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

Pro Evolution 2 will be out in the Autumn and they are working on the players shirts :D

It will also have the real argentina player names because they have been allowed to use them now.

Can i just say that Graphics are the most important factor for SELLING a game. After all before buying a game the probability of playing it will be low. So in oreder to attract the buyer the game must have good graphics. Take MGS2 for example. People were wetting their pants over it long before the release of a playable demo. Why? Because the graphics ruled. Gameply is most important for the player i'd say...and Graphics most important for the seller.

Also i seen the cover to Pro Evo2 and on it is a little sticker saying HDD compatible. Looks like it will use the HDD then which means there is a good chance of it being a online game! Also Konami did announce they are releasing a online footy game so you can bet your two penneth that this will be it!

Kid Rock wrote:
> AbsoluT Neo wrote:
KR ive not heard of Pro Evo 2 coming out, but iv'e heard in
> a mag
> that ISS 2 is coming out but it's 'apparently' not better than Pro
> Evo.

yeh i have heard of ISS 2 but that only got 88% this is WINNING ELEVEN 6
> WHICH WILL TRANSLATE INTO PRO EVO 2

O rite,

well thats something good to look forward to then

Gameplay is simply better, because it is what makes a game.

Yes, graphics can be good to look at, but playing a game that looks really good, but actually plays rubbish can't really be good at all, meanwhile, a game that has bad graphics, but execells in great gameplay can be great to play, even if it doens't look as good as it can.

Heh. I managed to fit the whole of the above into 1 sentence. :-)

By the way, good post KR.

;-)

IIS 2 is made by the same people who made the n64 versions of iss, pro evolution is made by the team behind the ps1 games, i prefere the old n64 versions.

oh, yeh, back to the topic.
I feel that gameplay is what makes a better game than graphics, and if you are any self-respected gamer you should feel this too.

Can't wait for Deus Ex, i think that the best game i have on PS2 is Half-life and apparently DE is like HL but better.

AbsoluT Neo wrote:
KR ive not heard of Pro Evo 2 coming out, but iv'e heard in a mag
> that ISS 2 is coming out but it's 'apparently' not better than Pro Evo.

yeh i have heard of ISS 2 but that only got 88% this is WINNING ELEVEN 6 WHICH WILL TRANSLATE INTO PRO EVO 2

I would say that gameplay is better but there is a need for some graphics but for me theres no need for real life graphics now GTA3 graphics are good but i don't need anything to showy i think the gameplay is the best thing for a game

Samos wrote:
> Pro Evo wrote:
> If MGS 2 came out with sub standard
> graphics would it
> get all the hype and good reviews that it is doing now?

Nope.

It's mostly
> because of the outstanding graphics that it's received so much attention.

The
> gameplay is also good.

I actually think its getting all the hype its getting because its a sequel to one of the best games that came out on the PS 1, and an 'MGS 2' was never made on the PS 1 so it was very eagerly awaited on the PS 2.

However the 'success' of it is due to its fabulous game play and wonderful graphics.

Pro Evo wrote:
> If MGS 2 came out with sub standard
> graphics would it get all the hype and good reviews that it is doing now?

Nope.

It's mostly because of the outstanding graphics that it's received so much attention.

The gameplay is also good.

Hmm, i have to disagree with you there. Are you telling me in todays day and age, that if a PS2 game came out with graphics like that of a GBA but with good gameplay you would buy it?

I dont think so, people have come to expect good graphics with todays consoles and really expect nothing less than top notch graphics, never mind the game play.

If MGS 2 came out with sub standard graphics would it get all the hype and good reviews that it is doing now?