Does Great Graphics Equal Great Gameplay?

X2 · 07-10-2006

I notice a lot of people judge games based on how they look. Like if the graphics of a game doesn't look that good. Then people automactically think the gameplay will follow. But I have seen great looking games that play poor and poor looking games that play great.

With these next gen consoles it seems everybody is focusing on the graphics. I guess if it look good they feel it will play good, but that is not always the case is it.

So does great graphics equal great gameplay?.

**The_One** · 07-10-2006

We all know that's not true all the time, however, in general, that is the case.

Name ONE great looking current gen game that played like crap? Yep... That's what I thought.

Good graphics usually means that the devs actually cares about the game, and thus they will want to make it the best they can.

So, in response, in general, great looking games will also play pretty well. Of course, there are definately exceptions to this rule.

**SolidSnakeUS** · 07-10-2006

Great looking graphics always help with the eye candy, but it doesn't make the game, what makes a game are developers and the gameplay, if the gameplay is not good at all, then the game fails as a whole, there is no way around it.

**PS3 rocks** · 07-10-2006

Well we can't really focus on gameplay yet because none of us have played the games. Graphics is all we have right now that we can use to define a good game.
I think most people would agree the gameplay is more important than graphics.

**roosters93** · 07-10-2006

Yes I think most of the time like The_One said, good graphics = good gameplay.

**Dasimpse** · 07-10-2006

erm i have to disagree massively their, EA is the prime example of getting graphics good, but not always gameplay.

50 cent bulletproof looked good, played horrible!

True Crime Streets of NY looks good, plays horrible.

Matrix path of neo looks good plays seriousley OK.

JUICED, looks good plays horrible.

DRIVER 3 looked amazing plays horrible with terrible bugs.

and dont get me started on the getway series!!!!!

**Trinity** · 07-10-2006

Do we still play Galaga and Defender? oh wait that was 20 years ago...

40% graphics || 40% gameplay || 20% "surprise" factor

**MiNiMaL_sAnItY** · 07-10-2006

Yes, for me it does. I mean to me, graphics come before gameplay.

**PS3 rocks** · 07-10-2006

Really? have you ever played Dragon quest 8 i bet 99% of gamers would love that game despite it's poor graphics. It's got about 100 hours of story to it plus A LOT more for the other things, Good graphics doesn't always equal quality and ok/poor graphics doesn't always equal a crappy game.

I think it's more about the game and who developed it rather than a general question.

**maltroph** · 07-10-2006

you have the hollywood gamers that only care about the flash and you have the true gamers that care about the story and gameplay!

the main reason i thought of it like that was poor graphics usually lead to a restricted and stiff controls, but im finding story and gameplay go way further than graphics!

**Azu** · 07-10-2006

No, but as has been said, if the graphics are good, then there's a good chance that the devs like their job and are good in it, resulting in an overall good game. With PS3 and Xbox 360 I want good graphics, because that's one thing I'm paying so much for. I don't think anyone wants PS3 or Xbox 360 games that look like PS2 or Xbox games, even if the gameplay was superb (although, if it's just one game and other games look good, I can live with it). An occasional "Disgaea" is just fine, but all games shouldn't look like they're a generation behind. If I wanted just gameplay, I'd only buy Wii or even consoles like Sega Saturn and Genesis. I like playing graphically impressive games with at least decent gameplay as much as I like games like Super Monkey Ball with not-so-good graphics but great gameplay.

The thing why everyone talks so much about graphics at first is because that's all we can do. The first impression will always come from the audiovisual (or just visual, if we look at screenshots) side of the game.

Great graphics can get you to play a game, but bad gameplay can drive you away. After all, graphics wear thin really fast, especially if the gameplay is bad. If the gameplay is good, you will probably enjoy the other aspects of the game more too (you'd actully notice how good the game looks if you're not frustrated because of the gameplay all the time).

EDIT: Besides, if I wanted just graphics, I'd watch a movie.

**MiNiMaL_sAnItY** · 07-10-2006

I say the graphics have to reach photorealism, and then gameplay and stories can have full focus on them.

**Martinx** · 07-10-2006

Originally Posted by X2

I notice a lot of people judge games based on how they look. Like if the graphics of a game doesn't look that good. Then people automactically think the gameplay will follow. But I have seen great looking games that play poor and poor looking games that play great.

With these next gen consoles it seems everybody is focusing on the graphics. I guess if it look good they feel it will play good, but that is not always the case is it.

So does great graphics equal great gameplay?.

Did you have to create a thread on something that people have said atleast 100 times a day for like 4 years now?

**PiP4LyFe** · 07-10-2006

Originally Posted by Dasimpse

erm i have to disagree massively their, EA is the prime example of getting graphics good, but not always gameplay.

50 cent bulletproof looked good, played horrible!

True Crime Streets of NY looks good, plays horrible.

Matrix path of neo looks good plays seriousley OK.

JUICED, looks good plays horrible.

DRIVER 3 looked amazing plays horrible with terrible bugs.

and dont get me started on the getway series!!!!!

I have to disagree with you, i own all of those games and they all play great.

**Dasimpse** · 07-10-2006

Erm ok lol, personal oppinion. ill try not to make any assumptions about your knowledge of games

**Aquanox** · 07-10-2006

Originally Posted by The_One

We all know that's not true all the time, however, in general, that is the case.

Name ONE great looking current gen game that played like crap? Yep... That's what I thought.

Good graphics usually means that the devs actually cares about the game, and thus they will want to make it the best they can.

So, in response, in general, great looking games will also play pretty well. Of course, there are definately exceptions to this rule.

I pretty much disagree. It's true that good visuals usually means that the developers put some big effort on the game but sometimes they focus just too much on the graphical aspect of it.

Take Doom3 and Sudeki as clear examples, both looked amazingly good for its time/consoles but it was the gameplay which made them hardly playable.

On the other hand, gameplay only is also getting old. Many people went crazy about the GTA series but it seems that right now people is expecting that kind of gameplay alongside with decent visuals, otherwise one has a weird feeling of being in front of something cheap.

However, amazing visuals aren't necesary all the time, I think that devs can pull a great game by having a good balance between those features plus sound and story. I wouldn't bury a game by screenshots alone unless it promises some groundbreaking gameplay, but come on, we all know that there has been made so much on videogames that groundbreaking (appealing) gameplay on these days is something nearly impossible so I don't think things like GTA will happen again this time around.

En fewer word, I'm saying that visuals aren't THAT important but they definetly matter more now than they did in the past. Give me an amazingly looking game + great gameplay and will give you an instant classic.

**Azu** · 07-10-2006

Originally Posted by Aquanox

I pretty much disagree. It's true that good visuals usually means that the developers put some big effort on the game but sometimes they focus just too much on the graphical aspect of it.

Take Doom3 and Sudeki as clear examples, both looked amazingly good for its time/consoles but it was the gameplay which made them hardly playable.

Well, Doom 3 and Sudeki are the exceptions The_One is talking about:

Originally Posted by The_One

Of course, there are definately exceptions to this rule.

It's a given that not all good looking games play well, but I could almost guarantee that something like 80-85% of great looking games have good enough gameplay to not distract you from the overall experience too much, if you know what I mean. So great looking graphics don't equal great gameplay, but great looking games in general have great/good gameplay.

Aleman · 07-10-2006

Originally Posted by The_One

Name ONE great looking current gen game that played like crap? Yep... That's what I thought.

Killzone and Doom 3

And perhaps the most popular game last gen was one with bad graphics: GTA.

But I do agree with your generalization.

Graphics aren't too important by themselves but the AAA games usually have awesome graphics.

justintheman99 · 07-10-2006

Graphics dont mean everything to me. As long as there is great gameplay I will play anything! My all time favorite game to this day which I still frequently play is Earthbound for the SNES. Pretty sad to say that when I have a 360, PS2, XBox, Gamecube, GBA, and DS I still play that one game quite often on my old beat up SNES.

**Aquanox** · 07-10-2006

Originally Posted by Azu

Originally Posted by Aquanox

I pretty much disagree. It's true that good visuals usually means that the developers put some big effort on the game but sometimes they focus just too much on the graphical aspect of it.

Take Doom3 and Sudeki as clear examples, both looked amazingly good for its time/consoles but it was the gameplay which made them hardly playable.

Well, Doom 3 and Sudeki are the exceptions The_One is talking about:

.

Well, the gentleman asked for 1 game and I gave him 2 =)

The point is that sometimes I'm afraid of games with too good gameplay. At first I had very serious worries about Gears of War and Mass Effect. To me they looked too good to have good gameplay, meaning that I doubted the companies had so much resources to invest on both. Fortunately, for what I've read everywhere, my doubts has faded about those but that's not going to happen too often.

**Angelcurio** · 07-10-2006

No, great graphics does not equal great gameplay. If graphics were the deciding factor between a good game and a bad one, then i wouldnt be playing Megaman 2 in megaman anniversary collection, or Final Fantasy VI for snes in this day and age.

**Steroyd** · 07-10-2006

Originally Posted by Aleman

Originally Posted by The_One

Name ONE great looking current gen game that played like crap? Yep... That's what I thought.

Killzone and Doom 3

And perhaps the most popular game last gen was one with bad graphics: GTA.

But I do agree with your generalization.

Graphics aren't too important by themselves but the AAA games usually have awesome graphics.

Killzone?

That was dogged by technical hitches more than poor gameplay...

...wait...

**Spindryer** · 07-10-2006

Good Graphics ..........No , not always

Next Gen Graphics ......YES most of the time

EG: N64 - golden Eye , at time of realise this game was at the for front of Next Gen Graphics and it was the top notch to play , If the a similar game was to come out now with the same graphics then hit would fall on its face (Hard) .

Its all about new additions to Graphics and its environments. If a game is Sexy in the "Next Gen" sense then it can only really do well in the game play front. Simple

**overthirtygamernj** · 07-10-2006

Quake 4 had decent graphics but so-so gameplay. Same with Full-Auto. So no, great graphics, IMO don't=great gameplay.

**WhatRuOn** · 07-10-2006

While I agree that gameplay is more important 10 times over then graphics, there are rare cases where the graphics will turn an otherwise so-so game into a great game. Take the PC game F.E.A.R. for example, if it wasn't for this game's crazy visuals everyone would have looked away and passed this game off as your average FPS. Instead this game is to date, the best looking game I've ever played, with Prey coming in a close second.