Viewing Thread:
"Graphics And Gameplay. Which makes better gaming?"

For a long time now people have been going on about the argument between Graphics and gameplay and which one they thought was best.

I have always thought that the graphics in games need to be reasonable but as long as the gameplay was excellent. A few games spring to mind when i think off amazing games with the gameplay that every games maker tries to recreate when they make a new game.
two examples of gameplay over graphics are in the mobile phone game SNAKE and that old game Pong

Snake - everyone has had at least one go on this game, the graphics are probly the most limited you will have ever seen with you controlling a black bar which is representing the snake and you have to control the snake collecting bits of food, anyways the game is one of the most addictive games you will ever play. You will forever be trying to beat your top score or even your friends score's to make them jealous :-).

Pong - Now this game is one of the oldest and greatest games i remember playing, you have two bars on either side and it plays like tennis, you hitting a little white ball across the screen and either the computer or your friend trying to hit it back. once again this game has very limited graphics but the gameplay is endless, you can hardly ever get bored of playing this game.

But times change, games creator's can not get away with splashing a blob of blue on the screen and then saying "this is the sea" they have to actually show the waves going up and down with boats on there and the boats have to have people in or other wise it wont be very realistic...

... But developers who have took too much notice to the graphical side of the game and have virtually forgotten to add the game play in, a good example of a game with good graphics but non exsistant gameplay is:

The bouncer: high hopes were pinned on this game from the makers of final fantasy series, the screen shots were absolutely amazing they were simple photo realistic, but for some strange reason the developers wouldn't let games tester play it. It soon turned out that this game had game play that was put simply really bad, so even though the graphics were good this game turned into a failure.

Some developers though have added great gameplay and great graphics into the same game and also made it addictive, a game that stands out is:

Grand theft Auto III - The possibilitys are endless in this game and you can do every thing you want in it and the stuff you have to do will last this game until the next version comes out, the makers (rockstar) have really made this game a must have and they are a perfect example of adding good gameplay and graphics together.

Lets look into the future for a minute though, a few games seem to stick out for different reasons:

The getaway - it has been in creation for about three years now it has the best in game graphics i have ever seen but in my opinion they are doing what happened to the bouncer, showing loads of decent pictures of this "amazing" game but not letting any one have a quick play on the game

Deus Ex - this game has nearly been completed for the PS2 but the good thing is it has already been on the PC so people seem to know what to expect, this could become one of the greatest games of all time if they manage to port it successfully, the mix of amazing graphics and intelligent gameplay is exactly what the player wants. He wants a choice of how to complete a mission and not just "found key, put in door" which we all know about at the moment.

SO what do developers need to learn for the future? It doesn't need to have every grain of sand realistically added to a game to make it good, just add some nice graphics and good gameplay and they will be onto a winner.

What do you think? graphics or gameplay?

KR

For a long time now people have been going on about the argument between Graphics and gameplay and which one they thought was best.

I have always thought that the graphics in games need to be reasonable but as long as the gameplay was excellent. A few games spring to mind when i think off amazing games with the gameplay that every games maker tries to recreate when they make a new game.
two examples of gameplay over graphics are in the mobile phone game SNAKE and that old game Pong

Snake - everyone has had at least one go on this game, the graphics are probly the most limited you will have ever seen with you controlling a black bar which is representing the snake and you have to control the snake collecting bits of food, anyways the game is one of the most addictive games you will ever play. You will forever be trying to beat your top score or even your friends score's to make them jealous :-).

Pong - Now this game is one of the oldest and greatest games i remember playing, you have two bars on either side and it plays like tennis, you hitting a little white ball across the screen and either the computer or your friend trying to hit it back. once again this game has very limited graphics but the gameplay is endless, you can hardly ever get bored of playing this game.

But times change, games creator's can not get away with splashing a blob of blue on the screen and then saying "this is the sea" they have to actually show the waves going up and down with boats on there and the boats have to have people in or other wise it wont be very realistic...

... But developers who have took too much notice to the graphical side of the game and have virtually forgotten to add the game play in, a good example of a game with good graphics but non exsistant gameplay is:

The bouncer: high hopes were pinned on this game from the makers of final fantasy series, the screen shots were absolutely amazing they were simple photo realistic, but for some strange reason the developers wouldn't let games tester play it. It soon turned out that this game had game play that was put simply really bad, so even though the graphics were good this game turned into a failure.

Some developers though have added great gameplay and great graphics into the same game and also made it addictive, a game that stands out is:

Grand theft Auto III - The possibilitys are endless in this game and you can do every thing you want in it and the stuff you have to do will last this game until the next version comes out, the makers (rockstar) have really made this game a must have and they are a perfect example of adding good gameplay and graphics together.

Lets look into the future for a minute though, a few games seem to stick out for different reasons:

The getaway - it has been in creation for about three years now it has the best in game graphics i have ever seen but in my opinion they are doing what happened to the bouncer, showing loads of decent pictures of this "amazing" game but not letting any one have a quick play on the game

Deus Ex - this game has nearly been completed for the PS2 but the good thing is it has already been on the PC so people seem to know what to expect, this could become one of the greatest games of all time if they manage to port it successfully, the mix of amazing graphics and intelligent gameplay is exactly what the player wants. He wants a choice of how to complete a mission and not just "found key, put in door" which we all know about at the moment.

SO what do developers need to learn for the future? It doesn't need to have every grain of sand realistically added to a game to make it good, just add some nice graphics and good gameplay and they will be onto a winner.

What do you think? graphics or gameplay?

KR

has to have excellent gameplay and reasonable graphics

got any examples of any games that have excellent gameplay and reasonable graphics? except Grand Theft Auto III

Kid Rock wrote:
> got any examples of any games that have excellent gameplay and reasonable
> graphics? except Grand Theft Auto III
--------------------

Well, Jak + Daxter has excellent graphics and great gameplay.

When u think about all the big games of this and last year you notice that they exceed in both catergories. MGS2 probably has the best graphics ever...and the gameplay just speaks for itself. GT3 is another good example. Has very realistic yet fun gameplay...and again some of the best graphics. Other examples include SSX Tricky and ICO.

However if one has to go to make way for another then u are usually left with an okay game. Take rez, lovely graphics...not great gameplay. Then look at Worms Blast. Great gameplay...poor graphics.

Then u get games that are pretty good in one area and amazing in others. Pro evo great gameplay and okayish graphics.


Gameplay though in the end becomes the main function. After all these are games and not videos. But on the bonus side graphics can make the gameplay better. So really i think good graphics are there to up the main factor...gameplay.

most people agree that gameplay is better then :D

Hmm, in my mind i always felt that for a truly good game, in all honesty these days you need a bit of both. Most of the best games these days have both of these, top graphics usually are greeted with good gameplay too, and its these games that are usually the better. However there are those games that have top graphics and dire gameplay, such as The Bouncer. This game was known for its movie like graphics but the gameplay was not all that good at all, being repetative and boring. Some devlopers think that graphics are always going to sell games, which of course is right, there are always going to be people who buy a game for its graphics, but not the real gamers who want fun.

Games like GTA have proved this wrong, the first games on the PS1 were great, but they had graphics that belonged on the Snes, but what they lacked for in looks they more than made up for in gameplay. like GTA 3 there were lots to do in this game, and it was one of those games that would never end. Needless to say that it sold well, as did its sequels.

I would like to think that game play is the one i look out for, after all i want to be able to play it more than have something good to look at. But the thing is these days that even i make a note of what the game plays like and what the graphics are actually like.

You mention Snake and Pong, these games do have rubbish graphics and although there game play is good and simple, it does not really go deep enough and easily becomes boring, so im not sure whether they are really good examples.

But for games to become really good sellers these days they have to have a combination of both. Most importantly they have to have good game play that people will want to play through over and over, but they also have to have good graphics as with todays power of the computers thats become a big expectancy.

For a game to be acclaimed "great", it must have both impressive graphics and gameplay, but this is proving to be a difficult task for developers.

Evidently, developers seem to focus on one or the other like Pro Evo said. GTA3 had the gameplay, but the graphics weren't top notch for the PS2's capabilities. This shows that Rockstar focused on the gameplay more than the graphics, but still the surroundings on GTA3 were crisp and realistic!

This issue with graphics and gameplay can be argued with the X-box. From what I've played (DOA3 & Halo) I can tell you that they've put a lot of effort into their games. Both the graphics and gameplay are very impressive.

For me, a game needs a bit of both!

you only have to look as far as the pro evo vs fifa series to see that gameplay dominates a true gamers interests.

True but the Pro Evo graphics are not at all bad, i prefer them to the Fifa games.

The Pro Evo graphics for me seem alot more realistic than the 'rubber' effect that EA seem to come up with in the Fifa games.