Eye Candy vs. Storyline & Gameplay

#1 In my opinion, gameplay is key. Without good gameplay, I don't care if everything is real time and photorealistic.. its going to get boring fast.

A storyline is what keeps me interested in a game. Without a good storyline I tend to get bored and quit playing singleplayer games.

My plan for developing my game is pretty simple. Make the gameplay mechanics first. Once I have a playable game (I don't care if its a WW2 game using space marine models), I'll then try to get a few artists on the team to do the visual part.

#2 The only game I've ever played through due to graphics is Alice.

The art in that game was awesome, but the game itself sucked/was boring.

#3 well even with all the games available to my favorite gaming memories are almost all exclusively C64 and Amiga games with Gran Turismo 1 and 3 and lots of 70's and 80's arcade machines thrown in.

#4 Oh man, those platforms had some good games. I still remember sitting around all night playing my old Atari- all I remember of it was it had a keyboard and floppy drive and you connected the keyboard to your TV. But anyways, I remember sitting up all night playing that Atari even though I had a Sega, N64, and computer. Sadly, the floppy drive died :( but I'm happy to say that my Apple IIc still works!!! Ah, and I remember the best game was something like "Journey to the Planets", so much fun.

#5 That's kind of a loaded question. I can't imagine people saying "Oh, I prefer boring games with bad gameplay, as long as they have pretty graphics"

#6 They may have a point, at least as far as early work goes. If you're going to include certain eye candy effects that require support from artists, you probably want them done early, so you don't end up redoing your art halfway through the project.

In a finished game, though? Gameplay is most important. Graphics come a close second. Story/Plot is a rather distant third... a lot of really great games have little or no story, after all. Doom, Donkey Kong, The Sims...

#7 I believe the 2 walk hand in hand. Of course gameplay is more important, but that doesn't mean you have to have crappy graphics. Believe it or not folks, you can have both good gameplay and good graphics! *gasp* The only reason I say this is that a number of people here seem to have gotten it in their head that just because a team wants to have something like shaders in their game, the team won't care about gameplay or plot. This is simply not true. You can have both and they can complement each other if done properly.

#8 What are you talking about, Donkey Kong had a storyline, "Save the princess"!

I mean that is a classic storyline that everyone can identify and is a proven classic in the purest sense of the word!

Sign me up for any games that include saving the princess . . . Look a Zelda, "Save the Princess" with lots and lots and lots and lots of tedious repetitive side tasks. Can you tell I thought that Zelda was less than compelling. Where as me and my best friend could stand for hours playing Donkey Kong!

#9 Well, you know they say something something are easily amused.

Ok, that was harsh, but seriously.. Zelda? Comon. ;)

#10 OK, to answer this question honstly as a gamer, I'd choose gameplay and plot over eye candy. I won't waste my precious time playing games that aren't up to snuff on the fun meter. Good graphics and sound can only enhance the underlying game, they can't make the game. If it's not fun and engaging enough, all you did was blow a lot of effort on making an over-glorified tech demo.

Now, as a game developer, my answer is a little more complicated. Depending on how much time you are willing to invest in the project, you *can* have you cake and eat it too! But, there's a balancing act. If you are under a time pressure, then something has to be sacrificed. Weather it's gameplay or eye candy is a design decision that you have to make early in the development cycle, and you have to stick with what you decide. If I was the one calling the shots and something had to suffer, I'd sacrifice some eye candy in order to have a game that's actually fun.

[edit: spelling]

#11 IMHO the pecking order is quite simple

1:Gameplay. fundamental to the experience, if this isnt up to it reviews will be bad and word of mouth will not be complimentary. it is however not something you can sit down and just do first, its an ongoing development concern through the production and also a matter of taste.

2:Graphics. something that can be implemented or corrected at any time, usualy done first by indies because its visible progress. usefull grab hold of someone so that they give the game a try. doesnt need to be fantastic, just polished.

3:Plot. if the gameplay is weak or unusual this had to be strong to hold interest. best done early but it can be added in later i suppose.

#12 I'd have to

1) Ease Control - If you can't control whatever it is you're supposed to control.. your game sucks.

2) Gameplay / Art Quality - A game that plays great but doesn't have at least a decent level of quality art isn't going to do well.

3) Depends on game type. RPG's rely heavily on atmoshpere (plot) whereas FPS's usually don't (and make up for it with graphcs features).

I know I combined a few, but in my opinion, graphics are combined of two things "Art Quality and Feature Quality." Basically, the difference is like a good looking low poly model, and a terrible amatuerish high poly model.

#13 It should always be a mix of both.. and if you want good sales, you'll have to have the eye candy, becuase that's what you'll get rated on.

#14 Only true gamers will pick up a box, and say to themselves: "I don't like the screens it is showing, but the story, and Unique Selling Points sound AWESOME! I'm gonna buy it anyway."

People buy games because of their pretty screenshots and movies. People play games because of their gameplay.

Quite a dilema...do you want people buying your game or playing them?

#15 I can safely say that Combat Mission is a prime example of an incredibly good game, with really average graphics. I loved that game even though the graphics were often painful at times.

#16 Well, I believe the goal is both. :)

#17 Very often, things are placed on a scale. When the needle is in the middle of the scale, you have average of both. The true greats can make something that has above average of one, and awesome of another, but as of now, I haven't seen one excel in both. It is really a challenge on the part of the Project Manager to be able to have great of both. I divided my team into a creative side and a technical side. I only expect to come up with average graphics and average gameplay..but I'm noone special either. The approach, however, will assure that there is a definite understanding that graphics and story are two different beasts that should be tackled individually and simultaneously. By this method, no one person will be thinking about both (accept me the Project Manager, which has little to do with the implementation of either). Since one person is thinking about one thing, we can get their full concentration on each side of the spectrum to really try to get the best we can out of either.

#18 How about games that are NOTHING BUT GAMEPLAY.

Take Tetris ( or just about any other straight up puzzle game ) for example, flashy over whelming graphics actually hurt those games!

It gets down to execution, Combat Mission was executed very well, because they knew their audience, because they WERE their audience and they did not care as much about flash as they did solid gameplay.

That said, graphics might get the first few people to buy your game but crappy gameplay, thus crappy reviews and word of mouth will make those same people hesitant to buy ANY of your games in the future!

#19 Instead of what's better than what, how about just doing what every game tries to do, which is work out to the best of the game's design. Yes Tetris was all gameplay, but thats all it needed and is why it didn't need flashy graphics.

What I'm saying is, every game has it's own theme and feel to itself, which is why people recognize a game. As long as it all comes together to make the game great, it will sell. It all depends on the game and those making it.

As for individual parts mentioned, Graphics should reflect the theme of the game, no matter how flash or crappy they may be (which is why the new Zelda is being given a bad representation). Gameplay should set the rules and motion of the action in the game (anyone remember Rise Of The Robots? All graphical hype, no gameplay). Then again, you should look at what seems logical as well, would Street Fighter have been better if it had blocky Mario Bros. style graphics? Or would Mortal Kombat have been the same using stick people?

Just be sensible is all and remember who you want the audience to be.

#20 Chris, I have but three words for you:

Stick Fighter II.

http://www.palfrey.dircon.co.uk/tom/files/sf2.htm

It's just as good as the original.