You say that like it's a bad thing :sadvaultboy: I always thought LttP was the best Zelda game and you could argue it's graphics are even worse lol

Anyways like others have been saying, I see graphics as a part of the gameplay and I'm glad Bethesda has taken the criticism they've gotten from past games to heart

Yes, I prefer good art over good tech any day of the year.

Assuming you can only pick one?

Without good gameplay, the graphics don't matter at all.




I'll agree with that. There are a number of "non advanced" graphics games that I think look amazing. WoW, for one. Great art design is more important than great tech.

Yeah this is the same as one of those polls asking whether we want guns or not

I think Skyrim will nail both great graphics and gameplay. I would personally prefer greater graphics and animation rather than superb gameplay, but hey, im sure we will get a great amount of both!

Agreed, I laugh at crysis, all that power, and they just create a generic tropical island with Koreans...

Give that tech level to people like Bethesda's art and think of the amazing things we would see

Also I'd like to add that graphics are the first thing to fad in your mind when you play a game, or at least the tech level

Gameplay is more important. Of course. But, why would you ask this? There is no reason we shouldn't have both. Good animations add A LOT to a game; at their best they can help convey individual character and state of mind. More commonly, they just keep your eyes from bleeding due to ugliness. gamesas is finally using tech that makes animations less expensive to do well, and I'd love to see them use it well.

OoT is a great game but Majora's Mask was better imo.

This.

I'd also like to add in that I do not think both are that important. I mean, yeah, with Skyrim I expect a bit of a graphical and animation update since the last game, that's part of making a sequel, but as far as video games go, I can play a game with poor graphics and little-to-no animation but, if the gameplay is good, have a wonderful time.

Gameplay is leaps and bounds more important than graphics and animation.

If it had a few more dungeons, i'd might be inclined to agree. But my original point still stands.

Both of course.

Gameplay, quest and dialogues,
graphic can be easy done with mods, good animation and design is not completely tied to hi-rez textures and high-poly meshes and DX11 support.

all of the above

Both are important, but gameplay is more important. Skyrim is going to be a good example here - great gameplay (hopefully) and "mediocre" console level graphics. Graphics are easier to improve with mods than big flaws in gameplay.

Edit: I also still play 2D games with good gameplay. Games that have only graphics I just forget.

Let's put it this way, for me at least, others will disagree. I'll still play Skyrim if it had morrowind or oblivion graphics, as long as the gameplay is great. I'll still play old games like Thief, Deus Ex. Hell if it had those graphics I'd play. If it has a better engine than those, which it does, then that's a bonus, nothing more.

If you prefer graphics over gameplay then lucky for you, because you might have more choices than those who don't.

both equal.

This.

Gameplay, thats why I still play Morrowind more then any other game. The immersive gameplay, the puzzles and in-game actions and, of course, the guilds.

Graphics are 'nice additions' where as gameplay.... gameplay makes a game.

Bethesda has no problem rendering great graphics, or game play what they need to work on is the bugs and glitches that take away from the game play. :brokencomputer:

Gameplay > Animations > Graphics

I guess some people don't do well with hypotheticals... can't get the "if you had to choose" part..

For a video game, of course it is gameplay. You buy a game to play it, not to watch it. If the game play isn't good, no matter how great the graphics are, at one point is just not worth it. Yes, I am talking to you, Assassin's Creed. Of course, I don't doubt there are people who may buy a agme just to look at the graphics... to each its own.

It's all about context, I guess ... like watching NFL Football vs watching the Lingerie Bowl

You NFL Football, you don't care how the players look, you want to see good football being played.
You watch the Lingerie Bowl,you don't care how good or bad the football is, you want so see how players look

Great graphics and no gameplay is a movie...

No graphics and great gameplay is a blank screen.. But that can't have gameplay right?

Great graphics and great gameplay is a good game with good graphics. Skyrim will have both, yes?

If that happens I want everyone with a PS3 and 360 to record them putting the game with the tech, SO MUCH FIRE!!! :flamethrower:

Would you be trying to prove something?
I think for this whole debate to have any real meaning you'd have to establish Bethesda can only allocate resoruces - time and personnel - to either graphics or gameplay development at a time. Do you think the Art Department works on, say, scripting? Do you belive the AI guys mess around with dynamic shadows?

Now I'm sure there are instances where gaemplay features impact graphics development and vice versa, but I'd guess they are fairly parallel most of the time. So, to answer your question:
Both.
I want the best of both worlds.