why do people place a larger emphasis on gameplay....most gaming drones don't really care if the game looks hyper-realistic.they just care if the game is fun to play. why? i think graphics can be more important sometimes

In answer to your question, its not wrong to want games to look good; graphics are an important part of making a game immersive and making the experience all the more memorable. I think the problem is when people go into the smaller details when others get annoyed.

Because a good looking game can be boring to play, but a game with good gameplay that doesnt look good can still be fun. With that said graphics can and do add to the experience, depending on the game.

Because at the end of the day, we're "playing" the games not looking at them, so if it isnt fun the awesome graphics will get tiresome eventually.

Care to provide some examples? I will agree that graphics will add to the experience and therefore make a game more enjoyable, but I dont know if I could agree that they are "more important" than other elements like fun, controls, story and the like.

Give it another 15 years if you're after interactive movies.

Graphics date quickly, but good gameplay lasts generations.

Okay, now that I've got the hoity toity thing out the way...

Graphics are helpful in making games more exhilirating, I find.

I think graphic's need to be useful and clear I remember playing resident evil 2 and walking around the outside of the room and pressing the pick up button 'cause it was uncertain what you could and could not pick up while in Super Mario 64 this was never a problem.

I also reacll plaing a game called recoil for the PC very beatiful game for the time and played like shit played it once and never again.

Graphics will keep you entertained through the first play of a game, however its gameplay that keeps you coming back.

Prime example is Halo vs Halo 2. The original is still my most played game ever, racking up hundreds of hours worth of game time because each time I played it the experience was exciting and unique. Now Halo 2 has far superior graphics, however compared to the original I barely touched the game after I finished it. I've replayed a couple of the levels which were similar to the original's gameplay elements but otherwise the rest of the levels were either frustrating or dull the next time round.

Gameplay is the reason why Tetris and other arcade classics are still immensely popular today. They were always challenging and immersive because of their amazing gameplay elements.

In more recent times however, great graphics are pretty much a given with any game that you play since graphics which were once cutting-edge are now standard.

The Bouncer - PS2 Squaresoft





Just goes to show that even when something has great looking graphics doesn't mean it's going to be a great game. I rented this and whilst I was mildly entertained for a couple of hours it became boring very quickly due to a number of reasons:

- Too short (all together most players can expect to plow through this game in less than an hour the first time and around five hours to finish it with everyone and getting them to full strength.)

- Too many FMVs,

- Crappy music,

- Dodgy english dub voice acting (though I'm pretty sure there was an option to change it to japanese. I think..)

- Vastly different from the demo (it's meant to be like Final Fight, you could pick up nearby objects like chairs and tables and smash them over enemies but in the full version they decided to take that ability away).

This was overhyped and was originally going to be one of the best launch titles

Okay. Videogames are not called "video" games for nothing. Graphics do enhance the experience. In some cases, graphics contribute to the gameplay. Take Okami for eg. Imagine that game with crappy graphics, it wouldn't be getting rave reviews from the industry's critics would it? Its all in the graphics, the graphics create the gameplay. Another example of graphics enhancing the experience and thus playing a major role in the game design is Viewtiful Joe. Those who've played it know what I'm saying.
Graphics are important, a game doesn't need to look fuckin next gen to play well. To be honest, people who say that gameplay>graphics bullshit are just pretending to be connoisseurs, when all games are about is having fun while enjoying the advancement in graphic technology. Nothing complicated.

I agree, I have Viewtiful Joe and Viewtiful Joe 2 on GCN were its graphics are better, and I agree they add to the fun of the game.

However are they more important? I mean VJ was fun for its awesome action, though graphics especially with slow did add to it, so its interesting there, what is more important? If the controls, amount of moves and bosses were poor, limited and not challenging but the game still looked the same with VJ be as good? I dont think it would.

Developers should ensure that their games look decent and up to current standards in technology, graphics and gameplay go hand in hand. And when I say graphics I don't necesarily mean pretty graphics, just enjoyable, good graphics. Take Vib Ribbon on PS1 for eg. That game didn't have MGS's graphics but its wacky graphics made the gameplay unique and thus unforgettable. I feel like playing it right now. :P

Why I agree with you DZ I don't think thats what people mean when they say "good graphics" they mean metal gear solid type realistic stuff.

I'd say all those games you metioned have good art direction. Becasue they weren't really pushing the hardware to the limit were they?

Ok, take DOA for eg. Those bouncy babes and the trillion polygons that make up their boobs is what makes the game... um, arousing and fun. But the gameplay is also good, its a really engaging fighter, its on par with other pretty games such as VF. If the babes were jaggy and the framerate sucked then I doubt it'll be as enjoyable.

I feel that some games dont apply to this rule though, games that are fresh and unique dont nessecarily have to have stunning or even good visuals to be great today. Games like Trauma Center for the DS are addictive as anything, but it is lackluster in graphics. Yet even if this game had Next-Gen graphics i would feel the same about it, since its the gameplay that brings you in. I would mention Wario Ware also but i think some of those graphics are intentionally bad :lol:

Yeah in some games better graphics dont really add to its enjoyment, many DS games like Trauma Center are a fine example, in fact the Wii version of Trauma Center doesnt appear to have updated the graphics that much, but it will probably still be damn addictive.

It really depends on the genre. Puzzlers, RTS's etc don't really depend on next gen graphics, but action games like Splinter Cell and MGS, or Simulators like GT and Flight Sim X need good graphics.

that sounds like the answer to this topic

i hope it answers your question

While I'm Gameplay > Graphics, I still think that graphics matter.

While Wii will hopefully be awesome to play, I'll still end up buying a 2nd console because I'll want the beefed up graphics.

im personally looking into the Wii60 combo, Great Games!

I see nonthing wrong with it as well.I eman Iw ant the games too look good, but play better.