Comments for Intelligent Gamers

Comment on Graphics vs. Gameplay – The Eternal Battle by Dylan

Dylan — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:06:18 +0000

thomas has it correct ^

Comment on Graphics vs. Gameplay – The Eternal Battle by Thomas Ella

Thomas Ella — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:25:52 +0000

No offense, but your Goldeneye example is the dumbest possible way of arguing your point. You’re comparing games from different generations and acting like you can just directly compare them. It’s like if I came in and said “E.T. for the Atari 2600 had really shitty graphics but Call of Duty 4 has awesome graphics and that’s why it’s better!”

Um… no?

E.T. was a shitty game, just like Goldeneye: Rogue Agent, just like Perfect Dark Zero. You can’t just compare different games of different qualities like that to see whether graphics or gameplay matter more. It’s just stupid.

Especially comparing games of different generations. Of course the newer generation game is going to have better graphics, just by virtue of better technology. But it’s still a shitty game.

Simply put, graphics and gameplay have equal importance to a game. People act like graphics don’t matter, but that’s bullshit. Total bullshit.

Comment on Graphics vs. Gameplay – The Eternal Battle by Aerii

Aerii — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:44:17 +0000

Graphics should be good enough that they aren’t distractingly bad. But graphics are definitely NOT the main thing to worry about. If I cared about graphics and only graphics, I’d watch a movie.

Comment on Graphics vs. Gameplay – The Eternal Battle by Garg

Garg — Sat, 02 May 2009 01:33:37 +0000

This is a great article, I wish some of this would be heard by game developers.

On another note, I have not noticed a significant difference between Half Life 2 (A game that came out in 2004) and any game that has come out in 08-09, as far as graphics are concerned.

Additionally, is it just me, or do some high-end graphics in games just make it harder to pick out objects in the game world? (I had this problem in Fable 2, where I couldn’t find the papers without REALLY searching)

Comment on Graphics vs. Gameplay – The Eternal Battle by a.style

a.style — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:46:40 +0000

I am on complete agreement with this article. This gameplay over graphics element was what originally persuaded me to buy the 360 over the PS3. Agreeable the PS3’s graphics are pretty damn good, the 360’s gameplay is just superb. While PS3 spent a lot of time and money making their console materialistically superior, 360 spent a lot of time and money thinking about what a real gamer would want. If people really wanted graphics over gameplay, would a game be the first choice? If you want something to be aesthetically pleasing, would you really look at the graphics of a -game-? I never thought this argument would come up but I think that because of the next-gen consoles, it has. Next-gen is all about graphics but that’s where 360 excels. They didn’t throw gameplay out the window. Infact, if anything, they only brought graphics back in along with gameplay. Relating back, it seems the PS3 was made for entertainment [or eye-candy as some people like to call it], but the 360 was made for what games were originally made for. Playing games.

Comment on Graphics vs. Gameplay – The Eternal Battle by signularis

signularis — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:49:20 +0000

What people most forgot that graphix can come with 2 categories looking good, and playeble graphix, does the camera move well is the interfsce correct. I played a lot of old games that the graphix were a big thing with gameplay. I had game once whose graphix were so bad it was unplayeble or the engine makes it impossible to reckonise enemies with allies. Or the graphix is so good it staggerers at the right moment.

Comment on Graphics vs. Gameplay – The Eternal Battle by Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:47:50 +0000

graphics are meaningless without gameplay.

They are like playing pieces in chess or the balls in snooker. Completely useless unless incorproated in a game. The benefits of graphics is that they can grab our attention initially & they can add to the gameplay.

In term sof all the components (i.e. sound, music, etc.) in games. All need to be designed with balance in relation to one another. Any component that is mis-designed will ake any user ditch the game. Imagine playing flight simulator & your plane sounds like a cartoon plane or playing mario kart but your car sounds like an F1 car. balance is lost.

Comment on Graphics vs. Gameplay – The Eternal Battle by Daryl

Daryl — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:26:44 +0000

Instinctively I like graphics, but when I sit back and think, I know it is really the gameplay that matters.

Comment on Graphics vs. Gameplay – The Eternal Battle by e5ryurtiyt

e5ryurtiyt — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:21:10 +0000

my cock is huge

Comment on Graphics vs. Gameplay – The Eternal Battle by James McDonald

James McDonald — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 08:58:49 +0000

I totally agree with this article but I have one gripe with it. The section where you compare games with lower quality graphics to their next-gen equivalent is not as foundatory as you think. The fact that you have gone solely on review scores for most of your examples is a huge mistake because when those reviews came out the graphics were superb for tha time. When you take this into account you can see that the high score will have been affected by this. Other than that though this is the best argument on this topic I have read in a good while. Congratulations!