ForumsGames[necro]better gameplay not better graphics

93 20917
bazz1
offline
bazz1
285 posts
Peasant

now when somwbody makes a good fun game people look at the graphics i dont like that they say if it isnt good graphica its crap what happend to good gameplay i want to stop focusing on graphics and get to the gameplay

  • 93 Replies
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,026 posts
Nomad

And for storylines? Pfft...RPG or not, it always comes down to "Shoot to kill, jump to dodge", "Go right!", "Get that exp. bar higher, then that one, then that one, etc.", or "Keep this one, tiny structure alive from 1000s of enemies."

Yeah but it helps so darn much for immersion and a sense of achievement. Minecraft has no storyline but has the most sensational sense of it because you done it yourself, and made something unique, but in the case of say, Amnesia: The Dark Descent, the IDEA of the game is to be immersed in its story and atmosphere, and not trying to complete it.

Which is why it's so much of a great horror game, especially when compared to F.E.A.R which has its one method of "BALERRGHH!" when you go around the corner, Amnesia always keeps you on edge when ingame through amazing ambience, brilliant aesthetic and a well written story.

- H
snowguy13
offline
snowguy13
2,159 posts
Nomad

The game is way more important to me. Most of my favorite games are from the N64 or are Flash games, which don't have fantastic graphics. But who cares? As long as I can see what I'm doing, I'm good.

Dregus2
offline
Dregus2
502 posts
Blacksmith

Ummmm, that game where you make zombies and take over the world and stuff (can't remember the name) has completely awful graphics but I liked it and apparently everyone else does too, because if I'm not mistaken it has a 9.2 or something around that.

Dregus2
offline
Dregus2
502 posts
Blacksmith

Just remembered the name. It's called Infectonator. I was wrong about the rating, it;s actually an 8.6 but that's good. I believe it's one of the games with worse graphics on the site but everyone loves it.

ericthai1
offline
ericthai1
1,030 posts
Nomad

He's right gameplay is more important than graphics.Games in the past had better excting/enjoyable feel.

ledmonds
offline
ledmonds
382 posts
Nomad

i agree with this i think borderlands is a sterling example of this the game is very intense and has a long campaign but the graphics arent the best and its sort of in the style of a comic book but it works and i works well

bazz1
offline
bazz1
285 posts
Peasant

But who cares? As long as I can see what I'm doing, I'm good.


any games you dont see what your doing
bazz1
offline
bazz1
285 posts
Peasant

why would the graphics have to match the gameplay the graphics mean nothing thats why i dont like arma II becuase its pretty much real life and graphics and from now on i now add on to this thread whats with the realistic i mean dont you play a game so you can do stuff you cant do in real life? no offecnce if anybody likes realistic games i just think maybe they should focus a bit more on the fun and not like arma II becuase i dont want games to always be 1 shot kill and stuff like that

kingofwar1234
offline
kingofwar1234
605 posts
Peasant

graphics have a large part in making a game great... graphics adds to the realistic part of the game, and you feel like your actually there, not in some pixilated world.

ledmonds
offline
ledmonds
382 posts
Nomad

yes but some games are fun because they are not realistic so why do the graphics have to be mega realistic

bazz1
offline
bazz1
285 posts
Peasant

graphics have a large part in making a game great



yeah and what part is that??? the graphics are nothing they dont do anything and whats the point of makeing you feel like your in that world ? and no it dosent make you feel that becuase you fell your fingers mashing the buttons and like whoever said (sorry for not know your name whoever said this) that you forget about the graphics are any good or bad after 10 mins
bazz1
offline
bazz1
285 posts
Peasant

and anyone here play warcraft 3 i really liked it but i thought the campain was hard and i finished then i went to the warcraft 3 the frozen throne got stuck on that though so thats an example of good gameplay and allright graphics take that you new super graphics makeing non careing about gameplay companies

kingofwar1234
offline
kingofwar1234
605 posts
Peasant

wow.... ur putting up a big argument eh? well, its true, graphics do make up a large part of making a game great... theres no questioning it.. and if u do, that'll be kindof like spam... and we dont want spam now do we?

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,508 posts
Jester

How is questioning that graphics don't make a large part of making a game spam? Because it kinda doesn't. Just a bit. They are sprinkles on a game that attract players to play it, only to feel bad that they bought a $64 game that wasn't fun at all.

FallenSky
offline
FallenSky
1,816 posts
Peasant

I'm really going for the gameplay; just take every Nis game that's came out in the last decade. Even today, for the Ps3, they still go with the sprite approach, but it permits the use of absolutely flashy-looking moves and attacks you couldn't get with 3D. To me, Tactics just don't look the same when not done in sprites. Take Disgaea, Makai Kingdom and Phantom Brave for example; amazing games with engrossing gameplay, despite simple graphics.

In some occasions - though not often - the graphics contribute to the game experience enough to weight pretty much in the balance. Take the example of Shadow of the Colossus; if they didn't expand the camera view to the fullest and made areas with loadings rather than a big open map, you wouldn't have the majestic experience of horse-riding through a grand and olympian kingdom, thus taking a good part of the game's feel away.

And then there're games like Bayonetta, which have both amazing graphics and gameplay; I strongly recommend that game for any DMC fan; just as challenging and addictive; probably one of the best action/hack and slash out there.

Showing 46-60 of 93