I was just thinking, what makes me like a game? To me, graphics, sound, and gameplay (which is a collaboration of many smaller factors, are the triple foundation of games. Much like power, speed, and technique is to Tae-kwon-do and American Football. They are equally important, especially for the first impression. If a game doesn't look good, then the consumer won't pick it up, no matter how well it plays.

But in the before times of the NES and even the SNES, the good graphics were never the driving force behind games. The good graphics happened, created in order to fit the game. The developers focused on making games they would have fun playing, and that labor of love made the game "good". Only recently has the battle for the best visuals really happened.

Sound is interesting, because it seems like the least important factor, but most classics games were made memorable for the music almost exclusively. I don't remember Mario for the hidden 1-up mushroom in world 1-1, I remember it for the catchy overworld music, and anyone recognizes the song, even if they don't play games. Likewise for the Legend of Zelda

I was just playing Dragon Quest II (known by you guys as Dragon Warrior II) and I was thinking this stuff. I was wondering why the Dragon Quest series is my favorite game series. I like the story and gameplay sure, but honestly my two favorite parts about Dragon Warrior is the music and the monster designs respectively. The two factors I once felt were of infinite unimportance to the overall game are the two biggest reasons why I still plug in my gameboy color three generations later.

This post was last modified: 02-26-2008 10:34 PM by Pancakes.

It's kind of funny you bring this up. A lot of people will tell you graphics mean nothing when it comes to a game, but when their system has a game that looks decent, they can't stop talking about it.

I guess graphics don't matter...until they do.

That is exactly what I used to think, during the time you could basically call me a Nintendo fanboy. (technically, you still could, but not really, I just like Nintendo's philsophy more than Sony or Microsoft's, and support them accordingly)

A game just isn't a game without a good atmosphere, and graphics and music do more for it then the gameplay. The mark of good gameplay is when you don't notice you're playing a game.

This post was last modified: 02-26-2008 10:40 PM by Pancakes.

So when your playing Wii Sports you really think your playing tennis, golf, bowling, and boxing?

------------------
See I don't know what makes a good game. I think it all comes down to personal preference. I can pop in Oblivion and Assassin's Creed which are both beautiful games and really enjoy playing them, but I can also put in Pixel Junk Monsters which is a 2D stradegy game and play that for hours.

For me it comes down to how thoughtful a game is and the amount of time put into it. I don't want a game that feels like it was slapped together quickly just to make a buck.

This post was last modified: 02-26-2008 10:58 PM by gft77.

Not quite to that extreme. But that is still the ultimate goal of video games. They are forms of escapeism, much like movies. You want to get away from your life for an hour or two, just to experience something different. You watch a movie and believe that what is happening on the screen really did happen. It's like that with games. They all attempt to suck you into their own realities. Of course you're not so into the game that you are oblivous to the real world, and think you're in an actual tennis court playing against somebody, but as long as you believe the reality of the game to some extent is what playing video games is all about.


P.S. I just noticed your signature goes right in with this thread. Neat.

This post was last modified: 02-26-2008 11:08 PM by Pancakes.

I think your partially correct and that's why I enjoy the fact that a $9.99 2D strategy game can keep me happy just like a next-gen 3D game with amazing graphics. I think that shows how well-rounded I am in gaming. I don't discount any part of the gaming experience as being unimportant.

Isn't it odd how "casual gamers" get so wrapped up with the idea of what's more important,Gameplay, Graphics, Sound, Story, or They're all equal, when infact if they were really casual none of it would matter at all. Actually a casual gamer wouldn't even pick up a Wii-mote, Six-axis controller, or Xbox 360 controller...they'd be playing board games. You can't get much more casual then that.

So what do you mean partially correct?

No one factor makes a game enjoyable. You need a combination of them all. Sure I enjoyed playing games on the older systems. I think that I had the most fun playing games on the NES and SNES but I can have just as much fun on a current system if they hit the right combination. When I play Wii games I play them for the controls and the party aspect of them. When I want to play games that seem more "hardcore" or whatnot then I play my PS3. I enjoy both systems but in different ways. Think about a game you really like on the Wii and imagine it on the original Atari. Do you think it would be as fun? I don't think so.

I'm not saying graphics are the most important but they still do matter to some people. I have been playing Burnout recently and I love to crash my car more than race. I love to watch the way the car gets destroyed and falls apart. I would not enjoy it so much if it didn't look so nice and if it didn't use the physics that it does. Some games don't need graphics but some do. I enjoy Wii Sports with it's bobblehead like characters and I also enjoy MLB on the PS3 with it's more realistic approach. I like them in different ways. I don't care if a game looks awesome if the gameplay sucks and I don't care how great gameplay may be if I can't even tell what I'm looking at on the screen. There needes to be a part of all of those factors you listed.

Which is why you should probably read my first post, right?

Ok, I've seen enough of these posts/threads and it needs to stop. If you want to talk about the topic then do so. If you want to talk about console A, B, or C. then click on the link at the end of this post. I did read your posts or otherwise I would not have replied. I'm not going to bicker with you or anyone else in this thread. I was just giving my opinion about what I thought regardless of what anyone else things. It is my opinion and I'm entitled to it as are you. This thread is asking what is important to me so I said what it was in my thread. Again, if you'd like to debate about it then feel free to do so by following the link in the link below.

Debate/Talk about the game consoles HERE

It's all in the gameplay... imo.  Nothing else can make me put down a game other than perceived poor gameplay.  If the game controls well, I can forgive faults in the other areas.  Best examples of this are games prior to and during the NES generation.  I can go back and play wretched looking and sounding (by today's standards) pre-NES games that I never played as a child and still enjoy then on similar levels to current games (if they have good mechanics and a novel idea).  The majority of these games don't even progress story.

I can't be convinced any other way..

This post was last modified: 02-27-2008 08:08 AM by Harmonica.

it really depends on the game. there are some games that are what they are because of their gameplay and controls, and there are some that do well now but wouldn't have been as great in an older generation of graphics. you could also go the other way with this; im completely against seeing LttP in 3d, because imo that gameplay would change drastically, and it wouldn't be the same game. so you can't seperate gameplay from graphics or controls, nor can you say that one is more important than the other. some gameplay would be better in certain graphics, with certain controls, and sometimes story is needed while other times a story isn't important to have fun. if you were to change one of the aspects of the game, they'd all change.

but hey. pong is still great, even if it doesnt have a story, great graphics, and all you hear are little bleeps...

In general, gameplay is by far the most important factor. However things like graphics, sound, and story all serve to enrich the experience. If you look at most of the best games in history, it was their ability to execute on all these points that really separated them from the rest (except maybe story).

It really takes on different roles of the "most important" depending on the type of game. Story and usually music don't really have much impact on racing games or fighting games, but the real thing that keeps you playing Tales of Symphonia is the story. Likewise, the viseral graphics of Mortal Kombat has just as much to do with the success of the game than the fighting mechanics do, but story doesn't mean anything.

to me its like this:
1.story
2.gameplay & soundtrack
3.graphics
hehehe...gameplay and sound are totally tied imo...

You need all of them to have a decent game. Story comes out a little bit higher though.

I need quality of all of the above..of.

I can understand those who say all are equal, but I don't understand people who say story is most important. If story is truly the biggest factor for anyone, why wouldn't they just watch movies instead? The most elite game stories are generally on par with an above average movie story imo. Again, if you say sound or graphics, you're in the wrong media. Perhaps if you work in that portion of the industry you might say something other than equal or gameplay, but who knows.

It honestly baffles me why anyone would say anything other than gameplay or equal.

Because the greatest advantage of video games over movies is that you have control over what is happening on the screen.

Hmm.. so that would lead me to believe that how you control (i.e. gameplay) is at least equally important.  Let me ask this: Would you be equally as happy with a DVD that presented multiple choices selected from a DVD remote by hitting a button that would affect the movie outcome?

This post was last modified: 02-29-2008 08:41 AM by Harmonica.