SuperCheats take a look at the age old game related question - what is more important, graphics or gameplay?
Graphics & Gameplay, Playstation Now could deliver both of them. For me, graphics are a bit more important. I would like to see a game that max the graphical limit of something like the Titan Supercomputer.
a game need 4 things in my eyes : 1.Gameplay 2.Story 3.voice acting/soundtrack 3.good Graphics every part of those is important to me at least
I'm the type of person who loves things inside out, and never outside in. The soul is the gameplay
I kinda have a more simplified look to it somewhat similar to yours in a sense. The main difference being that I categorize graphics, story and voice acting/soundtrack under presentation. I mean just like gameplay having distinct categories (AI, Pacing, Technical fluidity). For me personally as long as those two (presentation and gameplay) are met I see it as a game worth the price.
We should have graphics and gameplay. people often act like you cant have them both which is silly.
@Ten Steps You almost got it right. Gameplay is composed of graphics and the things you said above. Gameplay can't be seen. Yes I know I'm taking it too literal but I'm tired of people trying downplay graphics.
if i have to choose one thing it's gameplay! i prefer to play Tetris on gameboy than Ryse. Just saying! i also prefer to play oldschool versions of games rather than their 3D remakes.
You're buying operating system for your computor, what's more important: Functionality or User Interface... Yeah...
Graphics are important when they're meant to be important. Some games are intentionally made as visual showcases of the technology they're on. Some are made purely for the fun factor. In many cases the genre makes the difference in whether you want/need a game to stand out visually. Most puzzlers don't need to be visual showcases Most FPSs are expected to look pretty. Strategy games have visuals set on the backburner. 3rd person action games focus heavily on looks and gameplay mechanics. Visuals should never be "the most important" but we do expect high quality in genres that might rely on the beauty to tell part of the story. To play a key role in the theme and atmosphere allowing us to become more immersed and enjoy the game all the more for it.
Gameplay and Graphics are equally important to me. The only games that I don't care much about graphics are puzzles. other than that, I need good graphics to match with gameplay, otherwise I might as well not upgrade my console/pc.
Wanna now what is the perfect (to this day) mix of all elements (gameplay,story, voice acting/soundtrack and graphics)? Go play The Last of Us period.
I like FPS games so I'll put it this way. KZ: SF has amazing graphics but everything else is mediocre. Titanfall don't have the best graphics but it looks way more fun and interesting. So IMO gameplay is by far the most important followed story then graphics.
Exactly how I feel.
the question is which one is more important. waaa waaa waa we should have both but yet a game like minecraft is more popular than those with both.
If cake is a game, then graphics is its look and gameplay is its taste. After cake have been eaten, no matter how it looked, only thing what remains, is its taste in our mouth.
look, gameplay over graphics in most cases. Simply because you are playing not watching a movie where the visuals are far more important. But in Games like BF4 for example I can't get along with the console versions. Doesn't matter if One or PS4. The dynamic Draw Distance is extremely unsharp and jaggy which hurting my eyes and my gameplay. I always need a clear look all over the map. On PC on ultra this is the case. I would rater turn down effets and stuff to have a sharp picture with some nice anti aliasing switched on.
"The dynamic Draw Distance is extremely unsharp and jaggy which hurting my eyes..." "...which hurting my eyes... Dude, you can't be serious. Don't get me wrong, BF4 pc ultra will smoke any other version, but ps4/ONE hurts your eyes? Lol
Sir, I'm serious but in fact I'm a little spoiled
Without decent gameplay you have no game. Though graphics aren't worthless/meaningless by any imagination. But gameplay > graphics.
For me the most important in a game is undoubtedly the gameplay, then longevity, content and complexividade. in graphite prefer a game with a great ArtStyle with super realistic graphics. For example, think mario world more beautiful than Battlefield 4
Gameplay will always be paramount. A beautiful game can easily be a $hit game and an ugly game can easily be a great game. Graphics alone can never be enough to save a game. Now ideally you want a mix of both, but gameplay has to be always considered first and foremost. Who wants to play something that is pretty but boring?
A bad game cannot be saved by good graphics. A bad looking game can be saved by good gameplay. However a good looking and good playing game can be ruined by having a WTF story. (I'm looking at you capcom)
I would never let a story ruin a nice playing and good looking game. For most Shooters you don't need a Hollywood story. Mission Design is far more important.
Gameplay anyday. I still play games like JSR, Crazy Taxi because their gameplay is pick up and play level and its awesome.
Gameplay is more important but as for graphics: they seem to be first on everyone's agenda. Its the reason why battlefield 3 sold well.
no. You're wrong and stupid on so many levels. Gameplay is more important. And that is exactly why Battlefield 3 sold well it Trumps every other military shooter there is. What game offers land, air, sea warfare with destructible environments? Call of Duty? Haaaaaa! lool. The Graphics is just a bonus to incredible gameplay.
hahaha so there is one person arguing with himself over what is better: call of duty or battlefield?
Some of the most addictive games ever made came out on handheld consoles. They may not have been graphical powerhouses, but they were incredibly well made nontheless. Graphics invite a player in, but the gameplay keeps them there.
Gameplay is more important but the graphics must be up to date or adequate.
Gameplay duh... no point of having the best graphics if the game sucks
gameplay is more important but lets be honest there are limits, you can not sell a game with 8 bit graphics as a 60 bucks retail title no matter how good its gameplay is
Gameplay is the most important part of the game. When you have developers that focus on graphics more than gameplay, you get average games, like Ryse, that have average gameplay and nothing to offer you but pretty visuals. But I do say this, Developers should have a standard for graphics. They do somewhat help immersion. You don't have to have photo realism, just put some effort into it.
You only need to take a look at xbones ryse to know that graphics doesn't guarantee a good game. Gameplay is the most important of all
Gameplay and graphics are not mutually exclusive. They are very closely intertwined. Trying to treat them as entirely separate entities is a fallacy. Gameplay is comprised of graphics and vice versa. It's in the name: "VIDEO" games. That is, they use computer graphics in order to allow the user to play a game. Developers use graphical representations of actions to convey their effects to the player. Without graphics, there is no gameplay. Without gameplay, there is no game, just graphics (in computing, it just refers to digitally synthesizing and manipulating content). Graphics just have to be suited to the gameplay. That's it. If you're aiming for a more realistic/real-world experience, you'll want more realistic graphics. People often approach the graphics vs. gameplay argument by suggesting that graphics are just how "realistic" or how many advanced graphical techniques are being used. The real question should always be: how well do the graphics suit the gameplay? Based on your interpretation of the director's vision, do you believe they were successful in conveying the appropriate atmosphere/aesthetic visually? They are not at odds: gameplay and graphics go hand-in-hand in videogames.
This is the most intelligent comment I have read on the topic. In this day and age, both are as equally important.
Gameplay and graphics are both important. These are video games. Notice the VIDEO part of it. I happen to enjoy the best gameplay and the best graphics, which is why I choose the platform that gets the best of both worlds; pc
GTA 5 Is graphic good? No Gameplay? Awesome What is more important?
What? GTA 5 does have good graphics. It's one of the best, if not the best looking, open world sand box games of last gen.
For sand box games yes, graphic is ok. Overall NO
Overall, yes. GTA 5 was no slouch when it came to graphics. Character models were beautiful and the city of Los Santos looked great.
GTA V graphics were terrible. For console they were great though. If it'd came to PC though that would look so much better. Then a bit later? MODS! I mean GTA IV with mods looks 10x better than GTA V on consoles.
GTA V has the best lighting I've ever seen in a video game. The ambient lighting is top notch and gives the entire game a very realistic look. I don't understand how people can think GTA V is ugly. Are you blind?
Demand both where this question is applicable. Don't believe you have to settle.
Gameplay of course. That's a no brainer. If I want good graphics I take a walk through the forest. But graphics are still important in games. There are a few unique titles that make me stop and look at things because they are beautiful. Like Skyrim with Mods. It helps making a game more immersive, but if the gameplay sucks graphics won't save it.
Pretty but dumb games prove that graphics will always be trumped by gameplay. I have both Crysis and Battlefield Bad Company 2, try and guess which I have spent over 750 hours playing online and which I have barely played 30 minutes of. Although to be fair, BFBC 2 is not a shabby looking game. Obviously a great blend of the two is preferable, but gameplay should always be king.
Gameplay, after all that's what differs a CGI movie of a game
I would say gameplay but that doesn't mean that you can't have both in a game.
What's more important? Getting a life.
Yin & yang.
Is having both to much to ask for?!
Why not both? Why do they have to be treated separately? Of course I prefer gameplay always because its a videogame but come on, why not make the game a more enjoyable experience with breathtaking graphics? Look at the last of us and God of war 3. Both great games with groundbreaking graphics. Why should yhey be treated separately? Thats just lazy on the developers part. We are living in 2014... like I said I always prefer gameplay but in 2014 if I play a game with great gameplay but graphics similar to tablets on the playstation 4 or xbone, just no....thats so freaking lazy. Might as well make the game on the playstation 2 if you plan on making games that have tablet graphical capablities. So to me both gameplay and graphics are important to being a great game :)
At this point they are BOTH important. I want both good game play and good graphics
Gameplay is most important but if the graphics are too ugly I won't play it.
Graphics can be ugly as hell, but that alone have never put me of. Weird gameplay, technical faults and bugs have. I dont buy games that I know are buggy, most Bethesda games, Bioware games and some others usually are pretty broken and weird. Ive raged a lot because of Mass effect 2. I loved the game, but after 20 hours I gave up I was sick of all the freezing, frame drops and audio cutting out. Ps3 version.
Compare it to a beautiful looking Cake with pretty decorations...but tastes awful. Game play wins over graphics, but the majority of people judge things by presentation. Saying that, a little 'Eye candy' never hurts :)
Depends on the game. The aesthetics of having better graphics than the previous iteration or game on an older system is definitely needed because it shows what developers can do if they put their minds to it and a natural progression. Other than that though it should be gameplay, although you could argue gameplay has been the same old same old for ages now, it's again down to developers to evolve it. Most people are going to be on about having better graphics until we're playing photo-realistic games anyway so the argument for pretty graphics ain't going away soon.
gameplay stands the test of time graphics dont. If a games got solid gameplay you can revisit it twenty years later anf it'll still be just as enjoyable. If the only thing a game has going for it is pretty graphics it'll cease to be special as soon as a better looking game comes out.
I'm gonna use the argument everyone in the god damn world uses. Minecraft
SMT: DS SOUL HACKERS is way better than Tomb Raider Ultra Setting on PC..
Gameplay came first. Without it we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
No, they came at the same time. VIDEOgames. The very first videogame had graphics, otherwise they wouldn't have called it a videogame.
Gameplay first. Graphics? Art Direction is important. Technical prowess is not something that matters to me.
would you play a visually stunning game that has nothing to do in it? just to lurk to nowhere and watch the backgrounds?
Gameplay is a lot more important the graphics, but yet the younger generation does not seem to understand this. For example RE 1,2 and 3 the graphics were not great but it was a proper survival horror game with amazing gameplay and like Oagoz said above just look at minecraft graphics aint everything when you got an amazing game like that
Gameplay. Anyone who says otherwise shouldn't be playing.
Both graphics and Gameplay has always been important in the industry, always. Only now, with the underpowered xbone, some people suggest that graphics are not important in an attempt to justify the weak hardware of the xbone. Ask yourself, why when the xbox 360 had a little edge on multiplatform games (not on first party games) you never saw articles or people saying "Gameplay is more important" no, they said "xbox is more powerful and that's what matters" Now, because the xbone is underpowered, then graphics doesn't matter, resolution doesn't matter.
You should ask nintendo.
.. Both graphics and Gameplay has always been important in the industry, always. Only now, with the underpowered xbone, some people suggest that graphics are not important in an attempt to justify the weak hardware of the xbone. Ask yourself, why when the xbox 360 had a little edge on multiplatform games (not on first party games) you never saw articles or people saying "Gameplay is more important" no, they said "xbox is more powerful and that's what matters" Now, because the xbone is underpowered, then graphics doesn't matter, resolution doesn't matter.
I can go back and enjoy games like ape escape and pokemon leafgreen, i won't go back to play crysis 3.
Definitely graphics first. If a game looks like ass (especially on a next gen system) it makes it feel cheap like the developer doesn't put enough effort in. When I see a game with amazing graphics, I get the feeling that it's a large budget game and a lot of effort was put into it.