Video Games: graphics vs gameplay

[creativeinsomnia]

I read a good article today about how gameplay is more of a staple than graphics. I personally agree, with all the next gen stuff coming out, everybody is ooohing and aahhing when they see the games. I admit that i do that too but what's most important to me is how the game plays...anyway, here's the article, it was a good read.

http://www.gamerdad.com/detail.cfm?itemID=2340

[aversion]

Graphics are way behind gameplay in what makes a good game.

[creativeinsomnia]

A lot of people today won't even touch a game because the graphics are "lame". Take for example, Legend of Zelda the Wind Waker. It's cel shaded, gorgeous game...some of the most amazing gameplay and immersive environments i've ever experienced. Some people wont even touch the game because "it looks like a kids game" or "i hate cel shading". Its just too bad really...a lot of people miss out on great games because of this. It makes me cry at night.

[blindside84]

meh, people that won't play a game that has great gameplay but isn't at the top of the line graphics just aren't true gamers, its really simple.

Some games look sooo good, but 10 minutes in your asking your self why the hell am i even playing this, its crap, yawn, the looks won't keep you playing it.

[PAlexC]

It makes me cry at night.

Unless you worked on it, you need bigger problems in your life.

[ondraedan]

I'd have to agree, gameplay is more important than graphics, but with the exception of the original Nintendo, I pretty much won't touch a game unless it's got both...I'm just a picky bastard.

One such game is Unreal Championship 2.

[tonytryout]

Halo was great in both ways. I played Madness Tower 2 (or something like that) that originally came with my Xbox -- graphics were pretty impressive but gameplay? could do hell better!

Got Spider-man 2 yesterday and the graphics were not as "smooth" as other games like Halo but because of the gameplay, it really is a great fun.

[indivision]

I dont think it's so much the gamers at fault here. More games lose money than those that make a profit. Consumers ARE more responsive to quality game play than plain graphics. It's the damned marketers creeping into the mix and calling the shots when it should always be the programmers.

Be that as it may, realistic immersion is directly related to graphics power. Great graphics can definitely enhance gameplay.

[creativeinsomnia]

Unless you worked on it, you need bigger problems in your life.

Honestly, how could there be a bigger problem in anyone's life than people not playing good games based on their graphics??? I don't know what world you're living in but sign me up!

[creativeinsomnia]

It's the damned marketers creeping into the mix and calling the shots when it should always be the programmers.

Yeah that's one of the main reasons...but honestly, in a 20 second commercial you can only do so much...and the easy thing to do is show off the cool visuals with some bumpin techno music. Which more than likely gets people excited and gets people to buy the game, only to realize that it's so bad that every time they play it, God rips the head off of a kitten.

I guess it pays to do your research on a game as with any purchase instead of buying into the hype.

[stevietat]

What's funny is how how in the recent weeks post E3, suddenly every blogger and his mom are writing articles about how graphics don't matter anymore. I guess they realized after seeing next gen console previews that we'll probably be getting the same rehashed gameplay, only prettier.

The industry itself seems to be in an innovation slump right now. Even the few good games that are coming out tend to be sequels of previously good/successful games. I'm only holding out hope for the nintendo revolution for next gen, because they've been talking for a while now about re-focussing on gameplay and putting graphics as a lower priority. (Funny how back when that was being said people were saying it was just nintendo making bad corporate decisions again)

[creativeinsomnia]

That's the thing about Nintendo though, they've always been focused more on gameplay than graphics...maybe that's why they're not winning the console wars as of late. Besides the "Mario Sports" lineup that includes golf, tennis, soccer, and baseball...they usually put out pretty innovative games.

Sega is another giant that pushes innovation...some of their games are so crazy that they flop (Billy hatcher and the giant egg)...but regardless of sales, they seem to come out with a few oddball titles a year.

[indivision]

i suppose the only thing we can hope for is that the gaming industry will progress similarly to the film industry having a resurgence of 'content' independent films.

[krona]

I dont think it's so much the gamers at fault here. More games lose money than those that make a profit. Consumers ARE more responsive to quality game play than plain graphics. It's the damned marketers creeping into the mix and calling the shots when it should always be the programmers.

It's not that marketers are pushing graphics because they want to, they are pushing graphics because thats the only thing that consistently improves. The market is stagnating because there has been no real development or evolution of the quality of gameplay for the past 3 years at least. The only way to get a FPS off the shelves these days is to promote its "realism" which apparently has the side effect of improving it's gameplay.

[indivision]

It's not that marketers are pushing graphics because they want to, they are pushing graphics because thats the only thing that consistently improves. The market is stagnating because there has been no real development or evolution of the quality of gameplay for the past 3 years at least. The only way to get a FPS off the shelves these days is to promote its "realism" which apparently has the side effect of improving it's gameplay.

I see it over and over in the web industry. Marketers push what they are paid to push, which is the bottom line (quality is inconsequential). In the gaming industry they push graphics because, as creativeinsomnia pointed out, they know that they can make a fancy commercial and sell to kids who dont know any better.

It defies logic that the stagnation would be due to lack of talent. There were Atari 2600 titles that exibit twice as much thought as most games today. Since then, I would say that the population of expert developers in the world has more than quadrupled. The resource for innovation is there more than ever. The problem is the sheer size of the industry. Video games make more money than movies now. It's not as simple as it was in 'the old days' when game development teams were like mad scientists that didn't have to answer to anyone because nobody else knew what they were talking about. As soon as games started making large dollars, large dollar type of people became interested. That means corporations, share holders interest in low risk/high profits, and marketers learning enough of the lingo to tell programmers what they want them to do according to market research which is always superficial by nature. Also, the new level of graphics itself presents hurdles. In order to visually compete with games, the amount of work needed on just models and graphics has greatly increased. Large teams are needed to draw all that crap. Which means there is a lot more room for an idea to get watered down due to budget meetings and all that nonsense.

I don't blame the marketers. They are just doing their job. It's just frustrating to see the industry getting wrapped so tightly in red tape. On the brighter side, I think it could change if some genius finally says f-it, starts an independently financed game company focused on gameplay and starts cutting into the big boys profits. It happened in Hollywood.

[Napalm]

People are still playing Civilization, UFO Defence and the first Halflife, while other games with far better graphics are discarded. These games had mediocre graphics when they came out, but the gameplay made them popular

[xup878]

as a designer/gameplay progammer for a mainstream game company i'm finding that graphics side is considered about the same, its just it takes way longer now to produce acceptable graphics so alot of time has to be put into those areas... and hey they have to work hard around the limits of the engine to keep it looking good/running fast...
graphics are what sells to the mainstream market... and its not like the gameplay isn't thought of at all, it just has to be fit around level designs (that are too far along the pipeline to change) and engine limitations... its pretty difficult...

and please don't bring up the old games were better... take off your nostalgia glasses... the majority were rubbish... we just had nothing to compare them to...
'creative' games like jet set willy, dizzy, etc are all based of the same mechanic and are little else but random levels created on the fly... no thought involved...

this 'creative' independant dream is nice, hey i'd be doing my own thing if i had the time and money... but nobody does, u need a lot of financial support to make it in the industry, and if that means going mainstream so be it... it's still a kickass job...

[Happy Pixel]

Good graphics in any game is nice but if it doesnt have good gameplay or a good story I'm not a big fan. Take for example Lunar Silver Star Story Complete, the gameplay was just like any oldschool RPG which is cool but what really stuck me to it was the story. I feel RPG's nowadays take a big hit when it comes to gameplay and storytelling. The recent RPG's have the 3d look to them, and a lot of times poor camera angles which are easy to get with a 3d game can ruin it, like Kingdom Hearts.