Yay!!! We all love nice things for our eyes 2 enjoys, beautiful scenery, gal, woman, man or boys for girl.


But does good graphic really makes a game great?

For me, YES. Can really enjoy the game.

good graphics compliments the game.. it's a bonus..
but gameplay is the most important aspect..

tetris don't have the nicest graphics..
super mario bros for the NES don't have the nicest graphics..

how long have you been a gamer..?
if you're started playing games during or after the playstation era..
then most probably you'll say graphics are important..

Not really, it's the Gameplay that counts most in my opinion. Even games with low-end graphics can be highly addictive most of the time. But as technology move foward so does games.

Yup, "Super Mario World 2" got me very addicted back in the SNES days. Played the game for a very long time as far as I can remember.A great classic till this very day.

nope

gameplay is the most important,the problem with a lot of games nowadays is they had graphics that could make your eye CAME,but for the gameplay,it is just like another plain peanut butter sandwich.

1. Gameplay
2. Graphics
3. Style/Originality
4. Sound
5. Story
6. Control

that's my 50 cents....

take Doom 3 vs Super Mario Bros....whos the man (i mean tha game)?

However, there's one aspect that many oversees it, Style...like BG&E (again...), Zelda Wind Waker, Psychonauts, Shadow of Colossus, Okami...

This post has been edited by navilink: Mar 22 2006, 11:29 PM

no way. Alien Hominid graphic is crap as hell, but i couldnt stop playing the game til these day.

^^ i prefer SMB any time..

it depends on who you ask and his/her preferences..

Yes..

For me gameplay come 1st...then Graphics 2nd....If graphics too advanced like FIFA MANAGER 2006 but gameplay suxx..who wanna play?? Better play FM2006

Graphics rules the world.........the next graphic will be look more "REAL" whatever in games or virtual.........

gameplay...just look for kakuto chojin for the xbox, really good graphics but lack of gameplay!

if the graphic matters so much
i wonder why are ppl getting excited about FF12 and kingdom hearts on the ps2..
clearly the weakest current gen system in terms of graphic capabilities.. than er.. let say next gen games.. on the xbox360 ?
and DS selling much better than psp..

Definitely gameplay all the way. Of course, like the majority of people who've posted, I grew up during the age of the 8- and 16- bit machines, so I don't have the "ooo so shiny" mentality of kids whose first console was a PS2.

Gameplay makes all the difference between a ho-hum game like Doom 3 and Half Life 2, or to a certain extent, even Black. Sure, graphics help - but if the core game is gonna be shitty as hell (eg Tao Feng: Fist of The Lotus) then we're better off in 2D.

Graphic also related to frame rate right?
wat is the gameplay very good but with unstable frame rate? who wanna play?

I highly doubt that a game with a stuttering frame rate would be playable in any case, so we can throw gameplay immediately out the window.

Bad example, dude.

Graphics enhance the playing experience, The game that really counts.


[quote=Zerol,Mar 22 2006, 11:08 PM]
Not really, it's the Gameplay that counts most in my opinion. Even games with low-end graphics can be highly addictive most of the time. But as technology move foward so does games.

Yup, "Super Mario World 2" got me very addicted back in the SNES days. Played the game for a very long time as far as I can remember.A great classic till this very day.


Back then super mario was graphically advance

Graphics sucks. Gameplay rules.

Graphics is for ENHANCING a good game, but nothing can save a crap game even with great graphics.

If i've a choice between same great game and better graphics, of course i'll choose the better gfx version, but if there's none, i'll choose the better game.

Anyway, seems like most people agreed with Gameplay over Graphics.

GTA San Andreas for PS2

graphic = good
gameplay = good
frame rate = sucks

made me sick to play

I would argue that overall GTA:SA was playable, right? The jerky frame rate wasn't in the whole game, because I don't see too many people calling it a gamebreaker. Sure it stutters, but it's a hardware limitation issue (and of course, the coding efficiency comes to mind).

Advent Rising for the Xbox came across some framerate issues too, but that didn't stop it being a somewhat okay game. So I think the frame rate argument, as long as it doesn't affect gameplay too much will cease to be so soon.

meh...the fps isnt THAT bad in that game,it sure has its laggy moments,like too many things in the screen at once.But the game still runs pretty smooth in normal,unless your ps2 has problems.

Gameplay is superior than graphic, however graphic will enhance the experience while paying the game.

I'd say certain games need the graphics to deliver the gameplay, take doom3 and FEAR for example, you wouldn't really be able to experience the total feel of the game if the graphics is bright and colorful right? So it's heavily dependent on the genre of the game I suppose.

I'll say both. We pay top money for our games and we deserve to get the best of both worlds.

Not a very good example. btw, IMO GTASA
graphics=sucks
gameplay=average
frane rate = playable

Furtheremore, there's the XBOX and PC version if u dun want to stick with a crummy PS2 version. And as everyone knows, Rockstar isn't famous for good graphics. All their games have average graphics even on a high-end PC. They just don't make games with good graphic engines.(IMO, not much good games either other than overhyped violent games and selling based on hype, sex and mindless violence..)

There are many games that shows the PS2 can do much more than that.

Roger that! I totally agree.

HOHOHO ,
should i change the topic 2 GRAPHIC vs GAMEPLAY vs FMR???

No matter what, nice graphics of a game makes a great impact on average gamers in thier 1st impresion about the game without caring the gameplay or other things.

Try showing ur friend Ouendan on DS and he'll say:"WT* ! U are wasting ur time on this crap all along ? Go play REAL GAMES in PC or PSP la~ " even though he haven tried it before and never WILL.

This post has been edited by nbee: Mar 23 2006, 06:17 PM

def gameplay's d most important factor. u can play snake on the phone. just a line yet so addictive.

Gameplay comes first, while eye candies come as a bonus.

Good graphics can fool/blind some players to believe that the pretty looking game has delivered well in it's gameplay area, which IMHO happens toooo often. Esp when fanboys start to fight over how superior their "pretty" game is. zzzzz.

Nice graphics enhances the experience and making player stop to take a look around to see if they had miss a thing or two. Like easter eggs, or just plain miscs.

for my experience soo far good graphics , good game for me is FAR CRY ... i play on PC version not yet try on XBOX hehehe wait i get my XBOX n compare hehe

that i know nothing is perfect ....

good graphics but not good gameplay
good gameplay but not good graphics

This post has been edited by cuoreboy: Mar 24 2006, 12:22 AM

For me... Eye candy is quite important also... but I am not a graphic freak like the foreigner, play PC Games on 8XAA and 8XFSAA and 8XAF .... nearly no "tooth" mark on the graphic... but for those kind of graphic you really need a good graphic card = MONEY of course.

I owning a PS2 and a average PC with 15" monitor.
For PS2, I really enjoy playing FF10 now, though its 6 years old but I just got my PS2 recently... I like the story, but sometimes I really felt I want to see the PC version, because I cant see the detail very good.

For PC, I playing NFS:MW, the weather changing, the framerate is very good, I saw the NFS:MW in PS2 before, seems to me is a different thing, your car looks slower, the weather not so real....

I dont have a XBOX then, but seems to me XBOX is like a PC, so the graphic wont be different so much. This is my conclusion :

If that particular console or system have a GOOD GAME, which is native to that system, so just go get it, although that graphic may looks bad, cause the main thing is the gameplay.

If you want to play something like car racing, FPS, you really need something good in graphic, its really make the game different.

I think most of the people would agree.

Not necessarily. If you were to play Ford Mustang or any other number of derivative, SHINY racing titles, you'd find that no amount of graphics can save a car that handles like crap.

If that doesn't kill a racing game, I don't know what will.

Ahhh...you see that is for AVERAGE GAMERS. See? We're the ELITE, SEASONED, HARDCORE GAMERS....

So we leave those fools to look at pretty pictures and wet on it while REAL MEN like us play the REAL GAMES.

Nope, not necessary. Guess what.
Best racing sim game=?? What else...Gran Turismo series (eventhough i dun play it, sim-racing nuts swore by it)

Best Arcade Racing game=BurnOut series (not available on PC), NFS just isn't fast or mad enough!!!

And anyway, suprisingly, those games can match most racing games on the PC graphically despite inferior hardware.

i dig that 'We're the ELITE, SEASONED, HARDCORE GAMERS....'

but dude, M'sia is full of A Gamers

good graphics compliment good gameplay.

i would say gameplay and replay value ,the graphic enough to deliver the fun can already.

but i think game developer got no idea on new gender and idea so they switch to improve graphic.

i personaly don like game be too real,i want game to be game.

pacman is a good game.

i do think graphic plays major role on selecting games. just count how much of u want to play games with non-good graphical display. it's just suxxxxxxxxx. frankly, do anyone of you played doom over and over again. to me, nahhhhhhhhhhh. graphic does matter.

p/s gta does not count because of the new gameplay which counts.

Gameplay hands down. The thing I notice very interesting, most NDS owners also say gameplay ober graphics...

-pokemon all versions, superb, no fancy graphic but good gameplay, i still continue playing after beating elite 4 to "catch'em all",lol
-Queke2!!! superb!!! even till now me n my brother play multiplayer of this 'lanci graphic' (compared 2 now) FPS game,lol
-Diablo2... speechless, it is the best, never felt boring(erm, did felt boring la of corz, but after awhile, i'm new n excited about this game!!!), endless playback value though graphic is outdated type,lol

i think the kids these days wont understand the MAGNIFICIENT feeling of replaying classic games though thier graphic sux...

This post has been edited by nbee: Mar 26 2006, 12:34 AM

ya agree......graphic are only used to capture attention to buy the game...etc....

tell me you are not interested in playing games with such graphic:

wa, so nice makes me wanna buy n play... mm? donno whether its gameplay good or not, buy lah, coz beautiful


hmm, something's wrong with me


-the power of graphics towards 1st impresion

neh....not really into boxing...so no matter how realistic it is...not in the interest...

but i know it ain't gonna topple Mike Tyson' Punchout!...that one proves graphics not everything....

haha it's time for a game designer to talk!

well anyway, according to a game design theory book, gameplay is something that constitutes fun, whereas graphic constitutes delight... let's not forget the very essence of playing a game... to have fun.

if you want good graphics, watch Advent Children... even there, storyline is the essence of a movie, whereas the super cool "hey let's gather everyone from FFVII in 5 minutes to fight bahamut" scene represents delight.

however, i still believe graphics are important... for me, there are two aspects of a game that can make it fun: learning and immersion...

learning is where a person is motivated to achieve the goal of the game becoz the player has already gained enough knowledge (either from real world or from the game mechanics itself) to solve a given game problem... the more knowledge the gamer gets from the game, the more complex the problems that s/he can solve, hence the higher the satisfaction... if you notice, all good games are like that... if the learning curve is flat, i'd say that the the game is not fun at all...

then there's immersion, which is often omitted in a lot of game design books and only iterated in virtual reality theories... what's the use of playing game when you KNOW that you're playing a game? get what i mean? if you're playing CounterStrike, for example, you just wanna run around and kill the Counter-Terrorists without being aware that you're pressing the WASD buttons and moving the mouse around and clicking to shoot...

To immerse someone, you need graphics, sound and good storytelling.

Tetris has the advantage of gameplay over graphics due to the puzzle's abstraction... blocks that are not aligned represent the disturbance in your life that you wanna get rid off... still, it's immersive...

There's two aspects of graphics that has to be considered here... creative and technical... this is entirely personal... for me, i would like the game to have a good art direction in which the technicality of the graphic has to follow... some games have superb graphic engines (z-buffer la, alpha-buffer, gamma-buffer, whatever-buffer oso got) but have bad art direction...

------------------------------------------------------------------

all in all, gameplay and graphics (just enough to immerse) are both important... of course i would like to say that gameplay is more important, but we have reached an age where if the graphics are not good enough to immerse the player, they would not buy the game in the first place, hence the good gameplay is wasted...

remember, graphics just enough to immerse, doesn't have to be totally real or with superb rendering... just as long as it puts the gamer into a state of disbelief... different people have different tolerance towards immersion, hence the different opinions in this forum...

and that ends my two cents.

i play the DS a lot, and i'd say that their graphics totally fits the superb gameplay well


ahbonk
http://www.ahbonk.net
http://www.if.net.my

well kindda agree with ya........
btw your a game designer?

Hoho! Good points!

Unfortunately some people tend to judge a game's "coolness" by virtue of the shinyness of the graphics, which results in games with truly inspired storytelling, gameplay AND art direction (Beyond Good and Evil, Psychonauts) to be largely ignored.

Then there's Katamari, which everyone KNOWS is good, but still not as critical a success as some other titles. Like you, I play my DS a lot (MP:H these days) and I am struck dumb by the amount of stuff they dumped into that cartridge. Good stuff.

yea kinda... i'm the game designer for my company...
but so far i just make small games, so i'm not worthy of any mention

i'll make it big one day, u'll see!


ahbonk
http://www.ahbonk.net
http://www.if.net.my

To me gameplay comes first, graphics second and followup by the others

heh.....wish you good luck then......
thinking of involving myself in the game industri too......but......no idea where to sturdy and what to sturdy.....

Well the game industry is a big thing... depends on whether you wanna plan the game (game designer), draw the graphics for the game (artist) or program the game (programmer).

If either artist or programmer, then it'll be simple... just venture into those fields.

However, if wanna be game designer, it's a little more difficult. There's a saying: "To be a good game designer, you must not learn game design."... basically to be a good game designer, you need to be open-minded and study all sorts of things... a good place to start is psychology, but you can go any way with game design.

all in all, don't be too specific on games just yet, go out and explore the world more... most of the academia within the realm of gaming is still not matured yet, just go into the discipline you're passionate about. Slowly apply game-related element into your projects.


ahbonk
http://www.ahbonk.net
http://www.if.net.my

well......thats seems like there still a long way for me to go....XD
anyway I would like to chat with ya some more.......but.....surely not on this topic cuz not related to topic message will flood here....XD...letz...PM!!

This post has been edited by tsubasa89: Mar 29 2006, 03:29 PM

Depending on the genre of the game.
I'll put graphics with higher priority than storyline for a FPS but not in a RPG game.

Graphics is important, but its not the core of the game or something that creates it.

In general.
Gameplay > Graphics > Story > Music > Characters > Voice Overs > Controls.

Friend...how can you put controls LAST!!! in fact, controls is tightly woven with gameplay. A sucky control joypad or mechanism will destroy the whole gameplay. With sucky controls, there simply isn't going to be good gameplay! This is especially critical for action, racing, platform games etc except for JRPGs though as turn based is not that demanding on controls.

This topic reminds me of the Initial D arcade version. Yes, the graphic is nice ,but the gameplay is totally screwed. It got 0 sense of speed, no matter you driving at 50kmh or 150, I can't see the difference onscreen. And you can hit the side wall with small speed panalty.This 'game' is very unrealistic compare to GT4. I wonder why many people spend so much money to buy the stupid card and play it like they are married to it. .

I guess name and graphic sells after all.

yup it's the sad truth: the age of tetris is gone. We shall see just which matters more in the years to come as the graphical consoles (Xbox 360, PS3) and the gameplay console Nintendo Revolution are released...

This post has been edited by Mr.Ginger: Mar 30 2006, 10:32 PM

No lah dude... Initial D sells becoz of its arcadeness. GT4 takes itself a little too seriously, so if you bump a little, that's it... it completely stops. In fact, GT4 has better graphics too. So it's not the name and the graphic... it's the gameplay here... sometimes the simpler, the market opens up to more people...

A good example is Battle Gear 4 in TimeSquare... it has nice graphics, but not many people play it... why? excitement is cut short by realism... immersion doesn't need to involve complete realism... a sense of fun is definitely more important.

of course, it depends on the individual... my guess is you equate realism to enjoyment, because you need that much to be completely immersed into the game... others don't need that much realism...


regards
wan hazmer
http://www.ahbonk.net
http://www.if.net.my

This post has been edited by ahbonk: Mar 31 2006, 12:29 AM

------

This post has been edited by JeremiahRais: Jul 15 2016, 02:11 AM

it's true, doom freaked me out when i first time played it.
damn scary, and realistic...

games are immersive+interactive medium...great visuals sells the experience more...

Does anybody still enjoy Pacman on their 32 inch LCD?

gameplay is one of the reasons classic games lives on on the emulator..but of course the other most important thing is easy on the eyes graphics too...not necessarily top notch lifelike ones.

This post has been edited by PhoenixByte: Nov 5 2007, 06:49 AM

gameplay is the reason why i still love Fallout 1 until now..

'The Bouncer' anyone?