For gameplay over graphics people

#11ShioonVailgloryPosted 12/21/2013 10:29:08 AM
sparkingconduit posted...
ShioonVailglory posted...
Depends on genre, like everything else.


Do you mean this in that you might prefer a much better looking RPG, but would always take the somewhat better platformer? Or do you mean it like you can't compare a great-looking platformer to an RPG, which I'd totally agree with and is why I tried to use two very similar games.


I mean every genre has its priorities.

An Action game can forgo a competent story. It doesn't need it. It needs to press its balls against the wall and knock it down with gameplay.

An RPG can go without the best gameplay ever since an RPG has to focus on stories and characters and its world.
#12gotsporkPosted 12/21/2013 10:31:57 AM
ShioonVailglory posted...
sparkingconduit posted...
ShioonVailglory posted...
Depends on genre, like everything else.


Do you mean this in that you might prefer a much better looking RPG, but would always take the somewhat better platformer? Or do you mean it like you can't compare a great-looking platformer to an RPG, which I'd totally agree with and is why I tried to use two very similar games.


I mean every genre has its priorities.

An Action game can forgo a competent story. It doesn't need it. It needs to press its balls against the wall and knock it down with gameplay.

An RPG can go without the best gameplay ever since an RPG has to focus on stories and characters and its world.


the way you say this makes it seem like you think the "balls" in "balls to the wall" are testicles.
---
mreow!
spork for president - metroid composite
#13T3H_1337_N1NJ4Posted 12/21/2013 10:34:50 AM
Define "marginally better".
---
To err is human, but to really screw things up you need a computer!
http://userstyles.org/styles/88555/gamefaqs-v13-revamp V13 Userstyle for a better site look
#14sparkingconduit(Topic Creator)Posted 12/21/2013 10:43:34 AM
T3H_1337_N1NJ4 posted...
Define "marginally better".


Okay. The gameplay between the two games is fundamentally similar, with maybe slight differences in gimmicks or movesets. For instance, the original Silent Hill and Resident Evil would NOT be comparable because Silent Hill allowed moving and shooting at the same time, which completely changed the way in which you would play a survival horror game. Sonic Colors and Sonic Generations, though, are basically the same game, with the only real difference in how your special moves let you get around (i.e. Hover Wisp vs spindashing up slopes, laser vs. boost, etc.). Sonic Colors would be marginally better because the Wisps do allow you a little more freedom in the levels, but they basically remain the same game.
#15T3H_1337_N1NJ4Posted 12/21/2013 10:48:10 AM
sparkingconduit posted...
T3H_1337_N1NJ4 posted...
Define "marginally better".


Okay. The gameplay between the two games is fundamentally similar, with maybe slight differences in gimmicks or movesets. For instance, the original Silent Hill and Resident Evil would NOT be comparable because Silent Hill allowed moving and shooting at the same time, which completely changed the way in which you would play a survival horror game. Sonic Colors and Sonic Generations, though, are basically the same game, with the only real difference in how your special moves let you get around (i.e. Hover Wisp vs spindashing up slopes, laser vs. boost, etc.). Sonic Colors would be marginally better because the Wisps do allow you a little more freedom in the levels, but they basically remain the same game.


Well, in that case I'd have to go game play, because the wisps offer a lot of gameplay variety to colors. But if it was something without so much impact I'd probably go the graphics route.
---
To err is human, but to really screw things up you need a computer!
http://userstyles.org/styles/88555/gamefaqs-v13-revamp V13 Userstyle for a better site look
#16TallWhiteNinjaPosted 12/21/2013 10:50:06 AM(edited)
Bad example: Generations is the better game regardless of graphics. The classic stages are better than the wisps, none of which I never cared for, and am rather annoyed stuck around for lost world.
---
Either the worst great player or the best horrible player you'll ever meet.
#17r7gerrabbitPosted 12/21/2013 10:54:44 AM
There's only 1 or 2 games released every 2-3 years that really show off graphics potential.
Those are the games you play for graphics, and upgrade your hardware for.

For everything else graphics are 100% completely irrelevant. As long as the game is fun then who gives a **** how it looks?

And on consoles graphics are even less important. No matter how hard they try on a console they will never reach PC levels. So why bother?
---
http://i.imgur.com/Mqy7G.gif
#18Numbuh100Posted 12/21/2013 10:56:04 AM
I buy games for fun and if it's only for the good looking pictures, it won't be fun.
---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APWTJMyM4qg
Savior....
#19hiphops_saviorPosted 12/21/2013 10:58:13 AM
To quote Digitalfoundry, "Nintendo proves that while good game design trumps graphics, its good gameplay is grounded in a solid technological base".
#20SyCo_VeNoMPosted 12/21/2013 11:10:16 AM
monkeyluv101 posted...
Gameplay for sure. The Crysis games are arguably the best graphical touting games out there but damn are they boring. Honestly the only game I can say where the graphics matched the gameplay was The Witcher 2, perfect game, on PC of course not the 360 abomination.


agree on crysis
Own Crysis 2 (was wondering what all the fuss was about), and honestly I found it boring. Sure it looks realistic, but... it kinda lacks any kind of fun. Honestly after 10-15 mins of going wow they did a nice job on the graphics I turned it off, and never touched it since.
But then games like say Unreal Tournament, Assasins Creed 2, portal, portal 2, or the Stanley Parable I played for hours on end even though they are inferior graphically they had some gameplay behind them that was fun. Even FTL I found fun and that game graphically could have been done on a SNES.