-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gameplay or Graphics?
- Thread starter Marty-McFly
- Start date
- Poll
ZywyPL
Banned
Not every game needs state of the art visuals to be awesome, quite the opposite, many games with great gameplay have very simplistic graphics but rely on a good artstyle, colour palette, animations etc.
sncvsrtoip
Member
If gameplay was so important as people votes we wouldn't need new consoles generations that usually change nothing in gameplay 
ZywyPL
Banned
Because console wars.
Same ol G
Member
Creating bigger worlds with more going on in them better physics, AI etc. also costs power.If gameplay was so important as people votes we wouldn't need new consoles generations that usually change nothing in gameplay
New hardware isn't necessary for only shiny graphics.
Same ol G
Member
I'm afraid this is the actual answer but maybe some have a real reason.
Artistic
Member
Yeah I guess your right.
For me, only PS1 game I'll be remotely interested in playing is MGS1.
XXL
Member
I didn't vote, because choosing one is dumb. They are both important imo.
It's hilarious watching people who just bought new consoles, bitch about cross gen games, are all up in DF comparisons, think GOW:R is underwhelming, have a monster PC or think 30fps is a "slideshow" talk about how little graphics mean to them. The hypocrisy is embarrassing.
It's hilarious watching people who just bought new consoles, bitch about cross gen games, are all up in DF comparisons, think GOW:R is underwhelming, have a monster PC or think 30fps is a "slideshow" talk about how little graphics mean to them. The hypocrisy is embarrassing.
VN1X
Banned
How old are you?What is actually more important to you, if forced to choose one,
A game with fantastic deep gameplay
or a game with cutting edge graphics?
STARSBarry
Gold Member
I will say this, it should always be gameplay over graphics... but at the same time graphics can just like any part of a game enhance the experience. All titles need a good mix of both, I'm not saying they need to be Death Stranding but for example Streets of Rage 4 looks like a shitty flash game and that detracts from the gameplay experience whilst if they had used updated and detailed spirits it would of most likely been a hit as big as Sonic Mania.
manfestival
Member
Seems like this is a timeless topic
Andodalf
Banned
Avengers is very pretty but people hate it.
22•22
NO PAIN TRANCE CONTINUE
Yeah games like Abzu rely heavily on it's graphics to immerse the player so it goes both ways.
Roger Rabbit
Member
Gameplay. Every time.
I see people saying things like there are few PS1 games that they want to play now. I get that. But I think much of that is because other things besides graphics and gameplay also evolve over time.
Two examples:
Tomb Raider (original). It's a classic, and it's got better gameplay than recent Tomb Raider games. But Lara controls like a radio controlled tank. Which makes it hard to enjoy now.
Gran Turismo one. Great at the time. But I'm buggered if I want to play it now. Modern games have this fantastic feature where if you want to enter a race and you don't have an eligible car, they take you to the shop and only show you cars which can enter that race. Previously you had to know which cars were 2WD with the engine in the middle of the car, or whatever.
The actual racing was fine, but other niggles make the game difficult to go back to.
Super Arcade Football has just come out for Switch. It's got really retro graphics, and it's addictive as hell.
I had an Atari lynx - still play on it sometimes - and that has plenty of games with awesome graphics for an 89 handheld, but mediocre gameplay, like tech demos. Warbirds and Blue Lightning spring to mind.
I think graphics can certainly add to the feeling of involvement in some genres. A racing SIM, for example, can be hard to take seriously if you usually play racers with better graphics.
But it's gameplay all day for me. Plenty of classic games have graphics that are very retro now, but they still play like a dream.
Super Mario World (most Mario games in fact)
Tetris
Bubble Bobble
Wave Race 64
Streetfighter 2
Sonic 2
Streets of Rage 2
Final Fight
Sega Rally
I see people saying things like there are few PS1 games that they want to play now. I get that. But I think much of that is because other things besides graphics and gameplay also evolve over time.
Two examples:
Tomb Raider (original). It's a classic, and it's got better gameplay than recent Tomb Raider games. But Lara controls like a radio controlled tank. Which makes it hard to enjoy now.
Gran Turismo one. Great at the time. But I'm buggered if I want to play it now. Modern games have this fantastic feature where if you want to enter a race and you don't have an eligible car, they take you to the shop and only show you cars which can enter that race. Previously you had to know which cars were 2WD with the engine in the middle of the car, or whatever.
The actual racing was fine, but other niggles make the game difficult to go back to.
Super Arcade Football has just come out for Switch. It's got really retro graphics, and it's addictive as hell.
I had an Atari lynx - still play on it sometimes - and that has plenty of games with awesome graphics for an 89 handheld, but mediocre gameplay, like tech demos. Warbirds and Blue Lightning spring to mind.
I think graphics can certainly add to the feeling of involvement in some genres. A racing SIM, for example, can be hard to take seriously if you usually play racers with better graphics.
But it's gameplay all day for me. Plenty of classic games have graphics that are very retro now, but they still play like a dream.
Super Mario World (most Mario games in fact)
Tetris
Bubble Bobble
Wave Race 64
Streetfighter 2
Sonic 2
Streets of Rage 2
Final Fight
Sega Rally
MrHydra933BR
Member
Both of them. It's very easy to say "graphics don't matter". Living what you preach is way harder.
MasterCornholio
Member
Thankfully I'm able to enjoy both.
For me it applies to relatively new games as well, though. I've basically no interest in playing anything on a PS3/360 ever again, really. I'd love to play through something like Halo again, but for me a huge part of it would be lost without the whole audiovisual spectacular I experienced the first time round.
Ass of Can Whooping
Banned
What is with you and these threads? It's blatantly obvious what you're doing here
Last edited:
Fbh
Member
Gameplay > Art Direction > Graphics
Kinda have to agree with this.
Every Gameplay or graphics poll is like 90% for "gameplay" and every 30fps or 60fps poll is like 95% for "60fps".
But you get a trailer like GOW Ragnarok which still looks better than most games out there, an most of the thread is people going:
I didn't vote, because choosing one is dumb. They are both important imo.
It's hilarious watching people who just bought new consoles, bitch about cross gen games, are all up in DF comparisons, think GOW:R is underwhelming, have a monster PC or think 30fps is a "slideshow" talk about how little graphics mean to them. The hypocrisy is embarrassing.
Kinda have to agree with this.
Every Gameplay or graphics poll is like 90% for "gameplay" and every 30fps or 60fps poll is like 95% for "60fps".
But you get a trailer like GOW Ragnarok which still looks better than most games out there, an most of the thread is people going:
alabtrosMyster
Banned
I'll respond with two gifs:
1 -
2 -
1 -
2 -
Buggy Loop
Member
Gameplay --- always.
Nice graphics is only a cherry on top of the cake. If the cake's taste is only "ok", the cherry will not save it. I have a top of the line PC with a 3080 TI, yet I've had more fun with Outer wilds, Psychonauts 2, than the Death Stranding / Horizon zero dawn ultra high settings ultrawide 120 fps. I'm more looking forward to Metroid Dread and SMT5 than any TRUUUHHHHPPPLLLEEE AAAYYYY graphic powerhouse showcase announced thus far. There's Forza Horizon 5 actually I'm looking forward to.
Peoples bitching on Elden Ring's graphics for example are boggling my mind.
Nice graphics is only a cherry on top of the cake. If the cake's taste is only "ok", the cherry will not save it. I have a top of the line PC with a 3080 TI, yet I've had more fun with Outer wilds, Psychonauts 2, than the Death Stranding / Horizon zero dawn ultra high settings ultrawide 120 fps. I'm more looking forward to Metroid Dread and SMT5 than any TRUUUHHHHPPPLLLEEE AAAYYYY graphic powerhouse showcase announced thus far. There's Forza Horizon 5 actually I'm looking forward to.
Peoples bitching on Elden Ring's graphics for example are boggling my mind.
Last edited:
22•22
NO PAIN TRANCE CONTINUE
Last edited:
Con-Z-epT
Live from NeoGAF, it's Friday Night!
He's pretty Fly for a white guy.
Topher
Gold Member
I agree, but when I say "graphics" I'm not talking about "state of the art" as in pumping out the most pixels with ray tracing and all that. I want a game to be visually appealing. That's part of the enjoyment of video games along with game play. I didn't need Diablo 2 Resurrected to play Diablo 2, but I want to play Resurrected because of the updated visuals. So yes, I choose both.
sncvsrtoip
Member
Didnt notice much physics improvement since hl2 from 2004
fart town usa
Gold Member
Gameplay all day.
I like great graphics but gameplay is always more important, it's why I mainly play retro games, modern stuff just doesn't really interest me for the most part.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder too. I love tweaking video settings and utilizing S-Video on retro consoles in conjunction with my Trinitron, it makes them look great.
I like great graphics but gameplay is always more important, it's why I mainly play retro games, modern stuff just doesn't really interest me for the most part.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder too. I love tweaking video settings and utilizing S-Video on retro consoles in conjunction with my Trinitron, it makes them look great.
A.Romero
Member
I voted graphics.
Personally I have more fun with games that are technologically cutting edge. Normally high end games will offer both.
Some examples:
- BFV: Does it have something truly innovative gameplay wise? Not really but it does have immersive graphics and maps. Weather effects that impact gameplay, lots of concurrent players, huge maps, many things happening at once. That wouldn't be possible without cutting edge tech.
- Witcher 3: Is a third person RPG. Nothing truly innovative. Combat is average or maybe even below average. The whole package is amazing, though. Great music, voice acting, huge maps.
- GTAV: Nothing truly different from what they put forward since GTA3 except maybe an overhaul combat system. An immersive city in a huge map makes it an exceptional game.
- Yakuza 6: Same as previous Yakuza games but higher visual fidelity and additional environments (together with a good story) makes it worthwhile.
I don't think as consumers we should chose between one or the other but normally AAA games have best tech and decent or great gameplay. Many smaller games could have great gameplay but lack production values... If I wanted that I'd still be playing SNES games. Maybe not that far back but there are many formulas that have been basically perfected gameplay wise and innovation is rare now that we have explored the most common gameplay loops. I don't think it's too much to ask to have games that actually take advantage of newer tech.
Alan Wake
Member
Both if possible, but gameplay is the obvious choice here. Take a game like Tearaway. It's all about the controls, and MM use all the strengths of the Vita in the gameplay. Or a game like The Order: 1886, one of the best looking games I've ever played but with almost no fun gameplay at all.
Last edited:
Phunkydiabetic
Banned
Has anyone posted the why not both old el paso girl yet
