What do you prefer: graphics, story or gameplay?

  • 97 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for sakaixx
#51 Posted by sakaiXx (5070 posts) -

Graphics. Then story. The older I get the less I'm interested in gameplay. Probably because I love jrpg, srpg and rts games. I got so bored trying to perfect my anime squad again and again all these years I just gave up and instead now I enjoy games with easier gameplay. I still love jrpg though

Avatar image for steve5xg
#52 Posted by Steve5XG (157 posts) -
@sakaixx said:

Graphics. Then story. The older I get the less I'm interested in gameplay. Probably because I love jrpg, srpg and rts games. I got so bored trying to perfect my anime squad again and again all these years I just gave up and instead now I enjoy games with easier gameplay. I still love jrpg though

Well, there are some things about gameplay that are mandatory for me. Withouth these things, neither the graphics or story can entertain me as much as I'd like. Tell me at least one example of video games you are currently playing.

Avatar image for sakaixx
#53 Edited by sakaiXx (5070 posts) -

@steve5xg said:
@sakaixx said:

Graphics. Then story. The older I get the less I'm interested in gameplay. Probably because I love jrpg, srpg and rts games. I got so bored trying to perfect my anime squad again and again all these years I just gave up and instead now I enjoy games with easier gameplay. I still love jrpg though

Well, there are some things about gameplay that are mandatory for me. Withouth these things, neither the graphics or story can entertain me as much as I'd like. Tell me at least one example of video games you are currently playing.

It can be any game as long as the mechanics is simple enough for me to enjoy the game. Currently running through until dawn, xenoblade 2 and dark souls remaster. Off 3 until dawn is the one I like best. xenoblade2 sucks btw. Also dunno why dark souls is here, probably because I'm 70% platinuming it and been holding it off for a month now. Just one last route.

Avatar image for red_mad_cat
#54 Posted by red_mad_cat (12 posts) -

Graphic and story have the same value for me. A am a fan of visual novels but can't read if characters are pictured badly. Gameplay is not so valuable. The reason is that I don't like games which need gameplay.

Avatar image for steve5xg
#55 Posted by Steve5XG (157 posts) -
@sakaixx said:
@steve5xg said:
@sakaixx said:

Graphics. Then story. The older I get the less I'm interested in gameplay. Probably because I love jrpg, srpg and rts games. I got so bored trying to perfect my anime squad again and again all these years I just gave up and instead now I enjoy games with easier gameplay. I still love jrpg though

Well, there are some things about gameplay that are mandatory for me. Withouth these things, neither the graphics or story can entertain me as much as I'd like. Tell me at least one example of video games you are currently playing.

It can be any game as long as the mechanics is simple enough for me to enjoy the game. Currently running through until dawn, xenoblade 2 and dark souls remaster. Off 3 until dawn is the one I like best. xenoblade2 sucks btw. Also dunno why dark souls is here, probably because I'm 70% platinuming it and been holding it off for a month now. Just one last route.

I understand about simple mechanics. Gameplay depends on taste. What about the new Tomb Raider? I love the arrow craft part, and for me that's more about gameplay than the story.

Avatar image for guelder_rose
#56 Posted by guelder_rose (19 posts) -

I choose all of them. You may call me too picky but I prefer playing best-quality games. Although there are exceptions - sometimes developers focus on one of three main components and win. But they must be masters of that one.

Avatar image for steve5xg
#57 Posted by Steve5XG (157 posts) -
@guelder_rose said:

I choose all of them. You may call me too picky but I prefer playing best-quality games. Although there are exceptions - sometimes developers focus on one of three main components and win. But they must be masters of that one.

In that case, you rather playing AAA games or you just feel confortable with indie games? And so, which ones?

Avatar image for haruka25
#58 Posted by Haruka25 (3 posts) -

I prefer the story

Avatar image for -paranorman-
#59 Posted by -ParaNormaN- (1532 posts) -

Depends on the game tbh. For hack n slash games, gameplay and graphics should be prioritized over story. Take DMC or Bayonetta for example. Their story is batshit crazy and make absolutely zero sense. 2 of the funnest and better looking games (for their time) I've played though. Same with Metal Gear Rising. JRPGs, you need all 3. An 80 hour game needs to be nice to look at, have great gameplay to keep you going, and a great story to keep you interested. FPS games, graphics and gameplay. Who the hell plays FPS games for the story? 2D platformers, graphics and gameplay. Graphics could be 8bit, 16bit, nostalgia type graphics or modern 2.5D graphics. Gameplay needs to be fun and smooth. Story needs to be simplistic.

Everything is important, really. Games also need a great soundtrack to hold it all together.

Avatar image for bossfighthub
#60 Posted by BossFightHub (7 posts) -

gameplay then graphics and lastly story.

Avatar image for Byshop
#61 Posted by Byshop (19467 posts) -

@steve5xg: This is a bit of an old thread that was necro bumped by a spammer but there have been some good replies since then so we can keep it going.

This is a hard thing to pin down, because each of these categories can mean different things depending on the game. In simple terms or me, my ranking goes Story > Gameplay > Graphics, but let me clarify what I mean by that. I can appreciate any game that does an excellent job of any of these three categories (and I'd even add another one for sound design/soundtrack to that), but when I think back to the games that really stuck with me or that I thought about for a -long- time after I finished playing them, it was always because of the story. I've been playing games since I was in single digits, so over 35 years at this point, and the ability to tell a compelling story with a video game is a (relatively) recent thing. It's not that it wasn't possible in older games, but back then the emphasis was on pushing the envelope of the technology because there was so much room to improve with each generation. Even most of the old text adventures (games with literally no "graphics") weren't really -story- oriented games even though delivering a game entirely through text would seem to lend itself towards story telling. They were more puzzle focused. The Infocom series Zork had more in common with Myst than any other modern games.

That doesn't mean that early games didn't have story or interesting narratives, but I can't think of many that really delivered heartfelt story beats as opposed to interesting world building. The Ultima series is a good example. Those games built really cool worlds for you to explore, but they didn't have really interesting personal stories to tell. Ultima 6 was about the gargoyle race in a slavery allegory. Ultima 7 had some really cool story elements around how the world had changed while you had been away for many years, magic was dying, and a new wave religion had cropped up that ultimately turned out to be the work of the new evil in the world. All this was amazing at the time, but it wasn't anything compared to what you'd get with something like a Telltale game.

So the reason I put Story above Gameplay is because gameplay is what makes the game fun at the time, but the range of emotion you get from good gameplay is ultimately limited. Story can take you in -any- direction if it's well written, and some of the best story driven games have very little in what is thought of as traditional gameplay. Some of the earliest games like this were things like the Dear Esther mod for Half Life. "Walking simulator" was originally coined as a derisive term for games where you just moved from one place to another to get story elements delivered to you, but now it's turned into an entire genre. Other games focus on delivering a cinematic experience, with one of the earliest being David Cage's first title Omikron. Omikron wasn't a good game, but it had good ideas limited by the technology at the time. That was the first game I can think of where they were really trying for a "movie-like" experience without resorting to just making the game a ton of FMV like the old Sega-CD and 3D0 games.

-Byshop

Avatar image for SoNin360
#63 Posted by SoNin360 (7034 posts) -

I don't really know. I don't normally break games down like that, I just care about how much I enjoy them. I can enjoy a game with a great story with minimal gameplay and simplistic graphics. I can enjoy a game with really fun gameplay even if it is lacking a decent story and isn't the best looking. I suppose the only category that doesn't hold up very well on its own for me is graphics. A game can look very nice, but if its story and gameplay is subpar, then my overall takeaway is that the game wasn't very good. The Order: 1886 is a great example of that. Of course, I can appreciate graphics and they can very well factor into how good I think a given game is.

So, after thinking about it, I suppose I could actually rank them if I had to. Since many of my favorite games had strong narratives, my preference would have to be story, gameplay, then graphics.

Avatar image for hemanth1607
#64 Edited by Hemanth1607 (1 posts) -

A Fictional Story with a incredible Journey of the characters with good graphics is the key to make it connect for audiences. Good Gaming Apps with best story script always connects to the heart of users.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#66 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (25203 posts) -

I find Star Control 2 (1992) far more addictive than anything made in the last 20 years. A simple, higher res update or remaster is fine with me. Being free (the 3DO version) certainly doesn't hurt either.

Avatar image for deactivated-5c5235341a3ea
#68 Posted by deactivated-5c5235341a3ea (39 posts) -

All of the ones mentioned. Well i can deal without story if the game is fun. But overall whatever creative fun game they wanna make i am always up for.

Avatar image for adrianrowland
#69 Posted by adrianrowland (7 posts) -

Be between gameplay and story for me

Avatar image for gettingonwithgaminglife
#70 Posted by GettingonwithGamingLife (191 posts) -

More bothered about gameplay and story than the graphics, though that can come as a bonus.

Avatar image for steve5xg
#71 Posted by Steve5XG (157 posts) -
@Byshop said:

So the reason I put Story above Gameplay is because gameplay is what makes the game fun at the time, but the range of emotion you get from good gameplay is ultimately limited. Story can take you in -any- direction if it's well written, and some of the best story driven games have very little in what is thought of as traditional gameplay. Some of the earliest games like this were things like the Dear Esther mod for Half Life. "Walking simulator" was originally coined as a derisive term for games where you just moved from one place to another to get story elements delivered to you, but now it's turned into an entire genre. Other games focus on delivering a cinematic experience, with one of the earliest being David Cage's first title Omikron. Omikron wasn't a good game, but it had good ideas limited by the technology at the time. That was the first game I can think of where they were really trying for a "movie-like" experience without resorting to just making the game a ton of FMV like the old Sega-CD and 3D0 games.

-Byshop

That's what I was looking for: gameplay is what makes game fun, but we get the emotion through thestory. Can't be more agree with you.

I believe video games are going to a place in the middle of a movie and an emotional experience. Even in something really artistic (a good example is GRIS, visually a master piece, about just 2 hours gameplay, not sure the kind of story behind).

Sorry about the thread. I didn't know about the old one.

Avatar image for Byshop
#72 Posted by Byshop (19467 posts) -

@steve5xg said:
@Byshop said:

So the reason I put Story above Gameplay is because gameplay is what makes the game fun at the time, but the range of emotion you get from good gameplay is ultimately limited. Story can take you in -any- direction if it's well written, and some of the best story driven games have very little in what is thought of as traditional gameplay. Some of the earliest games like this were things like the Dear Esther mod for Half Life. "Walking simulator" was originally coined as a derisive term for games where you just moved from one place to another to get story elements delivered to you, but now it's turned into an entire genre. Other games focus on delivering a cinematic experience, with one of the earliest being David Cage's first title Omikron. Omikron wasn't a good game, but it had good ideas limited by the technology at the time. That was the first game I can think of where they were really trying for a "movie-like" experience without resorting to just making the game a ton of FMV like the old Sega-CD and 3D0 games.

-Byshop

That's what I was looking for: gameplay is what makes game fun, but we get the emotion through thestory. Can't be more agree with you.

I believe video games are going to a place in the middle of a movie and an emotional experience. Even in something really artistic (a good example is GRIS, visually a master piece, about just 2 hours gameplay, not sure the kind of story behind).

Sorry about the thread. I didn't know about the old one.

Back when I was young, I'd take any game that gave me hundreds of hours of content for my dollars. These days, I almost prefer shorter, more finite experiences with a solid beginning, middle, and end in a reasonable amount of time. It's kind of the argument between British dramas with 6 episodes a season/series versus US shows that have 22 hours of TV per season. There's something to be said for a well defined story that's told in an effective and efficient manner.

-Byshop

Avatar image for steve5xg
#73 Posted by Steve5XG (157 posts) -
@Byshop said:
@steve5xg said:
@Byshop said:

So the reason I put Story above Gameplay is because gameplay is what makes the game fun at the time, but the range of emotion you get from good gameplay is ultimately limited. Story can take you in -any- direction if it's well written, and some of the best story driven games have very little in what is thought of as traditional gameplay. Some of the earliest games like this were things like the Dear Esther mod for Half Life. "Walking simulator" was originally coined as a derisive term for games where you just moved from one place to another to get story elements delivered to you, but now it's turned into an entire genre. Other games focus on delivering a cinematic experience, with one of the earliest being David Cage's first title Omikron. Omikron wasn't a good game, but it had good ideas limited by the technology at the time. That was the first game I can think of where they were really trying for a "movie-like" experience without resorting to just making the game a ton of FMV like the old Sega-CD and 3D0 games.

-Byshop

That's what I was looking for: gameplay is what makes game fun, but we get the emotion through thestory. Can't be more agree with you.

I believe video games are going to a place in the middle of a movie and an emotional experience. Even in something really artistic (a good example is GRIS, visually a master piece, about just 2 hours gameplay, not sure the kind of story behind).

Sorry about the thread. I didn't know about the old one.

Back when I was young, I'd take any game that gave me hundreds of hours of content for my dollars. These days, I almost prefer shorter, more finite experiences with a solid beginning, middle, and end in a reasonable amount of time. It's kind of the argument between British dramas with 6 episodes a season/series versus US shows that have 22 hours of TV per season. There's something to be said for a well defined story that's told in an effective and efficient manner.

-Byshop

Yeah, I know, but maybe only 2 hours gameplay is not enough for me. I mean, if I givemy money for it, I rather playing a little bit more. It is common to say that less is better, and simplicity makes all greater. But when It's all about a video game, you can take an incredible story really short within a gameplay longer. It all depends on the creativity, I guess.

Avatar image for Byshop
#74 Edited by Byshop (19467 posts) -

@steve5xg said:
@Byshop said:

Back when I was young, I'd take any game that gave me hundreds of hours of content for my dollars. These days, I almost prefer shorter, more finite experiences with a solid beginning, middle, and end in a reasonable amount of time. It's kind of the argument between British dramas with 6 episodes a season/series versus US shows that have 22 hours of TV per season. There's something to be said for a well defined story that's told in an effective and efficient manner.

-Byshop

Yeah, I know, but maybe only 2 hours gameplay is not enough for me. I mean, if I givemy money for it, I rather playing a little bit more. It is common to say that less is better, and simplicity makes all greater. But when It's all about a video game, you can take an incredible story really short within a gameplay longer. It all depends on the creativity, I guess.

I'd say it depends on how much I paid for it. I'm good with paying $5 for an hour or two of strong entertainment. I play a lot of VR and that's not uncommon in that genre.

-Byshop

Avatar image for danielpacheco
#75 Posted by danielpacheco (153 posts) -

@RSM-HQ said:

@danielpacheco:

A good example of Graphics (artstyle)) is Gris.

The issue with games that focus solely on beautiful art is I can appreciate it as a gif or jpeg, or the musical tracks if it's in that area, without wasting time with poor gameplay.

I love good art, don't get me wrong. But that's why people still buy prints and paintings and mount them on walls to admire. Games forgetting to be games, and double-downing on artistic flair just doesn't register for me, to the point I cannot oversee its value or relevance in gaming. Especially when we have so many games that play fantastic and are very artistic.

I am totally agree with you!

Avatar image for luzarius
#78 Posted by luzarius (226 posts) -

1. Gameplay
2. Story
3. Graphics
4. Breast & Butt Physics
5. Hot Babes
6. Did I mention hot babes? Like Morrigan, Ciri, Yennefer, Triss, Liara, Lara Croft (with her traditional sexy outfit, the one with shorts and skimpy top).

Avatar image for wolfpup7
#79 Posted by wolfpup7 (1175 posts) -

I like all three a lot. And of course what one considers good for all three can vary.

Avatar image for Shmiity
#80 Posted by Shmiity (6241 posts) -

Its 2019. Almost every game looks good enough. Unless the graphics are especially bad or especially artistic I don't give a shit.

Gotta be Gameplay / Story /Graphics.

I think most game stories are trash. Rarely a developer spins a good one and that story overtakes gameplay. (SH2, The Last of Us)

Avatar image for byof_america
#81 Posted by byof_america (1922 posts) -

Gameplay for sure. Most of the time story would come in second, but if art and atmosphere are part of graphics then I can think of a few time where they more than made up for a dog shite story.

Avatar image for jamesissac
#82 Posted by JamesIssac (17 posts) -

I prefer game-play and story. I

Avatar image for moon1234
#83 Posted by moon1234 (5 posts) -

I don’t enjoy a game very much with a lousy gameplay. On the other hand, a game with phenomenal graphics, but a bad and boring story, isn’t much fun to me either. I guess for me the ranking from important to less important would be: story, gameplay, graphics.

Avatar image for panjuchko
#84 Posted by PanJuchko (6 posts) -

Graphics and gameplay

Avatar image for steve5xg
#86 Posted by Steve5XG (157 posts) -
@Shmiity said:

Its 2019. Almost every game looks good enough. Unless the graphics are especially bad or especially artistic I don't give a shit.

Gotta be Gameplay / Story /Graphics.

I think most game stories are trash. Rarely a developer spins a good one and that story overtakes gameplay. (SH2, The Last of Us)

Well, I believe there are still video games where graphics are not good enough, and maybe that's because the developers doesn't work the artistic part of the game, or just because there is no art direction behind. Even so, story is what makes game emotional, but gameplay is what makes it funny. Can't choose between these two options, but I'm sure graphics are the third one.

Avatar image for ArchoNils2
#87 Posted by ArchoNils2 (10284 posts) -

To answer the question shortly: gameplay >>>> graphics > story

I want to bring up one point though: Developers suck at telling story through gameplay. The majority of story is still told through cutscenes (movies) and text (books). You rarely see developers actually using their medium to tell the story. They do some good jobs for lore, but story? One of the few good examples I can come up with is the final battle in Crisis Core, where the gameplay mechanics slowly die as Zack dies.

I think I would rate story much higher, if developers actually used gameplay to tell it more often. If I just run from one short movie clip to the next, thats tory would be better told in a movie or a Tv series. Especially when that story contradicts the gameplay.

Avatar image for nateboussad
#88 Posted by nateboussad (3 posts) -

that's a tough one... cause a game needs good gameplay to keep me playing so gameplay above story but a good story would keep me on a game with bad graphics even though graphics are what draws me to a lot off my new games. probs a longer answer than expected

Avatar image for ivaturk
#89 Edited by ivaturk (63 posts) -

Definitely game-play before anything else. Music last, actually why even have the music at all? The first thing I do with any game I play is to mute the music before I do anything else. It has always been a mystery to me why the music is even there in the first place. Nothing more annoying than having that blaring out when I'm playing a game. I just love the action and gun sounds.

Avatar image for robert_sparkes
#90 Posted by robert_sparkes (2560 posts) -

Tough but If it's one then gameplay.

Avatar image for Peasly
#92 Posted by Peasly (254 posts) -

In an RPG i'd have to say Gameplay, Graphics then Story..

Avatar image for Peasly
#93 Posted by Peasly (254 posts) -

@ArchoNils2: I think I would rate story much higher, if developers actually used gameplay to tell it more often. If I just run from one short movie clip to the next, thats tory would be better told in a movie or a Tv series. Especially when that story contradicts the gameplay

Totally agree with you there. The Tomb Raider series is the same not like it used to be on the PS1 where you could go anywhere and do anything you wanted.

This seems to be the trend of games these days. Some people like it better this way. It's a Marmite situation.. ;)

Avatar image for steve5xg
#94 Posted by Steve5XG (157 posts) -
@ArchoNils2 said:

To answer the question shortly: gameplay >>>> graphics > story

I want to bring up one point though: Developers suck at telling story through gameplay. The majority of story is still told through cutscenes (movies) and text (books). You rarely see developers actually using their medium to tell the story. They do some good jobs for lore, but story? One of the few good examples I can come up with is the final battle in Crisis Core, where the gameplay mechanics slowly die as Zack dies.

I think I would rate story much higher, if developers actually used gameplay to tell it more often. If I just run from one short movie clip to the next, thats tory would be better told in a movie or a Tv series. Especially when that story contradicts the gameplay.

I am not agree with that. There are lots of ways to tell a story through the video game, and It's not neccessary with the lore behind, neither cinematics or text. Sometimes through the gameplay and it's mechanics the story can be told.

I understand the frustration when the story contradicts the gameplay. Everything has to go in the same direction. Otherwise, the video game lose the whole sense.

Avatar image for ivalice
#95 Posted by Ivalice (6 posts) -

Personally I prefer story and gameplay, because if you dont have any of those that are good, no one is going to care about those graphics

Avatar image for steve5xg
#96 Posted by Steve5XG (157 posts) -
@ivaturk said:

Definitely game-play before anything else. Music last, actually why even have the music at all? The first thing I do with any game I play is to mute the music before I do anything else. It has always been a mystery to me why the music is even there in the first place. Nothing more annoying than having that blaring out when I'm playing a game. I just love the action and gun sounds.

When I start playing any video game, music becomes relevant to me, because is another one more factor to involve me in the gameplay within. For example, new fresh video game GRIS, its OST is simply brilliant and I believe it's really important to appreciate it while playing the game.

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
#97 Posted by Gaming-Planet (19836 posts) -

Gameplay>Story>Graphics

Avatar image for zeda5
#98 Posted by Zeda5 (2 posts) -

1st is gameplay, 2nd story, I do not care about graphics too much..

Avatar image for steve5xg
#99 Posted by Steve5XG (157 posts) -
@zeda5 said:

1st is gameplay, 2nd story, I do not care about graphics too much..

@Gaming-Planet said:

Gameplay>Story>Graphics

Well, it took me by surprise, 'cause too many people put graphics in the third place, and despite of being agree, I though it wouldn't be as clear as it is going.

BTW, new RE2 remake looks pretty cool, and I guess both story, gameplay and graphics are awesome. On the other hand, maybe creativity is a little bit lost, 'cause developers should make a new one story about RE.