What Is More Important To You?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

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]

Gameplay, to be more specific: AI !!!

[Saarud]

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]

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]

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]

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*

[President_Elect_Shang]

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

<PE Shang looking around> Man, I have this weird feeling someone was just talking? In fact I�m sure there was someone else here with me a minute ago. Ha, absurd no one else is here! I must have been day dreaming again! Still I can't get over this feeling...

[PvK]

People enjoy games and fiction with their imaginations. Game display and game play both contribute to that, but there's a huge range of what does the trick for different players. I don't need graphics except to help understand the situation, and I can get bored with a game just by looking at the box and seeing that it is a derivative shallow game design that could never come close to holding my interest. On the other end of the spectrum are kids I've seen who can enjoy the graphics of a game and have a great time - even if they haven't even realized that they aren't out of the "attract" mode display and aren't having any effect at all on what they're seeing while they grapple with the controls. Somewhere in the middle is the mass-market audience, who megabucks corporate managers still annoyingly think want graphics over gameplay.

[PvK]

Yep, me too. I enjoyed the ship damage model - it could take multiple turns to tell if the damage was going to be recoverable or not, with ongoing fires and flooding effects.

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.

[Fyron]

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.