By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Do graphics add gameplay?

jagenjg on 10 October 2008

Valid points all though the posts. Yes, in my opinion immersive FPS shooters will be enhance by better graphics. As far as gameplay goes I don't know. Where does game play start and stop. It is all up to the person and the way the feel about gameplay vs the feel and graphics. IE simulator vs arcade.

-But-

In simple games it is not as important. Look a game like N+ (amazing game play) it is easier to have user generated content if you keep it easy. Now LBP might be a whole new world of user gen. content, but I have not played that one yet.



Consoles: Atari 5200, NES, SNES, N64, Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube, Wii, Xbox 360, PS3

Around the Network
vlad321 on 10 October 2008
xeroxm3 said:
megaman79 said:
Miyamoto spit in your face. Wii sports? Graphics = gameplay = bullshit

The argument isn't graphics = gameplay. The argument is gameplay + graphics = better gameplay. I believe this to be true in most cases.

EDIT: @bardicverse and vlad321: I completely agree good gameplay can overcome bad graphics, but I think using old games is a bad example. If the devs had the resources to make those games with the tech we have now would they still look like NES/Atari games? By today's standards with today's tech I believe that graphics most definitely add to gameplay. Back in the day they did the best they could with what they had to work with. These are very different times now. Same goes to System Shock Vlad. Would System Shock look like it does if they could have made it look like Bioshock?

 

Obviously not, but the fact remains that even in its current state, with almost a decade under its belt, it has deeper and more entertaining gameplay than many of the games that have come out since and some that are coming out in the future, from the looks of it. In all honesty, I think people should have just stoppped with UE2. You could make objects that appeared fully round there with no pointed polygons. Maybe with a few updates here and there to add fully dynamic shadows, per-pixel hit detection, AI, and other such mechanics which do not count as graphics (except for shadows , of course). Anything past that is just supporting huge developmental costs, GPU companies, and other such things with much less benefit in return. I can promise you just about any game that came out could have been released on a modified UE2 and the gameplay and the fun of the game would still be the same in its current state.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

xeroxm3 on 10 October 2008
bardicverse said:
xeroxm3 said:
megaman79 said:
Miyamoto spit in your face. Wii sports? Graphics = gameplay = bullshit

The argument isn't graphics = gameplay. The argument is gameplay + graphics = better gameplay. I believe this to be true in most cases.

EDIT: @bardicverse and vlad321: I completely agree good gameplay can overcome bad graphics, but I think using old games is a bad example. If the devs had the resources to make those games with the tech we have now would they still look like NES/Atari games? By today's standards with today's tech I believe that graphics most definitely add to gameplay. Back in the day they did the best they could with what they had to work with. These are very different times now. Same goes to System Shock Vlad. Would System Shock look like it does if they could have made it look like Bioshock?

 

I think you're just getting the terminology confused. Good graphics will draw you into a game more, make the world more believable, realistic, etc. But gameplay is the functionality of the game, the balance of damage, how your health bar is determined, etc. What I'm saying is that graphics do not affect gameplay. The graphics don't change the stats of the gameplay. In fact, it works quite opposite. let me explain -

In a FPS game, when the health goes to zero, a function of gameplay, it sends out a function to play an animation, graphics, of the character dying. That animation will never tell the gameplay that the character is dead. Graphics are an output onto a screen. The gameplay tells the graphics to output. In other words, for the L337, graphics are gameplay's bitch. =) Thus, graphics do not affect or enhance gameplay. Graphics do enhance your visual impression and overall enjoyment of the game. But they do not do anything to the element known as gameplay.

 

I interpret gameplay as the actual experience of myself playing the game, so I guess I can see why we're disagreeing. You're using the term gameplay as the technical one where as I'm using the term as the experience of actually playing the game. All that means is that the entire debate we just had is pointless xD



TruckOSaurus on 10 October 2008
xeroxm3 said:
bardicverse said:

I think you're just getting the terminology confused. Good graphics will draw you into a game more, make the world more believable, realistic, etc. But gameplay is the functionality of the game, the balance of damage, how your health bar is determined, etc. What I'm saying is that graphics do not affect gameplay. The graphics don't change the stats of the gameplay. In fact, it works quite opposite. let me explain -

In a FPS game, when the health goes to zero, a function of gameplay, it sends out a function to play an animation, graphics, of the character dying. That animation will never tell the gameplay that the character is dead. Graphics are an output onto a screen. The gameplay tells the graphics to output. In other words, for the L337, graphics are gameplay's bitch. =) Thus, graphics do not affect or enhance gameplay. Graphics do enhance your visual impression and overall enjoyment of the game. But they do not do anything to the element known as gameplay.

 

I interpret gameplay as the actual experience of myself playing the game, so I guess I can see why we're disagreeing. You're using the term gameplay as the technical one where as I'm using the term as the experience of actually playing the game. All that means is that the entire debate we just had is pointless xD

Well now you could debate who's got the right definition of gameplay?

 



Signature goes here!

Onyxmeth on 10 October 2008

Didn't most games significantly change and allow new gameplay techniques the moment we went from 2D to 3D graphics? Could Mario 64 have been made on the SNES or the NES?



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



Around the Network
Millennium on 10 October 2008

Is that truly a matter of graphics, though, or just a change in perspective? Even most "3-D" gaming nowadays is essentially played on a 2D plane, perhaps with some jumping and other minor deviations but still very much working in a 2D world, just with X and Z instead of X and Y.



Complexity is not depth. Machismo is not maturity. Obsession is not dedication. Tedium is not challenge. Support gaming: support the Wii.

Be the ultimate ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today! Poisson Village welcomes new players.

What do I hate about modern gaming? I hate tedium replacing challenge, complexity replacing depth, and domination replacing entertainment. I hate the outsourcing of mechanics to physics textbooks, art direction to photocopiers, and story to cheap Hollywood screenwriters. I hate the confusion of obsession with dedication, style with substance, new with gimmicky, old with obsolete, new with evolutionary, and old with time-tested.
There is much to hate about modern gaming. That is why I support the Wii.

Onyxmeth on 10 October 2008
Millennium said:
Is that truly a matter of graphics, though, or just a change in perspective? Even most "3-D" gaming nowadays is essentially played on a 2D plane, perhaps with some jumping and other minor deviations but still very much working in a 2D world, just with X and Z instead of X and Y.

I don't know. I do know true 3D wasn't possible on the earlier consoles so I'm figuring a lot of 3D games could not go backwards without losing gameplay features. So the question is, can Mario 64 be created on the SNES or NES without losing gameplay features? We take the graphics back to acceptable standards for each platform. Can we keep the 3D plane? The triple jumping? Backflipping? Camera control? The flying? Can all of this be done in a 3D space on early hardware? If it can't then I say yes graphics do affect gameplay, or at least they did at one shift in the landscape as 2D went to 3D.

Here's another example to consider. Could Portal be made on the NES without losing any gameplay features?

 



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



bardicverse on 10 October 2008
xeroxm3 said:
bardicverse said:
xeroxm3 said:
megaman79 said:
Miyamoto spit in your face. Wii sports? Graphics = gameplay = bullshit

The argument isn't graphics = gameplay. The argument is gameplay + graphics = better gameplay. I believe this to be true in most cases.

EDIT: @bardicverse and vlad321: I completely agree good gameplay can overcome bad graphics, but I think using old games is a bad example. If the devs had the resources to make those games with the tech we have now would they still look like NES/Atari games? By today's standards with today's tech I believe that graphics most definitely add to gameplay. Back in the day they did the best they could with what they had to work with. These are very different times now. Same goes to System Shock Vlad. Would System Shock look like it does if they could have made it look like Bioshock?

 

I think you're just getting the terminology confused. Good graphics will draw you into a game more, make the world more believable, realistic, etc. But gameplay is the functionality of the game, the balance of damage, how your health bar is determined, etc. What I'm saying is that graphics do not affect gameplay. The graphics don't change the stats of the gameplay. In fact, it works quite opposite. let me explain -

In a FPS game, when the health goes to zero, a function of gameplay, it sends out a function to play an animation, graphics, of the character dying. That animation will never tell the gameplay that the character is dead. Graphics are an output onto a screen. The gameplay tells the graphics to output. In other words, for the L337, graphics are gameplay's bitch. =) Thus, graphics do not affect or enhance gameplay. Graphics do enhance your visual impression and overall enjoyment of the game. But they do not do anything to the element known as gameplay.

 

I interpret gameplay as the actual experience of myself playing the game, so I guess I can see why we're disagreeing. You're using the term gameplay as the technical one where as I'm using the term as the experience of actually playing the game. All that means is that the entire debate we just had is pointless xD

Pretty much, though when IGN and whatnot give gameplay scores,  theyre talking AI, difficulty, controls, implementation, etc.. the things I refer to. What you call gameplay I call customer experience or customer satisfaction. =)