The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I know this has been posted before, but I have a different viewpoint.
Okay, so most people say gameplay is more important. Of course, to make a great game, you need great gameplay.
BUT, in some games, as well as good gameplay, you need good graphics.
What I'm getting at here, is that in games like Civilisation, or Chu-Chu Rocket, you don't need brilliant graphics, as the gameplay and other aspects make up for it.
But, it would be better if it had great graphics as well, right??
Take...Metal Gear Solid and Perfect Dark. Now sure, both these games have brilliant gameplay, BUT, they wouldn't have been what they are, without the superb graphics.
Just imagine playing MGS or PDark, with the graphics you'd expect on a GameBoy. It wouldn't be anywhere near as good, would it?!?
We know graphics don't just make a game, but they contribute to 50% of why people like the game, and in the case of the Japanese, around 99% of it. {:)
Some people have said that graphics don't matter, but on most games, they DO!!
So next time you say, "Oh, the graphics don't matter much. It's the gameplay that matters," you would be half right, but most games NEED excellent graphics, to succeed.
Thanks for reading, Ant.
Okay, so most people say gameplay is more important. Of course, to make a great game, you need great gameplay.
BUT, in some games, as well as good gameplay, you need good graphics.
What I'm getting at here, is that in games like Civilisation, or Chu-Chu Rocket, you don't need brilliant graphics, as the gameplay and other aspects make up for it.
But, it would be better if it had great graphics as well, right??
Take...Metal Gear Solid and Perfect Dark. Now sure, both these games have brilliant gameplay, BUT, they wouldn't have been what they are, without the superb graphics.
Just imagine playing MGS or PDark, with the graphics you'd expect on a GameBoy. It wouldn't be anywhere near as good, would it?!?
We know graphics don't just make a game, but they contribute to 50% of why people like the game, and in the case of the Japanese, around 99% of it. {:)
Some people have said that graphics don't matter, but on most games, they DO!!
So next time you say, "Oh, the graphics don't matter much. It's the gameplay that matters," you would be half right, but most games NEED excellent graphics, to succeed.
Thanks for reading, Ant.
Page:
Gamplay rules over graphics.
take the commodore64 for example, It was one of the first ever games consoles. The graphics were poor with tiny little sprties that looked as if i could draw the characters better, ( and i'm no artist) but the C64 didn't sell so well because it was a new thing (although this probably had something to do with it) it didn't sell so well because of the graphics.It sold so well beacuse the gameplay on the games was so hideously addictive that people would play for so long there fornames changed to R.I.P. Same with Tetris, I would literally play for 5 hours A DAY on it not because it was visually exciting to look at but because it was such good fun to play. CM 99/00 ruined my social life, just after I had rebuilt it from playing Worms too much.
Admittadly graphics help a game, they provide something to look at but if the graphics are of such a high standard that the game slows down because of it (ISS 2000) then the developers have got to get their prioritys straight. One question: Has anyone evr bought a game because it looked good? I know I haven't
take the commodore64 for example, It was one of the first ever games consoles. The graphics were poor with tiny little sprties that looked as if i could draw the characters better, ( and i'm no artist) but the C64 didn't sell so well because it was a new thing (although this probably had something to do with it) it didn't sell so well because of the graphics.It sold so well beacuse the gameplay on the games was so hideously addictive that people would play for so long there fornames changed to R.I.P. Same with Tetris, I would literally play for 5 hours A DAY on it not because it was visually exciting to look at but because it was such good fun to play. CM 99/00 ruined my social life, just after I had rebuilt it from playing Worms too much.
Admittadly graphics help a game, they provide something to look at but if the graphics are of such a high standard that the game slows down because of it (ISS 2000) then the developers have got to get their prioritys straight. One question: Has anyone evr bought a game because it looked good? I know I haven't
It appears that eveyone's replies are saying almost exactly what I said. Well done everyone.
LOOK!! We've actually had an intelligent comment from a newbie!! Read r66's post. Well done!!
LOOK!! We've actually had an intelligent comment from a newbie!! Read r66's post. Well done!!
Trying to sum up the points so far, so that anyone like me who has a short attention span can read it:
a) Graphics are important, but only as part and parcel of the whole game package.
b) Better graphics matter more where a certain type of game requires them as a large part of the gameplay (realistic and targeting games for example)
c) Games can have bad graphics but still be good if the gameplay is excellent, but would obviously be enhanced with better graphics.
d) I still like playing Pac-man, okay?
a) Graphics are important, but only as part and parcel of the whole game package.
b) Better graphics matter more where a certain type of game requires them as a large part of the gameplay (realistic and targeting games for example)
c) Games can have bad graphics but still be good if the gameplay is excellent, but would obviously be enhanced with better graphics.
d) I still like playing Pac-man, okay?
In my complete and utter laziness, I refuse to read the rest of the topic. So excuse me if I repeat someones views.
I think, not graphics, not gameplay, but controls make a game. Think about it.
The most enjoyable and addictive game in the world MUST have good controls, easy to learn, hard to master.
Example: Virtua Tennis. Although I unfortuantly have never played the game, I hear that it's superb, and the second thing I hear is, anyone can just pick it up and play.
The same with The Sims. Quite an addictive game... makes people want to come back to it. Excellent gameplay, but the controls of it are simple as well. Everything is done with a single click.
Now if we take games that don't have simple controls, such as the recent Timesplitters, which I have also not played, apparently the controls are quite bad, and this has quite an affect on what people think of the game, and how quickly they come back to it.
Can anyone else think of games with bad controls?
I think, not graphics, not gameplay, but controls make a game. Think about it.
The most enjoyable and addictive game in the world MUST have good controls, easy to learn, hard to master.
Example: Virtua Tennis. Although I unfortuantly have never played the game, I hear that it's superb, and the second thing I hear is, anyone can just pick it up and play.
The same with The Sims. Quite an addictive game... makes people want to come back to it. Excellent gameplay, but the controls of it are simple as well. Everything is done with a single click.
Now if we take games that don't have simple controls, such as the recent Timesplitters, which I have also not played, apparently the controls are quite bad, and this has quite an affect on what people think of the game, and how quickly they come back to it.
Can anyone else think of games with bad controls?
I think that graphics, sound, speed and diffuculty are all part of gameplay, I think that they all represent about 1/4 of a game, they are all important, but just because a puzzle game doesn't have 3D graphics it is not a problem!
All the Graphics sound etc have to do, Is meet a certain satisfactry level. This level is just the point at which the section doesn't need to be any better to make the game better.
The Game
All the Graphics sound etc have to do, Is meet a certain satisfactry level. This level is just the point at which the section doesn't need to be any better to make the game better.
The Game
However you can have great gameplay without geat graphics, or sound, etc...
Does this mean that the gamep[lay experience is enhanced by better graphics, sound, etc... or cannot exist without the graphics, sound, etc...
Surly gameplay is a seperate entitiy from the graphics and gameplay? or am I completly wrong? :)
-- Illiterate? Write today for free help.
Does this mean that the gamep[lay experience is enhanced by better graphics, sound, etc... or cannot exist without the graphics, sound, etc...
Surly gameplay is a seperate entitiy from the graphics and gameplay? or am I completly wrong? :)
-- Illiterate? Write today for free help.
meka_dragon wrote:
> If your saying that graphics is one of a number of factors that can
> make good or bad gameplay, and not something to be compared against
> gameplay, then I'd agree with you.
Thanks MD, that's exactly what I was trying to say!! Well summerised!
> If your saying that graphics is one of a number of factors that can
> make good or bad gameplay, and not something to be compared against
> gameplay, then I'd agree with you.
Thanks MD, that's exactly what I was trying to say!! Well summerised!
I totally agree. As important as graphics are, they are not the be all and end all of a great game.
A prime example is the 'interactive movies' of 5 or so years ago. Great visuals, but the emphasis was on 'movie' rather than'interactive'.
A more recent example (potentially) is the Bouncer. Looks amazing, plays poorly (if initial reviews are to be believed).
For a truely great game you need a mix of fantastic graphics, good sound etc and first class gameplay. Examples of this are MGS and Gran Turismo. Both are hailed as classics.
Gameplay first, graphics second.
A prime example is the 'interactive movies' of 5 or so years ago. Great visuals, but the emphasis was on 'movie' rather than'interactive'.
A more recent example (potentially) is the Bouncer. Looks amazing, plays poorly (if initial reviews are to be believed).
For a truely great game you need a mix of fantastic graphics, good sound etc and first class gameplay. Examples of this are MGS and Gran Turismo. Both are hailed as classics.
Gameplay first, graphics second.
If your saying that graphics is one of a number of factors that can make good or bad gameplay, and not something to be compared against gameplay, then I'd agree with you.
Graphics, music, sound effects, presentation, controls, user interfaces. All of these and more are merely ingredients in the mix that makes the game. If the parts are good, the end product will be good gameplay.
However, if one of the ingredients isn't right, then the whole mix can be ruined!
MD
Graphics, music, sound effects, presentation, controls, user interfaces. All of these and more are merely ingredients in the mix that makes the game. If the parts are good, the end product will be good gameplay.
However, if one of the ingredients isn't right, then the whole mix can be ruined!
MD
I may be wrong, but I think the confusion here is caused because grahpics are often an integral part of gameplay. They are related.
One thing is certain, if you have no graphics at all then you are guarenteed to have no gameplay! There will be nothing on the screen!!!
A 1st person shooter will not have good gameplay unless it has suitable graphics. e.g. a fps on the gameboy would have next to zero gameplay.
Some games, e.g some puzzle games have good gameplay, and require little graphics capabilities to have excellent gameplay e.g. Tetris on GB.
Therefore you cannot argue one against another! They have a direct relationship with each other - but some genres rely on the graphics for gameplay much more than others.
There are many other factors that go into making good gameplay, because gameplay is a feeling rather than a measurable quantity (like no. of levels). From the control system, to addictiveness and the emotions stirred by the music - they all make up gameplay.
And it is obvious that gameplay is the most important aspect in any game, because it is the way the game-plays!!! i.e. is it good to play or bad. If it's graphics you want, watch a film!!!!
What do you all think?? + sorry if I'm repeating someone!
One thing is certain, if you have no graphics at all then you are guarenteed to have no gameplay! There will be nothing on the screen!!!
A 1st person shooter will not have good gameplay unless it has suitable graphics. e.g. a fps on the gameboy would have next to zero gameplay.
Some games, e.g some puzzle games have good gameplay, and require little graphics capabilities to have excellent gameplay e.g. Tetris on GB.
Therefore you cannot argue one against another! They have a direct relationship with each other - but some genres rely on the graphics for gameplay much more than others.
There are many other factors that go into making good gameplay, because gameplay is a feeling rather than a measurable quantity (like no. of levels). From the control system, to addictiveness and the emotions stirred by the music - they all make up gameplay.
And it is obvious that gameplay is the most important aspect in any game, because it is the way the game-plays!!! i.e. is it good to play or bad. If it's graphics you want, watch a film!!!!
What do you all think?? + sorry if I'm repeating someone!
Page: