Gameplay or Graphics?

[exally]

i just can't understand people or say they are looking forward to a game comming out because it has the best graphics!!... personally i prefer something that has good gameplay instead of the best graphics... that is why i still play duke3d and quake2 on my athlon 2200.
so which would u rather gameplay or graphics?

[Mike]

I like a cross of both. Eye candy is really nice when you're watching a demo or looking at the box.
Of course what good is a game with great graphics if you can only play it for a couple days and then beat it?

It also depends what kind of game it is. For me it matters whether or not it's FPS, RPG, etc.
Diablo II had decent graphics when it was released and even now it's still entertaining to play.

[tmx468]

Surely there is a trade-off. In the 'olden days' of Quake2, graphics were not as 'real' as today, but gameplay made the games. Now, with the advances that have gone on, people focus as much on graphics as the game. While I would not accept a poor looking game now, if it were more basic, but with superb gameplay then it would still rank highly in my book.

[cMoAyRoItOe]

Like sayd before, it depends on the game, i think a good example is Turok, back in the days, that didnt have the grfx of games nowadays, but boy, that game was fun, i still play it, im still looking to get my hands ona copy of turok 2 seeds of evil, turok is one of my favorite games, and just happens to be the first FPS i ever played.

Just my 2 cents.

[[Neo770]]

hmm yes Turok on good ol 3dfx Voodoo1..those were the days.

[radio1_mike]

I think you'd want both.

I grew up (70-80's) always wanting more graphics, because gameplay was limited. Take for instance 2D side-scrollers: many have much better gameplay (as an aggregate) than a lot of first person shooters out these days.

But we play FPS because they are First Person Shooters, with all those great graphics (whether they be early like Wolf-3d, or present like the newest Half-Life or Doom),

[Bendar]

Ok my 2 cents. I think the hole idea is to walk in to your monitor and become the game.
I think that the gamer is striving for it. To be part of the action. Even if it Fishing on a boat, or loading that High tech Nuclear-bio-lazar-cannon and start to open a can of whip ass on a bad guy or good guy 8>). Also we would like to see the surroundings while we are walking around. To be able to be free to walk around and do what ever we want, unguided. Like walking in to a building that no one ever thought to walk in to . Think of it, total virtual reality with the wife, kids, Lawyer, boss, mother-in law, and more on one side and YOU the GOD on the Other side. Even if it a card game its all about Freedom and that’s why SONY is so RICH hehe.

[exally]

but surely if u had a game where everything was so realistic but u moved at two metres a minute, and it was impossible to miss with your weapon it would just be kind of pointless... i just feel that alot of games developers are starting to look at the wrong side of gaming. it is the good games that combine both!

[Blueliner]

I still play Half-life and Starcraft more than any other game. Unreal 2 is just a game to show off what your system can handle; the gameplay isn't that great at all.

When I get together with friends for LAN parties, we usually play Unreal Tourney (the FIRST one) or Q3. Those graphics cranked up all the way look good enough to us.

Anybody remember 3-Demon? First person Pac-Man!

It's about atmosphere. That's why I still love original Quake. Fighting evil demons with a double barrel shotgun. Also why I love Half-Life. Super-genius scientist fighting evil demons from another dimension with a pump action shotgun. Quake was dark and demonic, while Half-Life was bright and dark, exactly what you'd expect from a half functioning top-secret research facility. It's the little things that make the games stand out.

That's also why Jedi Knight worked so well; it properly represents the Star Wars universe.