graphics vs story

graphics vs story: which do you value more? oh yeah? why's that then?

i discovered something interesting the other day, turns out that only pc has (and is still getting) games without graphics - eg text based games. such games could also be done on console (even with a controller, choose from a list of responses), but for some reason - it doesn't seem there are any.

i'm especially interested in the responses of console-centric gamers who really appreciate story - would you guys consider a game without graphics on your platform?

i personally couldn't give two shits about story, but i often hear folks around here talking about the plots of games and so on. must be important to some people, possibly more important than graphics. please, enlighten me.

Zork: The Next Generation. Make it so, #1.

story. graphics age but a great story is timeless

Story. But keep in mind that good graphics make storytelling better.

Story. Especially in an interactive medium. Props if you do well there.

Depends on the game/genre

good point ghostwarrior about ageing graphics. actually gets me thinking that a text-based game won't suffer 'ageing graphics'.

shiekspeare, ok man so you feel the graphics enhance enjoyment of the story? and yeah, i agree that a good combo of story&gfx must be attractive in a game.

and i definitely agree with Blabadon that they're doing well if there's a compelling story in an interactive medium.

@SolidTy:

I was happy with the graphics during the PS2/Xbox/GC era. Definitely okay with subpar graphics if the story is great; will help push me through.

Fully text-based adventures? I don't know if I want to read that much on a TV as I'd much rather grab a book, but I guess I'm not opposed to it at all. I love playing D&D and other tabletop games, which are all heavily imagination-based, so I'm okay with the idea of it.

Story

@CrownKingArthur said:

@SolidTy:

Haha! :)

For some reason, I think it would be rather hilarious and maybe a major coup if a new Zork:TNG returned for PC and co-developed perhaps by Epic and Crytek and became the new standard bearer for graphics. Just phenomenal graphics that blew everyone away like when Doom first hit the scene or Crysis.

@SolidTy said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

@SolidTy:

Haha! :)

For some reason, I think it would be rather hilarious and maybe a major coup if a new Zork:TNG returned for PC and co-developed perhaps by Epic and Crytek and became the new standard bearer for graphics. Just phenomenal graphics that blew everyone away like when Doom first hit the scene or Crysis.

I second this wasted many a happy hour on Zork

You can have both with Uncharted.

@supergokublitz: @SolidTy: wow. i'm gonna have to play the original zork/s.

yeah i do love graphics that are really, really, ridiculously good looking. and processors that are super powerful. its that damn haswell - he's so hot right now! i think intel/amd/nvidia should fund a loss leader graphically intensive game.

Mincraft: No Graphics, no story = great game

Ryse Son of Rome: Beautiful graphics, not too shabby story = meh game

Skyrim: Great graphics, Cool story = Didn't hold my attention like Oblivion

I can't find a pattern here.

What do you prefer, to PLAY a GAME or to watch it ? games are supposed to be played, if you want to look at something pretty .... well, go to a museum and watch some paintings from the great masters.

I think TC is looking a bit beyond your run-off-the-mill adventure story.

It's usually graphics vs gameplay right?

Atleast that's what the xboners tell me.

Gameplay > [Story ¦ Graphics] (depends on the game).

well in order to play games i have to watch the screen, whether they're graphically intensive or text based.

Wait. If we are in the Matrix are we watching the screen with all the green shit raining down it or are we IN the Matrix?

@FoxbatAlpha: my friend, it sounds like you are describing an obviose psn outage.

Two separate parts of the game done by two entirely different developers on the teams. The creative director works with the writers and other producers to figure out the artistic style of the game and then the writers and graphic programmers go do their own things.

On my PC I don't have to choose

I would never waste a second playing a text based game. What I enjoy the most about video games is how the visuals are used to tell the story. The story in games is not just what you read, hear or see but what you do too. On those text based games the interaction is limited to a choice (maybe a puzzle) you make through a menu and its outcome is either a picture, more text or both, and I don't find that enjoyable.

On the other hand I did enjoy School Days HQ. On that game all you do is wait for certain points of the story where you're prompted to make a choice and then you watch how the route you chose plays out through fully animated scenes. I liked it a lot because when you make your choice the changes to the story are substantial just like in Heavy Rain. And the game provided enough shock value and twists for me to remain interested to play again to unlock more routes by making different choices.

Yes I need graphics.

assumptions i reject:

1. that a game has to have graphics (text based games)

2. that a game has to have a story (minecraft and others)

3. that all those roles must be assigned to separate people (small team games exist, as small as 1 individual)

and even in the cases where what you say is true, that wouldn't preclude discussion about the topic this thread is really about. from gue1's post it seems his answer is 'no'.

also gue1, i forgot all about school daze. what a great game.

Yeah this.

But story is very important to me. However, a game with good graphics & a crap story, doesn't make the cut for me.

Out of this world graphics with no story ------> you can polish a turd all you want and at the most you´ll end up with a shiny turd.

i want both.

graphics. graphics are necessary, story is not.

This. Especially for a medium like gaming.

Video games.

For a medium perceived visually, visuals are pretty damn important, don't you think?

If you want to PLAY a game, go to a playground.

If you want a STORY, read a book.

Etc.

This is a shitty childish argument.

That's only true for linear stories. For interactive stories, it's the opposite: Better graphics usually means sacrificing a story's interactivity. The better the graphics, the more resources you need to dedicate to each narrative possibility.

In a visual novel game, for example, you can explore tons of narrative possibilities, since each narrative path/route requires very little resources to develop. On the other hand, for a big-budget AAA game to do the same thing, the amount of time, effort and money requires would be enormous.

The only AAA game I've played in recent years that comes close to offering meaningful narrative choices is probably The Witcher 2, and yet even that pales in comparison to low-budget visual novels when it comes to meaningful narrative choices and consequences.

For me it's Graphics. That visual feedback and responsive animation has to coincide with your input. This feedback is essential in video games, or at least it's something that greatly enhances the feeling of the #1 most important aspect of video games: the gameplay.

Story is rather unnecessary in gaming. The visuals are essential.

There are lots of games that have everything. Gameplay, great graphics, great story. So many in fact you'd never had time to play them all if you tracked them all down.

These days however it has become fashionable to champion indie games with abominable graphics (and they seem to have shit gameplay too unless you want to present SNES era is the ultimate but never mind that for now) so in this way you prove you are a 'true' gamer because it looks like shit and most of the time plays like it as well.

I'm not really sure how that works but that seems to be the gist of it. Some clown buys an expensive PC or a next gen console then plays a game that looks 30 years old and says how amazing it is.

Yeah, people, they're weird...or incredibly stupid, know what I mean?

I will have both, i do not see why it has to be either or.

Quite so my friend, you and I both.

I will also have English lessons as i can't seem to form proper coherant sentences :P

Fixed my original post :D

interesting perspective. thank you.

Its all story imo. Graphics are a factor, but story and setting are most important to me.

How about a game without graphics or story, but incredible city-building mechanics like Dwarf Fortress?

http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/

TC means good stories.

Sound Design vs. Art Style

@Lulu_Lulu:

Reminds me how great a lot of old arcade games were. A simple button press output some otherworldly sound and you felt like you could be shooting a laser.

@Heirren:

For me it either hit or miss..... Some I like... some ai don't

I would chose both.