Balance between Graphics and Gameplay

Is the title supposed to imply there's such a thing as too much gameplay?

I second @lazygecko's sentiment. I don't think graphics and gameplay sit on two ends of a scale where one can outweigh the other. Graphics give the player feedback on what's happening and a great deal of the effect a game has comes from that, and certain types of gameplay are only possible because of the graphical capabilities we currently have. Consider how a first person shooter can't be done without 3D graphics, unless you count Zork by some stretch of the imagination.

Here's an exercise, take a look at the chaingun in Doom 64 EX on Youtube or somewhere. Notice the way it shakes the camera up and down while it's firing, adding a sense of weight and power. Where does that fall, graphics, or gameplay? Is that a useful question?

4 hours ago, Marn said:

Is the title supposed to imply there's such a thing as too much gameplay?

Actually, the title is also supposed to imply that there's also a thing called too much graphics.

7 hours ago, Agent6 said:

As in, devs be like "We're unable to create something that's both beautiful and exciting to play, so we'll give you some breathtaking locations to visit, hoping you won't quit the game" (for a graphics over gameplay scenario) or "We can't design shit, but you're damn right we're going to make the actual gameplay thrilling and memorating to make it worth your time, at the very least" (for the other way around) 

That's the thing I have been mentioning all the time. Browny-ass or similar art style included.

Sorry, @Cacodemon345, but it seems you yourself don't know what point you're trying to make in this thread. Just look: most of your posts in this thread are attempts at clarifying the confusing parts in your other posts, and your clarifications only make things more confusing. If you're unable to clearly articulate your thesis, it just proves that you yourself aren't sure what you're trying to say here.

10 hours ago, Cacodemon345 said:

Actually, the title is also supposed to imply that there's also a thing called too much graphics.

 

What the fuck am I reading? Of all the primitive 3D games, Quake 1 is easily one of the most aesthetically pleasing games from that era. Especially when you run it at high resolutions in software rendering on (relatively) modern hardware.

I personally prefer it when the gameplay looks good. I think that makes for a good game.

I'd love to see OP playing doom on 320x240 software and Quake 1 on 800x600 before saying Quake 1 looks like shit in comparison. With no source ports for either game, just the games on dosbox. 

I don't really understand either, we are comparing gameplay and graphics from 1990? 2015? Present? Cause there a lot of difference that can be, where actual games can play better but nobody will say that. Style also take in cosideration.

If Super Mario Oddysy played with the same grapics of the wii mario galaxy 2, but with same gameplay, would be the same?
 

3 hours ago, fraggle said:

I personally prefer it when the gameplay looks good. I think that makes for a good game.

No way, it’s obviously better when the graphics have good gameplay!

7 hours ago, Pegg said:

I'd love to see OP playing doom on 320x240 software and Quake 1 on 800x600 before saying Quake 1 looks like shit in comparison. With no source ports for either game, just the games on dosbox. 

But almost no one was able to run quake 1 at playable fps beyond 320x240 back in the day (until GLquake happened)

11 hours ago, Doomkid said:

No way, it’s obviously better when the graphics have good gameplay!

Not a chance, it's best when gameplay has good graphics. 

(Wtf is going on lol)

On 12/16/2018 at 1:57 AM, GuyMcBrofist said:

Here's an exercise, take a look at the chaingun in Doom 64 EX on Youtube or somewhere. Notice the way it shakes the camera up and down while it's firing, adding a sense of weight and power. Where does that fall, graphics, or gameplay? Is that a useful question?

Here's an even more interesting thought experiment: can "great gameplay" still shine through completely unscathed if you strip the entire presentation down to its very bare minimum components? Ie if you took away all the animations, screen/camera shaking, particle effects/muzzle flashes/etc, kinetic sound design, and so on. Would people then be just as inclined to praise a game for its excellent gameplay in as much of an audiovisual vacuum as possible?

(I guess that's kind of what competitive Q3 players do with the graphics settings...)

I've considered before how Magic the Gathering would be a totally abstract borefest if the cards didn't have any of the art/flavor text and was nothing more than numbers and rules printed on plain white cards. A great deal of enjoyment in the game comes from its images that feed the imagination, and even the deepest most intriguing ruleset suffers greatly for it.

So I guess the bottom line is that it's really important to have a good balance between graphics and gameplay... Wait...

Shit...

A more useful discussion (in my opinion) is choosing graphics or simulation. There are only so many people a company can hire, so there is going to be a choice what the programmers do... make systems and AI or set up a good graphics pipeline that gets the fanciest pixels for the least amount of GPU work.

21 hours ago, GuyMcBrofist said:

So I guess the bottom line is that it's really important to have a good balance between graphics and gameplay... Wait...

 

Shit...

It's no so much a matter of "balancing," though, because again the implication is that the relationship is a zero-sum game, that somehow better visuals come at the cost of quality gameplay. The fact that modern AAA games, for example, tend to have very high quality graphics but shit gameplay isn't the fault of "too much" emphasis on graphics, it's the fault of lazy game design. Using your example, Magic: The Gathering wouldn't play any worse if it somehow got "better art" for its cards, but it would using OP's logic, since that would disturb the so-called "balance."

My order of importance:

1. Graphics good, gameplay good

2. Graphics bad, gameplay good

3. Graphics good, gameplay bad

4. Graphics bad, gameplay bad

Of course, this is all subjective to what genre we're talking about here. For example, Soldexus is a free Metroidvania-style game made in Game Maker. The graphics are pretty ass, but the gameplay is top notch, so for me, it's fine that the graphics aren't the highlight because I wouldn't want to play that kind of game if the gameplay sucks. Sure, I'd love better graphics, but they're good enough to get the point across and keep the gameplay interesting.

It's also a matter of opinion on what you think are "good graphics" and "good gameplay".

On 12/15/2018 at 5:31 AM, Doomkid said:

I don’t know what ‘throwing out gameplay for graphics’ means. In the case of Doom3, obviously it has better graphics than Doom2 but it could be argued Doom2 has better gameplay. However, Doom 16 has better gameplay and graphics than Doom3, so obviously there isn’t a direct link between gameplay and graphics - you can’t “get rid of graphics and substitute in more gameplay” or something, that’s just not how game design works. A game can have great or shit graphics and great or shit gameplay and the two are not inherently linked.

 

How does GTA5 ‘throw out’ graphics for gameplay? It has excellent graphics.. or wait, when you say gameplay do you maybe mean hardware performance? Or are you using it in the colloquial “how fun a game is” way? lol I’m sorry the whole premise of the thread just has me confused, that’s all.

You took the words out of my mouth: Graphics are totally separate from gameplay, and any attempt to measure one against the other is misguided. It's like comparing gameplay against sound effects, or gameplay against the music. In a game, gameplay *always* must be great.

The number 1 rule of games: A game must be fun. Beautiful graphics are appealing, but if it's a game that's no fun, no amount of beauty will save it. But, if the game is fun, you can get away with *any* quality of graphics. If you can have both, that's great, but good gameplay always comes first - that's a given.

In Doom there are rare exceptions that give some validity to the "graphics vs gameplay" argument: some micro-detailing could make navigation difficult, when the player gets stuck on the detailing - that is a case where "good, detailed" graphics is directly affecting gameplay. But that can be easily fixed by adding a smooth impassable sector around the micro-detailing to guide the player away from it. Otherwise, I don't really buy into such comparisons.

To add to @kb1's concession: Modern graphics in FPS (and first person games in general) bring clutter in geometry and graphics. Geometry clutter makes navigation annoying and graphics clutter is the reason why almost all modern games need flashing highlights for pickups. Without it the grey items blend into the grey environment.

• Does anyone play “Witcher 3” without using the witcher sense to hightlight items?
• Or “Dying Lights”. Does anyone think that the items are visible enough without using the survival sense?

im much more willing to forgive a game for having Mediocre graphics but Amazing gameplay, than a game with Amazing Graphics and mediocre gameplay.

When i purchase a game, i expect a game and not a graphical Techdemo.