I agree that good games can have bad graphics. Take the first Deus Ex for example. One of the best games ever, and it's really old. However, sometimes good framerate and graphics can help to make the game good.
Let me direct your attention to a little game known as "Minecraft" In the end gameplay > graphics
I've played minecraft and I own beta. If your trying to say minecraft is only good because of graphics i highly disagree. but good job you caught my attention and i replied :/
There is generally a minimal standard for graphics but beyond that it's not difficult to pick gameplay over graphics. Be careful to be specific with "graphics" and "aesthetic" however as one is choice to develop atmosphere, another is technology based.
A brilliant example is Amnesia: The Dark Descent. Sure, the ambience is one of the largest factors of both immersion and fear in the experience but the sense of the architecture and intent of what you bare witness to - definitely a very nice addition.
If your trying to say minecraft is only good because of graphics i highly disagree.
Gameplay > Graphics = Gameplay is more than Graphics = Gameplay is more valuble than graphics. Simply put, what he said was quite the contrary.
There are few scenarios where graphics are a necessity for amazement - although RPG's and games that use stealth tend to need some of the now-more common technology.
Highfire! A pleasure to see you here! And onto the subject matter...
Graphics in Games are nice, yes. They can set the mood in a game, but photo-realism doesn't necessarily create a good game. Compare Borderlands to Black Ops, one is a lengthy RPG with many levels of customization and BAJILLIONS of guns, while the other is a run-of-the-mill shooter with a cool Zombie Mode (technically two). Borderlands is overall the better game, despite using Cel-Shading graphics as opposed to Black Ops' attempt at creating Photo-Realism with their visuals.
Some of the best games are the ones that look the worst, Dead Rising, Ocarina of Time, Oblivion, all look dated, but are some of the defining games of the Industry in their own rights and respects.
Yahtzee's recent review of RAGE touches on the subject, while he does praise the game, he creates an allegory in saying that games (paraphrased) "Get skinny to look good for the party, and I think they're starting to shove their fingers down their throats nowadays".
Simply put, the more work a developer puts towards better graphics is time lost on gameplay development. This does not mean that "GRAPHICS R EVUL", but that if there's time, yea, make your game look cool, but make sure your GAMEPLAY, y'know, the stuff that actually makes the game good, is solid before you start adding 1359 gradients to that one patch of dirt in level One.
Agreed with most people here, but SUPA-HIGH-UBER-GRAPHICS can go compared with a good gameplay. Look at The Wither. I think the 1st was less fun then the second one who obvious has better graphics.
And Oblivion and Dead Rising looked good at their year.
Good graphics can help to create the atmosphere of the game but I agree that people pay too much attention to graphics. The actual content and gameplay is much more important. A lot of old game that have terrible graphics by today's standards are great.
You can have a good game with low graphics but you cant have an amazing game with bad graphics IMO because the graphics add to the general game by making it look better
At a point where the graphics are a fair standard it really doesn't matter to me what the game looks like.
Like some others have said, some of the greatest or most defining games in their genre don't have the best graphics in the world. True, the graphics of the game can help build the atmosphere of it but in the end, in my opinion, it's what you get out of the game and its story which makes the game for me.
So to conclude, for me the graphics aren't what makes the game spectacular but instead just a nice addition to the experience as a whole.
Some of the best games are the ones that look the worst, Dead Rising, Ocarina of Time, Oblivion, all look dated, but are some of the defining games of the Industry in their own rights and respects.
I'd like to mention that some games played today like Age of Empires III (which is actually quite beautiful) and Battlefield 2 have by no stretch of the imagine good graphics.
Starcraft I is so highly regarded by people (and myself) because of its immensely balanced and competitive gameplay. Does THIS look good?
Link is from Youtube.
y'know, the stuff that actually makes the game good, is solid before you start adding 1359 gradients to that one patch of dirt in level One.
Certainly - but I have to say I love the way Battlefield games are now handled. A cohesive balance in gameplay style with the essence of teamplay etc derived from the realism of being less effective by yourself and the realism is also influenced by the small things they add - shrapnel in explosions, the gradients around destroyed areas or pieces of a building chipping away - kind of like Age of Empires III's touch on ships.
Also I'd like to point reference again to Amnesia - as I've said I think there is a minimum standard but considering how immsersive something can be without pinnacle-of-the-time-graphics I don't think it's even that useful in any sense apart from eye-candy. The smallest graphical standard would be at around Amnesias level. Here's the trailer if you want to see.
Good day everyone - pleasure to talk again, Master.
You can have a good game with low graphics but you cant have an amazing game with bad graphics IMO because the graphics add to the general game by making it look better
of course there is. think about ff 1-6 (even 7 had bad graphics). all the old amazing games have horibble graphics yet they are still awsome. what about starwing and lylat wars? the old zelda games? also the old pokemon games. there are counteless awsome games with horibble graphics
