Why do people insist that old games = Gameplay > Graphics?

When I first picked up gaming in 1992 or so, I I didn't care all that much about graphics because all I had was an NES and all games pretty much looked the same. It wasn't until a few years later when my mom got me an SNES and my dad got me a Sega Genesis where I was introduced to upgraded graphics. I remember being mind blown by Donkey Kong Country, Sonic The Hedgehog, Judge Dredd, Aladdin (Sega), Super Mario World, etc. Some games looked really cool but had some horrible gameplay. Like, gameplay that make you appreciate the crappy games that come out today because, at least today, controls are a lot smoother than games like Batman Returns (Sega), Batman Forever, 1st Mortal Kombat or Terminator 2 (Sega) which had either delayed or really stiff controls. During the time, most games were being really inventive because a lot of the game genres we have today didn't exist then or were still being experimented with before actually becoming an official genre. That's why FPS games really showed what they were capable of when the N64 and PSOne came out. Since these genres are not so creative anymore because we've pretty much done all we could do with them, people are now claiming that gameplay has taken a backseat which is kind of "meh" for me.

I don't agree that gameplay has taken a backseat, but I will say that it is really hard to be creative in such a demanding environment like entertainment. Games back in the day are pretty much the exact way they are today. Both eras of gaming are taking full advantage of the power from the PC or Home Console and find ways to make videogames look great. Both eras use the prime graphics for their time. The only reason why people are saying "Gampelay > Graphics" is because their so nostalgic about their 8, 16 and 32 bit graphics that they'll happily bend over to an indy for a game that uses those graphics. Think about kids today who play the new video games. In about 20 to 30 years, they will be having nostalgia for GTAV, COD, Skyrim, Dark Souls, etc. and will be claiming the same thing. They're going to say that these new games were all about the gameplay and not about the graphics.

Saying that older games were ALL about the gameplay is just stupid and completely incorrect. Older games all used the best graphics for their time while still being very creative. Creativity takes longer these days because there are only so much you can do to games without changing the way you play videogames. Nintendo is probably the only console making company that understands this which is why they keep releasing crazy controllers and handhelds but get nothing but negative feedback from everybody (Nintendo have also shot themselves in the foot by having extremely greedy business practices, so negative feedback are also coming from fans). Anyway, I felt like typing all of this because someone actually said that to me at work and I just started seeing red, lol.

I think it's a bit of nostalgia, the last 10 years has been the best era of gaming, we simply appreciate it less than when we where young and easier to please.

Also people only remember the good and forget about all the rubbish.

Having recently received Morrowind, I can say that it has good system that the newer elder scroll games does not have. I like the combat in Morrowind more than Skyrim for a number of reason.

Likely because the old games that is remembered were teh ones with the best gameplay :P We tend to remember the absolute best, and the absolute worst. There were alot more games released, then the ones people talk about, most that did not gave gameplay that stood the test of time simply tends to be forgotten. Just like nowadays.

Edit: Point is that we might look back 10 years from now to point to the games we thought were the best. Ironically those games might well not be the most popular at launch, they rarely were.

It's also that people tend not to view older games in the context in which they were released. I've seen many people (including younger people who didn't grow up with these games) express the general idea that "people had to have only cared about gameplay back then to hold games with such terrible graphics in high esteem."

People will take a game released in 1998 like Metal Gear Solid and say it looked awful but had great gameplay. But it didn't look awful, for 1998 it looked fantastic. By saying these games looked bad people are in effect judging them by the standards of today which is clearly absurd. Games released in 1998 were not judged by the unknown games that would be released many years later, they were only judged by what had already come before them and by the technology of that time.

Also, it should be noted that people back then took just as much time obsessing about graphics as they do today. Magazines hyped upcoming games based only on graphics just like they do today. Had sections comparing the graphics of multiplatform games and saying one version was better just because of some minor advantage, no different than today. Kids argued that the Super NES was better than the Genesis because it had a better color palette or that the Playstation was better than the Saturn because it could produce more polygons. No different than today.

Morrowind's or even Daggerfall's combat wasn't great, but I could forgive that because being victorious in combat was mostly the result of character skill/dice rolls and there were actual RPG mechanics involved. Oblivion/Skyrim had slightly better combat, from an action standpoint, but it became tedious as **** really fast because both the RPG mechanics and the combat mechanics were very simple and shallow. It was a really bad compromise, especially in a game so heavily focused on combat.

I've been gaming since the Atari 2600 in the mid eighties. Graphics matter, and I find I usually sell (the majority) of my old system and games because I simply can't tolerate what they offer in comparison to what's on offer today. Very, VERY few games I keep hold on (Super Metroid, SotN), and these games better have it in the gameplay department, or hold such a unique art style as to give me reason to hold onto them. Throughout the years, I've tended to hold onto my old systems and games believing I'd go back to them.

Yet this is seldom the case. I usually end up getting rid of them. Graphics absolutely matter to me. I just can't go back.

I find the RNG in Morrowin to bother me from time to time but I find less bothersome than how useless most stats are in Skyrim. There is no reason to wear light armor with the steed sign not too hard to get. I would love to see more noncombat skill to be in there like crafting rope that can be used.

Because back then the graphics weren't that good so the only reason u would buy a game was fore gameplay itself, that's EXACTLY why people insist that GTA San Andreas is better than GTA V

People were buying games for the graphics in 1992 as well - we just don't (want to?) remember that. Kids fought about SNES graphical superiority over Genesis too. As others mentioned - we mainly remember the games that are STILL fun to play (great gameplay despite dated graphics), and the total turds. Honestly, tons and TONS of games were shovelware junk back then too. But we remember the several dozen amazing titles from the ____ system that we are fond of (and a few choice duds to laugh about ruefully).

I think the main idea is that if you take an old game and play it today, and it's still a ton of fun, then it just shows how good gameplay is more important than good graphics. Good gameplay transcends time while good graphics simply fade from importance and look gross over time or because technology is so good they become a standard expectation. In other words, graphics are either so old they look like crap compared to today's standards in which case the gameplay would be a game's only saving grace, or like today as graphics stop improving so much that it becomes basically a standard in all games to have excellent graphics, the focus is again on good gameplay. The bottom line is, good gameplay will always be more important than good graphics. People just like to use old games that look like crap but are still great games to play in order to illustrate this idea.

Good graphics can definitely compliment good gameplay, so they're important to an extent. But not so important that you should focus solely on it. By itself, good graphics are just shallow. Good gameplay by itself, on the other hand, can still make a great game. Good graphics alone = bad game. Good gameplay alone = potentially great game. Good gameplay + good graphics = even better.

The above arguments apply mostly to games that try to look realistic. Games that have a stylized approach are in a different category and the graphics can really change the feeling of the game. You also don't need good hardware to create stylized graphics, just a unique imagination and style. The only games that have graphics that transcend time are those that take a stylized approach which doesn't depend on technology very much if at all.

Yes, thank you!

GTAV, COD, Skyrim, Dark Soul arent even good examples because they are neither the epitomy of graphics or gameplay.....

They're great examples because they all look great and are all fun, regardless of the hate and criticism that some of those titles get from other gamers.

@-paranorman-: other games look and run better..... all you did was pick popular games.

Popular games that look great and are still fun to play though.

@-paranorman-:

Among several other games that look and play better.

The point was still made.

@-paranorman-:

It was poorly made.

But made.

@-paranorman-:

Poorly.

@Lulu_Lulu: Made

@-paranorman-:

Barely.

@Lulu_Lulu: Success.

@-paranorman-:

Hardly

@Lulu_Lulu: Succeeded.

@-paranorman-:

Hardly

@Lulu_Lulu: Succeeded.

@-paranorman-:

Hardly

@Lulu_Lulu: 1

@-paranorman-: Your point was definitely made, they just cannot handle some people like games they don't. Whether they like them or not doesn't take away from the fact that a lot of people will see those titles like you explained.

Thank you! I just like how he or she kept confirming that I made my point but kept arguing for the sake of argument. It was really funny. Thought they would join me in counting 1-10 but, apparently they called it quits before we could get to it.