PDA

View Full Version : Which one would you choose?


Charizard EX
November 16th, 2008, 03:34 AM
The title says it all, which one do you choose:
Mighty Graphics

or

Classic Gameplay

seriously, I don't like the company's new ideas about bringing the classics back instead of improving the graphics e.g Megaman 9 or Final Fantasy (I don't like FF anyway) etc.

I want new improved graphics. What do you want?

Gold warehouse
November 16th, 2008, 03:47 AM
Final Fantasy XIII has amazing graphics? I don't play Megaman

Fox♠
November 16th, 2008, 02:08 PM
The title says it all, which one do you choose:
Mighty Graphics

or

Classic Gameplay

seriously, I don't like the company's new ideas about bringing the classics back instead of improving the graphics e.g Megaman 9 or Final Fantasy (I don't like FF anyway) etc.

I want new improved graphics. What do you want?

Megaman 9 is bad anyway, even if it did have nice graphics.

Both are really, really important. Good gameplay and nice graphics. Not necessarily HD, but nice graphics.

classic gameplay however isn't important. Going "back to your roots" is another way of saying "rehashing old games".

TRIFORCE89
November 16th, 2008, 07:51 PM
Gameplay trumps graphics, music, characters, story, everything else.

.:Kanto:.
November 16th, 2008, 08:34 PM
Well, I'm still a huge retro gamer, I play N64, PS1 and SNES all the time. Way more than my PS3 and Gamecube. Heck, I still play the first Gameboy in public! But it dosen't bother me. Though I do have breaks from retro, like playing GTA IV and other games. But mostly it's retro. I play Red and Blue alot more than Crystal and Diamond.

.Vaporeon
November 17th, 2008, 04:33 AM
Hey,

Well those 2 things don't alone make a good game mate. But, I suppose I'll have to choose, so mighty graphics, I guess. Some retro games are better than some new games.

-Neku Sakuraba

Cherrim
November 17th, 2008, 04:56 AM
I don't understand this thread. 8| Shouldn't it be, as TRIFORCE89 assumed, gameplay VS graphics??

I mean, your argument is "rehashed classics" vs "nice graphics" but do you know the MAIN REASON why they go back and remake the old games? To update their graphics. Sure, they might add some functionality, fix some glitches, etc. But the main reason is usually to combine the great gameplay of their old games with updated, spiffy graphics, to attract both old and new consumers alike. So I'm not sure what your point is 'cause it's kind of contradicting. o_O

Is this a "should companies remake old games or spend their time/money creating entirely new games" or a "should companies put more effort into making games with good graphics or should they concentrate on gameplay" thread? :|

Abby
November 17th, 2008, 09:08 PM
Gameplay trumps graphics, music, characters, story, everything else.

I disagree: I think story can be more important. Video games are a unique storytelling medium, combining the audio-visual elements of video with the long-form storytelling of books and adding depth through exploration and subtle experiences. Sure, you don't want the gameplay to be bad, but I don't think it's the end-all. Unfortunately, most game devs agree with you or the "graphics" side of the argument...

TRIFORCE89
November 18th, 2008, 05:17 AM
I disagree: I think story can be more important. Video games are a unique storytelling medium, combining the audio-visual elements of video with the long-form storytelling of books and adding depth through exploration and subtle experiences. Sure, you don't want the gameplay to be bad, but I don't think it's the end-all. Unfortunately, most game devs agree with you or the "graphics" side of the argument...
Is this why you linked me to that YouTube video?

Unfortunately, I think a lot of developers throw gamplay, story, graphics, and whatever else down the toilet a lot of times - especially on the Wii.

Anyway, I know the other things are important. Consoles and games wouldn't be advancing if they weren't. I'm not saying everything should be like Pac-Man XD What I meant was...given the choice between a game with awesome gameplay but a crap story or a game that's pretty much just a virtual movie with little gameplay save for pressing a button to get to the next incredibly long cutscene...I'm going with the one that's actually a game.

If you're playing a game I can't see why the gameplay wouldn't be the most important thing. Isn't that why you're playing a game? And not watching a movie or reading a book or something else. You want to play it and have fun.

Mitchman
November 18th, 2008, 05:41 AM
Oh yeah its much more important to play a game with uber graphics and crap small storyline then a uber game with good gameplay and med graphix.

Cherrim
November 18th, 2008, 05:55 AM
Is this why you linked me to that YouTube video?

Unfortunately, I think a lot of developers throw gamplay, story, graphics, and whatever else down the toilet a lot of times - especially on the Wii.

Anyway, I know the other things are important. Consoles and games wouldn't be advancing if they weren't. I'm not saying everything should be like Pac-Man XD What I meant was...given the choice between a game with awesome gameplay but a crap story or a game that's pretty much just a virtual movie with little gameplay save for pressing a button to get to the next incredibly long cutscene...I'm going with the one that's actually a game.

If you're playing a game I can't see why the gameplay wouldn't be the most important thing. Isn't that why you're playing a game? And not watching a movie or reading a book or something else. You want to play it and have fun.
For me, a story is the reason to play a game. If I wanted to simply have fun playing it with no strings attached, I'd play Wario Ware and other mini-game compilations all the time. (I guess the Wii is the perfect console if all you care about is gameplay. :|)

I think sacrificing story for gameplay honestly induces laziness. There's no motivation for the developer to bother with the game past making it fun for a while. I mean, why add in a deep story to draw the gamer in if all you have to do is come up with a fun formula they can play for half an hour before getting bored and putting it away for a few days? In the epics, the 40, 50, 60-hour games with the twisting storylines, etc., they have to come up with a good gameplay to story ratio that WORKS and keeps the user entertained the whole time. Not to mention the graphics, music, etc. has to be up to par. I mean, if you can't get all of them right, no one's going to enjoy it.

It's not like gameplay is sacrificed for these games except maybe Xenosaga with its hour-long cutscenes per fiften minutes of gameplay asdfdjlkfs. Obviously in order to keep the gamer playing, the game has to be good. But the game also can't look like crap nowadays or it's too hard to get into it. We expect a certain standard now. And as for music? I know I've muted a game before because of its music, or not wanted to play because I hate just one character's voice. :| So when Abby says it's a unique storytelling medium, I'm inclined to agree. It may not be a requirement in all genres these days, but more and more of them are moving toward this.

Story isn't everything--I mean I had tons of fun with LBP and I'll be the first to admit the story was non-existent there. (It apparently got a plot in the last level but lol I didn't quite get it.) I think it REALLY depends on the genre but I don't think gameplay should necessarily be the be all, end all of the industry.

Stuart444
November 18th, 2008, 06:17 AM
I disagree: I think story can be more important. Video games are a unique storytelling medium, combining the audio-visual elements of video with the long-form storytelling of books and adding depth through exploration and subtle experiences. Sure, you don't want the gameplay to be bad, but I don't think it's the end-all. Unfortunately, most game devs agree with you or the "graphics" side of the argument...

Sorry but this does depend ALOT on the actual game genre usually.

Such as, for fighting and racing games, it is usually good to have good gameplay, perhaps combined with some good audio/visual elements.

While RPGs and FPS' (mainly single player since online FPS' usually don't have a co-op storymode) would have to have good focus on the story and gameplay combined with the audio/visual elements.

In the end though, it's good to have a balance on all things, not just a simple one is better than the other no matter what type of deal. I mean yes if I was forced to choose, I would choose gameplay over graphics since gameplay is what makes it fun to play (most of the time) but it is still good to have a balance between all elements (gameplay, audio/visual, story, etc)

TRIFORCE89
November 18th, 2008, 07:58 AM
For me, a story is the reason to play a game. If I wanted to simply have fun playing it with no strings attached, I'd play Wario Ware and other mini-game compilations all the time. (I guess the Wii is the perfect console if all you care about is gameplay. :|)

I think sacrificing story for gameplay honestly induces laziness. There's no motivation for the developer to bother with the game past making it fun for a while. I mean, why add in a deep story to draw the gamer in if all you have to do is come up with a fun formula they can play for half an hour before getting bored and putting it away for a few days? In the epics, the 40, 50, 60-hour games with the twisting storylines, etc., they have to come up with a good gameplay to story ratio that WORKS and keeps the user entertained the whole time. Not to mention the graphics, music, etc. has to be up to par. I mean, if you can't get all of them right, no one's going to enjoy it.

It's not like gameplay is sacrificed for these games except maybe Xenosaga with its hour-long cutscenes per fiften minutes of gameplay asdfdjlkfs. Obviously in order to keep the gamer playing, the game has to be good. But the game also can't look like crap nowadays or it's too hard to get into it. We expect a certain standard now. And as for music? I know I've muted a game before because of its music, or not wanted to play because I hate just one character's voice. :| So when Abby says it's a unique storytelling medium, I'm inclined to agree. It may not be a requirement in all genres these days, but more and more of them are moving toward this.

Story isn't everything--I mean I had tons of fun with LBP and I'll be the first to admit the story was non-existent there. (It apparently got a plot in the last level but lol I didn't quite get it.) I think it REALLY depends on the genre but I don't think gameplay should necessarily be the be all, end all of the industry.
I think...you both missed what I was trying to say :x

I do think all of those aspects are important. They make the games interesting. I want my gaming experience to be this...complete whole and a perfect balance of all those elements. They complete the gameplay and enhance the experience. It should all be there depending on the genre.

I'm saying all of it is important, but that gameplay is most important simply because it is a video game. I don't think everything else should be sacrificed, that would be an awful, unpleasant, and empty experience. At the same time a game that's story-dependent and graphics intensive without any kind of gameness is just as empty.

Games should tell stories. They should be interactive. They should have artistic merit. They should have great music and graphics (be it realistic or artistic and creative). But, if the gameplay isn't there...the game isn't fun. So, in my mind that makes it the most important part of the game. My point is neither side should be used solely while sacrificing the other (unless of course it's something like WarioWare like you said).

But if you want to play an empty game go right ahead. @_@

Having great gameplay shouldn't mean the other things aren't present, or vice-versa. There should be a balance like you said, but when things go askew during development I think it's easier (for me anyway) to enjoy a game that has good gameplay and doesn't do the rest as well as it should/could than something that tries to be an epic movie without an actual game in it. Of the two extremes that shouldn't happen, I'd take gameplay-dependent but I'd prefer a balance between everything because that works best.

The story is important, but the gameplay should still be there. If you just want to sit there and press a button to get to the next cutscene go read a book. And again, I'm talking about extremes (like a really, really bad GBC RPG). I think the majority of the truly great games in recent years tell stories - but they still have great gameplay.

EDIT: So, in short. I agree with both of you (moreso Abby) and you said what I was trying to say only better.

Cherrim
November 18th, 2008, 08:20 AM
...except you made it sound like you were talking about the extremes in your post, or at if you weren't, I don't know what you were talking about. XD; I can't even think of very many games where the gameplay was so terrible/non-existent that it didn't really deserve to be called a game, but I can think of PLENTY for the opposite angle. o_O; So I'm not sure what the argument is here?

Honestly, the ONLY game I can think of that I've played in the last... 5 years where gameplay was awful but the story was great is... Xenosaga--and that's because it struck me as the movie kind of extreme you mentioned. (And even then, the gameplay was good, it was just the cutscenes weren't placed very well imo.) This game? I didn't finish it. I got to a point where I just couldn't beat a boss and since I wasn't having all that much fun playing it, I just stopped. Nothing else comes to mind.

Buuuut games aren't just games anymore. It's not as popular here, but it's pretty huge in Japan, the visual novel style of game. So basically it's like a more interactive picture book. Again, totally different genre and probably not everyone's cup of tea, but just because the gameplay is point-and-click means it's bad? Phoenix Wright is basically this style of game, so focussing solely plot and story isn't all bad. Most people thought the "game" elements (like Case 1-5) were tacky and disliked them. But if it's done well, gameplay isn't necessarily the backbone of a game that determines whether it's good or bad overall.

TRIFORCE89
November 18th, 2008, 08:39 AM
...except you made it sound like you were talking about the extremes in your post, or at if you weren't, I don't know what you were talking about. XD; I can't even think of very many games where the gameplay was so terrible/non-existent that it didn't really deserve to be called a game, but I can think of PLENTY for the opposite angle. o_O; So I'm not sure what the argument is here?

Honestly, the ONLY game I can think of that I've played in the last... 5 years where gameplay was awful but the story was great is... Xenosaga--and that's because it struck me as the movie kind of extreme you mentioned. (And even then, the gameplay was good, it was just the cutscenes weren't placed very well imo.) This game? I didn't finish it. I got to a point where I just couldn't beat a boss and since I wasn't having all that much fun playing it, I just stopped. Nothing else comes to mind.
My initial post in this thread was hypothetical. The thread was about which you would choose, so I looked at the two extremes (even if I didn't state it at first) and then decided based on that. Which was also why my post was so blunt, I was just answering the question. But, apparently not well enough. XD

Then Abby posted the YouTube video on Twitter that I'm awfully sure is related to this thread...but I agreed with everything the video said so I wasn't sure why she wanted me to watch it twice. lol

And...I would consider the "point and click" of games like Phoenix Wright to be gameplay. Because it requires you to think about what you're doing. To me, that's the whole angle of the game. The characters are fun, but that's not why I enjoy the series - it is an aspect though. I really shouldn't (and it's probably why there's confusion in this thread now), but I include aspects like level design and anything not "extra" as the gameplay. All aspects of game design that leads to the playing of the overall game experience (as opposed to watching, listening,...enjoying). Honestly, everything other than graphics, music, and story. XD So, more than just controls. You can have simple controls (that's the point of the Wii). I love Zack & Wiki, but it is just a point and click game like Phoenix. But it works. And Zack & Wiki isn't really plot-based like Phoenix is. So if the controls work for the game than...yay! If it works, then it works, and that's good gameplay. I'm fine with point and click. I don't have problems with simple controls or complex controls. Just with bad controls, and again, they probably aren't on the games we play (I don't think we often go for the bottom of the barrel).

Cassino
November 18th, 2008, 01:18 PM
I like what I like and I like nothing in particular.

I think I'll go for classic though. It's nice to follow a series (so long as it's not excessive in the number of games, as Zelda is) and I'm not that stuffed about the detail of the graphics provided it works well.