What's new

Something I was thinking about... (1 Viewer)

Mark Evans

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 10, 2001
Messages
585
Take a game like Halo. Take away the all the fancy textures and bump mapping. Make everything all flat shades of color. Now throw in clipping problems, pop-up, flicker, drop-out, and reduce the poly count. These are all graphical issues.
Yes, this is true, but it's not at the same time. These are all graphical issues that impinge on gameplay. Now, to counter the argument that I'm certain will appear that that's what bad graphics do, they throw off the gameplay, it's not the same thing at all.

If a game has clipping problems, pop-up, yadda yadda, then its graphics are now impacting on the player's ability to play the game, they are affecting the actual intended gameplay experience. The game is now less fun to play because a problem with the programming of the graphics has interfered with its gameplay.

GTA1 may be 2D and ugly as a leperous mule's backside (and it's not, frankly), but if its graphics do not cause any problems in playing the game (slowdown, crashes, shooting at things that aren't there, whatever) or impair your ability to actually play the game exactly as was intended by its designers then any problems with the gameplay are solely the result of the game, and any issues with the graphics do not impact on the gameplay.

In the first case, its an issue with graphics. In the second, the only real issue is one of gameplay. Any qualms about the graphics are the territory of the end user only, and have no bearing on the intended gameplay of said product.
 

Aaron Copeland

Second Unit
Joined
Nov 3, 2000
Messages
445
Real Name
Aaron
Any qualms about the graphics are the territory of the end user only, and have no bearing on the intended gameplay of said product.
But the enjoyment of ANY aspect of a game is the territory of the end user only, including gameplay. There are things that developers can do to ensure that more people do enjoy the game (like make better graphics), but it's still going to be up to the end user whether or not these things are what they like.

Aaron
 

Joseph Young

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 30, 2001
Messages
1,352
graphics are THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of any game . . . it means the quality of what is in the game based on the power of the platform
Therefore, will you admit that Shenmue is a great game? ;) :D
The only 'bad graphics' that impede on my ability to enjoy a game are the ones associated with poor play-testers, sloppy programmers and rushed development. Graphical glitches (intense slowdown, flickering, poor collision detection, audio samples that cut off parts of dialogue) should be categorized under 'poor gameplay' and not horrible graphics.
A game with good gameplay, where the 'horrible graphics' don't impede on the control or the ability to maneuver, see enemies, etc as intended is a good game, period.
I appreciate your Capcom Vs. SNK example, Morgan. Gives me a better idea of what you're talking about. :) However, have you played it on the Dreamcast? Less jaggies and nothing as distracting as you describe. I love that game.
However, all the points being made are valid. Interesting thread. :emoji_thumbsup:
Joseph
 

Dave F

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 15, 1999
Messages
2,885
I believe that its impossible to truly seperate gameplay from graphics, as the one should influence and inform the other fundamentally.
Damn straight! To try separate them is to create an unnatural division. Gameplay is enabled by the graphics, and the graphics are necessitated by the gameplay.

-Dave
 

Derrik Draven

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 7, 1998
Messages
937
Real Name
Chris
I would have to definitely agree that if Halo were all flat shaded polys, with a ridiculously low count and the framerate stuttered, I wouldn't have even bothered to finish the 1st level.
One of the reasons I've played it several times is because it's so pretty to look at! The other is the kickass AI and, I never really know how a fight is going to go.
I can't agree that graphics are THE most important aspect of a game but, they sure as hell are high up on the list.
 

Graeme Clark

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2000
Messages
2,180
Good god, I'm dizzy

Visuals, audio, gameplay, AI, it's all part of the experience, and each element has an effect on how much you enjoy the game. To argue that one element is more important than the other seems silly.

There are games that rely heavily on it's visuals and ability to take you into a different world which can be enjoyable even without the best and most cutting edge gameplay (ie Myst).

There are others that rely almost entirely on it's gameplay. A game like Snake on your Nokia phone or most puzzle games rely almost entirely on it's gameplay and are still fun. Tetris could have the most basic graphics ever (and there are many verions that do) and it's still the same fun game.
 

Dean DeMass

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
1,826
Visuals, audio, gameplay, AI, it's all part of the experience, and each element has an effect on how much you enjoy the game. To argue that one element is more important than the other seems silly.
Actually, this thread started off as a "Graphics are the most important thing in a game". Myself, BrianB, and others argued that without great gameplay, great graphics mean nothing. The thread just evolved into everything.

Back to the topic. The gameplay has to be good. Take a game like WWF Raw for the X-box. The graphics are the best ever for a wrestling game. The animations, sound, wrestler intros, etc. are great. But you know what, the gameplay isn't there. So all that work for great visuals was put to waste. Hopefully now that THQ has a powerful graphic engine, they will work on the gameplay for the follow up. Because it was obvious that they spent more time on the graphics than the gameplay, and that is a no no, IMHO.

Take a game like the original Zelda for the NES, the games graphics are not good at all, and even for its time, I didn't find them that great. However, the gameplay in the game is rock soild and is still better than most games today.

-Dean-
 

Morgan Jolley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2000
Messages
9,712
Take a game like the original Zelda for the NES, the games graphics are not good at all, and even for its time, I didn't find them that great. However, the gameplay in the game is rock soild and is still better than most games today
Compared to its time, Zelda had pretty good graphics. Not amazing ones, but ones worthy of being called good. The gameplay is what made the game good beyond the graphics.

I think that graphics are the foundation of a game. It should start out with good graphics that have no issues or problems, then build up beyond that.
 

BrianB

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2000
Messages
5,205
Gameplay is second for me.
And that, to me, ends this thread.

Morgan, I hope you're never in a position to influence game design. Games where the graphics engine & art is developed & pushed first before the gameplay tend to be exceptionally crap to play.
 

Romier S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
3,525
Morgan, I like allot of what you have presented. You bring up allot of good points! As has Aaron. I myself am a very visual person. I like stunning graphics as much as the next guy. Believe me I have a little graphics whore in me but:

Gameplay is second for me.
As Brian stated above, I can't agree with that. Gameplay is first and always first. You could have the absolute most stunning game out there and it doesn't mean squat if the gameplay isn't there.

In a typical(or not so typical depending on your views) game scenario where a game does have stunning graphics and the gameplay is also there the question can be posed: "Do the graphics enhance the gameplay". Well of course. I liken it to a film that uses its special effects well. of course that brings me to my next point...

If you look around the forum you will see allot of people show genuine concern that CGI is used not to enhance the story in films but to take the place of it. The same analogy can be used for games in general. When graphics begin to take the place of gameplay what will he have to look forward too? I think thats a problem.

Now, am I saying that graphics are a minute factor in gaming today? That would be silly. Videogames are a visual medium. Graphics are important. In the case of games like Ico, Rez and IMO Super Monkey Ball, you have the perfect balance of both. All three games have very unique and again IMO great graphics that enhance the gameplay but do not take the place of it. Thats the kind of balance that I like to see in most games.

Thats my 2 cents on the matter for anyone that cares..
 

Joseph Young

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 30, 2001
Messages
1,352
Morgan,

You place graphics in a separate category from gameplay. Saying that 'gameplay is second for me' implies gameplay as a separate element from graphics.

Gameplay and graphics are linked and complimentary. You misrepresent the challenges that programmers and developers face. They often have a tightrope to walk between maximizing graphics and gameplay, without overtly compromising one over the other. To imply that a game that doesn't focus enough on graphics is inferior, is just a weird, strange thing to say.

Please don't take this the wrong way, beacuse you make some interesting arguments, and I enjoy all of your posts immensely, but your logical approach here is a little oversimplified.

Like Romier has said, I enjoy good graphics immensely, as much as the next person. But it's infuriating to play a game that's been infused with all sorts of nifty special effects and has completely overlooked functional gameplay. On that same coin, it's irritating to play a game whose opening CG sequence had more time and effort put into it than the game itself. These are all examples of 'graphics over gameplay,' as you suggest.

Joseph
 

Morgan Jolley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2000
Messages
9,712
But it's infuriating to play a game that's been infused with all sorts of nifty special effects and has completely overlooked functional gameplay. On that same coin, it's irritating to play a game whose opening CG sequence had more time and effort put into it than the game itself. These are all examples of 'graphics over gameplay,' as you suggest
THIS IS NOT WHAT I MEAN!!! (sorry bout that)

Good graphics does not mean little pieces of visual flair or good opening CG videos. It means that the graphics show time and effort. Whether a game is 2-D, 3-D, or whatever, it can have good graphics. Technically, Zelda for NES has amazing graphics when compared to todays games (like HALO). Why? Because they show time, effort, work, and they are functional. There are no serious glitches and they work well. Had they not been of such quality for the time, the game would not be as much fun.

I'm going to ask everyone to leave behind what they consider to be "good graphics." Some games can have a lot of visual flair and the most special effects available and still have bad graphics.
 

Romier S

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
3,525
Ok, where to begin..
But what if you have a game with graphics so bad you can barely see what you're doing? The gameplay doesn't matter because you can't actually experience it.
I apologize but I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Of course you cant enjoy the gameplay. Are we talking good/bad graphics here or are we talking a ridiculously buggy game!?
I'm sorry Morgan, no offense is intended here but at this point you have me UTTERLY confused. One minute the graphics are the most important aspect of a game to you, the next they enhance the gameplay and I shudder to think what you have in store for your next post:frowning:
Please explain. In the words of a certain farva beans eating lunatic..."Thrall me with your acumen". I'm all ears!
 

Morgan Jolley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2000
Messages
9,712
One minute the graphics are the most important aspect of a game to you, the next they enhance the gameplay and I shudder to think what you have in store for your next post
Graphics and gameplay help eachother out. If one is bad, then a game is dead. I just think that the graphics have more importance over gameplay.
 

Alex Spindler

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Messages
3,971
This thread is just amazing.
A successful and enjoyable videogame is the sum of many different parts. Graphics, sound, control, design, pacing, originality, humor, horror, gameplay, challenge, reward, and depth are just some of the many qualities that contribute to a good game. The strengths of others can compensate easily for the weaknesses of others. In fact, some of the best games can completely overcome graphical weaknesses because they excel in so many other areas.
I'm reminded of playing games like Point Blank (and its sequel) that have ridiculous and cheap looking shooting targets that are completely inappropriate to a shooting game. And yet it remains one of the most popular games out there because of the skill with which it was created.
The previous example of GTA 1 (as well as the first sequel) are marvels as far as gameplay, originality, depth, and longevity. It is truly a shame you chose not to experience them, because you have really missed out on one of the most rewarding games ever made. Now those with your point of view are lucky that the graphics technology of our current generation of consoles has grown to be able to marry that wonderful gameplay with remarkable graphics (albeit with more than a few graphical glitches).
Finally, I am taken to huge fits of grinning when I pull out Invasion from Beyond for my PS1. This was a bargain basement game with cheap 3d models, tons of graphical problems, and the most kinetic gameplay I've experienced in a long time.
Gameplay is always king. Graphics may be the reason you buy a game, but gameplay is the only reason it will stay in play for me instead of heading for the nearest bargain bin. You are entitled to your opinion, but graphics can only make a good game better, not make a bad game good. I do commend you on sticking to your guns. It seems obvious you have the minority view here. :)
 

Duane Robinson

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 26, 2001
Messages
347
Morgan I just find it weird that you place graphics so high on your list (I do too, I'm a graphics slut) and don't own an Xbox. I actually agree with you for the most part. I believe that graphics are up there on the chart of what makes a game good. If graphics weren't important then game companies wouldn't continue to upgrade their hardware. We would still be playing with flat sprites and running around on black or white backgrounds. Take a game like Halo, it tries to give you the feeling of being in actual combat what with the cinematics, the dialogue, the action, and most importantly the graphics. Do you think the game would evoke the same emotion of being in the thick of battle if instead of having highly detailed dropships soaring over the battlefield dropping of troops while the mayhem of battle raged on it had blocky looking ships floating above you while there were only 4 characters onscreen at a time on a flat undetailed background (Longest run-on sentence ever ;) ). It would still play the same but I doubt it would elicit the same response and give you the sense of immersion that is does with it's current graphics.
 

Iain Lambert

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 7, 1999
Messages
1,345
Basically, I think we are arguing two different things. A couple of points to see if we can clear things up, at least as far as I see them.

1) When making a game, Gameplay must always come first. Always. This means that a game can look as flash as The Bouncer, but if it also plays like The Bouncer it will suck. When the designers are sorting out what the game will be, its a rare exception to have a good game start as a graphic test (Lemmings and Populous being classic exceptions, obviously).

2) Once the gameplay is sorted, issues that can by some people be considered graphical (the stability of the 3D engine and any other glitches) MUST be tied down if they are not to get in the way of that gameplay. Not doing so shows a sloppiness that is likely to show in gameplay design as well. I think this is actually what Morgan means when he talks about 'bad' graphics.

3) After this, further graphical issues like how many polys are in that player model, or fancy lighting effects are just gravy. Gravy that can draw a player in and make them get into a game long enough for that good gameplay to do its job of keeping them there, gravy that can sell a product that may be lacking gameplay fast enough to make a profit before the bad word spreads, but gravy nonetheless.

If 1 and 2 aren't there, the game is bad, no matter how good 3 is. Unfortunately, 3 can sell a product faster than the others, certainly to their producer, so many a dev team will sometimes concentrate on it at the expense of the core product.

Edit- Oh, and don't forget that for some games, for instance the Final Fantasy series that several people (Morgan again in particular) profess a love of, atmosphere is a really vital component of the game. You can't do atmosphere if your graphics aren't suitable. Even with the glorious Monkeyball the gameplay would be identical without those cute monkeys inside (though the Marble Madness comparisons would be even more obvious), but the multiplayer hilarity of watching your poor baby fall into the deep would be missing.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,844
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top