Viewing Thread:
"Gameplay isnt the only important thing about games."

Everyone reckons the only important part of a game is the gameplay, then why do you think all of these "super-consoles" are coming out! Gameplay is very important but the better the graphics, the more realistic, and the more realistic, the better the gameplay. For example, would Half-Life be the great game it is if it was in 2D! Not a chance! And the same goes for plots. There are great games without great plots, but would Metal Gear Solid be the game it is today without the great plot???

True that's what i said all along

Better graphics and sound etc, should only be used to one end... making the gameplay better. Brilliant gameplay + rubbish graphics = great game (tetris).
Brilliant graphics + rubbish gameplay = rubbish game


Graphics should only be used as a tool to enhance gameplay and increases immersion and atmosphere. After all, you can have a top game with poor graphics, but not a top game with poor gameplay.

SonicRav

Do you think I could still win with this topic even though I started it yesterday?

And I started it.

There's some great discussing going on in here.

(How do you know? You haven't even read it!)

Better not intervene...

But most people arnt really into their consoles, they like to play a game every so often, but dont spend much time otherwise thinking about it..

And these people are the majority of the game buying public...

when they go into the shop they loook for things they are into (football/current film/etc) and then decide by the blurb and graphics...

They never even pick up a magazine, let alone read a few reviews for a balanced opinion...

For them consoles are a means to an end, not an end in themselves...

The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people

I think word of mouth plays a big part in games sales. Except certain titles based on popular programmes or films, which seem to sell by the bucketload, however good or bad they turn out to be.

If your friend buys a game and then tells you it's 'so good you could put a hat on it and call it president' then you'd probably rush out and buy the same game, presuming it's for your format, your kind of game and that you've actually got money to buy the thing in the first place.

People who rate a game by the back of the box are either chancers or are buying the game for someone else. Mind you, reading reviews can be just as chancy, one man's gold is another man's tin, as they don't say, but reading lots of different reviews might just give you a balanced opinion, presuming all the reviewers haven't had lunch bought for them the day before by the software company. Not that that happens of course!

Most people dont buy computer mags... they go into SR, EB, Game,etc... and go by the pictures on the box...

When tetris was originally released, I remeber a C64 mag saying the game looked like it was written in Basic... But Tetris was given away when your bought the original game boy (remeber when console companys used to give you a game when you bought the console?) and because if its gameplay is considered a claasic by everyone...

I LOVE the new grpahics systems avalible... Older games HAD to have gameplay, the graphics options we have today just wernt there... But I think until the games public becomes more mature, and expect more than graphics (which given the success of the PS1, and currently the PS2 wont be as far off as it currently seems) we'll be in the same situation... (Which all things said and done isnt ALL that bad?) :)

If at first you don't succeed, blame it on your parents.

I whole heartedly agree gameplay is THE most important factor in a game - but how do the developers get the message across that a game has great gameplay unless it looks good. Would they really be able to market Tetris in this age of "flash git" games? I think it would be hard to start building cult status from scratch. Some of the best games I remember (and yes this is where I show my age!) were on basic "TV game machines" like pong... they were basic and did not even hint at the word Graphics but you could play them for hours - the original platforms have still got to be the best..but they did not need fancy lifelike graphics as they were fun!

I didn't say Graphics weren't important. IF you want it to look good and play rubbish, look at the Bouncer, i read a review of it it's a prime example of a good looking game having bad gameplay.

Zelda doesn't look very good alongside a PS2 game but the gameplay hooks you into it for a few hours.
Jet Force Gemini didn't even use a Expansion pak, it suffered from the framerate but look at the decent scores it got and look down the Gameplay column and it's high.
That's the kind of thing i mean.

I would have Gameplay rather than having flashy graphics.
It wouldnt be no good if you played a game that looks good but you just want to put it on the shelf.
Games don't need flashy graphics if they have good gameplay. Like a film doesn't need stunts to make it exciting.
Gameplay is the core of the game graphics are just some way to advertise or attract you to buy the game.