DuckThor Evil
Legend
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.
A moment of clarity: gameplay over graphics
- Thread starter RobertR1
- Start date
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.
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
Regular
eastmen said:
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?
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.
Read the post I quoted.
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
Regular
It was my post, I wrote it. Maybe I'm dense but I still don't know what your point is.
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.
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
Veteran
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.
well
I dont see how its original when its been done many times over in the same series of games.
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
Regular
+1 Totally agree with this.
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.
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.
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
Veteran
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.
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
Veteran
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.
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!
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.
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?
