Gameplay VS Graphics

[RevoluGame]

Hello guys.
The title says it all, my question is, if there is a game that the graphics good but the gameplay not so much..
or opposite.
What do you prefer?
Fun discussion!

 

[IndecentLouie]

Gameplay over graphics any day, I can't image any gamer would think otherwise excluding for benchmark reasons.

 

[Johnway]

yeah same here, gameplay always trumps something that's pretty. Especially if its boring. A good example would be Tetris or asteroids, you don't need brilliant graphics to make something compelling, addictive or fun. if the mechanics and gameplay feel right, you don't need top notch graphics. We can see this in the indie scene with resurgence of 8bit/16 bit graphics partly for nostalgia purposes, partly because its easier and adequate to do so.

 

[Pifanjr]

While gameplay is more important, bad graphics can definitely be a deal breaker.

For example, I don't think I would've been able to get into Dwarf Fortress if I had to play with the original Ascii graphics. However, even with a tile pack the game is still a good example of gameplay over graphics.

 

[Zloth]

How are you supposed to even measure the two against each other? Is each eye full of eye candy is worth about 34.8 cubic gameplayics!? And what about story? What about the sound track? Is the game funny at all? Does artistic vision fit into "graphics" or is that just about how many GPU features you're using?

Sorry, but the whole question just seems ridiculous to me. Look at the WHOLE of the game then decide how good it is.

Good graphics but weak gameplay: Alice: Madness Returns, though I'm counting artistic vision as part of graphics.

Great gameplay, weak graphics: Nethack.

Great graphics but no gameplay at all: paintings.
Great gameplay, no graphics at all: Pen & Paper games.
No graphics, no gameplay, still very fun: books.

 

[RevoluGame]

How are you supposed to even measure the two against each other? Is each eye full of eye candy is worth about 34.8 cubic gameplayics!? And what about story? What about the sound track? Is the game funny at all? Does artistic vision fit into "graphics" or is that just about how many GPU features you're using?

Sorry, but the whole question just seems ridiculous to me. Look at the WHOLE of the game then decide how good it is.

Good graphics but weak gameplay: Alice: Madness Returns, though I'm counting artistic vision as part of graphics.

Great gameplay, weak graphics: Nethack.

Great graphics but no gameplay at all: paintings.
Great gameplay, no graphics at all: Pen & Paper games.
No graphics, no gameplay, still very fun: books.

Well. some kids in these days will never touch a game that is less 60 GB lol.
A classic example is assassins creed. So many gamers disappointed from the last games. only because the gameplay, while its favorite to other.
Of course, there is so many reasons to hate or love a game.
But what i'm trying to ask is what your BIG deal in games.
What matter MOST to you?

 

[Zloth]

I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying yet, @RevoluGame . A quick example:

Say there's a game that I almost like. A way to figure out if I like graphics or gameplay better would be to ask if adding just one more graphic thing or just one more gameplay thing would be more likely to put me over into liking the game. But what counts as a "thing"? If the choice was between adding a dozen better textures to the game vs. adding a whole new class of skills, I would take the gameplay. If the choice was between adding widespread tessellation vs. adding one more skill, I would take the graphics.

That's what I meant by throwing the crazy, made-up units in there. I don't know how to compare the two things - they are apples and oranges to me. Maybe if I knew how much each one would cost then I could say which I would rather pay for.

There's one number where you don't need to units: 0. If I liked a past time with no graphics but good gameplay but not the other way around then I could say I like gameplay over graphics. But no such luck.

 

[RevoluGame]

I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying yet, @RevoluGame . A quick example:

Say there's a game that I almost like. A way to figure out if I like graphics or gameplay better would be to ask if adding just one more graphic thing or just one more gameplay thing would be more likely to put me over into liking the game. But what counts as a "thing"? If the choice was between adding a dozen better textures to the game vs. adding a whole new class of skills, I would take the gameplay. If the choice was between adding widespread tessellation vs. adding one more skill, I would take the graphics.

That's what I meant by throwing the crazy, made-up units in there. I don't know how to compare the two things - they are apples and oranges to me. Maybe if I knew how much each one would cost then I could say which I would rather pay for.

There's one number where you don't need to units: 0. If I liked a past time with no graphics but good gameplay but not the other way around then I could say I like gameplay over graphics. But no such luck.

Well i get you, this is also a answer.
But for some people (or kids) its not individual.
I can get them the best gameplay (if because the story, skill or whatever) if there is none good graphics, they won't even touch.
But there can be gamers, as we saw in the comments, all they want its the gameplay itself.

 

[Farmerjackson]

IMHO I think really good graphics kills single player games. The company spends so much money on the graphics that the meat and potatoes tend to suffer for example Star Wars bf 2 the campaign was really short and meh focus was on graphics and multiplayer. Fallout 4 all the quests were pretty much the same go here shoot bring me x. Not that the graphics were good mind you but they crammed to much **** in the wasteland as opposed to 3 and new Vegas you actually had to take more than 5 steps to find something

 

[Dan]

As with all these things, there is not one thing that is better than the other. There are plenty of text adventures I have played with absolutely no graphics - but then there are games like Skyrim where I love to just endlessly walk around the forests, that wouldn't have the same effect with bad or zero graphics.

 

[Kabouter]

Video games are like food.

First priority is that it tastes good. However, your appetite will likely also be heavily influenced by how it looks.. ;-)

 

[Farmerjackson]

As with all these things, there is not one thing that is better than the other. There are plenty of text adventures I have played with absolutely no graphics - but then there are games like Skyrim where I love to just endlessly walk around the forests, that wouldn't have the same effect with bad or zero graphics.

True but by today’s standards the original game without mods or the redux version the graphics are ok but by far the best. I think that today’s best graphics look amazing but it seems to me it is becoming the death of the single player game/ campaign. Look at fallout 76. To me fallout is supposed to be single player but Bethesda wanted to cash in on the online pay to win setup

 

[Hosvab]

I love this game.

View: https://youtu.be/newniy_vili

 

[RevoluGame]

Video games are like food.

First priority is that it tastes good. However, your appetite will likely also be heavily influenced by how it looks.. ;-)

The oppsite, First - look
after - taste.

 

[Inspireless Llama]

I tend to go for looks before taste too. Something that doesn't look tasty I'd be far less willing to try.

In terms of games I think I do prefer graphics over story (I usually don't play 2D pixel games even if they're good) but I can't say I enjoy good looking games with a terrible story / gameplay.

Also, I did play some LISA and Stardew Valley which are pixel , while Ryse: Son of Rome was graphic decent but that game bored me to death.

 

[DXCHASE]

General rule of thumb is Gameplay over graphics but some games are just too gorgeous to not play even if the storyline sucks, i mean what is the storyline in simulators? Exactly, have that experience with amazing graphics.

 

[Pifanjr]

General rule of thumb is Gameplay over graphics but some games are just too gorgeous to not play even if the storyline sucks, i mean what is the storyline in simulators? Exactly, have that experience with amazing graphics.

Gameplay isn't the same as story. Simulators can be fun even if they look abysmal.

 

[Frindis]

I can't really divide them too much as I believe they are both quite essential and intertwined for the players experience. Take ABZÛ as an example. The environment is so beautiful, but so is the character movements and they both melt together in an amazing spectacle.

 

[Probably_Human]

I think the problem with the word "Graphics" is overly generic and means too many things.
For example, some people may not like a particular art style and says it has "Poor Graphics"

Take Torchlight 2 \ 3.
2 Has a Cohesive Pleasent Art Style
3 Looks like a Fancy Mobile Game.

So I feel as long as the art style fits and gameplay solid its good.
Because Anthem is a game that is stunning - but the gameplay is horrifically bad.
While Factorio is a game, in my opinion, it looks Bland, but the gameplay is great.
Project Zomboid is another game that looks pretty bland but reasonably good Gameplay ( not a fan of the UI )

 

[Rolfil]

For me It's always a mixture of the two.
Some older games like Company of Heroes have fantastic gameplay and reasonable graphics.
A newer game like Mafia 3 had good graphics but the gameplay was mediocre - still worth playing but it's not something that I would consider going back too.

Then we have remasters - the recent Call of Duty remasters have actually been pretty reasonable. A good single player campaign with pretty old graphics that have been brought up to date.

 

[drunkpunk]

While Factorio is a game, in my opinion, it looks Bland, but the gameplay is great.

Factorio was the first game I thought of when I saw this discussion. It's such a fantastic game with a lot of great gameplay opportunities but it does look quite bland. When I first saw it I didn't think I'd be able to get into it, but the gameplay shines so hard it's difficult not to enjoy. I compare it to satisfactory, that uses more modern graphics and the first person perspective, but while it looks great it feels so much more shallow due to more limited gameplay mechanics.

Rimworld is another great example. Pretty basic in terms of graphics, but has so much depth and gameplay opportunities that it's so easy to overlook the basic graphics approach.

Of course it's great when a game can nail both. But time and time again I find myself so underwhelmed by the prettier games that end up lacking any real gameplay.