# Gameplay Or Graphics?



## Deleted-119707 (Aug 8, 2008)

just a simple poll.
i was wondering what people think is more important, gameplay or graphics

i voted both because the game should be even.

if its just based on graphics, the gameplay will be crap (but not all the time). the game will be short and not worth the money to buy it (unless u use a flashcart).

if its just based on the gameplay and has poor graphics, i personally think that the gameplay would be crap. as i look at the graphics first, and if i thinks its crap, i dont carry on playin to learn the gameplay.

so people vote and comment on wh you chose what you chose


----------



## coolbho3000 (Aug 8, 2008)

It's just the graphics, _obviously_.


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Aug 8, 2008)

Which matters more to you? 

If a game is fun, but the characters are chibi or pixelated, or if the background is blurry, will you continue playing?
Inversely, if the characters look like real people, but the buttons are in weird places, or maneuvers are difficult to perform, or the story is absolutely bland, will you continue playing?

In my opinion, gameplay trumps graphics. 
Without the former, the latter is worthless.
You might as well go watch a movie. It'd at least be more enjoyable.


----------



## deathfisaro (Aug 8, 2008)

Mostly gameplay. Games with good graphics get outdated. Games with good gameplay last generations.

Think about it, some day CGs in the movie "the Transformers" will be able to be rendered real-time in a console. Will you still look at Gran Turismo 5 and say "Wow that looks almost like a real car"? Highly doubtful.

Can fancy visuals make pong a better game?



			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> if its just based on graphics, the gameplay will be crap (but not all the time).
> That's called a tech demo
> 
> QUOTEif its just based on the gameplay and has poor graphics


That's called good games in the 90's.

I can't think of any game that has top notch graphics and offer shit gameplay, and game that has good gameplay and graphics that doesn't suit the game to the point it's unbearable.
(What I'm saying is, does World Series of Poker 2009 need modeling that rivals Too Human?)

I don't think you need to sacrifice one for the other. It's not like "Okay, so we manged to set up a kickass system in *insert game*, therefore we must make the characters stick-figures otherwise our gameplay suffers"


----------



## xJonny (Aug 8, 2008)

They sort of go hand in hand, but gameplay comes before graphics. You wouldn't be able to enjoy the graphics if the gameplay was crap. If the gameplay is really good but the graphics were shit, it's still a decent game. The best games have graphics that compliment awesome gameplay.


----------



## fischju (Aug 8, 2008)

Crysis looked great, but it wasn't a good game


Lost Winds doesn't have the most polygons but it has a great art direction and amazing gameplay.


----------



## MAD_BOY (Aug 8, 2008)

Gameplay, it's what makes a games fun or not.


----------



## Falco20019 (Aug 8, 2008)

Voted for Gameplay 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If I would prefer Graphics, I would have never bought me a Wii... What is a game with perfect graphic, the best gameengines and a story that sucks? Nothing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




If a game is really great, I would also play it if it's 256 colors only


----------



## raulpica (Aug 8, 2008)

Gameplay. That's why I have a Wii and a DS 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




BTW, I still play old DOS games in 16-colors and text adventures. Because gameplay matters, graphics not 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Even though I don't dislike good graphics


----------



## ENDscape (Aug 8, 2008)

Ill say both because:

1) Gameplay is good but if i cant stand the graphics, i probably wont play it alot
2) Graphics is good but if they work too much on that and not alot on gameplay then i wouldnt play it alot either.


----------



## Law (Aug 8, 2008)

If the gameplay is good, and the graphics are decent, I'll play it.

If the 3D graphics are horrible, chances are I won't play it. 2D is usually win and doesn't suffer aging like 3D graphics do.


----------



## Hadrian (Aug 8, 2008)

Gameplay is vital & should be the thing that is worked on first.  Sadly developers have to be able to show their work early on.

Of course Graphics can often add a lot to the gameplay but it is true that a lot of pretty games do get lost in the way many years after release & what's left is a date look and nothing more.  Anyone who remembers Rise of the Robots will know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Gab (Aug 8, 2008)

If I enjoy playing something, I don't care for the graphics really.
Another thing, I'd even play a game with so-so gameplay, bad graphics but good story.


----------



## pasc (Aug 8, 2008)

Well, if the game is fun I will play it. However if it a 3D pixelationmess then... proably not.


----------



## Diablo1123 (Aug 8, 2008)

Gameplay is more important then graphics. =D 
You peple pretty much mentioned all the good reasons


----------



## Linkiboy (Aug 8, 2008)

The graphics help enhance the gameplay... but gameplay is much more important, though gfx does matter. Yes, if pong had an awesome soundtrack, super futuristic 3d graphics, motion blur etc etc I would like it more than regular pong.


----------



## deathfisaro (Aug 9, 2008)

Very heavily down to personal taste then. 

There seems to be a retro boom in Japan, that a Rockman (Megaman) game will be made in 8bit, and some Metal Gear game would too.

I just can't imagine Gears of War 2 keeping its gameplay when it's graphics turn into 8bit 2D. But I don't think TC meant bad graphics as THAT bad. 

I guess the question is more like "Will Too Human be fun if it had Dynasty Warriors 6 graphics?" but a lot of people already hate Too Human after playing its demo so I guess that already says gameplay > graphics.


----------



## Panzer Tacticer (Aug 9, 2008)

People "claim" game play, but we all know you sell out for graphics.

This is why we have a lot of shitty f**king games with f**king pretty graphics, and it takes so long for people to just admit, ok we bought the pretty game and got suckered yet again.

It's why we have a few great games, but because the game lacked great graphics, it was labeled "dull" or "boring" and they get passed over.

Any asshole can render graphics, but it takes genius to make a great game.
And the industry is rife with graphics artist assholes with dreams of making games, but they have no real talent for making a game actually any good.
Genius is rare.


----------



## Westside (Aug 9, 2008)

It's neither in my case...  I mean it's kinda both at the same time. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



I mean the DOS 16-bit game Rayman was very lovable, but the graphics was low level, yet it was heart warming.  The gameplay was stiff and strange, but you liked it in a strange way for some reason.  I guess, it's more the feel of the game... oh god, I just confused myself.


----------



## fischju (Aug 9, 2008)

I play N64 and PSX games on my high-end PC because I like the gameplay of many games. Also, art direction and 'graphics' are not neccessarily the same, as the latter typically refers to realism. Games like Aquaria have great art direction, and on the other end so does STALKER - it is not the best looking game compared to Crysis or CoD4, but it doesn't sacrifice the bleak and depressing atmosphere for the bright flashing lights prefered by graphics whores.


----------



## matrix121391 (Aug 9, 2008)

Gameplay, most definitely. I have a friend who just won't touch a game if it has bad graphics and that just grinds my gears!


----------



## xcalibur (Aug 9, 2008)

I think you're a couple of years too late asking this question. In the 90's it was hard to create a game that truly looked good but now, no matter what you do, you'll end up with a game that still can look good.
Wii is the weakest of all consoles this gen yet the games still look bearable.

Gameplay for me though. Graphics sort of go out the window when you become engrossed in a great game.
Geo wars on the DS looks shittier than on the 360 yet its still just as great because at a certain point all you can do is play play play!
Who cares about graphics then?


----------



## SkH (Aug 9, 2008)

Both: without graphics, gameplay can't exist.


----------



## Deleted-119707 (Aug 10, 2008)

SkH said:
			
		

> Both: without graphics, gameplay can't exist.



never thought about it that way XD


----------



## Diablo1123 (Aug 10, 2008)

nicky041192 said:
			
		

> SkH said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


WRONG
Haven't you ever seen ZORK?


----------



## deathfisaro (Aug 10, 2008)

Certain genre games and old games scream gameplay without the need for top-notch graphics.

If a game runs on Hercules it'd have quite extreme graphics, but Minesweeper would play as good as it would in Quad High Definition.


----------



## strata8 (Aug 10, 2008)

Some games need to have graphics/processing power to actually work properly. Generally only FPS games and realistic racers though.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 10, 2008)

Gameplay always.  For me graphics should be like the icing on tasty cake.  I still keep my old consoles around strictly cos some of the games play fantastically.  I'd rather play the Saturn version of Sega Rally then any of the remakes.  Sure the newer ones look much shinier, sharper and cleaner but the handling and gameplay just isn't as fun as the Saturn version.


----------



## Twiffles (Aug 10, 2008)

You can have "bad graphics" but still have a memorable and good experience from the gameplay. Just look at the 8-Bit Megaman games.


----------



## Tragedies (Aug 10, 2008)

I usually go for the gameplay over graphics. But graphics are a factor when I play games. I jsut can't play a great game with crappy graphics. All personal, though.


----------



## Frog (Aug 10, 2008)

Gameplay.
but good graphics will make a game better.


----------



## Rock Raiyu (Aug 10, 2008)

GamePlay cause you can't play the graphics. Its like buying a game without the console to play it on. You have the game (graphics) but what good does it do you without having the console to play the game on. (gameplay)


----------



## Seven (Aug 12, 2008)

Graphics? A game finished in 10 hours? 10 hours of pretty shit. Then you put it down for good. No thanks.

An awesome example of a game that succeeded without graphics appropriate for its time is Cave Story. And damn was that good.


----------



## samuraibunny (Aug 23, 2008)

ENDscape said:
			
		

> Ill say both because:
> 
> 1) Gameplay is good but if i cant stand the graphics, i probably wont play it alot
> 2) Graphics is good but if they work too much on that and not alot on gameplay then i wouldnt play it alot either.



This pretty much applies to me too. I guess I'm just spoiled by anime. XD

Graphics don't have to be topnotch, but if they are, I'll enjoy the game that much more. But I also contradict because I don't want to play Pokemon Red/ Blue after I've played Leafgreen/ Firered because I'm used to the better graphics (and the improvements).


----------



## Doomsday Forte (Aug 24, 2008)

Graphics.  If a game can't give me an incredible erection as soon as I see them, I take the game out of the system and break it into as many pieces a cement floor and a sledgehammer allows me.  Then I fire my shotgun into the pieces.  And then douse them in gasoline and set it all on fire.  AND THEN I EAT THE ASHES.  And when it comes out of me in the toilet, I laugh insanely as I flush it down.  I have to make the most of my 100" hi-def TV, you know?  I don't own any controllers for my systems because my games are so fucking beautiful, they play themselves.  They're THAT good-looking.  And there was this one game that had such absurdly-amazing graphics that my fucking eyes MELTED.  I've never been happier since that day.

But seriously, I prefer gameplay over graphics, mostly for the reasons stated in this topic already, but to spite the people who have the viewpoint I described above.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  That and what good is a game that you can't even do much with?  Oh right, those are called _movies_...


----------



## 8BitWalugi (Aug 24, 2008)

Gameplay for sure!
Earthbound didnt have the best graphics, neither did super mario land, yet they were awesome!


----------



## Forstride (Aug 24, 2008)

Gameplay.  I really don't care about graphics that much.  It's nice to have good graphics, but it's not really THAT much needed for me, depending on what type of game it is.  *Hopes for new 8-Bit Mario game for WiiWare*


----------



## silent sniper (Aug 24, 2008)

gameplay. good gameplay makes a game good but good grpahics with it makes it awesome.



but the one thing that can absolutely DESTROY a game for me is bad sound quality, actually, that applies for everything. If the sounds sucks, I won't play it, watch it, or listen to it.


----------



## Searinox (Aug 24, 2008)

I can savour a good 90s game if it's got nice gameplay. Got lots of retros on my flashcart with emulators.

Some games are indeed designed to amaze through graphics but the success of true legends came with gameplay.


----------



## 23qwerty (Aug 26, 2008)

Funny thing is, since this is a Nintendo forum, the obvious answer will be not graphics


----------



## LagunaCid (Aug 26, 2008)

Both really. Even if the gameplay is good, if the graphics are shitty... It's just harder to play.
I do have low standards for "good graphics" though... But covoluted graphics are a no-no. Which is why don't play... say... Dwarf Fortress =p


----------



## psycoblaster (Aug 26, 2008)

i chose gameplay.
lets look at the work in progress sonic demo 
the 3d thingy for the ds
no gameplay but good graphics..............................................
so it's good


i meant it's not that good
because the graphics are good

i meant becuase the gameplay sucks


----------



## Prime (Aug 26, 2008)

Both.


----------



## Ferrariman (Aug 26, 2008)

Prime said:
			
		

> Both.


----------



## Sonicslasher (Aug 26, 2008)

Prime said:
			
		

> Both.


----------



## xalphax (Aug 26, 2008)

gameplay. without it the most beautiful game is meh.


----------



## Prime (Aug 26, 2008)

Quote Pyramid due to start. in 3, 2, 1...


----------



## Deleted-119707 (Aug 26, 2008)

whoa, my inbox is filled with this topic lol. nice to see different views on this =D


----------



## javad (Aug 29, 2008)

The gameplay, like twewy


----------



## -Mew- (Aug 29, 2008)

Game are meant to be played. So yeah gamePLAY.


----------



## Curley5959 (Aug 29, 2008)

gameplay!!


----------



## azianinvazn (Sep 5, 2008)

if the game has like best graphics ever but gets boring after 2 seconds.....wats the point......starcraft is one of the best rts of all time...the graphics are not that good...diablo 2 has bad graphics but its hella fun, MARIO BROTHERS has bad graphics but its simplicity and classic design is what makes it fun...not graphics....


----------



## Noitora (Sep 5, 2008)

I just don't like the reaaally crappy 3D and I believe that's it's better to have more beautiful 2D than 3D and actually if a game has just good graphics and not good gameplay you'll get bored in like 5 minutes or so.


----------



## Maktub (Sep 5, 2008)

There are certain games in which I don't mind the gameplay cause I feel like looking at every detail on the screen such as Ecco the dolphin for Dreamcast, nights for saturn, and Metal Slug sometimes. I loved animations on Zelda Link's Awakening DX... but then again I love games such as Liero, Soldat, liquid wars (of which a port for DS would be amazing).

I voted for "both". Most of the times I like a combination of both, but sometimes I like gameplay, others just beautiful graphics will do.


----------



## JPH (Sep 5, 2008)

Gameplay.
You can have the best graphics ever, but if the gameplay sucks, then I'm not gonna play it


----------



## WildWon (Sep 5, 2008)

Gameplay. Because i was a child of the 80's. I've watched graphics grow and change. And i've played a lot of the shit they've brought with them! Not that graphics are bad, but thats just like saying the sound is the most important thing. Graphics are secondary to gameplay... because if the gameplay sucks, the game sucks. If the graphics suck, you have 8-bit.


----------



## Banger (Sep 5, 2008)

I could careless about graphics as long as the gameplay is good, with a nice story line and entertaining. If those 2 things suck, might as well hide its faults with the best graphics ever


----------



## Orc (Sep 5, 2008)

Voted: Don't Care.
Why? I hate video games.


----------



## ShiningSaber (Sep 5, 2008)

Voted: Both
Why?:  Why not have both?  It makes a better game 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




But yeah, if I can't have both, I'd choose gameplay.  I grew up on Duck Hunt and Super Mario Brothers 3, and I have to say, they're better than most games coming out today, even though their "graphics suck" (I actually think they still look nice 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)


----------



## Mewgia (Sep 6, 2008)

ShiningSaber said:
			
		

> Voted: Both
> Why?:  Why not have both?  It makes a better game
> 
> 
> ...


This.


----------



## geminisama (Sep 6, 2008)

Gameplay. Pretty graphics don't mean anything, if the game bores the hell out of you.


----------



## Monster On Strin (Sep 6, 2008)

gameplay graphics don't really impress me.


----------



## alex (Sep 6, 2008)

gameplay, that's why people use NES emulators!


----------



## Ferrariman (Sep 6, 2008)

I would say both. Both very important. If Bioshock didn't look the way it did, with eerie underwater worlds and great effects, I dont think I would like it.



			
				Orc said:
			
		

> Voted: Don't Care.
> Why? I hate video games.


Sorry to tell you this, but you are on a Video Game Forum.


----------



## walkearth (Sep 13, 2008)

I like *games*. A game is something that you *play*. If I want a good graphics I can watch a movie, they are all photo realistic.


----------



## sportscarmadman (Dec 4, 2009)

I prefer both but my favorite is proberly gameplay because the game is what you are playing not watching the picture quality


----------



## Lotos (Dec 8, 2009)

Gameplay, as I'd rather buy a game that isn't good graphically that has lots of replay value as opposed to one that I only play through once but has awesome graphics.  I'd rather have WarioWare: Twisted (which I still haven't beat) as opposed to- wait, I don't even think I have games that have good graphics.  After all, I got a Wii (not trying to troll) and I don't use my PC to game.  It's nice to have a balance of both though.

Graphics aren't everything.  The Touhou series has great music and has a lot of replay value (then again, it is an arcade style game...) so I might actually import one of the games.


----------



## blackdragonbaham (Dec 10, 2009)

generally gameplay in the first place, photorealic amazing graphics are no use if the gameplay sucks and doesn't make fun:. it's a waste of ressources and costs if thats the matter. but i think the graphics should at least be on an adequate level to give the game an optical note which fits' to the theme, style and story and give the player even a little bit of optical comfort:.
but once a gameseries becomes famous it's somehow obligatory that gameplay and also the graphical level are on a satisfying, means not automatic towering, level:. example: fans would be disappointed for sure if the next zelda game would come along with gamecube graphics', but if the gameplay is convincing it won't be that big disaster, though nintendo won't let it be released like this, because since it is one of the most renowned gamesseries they want to implicate  high quality in both, gameplay and graphics'


----------



## 67birdman (Dec 14, 2009)

Graphics and Gameplay are both important..
You can't have one without the other.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 14, 2009)

Gameplay is always more important that graphics. However, a good game should look pretty, too.


----------



## Supersonicmonk (Dec 14, 2009)

Orc said:
			
		

> Voted: Don't Care.
> Why? I hate video games.



Do you mind me asking why you are here then?


----------



## Elritha (Dec 14, 2009)

Supersonicmonk said:
			
		

> Orc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Blinks, looks at date of thread and walks away.*


----------



## Vater Unser (Dec 14, 2009)

I'd vote for "Both", but really, it's simply wrong to generalize video games like this.
There are games that live from their gameplay, and there are games that live from their graphics (of which however none may so far exist on the Wii).
And then there's still other games that live from their soundtrack, sound effects, storytelling, or really anything, and any possible combination of those aspects. It's like asking whether explosive action or pretty actors are more important for a good movie.


----------



## GameWinner (Dec 14, 2009)

gameplay.
who wants to buy a game just to stare at its graphics?!?


----------



## Supersonicmonk (Dec 15, 2009)

GameWinner said:
			
		

> gameplay.
> who wants to buy a game just to stare at its graphics?!?



Depends, if there was a game where you looked at a very high quality animation of a dancing kitten over and over again then I'd be hooked for weeks. Thats just me though, I'm impressed easily


----------



## SonicRax (Dec 15, 2009)

While I feel that  good graphics make the experience a lot better, if the game play is top-notch, then I could care less about how the game looks. Half Minute Hero and the original Super Mario Bros. are two examples of what I mean.

So uh yeah, to me, gameplay is more important.


----------



## Lubbo (Dec 15, 2009)

well i definitely enjoy gameplay more than graphics, people that only like graphics are kids "omg its not 3D its crap", "omg its a running across the screen game it sucks" i like to have a game with good graphics and good gameplay, my favourite Crisis Core is a good example


----------



## Dark Blade (Dec 15, 2009)

Graphics are more important..I mean a game may have awesome gameplay but the graphics suck. Then it will be ABSOLUTELY lame...


----------



## rockstar99 (Dec 15, 2009)

devesh_zelda said:
			
		

> Graphics are more important..I mean a game may have awesome gameplay but the graphics suck. Then it will be ABSOLUTELY lame...


what about a game with awesome graphics but gameplay sucks that would make the game ABSOLUTELY lame...
IMO I can enjoy any game even with 8bit graphics as long as it has gameplay


----------



## Raika (Dec 15, 2009)

Both, you stupid bastards.


----------



## Dark Blade (Dec 15, 2009)

Rockstar said:
			
		

> devesh_zelda said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd like to see you try to play Kingdom Hearts DS with 8-bit graphics.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Gotcha!


----------



## rockstar99 (Dec 15, 2009)

devesh_zelda said:
			
		

> Rockstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


give me the rom and sure ill do it
also ill like to see you play khds with a stupid fighting system ie:bad gameplay


----------



## Dark Blade (Dec 15, 2009)

Rockstar said:
			
		

> devesh_zelda said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fine imagine spirit tracks with the train looking like a massive yellow blob on the screen


----------



## rockstar99 (Dec 15, 2009)

devesh_zelda said:
			
		

> Rockstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Imagine spirit tracks without a train 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




@Raika:Look whos talking


----------



## Dark Blade (Dec 15, 2009)

@Raika - SUUUUUURE....its the man himself. 

@Rockstar - How about a bike?


----------



## rockstar99 (Dec 15, 2009)

To conclude:
It needs both


----------



## Dark Blade (Dec 15, 2009)

Rockstar said:
			
		

> To conclude:
> It needs both


Bingo !


----------



## shito (Dec 15, 2009)

i don' tcare, it needs quality, no matter if a game have awesome graphics or a superb gameplay, if there's no quality the game will be totaly crap.


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Dec 15, 2009)

Gameplay. There are a lot of games that look awesome but play like crap. After you get over the "wow" factor you realize you're just playing a crappy game.

Some of my favorite games I still play today occasionally are from the Atari 2600.... games like Frostbite, Yar's Revenge, etc. 






Primitive Graphics? Yes. Fun as Hell, even 20 years later? Yes.


----------



## Deleted-119707 (Dec 15, 2009)

sadasda


----------



## Blaze163 (Dec 15, 2009)

Gameplay all the way. I still play Starwing after over a decade. With today's technology those graphics would look primitive on a cellphone. But it's still one of the best flying games ever made. I love it. Same goes for games like Streets Of Rage, the 2D Sonic games, and too many NES games to count. 

Besides, IMHO modern graphics are madly over-rated anyway. Here's a few games said to have incredible graphics and why I think they look awful:

- Gears Of War. Yeah, it looks good. But an awful lot of grey, don't you think? It's dull. Give me Super Mario World and that bright yellow cape over this ANY DAY.
- Halo 3. Billed as the biggest game release in history, it doesn't look all that great to me. Not bad, but how it deserves the accolades it gets I'll never know.
- Modern Warfare 2. Suffers from 'its all grey' syndrome in many places in multiplayer from what I've played so far.

But at least there are some games with actual colour in them these days. Uncharted 2 looks incredible and Avatar looks phenominal.


----------



## Satangel (Dec 15, 2009)

Gameplay.
Just look at games like Tetris, Pokemon and several other puzzle titles.
No graphics, sometimes even no colour, but they are just so much fun to play.


----------



## prowler (Dec 15, 2009)

Really poor graphics hurt my eyes. Though i still like to play some good classics like Super Mario Bros, Zelda etc.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 15, 2009)

I say a good balance of both makes a game. I mean graphics don't make the game, but they are what you are looking at so they at least need to be good enough not make your eyes bleed.
But then again I have played games that were shinny shinny, but were crap still.
So it really matters on how you balance them out, I say.


----------



## DarkWay (Dec 15, 2009)

I said both but it depends entirely on the game itself, while games like Pokemon are classics I really want see a full next gen version of something similar to the handheld games and then theres games like zelda I like to stay the same as the classics


----------



## Jaems (Dec 15, 2009)

Both are extremely important. Having shitty graphics can hinder gameplay

Example: Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 15, 2009)

Blaze163 said:
			
		

> Gameplay all the way. I still play Starwing after over a decade. With today's technology those graphics would look primitive on a cellphone. But it's still one of the best flying games ever made. I love it. Same goes for games like Streets Of Rage, the 2D Sonic games, and too many NES games to count.
> 
> Besides, IMHO modern graphics are madly over-rated anyway. Here's a few games said to have incredible graphics and why I think they look awful:
> 
> ...



Erm, Gears and MW2 are supposed to be dark and realistic. Sorry buddy but the world simply isn't build of sunshine, flowers, and Dreamcast graphic engines. As for Halo, it looks pretty good but it's not the best for the 360. And it's definitely not the biggest release in gaming history. There's been more than enough games that have outsold it. These are the Top 20 best selling console games ever...

1. 	Wii Play (Wii – 24.43 million)[69]
2. 	Wii Fit (Wii – 22.5 million)[69]
3. 	Nintendogs (DS – 22.27 million, all five versions combined)[70]
4. 	Pokémon Red, Blue, and Green (Game Boy – 20.08 million approximately: 10.23 million in Japan,[46] 9.85 million in US)[19]
5. 	New Super Mario Bros. (DS – 19.94 million)[69]
6. 	Mario Kart Wii (Wii – 18.36 million)[69]
7. 	Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES – 18 million)[109]
8. 	Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day! (DS – 17.41 million)[70]
9. 	Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PS2 - 17.33 million)[115]
10. 	Pokémon Diamond and Pearl (DS – 16.81 million)[71]
11. 	Mario Kart DS (DS – 16.09 million)[69]
12. 	Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec (PS2 – 14.89 million shipped)[106]
13. 	Pokémon Gold and Silver (Game Boy Color – 14.51 million approximately: 7.6 million in US,[19] 6.91 million in Japan)[46]
14. 	Super Mario Land (Game Boy – 14 million)[109]
15. 	Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day! (DS – 13.71 million)[70]
16. 	Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire (GBA – 13 million)[81]
17. 	Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen (GBA – 11.82 million)[71]
18. 	Super Mario 64 (N64 – 11 million)[109]
19. 	Gran Turismo (PS1 – 10.85 million shipped)[106][107]
20. 	Animal Crossing: Wild World (DS – 10.79 million),[71]

EDIT: These are non-bundled. Bundled would include Super Mario Bros. and Wii Sports, as well as Tetris.

No Halo! Sorry if it looks weird, I c/p'd it from Wikipedia.


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Dec 15, 2009)

WiiPlay should be disqualified from that list of you ask me... only reason anybody buys it is to get the Wii Remote Only reason I have it, even though I do like shooting.

For everybody who rips on Nintendo, It should speak for itself that 16 of the 20 games on that list are by them...


----------



## _Chaz_ (Dec 15, 2009)

I voted Gameplay.

If you think about it, NES games are still fun and are still played quite often. Graphics look like nothing compared to what we have today, but it's still a great gaming experience.

Oblivion and other games that had stellar graphics might get one playthrough and sit on the shelf for a long period of time. 











I still play my Mega Man 2, that's all I'm saying.


----------



## yobemal (Dec 15, 2009)

Gameplay ofc, just look back at old games, Zelda, Mario, Tetris and so on.. Still i'm hoping Nintendo would improve they're graphics, Really looking forward to the next Zelda game to Wii


----------



## EyeZ (Dec 15, 2009)

graphics don't make a game enjoyable to play, good to look at maybe, but gameplay is what makes you return time and again to the game


----------

