[EchoNoise]

Gameplay or Graphics?

I'm sick of these #!$@ing console fanboyism. I just bought a 360 for the sheer playability and gameplay of some of the games, including hitman and oblivion ( Oblivion )

So whats your opinion?

[nitroshift]

Actually both of `em

[Zxian]

Gameplay. FF3 (japanese version) will still be one of the best Final Fantasy games out there, regardless of the fact that it was for NES. FFVII is also a classic... but it's for PlayStation (the original).


Although for some games, the concept of realism comes into play. That's where Gran Turismo shines over Need For Speed.

[EchoNoise]

Well yeah, graphics are actually going to the realism type stage now... Gran Turismo, well... its a driving game, choose a car, drive around a track to become first... personally I find that boring. PGR3 at least has a track editor, but it still has downfalls

[ripken204]

i voted other b/c i like both.. there is just no clear answer to this question. if a game has amazing graphics but it sucks a**, then why would i want to play it? but i do love graphics a whole let, hence me having a 7800gt. but usually any game with sweet graphics is a good game anyways, such as oblivion! gameplay of coarse is important but i dont want to play a game that is like 10yrs old and looks really crappy. but thats for computers.

now for consoles vs computers... a computer beats a console in every aspect but price. graphics are 10x better on a comp no matter what system your talking about, and to me the gameplay is alot better b/c i can use a mouse/keyboard. a controller just doesnt have enough buttons.

now ive beaten both oblivion and hitman blood money on my computer, both of those games have amazing gameplay and graphics on the computer, ive never played them on a console so i cant tell. but HDR with oblivion is just f***ing AMAZING!!!

[JasonGW]

Gameplay 100%. Nice graphics are, well, *nice*, but one thing I've noticed since I got my 360 is that the majority of the games are the same old games we've been playing since PS1, but with a prettier face. I guess it was cool when PS2/Xbox/GC put the prettier faces on those games, but now I'm just sick of those games.

When my 360 (the THIRD freaking one!) gets back from MS's repair center, I'm gonna ebay the POS and use the money for a Wii. Screw Microsoft and Sony, I'm sick of the same old rehashed horses*** with prettier pictures.

Jason

[EchoNoise]

I've never had any trouble with my 360

But back on topic... To be honest, this is not a computer vs. console topic... Basically what I'm saying includes both, sure there is going to be some differences, for example oblivion, from console vs computer, but you still get the same effect out of it... hell if oblivion didn't have all the f***ing grass everywhere then i would still play it... if it didn't have bump mapping of that f***ing hdr effect in place, i would still play it!

[ripken204]

but the thing is that graphics adds much more to the gameplay. i just feel like im there at times in oblivion, morrowinds graphics just sucked...

[EchoNoise]

I agree with you there that morrowinds graphics did indeed seem crap... but you have to take in the account that it was a very vast land you could travel, and being on one cd.. you couldn't fit much onto it...

Look at those games that just had polygons/flat surfaces, it used vector filled based graphics... i forget the name of the games... there were 2 of them... they were fun, but hardley any graphics

[mark]

ripken204, on Aug 28 2006, 06:49 PM, said:

i voted other b/c i like both.. there is just no clear answer to this question.

I voted the same way but I do think the answere is fairly clear. Board games, cards, dice and a mix like DD have no graphics, just visual representations and if need be, your mind fills in the blanks. Video footage just takes you through cityscapes, wilderness, etc. as a passenger. Computer games are blending both the environment and control. If the gameplay is poor, then there is no point in playing. If the environment is poor then there is no point in playing also because you might as well be playing on a board. You can get immersed in a board game and your mind paints the scenery but computer games are in real time and you get thoroughly immersed. How often to you hear this: 'Hey, Bob, where are you?' 'I'm passing the tomb, I'll be there in a minute.' Not: 'My toon is waiting for your toon......' Something like that anyway.

DL

[Maleko]

gameplay, which is why arcade classics are still big hits!

[awergh]

gameplay is the most important because in a game like Warcraft III the graphics were better than those in AOE2 but the some of the things that were in the game were really annoying but i have to admit that graphics are somewhat important because even i cant really stand playing strife anymore (last FPS that uses the Doom Engine)

But since games have pretty good graphics now its more about the gameplay

[Thunderbolt 2864]

I prefer gameplay. Whats a point of the game with good graphics but has poor gameplay? I rather play a game with poor graphics that has great gameplay.

[ringfinger]

Gameplay here too... excellent graphics are always nice and everything but the overall gameplay is whats most important to me.

[ripken204]

awergh, on Sep 9 2006, 01:33 AM, said:

gameplay is the most important because in a game like Warcraft III the graphics were better than those in AOE2 but the some of the things that were in the game were really annoying but i have to admit that graphics are somewhat important because even i cant really stand playing strife anymore (last FPS that uses the Doom Engine)

But since games have pretty good graphics now its more about the gameplay

the warcraftIII are pretty good i think. but ur last statement there... i mentioned that too, and thats one of my main point about games today, the graphics will be good anyways. so how are we supposed to pick gameplay or grahpics? there has to be extremes. like oblivion type gameplay with 16bit colors, or oblivion hdr graphics but with some pointless annoying game.

btw, i like ur avatar. i have a 33mhz 486 sitting right next to me, i just pulled it from a friends vry old como, its so fun to play with i cant beleive that they didnt even use a heatsink with it...

[awergh]

no heatsink!
both 486s that i have have heatsinks
(486 75Mhz 486 66Mhz)
well the thing about warcraft III i didnt like was 90 population limit and upkeep but its still an ok game i just thought aoe2 is better.

Do you know how to stop the bios rebooting when it complains about the bios being dead

[ripken204]

yep, no heatsink....
i dont know anything about the cpu/mobo tho, as my friends comp was dead to begin with.

[EchoNoise]

Thats probably why its dead ^_^

[ripken204]

undeadsoldier, on Sep 10 2006, 07:08 PM, said:

Thats probably why its dead ^_^

lol, well it was actually like that the whole time, there are no signs of a thermal paste or a way to mount a heatsink. but 33mhz cant create that much heat... but i know that it uses ALOT of voltage.

[bledd]

my old 33mhz 486 came w/o a heatsink as standard, when i upgraded to a 66mhz, i didn't put a hs on it (didn't know they existed, lol) and i really burnt my finger when taking it back out!