+- Did You Know Gaming? Forums (https://dykg.vgfacts.com)
+-- Forum: Gaming (/forum-15.html)
+--- Forum: Gaming Discussion (/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Graphics vs Gameplay vs Story (/thread-1668.html)
Graphics vs Gameplay vs Story - Artwark - 11-02-2012 09:28 PM
What do you play games for? graphics, gameplay or story?
RE: Graphics vs Gameplay vs Story - Zaliphone - 11-02-2012 10:00 PM
I play for gameplay and story. Never for graphics, unless that's the selling point of the game.
RE: Graphics vs Gameplay vs Story - Xannidel - 11-02-2012 10:14 PM
How come gameplay is not one of the poll options? I thought this was about gameplay vs graphics vs story and not graphics vs story
I play the game for the story and sometimes the gameplay (some games I bought regardless how the gameplay was like).
RE: Graphics vs Gameplay vs Story - BumblebeeCody - 11-02-2012 10:20 PM
There has to be a minimum for each. I can play a game for the story, but if the graphics are crap and seem more of a lazy half-arse job, then I won't play it. Some games like Crysis which put a huge emphasis on graphics and the engine capabilities rather than story are still enjoyable. Or games like El Shaddai which use different art forms but the story is wank.
Then you get other games which put a bigger emphasis on story than gameplay and graphics like Deadly Premonition. Controls were clunks, graphics weren't very impressive but the story was incredible.
I also think it depends on the genre. The Fighting Game genre doesn't really focus on graphics because the mechanics/gameplay MUST be solid and well developed. It explains why games like Super Turbo which is 16 bit or Third Strike (CPS-II) are still played in tournament and (sometimes) preferred over Street Fighter 4 because the gameplay are far more refined.
There are too many variables with different genres and gameplay that factor in when it comes to "why I am playing". Especially since some games like Gears of War/Uncharted have nothing special about them but have worked hard in all 3 different areas.
(I need to stop using run-on sentences)
RE: Graphics vs Gameplay vs Story - Ouberry_13 - 11-02-2012 10:47 PM
(11-02-2012 10:20 PM)BumblebeeCody Wrote: There has to be a minimum for each. I can play a game for the story, but if the graphics are crap and seem more of a lazy half-arse job, then I won't play it. Some games like Crysis which put a huge emphasis on graphics and the engine capabilities rather than story are still enjoyable. Or games like El Shaddai which use different art forms but the story is wank.
Then you get other games which put a bigger emphasis on story than gameplay and graphics like Deadly Premonition. Controls were clunks, graphics weren't very impressive but the story was incredible.
I also think it depends on the genre. The Fighting Game genre doesn't really focus on graphics because the mechanics/gameplay MUST be solid and well developed. It explains why games like Super Turbo which is 16 bit or Third Strike (CPS-II) are still played in tournament and (sometimes) preferred over Street Fighter 4 because the gameplay are far more refined.
There are too many variables with different genres and gameplay that factor in when it comes to "why I am playing". Especially since some games like Gears of War/Uncharted have nothing special about them but have worked hard in all 3 different areas.
(I need to stop using run-on sentences)
I don't care as much for graphics as you seem to, but minus that, we have the same opinion here.
RE: Graphics vs Gameplay vs Story - Symphony - 11-02-2012 10:52 PM
I'm a big fan of indie games, but I'm also very picky about them. That means I really don't mind 16-bit graphics or 2D games, but I'm with Cody. If the graphics COULD do better, even on a low-budget game, I probably won't play it.
For me, if the developer 'couldn't' make presentable graphics, he's not only failing in his game presentation but he probably failed somewhere else in the development. Unless I hear really good comments on the game, I won't touch it.
Another thing that bothers me is the lack of graphic settings. It REALLY annoys me when a company can't be bothered with people with low-specs and don't add ANY sort of tweaking setups. And all I would need is a 'hide shadows', 'disable vsync' and 'lower textures'. Is that a lot to ask? =/
RE: Graphics vs Gameplay vs Story - A Zombie Riot - 11-03-2012 03:00 AM
Mainly Story and Gameplay. Graphics don't bother me unlike some people.
A game can have a great story, but if that gameplay sucks, I'll stop playing it (Chronicles of Riddick is a great example).
If the story sucks but has great gameplay, I'll still play it because the game is fun.
RE: Graphics vs Gameplay vs Story - Altair xD - 11-03-2012 07:01 AM
I don't think the graphics are that important,so yes,I prefer a game with a good story/gameplay but this doesn't have to mean that graphics should be shitty.I don't really know how to say this,but all 3 should be in the same measure,so that the game to be in "balance".
RE: Graphics vs Gameplay vs Story - Tophat Wolf - 11-03-2012 07:05 AM
Fun gameplay and (if it's an RPG) good story.
RE: Graphics vs Gameplay vs Story - BumblebeeCody - 11-03-2012 09:16 PM
(11-02-2012 10:52 PM)Symphony Wrote: I'm a big fan of indie games, but I'm also very picky about them. That means I really don't mind 16-bit graphics or 2D games, but I'm with Cody. If the graphics COULD do better, even on a low-budget game, I probably won't play it.Indeed, they really should give lower settings for PC users. But at that point, the game must be unplayable with the lowest graphics settings. But you could always try to find mods with these low graphics settings to install. (Y)
For me, if the developer 'couldn't' make presentable graphics, he's not only failing in his game presentation but he probably failed somewhere else in the development. Unless I hear really good comments on the game, I won't touch it.
Another thing that bothers me is the lack of graphic settings. It REALLY annoys me when a company can't be bothered with people with low-specs and don't add ANY sort of tweaking setups. And all I would need is a 'hide shadows', 'disable vsync' and 'lower textures'. Is that a lot to ask? =/
Also, I edited the poll and added Gameplay for people to vote.
RE: Graphics vs Gameplay vs Story - Hexadecimal - 11-04-2012 06:48 AM
While I certainly appreciate good graphics, it's not something I'll fault a game for unless they're so bad it's hard to see what I'm doing or tell what the heck an object is supposed to be (not really an issue nowadays). I will admit the graphics are what got me interested in Okami, but that's because it was mentioned when I was watching someone at the Tokyo Game Show and so I had no idea what the game play and story were like. Yes, I am a bit shallow and want to play a game if a developer does something really outstanding and different with graphics.
Game play and story are kind of on the same level with me. As Cody mentioned there are certain genres where story isn't really needed and it's still fun. I picked up Madworld since I really liked the idea of commentators throwing in their opinions on the action and (please don't think I'm a psycho for saying this) the game play made killing your foes super fun. Even though I hate the Wiimote it worked super well for this game and I never had an issue with it not registering properly what I wanted to do.
Catherine is another game I have to bring up because it not only had a story that made me want to skip sleeping to see what would happen, but the game play was so addicting. Normal difficulty was just perfect in terms of how much gradually harder the puzzles would get and it was never frustrating. Sometimes I did get stuck, but through trial and error I soon made my way up the blocks.
Sometimes the story alone can save a game for me. Rule of Rose was a beautifully disturbing tale that didn't have overly fantastic game play, plus the hit detection is some of the worst I have EVER seen. If the story hadn't been so compelling I would've dropped it immediately.
The only game that comes to mind that I stopped due to game play, which even an interesting story couldn't save, was Magna Carta: Tears of Blood. Not only did the loading times piss me off but combat was wonky with how you had to switch characters and they would actually get mad if you didn't use them in a fights, despite the fact with some battles it was quicker just to mow down the opponent than to switch. You could also talk with you part members and that could affect certain levels depending on how you answered. Feh.
RE: Graphics vs Gameplay vs Story - A Zombie Riot - 11-04-2012 07:08 AM
This is a perfect game to talk about with this debate.
Minecraft.
GO!
RE: Graphics vs Gameplay vs Story - Xannidel - 11-04-2012 07:11 AM
(11-04-2012 07:08 AM)A Zombie Riot Wrote: This is a perfect game to talk about with this debate.
Minecraft.
GO!
ZOMG MIECRAFT IS SO BLOCKY! THE GRAPHICS ARE SO FUGLY -10/1000000
THERE IS NOT VOICE ACTING AND THE WHOLE GAME IS STUPID! $25 DOLLARS FOR THIS IS DUMB!
Okay so Minecraft is okay I suppose but there is only so much you can do in the game and I know that Minecraft is ever expanding but there is no story unless you make custom maps and what not to add story in.
Personally I am a sucker for first person adventure games/point and click adventure games like Scratches or Myst or something like that.
RE: Graphics vs Gameplay vs Story - Hexadecimal - 11-04-2012 07:30 AM
Have you guys seen the RooserTeeth crew play Minecraft at all? That's really the only way I can see it being fun in my case. I need an objective, not just a free environment which leaves things entirely up to you.
Sure, people have done some amazing things with that game, but creating complex structures and such really isn't my thing.
That's also why Animal Crossing got boring for me. After I fully upgraded my house and paid off that damn raccoon there really weren't anymore reasons for me to play and I got bored pretty fast.
RE: Graphics vs Gameplay vs Story - A Zombie Riot - 11-04-2012 08:13 AM
I watch Achievement Hunter play that all the time. Once I seen that they started to play it, I knew I was going to love it. I just love Achievement Hunter in general. They make some entertaining videos.
Like their recent Minecraft Let's play. They did the Hunger Games. And now that I actually know what that game is in Minecraft, I want to play it.
I like the game as a single player, because it's more about survival than anything. So, I guess you can make your own story and stuff.
The game really shines in Multiplayer though. Exploring, playing games, building a city, there is just so much you can do. And it's why I love the game so much.
I was at McDonald's last month, and the manager lady and me like to talk some times (which is funny because I don't know her outside of McDonald's) and she asked me what I thought about Minecraft. I was like "You know, it's a great game for kids to play. There's no one else that can harm them (humans anyways) and they can do whatever they want." and she replies "I agree, it beats them playing that Call of Duty stuff."