A moment of clarity: gameplay over graphics

[DeadlyNinja]

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]

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

 

[the ignoramus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Scott_Arm]

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]

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]

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]

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.