Support NeoGAF

[Flo_Evans]

ok, I realize the default answer is going to be 'both' - the perfect game would have jaw dropping visuals and compelling deep gameplay, maybe even a cohernt story to boot.

I guess the question more acurtatly is which is more important? I'll take one of my favorite games MGS, and try to explain why I like it so much. (

1st off the style: the character designs, environments, music, are all top notch. Snake is a badass, no question about it. The cinamatic cutscenes and voice acting just push the whole package over the edge. I would have to put the story in the style catagory though... Kojima has some nice plot twists and turns, and there actually is sort of a message in there, but if MGS was ever published as a novel it would be universaly panned as tripe.

the substance: the sheer number of ways you can dispose of gaurds and the awsome boss matchups are gameplay gold. Hiding in crates, hanging off ledges, throwing posion snakes at guards, choking them out and throwing them off the tanker - good times.

so MGS delivers in both aspects, but I have to admit - its the sytle of the game that I really love. If you took all of MGS gameplay and put it in a cartoon world, I don't think I would like it as much.

Thats not to say cartoony games cannot have style. I really liked the visuall style of Zelda: WW. The game itself was too easy and boring. The upcoming Okami has style to spare.

So are you a style or substance gamer? When I 1st started writing this I thought I was substance... I think the truth is somewhere in between or 'both' but ask yourself deep down why is your favorite game your favorite? Is it the characters and the story - or is it what you do when the cutscenes stop and the game actually starts?

 

[Ranger X]

For me, substance (gameplay) wins.

 

[Tarazet]

Style, definitely. Everyone will try and claim that they enjoy a deep and well-organized game. Of course, I can too - but not if it's boring.

 

[FiRez]

I can say that even the menu design makes a difference for me.

 

[Gattsu25]

I consider MGS: Twin Snakes a game that puts the style over the substance

I don't like Twin Snakes

 

[jarrod]

Definitey substance. That's why I prefer GBA to the consoles anyway.

 

[akascream]

Those are difficult catagories to choose from, because there are things about both style and substance that both interest me and turn me off from games. I hate shitty presentation/art (especially poor and lengthy introductions when I just want to play), and I enjoy the opposite. And there are types of gameplay and poor design decisions that completely turn me off, while good design interests me.

I guess this is just another gameplay vs graphics thread, and of course, if I had to choose, I'd choose good gameplay over good graphics. But it doesn't have to be a choice and games that suck in one area, typically suck in the other so yeah.

 

[dark10x]

Your description of why Metal Gear rocks is exactly how I feel. The gameplay is fantastic and full of options, but the real kicker is born from the incredible presentation and style. Very few games can match Metal Gear in that regard.

I can and do enjoy both types of games and the quality of one aspect or the other (or both) determines how much I will enjoy it. If a game is presented well enough and loaded with style, I can forgive some gameplay shortcomings just as I can get over a dull presentation provided the gameplay is solid enough. It is when those two aspects meet and succeed, however, that real magic appears...

That is definitely an exception in terms of MGS. God those cutscenes were awful.

I enjoyed Twin Snakes, but there is no doubt that it was missing a lot of what makes MGS so special. Clearly, the crew responsible for TTS didn't quite understand what it takes to make a classic MGS game...

 

[Duck of Death]

Definitey substance. That's why I prefer GBA to the consoles anyway.

How do games on the GBA have more substance and/or less style than games on the PC/GC/PS2/Xbox?

 

[Flo_Evans]

well I am a graphic/visual designer by trade, I love well designed menus and interfaces^^. I think I can put it more simply:

would you endure a game that has awsome visuals and not so great gameplay more than a game that is ugly to look at but fun to play?

and just becasue games are 2d or on GBA does not make tham automaticaly = substance

one of my favorite old school games is ninja gaiden. Awsome ninja gameplay - awsome cutscenes and art.

 

[dark10x]

How do games on the GBA have more substance and/or less style than games on the PC/GC/PS2/Xbox?

In most cases, they don't...

I hope jarrod isn't attempting to suggest that a complete removal of style results in more substance, cuz' that ain't true.

Then again, substance is such a broad term and one can choose to define it as they please.

 

[FiRez]

For ex. in my case Forza is a very good game but for some reason the "style" decisions (menu, music, sounds,icons, etc, navigation of the GUI) are awful and the overall experience isn't the same as RSC2, PGR2 (not trying to downplay these games they are awesome too).
and for that reason Is why I play RSC2 and PGR2 more than Forza

 

[Tarazet]

well I am a graphic/visual designer by trade, I love well designed menus and interfaces^^. I think I can put it more simply:

would you endure a game that has awsome visuals and not so great gameplay more than a game that is ugly to look at but fun to play?

To me, ugly games aren't fun to play, period.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

well I am a graphic/visual designer by trade, I love well designed menus and interfaces^^. I think I can put it more simply:

would you endure a game that has awsome visuals and not so great gameplay more than a game that is ugly to look at but fun to play?

I'd rather have the ugly to look at, but I don't discount style.

 

[Kiriku]

I'll be boring and say 'a combination'. And some genres benefit more from style than others.

 

[APF]

It depends on what you mean by substance. In your example, I appreciated the style of Zelda and felt it enhanced my enjoyment of the game as entertainment, even though the game itself wasn't exactly deep on a technical level. Still, the gameplay was solid enough for me to like it overall more than Conker, which is arguably the more beautiful of the two. For that game, the "style" wasn't enough to get past what I felt was anacronistic gameplay. Sometimes simple gameplay is all that's needed for a game to shine, but no amount of beauty is worth trudging through a broken game.

 

[Fatghost]

A quality game will have both.


But it really all depends on what you use to define style and substance.

 

[jarrod]

How do games on the GBA have more substance and/or less style than games on the PC/GC/PS2/Xbox?

In most cases, they don't...

I hope jarrod isn't attempting to suggest that a complete removal of style results in more substance, cuz' that ain't true.

It's not so much an issue of "more substance" as it is a focus on substance. The best GBA games tend to be more focued on game mechanics while the top console games often stray into to far into narrative/presentation concerns for me (TWW, Ico, MGS2-3, etc).

Also, Advance Wars.

 

[Gattsu25]

Definitey substance. That's why I prefer GBA to the consoles anyway.

In terms of substance, I would put console games over handheld ones...especially the consoles released before 2000. Many handheld games lack style, but that doesn't make them a resiviore of substance either.

 

[Flo_Evans]

a large part of advanced wars charm is the character designs and animations though, as a pure strat game, its pretty weak.

 

[nubbe]

Balance, young grasshopper.

 

[akascream]

a large part of advanced wars charm is the character designs and animations though, as a pure strat game, its pretty weak.

DUCK!

 

[dark10x]

The best GBA games tend to be more focued on game mechanics while the top console games often stray into to far into narrative/presentation concerns for me (TWW, Ico, MGS2-3, etc).

There are plenty of other GREAT console titles that do not move in that direction, though. I enjoy the variety, actually. For every experience oriented title that comes down the pipe, I usually find another great title focused solely on the gameplay.

 

[Gattsu25]

Also, Advance Wars.

Dai Senryaku VII: Modern Military Tactics!
http://ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=35940

and guess what? the game has more substance and less style than Advance Wars

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm a style guy. As much as I love great gameplay, style plays a very important role in making characters and worlds jump out of the screen and grab you. A game can play fantastic, but if its world and characters are uninspired and dull it diminishes things considerably. Style can make an otherwise good game a truly memorable experience. Would Castlevania Symphony of the Night be remembered the same without that great art or music? Would Lumines be as fun without the fantastic lights and sounds? Metal Gear Solid 3 loses a lot of its luster without those gorgeous cutscenes and direction. The truth is that both are important in creating a truly wonderful game experience, but I have found that many of the games that I continue to have fond memories of all had great style.

 

[Duck of Death]

It's not so much an issue of "more substance" as it is a focus on substance. The best GBA games tend to be more focued on game mechanics while the top console games often stray into to far into narrative/presentation concerns for me (TWW, Ico, MGS2-3, etc).

Also, Advance Wars.

Just because the expectations of iconography, representation, and aesthetics change because of superior hardware does not mean that there is any less focus on the rules and mechanics of the game.

Advance Wars does rock, though. And Castlevania: Circle of the Moon, I <3 that game

But would a console version of Advance Wars with slick anime cutscenes and more "style" and presentation somehow lose focus on its gameplay? Of course not. Is the Gamecube version of Fire Emblem less competent in its execution of the rules as its GBA predecessors?

 

[Flo_Evans]

well I should have said its a solid strat game - but it definatly has tons of style.

 

[Andy787]

Style, definitely. Everyone will try and claim that they enjoy a deep and well-organized game. Of course, I can too - but not if it's boring.

Yep. Put it in words better than I was going to.

Basically, I choose both, because the games I play typically have excellent gameplay to go along with the style (much like the MGS example), but I say style because that is how I choose my games, and where my interest in any given title comes from. I mean, why play a generic, cookie-cutter game --even if it does have solid gameplay-- when you can play something unique and interesting, and still have that solid or better gameplay? Of course, it goes both ways, but this is how most of my gaming habits work.

 

[jarrod]

In terms of substance, I would put console games over handheld ones...especially the consoles released before 2000. Many handheld games lack style, but that doesn't make them a resiviore of substance either.

Oh the consoles before 2000 are a different issue entirely. Saturn > NES >*

a large part of advanced wars charm is the character designs and animations though, as a pure strat game, its pretty weak.

BARF!

In terms of narrative and characters, AW is brick stupid. Thoroughly engaging mechanics and nearly limitless replayability alone are the reasons it's the best this generation.

There are plenty of other GREAT console titles that do not move in that direction, though. I enjoy the variety, actually. For every experience oriented title that comes down the pipe, I usually find another great title focused solely on the gameplay.

Sure... I just found that the best games tend to be on GBA, and they tend to focus on mechanics over all else. For me anyway.

Dai Senryaku VII: Modern Military Tactics!
http://ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=35940

and guess what? the game has more substance and less style than Advance Wars

Arguable. The hardcore Daisenryaku comminty thinks it's pretty weak really. It's more in depth that AWars certainly, but way less balanced and polished from my understanding.

That's said, I'm praying it's playable on 360.

 

[Amir0x]

I don't even know why there's really a discussion here.

A game with good 'substance' will be good regardless of the visuals. A game with good visuals will still be shitty if the 'substance' is trash. Where's the floor falling out from? How can visuals take precedence? I honestly don't understand this prioritizing.

Now, this is not a dismissal of the importance of visuals. Far from it, it is absolutely essential to creating a package that sheens with polish. It draws you into the world, can add an extra layer of immersion. But 'style' over 'substance' is ridiculous. I really can't respect that view in any form.

 

[ToxicAdam]

BOTH. THAT'S WHY YOU SHOULD PLAY PC GAMES.

 

[Bishman]

1st off the style: the character designs, environments, music, are all top notch.

Same reason why I love MGS too. When you buy a MGS game, you can feel the style from the opening music, cinematic, slick menu, etc.

 

[pj]

Dai Senryaku VII: Modern Military Tactics!
http://ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=35940

and guess what? the game has more substance and less style than Advance Wars

That's the first game I thought of when I saw this thread title. I can enjoy a style-less game as long as it has good gameplay. I can also enjoy stlyish games with shallow or mediocre gameplay. It's when a game has neither that I have a problem..

P.S. I'm a little pissed at Dai senryaku right now because one of the missions has an unfair placement of an enemy unit in an area where one shouldn't have been able to get to without me seeing (it was in a valley with no shallow water access, and the enemy doesn't have any ports, so it wasn't dropped off by boat, and the enemy doesn't have any airports, so it wasn't dropped by plane).

 

[Crazymoogle]

Nethack. Nethack. Nethack.

The inevitable definition of substance triumphing over style from an enjoyment perspective. But you won't catch me arguing that the game looks anywhere near ready to put in a retail box.

 

[teruterubozu]

Definitely SUBSISTENCE - gotta eat.

 

[jett]

I prefer a balanced mix of both...but sometimes style can win me over. Re: Rez.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I don't even know why there's really a discussion here.

A game with good 'substance' will be good regardless of the visuals. A game with good visuals will still be shitty if the 'substance' is trash. Where's the floor falling out from? How can visuals take precedence? I honestly don't understand this prioritizing.

Now, this is not a dismissal of the importance of visuals. Far from it, it is absolutely essential to creating a package that sheens with polish. It draws you into the world, can add an extra layer of immersion. But 'style' over 'substance' is ridiculous. I really can't respect that view in any form.

Very interesting choice of avatar then^^

Katamari is pretty much a game that is loved for its unique style - its extremly short, and aside from collecting scarfs and other nick-nacks doesn't really have much of a reason to replay it. Imagine if katamari damacy was just rolling a ball around picking up blocks. I doubt it would receive the praise it garners.

 

[Comfort_Eagle]

I prefer a balanced mix of both...but sometimes style can win me over. Re: Rez.

Pretty much. Usually i consider crazy style to be horrible but sometimes there is something that sucks me in. See Katamari and Rez.

 

[Ironclad]

Substance wins out for me. The style is there to compliment the substance, not replace it. A game like Okami may look gorgeous but if it is a chore to play, the style may not even be worth it. Same goes for Katamari. The core gameplay is very simple but it doesn't get in your way. This simplicity allows you to enjoy the visual and audio stylings of the game. If the gameplay however was trash and hampered you at all times, the style would be lost. You would not be able to enjoy the style if the gameplay was frustrating you at all times. Substance is the base coat and style is the finishing touch.

 

[Tarazet]

Yep. Put it in words better than I was going to.

Basically, I choose both, because the games I play typically have excellent gameplay to go along with the style (much like the MGS example), but I say style because that is how I choose my games, and where my interest in any given title comes from. I mean, why play a generic, cookie-cutter game --even if it does have solid gameplay-- when you can play something unique and interesting, and still have that solid or better gameplay? Of course, it goes both ways, but this is how most of my gaming habits work.

Yeah, that's how I feel too. Any developer with enough talent to make a really stylish, appealing experience will probably also have the chops to make a solid and functional game. To illustrate the point, name 5 games that look great but play terrible - now name 15 that looks great and play great - and finally name 30 that look terrible and play terrible. Those first 5 will be the hardest to come up with. (Note: that's a rhetorical example. I'm not asking you to do this, GAF list-addicts... although you're free to try if you want to see if my point holds.)

Getting back to the issue of substance, though.. I'm not impressed with games that last 285 hours on the first play-through, and if you plan on doing the sidequests you have to hire a full-time assistant to get everything done. But on the other end of the spectrum, there's no denying that there are games that look great, play great, but don't last long enough. Heart of Darkness on the PSX was a good example of this. So are Mario Kart DD and Mario Tennis, which are enjoyable single-player experiences... for about 2 hours. If you don't have someone else to play with, these games are barely even worth a rental. And other than a Soul Calibur, a lot of fighters leave me feeling empty after as little as 10 minutes. It's only in that kind of situation that I really get pissed off about a lack of substance.

 

[Pellham]

i occassionally buy games because of their style, they make good collector's items, but the games that I actually appreciate are the ones full of substance (like a good Dragon Quest game).

 

[Mupepe]

Most good games will have both anyways. Good substance usually creates good style imo.

 

[Takuan]

Style goes a long way with me, but substance always wins in the end.

 

[F.Be@PSG]

Substance is nothing without style.

 

[Docpan]

I don't give a shit, as long as it's fun to play.

Games with lots of style, like Otogi, but suck dick in the gameplay area are my personal pet peeve. Gameplay first, style second. That's why they're called GAMES you dumbfucks. *glances at fromsoftware*

 

[C- Warrior]

I like games with equal mixture. Too much of one can be bad.

Good examples of games with a solid mixture of substance and flash of course would be Ninja Gaiden and Devil May Cry 1 and 3.

 

[Starfire]

It may sound cliche, but for me, it's true: style draws me in, substance keeps me there.

I don't think style and substance are necessarily mutually exclusive though,The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time for example the style was partially responsible for making the gameplay so intuitive and engauging: in fact, it was almost a necessary precursor to taking the Zelda franchise into 3d successfully, had the controls been clunky and the interface sporradic, it wouldn't have been the same game for me. In many cases, the style is needed to provide the player with an experience, that would simply be too difficult to accomplish any other way (God of War's mini-games for instance (the in-battle QTE sequences): while ultimately one-dimensional, they allowed you to accomplish a relatively difficult task relatively simplisticly).

Style can also hinder gameplay as well, if implimented improperly: it has always seemed to me that style and play mechanics are often intertwined, and even aesthetic style can sometimes serve to enhance or lessen the enjoyment of your gaming experience: for instance architecture could potentially have a large effect on level design, and vice-versa.

Just the way I've always seen it, not saying that stylish games are always fun though, or that games without style cannot be enjoyable, merely that almost every game has some combination of both, although there certainly are games that just exist as eye candy.

 

[DDayton]

Style is more than just graphics.

Substance is more than just core mechanics.

The gameplay itself can be part of the style.

I think what you folks mean is "visuals versus gameplay," not "style versus substance."

Side note: Starfox Adventures is perhaps the best example of a game pushing graphics ("style") over gameplay ("substance").

 

[BreakyBoy]

David currently holds the title of best post in the thread with that one. Everything Mizuguchi has done/is praised for are perfect examples of style creating substance.

As for me though, it's definitely gameplay over presentation for me. More and more, I've come to expect an equal balance of both, but when pressed I'll take a crappy looking but great playing game anyday. I think the fact that I enjoyed Grandia Xtreme immensely for the battle system alone is proof of this.

 

[Amir0x]

Very interesting choice of avatar then^^

Katamari is pretty much a game that is loved for its unique style - its extremly short, and aside from collecting scarfs and other nick-nacks doesn't really have much of a reason to replay it. Imagine if katamari damacy was just rolling a ball around picking up blocks. I doubt it would receive the praise it garners.

I have to commend your attempt to make a compelling observation, but unfortunately it falls way short.

For one, Katamari Damacy has great gameplay. I would hate it if the gameplay sucked ass. But its simple-at-its-core yet genuinely rewarding 'rolling' mechanics were inventive and fun. If Katamari Damacy was just rolling around picking up blocks, then part of the reason to replay it WOULD be gone. In other words, the gameplay would be worse for it. So that's a pretty silly statement. Visually it's not impressive, sense of scale aside. Audio is the 'big' thing people try to say, and yes it's great music. But if the game sucked, I'd just buy the soundtrack. Yes, it's short. Short games can be good too!

It's actually a good thing you mentioned the game. Katamari Damacy is the perfect example where the style is once more complimenting the great gameplay. This guy had this interesting idea and then formed this incredibly wacky world around it. They suppliment each other. But at the end of the day even if you took away most of that 'charm', if the gameplay worked the same it would still be a good game. It might no longer be a 9.0 game for me, but it'd certainly be a 8.0.

I speak for myself because obviously some people DO buy things for style over substance, but not me.