# Which do you prefer in a videogame?



## JsdMaNintendo (Dec 28, 2010)

I am so sick and tired of hearing people whine about the Wii being inferior because it doesn't have as good of a graphics card as the Xbox 360 or the PlayStation 3, and I just thought this was a good place to get the people's opinions, because I'm sure if any of those graphics whores play Wind Waker, they'd still love it, because even if the graphics are "cartoony" and "kiddish" it's still a freakin' awesome game! One of the best Zelda games they've released as far as I'm concerned. It was just purely amazing.

And no, I'm not saying graphics don't matter, at all. Graphics reflect on the style of game it is, for instance, Wind Waker again, great game, cartoony graphics, and the game was more centered around fun and entertainment, where as games like the Half Life series have amazingly realistic graphics, and it's a very deep game, deep story, character development, it's a very dark and gritty game. It's awesome. And everything about the graphics do say what kind of game it can be. That can be said for any game.

Sorry for all the rambling here. Just had to get my point across.


----------



## jefffisher (Dec 28, 2010)

shit i accidentally voted graphics :C
gameplay all the way graphics are among the least important things in a game


----------



## AcekardFan (Dec 28, 2010)

Yes I Voted On Gameplay,And I Hope Skyward's Sword Will be In Relate With Wind Waker......Even If The Graphics Look Cartoonish I Hope It's A Great game


----------



## JsdMaNintendo (Dec 28, 2010)

jefffisher said:
			
		

> shit i accidentally voted graphics :C
> gameplay all the way graphics are among the least important things in a game




No worries, and I 100% agree with you man.


----------



## JsdMaNintendo (Dec 28, 2010)

AcekardFan said:
			
		

> Yes I Voted On Gameplay,And I Hope Skyward's Sword Will be In Relate With Wind Waker......Even If The Graphics Look Cartoonish I Hope It's A Great game


Oh GOD yes! I loved Wind Waker(as I stated a couple times)! And I really hope Skyward Sword will be as good. They kinda scared me with a comment saying that it's more focused on fun this time than it is on story, which Zelda has always had both, but of course, more fun, the more replay value it has, like Wind Waker and Majora's Mask.


----------



## Hells Malice (Dec 28, 2010)

Option 3. Story.
Story>Gameplay>Graphics, for me.

I like seeing nice graphics, but I won't condemn a game because of a lack of good graphics. If it's fun to play, or has a great story, i'll play it regardless of what the graphics look like.


----------



## jarejare3 (Dec 28, 2010)

Hells Malice said:
			
		

> Option 3. Story.
> Story>Gameplay>Graphics, for me.
> 
> I like seeing nice graphics, but I won't condemn a game because of a lack of good graphics. If it's fun to play, or has a great story, i'll play it regardless of what the graphics look like.


Option 4= Difficulty

I Value gameplay more than graphics. but some games are just too easy and some are just too hard. so i rather prefer games that are multy difficulty or have a proper difficuty curve.

PS= graphics + gameplay = Best game evar!!!!!!!


----------



## iSneeze (Dec 28, 2010)

Wii: few games with awesome gameplay and crap graphics for all.
PS3 and Xbox 360: Few games with awesome gameplay and amazing graphics for pretty much all.

Ma personal opinion.


----------



## KingdomBlade (Dec 28, 2010)

Gameplay>Graphics>Music>Story>Premise/Idea/Concept>Price>Controls>Difficulty>Publicity

I take a lot of things into factor.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 28, 2010)

iSneeze said:
			
		

> Wii: few games with awesome gameplay and crap graphics for all.
> PS3 and Xbox 360: Few games with awesome gameplay and amazing graphics for pretty much all.
> 
> Ma personal opinion.



You're actually annoying how you're always posting that troll pic.

Crap graphics? Clearly you've never played games like Okami and No More Heroes, which has something that no PS3 or 360 game has... COLOR. Also, the whole realistic look games try to have, creeps me out because it can never be perfected, and it makes the game look ugly to me.

Also, you didn't answer the question, so your opinion is invalid.


Gameplay destroys all aspects in a game. If the gameplay isn't good, no matter how good the rest of the game is, the game will suck.


----------



## Infinite Zero (Dec 28, 2010)

I always go for great game play value.


----------



## emigre (Dec 28, 2010)

Can't I just have both?


----------



## Goli (Dec 28, 2010)

ShadowSoldier said:
			
		

> iSneeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No More Heroes is out for 360 and PS3 you know... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. There are games with plenty of color in them for both of those consoles too, see Tales games, FFXIII, The Last Remnant et al.
And I agree, gameplay makes or breaks a game.


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Dec 28, 2010)

emigre said:
			
		

> Can't I just have both?


Of course you can. But that wasn't the question, was it?

I value gameplay much more over graphics. Of course graphics does play a factor, but gameplay is more important.


----------



## naglaro00 (Dec 28, 2010)

Gameplay.

But sometimes graphics matters too.

Look at Gears or War. It seems that most of the game is gray. EYESTRAIN


----------



## ShinyLatios (Dec 28, 2010)

A game needs AWESOME GAMEPLAY. graphics do matter, but it doesn't need to be HD(I'm talking to YOU PS3 FANBOYS!)


----------



## Blaze163 (Dec 28, 2010)

I don't care about graphics. Gameplay is all that matters to me. If all I want out of my tv is pretty pictures I'd put on a DVD. Here's why.

1) When gameplay takes a back seat to graphics, the game invariably disappoints. See Final Fantasy XIII.

2) A lot of hi-def games have this awful 'wet look' to them, where everything is too shiny and glistens for no good reason, which bugs the hell out of me. See recent Gears of War clone 'Quantum Theory'.

3) Gaming is about fun, no matter how you slice it. Given the choice between Gran Turismo 5's amazing graphics but uncontrollable cars (I couldn't even get around the track in the demo) or firing up my SNES and breaking out Mario Kart, F-Zero or even Stunt Race FX, it's SNES all the way. Graphics do not a good game make.

To be honest there aren't many modern games I can think up that manage a good balance. Games these days care too much about 'spectacle' so they appeal to the casual gamers and the low brows who just want to show off. Every now and then a great game like Uncharted 2, Mass Effect 2 or Black Ops will show that great graphics can be backed up by solid gameplay, but let's be honest, they're pretty rare. Which is why the DS continues to dominate, because it focusses on fun instead of jaw-dropping visuals. Only the DS has found a way of making near static images and basic text scrolling one of its most addictive series Mr Wright, we salute you.

Don't get me wrong. Graphics do need to be taken into account. As has been said, the constant barrage of grey in games like Gears of War is fuck ugly. Give me the sweet multicoloured madness of Super Mario World over this 'realism' fad any day. But provided the game isn't glitchy as hell and has at least polished visuals, then that's enough. Don't blow your budget on a huge and impressive CG scene then forget to add in vital parts of gameplay, like a story that makes sense, a reason to care about what's going on aside from achievement points, a battle system which requires you to actually do something, etc. You hear me, Square Enix? NOT COOL, OK?


----------



## rockstar99 (Dec 28, 2010)

Gameplay, look at lots of indie games they dont have the best graphics but keep people entertained for hours


----------



## Demonbart (Dec 28, 2010)

Gameplay>graphics.
I couldn't give a shit about HD if I tried to, though the graphic style has to fit the gameplay as well as the platform it's made for. 3D on GBA (for example) doesn't work at all.


----------



## jarejare3 (Dec 28, 2010)

Crisis, dawn of war 2, heroes of newerth, starcraft 2, some final fantasy games, and also halo are good example of gameplay X graphics balance.
A good game requires gameplay.
But a AWESOME GAME requires both.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 28, 2010)

A lot of times graphics do help a game be better. I don't think I could see myself playing Red Dead Redemption or Mass Effect in low res graphics and enjoying it, despite both being purely wonderful games.

There's still plenty of Wii games that are great even though they don't look as good as Xbox 360/PS3/PC games, but most good Wii games also have pretty good graphics for the system. Probably the best (at least the highest rated) Wii games (SMG and SMG2) have the best graphics on the system, for instance.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 28, 2010)

jarejare3 said:
			
		

> Crisis, dawn of war 2, heroes of newerth, starcraft 2, some final fantasy games, and also halo are good example of gameplay X graphics balance.
> A good game requires gameplay.
> But a AWESOME GAME requires both.


Halo is not a good example for glameplay. Outside of online gaming, they lack any kind of real offline gaming.

Ontopic: I prefer gameplay overall and I mean real gameplay, as in the game doesn't just rely on online gameplay to be fun. Which is growing harder to find nowadays.


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Dec 28, 2010)

Rockstar said:
			
		

> Gameplay, look at lots of indie games they dont have the best graphics but keep people entertained for hours


A good example of this would be minecraft. It's pixelated and blocky, yet fucking addictive and an excellent game.


----------



## Satangel (Dec 28, 2010)

Gameplay is the most important, without a doubt. But great graphics help any game so much too. 
My favourite game on the Wii was PES 2010. I loved it, and it's the only game I still miss since I sold my Wii. The graphics were mediocre, just normal, but the gameplay is just pure genious. I loved the total control feeling, the feeling you have when you can guide a player through the offside trap so easily. 
Wonderful game that was....


----------



## Forstride (Dec 28, 2010)

In my opinion, this is what makes a game great in order from most important to least:

Gameplay
Music
Story
Controls
Graphics
Replayability
Difficulty

So by that, I prefer gameplay over anything.

Also, this is my 1337th post.


----------



## iSneeze (Dec 28, 2010)

ShadowSoldier said:
			
		

> iSneeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's where you're wrong. game play doesn't destroy all other aspects. Just take a look at Gran Tursimo. 5 FUCKING YEARS and consumers have eagerly and desperately waited for it's next release. Let's not forget that the whole thing is nothing but a simulator, the most realistic game out there on the market and yet its sales are high. Game play of course makes a big deal, but so does graphics for those who have a taste for it, and so does music, art, violence and others. Different factors appeal to different kinds of people. YOU have _your_ preference, I have _my_ preference.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 28, 2010)

iSneeze said:
			
		

> That's where you're wrong. game play doesn't destroy all other aspects. Just take a look at Gran Tursimo. 5 FUCKING YEARS and consumers have eagerly and desperately waited for it's next release. Let's not forget that the whole thing is nothing but a simulator, the most realistic game out there on the market and yet its sales are high. Game play of course makes a big deal, but so does graphics for those who have a taste for it, and so does music, art, violence and others. Different factors appeal to different kinds of people. YOU have _your_ preference, I have _my_ preference.



Realistic doesn't mean its good. Video games are a way to escape normal reality and be able to do things impossible in the real world. I guess some people like a simulator so they can pretend to drive fancy cars but I always thought of video games as a way to enjoy the impossible.


----------



## iSneeze (Dec 28, 2010)

Guild McCommunist said:
			
		

> iSneeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You might enjoy the impossible, and so would millions around the world. But as I said earlier different factors appeal to different kinds of people. You can't just stereotype and say _"gameplay < graphics and that's the way it should be for everyone"_.

We all have our personal preferences. OP asked for each person's opinion. Not for a bloody argument where 2 or more violently try to shove their opinions down the others' throats.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 28, 2010)

iSneeze said:
			
		

> Guild McCommunist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So basically you can just lay down an obvious troll opinion then bitch about people trying to start nothing but a friendly debate on the matter? God forbid anyone else try to put down a counterpoint. When you post something on a forum, it's up for speculation by anyone, opinion or not. I was being friendly and simply presenting an opposing point of view for you to have a friendly and mature debate about.


----------



## DeathStrudel (Dec 28, 2010)

A Gay Little Cat Boy said:
			
		

> I prefer gameplay overall and I mean real gameplay, as in the game doesn't just rely on online gameplay to be fun. Which is growing harder to find nowadays.


This is the truth, almost all "good" games nowadays are considered "good" b/c of online play. imo go get a SNES if you actually want to play the best games out there


----------



## iSneeze (Dec 28, 2010)

Guild McCommunist said:
			
		

> So basically you can just lay down an obvious troll opinion then bitch about people trying to start nothing but a friendly debate on the matter? God forbid anyone else try to put down a counterpoint. When you post something on a forum, it's up for speculation by anyone, opinion or not. I was being friendly and simply presenting an opposing point of view for you to have a friendly and mature debate about.



My bad, I mistaked you for someone I'm arguing with for the same reason on another topic (Wii worth the money?).


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 28, 2010)

iSneeze said:
			
		

> Guild McCommunist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No problem, no harm done


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Dec 28, 2010)

I prefer gameplay over graphics, but to me graphics is important too... 

That's why I got the PS3, I can have it both ways with games like Need For Speed Hot Pursuit (Sorry GT5, you lose this round, nya.), Bayonetta, and Killzone 2.


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Dec 28, 2010)

iSneeze said:
			
		

> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So if someone presented you a game with immensely amazing, never before seen graphics, but the game lacked any depth, had rubbish controls, and the gameplay just outright sucked, would you still think it's a good game?


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 28, 2010)

iSneeze said:
			
		

> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Uh, it sells because it's gameplay is amazing and no other simulator has been able to come close to the level of detail in the gameplay that Gran Turismo has. _Your_ preference is wrong.

Also, little tip for future posts: using swears in the context you did, it's hard to take you seriously in a debate.


----------



## The Pi (Dec 28, 2010)

video*game*
*game*play





Some of the best games I've played were on the NES, PS1 and DC and their graphics were all "crap".


----------



## iSneeze (Dec 28, 2010)

ShadowSoldier said:
			
		

> Uh, it sells because it's gameplay is amazing and no other simulator has been able to come close to the level of detail in the gameplay that Gran Turismo has. _Your_ preference is wrong.
> 
> Also, little tip for future posts: using swears in the context you did, it's hard to take you seriously in a debate.



Do you enjoy stalking me from topic to topic?


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 28, 2010)

iSneeze said:
			
		

> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh I'm sorry, am I trolling the troll?

Also no, you post stupid things, and you post in the threads that I'm currently interested in. Give it a year and I'll be out of your hair.


----------



## iSneeze (Dec 28, 2010)

ShadowSoldier said:
			
		

> iSneeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well since you've clearly stated your obvious opposition to pretty much anything I do... Here's a troll face since you love them 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. Just kidding, but do you have to be such a prick reporting everyone just because you don't like their method of forum posting or their personal opinions/tastes? Just leave me alone and stop opposing everything I say on every topic, keep your shit to yourself.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 28, 2010)

iSneeze said:
			
		

> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I actually reported you for a different reason. But I figured seeing as how you're going around trolling saying that, like you did in the Wii thread "Get it if you enjoy primative controls and weak graphics", or something like that, I would troll you back. Personally I don't care about your opinion, if anything, just debating like anybody else would do. And seeing as how you're the one who's replying with things that I can reply to, why not?

Anyways, on topic:

I just voted, as anybody with half a brain would know that graphics don't make a game good. It should be the last thing to judge a purchase on.


----------



## iSneeze (Dec 28, 2010)

ShadowSoldier said:
			
		

> I actually reported you for a different reason. But I figured seeing as how you're going around trolling saying that, like you did in the Wii thread "Get it if you enjoy primative controls and weak graphics", or something like that, I would troll you back. Personally I don't care about your opinion, if anything, just debating like anybody else would do. And seeing as how you're the one who's replying with things that I can reply to, why not?
> 
> Anyways, on topic:
> 
> I just voted, as anybody with half a brain would know that graphics don't make a game good. It should be the last thing to judge a purchase on.



Look, I'm a wii hater, you're not. Just get over it and stop following my every post.

Prick.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Dec 28, 2010)

I voted Gameplay but graphics is probably the 3rd thing after controls


----------



## AaronUzumaki (Dec 28, 2010)

Gameplay. Graphics are the second-least important thing. (next to awesome cover art) Besides, when I look at graphics, I look at the art style and effort, not the resolution. Attention to detail as well. Heck, one of my favorites when it comes to graphics is Muramasa the Demon Blade, which also presents great gameplay, controls, story, and difficulty. Wind Waker is another game with an amazingly likable art style. Irregardless though, gameplay is always more important than graphics.

P.S. To the guy who said to see Final Fantasy XIII as an example of graphics>gameplay, though several of the long-time fans of the series weren't pleased, a lot of us actually enjoyed the change in gameplay and I doubt anyone who was actually playing the game used auto command excessively if at all. (maybe to kill some basic enemies to make grinding quicker) Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to your opinion, that's fine, but don't reference everyone else to your opinion please.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 28, 2010)

You know what's weird? I've never played XIII. But I could tell, just from videos of the Gameplay and cutscenes, I would not like it. Maybe because it doesn't look like FF at all, or my preference of a classic turn based battle system was kicking in.

But I have never played the game, and from what I've been hearing, I'm not missing out on much.


----------



## Goli (Dec 28, 2010)

AaronUzumaki said:
			
		

> Gameplay. Graphics are the second-least important thing. (next to awesome cover art) Besides, when I look at graphics, I look at the art style and effort, not the resolution. Attention to detail as well. Heck, one of my favorites when it comes to graphics is Muramasa the Demon Blade, which also presents great gameplay, controls, story, and difficulty. Wind Waker is another game with an amazingly likable art style. Irregardless though, gameplay is always more important than graphics.
> 
> P.S. To the guy who said to see Final Fantasy XIII as an example of graphics>gameplay, though several of the long-time fans of the series weren't pleased, a lot of us actually enjoyed the change in gameplay and I doubt anyone who was actually playing the game used auto command excessively if at all. (maybe to kill some basic enemies to make grinding quicker) Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to your opinion, that's fine, but don't reference everyone else to your opinion please.
> I enjoyed it too.
> ...


----------



## KuRensan (Dec 28, 2010)

jsdman1234 said:
			
		

> I am so sick and tired of hearing people whine about the Wii being inferior because it doesn't have as good of a graphics card as the Xbox 360 or the PlayStation 3, and I just thought this was a good place to get the people's opinions, because I'm sure if any of those graphics whores play Wind Waker, they'd still love it, because even if the graphics are "cartoony" and "kiddish" it's still a freakin' awesome game! One of the best Zelda games they've released as far as I'm concerned. It was just purely amazing.
> 
> And no, I'm not saying graphics don't matter, at all. Graphics reflect on the style of game it is, for instance, Wind Waker again, great game, cartoony graphics, and the game was more centered around fun and entertainment, where as games like the Half Life series have amazingly realistic graphics, and it's a very deep game, deep story, character development, it's a very dark and gritty game. It's awesome. And everything about the graphics do say what kind of game it can be. That can be said for any game.
> 
> Sorry for all the rambling here. Just had to get my point across.



I totally agree with you. For example, All those people complaining Call of duty: Black Ops (PS3) has bad quality, but the story is great ^.^


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 28, 2010)

Lol I like that. But I wasn't complaining. Just merely stating that.. the videos, they turned me away from the game. But like I also said, that could be because I prefer the traditional turn based battle system...


----------



## DeMoN (Dec 28, 2010)

I prefer gameplay, but that's no reason to not have good graphics (see: Golden Sun).


----------



## Goli (Dec 28, 2010)

ShadowSoldier said:
			
		

> Lol I like that. But I wasn't complaining. Just merely stating that.. the videos, they turned me away from the game. But like I also said, that could be because I prefer the traditional turn based battle system...


Well... the traditional turn based battle system ended with Final Fantasy III. Then it sort of came back with Final Fantasy X, but it wasn't too "traditional" really.
Final Fantasy XIII's battle system is basically an updated version of Final Fantasy X-2's ATB, complete with Dressphere changes mid-battle (Paradigm Shifts), combos (Stagger gauge) and super speedy ATB bars (even though in XIII you can only see your leader's ATB gauge). If you played X-2 and liked its battle system you'll probably like XIII's battle system. And it's gorgeous graphics and music. More back on topic though, the story is kinda bad (and it totally rips off Ergo Proxy (though I did like Lightning's character development)) but since the battles are so enjoyable it's not that bad. This proves gameplay > everything else.


----------



## JsdMaNintendo (Dec 28, 2010)

emigre said:
			
		

> Can't I just have both?


Yes, but I'm asking which you think is more important.


----------



## JsdMaNintendo (Dec 28, 2010)

iSneeze said:
			
		

> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But still, think about it: Would you rather play a game because it's popular and has amazing graphics, or a game that has medium to low graphics that's the funnest game since the 90's, since that's about the time games started taking a dive.


----------



## iSneeze (Dec 29, 2010)

jsdman1234 said:
			
		

> But still, think about it: Would you rather play a game because it's popular and has amazing graphics, or a game that has medium to low graphics that's the funnest game since the 90's, since that's about the time games started taking a dive.



When I play a popular game with amazing graphics (like CoD), I'm kinda like: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




When I play a game with medium to low graphics (no matter how fun) and would probably be a shame to let those around me know I play (like nintendo), I'm kinda like:


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 29, 2010)

Then you're a sad excuse of a gamer. If it wasn't for Nintendo, there wouldn't even BE a game industry.

And it's posts like yours that I have no choice but to respond to because they're so idiotic and pathetic.


----------



## iSneeze (Dec 29, 2010)

ShadowSoldier said:
			
		

> Then you're a sad excuse of a gamer. If it wasn't for Nintendo, there wouldn't even BE a game industry.
> 
> And it's posts like yours that I have no choice but to respond to because they're so idiotic and pathetic.



My god it's you again. Leave me alone! I get it, you hate me, my method of posting, my opinions, my taste and pretty much everything I do! LEAVE ME ALONE!


----------



## lordrand11 (Dec 29, 2010)

It's nice to see that the majority of GBATemp's Userbase is not very one-sided on graphics. In my opinion Storyline is what makes a game great. Well that and Gameplay for the most part. (I have a feeling somebody is gonna argue Tetris and Dr.Mario and any other puzzler they can think of.)


----------



## naglaro00 (Dec 29, 2010)

iSneeze said:
			
		

> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You said that you don't want other people shoving our opinions down your throat...

then don't shove your opinion about how "great*" your games are down are throats! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




btw, I'd gladly play SMB over CoD




*really, cod isnt really great.
and of course
low resolution != bad graphics


----------



## Infinite Zero (Dec 29, 2010)

iSneeze said:
			
		

> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have to accept the fact that some of your opinions are better left unsaid.


----------



## iSneeze (Dec 29, 2010)

naglaro00 said:
			
		

> You said that you don't want other people shoving our opinions down your throat...
> 
> then don't shove your opinion about how "great*" your games are down are throats!
> 
> ...



Then ShadowSoldier and you tagged along T_T.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Dec 29, 2010)

iSneeze said:
			
		

> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Um no? I'm not doing anything wrong. Your posting things that I can reply to. Especially when it's stupid comments about how:

"When I play a game with medium to low graphics (no matter how fun) and would probably be a shame to let those around me know I play (like nintendo)"

You can't expect someone, even if it wasn't me, to not reply. Because that's the dumbest thing I have ever read. And trust me, I've read a lot of stupid shit (read the quote in my sig). But you're seriously just trolling. Just like how you go into every thread and post pretty much about how anything about Nintendo is embarrassing to be known to be playing. Yet, here you are on, basically, a pro-nintendo website, and you don't expect someone to reply to you? You're a moron if you think that.

I'm pretty sure, the entire world, would rather be known to play Nintendo than to be one of those "hardcore" fags who plays CoD or anything and gets "adrenaline" and gets worked up. That's just sad that there are people like that. And from what you posted before, you're one of those people.

Nintendo > Sony/Microsoft any day of the week.


----------



## Trollology (Dec 29, 2010)

Despite being iSneeze's brother, I kind of agree to ShadowSolidier. 0_0
And no I'm not "tagging along"/"stalking". As SS said, anyone can reply to what you said. It's a forum for heaven's sake.


----------



## geoflcl (Dec 29, 2010)

iSneeze said:
			
		

> jsdman1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, my. You certainly are a provincial one, aren't you?
I really can't knock you for enjoying the games you do (it IS your opinion, after all), but you do worry me a bit. It's as if you only play games to maintain a good image. Do you really feel ashamed to play games with bad graphics? Ashamed as in "Oh dear, someone might see me playing this game in _480-i_. The horror!"? If that's the case, you're certainly limiting your horizon. There are countless games that are priceless gems simply because they're a delight to play, regardless of such trifling factors as polygon count or popularity. If these are the only two factors that drive your video game preferences, I actually feel a bit sorry for you, for your stubbornness means you'll never be able to experience some of the most charming, masterful, and downright fun games the world has to offer. Never to experience the sudden moistness of palm and rapid increase of heart rate upon entering the final showdown with Bowser in Super Mario Bros. 3. Never to be dazzled by the ridiculously humorous and charm-filled LucasArts Adventure games. Never to identify with the woeful cries of today's Sega fans as they wonder why the Sonic the hedgehog games don't quite seem to carry the fun factor as they used to in the days of Blast processing. Never to experience the simple, unadulterated entertainment of playing a round of Wii Sports Tennis with friends or family. Never to accidentally find yourself humming the infectiously catchy soundtrack from Parappa the Rapper. Never to acquire the distinct sense of triumph received from tackling one of the many seemingly impossible bosses from the Final Fantasy III. I could go on forever, about games from the past, games from the present, and games from the future, that you'll never play, simply because they don't adhere to your stubborn and misguided tastes. Oh well. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




ON TOPIC: Gameplay, as many have stated before, is a key factor of any game, regardless of genre or platform. No matter how silky smooth and pretty Call of Duty may be, it wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable if the controls weren't able to satisfy the split-second burdens the game demands. Or if it didn't register bullets when it oh-so-obviously hit that guy. Or if, no matter how many killstreaks or experience you got, there was no payoff in the end. Let's face it, there's a reason we like games, and the reason extends farther than simply how it looks. I recently received an iPod Touch 4 for Christmas, and found myself downloading Epic Citadel to mess around in it. It's a gorgeous piece of work, to be sure, but at the end of the day, offering little gameplay aside from moving and marveling at the many snazzy effects the game exemplifies, I didn't find myself coming back for more the way I do Dig-Dug.
I'm not saying that graphics account for NOTHING. They are indeed an essential part of any game. They must not excel to make a good game, but be functional. No one would play Gran Turismo if it ran at ten frames per second, or if the camera perspective was so low to the ground that you could hardly see the next turn coming. No one would play Super Mario Bros. if they couldn't distinguish the character from the background. Games require _funtional, unobtrusive_ graphics, but they do not necessarily _require_ _fantastic_ graphics.
Perhaps some of you immediately answer "graphics" as your preferred factor in a videogame simply because you've never played _that one game_ that seems horribly dated, and is a downright disgrace to the human eye, but you found yourself loving it nonetheless. If that's the case, I hope you do find that game someday. Then, you'd know why some of us are reacting to you graphics junkies in such a negative manner.

Anyway, those are my views, ill-expressed an disorganized as they are. Carry on, everyone.


----------



## ehayes427 (Dec 29, 2010)

definitely gameplay!
great graphics are cool and all, but if the game isn't good, it's a crappy game......


----------



## Hielkenator (Dec 29, 2010)

I voted gameplay. Visuals do matter. They have to be atmospheric and original.

I like the styles Nintendo dit on the SNES. ( Zelda, Marioworld 2, Starfox )
I also likes what they did on the NES. Lots of Detail an livelyness.
Capcom did a very good job presenting Megaman on the NES. With equal gameplay.

Gameplay first- Graphic have to unlock emotions, and have to pull you in the game alongside good fresh gameplay. They  just has to fit each other.

Photo realistic graphics don't bother to me. I also rather see a drawn cartoon instead of photo realistic cgi.
Bottom line: both have to be artistic/original.
Some developer are very good in the artwork. Those are the games that ussaly have the better gameply too.
It's all about passion for the industry. Do both right and you sell a lot of games. And the game is remebered till eternity.

( Zelda's, Mario's, 1st 3 sonic games for example )


----------



## KingdomBlade (Dec 29, 2010)

Aw.. I wasn't here to catch the troll war. Too bad.

Anyways, Gameplay is the top priority, the graphics matter, but not so much to affect an excellent game. I mean, in the times of the SNES, graphics were what you could care least about, as long as you know what the hell is going on in the screen.

On another note, Music is a gigantic factor for me as before I buy a game, I always look for the soundtracks on youtube. Kinda weird, but true.

Guys, please ignore major trollface over there. He's got a bane for anything Nintendo. (but it's a refreshing change of pace to have a mildly active member that hates Nintendo, fun to argue with)


----------



## Hielkenator (Dec 29, 2010)

iSneeze said:
			
		

> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sound to me you don't know what gameplay is?

Also you worry to much what other people think of you. don't be afraid to play nintendo and tell your  "friends". Just enjoy life.
after a few years you'll look back on the games you like now, and think...""Man, I need to play the latest Zelda AGAIN! " because it's fun, entertaining an just gets me hooked."


----------



## KingdomBlade (Dec 29, 2010)

Hielkenator said:
			
		

> Sound to me you don't know what gameplay is?
> 
> Also you worry to much what other people think of you. don't be afraid to play nintendo and tell your  "friends". Just enjoy life.
> after a few years you'll look back on the games you like now, and think...""Man, I need to play the latest Zelda AGAIN! " because it's fun, entertaining an just gets me hooked."



He hates his Wii, and Zelda, as said in the old thread of fun trolling. Wee.


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Dec 29, 2010)

iSneeze said:
			
		

> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


God, you sound like a child. You made a statement (and a stupid one at that), he has every right to reply to your statement contradicting it if he wants to. If you don't like it, then leave. And your embarrassed to play video games from a company that made video gaming what it is today? That is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard.


----------



## Sterling (Dec 29, 2010)

Great games present and future will be heavily influenced by graphics. To prove this take a look at the 3DS. 3D without glasses, and just as strong as the Wii if not more... in a handheld. Video games are evolving at an astonishing rate. Now, a great game isn't just defined by graphics. As this poll suggests, it needs gameplay. Of course a game needs great gameplay, however if this is defined by gimmicks such as the 3DS, or the Wii, it may break the game. Which is why I generally don't put much stock into specialized controllers and such that are required for some games. Great gameplay can be in any game past future or present, but in the future a game with sub par graphics with amazing gameplay may be just ignored. The ever evolving graphics of this generation is going to be a must in the next one. Gimmicks not so much until it's proven they can work (like the Wii, and hopefully the 3DS to it's full extent). So at any rate I voted gameplay all the way, but soon Graphics are going to have to be a must.


----------



## Hielkenator (Dec 30, 2010)

Argentum Vir said:
			
		

> Great games present and future will be heavily influenced by graphics. To prove this take a look at the 3DS. 3D without glasses, and just as strong as the Wii if not more... in a handheld. Video games are evolving at an astonishing rate. Now, a great game isn't just defined by graphics. As this poll suggests, it needs gameplay. Of course a game needs great gameplay, however if this is defined by gimmicks such as the 3DS, or the Wii, it may break the game. Which is why I generally don't put much stock into specialized controllers and such that are required for some games. Great gameplay can be in any game past future or present, but in the future a game with sub par graphics with amazing gameplay may be just ignored. The ever evolving graphics of this generation is going to be a must in the next one. Gimmicks not so much until it's proven they can work (like the Wii, and hopefully the 3DS to it's full extent). So at any rate I voted gameplay all the way, but soon Graphics are going to have to be a must.



Agreed. Just have fun now.It's all that matters.Live is short enough as it is....


----------



## BORTZ (Dec 30, 2010)

Gameplay.
If you look at alot of the games on x360 and PS3,they rely on graphics. 
Im tired of graphics whore gamers who wank to CoD because "ItZ SoOOo ReaLIsTIc!"
If i want realistic in a video game i go outside and do something like paintball.


----------



## RNorthex (Dec 30, 2010)

captain obvious and no **** sherlock unite!
since i still play nes, snes, gameboy, old pc games and stuff, i say gameplay
if i need graphics, i look around in my room
if the gameplay sucks, then it's like watching an awkward movie


----------



## Ossot (Dec 30, 2010)

The way the OP is set up, it sounds as if you think the wii is inferior ONLY or BECAUSE the inferior graphics. While I think it's a little of both. The graphics suck, yes, But as many have said, who cares. 

The problem is the amount of third party AAA titles. I'll go off myself personally. In the past few months for 360 I've purchased: Fallout New Vegas, Fable 3, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Black Ops, Dragon Age Origins, Borderlands, Mass Effect 2, and Bioshock 2 (admittedly, some were xmas presents). 

What has come out on Wii during that same time to any critical acclaim at all? Two platformers (DKC & Kirby). One of which is all of 4 hours in length and looks like a 6 year old girls wet dream. So yes, all those games I've played since octoberish DO have far superior graphics. But, if Fallout is your kind of game, there is more content, and solid, voice acted, well scripted, content in that then 2 years worth of Wii releases. Remove Nintendo's IP and you're left with goldeneye and monster hunter 3.


----------



## RNorthex (Dec 30, 2010)

Ossot said:
			
		

> The way the OP is set up, it sounds as if you think the wii is inferior ONLY or BECAUSE the inferior graphics. While I think it's a little of both. The graphics suck, yes, But as many have said, who cares.
> 
> The problem is the amount of third party AAA titles. I'll go off myself personally. In the past few months for 360 I've purchased: Fallout New Vegas, Fable 3, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Black Ops, Dragon Age Origins, Borderlands, Mass Effect 2, and Bioshock 2 (admittedly, some were xmas presents).
> 
> What has come out on Wii during that same time to any critical acclaim at all? Two platformers (DKC & Kirby). One of which is all of 4 hours in length and looks like a 6 year old girls wet dream. So yes, all those games I've played since octoberish DO have far superior graphics. But, if Fallout is your kind of game, there is more content, and solid, voice acted, well scripted, content in that then 2 years worth of Wii releases. Remove Nintendo's IP and you're left with goldeneye and monster hunter 3.



you still got a lot of older games to be able to play with
the 2nd thing is just what i mentioned: good ports
dragon age is better on pc
fallout 3 and vegas is better on pc
mass effect 2 is better on pc
bioshock/bioshock 2 is better on pc
fable 3 will come out on pc, [though it may not be better]
cod6mw2 is better in pc etc etc
considering this, hte PC seems superior to the xbox, while it isn't

you can't get red dead redemption, brütal legend, vikings and a bunch of good games on the pc for what the xbox is worth a purchase
but the games on the wii are not ported to the pc and most of it's games are long-lasting local-multiplayer games[still to this day we can't decide with friends to either play mario kart/nsmbw/smash broz etcetc...] while i can hardly get my bro to play either dynasty warriors or atleast fable in co-op
for online, i've got the pc again, i prefer writing to talking online and the controls are just better than relying on auto-aim

so considering all this, getting a wii and a pc seems like a better choice than going for a pc and an xbox[or ps3]
and since most ppl have a pc, why not go for the wii? it has good games too, however not available on ze pc

and it doesn't have unbearably bad graphics
at least for me, even kirby's girlish yarn looks better than getting bloodstains with blinding bloom in my face[endless ww games....]


----------



## KingdomBlade (Dec 31, 2010)

Ossot said:
			
		

> The way the OP is set up, it sounds as if you think the wii is inferior ONLY or BECAUSE the inferior graphics. While I think it's a little of both. The graphics suck, yes, But as many have said, who cares.
> 
> The problem is the amount of third party AAA titles. I'll go off myself personally. In the past few months for 360 I've purchased: Fallout New Vegas, Fable 3, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Black Ops, Dragon Age Origins, Borderlands, Mass Effect 2, and Bioshock 2 (admittedly, some were xmas presents).
> 
> What has come out on Wii during that same time to any critical acclaim at all? Two platformers (DKC & Kirby). One of which is all of 4 hours in length and looks like a 6 year old girls wet dream. So yes, all those games I've played since octoberish DO have far superior graphics. But, if Fallout is your kind of game, there is more content, and solid, voice acted, well scripted, content in that then 2 years worth of Wii releases. Remove Nintendo's IP and you're left with goldeneye and monster hunter 3.



Who cares? Numerous people. Tastes differ among people. It's a persons choice to care about it or not. You are creating a mass generalization of the tastes of people in games. GRAPHIC MATTER.

Sure the 360 has numerous good games, but in all truth, as I said, people differ in tastes. On a different thread, I said that the 360 and Wii differ in target audiences (or at least before the release of Kinect). The Wii caters to old ladies, housewives and 7 year old kids. The PS3 and 360 are hardcore consoles. In other words, there are people that don't care that a game has a 10/10 score on IGN when they can play Mario Kart with their kids.

But I digress. The problem with this poll is that the results are extremely obvious. It's almost unnecessary. This thread is more for discussion I guess. Also, this is in a group of NINTENDO fanboys. You know Nintendo.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 31, 2010)

Christ people are trolled too easily. If anyone realized that Ossot was just purposefully putting slander in there to piss off the public then they'd have the common sense to ignore his nonsense comments.

And for the record, if that's a six year old girl's wet dream, I want to be a six year old girl. You do not know epic until you get a friend and shout profanities at the screen as you sling Squashini across the screen while his shiny innards fly out of him.

And put No More Heroes 2 on that third party list. It wasn't nearly as good as the first (in my opinion) but it was still pretty good (and I would still purchase it today). Red Steel 2 deserves a spot too.

EDIT: Reworded the last sentence so people wouldn't think I felt Red Steel was better (since Red Steel is a shitty game).

EDIT 2: And fuck y'all video games. The last video game I probably bought was KOTOR for the PC on a Steam sale. I've been spending every cent I get on more Magic cards. Magic > life > video games.


----------



## Ossot (Dec 31, 2010)

Maybe I was exaggerating the lack of content on the Wii slightly. But my point wasn't intended to incite hate. 

Compare the wii's NON-Nintendo IP games to the other console's non-first-party published games. That's the Wii's problem. Not graphics. And I admit, Kirby was a fun little game. My point is it lacks anywhere near the depth of a mass effect. Yes, Yes, different target audience. But, let's be honest here. If you're posting in this thread and debating the Wii's pitfalls, you are, more than likely, also in the "hardcore" audience. And I'm sure I'll forget something, and I'll get told how I'm obviously a huge asshole for not remembering that one Wii game that was someone's favorite and totally sold 37k copies, but let's try to name games that aren't nintendo IP and are great. NMH, MH:Tri, Conduit, Mad World, TvC, Okami, Sin & Punishment, Muramasa. 

And that is being, for some games imo, liberal with that list. Also, I dare say, none of those games target the parents-kids audience others have pointed out. Some of those games are beautiful as is, and others were actually ported to the HD consoles. Before proceeding, I will admit, I never played Okami. So if it's orgasmic and deep and a true AAA title, I apologize. 

Now then, I'm going to do the same thing for IGN's 360 list sorted by ranking, retail releases, non-microsoft published, no multi-console releases (cod/guitars). Although I'm not as up on ms published titles, so if I include one by mistake, my apologies. GTA4, Bioshock, RDR, Mass Effect 2, Fallout 3, Orange Box, Bayonetta, ME1

There eight from each. Now, I'm not trying to position this as an xbox is better. That's not at all my intent. I simply own an xbox so it's easier for me to use it to demonstrate my point. This thread, trollbait it is, is attempting to establish if graphics make or break a game. While there is no denying some of the games on the xbox list have amazing graphics. What i'm suggesting is that Conduit with beautiful graphics is still a mediocre shooter. Bioshock with mediocre graphics is still a great shooter. It's not just the graphics that are better on the more successful systems, it is the third party games. It is the amount of care and polish that goes into them. The xbox360 and the Wii both use dvd media. There's no excuse for the majority of AAA xbox titles having complete voice work, and finding a wii release with voice acting throughout is like hitting the lottery. Yes, voice acting can suck, and we can all debate how much it increases the value of a game. Where I think there is little room for debate though is this - it is expected on the other consoles. On the wii, it's entirely optional. That, to me, is a lack of polish. 

And that doesn't even factor in the lack of advertising for third party Wii games. Back when Dead Space came out I couldn't play FPS. I'd get extremely motion sick quickly. Yes I know it was on rails, but it fucked with me just the same. The bit I did play of it though, it seemed quite good. It also got reviewed well. I forget what game was released on the other consoles at that time. Let's say it was some CoD game. I couldn't turn the tv on w/o seeing a CoD commercial - and I DVR everything. I never once saw a dead space commercial though. Then EA (it was EA wasn't it?) blamed Wii owners lack of wanting hardcore games. As we're all some Wii owning sumbitches, I think that's as inaccurate as blaming graphics. Wii owners want hardcore games, and most gamers don't care about graphics. The problem is A, the lack of polish in 3rd party titles, and B, a lack of advertising anything other than a retarded dance game. 

Anywho, now I'm ranting. Again, this isn't an xbox versus Wii. Or PS3 versus wii. This is Mass Effect/2 has more depth and polish than almost any third party wii games. And although that's opinion, and some people may hate ME, there are a handful of other HD games, surely in genres my dear reader may play, that can be inserted into that previous sentence. They aren't great because they're shiny. They're great because the content, engagement, game length, and polish. The graphics just make them a little more fun to look at.

Addendum: 

Graphics are like bikinis. Everyone likes them and they're great. No one can deny the awesomeness of nice graphics or a bikini. The content itself is the body underneath. What I'm saying is even in a great bikini, the bulk of Wii games are still the first young woman. Where even with a 1-piece on instead of sexy bikini, the AAA titles from the HD consoles are the second young woman.


----------



## RNorthex (Dec 31, 2010)

actually, some ppl[like me] likes handhelds because they've got pick-up-and-play games which are easy to get into
while i've played tons of games on the ds and the wii, i hardly play 1 or 2 games on the pc and it's because there are just too many things in them, it gets complicated real fast and i just don't feel like spending tons of hours just to get into it
i found the balance in the wii actually, it may not have such in-depth gameplay, but compare super castlevania IV and SotN: they are both friggin awesome while SotN has a much more in-depth gameplay, SCIV is just a pick-up-and-play game and is just as much fun for some people
i like to get into some of the games, but some are just simple and that's why they last long and can be addicting
nintendo follows this path
i usually play 1 or 2 games at maximum which are really deep in gameplay with loads of content and play all the time some of the more simple games

if in mario galaxy, there would've been more drama in the story, you could pick up 50+special moves, do quests, hear voice acting, be able to have 500+gloves, overalls, hats with different attributes, level up and other things.........i think i'd skip it
the point of mario and link not talking, crying over things, failing, falling in desperation, getting into romance, do bad things is because they both have generic hero characteristics which is symphatic for most ppl
for ex.: since star fox command, i hated star fox, i became a star wolf fan and just haven't even completed the game, the story and his characteristics were absurd, i want to shoot stuff, defeat evil, hear some briefing and have falco always tell me how much i suck
and not that peppy's little girl can't help coming with us, krystal going emo and fox crying over it, while falco is a dúché drama-loner, that's just too much

and some games are just bleh w/o depth[borderlands singleplayer mode? rly? hellgate london....etc]

so as you can see, in some games depth works and is in need [dragon age, mass effect, etc...] while some don't [mario, cod games etc...]
this is not the lack of polish, this is how it should be

i'd like some hardcore game for the wii and i've got it actually [resi4, silent hill, 2 of my fav franchisés], but i like casual games more and those ppl choose wii
hardcore games need graphics[the more realistic a survival horror game is, the scarier it is]

and i hate bikinisxD
but go figure, samus had too if u completed the original metroid quick


----------



## Ossot (Dec 31, 2010)

I see your point, and granted, we're going slightly away from the OP's intent, but to me, I feel the Wii is inferior because it deals almost exclusively with the more "shallow" games you mention. While RE4 and SH2 are deeper, they are a rarity amongst Wii games. And this past year, the year heralded as a return of the Wii, almost all the great releases were platformers or other games which are just "fun." (Granted, that is exactly what all games _should_ be). I attribute that fact more to Wii's lack of success with the "hardcore" audience than I do the graphics. A gamer who uses a competitor's console or the PC has the option of a variety of depth and PSN/XBLA for the "fun" games. Where as it seems Wii owners are presented with primarily only the latter.


----------



## RNorthex (Dec 31, 2010)

well yeah
that's why we've got different consoles
need hardcore stuff? pc-xbox-ps-psp
need casual stuff? wii, ds 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



for me, the xbox and the ps3 is inferior because of it's games
graphics play part, but it's really a matter of taste


----------



## Ossot (Dec 31, 2010)

RNorthex said:
			
		

> graphics play part, but it's really a matter of taste



Exactly.


----------

