gonna get bored of the game very quickly. If a game has crap for graphics and sound, I think people can be more forgiving. People will play web games, emulated games from 20 years ago, handheld games, Wii games and old pc games that have poor graphics by todays standard and still have a really good time with them.

Of course they aren't totally separate. The graphics and sound have to be able to effectively communicate the appropriate information to the user. But I think gameplay is a little more important to most people.

eastmen

07-Aug-2008, 20:57

It was my post, I wrote it. Maybe I'm dense but I still don't know what your point is.

well

Maybe originality is a better term to describe Mario Galaxies strength?

I dont see how its original when its been done many times over in the same series of games.

fearsomepirate

07-Aug-2008, 21:06

But why do you have to choose.

Because not every game is on every console or has the same budget.

I've had similar experiences myself. Now, granted, I don't own a next-gen console (incl. Wii), so the best-looking thing I have is Gamecube. But still, Gamecube graphics are a sight better than SNES, N64, DS, and what I typically get out of my PC. A couple instances:

1. When I got Advance Wars DS, I couldn't put it down. I ignored my Gamecube and Xbox for weeks because all I wanted to do was play AWDS. One of the most addicting and best-executed TBS games I've played in a long time; it only broke its hold on me when I hit the later levels that throw you into truly ridiculous situations that you can basically only beat with the right sequence of moves.

2. Mario 64 did the same thing to me. Unlike the rest of you, I played Mario 64 some time in 2007, so there were much, much prettier Cube/PC titles at my fingertips. Would it be better on a more powerful system? Sure. It sucked me in as it was.

3. I picked up Mario All-Stars the other day. Haven't played anything else for about 2 weeks. Mario 3 broke my TF2 habit.

But I agree with ERP to an extent, anyway. Graphics aren't completely irrelevant, as though a game would be just as fun with placeholder art. Mario 3 would be really lame if the sprites were just colored squares. I guess what I would say as long as the graphics and art are done well enough to be conducive to the experience, technologically "yesterday" graphics do not prevent a gameplay experience from being truly fantastic and unique.

Freak'n Big Panda

07-Aug-2008, 21:09

I've always hated the Gameplay>Graphics argument, because it misses the point of what a game is.

Games are the Sum of GamePlay/Graphics and Sound, it's pointless to try and declare one more important that the others.

Graphics matter, in some games more than others, but you can't seperate an individual component out of the whole. The overall game vision and game experience is neither just gameplay nor just graphics.

Mario has an artstyle reminicesnt of old Mario games, it doen't need a massive ammount of GPU power to pull that off, but if it hadn't pulled it off, would you appreciate the game as a whole the same way.

As a developer I commonly see games with placeholder art in, and I can tell you that the way a game "feels" has as much to do with animation and art as it does with gamedesign and code.

+1 Totally agree with this.

I dont see how its original when its been done many times over in the same series of games.Edit: Oh, I see. Well I haven't played the game myself so I can't comment, I was just going by what's been said in this thread.

Mod : Please don't skimp on half a dozen characters. The effort it saves you to type less is magnified a thousandfold for people trying to read it.

RobertR1

07-Aug-2008, 21:44

When I was playing and my thoughts would drift towards graphics I started thinking of the upcoming Banjo game.

I kept wondering how would this look if Rare was working on it with 360 hardware after being impressed what I'm seeing in Banjo. Then I thought about what could possibly suffer? Would there be as much variety? would it be such a long game? (120 stars will take you a while!) would the teams mindset shift? would they be so concentrated on making a technical showcase than fluidity in gameplay of SMG might suffer?

It's not to say that something of that nature cannot be pulled off but would the budget allow for such? would there be cut backs in the game since more of the time and resources would have to be spent on graphics? These are all the thoughts that went through my head when I wanted a "next gen" look to SMG.

RancidLunchmeat

07-Aug-2008, 22:52

And yet.. didn't Mario 64 get a huge push because of the leap in graphics and changing from a strict platformer to a 3D game due to the power?

It seems to me there's a certain option that's being ignored, which is that these games could be just as fun and look like their contemporaries. Visuals don't need to be sacrificed for gameplay. The only reason it appears that way is because of the business plans of the respective developers and gameplay simply doesn't cost as much. Maybe it doesn't cost a thing, maybe it's art rather than invention.

Lucid_Dreamer

07-Aug-2008, 23:04

I prefer graphics over gameplay.

Any game can have good gameplay, but not any game can look good.

We play in a visual medium, it's foolish to pretend we dont care how it looks.
I prefer graphics AND gameplay for the reasons you mentioned. I can't believe people are trying to push this "graphics don't matter" campaign in a high tech forum. :???:

Personally, it seems very obvious that good graphics AND good gameplay TRUMPS poor graphics and good gameplay. Having great graphics does NOT stop that game from having good gameplay. Just like having crappy graphics does NOT make a game have a good gameplay.

I wonder what is really motivating these particular people to claim that crappy graphics ensures excellent gameplay. It seems ludicrous.

fearsomepirate

08-Aug-2008, 01:20

And yet.. didn't Mario 64 get a huge push because of the leap in graphics and changing from a strict platformer to a 3D game due to the power?

Yes. It's also completely irrelevant, since I was talking about a 2007 experience, not a 1996 experience. I played it with 2007 eyes and a 2007 brain, so I can assure that I was not sucked into it because I was awestruck that holy cow, it's Mario in 3D! I've never seen this before!

obonicus

08-Aug-2008, 01:48

pjbliverpool

08-Aug-2008, 23:55

2. Mario 64 did the same thing to me. Unlike the rest of you, I played Mario 64 some time in 2007, so there were much, much prettier Cube/PC titles at my fingertips. Would it be better on a more powerful system? Sure. It sucked me in as it was.

Tell me about it, I started playing it about 2 years ago (which is essentially the same from a graphical point of view) and I still see it as one of the best games ever made.

3. I picked up Mario All-Stars the other day. Haven't played anything else for about 2 weeks. Mario 3 broke my TF2 habit.

And if there's a game that can beat Mario 64... All Stars is it!! Its been a long time since I've played it but its no less fun today than it was when it was released on the SNES.

All that said though, i'll take a game with better graphics over worse graphics any day of the week. Its just that you don't need great graphics to make a great game. Then again, certain genres may well rely on good graphics. The cartoon style of Mario in platform or 3d form is pretty ageless but take an FPS thats aiming for realistic graphics and you could be in trouble if their not good enough. Has anyone tried to play Goldeneye lately?

http://www.playright.dk/screens/goldeneye007_n64_02.jpg

DeadlyNinja

09-Aug-2008, 00:28

Games are the Sum of GamePlay/Graphics and Sound, it's pointless to try and declare one more important that the others.

I partly agree and disagree.

If graphics and sound are as important as you say, do you think Superman 64/Shaq Fu/ET would be amazing games if they're ported onto the Cry Engine 2 without fixing the gameplay at all?

Graphics matter, in some games more than others,

That I can agree on. Some games need graphics like an FPS game. But for me, the graphics generally turn into frame rate. For a 2-D action game, graphics would mean no slow-down when I'm being attacked by 12 enemies in Metal Slug.

Although for some reason, I do want to see the very best graphics for a game rendering dinosaurs. I can't bare to play the DS games cause they look so ugly. Of course, that and they don't look or act scientifically accurate. The ones in Turok at least looks good. The game is only so-so.

Oblivion , Bioshock , Gears , Mass effect , COD4 and others. None of these play like crap.

I've played Oblivion, and I hate it. It's a bunch of mindless level grinding fetch quests. The dungeons are laughable and boring. I've never played Gears or ME, but I got COD4 last week, and I'm already bored of it. I don't regard it as crap like Oblivion, but it definitely isn't something I see myself going back to very often. My favorite PC game is Romance Of The 3 Kingdoms: The Legend of Cao Cao. I own a 8800GS in my PC BTW, and LOCC is a 2-D PC game from 1999. Here's what the game looks like.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v220/Lady_Wu/lolb/getouttahere.jpg

I beat the game over and over and over again, and my most recent play through was a few months ago. I've owned this game for 8 years. To me, if you're unwilling to play a game with bad graphics, there's probably something wrong with the gameplay in the first place.

My philosophy has always been that good graphics is an interim, but good gameplay is timeless. Half Life 2's graphics were the talk of the town back in the day, but today's it's over shadowed. The gameplay on the other hand withstood the test of time. Games like Mario, Goldeneye, and many more classics also have this quality. My all time favorite game is Uncharted Waters: New Horizon on the SNES. The game looks worse than Final Fantasy Mystic Quest.

1. When I got Advance Wars DS, I couldn't put it down. I ignored my Gamecube and Xbox for weeks because all I wanted to do was play AWDS. One of the most addicting and best-executed TBS games I've played in a long time; it only broke its hold on me when I hit the later levels that throw you into truly ridiculous situations that you can basically only beat with the right sequence of moves.

Always great to find another fan of strategy games. You might want to give Fire Emblem a try if you haven't The game isn't as strictly strategic, and yet it's not possible to beat it without using strategy. It's not the kind of level up and kill everything strategy you see in the FFT games either.

Also, which AWDS did you play? There's 2 of them.

Skrying

09-Aug-2008, 00:52

Call of Duty 4 single player isn't good, it does however have the best FPS multiplayer experience out there right now.

the ignoramus

09-Aug-2008, 03:31

I do fuss over image quality quite alot, but if someone were to give me an option of playing either a Source rendered Half Life game (Episode 3) or Crysis Warhead on High settings, I'd choose the Valve game in a millisecond. I'm simply too "entangled" in the Half Life mythos to fret about dated graphics. Same goes for other games.
Indigo Prophecy looks quite primitive these days, but having played a significant portion of it (for the first time) a few months ago, I found myself too absorbed in the experience to care about nasty textures and the like.

RancidLunchmeat

09-Aug-2008, 06:09

Yes. It's also completely irrelevant, since I was talking about a 2007 experience, not a 1996 experience. I played it with 2007 eyes and a 2007 brain, so I can assure that I was not sucked into it because I was awestruck that holy cow, it's Mario in 3D! I've never seen this before!

And yet, nobody is talking to you because you didn't start this thread.

This thread is about gameplay VS graphics, which is the same argument that has been made since before Mario 64 came out, when people wondered why graphics and console power was so important because Mario was so fun to play and FPS were fun but so linear and not as creative.

Then, Mario 64 came out that took advantage of the power of consoles and graphics and took platformers to a completely different level that wasn't previously available.

Again, this has nothing to do with graphics or the power of the consoles, with or without 'fun' gameplay.

It has to with game design.

All the games that are being credited with 'great gameplay' over graphic enhancement could be done BETTER on more powerful systems had the developers had the opportunity to explore and utilize that power.

When you are forced into a box that won't allow for better graphics or AI or computationally intensive mechanics and you have to only rely on gameplay, you will either produce better gameplay or you will quickly be forgotten.

And that's the point.

Gameplay isn't better on weaker systems. It's only a matter that the only games that are REMEMBERED on the weaker systems are those that have better gameplay because they have nothing else to offer.

The games that are remembered on the more powerful systems are either remembered as GREAT games or GREAT VISUAL games. Those that are remembered as GREAT games, (say.. Bioshock, for example) aren't remembered just because they are so pretty.. they're remembered because IN ADDITION to being so pretty, they also have GREAT gameplay.

The bottom line is that for a weak system such as the Wii, you are automatically lowering the bar for comparison because you know going into 'a review' that you are giving up the visuals so you only focus on the gameplay.

When you play a game like Crysis, you are giving up gameplay because you are only focusing on the visuals.

When you play a game like Bioshock, you are AMAZED at not only the visuals but also the gameplay and that's why it is so widely regarded as such a great game.

Mario was a lot of fun to play, it was even MORE fun when they were able to tap into the power of a new system and provide Mario 64.

If Nintendo were willing to provide a console of equal power to the PS3 or X360, who KNOWS what the next version of Mario might be?

ERP

09-Aug-2008, 19:30

I think some people are misunderstanding my point.
I'm not saying gameplay is unimportant, it clearly is, I'm just saying that its not more important than the rest of the product.

If any one of the elements is below the threshold of needed quality to pull off the experience the experience as a whole will fail. What I do believe that does correlate with the original point is that we pretty much understand how to do pretty graphics and great sound, so they are rarely at a level that destroys a game. PS1 level hardware is adequate enough to sell the graphcis on a lot of games. Gameplay is somewhat amorphous, decoupled from the technology in most cases, and as an industry, we've failed to understand what good is.

I could give a treatise on what's broken with game design in the industry, but it mostly comes down to, we can quantify waht a good artist is and what a good engineer is, but we really don't understand how to hire or train game designers, it's also far to broad a terrm, and in recent years it's been dominated by Writers, and the two diciplines are radically different.

It's not that games do great sound and graphics instead of gameplay, it's that as an industry for the most part, we just do a piss poor job of gameplay.

Games really are about overall execution, I think Blizzard epitomizes this, none of their games are particularly original, but the quality of execution is exceptional, usually in all phases.

RobertR1

09-Aug-2008, 19:49

If any one of the elements is below the threshold of needed quality to pull off the experience the experience as a whole will fail. What I do believe that does correlate with the original point is that we pretty much understand how to do pretty graphics and great sound, so they are rarely at a level that destroys a game. PS1 level hardware is adequate enough to sell the graphcis on a lot of games. Gameplay is somewhat amorphous, decoupled from the technology in most cases, and as an industry, we've failed to understand what good is.

The innovation or advancement in gameplay is also key and can help slide the scale from other aspects of the presentation towards gameplay.

Take Madden or other sports for example. Year after year, it's pretty much the same game with some tweaks. The gameplay is very familiar to it's customer base. There really isn't any story to speak of thus it's something they're mentally numb towards. For stimulation, they need to see an upgrade in other areas. Namely technical. However if next years Madden looked the same yet they made a major breakthrough in gameplay you can bet people would be excited about that and forgive the lack of a graphical update.

In SMG's case, you have a brand new control scheme with a whole new concept. Both that work out quite well. Your attention gets diverted from the technical aspects since there's a high level of immersion and satisfaction coming from the gameplay.

The industry is too busy finding ways to make money off what they know works in gameplay vs taking chances and perhaps failing. At the end of the day you have someone to answer to esp. with huge budgets this generation. This makes it even more refreshing when you play a game like SMG/Braid/Portal that breaks the mold and take a chance.

DeadlyNinja

09-Aug-2008, 21:58

I think some people are misunderstanding my point.
I'm not saying gameplay is unimportant, it clearly is,

Oh no, I understand what you meant.

I'm just saying that its not more important than the rest of the product.

It's this part that I don't agree with. To me, gameplay IS more important than the rest of the product. It's what I play! It's what I do. Again, the fact that other people can go back to old games and fall in love with them shows just how much gameplay has over graphics and sound. I'm not saying ignore graphics and sound, but to me, when you have great gameplay first, then go about making great graphics and sound. Koei's a company with piss poor graphical abilities, but I play UW:NH on the SNES simply because of the great gameplay. I was never ever hooked into the game by the graphics in the first place.

And yet, nobody is talking to you because you didn't start this thread.

This thread is about gameplay VS graphics, which is the same argument that has been made since before Mario 64 came out, when people wondered why graphics and console power was so important because Mario was so fun to play and FPS were fun but so linear and not as creative.

Wow, that was incredibly rude and ignorant. fearsomepirate's example along destroys your argument. He didn't love the game based on nostalgia, he experienced it as a new game. There was no nostalgia involved in his experience. Also, I find it bull that nostalgia can cloud judgment. Some games might have nostalgia, but if you go back to play them and they suck, nostalgia's not going to help.

And... why would Mario need advance AI? Mario was never about advance AI.

Take Madden or other sports for example. Year after year, it's pretty much the same game with some tweaks. The gameplay is very familiar to it's customer base. There really isn't any story to speak of thus it's something they're mentally numb towards. For stimulation, they need to see an upgrade in other areas. Namely technical. However if next years Madden looked the same yet they made a major breakthrough in gameplay you can bet people would be excited about that and forgive the lack of a graphical update.

RobertR1, are you a soccer fan? I ask because there is a perfect example of what you said on the Wii: PES 2008. If you heard about the PS3/360 versions, you'll know they're nothing special at all. Probably regraded as the worst in the series. Then a Wii Port came out. PS2 graphics, incredible gameplay. This game completely redefined soccer, or any team sport for that matter. With the Wiimote, plays are now carried out in almost RTS style with full control of every player on your team. Now, everyone wants every team based sports game to use the Wiimote in such a fashion. I heard the new Madden will adopt this new control scheme. Take a look at that game if you have the time. There will be a huge learning curve, though. Mainly defense takes some getting used to, but it's just as brilliant as the offense once you master it.

fearsomepirate

09-Aug-2008, 22:32

And yet, nobody is talking to you because you didn't start this thread.

You just addressed me in the 2nd person. Are you nobody?

Gameplay isn't better on weaker systems.

I don't think anyone is claiming this. What some of us would say is that a game on more primitive hardware can be overall more fun and in that sense truly better than a game with more advanced graphics. Asteroids is better than Ghostbusters NES. Super Mario Bros 3 is better than Night Trap. Final Fantasy VI is better than Quest 64. Tekken 3 is better than Marvel Nemesis. Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker is better than Two Worlds.

Sure, any of those games I just listed would be improved by better graphics and sound. A great example is Doom--the game is vastly improved by the Doomsday source port, which allows trilinear filtering, high resolutions, light splashes, and particle effects. It improves the experience a lot, but the fact is that even without all that enhancement, Doom is still better than Armorines. Also, I don't hear anyone complaining that the Wii plays N64 games in 640x480 and gets rid of a lot of the slowdown, and those texture packs for OoT look really nice.

You seem to be wanting to argue against an imaginary person who says that good graphics don't enhance the experience, or that weak hardware somehow enables better gameplay. Since no one around here appears to think that, who exactly are you arguing with?

Has anyone tried to play Goldeneye lately?

Funny you should bring that up. I've been writing N64 retro reviews for another site (I didn't really start playing the 64 until recently), and I've been writing based on how well the games hold up. I really skewered Goldeneye, upsetting a lot of people. Frankly, I liked Turok 2 better. The Cerebral Bore is still awesome.

Cornsnake

09-Aug-2008, 23:23

How can gameplay be more important than graphics and sounds? Isn't gameplay defined by graphics and sounds? Everything in games is represented as graphics and sounds. They show you the limits and possibilities of the game world. Gameplay is basically interacting with it, and the response is again represented through graphics and sounds. Of coarse it doesn't necessarily need to be 1080p and 7.1 surround sound, as long as it can represent everything clearly enough for the player to understand. And if that's the case, then you can try to make the gameplay good.

Anyway, that's my take on these things, if I'm wrong please tell me.

thatdude90210

10-Aug-2008, 01:39

the Wii: PES 2008. If you heard about the PS3/360 versions, you'll know they're nothing special at all. Probably regraded as the worst in the series. Then a Wii Port came out. PS2 graphics, incredible gameplay. This game completely redefined soccer, or any team sport for that matter. With the Wiimote, plays are now carried out in almost RTS style with full control of every player on your team. Now, everyone wants every team based sports game to use the Wiimote in such a fashion. I heard the new Madden will adopt this new control scheme. Take a look at that game if you have the time. There will be a huge learning curve, though. Mainly defense takes some getting used to, but it's just as brilliant as the offense once you master it.
On a slightly different line of thought, I'm hoping a future Madden game can make use of the Wii motion plus. Can you imagine actually aiming at a receiver and throwing in a Madden game? I get bored with the "press x/a/y/b" or whatever to aim at a receiver. I kept Madden 07 instead of trading it in, even though I only played it a few times, just to remind myself not to get the next one.

C'mon MS, where is my X-mote?

thundermonkey

10-Aug-2008, 07:31

Everything about a game comes together to make the experience.

Visuals, mechanics, sound. You can't have a complete game without all of the above. The problem some have is defining what is necessary to the game experience.

Super Mario Galaxy gets all right. It's visual design is second to none, even though it doesn't employ the highest end of hardware. The game itself isn't ugly. It's doesn't have the visual splendor of Ratchet, but it doesn't really need to. It conveys it's world well enough without fancy effects.

That doesn't mean advanced hardware is unnecessary. It just means Nintendo didn't need it to get the look they wanted for the game.

I agree with ERP. All games straddle a fine line. They must have the gameplay to... be a game, but that's far from the only thing they need.

You can have a gorgeous game on the Wii, you just need to think of the platform as what it is. A GCN. Last generation hardware with a few things that set it apart.

patsu

10-Aug-2008, 18:01

I am inclinded to agree. Besides graphics and gameplay innovation, quality of work is also a valid user experience and should be rewarded duely.

I think many may grativate towards a new game because of its look, but it's the gameplay that keeps them playing. OTOH, a known gameplay (and story) will attract its old audience like bees to honey. Familiar and old do not necessarily imply mediocre or boring experience -- unless they overdo it.

Every game is different because of the entire experience. Incremental improvements and disruptive changes are all part and parcel of experimentations.

As for taking chances, I can see very clearly the diversity in Sony's library, especially the PSN ones (Think Fat Princess, Everyday Shooter, Echochrome, flOw, Pain, PS Eye games, Elefunk, PJ Monsters, etc.). Wii is also in its own space entirely. So the industry is definitely innovating but these things take time to cultivate, test and develop.

Scott_Arm

11-Aug-2008, 20:40

I prefer graphics AND gameplay for the reasons you mentioned. I can't believe people are trying to push this "graphics don't matter" campaign in a high tech forum. :???:

Personally, it seems very obvious that good graphics AND good gameplay TRUMPS poor graphics and good gameplay. Having great graphics does NOT stop that game from having good gameplay. Just like having crappy graphics does NOT make a game have a good gameplay.

I wonder what is really motivating these particular people to claim that crappy graphics ensures excellent gameplay. It seems ludicrous.

I don't think anyone is saying crappy graphics ensure good gameplay, or that graphics don't matter. The gameplay > graphics argument is just that a game can be great and fun to play regardless of poor graphics, and people shouldn't overlook games just because they don't look cutting edge. It's not to say we don't appreciate it when a game has fantastic visuals. A game can be fun despite poor graphics. A game cannot be fun despite poor gameplay.

obonicus

11-Aug-2008, 21:25

I don't think anyone is saying crappy graphics ensure good gameplay, or that graphics don't matter. The gameplay > graphics argument is just that a game can be great and fun to play regardless of poor graphics, and people shouldn't overlook games just because they don't look cutting edge. It's not to say we don't appreciate it when a game has fantastic visuals. A game can be fun despite poor graphics. A game cannot be fun despite poor gameplay.

But okay gameplay can bump an okay/good game into a 'great' game. Crysis got a bunch of 'the game is good though it has flaws but WOW the graphics' that I'm sure pushed the game up more than a few points. Even Yahtzee said something to the effect.

DeadlyNinja

12-Aug-2008, 00:13

But okay gameplay can bump an okay/good game into a 'great' game. Crysis got a bunch of 'the game is good though it has flaws but WOW the graphics' that I'm sure pushed the game up more than a few points. Even Yahtzee said something to the effect.

Yeah, I know what you mean. That's why my game review philosophy (even strictly stated on my site) is gameplay being the HUGE deciding factor in a game's final score. Most of the other things only play a small role. Controls is also important. Can't enjoy playing a game if you can't control it. I wouldn't say Crysis is a bad game, though. I did enjoy the game. The Alien parts though... that's another thing.

Shifty Geezer

12-Aug-2008, 09:23

Scott_Arm

12-Aug-2008, 14:40

Some films have pretty rubbish stories but look amazing, and are worth watching for the visuals, and are entertaining as you watch the visuals. Some films have great story, and are worth watching for that story. Some games are entertaining because they are nice to look at. Even if the gameplay amounts to not much more than walking through an art-gallery, lots of people still like visiting art-galleries...

I agree with the sentiments, but the argument is too polarized to actually mean anything IMO. ERP's example is actually fantastic. Try an early build of a project with place-holder visuals and see how well it entertains. In fact 'the making of' storyboards on DVD are a good example. Would you really enjoy a film's story that much if you had to experience it through poorly voice-overed hand-sketched stills? Would LOTR have rocked your socks off if the epic fight scenes were glitched prototype renders of solid green, unanimated character figures?

I guess the pure argument of gameplay>graphics is true but only in some cases. There will be some games where gameplay is everything and visuals don't really matter, like Tetris. But there are other games where you can't make that assertion, where the visuals are just as important, if not more so. Bioshock is probably an example, the way people talk of it setting the mood. Would Bioshock have worked as a 1980's solid-vector environment? Would ICO or SOTC have been such great experiences if not for the atmosphere created by the visuals? I can say there are better playing games out there than ICO, but it's still a worthwhile experience.

Gameplay is only a part of the full experience a game offers, just as story is only a part of the movie's entertainment.

It's hard to compare games to films in that regard, because the mediums work in very different ways. You're comparing one interactive medium with a completely non-interactive medium. I mean, what is the "gameplay" in a movie?

There is definitely a minimum for graphics, in a way. They just have to be good enough to convey the correct information to the user (atmosphere, objects, locations etc). You're right that Bioshock needs more atmosphere to succeed than a game like Geometry Wars. I still think that a game with mediocre gameplay and fantastic graphics can be appreciated, but will ultimately fail. People will take interest as a tech demo, but they're not going to spend too much time with it. If you have a game with mediocre graphics and great gameplay, they're going to play it a lot more.

Shifty Geezer

12-Aug-2008, 15:04

It's hard to compare games to films in that regard, because the mediums work in very different ways. You're comparing one interactive medium with a completely non-interactive medium. I mean, what is the "gameplay" in a movie?Story? Acting? Or action? I think the point is all these things have to be present in the right quantities to make the experience of the film. One could argue 'A moment of clarity: story over exciting set-pieces'. That'll be true for some films and not others. Some films are nothing but set-pieces, but very good none-the-less, like Die Hard. Story is thin, but it's an entertaining film. Die Hard wouldn't be a good action film if it was heavy with convoluted plot and thin on exciting action! And there are some games where gameplay isn't as important as story and mood.

I still think that a game with mediocre gameplay and fantastic graphics can be appreciated, but will ultimately fail. People will take interest as a tech demo, but they're not going to spend too much time with it. If you have a game with mediocre graphics and great gameplay, they're going to play it a lot more.Fail in what way? Does a game have to be played lots to be a success? Cannot a short, highly emotional experience also be worthwhile, and a success? How many people have returned to ICO again and again versus Tetris? How many are going to play Braid again and again versus Halo3 or COD4? Once you've done a puzzler, you've done it, and without the challenge of beating the puzzles, it's worthless in replayability. Does that make its value as a game all the less? I've spent maybe 5x as many hours playing Warhawk as I spent playing The Curse of Monkey Island. Warhawk has the better gameplay, being more involving. Monkey Island just involved me clicking the mouse, through a very simple interface. But I'd say the latter was a better game in my experience, in terms of enjoyment I got from it, because of the story, art, humour, etc.

If the argument is focussed more clearly on 'games with the most replayability are dependent more on gameplay than graphics' than I think I'd agree, but the original statement was more generalised than that - all games require great gameplay first and foremost, and graphics should be a secondary requirement. Not all games are just about gameplay, just as not all movies are about story. It depends on the game and the experience it's trying to create.

Scott_Arm

12-Aug-2008, 15:28

Fail in what way? Does a game have to be played lots to be a success? Cannot a short, highly emotional experience also be worthwhile, and a success? How many people have returned to ICO again and again versus Tetris? How many are going to play Braid again and again versus Halo3 or COD4? Once you've done a puzzler, you've done it, and without the challenge of beating the puzzles, it's worthless in replayability. Does that make its value as a game all the less? I've spent maybe 5x as many hours playing Warhawk as I spent playing The Curse of Monkey Island. Warhawk has the better gameplay, being more involving. Monkey Island just involved me clicking the mouse, through a very simple interface. But I'd say the latter was a better game in my experience, in terms of enjoyment I got from it, because of the story, art, humour, etc.

If the argument is focussed more clearly on 'games with the most replayability are dependent more on gameplay than graphics' than I think I'd agree, but the original statement was more generalised than that - all games require great gameplay first and foremost, and graphics should be a secondary requirement. Not all games are just about gameplay, just as not all movies are about story. It depends on the game and the experience it's trying to create.

Fail was probably too strong a word. I don't think the indicator of a good game is necessarily how many hours a person will play it. More it's how much they enjoy playing it while it lasts. People get over graphics very quickly, and if the gameplay isn't that great they probably won't even finish it. There are a few games that I've bludgeoned through, despite being mediocre gameplay because of the humor, story, but extremely rarely because of graphics. I'm sure there are some people that have a bigger interest in the graphics, especially on this forum, but in general I don't think that's how the average gaming population feels.

Braid, Halo3 and COD4 are all very strong in the gameplay department, though I'm taking people's word on Braid because I haven't tried it yet (stupid internet being broken).

I'm not saying graphics don't help a game, and graphics can't be an interest point. I love eye candy, but in the end, if the game isn't fun to play I probably won't finish it unless it's short.

DeadlyNinja

12-Aug-2008, 16:15

Would you really enjoy a film's story that much if you had to experience it through poorly voice-overed hand-sketched stills? Would LOTR have rocked your socks off if the epic fight scenes were glitched prototype renders of solid green, unanimated character figures?

You're comparing unfinished products with aged products. Pong started as 3 lines and a dot, but it was a finished product. Plus, unlike gaming, films don't have to use the latest computer technology just to keep up with appearances. Oh and as for the poorly voice-overed hand-skecthed stills part, try playing Castlevania Symphony of the Night.

Bioshock is probably an example, the way people talk of it setting the mood. Would Bioshock have worked as a 1980's solid-vector environment? Would ICO or SOTC have been such great experiences if not for the atmosphere created by the visuals? I can say there are better playing games out there than ICO, but it's still a worthwhile experience.

If the gameplay is good, then yes. You should be asking if the game didn't have the great visuals, can the game's core mechanics still shine. If not, then deep down, there could be huge problems. This is exactly what we were talking before when it comes to Crysis. People excuse the extremely poor areas of the game because of the graphics. Without the graphics, but alien parts are just down right poor. Hell, without the great graphics, it would be more evident that certain areas are very poorly made.

This isn't a first hand account, but the reason I didn't buy Bioshock was because a friend of mine (someone really bad at FPS games) said the game was piss easy and bored him. I don't think he would have been any less bore if it used 1980's solid-vector environments.

Story? Acting? Or action? I think the point is all these things have to be present in the right quantities to make the experience of the film. One could argue 'A moment of clarity: story over exciting set-pieces'. That'll be true for some films and not others. Some films are nothing but set-pieces, but very good none-the-less, like Die Hard. Story is thin, but it's an entertaining film. Die Hard wouldn't be a good action film if it was heavy with convoluted plot and thin on exciting action! And there are some games where gameplay isn't as important as story and mood.

For a movie, at most, you'd just sit there for 3 hours and still experience everything. If the gameplay is bad, you can sit there for 3 swearing up a storm. Your comparison is extremely flawed because games let us interact with entertainment in very different ways. If a game is bad we might never get far enough to see everything it has to offer.

Some people actually said the combat parts in Superman 64 was almost decent, but very few people will ever experience it because the rest of the game is pure crap.

Transformers' human scenes were nearly unwatchable. It was just a cringe a minute. The only reason I was able to sit through it is because I didn't have to deal with frustrating barriers that prevents me from going further in the movie. While I liked the action, the rest of the movie was so bad in so many ways that it just doesn't make up for it.

How many people have returned to ICO again and again versus Tetris?

Um... people do replay Tetris. Tetris is still an amazingly addictive game. I proudly play Tetris Attack to this very day. The 1994 remake of Donkey Kong is another such example. I played COD4 once and I couldn't finish it a second time because the game can no longer disguise it's horrendous design. Once that was exposed, my rosy view of COD4 was completely shattered. That was 2 weeks ago.

I'm not saying graphics don't help a game, and graphics can't be an interest point. I love eye candy, but in the end, if the game isn't fun to play I probably won't finish it unless it's short.

Indeed! See COD4. UGH! I mean, the excitement did get to me the first time when experiencing it brand new, but then reality hits, and the scripted nature of the excitement became a poorly designed game that you can accidentally stumble to victory.

Scott_Arm

12-Aug-2008, 16:23

Indeed! See COD4. UGH! I mean, the excitement did get to me the first time when experiencing it brand new, but then reality hits, and the scripted nature of the excitement became a poorly designed game that you can accidentally stumble to victory.

I actually love COD4. The controls are precise, responsive and well planned. The action is so frantic and intense, despite it's scripted shooting-gallery nature. I had a blast playing through. The harder difficulties are pretty unforgiving. Multiplayer is fantastic too.

Shifty Geezer

12-Aug-2008, 16:31

If the gameplay is good, then yes. You should be asking if the game didn't have the great visuals, can the game's core mechanics still shine.

For a movie, at most, you'd just sit there for 3 hours and still experience everything. If the gameplay is bad, you can sit there for 3 swearing up a storm. Your comparison is extremely flawed because games let us interact with entertainment in very different ways. If a game is bad we might never get far enough to see everything it has to offer.A lot of this argument hinges on what you classify as gameplay. The Curse of Monkey Island has you clicking one of three icons on different bits of scenery. Without the visuals and the music and story, it would be an extremely pants game.

Um... people do replay Tetris. Tetris is still an amazingly addictive game.I know. You missed my point in my rhetorical question. Tetris = lots of replayability, right? ICO = next to no replayability. Therefore ICO is a poor game and Tetris is a great game? My point is, can you only measure a game's greatness by amount of time you replay it? ICO didn't have great gameplay, people don't return to it time and time again. Therefore it's a bad game? it wasn't gameplay that made ICO, it was the whole experience.

Readykilowatt

12-Aug-2008, 16:49

Well, let me just say this, manga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga), which is extremely popular, is still mostly in black and white and the attitudes in the "west" (particularly the US) towards technology and entertainment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_animation) is why great products like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty_and_the_Beast_(1991_film)), this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Mask_of_the_Phantasm) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King) are rarely seen anymore. Enjoy irrelevance. :lol:

I.S.T.

12-Aug-2008, 16:52

I'm sorry, but Beauty and The Beast sucked. it did.

Scott_Arm

12-Aug-2008, 16:58

A lot of this argument hinges on what you classify as gameplay. The Curse of Monkey Island has you clicking one of three icons on different bits of scenery. Without the visuals and the music and story, it would be an extremely pants game.

Is Monkey Island any less good now? Not much. It's actually a perfect example of a game people shouldn't ignore just because it doesn't have cutting edge graphics.

The gameplay is a little bit weird in those point and click adventure games. You definitely don't play them because you love to click the mouse button, and a lot of the puzzles in those style of games got to be so easy they were irrelevant. They're kind of a slightly interactive cartoon where you just trigger the next scenes. I suppose at the time people really did play them for the graphics/art/animation. If they'd gone to ascii characters or stick figures the game wouldn't be so hot. At the same time, the game still would have been stellar if the graphics were poorer at the time. How much poorer, I dunno. It still holds up now, despite being massively graphically inferior.

Readykilowatt

12-Aug-2008, 17:02

I'm sorry, but Beauty and The Beast sucked. it did.

So does the Xbox 360 and its games. See, I can do that too. :lol: The point is, what happened to cel animation in the US? Is it that cel animation is now seen as obsolete?

Readykilowatt

12-Aug-2008, 17:09

Is Monkey Island any less good now? Not much. It's actually a perfect example of a game people shouldn't ignore just because it doesn't have cutting edge graphics.

Here are two different ways of presenting chess.

http://www.madeinfirenze.net/foto/chess_sets_29b.jpg

http://www.inloughborough.com/news/2008/02/images/chess.jpg

Which one makes the game better? :lol:

Shifty Geezer

12-Aug-2008, 17:18

Is Monkey Island any less good now? Not much. It's actually a perfect example of a game people shouldn't ignore just because it doesn't have cutting edge graphics.At the time of its release, it did have 'cutting edge' graphics*. It was dependent on them.

...They're kind of a slightly interactive cartoon...Right, but they're still computer games. Which is my point, different types of games have different requirements. For some, graphics are nigh-on essential, defining the game. For others, gameplay is everything. Chess and Tetris aren't affected in the slightest by how they're rendered (although a good looking Tetris is nicer to play, just as is a nice marble chess-set over a cheap plastic effort - there's a little aesthete in everyone), where SOTC would have been nothing without its gorgeous renderings, and Monkey Island wouldn't have worked as hand-scrawled stick-figures, even if all the puzzles were identical.

* if you can call scanned art that, but it did need lots of colours anyhow!

eastmen

12-Aug-2008, 17:28

http://games.bigfishgames.com/en_warchess/screen1.jpg

This one makes chess better !

Readykilowatt

12-Aug-2008, 17:41

Chess and Tetris aren't affected in the slightest by how they're rendered (although a good looking Tetris is nicer to play, just as is a nice marble chess-set over a cheap plastic effort - there's a little aesthete in everyone), where SOTC would have been nothing without its gorgeous renderings, and Monkey Island wouldn't have worked as hand-scrawled stick-figures, even if all the puzzles were identical.

The way how chess is presented is irrelevant because chess is a good and solid game. That's the real reason. ;)

Take Super Mario Galaxy for instance. The average person who enjoyed that game wouldn't care if it was for the Wii, the N64 or running on a $3000 PC. They will all tell you they ENJOYED THE GAME. Hell, you could put Super Mario Galaxy in 2D and they will still like it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zmei-bPbbQ&feature=related). If SOTC requires excellent graphics to enhance the experience that tells me that SOTC's game play is average to poor.

DeadlyNinja

12-Aug-2008, 18:09

I know. You missed my point in my rhetorical question. Tetris = lots of replayability, right? ICO = next to no replayability. Therefore ICO is a poor game and Tetris is a great game? My point is, can you only measure a game's greatness by amount of time you replay it? ICO didn't have great gameplay, people don't return to it time and time again. Therefore it's a bad game? it wasn't gameplay that made ICO, it was the whole experience.

This.

If SOTC requires excellent graphics to enhance the experience that tells me that SOTC's game play is average to poor.

Oh and replayability doesn't have to be a new experience every time you play it. You replay just because it's good. I replayed Mario and Luigi Super Star Saga at least 6 times, and it's not because it has great replay value, but rather it was the good gameplay that brought me back for more.

Shifty Geezer

12-Aug-2008, 18:10

If SOTC requires excellent graphics to enhance the experience that tells me that SOTC's game play is average to poor.Does that make it a bad game though?
Oh and replayability doesn't have to be a new experience every time you play it. You replay just because it's good. I replayed Mario and Luigi Super Star Saga at least 6 times, and it's not because it has great replay value, but rather it was the good gameplay that brought me back for more.Okay, this is my cue to bow out of the discussion. If you define a game solely as gameplay, then our differences can never be reconciled. In my experiences, I have played and enjoyed some games because of the (immersive) experience, and that hasn't always been dependent on gameplay (still not defined!).

Scott_Arm

12-Aug-2008, 18:17

... and Monkey Island wouldn't have worked as hand-scrawled stick-figures, even if all the puzzles were identical.

Monkey Island is still a good game, worth playing. I replayed Sam & Max a couple years ago, and it was still great. Plus, hand-scrawled stick-figures is an extreme. If the graphics were really terrible, then it would definitely hurt the game in a bad way. But if they were a poor, or mediocre, I don't think it would have harmed the games that much. That's all I'm saying. Cutting edge or otherwise top-notch graphics are nice and everything, but really matters is the substance of the game. That's not to say that having absolutely horrific graphics is ok.

obonicus

12-Aug-2008, 18:48

People did buy Infocom text adventures, and, especially for the time, they sold a lot of them. Which means that you can essentially have good games without graphics or even much gameplay.

DeadlyNinja

12-Aug-2008, 19:18

Does that make it a bad game though?
Okay, this is my cue to bow out of the discussion. If you define a game solely as gameplay, then our differences can never be reconciled. In my experiences, I have played and enjoyed some games because of the (immersive) experience, and that hasn't always been dependent on gameplay (still not defined!).

I want to play a game, and have fun. Gameplay is simply how you interact with the game. The non-interactive elements wouldn't be considered gameplay. I don't want to sit there and watch some poor dialog with hilariously bad cinematics for hours on end. I could pay 10 dollars to watch poor dialog and bad cinematics at my local theater. I play a game to challenge myself and test my skills. Some test my skill physically, while others mentally. A game like Metal Slug, Contra, or Bangai-O tests my reflexes while a game like Tetris, Fire Emblem, and ROTK tests my mental skills. I'm interacting with the game in more active fashion. It's what you do in the game, that is gameplay. There is of course do and bad gameplay.

Let me go back to COD4 again to show my point. The gameplay is all about shooting everything in sight. That was fun for the first time. I was experiencing the thrill of combat. That was based on a first experience. It was a combination of shooting and chaos that adds to the immersion and gameplay.

Now comes the bad news, the game is scripted. The feeling of experiencing the chaos of combat rears it's ugly head. Their focus in immersing the player ended up killing the gameplay. Instead of interacting with a well designed level, great AI, and fast paced action, I stumbled, literally, into victory. A section I was stuck at in the harder difficulty was suddenly won because I found the right place to walk into. Everything died and I looked around confused since I barely shot anyone this time. The more I play, the more I notice the infinite spawning of enemies that could kill you, or be vanquished by simply walking into the right place. I mean, there are certain areas that requires good old fashion skills, like the final part of the Chernobyl mission where you have to defend till help arrives, but those are rare. Ironically, it was the very same mission where the scripted gameplay became more evident.

Now, COD4 isn't even that bad of a game, but even though it had a lot of immersion, it was easily broken poorer elements. I can not overlook the uneven gameplay. Immersion worked the first time, but it won't work a second time, not when the gameplay flaws start showing up.

RobertR1

12-Aug-2008, 20:11

I actually love COD4. The controls are precise, responsive and well planned. The action is so frantic and intense, despite it's scripted shooting-gallery nature. I had a blast playing through. The harder difficulties are pretty unforgiving. Multiplayer is fantastic too.

The harder difficulties are downright broken. Every sequence is highly scripted with poor AI and endless spawning enemies. The whole gameplay is centered around reaching invisible check points. It's by far one of the most flawed gameplay in a FPS (oddly CoD2 and 3 join the list) this generation at higher difficulties.

Xmas

12-Aug-2008, 20:20

We're also not distinguishing between art and graphics technology when we talk of graphics. A lot of the games we're mentioning with 'poor' graphics (like Mario Galaxy or Braid in the OP) often have great art design that makes up for it.
That's a very important point. Neither Braid nor Super Mario Galaxy nor any Monkey Island part has poor graphics, they're actually quite beautiful. They just use dated graphics technology.

It's a bit comparable to some Japanese anime, while technically lacking due to economic constraints they may still be beautiful works of art.

RobertR1

13-Aug-2008, 19:18

Back to SMG. I'm close to the 60 stars needed for the final battle and so far every world has been impressively unique. I can only imagine the time and budget it would require to have a benchmark style presentation on the 360 or PS3. Until I see a game of this lenght and variety in a modern console, my belief will firmly stand that the ROI model for next gen consoles will simply not allow for it.

Squachy

17-Aug-2008, 06:56

I feel the need to chime in.
Yeah im new, and i only occasionally read this forum.
But i try to find some Wii talk that doesnt degenerate into a fanboy company humpfest.

Anyways, my take on this whole graphics vs gameplay thing really stems on one thing.

What is the MINIMUM acceptable graphics that YOU can enjoy?

I this whole world of Next gen, and HDTV and all that mumbo jumbo, no one seems to answer this question themselves. Its all lumped in either graphics or gameplay.

Graphics worshippers tend to believe that it HAS to look real, it HAS to look awesome, it HAS to have the best graphical effects or the game just looks like crap. And when they define crap its always something in the realm of "it looks like a N64 game, my snes can make better graphics" or some ridiculous over overgeneralization. And they believe people who want gameplay over graphics would love a game if it was made with stick figures if it was fun. Or they tend to think that people want to go "back in time" to the old days.

Gameplay worshippers on the otherhand tend to be more open, more accepting, but they dont define what they believe to be acceptable. So its open to so many interpretations that it gets used against them in pointless arguments.

Now i only have a Wii and my take is that the majority of the games are visually displayed as the WORST the wii has to offer. To me i dont find that acceptable. Im not big on graphics but that doesnt mean i DONT want good graphics. I WANT good graphics, because like mentioned earlier, graphics and gameplay go hand in hand. They compliment each other to provide the user the gaming experience the creator wants to convey. I mean sure you got stuff in 2d that are simple fun, but you also got stuff that are much more complicated that just wouldnt work on a 2d world.

Those old games, like from the SNES days? Those work because of the gaming style that was used (and everyone knows about them) in that time frame. You KNOW what its like and your mindset automatically "drops" the visual bar to that level of that era. You become more tolerant of it because you know of its limitations based on its age. But HOW you see that game from 1992 from the mindset of 2008 determines how tolerant you are of the game.

When you move to the age of 3d the visual bar is raised significantly but only you can determine what youre minimum visual acceptance is. I can look at a PS1 game and see how just freaking ugly it is because theres no bilinear/trilinear/aniso filtering involved so its blocky as hell. I dont know how tolerant i am of something like that. I can also see the visual differences between something like PES2008 wii and what is seen in Galaxy. And quite frankly PES is ugly (and im not much of a soccer fan) so i dont know if i can play that. theres Guitar Hero and those graphics actually seem better than PES 2008, but i find the game fun and you're staring at those moving notes the whole time so you dont really see the graphics. But you get to something like Metroid Prime 3 and i noticed that as good as the graphics are, its missing depth. Bump maps and whatnot could provide that missing depth and make the world more immersive. The textures were top notch, the enviroments were varied, the HDR bright and colorful but the world seemed flat, and i wished they implemented some kind of bump mapping effects. That would have made the game better to me. I can play red steel, the graphics are good (not great) but the sloppy controls and unresponsive sword fighting kills the game for me (i can tolerate the shooting aspects but the sword figting parts pisses me off).

Eh sorry for the long story, but my point is that i believe gameplay makes up for lackluster graphics, but isnt neccessarily more important than graphics (or vice versa). However the whole issue stems from what is the acceptable minimum and what isnt, and it vares depending on people's tastes. Gameplay and graphics work together hand in hand but its what people accept as minimum which makes or breaks a person's viewpoint of what makes a game fun.

fearsomepirate

17-Aug-2008, 13:55

The point is, what happened to cel animation in the US? Is it that cel animation is now seen as obsolete?

The justification was that people don't go to see hand-drawn movies anymore.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2003-10-28-2d-animation_x.htm

Nesh

17-Aug-2008, 14:11

.....
You separate the two sides way too much and I think that you also confuse the context under which people discuss graphics.

Those that demand better graphics also want good gameplay. But you will see them many times complain about the visuals depending on the game they are discussing, the platform it is on and its ability to immerse the gamer.

For example dont expect someone who owns a 360 or a PS3 expect from a big title to have mediocre graphics like Resident Evil. They want their money's worth. They view the gameplay and the visuals as a part of the overall package's quality. People form expectations based on the experience they want to get from a certain title. People have big expectations about the visual expression in realistic war games too. They call it immersion. Sonic Unleashed on the other hand doesnt need the same technical achievements to be liked visually and as a game. You dont have to include realistic animation, you dont need super crisp textures, you dont need huge realistic explosions everywhere or realistic lighting.

In other games/genres the standards may be lower or different. Braid is considered beautiful and fun by the same people that may complain about a low resolution texture in MGS4 or choppy animation in Too Human.

The same people could even own a Wii and enjoy Mario Galaxy without any complains regarding the visuals.

edit: Reading again your post I think we are saying the same thing:razz:

I agree

Lucid_Dreamer

18-Aug-2008, 12:57

You separate the two sides way too much and I think that you also confuse the context under which people discuss graphics.

Those that demand better graphics also want good gameplay. But you will see them many times complain about the visuals depending on the game they are discussing, the platform it is on and its ability to immerse the gamer.

For example dont expect someone who owns a 360 or a PS3 expect from a big title to have mediocre graphics like Resident Evil. They want their money's worth. They view the gameplay and the visuals as a part of the overall package's quality. People form expectations based on the experience they want to get from a certain title. People have big expectations about the visual expression in realistic war games too. They call it immersion. Sonic Unleashed on the other hand doesnt need the same technical achievements to be liked visually and as a game. You dont have to include realistic animation, you dont need super crisp textures, you dont need huge realistic explosions everywhere or realistic lighting.

In other games/genres the standards may be lower or different. Braid is considered beautiful and fun by the same people that may complain about a low resolution texture in MGS4 or choppy animation in Too Human.

The same people could even own a Wii and enjoy Mario Galaxy without any complains regarding the visuals.

edit: Reading again your post I think we are saying the same thing:razz:

I agree

I want to understand why people are being hypocritical with their game judgements. Why do certain games have a battery of checklists (INCLUDING gameplay) they have to have checked and others (like Wii games) get free passes on damn near every column on those checklists? Why are some of us doing that? :???: It just doesn't seem logical or fair.

Nesh

18-Aug-2008, 13:18

Mobius1aic

27-Aug-2008, 18:06

Well I too believe that many Wii games fail to meet the standards even if we take into consideration the weaker hardware and the type of experience some titles are trying to offer, and yet people are more forgiving when they shouldnt.

I am not sure if we are agreeing or if you misunderstood me anywhere in my previous post though.

I agree with the forgiveness thing, but remember that this system is the first foray into games for alot of people, so they really haven't experienced everything, just a small niche. Being a very weak system, it gives devs an excuse to make ****** looking and playing games without any remorse, because much of the first timers really don't know what to expect and are willing to accept anything. While I know by this point Nintendo has made their ass load of money it still would've been nice to have a system at least a quarter as powerful as it's HD brothers, as well as some real vertex calculating hardware for cool Doom 3/FEAR like shadowing :razz:

eastmen

28-Aug-2008, 17:28

The justification was that people don't go to see hand-drawn movies anymore.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2003-10-28-2d-animation_x.htm

Its a fad , cgi movies aren't doing as well as they were and in 10 years or so Disney will bring back hand drawn movies again and it will be all the fad. Then that will die and cgi will come back and so on.

eastmen

28-Aug-2008, 17:33

That's a very important point. Neither Braid nor Super Mario Galaxy nor any Monkey Island part has poor graphics, they're actually quite beautiful. They just use dated graphics technology.

It's a bit comparable to some Japanese anime, while technically lacking due to economic constraints they may still be beautiful works of art.

Monkey Island had amazing graphics when it was released. People today would most likely pass on monkey island and pick up a similar game with modern graphics though. Its just like the first zelda , when it came it out it had amazing graphics. Ask a 5 year old to choose between Zelda and Twilight princess and see which they would choose. They may both be great games (and thats debatable) but obviously he is going to choose the one that looks better.

Look at Bonic comanado , the gameplay was great and it would be hard to sell the original to modern audiances , however they improved the graphics and its selling well as an arcade title. In 20 years from now Gears of war may still be a great game , however if you give a palyer the choice between Gears and an equaly good modern shooter of the time they will of course pick the new Shooter.

You can allways have great gameplay no matter what system and specs . You only really have one chance to nail the graphics though . There is no reason now a days that we can't have both great graphics and great gameplay and the wii doesn't exist in an vaccuum . Mario galaxeys looked great for a gamecube game , but on a $250 brand new console it looks bad esp when compared to what you get on other consoles only slightly more expensive. Unless your going to tell m ethere are no great games on the xbox 360