Gameplay is NOT more important than graphics.

I'm tired of reading over and over how gameplay is more important than graphics because it's not. In my experience they must be equal. All of the best games that I have ever played not only had great gameplay but also were totting some of the best graphics for thier time. Think about your favorite games of all time and probably none of them have had bad graphics. Some of my favorites of all time Half-Life series, Goldeneye, Ocarina of Time, Grand Theft Auto Series, Final Fantasy, Bioshock, Crysis. All these games not only had some of the best graphics for thier time but had the gameplay to match it. And an equilibrium of the two is what makes great games turn into classics. 8BaLLCB

I'm not sure if thats also true for me.

I played Persona 3 and 4 when I also had my ps3, those game were kinda ugly graphic wise but still one of my favourite JRPG's off all time.

I also played KOTOR I and II in 2008 and those are one of my favourite WRPG's but graphic wise they werent good in 2008.

Earth Defense Force 2017 is one of my favorite xbox 360 games ever, and the graphics and animations were sketchy at best.

I don't care as long as it's not butt-ugly.

super mario 3 disagrees :D

so does ff1 and the original ultima games.

and if you want to go really old school pc, we can say legend of the red dragon and usurper disagree too (they're bbs mp text based rpg's, usurper was large with group/clan fights and online mp support, legend of the red dragon was a single player bbs game with incredible mod support)

To a certain degree you cant have one without the other.

Deus Ex

It was never a looker. Far from it, yet it's considered as one of the greatest games of all time.

Not to say that graphics are irrelevent, but I think that gameplay and sound matter the most.

good graphics are definitely a plus for a game but not exactly necessary. Granted, most of the games I do play now do have demanding graphics.

I like nice graphics as much as the next guy, but the gameplay will always come first for me. I can still play lots of old games in my collection, even though the graphics are outdated and, in some cases, pretty awful. Why? Because graphics tend to fade into the background after the first twenty minutes of play, and then I'm totally focused on what I'm doing, where I'm going, what objectives I have to complete, and dealing with any enemies along the way.

If a game is FUN, I can ignore some dodgy graphics, but if a game is mediocre, the best graphics in the world aren't going to make me want to play it.

Any game ever released by Blizzard.. All considered some of the best games in their respective genres. None of them with top of the line graphics at the time of their release.

Graphics are a nice bonus.But they are the last thing i look for in a game.The only thing i can say i like about graphics is they show the evolution of gaming and technology.But i could care less in the end...if it's a great game plus great graphics then that's a bonus i enjoy.If it's a bad game with good graphics i am not a happy camper.Most of my favourite games of all time are deemed hideous by today's young gamers in terms of graphics.For example,i think the infinity engine is gorgeous with the hand drawn artistic backgrounds yet i always hear people complain and say it's ugly...

it's not the same for every game, some games have great gameplay, so-so graphics, and they still rock, some OTHER games have great gameplay, and so-so graphics and they suck, you can't judge every single game.

You're not even worth the time if you have the nerve to make such a thread. Get an Xbox, play nice games that will take up all your time spent without a reason on complaining about opinions. Gameplay isn't better than decent graphics, it's way better, graphics won't save a crappy game, most of the games you mentioned didn't even look that good for their time and Crysis is the only one that has decent gameplay and superb graphics.

I'm not sure if thats also true for me.

I played Persona 3 and 4 when I also had my ps3, those game were kinda ugly graphic wise but still one of my favourite JRPG's off all time.

I also played KOTOR I and II in 2008 and those are one of my favourite WRPG's but graphic wise they werent good in 2008.

gunit3000

nah, Persona 3 and 4 are some of the most beautiful game on ps2.

Halo games condradict that...... They have never be great looking games (for its time the 1st one was pretty the best, but the others have been outdone by everything), but a lot of people love playing them (i know i did).

I've recently been plaing some older games (n64, Genesis, and some other systems) and i've been loving it. Now i understand you talking about the games may have looked good at their time, but they don't anymore, yet i still love playing them. It isn't the graphics taking me back, but the good gameplay.

So i disagree. Being a Halo fan (fan... not fanboy) i have come to realise that graphics mean almost nothing (the stuff you do need from graphics is the ability to see what the **** is going on, on screen). And i say graphics mean almost nothing because graphics don't have lasting value while gameplay does. If the gameplay is fun then it will be fun forever (you may get used to new controls making the old ones seem bad, but it usually means your not used to them....), but super awesome graphics right now may look like a giant turd tomorrow. Yes they will look the same, but we will nitpick all the lack of detail and what not which makes it seem worse.

Lazy paste from something I wrote about Far Cry 2:

Graphics are gameplay in most games of today. Imagine Far Cry 2 in Trespasser clothes. In Source clothes. No fire propagation (which is just as important as the physics of Crysis), no weather system, no shadows, no bullet penetration... How come so many people always separate graphics and atmosphere from gameplay is a mistery to me. Some games simply don't work without proper support, and this one is one of them. I know it, I played about 15 hours on a system that only met the minimum requirements. When I finally afforded a new system, I was amazed. Instantly immersed. Something was missing from my minimalistic Far Cry 2! It was like playing Mario rendered in ASCII – sure, the idea and the basic gameplay is the same, but I'll be damned if it doesn't suck compared to the original happy, colourful Mario. I appreciate that Far Cry 2 works on lame-ass systems, but I'm telling you: it looks like a big bowl of pudding and the whole atmosphere is thrown right out the window. All that remains is the basic shooting and driving. The game was designed as an experience, and it only works when all the elements come together.

I never said graphics are better than gameplay. All I'm saying is that the best games of all time usually have an equal balance of the two. In my opinion. But my opinion doesn't matter its you guys opinions I want to hear. 8BaLLCB

Halo games condradict that...... They have never be great looking games (for its time the 1st one was pretty the best, but the others have been outdone by everything), but a lot of people love playing them (i know i did).

I've recently been plaing some older games (n64, Genesis, and some other systems) and i've been loving it. Now i understand you talking about the games may have looked good at their time, but they don't anymore, yet i still love playing them. It isn't the graphics taking me back, but the good gameplay.

So i disagree. Being a Halo fan (fan... not fanboy) i have come to realise that graphics mean almost nothing (the stuff you do need from graphics is the ability to see what the **** is going on, on screen). And i say graphics mean almost nothing because graphics don't have lasting value while gameplay does. If the gameplay is fun then it will be fun forever (you may get used to new controls making the old ones seem bad, but it usually means your not used to them....), but super awesome graphics right now may look like a giant turd tomorrow. Yes they will look the same, but we will nitpick all the lack of detail and what not which makes it seem worse.

Agent_Kaliaver

First of, people should know, statements about what is more important to you are just opinions. Thus, they can't be wrong, or right. To me, Gameplay is more important. My favorite game is Diablo 2. Though, I don't play it anymore, I still wish they can make a new game just like that. This time with even better gameplay, and graphics. If the gameplay sucks, I wouldn't play it, but if the graphics are bad, I'd still play it.

People do seem to understand, but is most cases people are more atracted to graphics, but they wouldn't play a game if the gameplay suck. People tend to tolerate the bad gameplay

A good example of a good game with uber ugly graphics: Counter strike xD

Your post/opinion is NOT more important than mine

see what i did thar

I posted a topic about '' Graphic or Gameplay '' and I think that graphic makes much better than gameplay.

I don't care if a game has good gameplay,I only care that I enjoy in a game with GOOD GRAPHIC!

I posted a topic about '' Graphic or Gameplay '' and I think that graphic makes much better than gameplay.

I don't care if a game has good gameplay,I only care that I enjoy in a game with GOOD GRAPHIC!

vaczec

I posted a topic about '' Graphic or Gameplay '' and I think that graphic makes much better than gameplay.

I don't care if a game has good gameplay,I only care that I enjoy in a game with GOOD GRAPHIC!

vaczec

What I look for in a game the most is fun gameplay. So yes, gameplay is more important for me. I see graphics more as that sweet ass bonus you'd rather not be without.

I'd say graphics is a close second, and if I had to choose one, I would choose gameplay.

Also, lets not forget that visuals often hurt a game as much as they help it. Crysis, while it had excellent gameplay, was overlooked by many people for two reasons: one, people thought it would appeal only to graphics enthusiests; and two, a good chunk of the gaming population could not run it.

Now lets look at Halflife 2 and the Source engine. While pretty good looking, it was definately not the best looking at its time. Yet anything could run it, and run it at good settings. The texture work was excellent, as was the art direction.

My rule is gameplay is priority, with visuals needing to be decent but not stellar (with optimization being a priority).

I posted a topic about '' Graphic or Gameplay '' and I think that graphic makes much better than gameplay.

I don't care if a game has good gameplay,I only care that I enjoy in a game with GOOD GRAPHIC!

vaczec

I posted a topic about '' Graphic or Gameplay '' and I think that graphic makes much better than gameplay.

I don't care if a game has good gameplay,I only care that I enjoy in a game with GOOD GRAPHIC!

vaczec

I give Gameplay an edge over Graphics.

However, I'd say that in many genres of games, Graphics is a HUGE influence on creating Atmosphere. At those times Graphics arenearly on par with Gameplay.

There is one game that disagrees:

And many others, too.

Everything needs to be in balance. Music and graphics are definately important though as atmosphere and immersion is a huge part of any game for me.

No, Gameplay makes a GAME. Graphics mean nothing if the gameplay is solid.

Gameplay>>Story>>Graphics IMO.

Of course a truly great game is usually great in all three of these aspects. In general though, it doesn't matter if the game looks better then real-life, if it has bad gameplay and bad story it's a bad game. Farcry 2 is a shining example of this.

Gameplay quality is obviously more important than graphics - Graphics age much more rapidly than gameplay - in some cases gameplay doesn't age at all.

The thing that folks get wrong IMO is implying that gameplay and graphics are somehow mutually exclusive.

Some games have one, some the other, some both, and some neither.

Hmm, then I guess Fallout 3 is better than 1 & 2. Oh, wait, no it's not.

deus ex 1. average to poor graphics on its release (UE1 based on not even a big looker by UE1 standards). it was, is, and probably will remain the best game ever made in this industries history. gameplay is more important than graphics. graphics are important but, imho, devs are way to focused on graphics. i wish they would d more interesting things with the hardware available to them instead of just throwing it al at graphics and eye candy physics. with GPGPU coming into play more..hopefully we will see devs using the extra grunt for some interesting ideas also...not just physics that has no bearing on the game play.osan0

your point is well-made, and Deus Ex IMO also is among the very best games of all-time, though not the best.

I'm with you on Gameplay > Graphics, but Deus Ex is a prime example of a game who would've been even better (giving it even more atmosphere) if it had better Graphics.

Graphics does play a part in many games.

Yes it is. Graphics always help, and you often find talented developers usually are good with both gameplay and graphics.

However, if that were the case, people wouldn't still go back and play old games/handheld games. Games with "inferior" graphics. Seriously, will you suffer through a painfully boring game to look at the wall textures? Or would you rather have a blast playing a game with lousy graphics?