But a combanation of the two OWNORZ.
i have played a game without graphics you walked around in a maze walking into walls which then makes a sound not that hard to understand,,,, unfortunately it didnt have much on the way of gameplay either
but serusly we SHOULDNT be thinking about if we lost one all the way
more of if a game was 90 percent one which 90 perecent would you chose
Have any of you ever played a NES before......?
Back in those days, it didn't matter what graphics you had, if you had a game that sold well, that was it! They usually had shitty 8-bit graphics too!
All the kids now days are spoiled little brats, that can't comprehend how wicked an Atari or NES or even SNES is!
BTW: Atari still kicks ass!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another BTW: Tetris does rule all games, but PacMan OWNS!!!!!
It's quite obvious, gameplay.
Hell I would play SC even if the graphics were damn circles squares and triangles, just as long as the RTS aspect was still there. Lol that would actually be kind of funny. But I would definitely play a game as long as the gameplay is good even if the graphics aren't. I'm not really into the extremely detailed 3D graphics, they don't really interest me that much, I mean so what if they are so realistic, it's not everything. I personally liked the 2D look of games, especially the old NES games. Those owned.
Both are important qualities for any good games. But gameplay is more important however.
Gameplay.
Example? Final Fantasy Seven.
Great game, not so great graphics (Cept for the cinematics

).
Although at the time they were good.
gameplay obviously because ive played games with good graphics that sucked so much i had to return them the next day. Plus look at the first super mario brothers WHEEE take that you goomba; always fun

QUOTE(FrAZ428 @ Jun 22 2005, 12:14 AM)
lol. Smart man. I've thought this was dumb the whole time, but thought maybe DevliN would have brains enough to close his case after a couple of facts..
[right][snapback]240964[/snapback][/right]
Just thought I'd point out that I'm DevliN. The guy you're talking to is Ultimo.
QUOTE(FrAZ428 @ Jun 21 2005, 10:14 PM)
I looked again. It was devlin. I don't know where you're looking...

[right][snapback]240898[/snapback][/right]
DevliN_ is
not DevliN.
I'm leaning towards Gameplay on this one. But if your staring at something so bad it's starting to make your eyes bleed, than I would get a game with better graphics. But overall, storyline, controls, gameplay, all much more essential parts.
QUOTE(DevliN_ @ Jun 21 2005, 08:03 PM)
Graphics, without graphics, you wouldn't have a game.
[right][snapback]240676[/snapback][/right]
Have you played Marco Polo?
Guys I solved the riddle, and the answer is graphics.
Read the title: Graphics vs. Gameplay: What do you
LOOK for?
I just got this right now.

I can only say that graphics only apply to video games, not monoply.
You're still wrong. MUDS are still pretty popular and widely played. I play them every now and then, I know Moose plays them (I got him hooked, heh). And I know plenty of people who still do. They're the first MMORPG's.
Indeed. My friend plays one (I played it once. It was ok, but, meh.) and he keeps running ships into stars. Almost every day he tells me "Yea, I blew up another ship...".
Is it just me, but isn't a game with NO gameplay, but with graphics...called a "movie"?
QUOTE(chuiu_os @ Jun 26 2005, 09:16 PM)
You're still wrong. MUDS are still pretty popular and widely played. I play them every now and then, I know Moose plays them (I got him hooked, heh). And I know plenty of people who still do. They're the first MMORPG's.
[right][snapback]245737[/snapback][/right]
Of course the question isn't what is more important, but which do YOU look for.
QUOTE(DevliN @ Jun 26 2005, 12:36 PM)
Just thought I'd point out that I'm DevliN. The guy you're talking to is Ultimo.
DevliN_ is not DevliN.
[right][snapback]245331[/snapback][/right]
He's damn good at making it appear otherwise. And Otherwise an idiot. How can you put up with him totally bring shame to your name? 'Sides isn't that like against forum rules or something... I though I read something about that. Maybe not............
Gameplay is extremely important, but you need some graphics to make it work.
So... their both important.
As long as the game has some kind of graphics though, I would say that gameplay would be the most important.
If I didn't think that, I would have no right to say that this game is one of my favorite games, and that it is, without question, THE MOST ADDICTING GAME that I have ever played.
Ore no Ryomi 2: The RestaurantThis game is a perfect example of why graphics are not AS important AS gameplay.
QUOTE(Revelade @ Jun 29 2005, 02:54 PM)
Of course the question isn't what is more important, but which do YOU look for.
[right][snapback]248181[/snapback][/right]
Read the post I'm replying to. He's saying graphics are a necessary part of video games.
I look for gameplay more. I wouldn't care if I was playing as a simple pixel, just as long as it has good gameplay, replay value, or a good fun factor.
Gameplay - one of the best games I've played (Driving game called Whiplash, 1995) have very bad graphic, but the gameplay is amazing!