Do graphics really matter that much or is it gameplay more critical?

In today’s gaming world gamers are more demanding with every passing day. Do graphics really matter that much or is it gameplay more critical?

[Jin_Sakai]

Both matter. You need an evolution of graphics and gameplay to move forward.

[Rhaegar077]

Totally agree!

[Thundercat77]

Exactly. There is a balance between both.

[Sonyslave3]

Gameplay all day, today I still play my old ps2 and n64 games.

Conker bad fur day with friends never get old same with 007 and timesplitter 2.

[Eidolon]

That's all nostalgia, though.

[MWH]

Not all, a good game is timeless.

[Eidolon]

Sorry, but no. If they were released now, they would be received different. Then you'll say, well update the graphics..

[sampsonon]

just play pong only.

[PiNkFaIrYbOi]

Pong is awesome.

[sampsonon]

@PiNkFaIrYbOi you keep telling yourself that lol

[PhoenixUp]

What is this either or scenario?

It reminds of the Wii era days where Nintendo fans kept uttering “gameplay over graphics” like you couldn’t have both, only one or the other

[septemberindecember]

Because sometimes a game is mostly just pretty graphics. As if the developers put all of the work into the graphics without any consideration for how fun it actually is.

A fun game is fun for “forever”, but graphics are only good for so long.

[sampsonon]

as a person that was around for every console game ever made i can tell you that i tried playing many of those Pong, Atari, commodore 64 and Original Nintendo again not long ago and could't. it was a joke these games were just so bad compared to what we have today. yes game play is important to me, but i love the immersion when a game has good graphics. Rezo gun is the perfect example of a game that has old school game play but is made better because of the particle effects.

i used to dream of what games would look like in the future as a kid. now people are going to tell me graphics don't matter? lol you didn't game back in the day then, because if you did you would feel exactly what i do.

is game play the most important? yes. when i see a game like shovel knight i roll my eyes and turn away fast though.

[PhoenixUp]

That’s for games that value style over substance

In most cases a game can easily have both.

[EddieNX]

Gameplay is more important than graphics PhoenixUp

[septemberindecember]

@phoenix

Sure, and all games can be good. Doesn’t mean they are.

[PhoenixUp]

@ sept

What does that have to do with anything?

It’s like you’re trying to argue a game must look atrocious to have good gameplay

[septemberindecember]

@phoenix

Because just because something CAN happen doesn’t mean it DOES. There are many developers and many games that emphasized graphics over substance.

[PhoenixUp]

That’s why I said “mostly” 😑 Obviously there’s exceptions to the rule.

Most games that play well also have great visuals.

[septemberindecember]

@phoenix

Not even most. Many games (such as indies) have to prioritize. Other developers (such as Nintendo) work with limited hardware. Some developers (such as EA) focus on presentation even though they could focus on gameplay too. Look at The Order and Ryse early this generation.

So what’s more important? Hence the article. I think it’s gameplay because you don’t always get both, and, even if you do, the gameplay will keep the game being fun years after graphics are no longer good.

[PhoenixUp]

Various indie titles still go for unique visually pleasing aesthetics. When titles put very little effort in how the game looks many times the gameplay as well as other factors would be subpar

Just because a game plays well doesn’t mean it’ll have to look appalling. The same is true vice versa. It’s not like these factors can only exist in a vacuum independent of one another. It’s as ridiculous a question as asking if a game’s narrative is more important than its audio.

[septemberindecember]

@phoenix

Visually appeasing, but limited. That’s because bit art is stylized. But the graphics aren’t technically “good”

See, now I could say you’re painting it as an all or none scenario. But you actually aren’t.

Never said they had to, but when discussing which one is more important in a hierarchy...

You could ask if audio is more important than narrative. Because that’s be part of the hierarchy.

[PhoenixUp]

The graphics are good when they’re visually appealing. Dafuq you think I’ve been talking about this entire time? Even in regards to titles with bit art it takes talent to make it look appealing because one could easily make it look atrocious.

Great and even adequate visuals come in all different styles. It’s really conceited to say one form of art style is objectively good while another is objectively bad.

Developers are only as limited as their imagination is. Even with a smaller amount of resources, various great games can still have great visuals accompanying it no matter the budget or hardware.

[septemberindecember]

No, stylized doesn’t mean that it’s good on a technical level. Look at Minecraft. That’s part of what the article brings up.

You don’t understand game development if you think their imagination is the limit. Budget, time-constraints, and hardware are all limitations for developers.

[PhoenixUp]

Stylized visuals can still be appealing. Just look at Okami as an example of stylized done exceptionally well

Even when the budget on a game is low they can still make the game look great. I’ve seen games of varying types of budgets and art styles look nice

[Neonridr]

It wasn't saying one or the other. It's asking which one is more important of the two. And while good graphics are great and do wonders at helping to sell the overall feel of the game, it will always be gameplay that is MORE important. Nobody said that graphics don't matter, stop making stuff up here.

[PhoenixUp]

@ Eddie

😑 Why are you even comparing the two?

[septemberindecember]

Gameplay is more critical, but graphics aren’t unimportant.

[Rimeskeem]

Graphics create the atmosphere, gameplay gives you the interactivity with said atmosphere. Each work with each.

[masterfox]

both are critical.

[Neonridr]

Graphics are a pillar, but are hardly essential. Many smaller games that don't rely on photorealistic graphics are still stellar games because of how fun they are.

So while having good graphics is a bonus, it's good gameplay that is paramount. A pretty game can still be a bad game. But an ugly game can be an amazing game.

[ElementX]

That doesn't make sense. Pillars keep buildings from collapsing, so basically they are essential. You say graphics are a pillar but then say they aren't essential. Which is it?

[Neonridr]

jesus.. graphics are important, they make up the basis for part of a game. But without good graphics, a game can still be successful. If a building has 10 pillars and one falls over, that doesn't mean the building will collapse. Many pillars make up a game. Graphics are only one of them. But an ugly game can still be a good game. So gameplay will always be more paramount.

It sometimes helps to use a little common sense and not take everything so literal on the internet.

[SCW1982]

Both matter and compliment each other but 1st priority absolutely needs to be gameplay. It’s why I couldn’t finish Red Dead 2

[InKnight7s]

Horizon, Forza Horizon, Sekiro and Persona 5 are superior in there genre because of gameplay, plot and Graphics.

Dark Cloud 2 is perfect example that game didn't even aged that much although it is 2003 game and still best Action RPG ever made.

[Segata]

Gameplay first. Visuals are important but are secondary. Never not important just should never be THE most important. Gameplay will always be the most important but that doesn't mean a developer should ignore visuals. They still play a big part.

[Tross]

I'm fairly firmly in camp gameplay, but I'd by lying if I said I've never been intrigued by jumps in visual fidelity that generally come with new hardware, among other things. Generally speaking, I do like my games to be aesthetically pleasing, although that can mean anything from mindblowing realism to a nice art style. Moreover, I can think of plenty of examples of games with alternate art styles that have aged better than the more realistic counterparts from their era.

Granted, we're edging ever closer in our quest for absolute realism and are quite far along at this point, and devs no longer seem to believe that realistic means portraying a world with very little colour and choosing the least appealing hues for the few that were present (why was that ever a thing?). I suppose I can make an exception for horror type games where the intention is for the game to look macabre and unsettling, but they're an exception, not the rule for me. What I'm saying is I don't think today's "realistic" looking games will age as poorly as similar games from the past have. Of course I'm over-generalizing. I can still go back and play the older Uncharted games for example and find them visually appealing due to the creative decision to include a reasonably vibrant colour palette.

In any case, with the prevalence of indie games and easy access to retro games, combined with my need to shake things up and play different kinds of games from time to time lest I become bored, I don't always need to play a AAA game that pushes a system graphically, and instead look for something that will appease me from a gameplay standpoint. What makes good gameplay varies between genres and other factors, but I do prefer when a game is fun and the controls are responsive and not broken. Story is another element, and its importance varies, but that's a discussion for another time.

The point is, I'd much rather have a good time with a less impressive looking game than play something impressive looking and have a terrible time with it. If I can have the best of both worlds though, then great, or a pairing of great gameplay with an aesthetically pleasing but more simplistic visuals.

[AK91]

For me it'll always gameplay first but by I'd be lying if I said playing games like GOW, Detroit, Horizon etc. didn't leave me awestruck after seeing how graphically beautiful they were. Both are important in the end

[AuraAbjure]

I think gameplay is more important but better graphics can offer more gameplay options like when Isaac got caught by the drag tentacle in Dead Space 1. That part was totally nuts, super fun, and graphically all over the place.

[PyroMessiah86]

That's a great moment but it's a gameplay moment not a graphics based moment. It could have been done earlier....it didn't need those graphics to be successful and It's not dependant on that level of detail.

Gameplay always over graphics for me.

[PhantomS42]

Gameplay is always more important than graphics. Graphics are the icing on the cake but if you have bad gameplay then it doesn't matter how great your graphics are the game is still going to be bad.

[Bronxs15]

Why choose one when you can have both? For example a game like ori and the blind forest has superb graphics and game play. Which is why it’s one of my all time favourite games.

[VersusDMC]

Gameplay will always be more important. But cutting edge graphics will always matter more to the mainstream audience. FF7 and Monster Hunter world became huge sales wise due to way they looked.

[Nu]

Gameplay should always come first. Take Anthem for example. It's beautiful but at a cost

[Einhander1971]

Great gameplay is timeless I’m a diehard 8/16 bit gamer. For me personally those games still look amazing 2D art never ages compared to 3D polygons. That’s why i think the PS1 mini suffered in sales. I still love the poly visuals of the day. But the majority keep wanting the next big thing.

[TGG_overlord]

Imo it's all about gameplay and the joy factor. Because even if you got the most beautiful and advances graphics on the market, what does that matter if the said game is no fun to play? It's like eating some really fancy and expensive dish that taste like rubbish, while you can get a less fancy and expensive dish that taste really, really good.

[sampsonon]

Both are important.

[ShinRon]

graphics as a part of gameplay matters, like a hitbox illustration being accurate, usable items distinguishable from their backgrounds, playable frame rate and resolution etc.

as far as needing to see hair follicles and sweat and shit, no

[bluefox755]

Implying you need to choose one or the other. I've always found this question to be completely stupid.

[KillaJamm]

I mean both are important but it depends what type of game you are going for, if your building a story based cinematic style game then graphics can be very important as they increase the immersion for the player resulting in a better experience, but gameplay is just as important as if the games no fun to play then why would you put yourself through countless hours of something you get next to zero enjoyment out of, its swings and roundabouts as they say.

[Profchaos]

Both matter you can't give me the graphics of rdr2 then expect me to feel like a world is believable when it looks like rdr1

Your opinion of what matters in a game world will evolve over time with the latest innovations

[Thundercat77]

Both are hand to hand.

For example in my own case, I know Zelda BOTW has an amazing gameplay but I can't stand that cartoonist low quality graphics. It kills the experience for me.

That's why getting a balance between graphics and game play is very important.

[DFresh]

I'm at the age now where I value gameplay performance over visuals.
It doesn't matter how pretty the graphics are if the performance of the game is so bad it's unplayable.
(ex: lag, latency, glitching, freezing, low frame rate, etc.) = The list goes on.
So get the gameplay performance right first as your base and then expand on with the graphics later.
Lately I've noticed the games that can master both aspects tend to be exclusives.
Big publishers are going to make games at the lowest common denominator to play on all platforms and aren't going to take advantage of any one platform.
(These developers are on a tight schedule and have less creative freedom.)
Indie developers don't have the big budgets to do big graphics but they have more creative freedom to improve gameplay performance.
(These developers have the most creative freedom but don't have the big budgets.)
Exclusives (1st party publishers) have the budget and creative freedom to do both.