Graphics or Gameplay?

[Garrett x50 cal]

Gameplay duh

 

[Tyeforce]

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.

Even though older games aren't anywhere near today's games' standards in terms of graphical capability, that doesn't mean they had "bad" graphics. Those graphics were considered to be astounding at the time. "Good" graphics aren't anything new, the standards for video game graphics have just gotten higher as technology has advanced.

 

[Psychonaut]

Even though older games aren't anywhere near today's games' standards in terms of graphical capability, that doesn't mean they had "bad" graphics. Those graphics were considered to be astounding at the time. "Good" graphics aren't anything new, the standards for video game graphics have just gotten higher as technology has advanced.

yoshi's island is still beautiful, IMO. real talk.

 

[Tyeforce]

yoshi's island is still beautiful, IMO. real talk.

Yeah, there are many older games whose graphics withstand the test of time. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is certainly one, as are the Paper Mario games. And Kirby's Epic Yarn will surely be one, too.

 

[Squirrel with Nunchucks]

Yeah, there are many older games whose graphics withstand the test of time. The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is certainly one, as are the Paper Mario games. And Kirby's Epic Yarn will surely be one, too.

Someone once said the harder you try to make a game look "realistic", the worse the game's graphics age. That's why I still find a game like the Wind Waker beautiful, but Twilight Princess hasn't aged so well.

 

[Wish]

Gameplay, but I really do get bothered with bad graphics.
Although I haven't really played any games with graphics that bad though.

 

[Tyeforce]

Someone once said the harder you try to make a game look "realistic", the worse the game's graphics age. That's why I still find a game like the Wind Waker beautiful, but Twilight Princess hasn't aged so well.

Exactly. With realistic graphics, you can only make the game look as realistic as the hardware will let you. The big problem with realistic looking games is that no matter how good you make it look, it's not possible to make 100% real. Realistic graphics are going to be compared to real life, and while some realistic graphics may wow you at first, that impression is always going to fade with time. As technology advances, the standards for realistic graphics will keep going up and up, which in turn will make older games look worse and worse compared to newer games.

Games with more artistic and imaginative graphics, however, can stand the test of time much longer. That's because they're a work of art in themselves, they're not trying to recreate anything that already exists. Such art styles include cel-shading games like The Wind Waker and Ōkami, crafty games that are made out of different materials like Paper Mario and Kirby's Epic Yarn, and games that are made to look like a specific art medium, like the pastel-like Yoshi's Island and Kirby's Dreamland 3, the comic-like Ouendan/Elite Beat Agents and WarioWare, and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword with its "living painting" style. And there are plenty more styles and examples, but that's what comes to my mind first.

 

[[Nook]]

Gameplay and Graphics must work together to make a good game.

Without good gameplay, graphics don't matter.
Without good graphics, you can't have good gameplay.

And a style of graphics (8-bit, realistic, cartoonish) doesn't affect how good graphics are, and many people don't understand that. Graphics are good depending on how good it uses that style of graphics (E.T. is 8-bit, and it's horrible, Super Mario Bros. is also 8-bit, but it has great graphics of its era and style). What people also fail to understand is that how old a game's graphics is doesn't affect how good the graphics are. What I commonly hear is "Lol CoD has awzum graffix cuz itsnot old loz ocarina of time lol". Those idiots, I'd like to give them poison shrooms to eat. Compared to games of it's era and style, that game was the best at that time, and you cannot compare two styles of graphics, in this case, Realistic and Cartoonish.

 

[Jake]

Game play definably.

 

[Argus]

Well, actually, The Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask had somewhat of a realistic graphics style, and I still think they look great.

 

[Vex L'Cour]

Exactly. With realistic graphics, you can only make the game look as realistic as the hardware will let you. The big problem with realistic looking games is that no matter how good you make it look, it's not possible to make 100% real. Realistic graphics are going to be compared to real life, and while some realistic graphics may wow you at first, that impression is always going to fade with time. As technology advances, the standards for realistic graphics will keep going up and up, which in turn will make older games look worse and worse compared to newer games.

Games with more artistic and imaginative graphics, however, can stand the test of time much longer. That's because they're a work of art in themselves, they're not trying to recreate anything that already exists. Such art styles include cel-shading games like The Wind Waker and Ōkami, crafty games that are made out of different materials like Paper Mario and Kirby's Epic Yarn, and games that are made to look like a specific art medium, like the pastel-like Yoshi's Island and Kirby's Dreamland 3, the comic-like Ouendan/Elite Beat Agents and WarioWare, and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword with its "living painting" style. And there are plenty more styles and examples, but that's what comes to my mind first.

Two words.
Uncanny Valley.
Its the easiest way to end this arguement which is likely to spiral out of control.

 

[Psychonaut]

Exactly. With realistic graphics, you can only make the game look as realistic as the hardware will let you. The big problem with realistic looking games is that no matter how good you make it look, it's not possible to make 100% real. Realistic graphics are going to be compared to real life, and while some realistic graphics may wow you at first, that impression is always going to fade with time. As technology advances, the standards for realistic graphics will keep going up and up, which in turn will make older games look worse and worse compared to newer games.

Games with more artistic and imaginative graphics, however, can stand the test of time much longer. That's because they're a work of art in themselves, they're not trying to recreate anything that already exists. Such art styles include cel-shading games like The Wind Waker and Ōkami, crafty games that are made out of different materials like Paper Mario and Kirby's Epic Yarn, and games that are made to look like a specific art medium, like the pastel-like Yoshi's Island and Kirby's Dreamland 3, the comic-like Ouendan/Elite Beat Agents and WarioWare, and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword with its "living painting" style. And there are plenty more styles and examples, but that's what comes to my mind first.

i lol at doom and quake nowadays. not that i played more than 10 minutes of them when they were hot ****.. but it captures your argument quite well.

simply put, video games as art is treated as art, while video games as a realistic medium/simulation are treated as a realistic simulation/are judged more harshly because of what they are doing, though they may do what they are doing well. hardware will change, update, and upgrade, and you will then have an out-of-date product. at the time it may be great, but art knows no age, and will live forever.

and oh, right, i forgot to mention this:

the only game/genre where i will accept an abundance of graphics over original gameplay.
damn good times.