• The closing ceremony for TBT's Farewell to New Leaf event has been posted! View the winning entries and other closing announcements here. Thanks for joining in on the fun and nostalgia. We'll see you this Friday night for the start of our annual Easter Egg Hunt!

Graphics or Gameplay?

Graphics or Gameplay?


  • Total voters
    28

Vex L'Cour

Weebalicious Furry.
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Posts
3,241
Bells
260
MEOW Coupons
0
StreetPass Silver
0
New Horizons Token
January Birthstone (Garnet)
Pear (Fruit)
Orange (Fruit)
December Birthstone (Turquoise)
Cake
Alright Guys and girls.

Given I'm on a Games Design course this is a question I find keeps coming up over and over again.

But what IS truly better? Amazing super explosive HD 3D Graphics or 1 trillion hours of Gameplay?

Personally? I go for Gameplay. Games have only RECENTLY got ''good graphics'' and I enjoyed games when they were still badly rendered and looked like a child had drawn it all.
 
I don't prefer one over the other. Some games can look beautiful and yet don't really give you a great experience as one with great gameplay, but eye candy is just as important.
But if I had to choose, I'd pick gameplay.
 
Gameplay all the way for me.

I knwo the feeling.
I made a presentation showing off Minecraft as a Gameplay based game and why it beat heavily Graphics based games.
Now most of my class play Minecraft <3
 
My main issue with people who say that graphics are completely irrelevant is that they ignore that the two are tied together in small ways. I don't want to have to play a game with the greatest level design if I'm a poorly drawn stick figure jumping onto platforms that I can't distinguish from the backgrounds. For me, the gameplay is enriched by the graphics, but as long as the graphics are at a level where they don't hinder gameplay, I prefer gameplay.
 
Gameplay is more important, but you still need some decent graphics honestly.

Peanut Butter always tastes better with jelly.
 
My main issue with people who say that graphics are completely irrelevant is that they ignore that the two are tied together in small ways. I don't want to have to play a game with the greatest level design if I'm a poorly drawn stick figure jumping onto platforms that I can't distinguish from the backgrounds. For me, the gameplay is enriched by the graphics, but as long as the graphics are at a level where they don't hinder gameplay, I prefer gameplay.

I understand your point.
But again. Oldschool games with 'terrible' graphics have proven to be the best. Early Mario or early Legend of Zelda games for example.
 
I understand your point.
But again. Oldschool games with 'terrible' graphics have proven to be the best. Early Mario or early Legend of Zelda games for example.
That's an opinion. Some people don't like those games, possibly for the reason that due to lack of graphical capability, things are less clear and therefore harder to understand.
 
That's an opinion. Some people don't like those games, possibly for the reason that due to lack of graphical capability, things are less clear and therefore harder to understand.

I'm taking that MAINLY from statistics and what people say.
I.E many people say Orcarina of time was the best Zelda game. Even though its graphics are pretty low quality.
 
Worst debate ever. Why would anyone choose one or the other?
 
gameplay, but as i've said before, if the graphics are good, they'll only be beneficial to the gameplay. ex: TF2 before hats and ****.
 
I prefer a bunch of story in my games, kudos if it's sad. But seriously, I'm in game art and I can't imagine how the freaking designers constantly pump out this HQ stuff all the time. It's nauseating to just do a twenty hour render.
 
Gameplay.

I played the old pokemon color games for hours and those were definitely not the best graphics, or the best music, but I still loved it :)
I miss playing those games... all the ones I had from 11 and 12 years ago have recently been stolen... :((
 
Both.

A truly great game needs both.

Of course, it's a lot deeper than that statement, and the grapics have to match the games direction etc. etc.

But I like both.
 
I understand your point.
But again. Oldschool games with 'terrible' graphics have proven to be the best. Early Mario or early Legend of Zelda games for example.
I'm taking that MAINLY from statistics and what people say.
I.E many people say Orcarina of time was the best Zelda game. Even though its graphics are pretty low quality.
Family+Xmas+photo+%289+of+11%29.jpg

i like how you actually believe that.
>statistics
>no source
>no way to prove anything
>it's the truth, they're the best, everyone says so
 
You determine how good a game's graphics are by comparing it to games of its era.

I have stupid friends that say that old Nintendo games have bad graphics, but they compare them to CoD, SMG, etc. Newer games.
But when compared to, let's say, E.T. and other games, those had the best graphics.

One other thing you can't do when determining how good a game's graphics is comparing it to games that have a different style of graphics. You cannot compare Call of Duty's graphics and Animal Crossing's graphics, because CoD has realistic graphics, but AC has cartoony graphics. You can't say that AC's or CoD's graphics are better just because you like realistic graphics over cartoony. However, if you compare CoD's graphics to Halo, that's different.

Graphics make it easy to play, unlike E.T. That game had bad graphics, which made it very hard to understand the game and playing it was hard. Super Mario Bros. had very good graphics, because you could understand how to play the game.

Wouldn't it be hard to play The Legend of Zelda if graphics were blurry, made no sense, and were messed up?

Now, let's talk about the people that rage about a game not having God-amazing graphics, but has graphics that makes the game understandable.

It's pretty disappointing, sometimes, but it's not enough to rage over.

Let's bash them!
 
Back
Top