What Is More Important To You?

StarJack · #1 November 28th, 2006, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Kana said:
I agree completely with you AT...

Santiago I dont know when you were born, but I remember before there were video games. One of my all time favorite games was one I played on the the Atari 800. It was a wargame sim of Midway, and the graphics were all ascii characters. I played that game for hours, it was nail bitting sending out your fighters to attack the carriers, and you wait patiently for the text report of how many you lost, and how many carriers you hit and or sunk.

Good example, I remember a port of that game or a knock off to the XT. I also remember hundreds of hours running contraband in Elite on the C64!

narf poit chez BOOM · #2 November 29th, 2006, 12:35 AM

I prefer gameplay to graphics, but sometimes I do want pretty graphics.

I think the real question is 'game quality'. For a 3D FPS, the graphics contribute quite a bit more to game quality than for a strategy game. For a roguelike, graphics contribute almost nothing and can detract, in my opinion. (I've noticed that graphical roguelikes seem to be simpler.)

PsychoTechFreak · #3 November 29th, 2006, 06:10 AM

Gameplay, to be more specific: AI !!!

Saarud · #4 November 29th, 2006, 09:50 AM

Gameplay is what makes or breaks the game in my point of view. And in regards of strategy I care zero about graphics however if I play an FPS (which I do occasionally) gameplay still is more important but graphics is really vital, together I call it immersion.

When it comes to graphical poor games with a loyal fan base take a look at Dwarf Fortress. It's a RPG/Strategy gfame being developed using only ascii graphics but with ALOT of content. I love the game and next to Dominions 3 it's the best game around.

Check it out if you don't beleive me.
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/

NullAshton · #5 November 29th, 2006, 10:18 AM

Gameplay is important to me, but I also like graphics. If it has ASCII graphics, or not that good 2D/3D graphics, I don't want to play it as much, often because it's a lot harder for me to use. I like being able to fiddle around with the viewpoint, and get a more 3D feel of whatever the game is.

Raapys · #6 November 29th, 2006, 11:14 AM

IMO it's not about how 'advanced' the graphics are, it's about if they're doing something for the game; creating a good atmosphere, etc. Music is also way underrated; probably since most games has mediocre music at best. Besides, a nice 2D game can look far better than a groundbreaking 3D game. I also feel that just about all 3D games handle much more awkwardly than the older 2D games.

At any rate, you can't make an enjoyable game without good gameplay. You can, however, make one without good graphics. You don't need high-res, full 3D to make chess fun. The only times I get annoyed over graphics is if they're making it hard to play the game; bad UI, hard to make out objects, etc.

So if it was up to me, SE V would be a highly advanced version of SE IV, where Aaron had taken all the time he spent on the new graphics engine and put it into improving the gameplay and AI instead.

dogscoff · #7 November 29th, 2006, 11:45 AM

Oh graphics over gameplay every time, definitely. In fact, i only ever play games with the latest cutting edge graphics that won't even run on my machine. In fact, as soon as I hear a game has decent gameplay I make a point of avoiding it because that means the graphics will suck. In fact, wherever possible, I don't play games at all- I just go to the cinema to watch whatever graphical CGI-effects-fest is just out, and that way I don't can just passively consume my entertainment without all the tiresome interactiveness of so-called "gameplay" in the least. In fact, I hate Space Empires, I'm not even here, and I don't really exist at a...

*dogscoff promptly disappears up his own sarcasm and, in fact, blinks out of existence altogether*

Fyron · #8 December 3rd, 2006, 08:30 PM

narf poit chez BOOM said:
(I've noticed that graphical roguelikes seem to be simpler.)

I'd imagine that just has to do with the dedication of the programmers more than anything; roguelike graphical games usually just use tiles that don't take much time to make anyways.

Possum · #9 December 3rd, 2006, 09:03 PM

There was no reason for an SE-style game to be 3D, none at all.

A First Person Shooter has to be 3D, and that's where 3D belongs.

That old game, are you guys talking "Carriers at War"? I had that for my Apple IIc, and it rocked, no doubt. Even on a monochrome monitor

Oh, and as far as graphics vs gameplay, welll.....

I'll take a game with boobies over no boobies any day

Phoenix-D · #10 December 3rd, 2006, 10:18 PM

No fair using the trump card!

Actually Ascendency had a true-3d system map, which was a decent reason to have 3D. And SEV has far more on screen at once in '3d' mode than it would in 2d (switch to top-down mode and note how much farther you have to zoom out to see all the hexes).