Report, edit, etc...Posted by Reever on 2005-06-21 at 17:30:44
Now choose only 1 Graphics or gameplay, and explain why.
I go with gameplay my reason is obvious graphics are like an accesory to video games there nice but you don't always need them.
I go with gameplay my reason is obvious graphics are like an accesory to video games there nice but you don't always need them.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Golden-Fist on 2005-06-21 at 20:43:56
Gameplay, obviously.
Would you play a game called "Take a Dump" where you press A and B 3 times for 40 seconds and hear some guy moan whule taking a dump if it had incredblie graphics?
NO! OF COURSE NOT.
So Gameplay over all.
Would you play a game called "Take a Dump" where you press A and B 3 times for 40 seconds and hear some guy moan whule taking a dump if it had incredblie graphics?
NO! OF COURSE NOT.
So Gameplay over all.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by yeow on 2005-06-21 at 21:01:19
Gameplay obviously, because you can live with bad graphics, and bad gameplay can really screw you over.
Lol Golden-Fist, nice explanation.
Lol Golden-Fist, nice explanation.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ultimo on 2005-06-21 at 21:03:42
Graphics, without graphics, you wouldn't have a game.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by warhammer40000 on 2005-06-21 at 21:16:31
Gameplay, even the game like Half-Life. With crappy graphics, but the gameplay and story blows you away! The creativity and originality is unbelievable! Same with MGS1, which is for ps1, but i love it! As long as its got good gameplay.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by chuiu on 2005-06-21 at 21:45:26
QUOTE(DevliN_ @ Jun 21 2005, 08:03 PM)
Graphics, without graphics, you wouldn't have a game.
[right][snapback]240676[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]240676[/snapback][/right]
And you would without gameplay? You can't play textures and models. You can play WITH them, but who wants to do that?
Gameplay is the most essential part of any game. The fact that we all play Starcraft is a testament to that. Without the advanced (although inefficient) gameplay of SC we could not have literrally days of hours of fun playing it. We could not customize our own maps.
The thing that comes right behind gameplay in importance would have to be environment (graphics, you could say) though. Because without good or decent graphics no one will be able to immerse themselves into the game continuously to enjoy it. And having modern or 3d graphics is not the same as having better graphics. An example would be that RTS games with 2D sprites (Starcraft, Myth) are far better than RTS games that are completely 3D.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Neiji on 2005-06-21 at 21:51:08
I care about both, but gameplay on handhelds and graphics on consoles...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ultimo on 2005-06-21 at 21:56:07
Go play a game with no graphics and tell me how fun it is.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by chuiu on 2005-06-21 at 22:03:40
Report, edit, etc...Posted by KaboomHahahein on 2005-06-21 at 22:21:26
I would rather lower the graphics and increase gameplay. Since I have hardly ever played very up to date highly detailed graphic games, I don't kind it that much. Starcraft graphics are good enough for me. But some of the new grame's graphics are 
.
.Report, edit, etc...Posted by FrAZ428 on 2005-06-21 at 22:32:38
lol. Devlin is the devil's advocate here... When he says between graphics and gameplay, he's talking about poor quality, not absence. However, between graphics and gameplay, graphics are less important than gameplay if you have to completely loose one... O.o.
Gameplay Is definutely more important. Maybe you should make a topic more arguable, and less obvious, eh?
Gameplay Is definutely more important. Maybe you should make a topic more arguable, and less obvious, eh?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by warhammer40000 on 2005-06-21 at 22:50:01
QUOTE(FrAZ428 @ Jun 21 2005, 10:32 PM)
lol. Devlin is the devil's advocate here... When he says between graphics and gameplay, he's talking about poor quality, not absence. However, between graphics and gameplay, graphics are less important than gameplay if you have to completely loose one... O.o.
Gameplay Is definutely more important. Maybe you should make a topic more arguable, and less obvious, eh?
[right][snapback]240781[/snapback][/right]
Gameplay Is definutely more important. Maybe you should make a topic more arguable, and less obvious, eh?
[right][snapback]240781[/snapback][/right]
That was ultimo, not devlin.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Wing-of-no-Wing on 2005-06-21 at 23:22:32
Going to have to go with the majority in saying Gameplay on this one...
I've had a perfectly good time playing games which were text-only or which used text symbols for graphics. On the other hand, uber-"nice" graphics tend to drain system capacity leading to instability and slowing down of the game (as well as less compatability with older systems), which are bad things.
I've had a perfectly good time playing games which were text-only or which used text symbols for graphics. On the other hand, uber-"nice" graphics tend to drain system capacity leading to instability and slowing down of the game (as well as less compatability with older systems), which are bad things.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Revelade on 2005-06-22 at 00:44:22
Obviously gameplay. Why do people STILL play SC today? Why do people play with PS2's rather than the superior Xbox or cube?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ultimo on 2005-06-22 at 01:02:31
Text = graphics. The graphics are the representation of what is going on, you can't have gameplay if you can't see what the gameplay is affecting. It's like sitting there with a PS2 and playing it while the T.V was off. Gameplay doesn't mean shit when you can't see what's happening with it. You could just watch the graphics in effect with a movie without actual gameplay, not as fun as actually playing it, much funner then playing with nothing.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by FrAZ428 on 2005-06-22 at 01:14:27
QUOTE(warhammer40000 @ Jun 21 2005, 10:50 PM)
That was ultimo, not devlin.
[right][snapback]240795[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]240795[/snapback][/right]
I looked again. It was devlin. I don't know where you're looking...
QUOTE(DevliN_ @ Jun 22 2005, 01:02 AM)
Text = graphics. The graphics are the representation of what is going on, you can't have gameplay if you can't see what the gameplay is affecting. It's like sitting there with a PS2 and playing it while the T.V was off. Gameplay doesn't mean shit when you can't see what's happening with it. You could just watch the graphics in effect with a movie without actual gameplay, not as fun as actually playing it, much funner then playing with nothing.
[right][snapback]240883[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]240883[/snapback][/right]
I already understood that quite well. Doesn't really take a genius you figure that out dude. However, you can't have a game without gameplay: point taken?
You Could tecnically have a game without use of graphics. Take sound for example. A game could be made where you have to use your sense of sound to move around, or chase something (Marco Polo example). You could use a sense of feel to do things too, thought that would be a well advanced game compared to what we have now.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ultimo on 2005-06-22 at 01:41:48
QUOTE
An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.
I think a game with no gameplay and flying robots shooting at each other in a well-put together story made up of cutscenes and boss fights. You don't need gameplay.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by chuiu on 2005-06-22 at 02:19:15
Devlin = Devlin
Devlin_ = Ultimo
As FrAZ428 already stated there are games that require nothing but verbal participation. Graphics involved? No.
Text is not considered graphics unless you arrange them in the way the game is graphically displayed. IE, an ASCII game where your character is represented as an '@' symbol and the world around you is shown with other symbols and characters. Textbased games are not like that, they describe everything using words and sentences. Sports are games aswell, what are considered graphics in those? The ball and goal in Soccer? How do those qualify as graphics?
So you're now saying a movie is a game? How do you 'play' a game where you cannot control any part of it? Games by definition require interaction between human beings. A game of moving pictures is not a game, it's a movie.
... You know what, I'm not even going to continue. This whole arguement is stupid and you can't possibly back up your arguement that graphics are more important that gameplay.
Devlin_ = Ultimo
As FrAZ428 already stated there are games that require nothing but verbal participation. Graphics involved? No.
Text is not considered graphics unless you arrange them in the way the game is graphically displayed. IE, an ASCII game where your character is represented as an '@' symbol and the world around you is shown with other symbols and characters. Textbased games are not like that, they describe everything using words and sentences. Sports are games aswell, what are considered graphics in those? The ball and goal in Soccer? How do those qualify as graphics?
So you're now saying a movie is a game? How do you 'play' a game where you cannot control any part of it? Games by definition require interaction between human beings. A game of moving pictures is not a game, it's a movie.
... You know what, I'm not even going to continue. This whole arguement is stupid and you can't possibly back up your arguement that graphics are more important that gameplay.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by ShadowBrood on 2005-06-22 at 02:42:16
QUOTE(DevliN_ @ Jun 21 2005, 06:56 PM)
Go play a game with no graphics and tell me how fun it is.
[right][snapback]240743[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]240743[/snapback][/right]
Go play Zorq (I think that's how it's spelled, or maybe with a "k"). No graphics at all, just text inside of an MS-DOS prompt. Very fun though. You can seriously do almost anything. If you find a knife, go ahead and kill yourself! It's jolly good fun!
Overall, gameplay over graphics. If a game like Halo 2 had gameplay like making a dinosaur take a shit but incredible graphics, I'd shoot the damn disc.
Another example. Go play Mario Bros. 3. Awesome game, bad graphics.
ADDITION:
QUOTE(chuiu_os @ Jun 21 2005, 11:19 PM)
Devlin = Devlin
Devlin_ = Ultimo
As FrAZ428 already stated there are games that require nothing but verbal participation. Graphics involved? No.
Text is not considered graphics unless you arrange them in the way the game is graphically displayed. IE, an ASCII game where your character is represented as an '@' symbol and the world around you is shown with other symbols and characters. Textbased games are not like that, they describe everything using words and sentences. Sports are games aswell, what are considered graphics in those? The ball and goal in Soccer? How do those qualify as graphics?
So you're now saying a movie is a game? How do you 'play' a game where you cannot control any part of it? Games by definition require interaction between human beings. A game of moving pictures is not a game, it's a movie.
... You know what, I'm not even going to continue. This whole arguement is stupid and you can't possibly back up your arguement that graphics are more important that gameplay.
[right][snapback]240937[/snapback][/right]
Devlin_ = Ultimo
As FrAZ428 already stated there are games that require nothing but verbal participation. Graphics involved? No.
Text is not considered graphics unless you arrange them in the way the game is graphically displayed. IE, an ASCII game where your character is represented as an '@' symbol and the world around you is shown with other symbols and characters. Textbased games are not like that, they describe everything using words and sentences. Sports are games aswell, what are considered graphics in those? The ball and goal in Soccer? How do those qualify as graphics?
So you're now saying a movie is a game? How do you 'play' a game where you cannot control any part of it? Games by definition require interaction between human beings. A game of moving pictures is not a game, it's a movie.
... You know what, I'm not even going to continue. This whole arguement is stupid and you can't possibly back up your arguement that graphics are more important that gameplay.
[right][snapback]240937[/snapback][/right]
Oh damn, I thought Xenosaga was a game.... (TH please don't kill be for bashing XS...)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by FrAZ428 on 2005-06-22 at 03:14:09
QUOTE(chuiu_os @ Jun 22 2005, 02:19 AM)
... You know what, I'm not even going to continue. This whole arguement is stupid and you can't possibly back up your arguement that graphics are more important that gameplay.
[right][snapback]240937[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]240937[/snapback][/right]
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..
Report, edit, etc...Posted by HorroR on 2005-06-22 at 09:18:37
Gameplay. Even if the graphics were extremely good, the gameplay could be a piece of 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ultimo on 2005-06-22 at 10:07:42
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]
[right][snapback]240964[/snapback][/right]
Nope, I'm pretty stupid. I'd rather completely lose gameplay then grahpics.
It's funny how you can consider text-based games as "games" but a game where you watch people fight isn't considered one. We'll just call it a cheap rip-off of a movie ok?Report, edit, etc...Posted by Chef on 2005-06-22 at 13:39:33
Gameplay first, graphics second. They're both important, but if I want wicked graphics, I'll see a movie. But if you have really good gameplay, but everything in it is a equally dull box, you're really hurting the game by not putting in extra effort.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Wilhelm on 2005-06-22 at 13:55:22
I like books, and I'm not too much so into the cheap, half ass stories they crank out nowadays, but, yes, Xenosaga is 50% a movie. I'd definitely prefer gameplay, (why else would I play defense games on Starcraft?). The thing that is important to me is the level. If you're making a game centered entirely around "getting the coins", don't bother with an advanced story, it's not worth it. If you're going to make a story based game, don't get overconsumed in gameplay, either. Still, there has to be prevelance of gameplay in both of these, otherwise there's not much reason to play it. As for atmosphere, it's only significant in the following genres: Shooters and RPGs. What else? None. Tetris PWNS ALL GAMES, though.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by chuiu on 2005-06-22 at 14:09:24
The game was Zork, and there were 2 sequals (I think both text based) aswell.