Graphics VS gameplay.

[Mongoose]

Which do you think is more important? I would say gameplay.

[Marshal Murat]

I personally like both
par se after playing RTW, great 3-D grahpics, and then revert to MTW.
The 2-D graphics aren't to good, but gameplay is great.
Same for many games.

I however, do also enjoy the story line and plot (for those action games) like KOTOR, or other games, keeps you guessing like a good mystery.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I love both, but gameplay makes a game. Great graphics are fun and all that, but if the gameplay isn't good it is no use. I voted gameplay because though I love good graphics gameplay is much more important IMHO.

[PanzerJaeger]

Great question.

In my opinion, even the best graphics will get old very fast without quality gameplay - so I went with the latter.

[ChaosLord]

Gameplay, hands down. The most fun(and time spent) on a game has been a text based game. The better the graphics the more likely its there to distract you from defecencies in other areas(IE, Doom 3). After a while playing a game graphics are barely noticed, while gameplay will be felt the whole time. At least, thats how it is with me.

[Papewaio]

Graphics is the bait.
Gameplay is the hook.

One will get you in the other will keep you there.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

In my opinion, even the best graphics will get old very fast without quality gameplay - so I went with the latter.

And thats why I still play VI instead of RTW.

[Fragony]

Graphics is the bait.
Gameplay is the hook.


Well put. Personally I don't really care about graphics, but I liked to be awed from time to time. As long as the graphics are at least convincing I have no need for added halelujah.

[Ser Clegane]

Definitely gameply.

I still play games with rather outdated graphics from time to time just because I simply love the gameplay (e.g., HOMM 3, Fantasy General, BG2, SMAC).

OTOH I cannot remember playing a game with bad gameplay over and over again just to ogle at the graphics.

[Lechev]

Definately game play. If now MOO2* and MOO3 is infront of me, i'll definately choose MOO2 over the 3.

*MOO ---> Master of Orion

[PyrrhusofEpirus]

Although I can't see the poll results, I guess with certitude that gameplay will win by far. But I 'd like to spot that gameplay is more than less subjective, rather than graphics which are objective by nature.

[Nelson]

I expect good game play and good up to date graphics in any new game. We can have both. They are not mutually exclusive so I won’t let devs off the hook on either.

The fact is graphics seem to get slammed whenever game play disappoints as though the graphics are the reason. Why is that? If I’m going to stare at my monitor for hours I want the game to look as good as it can. Technology has allowed graphics to improve dramatically over the years. The bar is pretty high now. The graphics people on a project are not the game play guys anyway. The jobs are different.

Could it be that updating PCs to accommodate decent frame rates in demanding games annoys some people so much that this manifests itself as a disdain for what they call derisively call “eye candy”?

[Phatose]

Unlikely that it's just upgrading, as you definitely find this attitude among console gamers as well. And they don't upgrade.

I'd expect the rationale is that development of that 'eye candy' is a budget intensive operation, and therefore draws resources away from other concerns. The more graphics guys you hire, the less cash you have for programmers and testers.

And if you think about it, the industry has shown the ability to say "Who cares about gameplay, it will sell because of X." (see any Akklaim movie tie in game ever made), and the knowledge that impressive graphics get media attention, and people get a little suspicious, y'know?

[caesar44]

It is far more important that the game has a common sense , a logical actions and outcomes , a realism , a real challenge etc' , than how the trees look's like or how the building collapsed
:book:

[Marcellus]

Gameplay is what makes a game good. Graphics can only make a game better.

[Kekvit Irae]

Gameplay all the way.
Operation Flashpoint's graphics are laughable, but you will not find any other FPS that so so engrossing, so realistic, or so fun. Battlefield 2? Pfft. Capture the flag with eyecandy. Hardly worth my time.

SMAC's graphics are mediocre, at best, but you dont play a Sim Meier game for the graphics. You play it because they are the best dang strategy simulations known to man. Master of Magic and MOO2 (both using the same engine) were hailed as some of the best strategy games of their time, but like most classics, their graphics were laughable.

Rarely a game can combine sweet graphics with alluring gameplay, but I'd rather have someone who's plain-looking who can keep me interested with personality and intelligence for years on end than a hot blue-eyed blonde who I'll get bored with after a few days.

[Mongoose]

I agree. RTS games (HEY! their ok MP games!) IMHO have actually gotten worse since AOK...they only thing that as changed is the graphics.

[Kekvit Irae]

I still enjoy playing Empire Earth (though by the time I get Nuclear Bombers, the game is over because nothing can stand up against those).

I definately enjoy Total Annihilation: Kingdoms, because while it was a RTS, it had a great campaign story (told in the style of Ken Burn's Civil War), and a fresh new approach to making units and getting "resources"

[Fragony]

Operation Flashpoint's graphics are laughable

That game looks so awesome and so bad at the same time. Still one of the best looking games ever if you ask me, just don't hug any threes.

[econ21]

Definitely gameply.

I still play games with rather outdated graphics from time to time just because I simply love the gameplay (e.g., HOMM 3, Fantasy General, BG2, SMAC).

OTOH I cannot remember playing a game with bad gameplay over and over again just to ogle at the graphics.

Good game choices, BTW!

Perhaps the only two games I've played a fair bit to ogle at the graphics are HOMM 4 and Morrowind. Especially Morrowind. That game is just graphically amazing (complemented by excellent sound). I remember stumbling on a Deidra ruins in a sandstorm for the first time. It was breathtaking. Sadly, I didn't find much gameplay in it - to me it was pretty soulless, lacking in dialogue, character or story; as well as rather short on interesting tactical or other choices. Yet I kept playing it. I don't know how many hours I put into the game - maybe 40 or so.

HOMM 4 actually had a wonderful character levelling system as well as cute graphics, but unfortunately was cursed with an AI that makes RTW look like Deep Blue.

Perhaps the most striking combination of graphics and gameplay I've experienced is Vampires: Masquerade [EDIT: Bloodlines]. The graphics and world are even more strikingly rendered than Morrowind (this is coming from someone who has not played Half-life 2), while to my mind, its gameplay rivals the classic CRPGs like BG2 and the Fallouts.

[Mongoose]

I still enjoy playing Empire Earth (though by the time I get Nuclear ers, the game is over because nothing can stand up against those).

I definately enjoy Total Annihilation: Kingdoms, because while it was a RTS, it had a great campaign story (told in the style of Ken Burn's Civil War), and a fresh new approach to making units and getting "resources"

EE was fun. What annoyed me was that it took so long to gather resources.
That and the fact the turtling was so effective plus the bad AI. I imagine it would have been alot better if i had played with 5 human players, rather then 1-2 humans and 3-4 AI's...


Back on topic....

I wonder how many people are going to vote graphics...no one so far. Makes the 'poll' part of the thread kinda pointless.

[Kekvit Irae]

Perhaps the most striking combination of graphics and gameplay I've experienced is Vampires: Masquerade.

Redemption or Bloodlines?
If Bloodlines, then yes, that is one of the very few games that have great graphics (subpar to HL2, but still yummy) with great gameplay.
If Redemption, pfft. A 3D Diablo ripoff where the only enjoyable experience was multiplayer and the dialogue.

[Kekvit Irae]

EE was fun. What annoyed me was that it took so long to gather resources.
That and the fact the turtling was so effective plus the bad AI. I imagine it would have been alot better if i had played with 5 human players, rather then 1-2 humans and 3-4 AI's...


Back on topic....

I wonder how many people are going to vote graphics...no one so far. Makes the 'poll' part of the thread kinda pointless.

If I remember, the Russians have Advanced Mining which gives you access to 7 people on a single resource, instead of 6. I still prefer AOK where as many as you could pile on would be what mines

[Monk]

Gameplay all the way! If a game has an interesting storyline, good solid gameplay and fluidity, it can be text based for all i care.

Though in my FPS games i tend to demand good graphics... ~:handball:

[Colovion]

Gameplay. Graphics are worthless. I found Doom 3 very dull and didn't play more than 10 minutes of the demo. That's one example but as we all know - there are more examples out there. :shiftyeyes:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Gameplay all the way. Once graphics get above a certain standard, you just stop noticing them. If graphics were the most important thing to me, I'd just watch tech demos all day.

[xemitg]

Do you guys remember Sid Meier's Civilization II? That was all gameplay and it remains one of my favorite games of all time

[econ21]

Do you guys remember Sid Meier's Civilization II? That was all gameplay and it remains one of my favorite games of all time

Yup, although I thought it was quite pretty for its time - especially the hilarious advisers. Curiously, I bought a copy a few years back - Test of Time version? - and they had changed dropped the advisors and changed the graphics to be some fuzzy rubbish 3D stuff. I could not play it. Eventually had to buy another copy (Gold?) that had the original graphics.

One amazingly addictive game, although strangely enough I am not sure I really enjoyed playing it. ~:confused:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

One amazingly addictive game, although strangely enough I am not sure I really enjoyed playing it.

Yeah like Sim City ~;)

[Kekvit Irae]

Yup, although I thought it was quite pretty for its time - especially the hilarious advisers. Curiously, I bought a copy a few years back - Test of Time version? - and they had changed dropped the advisors and changed the graphics to be some fuzzy rubbish 3D stuff. I could not play it. Eventually had to buy another copy (Gold?) that had the original graphics.

One amazingly addictive game, although strangely enough I am not sure I really enjoyed playing it. ~:confused:

I liked the Test of Time version. It allowed me to have fun again with CivII

[Azi Tohak]

I think the poll results tell it all.

0-29-8-0.

I love Final Fantasy VI. The game is at least a decade old, done in 16-bit, but the game is fantastic.

Final Fantasy X. Looks great, but the characters are boring, and the plot is daft.

Azi

[King of Atlantis]

gameplay is definatley most important, but i do love nice graphics ~:)

[Navaros]

i say they are both equal

because after having been spoiled by great graphics combined with great gameplay in many modern games, i am now accustomed to having great graphics

due to constant exposure to great graphics, it has become an expected norm for me.

hence if i play a game with bad graphics, then i am constantly thinking: "wow, these are some really bad graphics!" i am always mentally comparing the environments in a game with obsolete graphics to the environments of all the games i've played that have great graphics. hence i cannot enjoy the gameplay of a game with bad graphics, no matter how great

the exceptions to this for me are games that i grew up with. i can still enjoy those because they are part of my soul and remind me of good times in my childhood.

[Beirut]

For flightsims, certainly for civilian flightsims like MSFS 2004, graphics are pretty much on par with gameplay. Eye candy is the whole raison d'etre of the genre.