• Hey Guest! Ever feel like entering a Game Jam, but the time limit is always too much pressure? We get it... You lead a hectic life and dedicating 3 whole days to make a game just doesn't work for you! So, why not enter the GMC SLOW JAM? Take your time! Kick back and make your game over 4 months! Interested? Then just click here!

Design Thoughts on the balance between Graphics, Story and Gameplay

A

AlphaChannel

Guest
I oftentimes (very often) see people arguing violently over the importance, or unimportance, of graphics. (Or maybe I just read to much youtube comments :p) Your thoughts? I personally give preference to game-play over graphics yet believe that graphics ARE important, contrary to the almost retro-indie-hipster-ish belief that graphics don't matter at all. (Note by graphics I don't just mean photo realism or such, just v̶i̶s̶u̶a̶l̶ sensorial immerssiveness)

The three focal points (from my point of view witch is probably flawed) can be described as gameplay (mechanics), sensorial immersiveness(for example graphics, soundfx, music), and emotional (story, comedy, or even a certain art style that evokes a mood)
(Thank you Mercenaries for pointing out the third aspect)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

Matthew

Guest
Exceptional blind people can play pokemon using their superb sense of echolocation. It mirrors real life; By repeatedly ramming into walls, they've trained their brain to form a map of the area they're in. A reasonable person can conclude that graphics aren't nearly as important as sound. But unexceptional deaf people can also play pokemon. They use exclusively the video and gameplay. And cripples can play using special gamepads that hinder gameplay! What can this possibly teach us?

Everyone has their own preferences. Actually, simplifying a form of entertainment to two points and debating where exactly you lay on the slider is silly.
 

Mercerenies

Member
Hm... I would argue that there are three sides to this discussion: Graphics, Gameplay, and Story. Many indie games tend to focus on gameplay, most AAA American games tend to go for graphics, and many modern Japanese games tend to go for story.
 
A

AlphaChannel

Guest
Actually, simplifying a form of entertainment to two points and debating where exactly you lay on the slider is silly.
That was never the intent of this post although it may seem so at first glance. I'm more curious about the insight and opinions relating the views people have on what is important in games.

A rephrasing might be necessary. The two focal points (from my point of view witch is probably flawed) can be described as gameplay (mechanics) and sensorial immersiveness(for example graphics, soundfx). Mercenaries third point is also true so I will mention in the OP, emotional (story, comedy, or even a certain art style that evokes a mood)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ninety

Member
Aesthetic is important to any media. Films need to be shot well, novels need to be written well, and games should look good (note that good doesn't necessarily mean graphically complex - you don't need amazing displacement-mapped GPU-annihilating visuals, just ones which are aesthetically pleasing and visually consistent). But any medium lives and dies on how well it uses its form. A novel is nothing without a good story, and likewise a game is nothing without good gameplay. Obviously there are exceptions, and as interactive media as distinct from video games rises, those exceptions will play a bigger part... But for the vast majority of indie developers, gameplay remains crucial.
 

Carnivius

Member
For me gameplay is the absolute most important. Then graphics cos if you're gonna be staring at the screen all that time playing the game it's nice to look at something that ain't an eyesore. And then story cos a good fun game doesn't need a story. Many of the games I still enjoy like Pac-Man barely have much more than "you're this thing, you collect these things, you avoid these things unless you can kill them" and that's fine for me. Sure I love the characters and plots of the Uncharted series because they're done so well but it's still the gameplay there that keeps me playing. God of War is a good example of a game I enjoy playing but really couldn't give a crud about the story so I end up skipping most of the cutscenes where possible so I can get back to the hackyslashy fun gameplay. Most of the time I'm happy for just enough 'story' put in that it gives the game it's general theme and appearance. If I want anything more then it's likely I'm not in a gaming mood and just want to sit back and watch a film or read a book where I don't need to be pressing buttons to advance a scene or get punished and have to go back a few 'pages'.
 

K12gamer

Member
I played 2 platforming games recently...

One was 728 mb...had advanced lighting / graphics...yet the character movement / design was weak...and the game was slow and boring.
Then I played an old 20 mb GameMaker game. The graphics were nice and smooth...Flawless character design...Lots of fun.

Look at the picture and video below and see if you can tell which is which...



 

K12gamer

Member
It's a good sign of a well developed character when your legs are broken, you don't wear a shirt, and you spray paint the skulls of your enemies gold.
This is bad (boring) character design to me...A stick figure with a box head...who moves super slow...
To me...flashy detailed backgrounds...doesn't make a game more fun...




I'd much rather play a fast smooth old school SNES type game.
 
imo mechanics before all else.

graphics are very important but they can be realitively interchanged, look at the entire reskinning industry.

story comes last of the three, make no mistake it provides context to whats going on but you dont have to know what you are suppose to do when your trying to figure out what you could do.

no matter how you slice it mechanics will always make or break a game and you can have a game which has exceptional mechanics, basic graphics and no story and it can still be an incredible game, but that is part and parcel to the problem, developing well made mechanics is apply head to wall repeatedly difficult and i seem to be under the unfortunate idea that most people (devs and players alike) are content with basic functionality and i dont understand how thats is suppose to be good enough when we have all seen what a game like super meatboy can do.
 

Surgeon_

Symbian Curator
Let me mention Planescape: Torment once more. Mechanically it's one of the worst games I've experienced - stat management was extremely confusing, combats were very uninteresting and tedious (not helped by the horrible AI and pathfinding) to the point where I almost cheated the game just to get around them... And it's still the very best game I have ever played - its story was that good. In fact, so much, that no other game I've played comes even close. Though I must add that the graphics, although very low-res and dated, look absolutely beautiful, and the sound - from small sfx over background music to voice acting - was all masterfully done. And overall, the ambient is unlike anything you've seen before.

With all that in mind, is story (and let's include the ambient here too) the most important of all elements? It depends on the player, really. For me, absolutely. But many players are simply not into getting immersed in a game, roleplaying their characters, and reading hundreds of thousands of lines of text while they're at it. So I'll tie mechanics with the story and ambient to the first place. (No doubt Planescape would be an even more enjoyable experience if the combats were any good.)

Now, about graphics... Well good graphics can't make a good game, but bad graphics can break a good game. And when I say "good" graphics, I don't mean advanced, just well made and consistent. You don't need shaders, occlusion, Anti-alias and other knows-whats in order to have nice graphics.

Sound. I did mention it before along with the ambient, but what's strange is that in these kind of topics you never see sound receive any significance. In my experience, good music and voice acting can make a game much, much better. Maybe people miss this because music is not something you acknowledge so much as feel.

Anyway, this has lost form and become a rant... So I'll just leave it at this.

-Surgeon_
 
L

Law

Guest
These elements are intertwined, thinking of them as being individually good or bad is a mistake. Some people might argue that using simple shapes and colors makes for boring graphics, but if these are necessary in order to clarify gameplay, is this really "bad" graphics? Similarly, if all your character is doing is walking around a location, but this allows the player to focus on the story happening around them, is this "bad" gameplay? A good game is when these elements work together, examining each piece individually is a mistake, I think.
 
S

seanm

Guest
IMO there are 4 things a game needs to be successful.

Programming, Art, Sound, Writing.

Marketing is included in the writing category.

You don't have to be amazing at all 4, but if you are lacking in one area, you must be exceptional in another.
 

Lumenflower

Yellow Dog
I can't remember who it was on the old forums (forgive me) that described the situation like fishing. Graphics are like the bait - they reel the player in and get them to start playing the game, and get them interested. Gameplay is like the hook - it's what keeps the player engaged once they are into the game. Unfortunately the original context didn't leave any room for story, but I guess you could compare that to the rod? Story draws the player in and keeps them moving through the world you've created - towards the conclusion.
 
S

seanm

Guest
The problem with that kind of thinking, is that it breeds the idea that high quality hyper real aesthetic is the only way to have a truly great game.

vvvvvv has some pretty garbage art from an objective standpoint, but it works well in the context of the game; and in my opinion its very nice to look at.

Some of the most iconic video game music of all time comes from an era where you couldn't play 3 notes at the same time.

Some games do not require any form of writing or story telling.


At the end of the day; Create a cohesive experience. It doesn't matter how it looks or sounds so long as it works.
 
A

AlphaChannel

Guest
A good game is when these elements work together, examining each piece individually is a mistake, I think.
I disagree that it is a mistake to see each aspect as a distinct entity. Yes, the concepts involved are intertwined, but the atention given to each part in and of itself (on the developers side) can either atract or alienate a possible audience/demographic.


For example, historically, graphics have been a selling point for videogame consoles, each generation of consoles trying to prove that they are the most visually spectacular. And it is quite amazing how far we've come. One could say that we are plateauing in possible improvement. Sure graphics will continue to improve, especially when it comes to realistic realtime lighting and shadows, but will the improvements ever be as big as the breach between pixelated screens to what we have now? Just a thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Law

Yaazarai

Member
A game is a mesh of concepts all of high importance, where your priorities lay depends on how important you consider each aspect of the game is.
Gameplay and graphics are equally important, have more of one and less of another will offset the balance of your game--this goes for every category.
The only time you might consider any one category more important than another is if you have deadlines to meet, otherwise no need to make a firm choice.

Let me clarify though that quality graphics don't mean high-resolution realism. Quality graphics are graphics that harmonize with themselves and their color
palette. You can have super low resolution graphics and complement them with a gorgeous color palette and still achieve said harmony. This also applies
to other categories such as sound when choosing between low and high bit-depth sound.

VERDICT: Balance and practice is key; unless you've got deadlines to meet then sacrifice what you may.
 
S

seanm

Guest
Because of the graphics arms race we've been stuck with 30 fps 3d games since the n64 era.

Give me 60 fps. I don't give a diap about realistic graphics if the game is going to suffer because of it.
 
G

GhostlyFeline

Guest
All three elements play a significant role in delivering a cohesive experience. However, in my personal opinion, compelling gameplay should always be first priority. If a game doesn't have that, it's rarely worth playing. Granted, there are some games that put a lot of focus on telling a good story, and I can appreciate that. I don't usually play those kinds of games though.

In this context, I'd replace graphics with presentation, as graphics are only a chunk of what makes up the aesthetic of a game. I'd place this just below gameplay in terms of importance. I've played games that were just okay, but sold me with their visuals and/or music. I've also discovered new games based on their presentation. For example, Super Meat Boy is an amazing game. I probably wouldn't have found it when I did if not for the stellar soundtrack.
 

Niels

Member
Graphics are what draws you towards a game at the first glance.
Too be honest, the binding of isaac's graphics turned off from buying the game for a long time... when I finally bought it, it became one of my favourite games:)
Art direction is even more important than graphics:because good graphics with no art direction will just look dull
 
D

Dani

Guest
Hello!

Based on my experience, if you're making indie games, the most important is fun gameplay and content. That's what indie games players are looking for. After achieving that, then you can think about graphics and story. Obviously, good graphics and art direction is a selling point for any game. Anyway, it's a matter of tastes. For example, I prefer good pixel graphics over realistic 3D. Pixel graphics give some space for imagination. And I prefer gameplay over story.

Dani
 

RangerX

Member
- If your graphic is awesome and your gameplay is lacking. I might be more easily attracted to your game but when the graphic novelty wears off, I will get bored of your game because the gameplay doesn't sustain me.
- If your story is good and your gameplay is lacking, I might be interested by playing will become "a chore in order to continue to follow the story" and this is no fun, I will probably end up bored and will quit.
- If your gameplay is good though... I can probably get over "so-so" graphics and not mind the lack of story. This because the gameplay would make your game FUN.

Not all games we loved had good graphics and its not all games that needs story. But what makes a game fun is good gameplay. To me its a bit like food. It can look good and smell good of course, but what will decide if I really like that food and will eat again is how it will taste in my mouth.
 

Yal

🐧 *penguin noises*
GMC Elder
I guess the main reason there's a "graphics versus gameplay" debate, as if they were completely separable, is Call Of Duty and all games trying to be Call Of Duty - incredibly boring shooter series that do their best to look realistic AND have as many cool explosions as possible. Basically, the games are designed around coreographed setpieces that look really cool... but in order to make all the coreography not be wasted if you happen to look at something from the wrong angle or something, player freedom has to be cut, making the games very linear... not to mention setpieces get old quickly if repeated, making many AAA devs err on the side of making the game too easy a lot. And regenerating health either is so slow it practically encourages you to not play while you heal up, or is so fast it breaks down the illusion that you're a normal human that do real warfaring against the odds. Something that made old FPSes good got lost along the way from Quake to Halo, and it seems mainstream won't try to find it again any time soon. Maybe because all the chest-high walls are obscuring their vision.

My five cents about the debate:
  • Graphical style is more important than graphical quality to me. There are plenty of games that use high quality assets that don't match up, and plenty of games that look so similar to each other you wouldn't remember which one you played. A good game has a style you can instantly recognize. Mirror's Edge is a pretty good mainstream example of this, where objects are color-coded in warm or cool colors depending on if they're interactable or just for show. Mario games has a very organic, rounded-corners style that makes very incoherent objects somehow feel like they belong together, and again work a lot with color coding to highlight important objects such as collectible items.
  • Storytelling shouldn't get in the way of the gameplay - in particular, unskippable cutscenes and dialogue scenes get very annoying if you already know that part of the story and just want to get back into the gameplay, and it's one of my pet peeves with Disgaea, a game I otherwise really like. Heck, in general dialogue scenes isn't really a good way to tell a story most of the time. Games is a medium where the consumer has agency, and sifting through an adaption of books or comics does not take advantage of that. Many good RPGs let the player select their character's actions or responses within certain bounds to at least make them a participant in dialogue. I also really like the environmental storytelling in Dark Souls - you don't really have anyone tell you what the worlds you explore are all about, but the attention to detail lets you puzzle things together if you want to. NPCs are seen tending to chores, fighting other NPCs of opposite factions, and placed idling in states such as praying or grieving rather than all on alert for intruders. Props scattered about the levels, damage to buildings, placement of corpses with certain items on them for pillaging... it all comes together to tell a story about exactly how the apocalypse happened, how the people in these ruins died, and what their purpose was before things went awry. The fact that a lot of the ruins are based off of real-life buildings in order to keep their room layouts realistic also does a LOT for the immersion in the world.
  • Having a story start out as laid-back and unobtrusive as possible tends to get me more engaged than starting it off with huge tragedies and important events. I didn't really get all that engaged in Bravely Default's plot, especially not since the middle part of it was extended for a loooooooooooooong time as you backtracked and refought old bosses, and the big reveal at the end of that was so well foreshadowed (especially after the big reveal in the middle that really was a punch in the gut) characters' reactions to it just felt exaggerated. On the other hand, the true ending to Hatoful Boyfriend, a pigeon dating simulator, made me cry because it was so emotional. After all the 'normal' alternate plotlines making you get familiar with a set of lovable characters in very silly situations, seeing them forced into a really uncomfortable situation with very real threats was a huge emotional whiplash, not to mention the fact that the true story path manages to tie together all the loose plot threads from the normal story... making you realize it was this serious all along, and you just didn't know. The silly "normal" story made you care about the quirky characters precisely because it knew you wouldn't be as emotionally invested in the true ending if you didn't already see them as real characters at its start. In one way, Hatoful Boyfriend is eerily similar to Undertale in its approach to storytelling, it's just not as accessible gameplaywise.
  • Gameplay doesn't need to be good in all games. Some games have the purpose of telling a story with the unique "reader" integration only games can offer, some have the purpose of providing an entertaining challenge with the interaction only games can offer; some games try to do both (Undertale being the most successful modern example, Majora's Mask another really notable one), but I personally feel like it's a better idea to focus on ONE aspect. If you try to do two things, it is very easy to have to compromise either aspect at places the other one is required, and you will end up with a game with constant cases of clipped wings one way or another... and players are likely to notice. Make sure you know what you want to do with your game before you make it.
So, yeah. Sorry for that long post, I got carried away a bit :p
 
my opinions about this debate is that originality is the most important aspect of a game. Instead of thinking:
  • Is my story good?
  • Do my graphics look nice?
  • Is my game playable?
You should be asking yourself:
  • How is my story different from what has been told before?
  • Can I make my game look (and sound) memorable? Is my art style unique?
  • Can the player do things that he cannot do in other games?
Especially in our world of indie games, where your success will probably only be granted by how original your concept is. Big gaming companies have access to intellectual properties, and all they need is to drop the name of one of their mascots in the title and they'll get millions of copies sold. Sure in an mainstream games graphics and plot and gameplay are important, because that's what is expected of them. And for that, they will have armies of devs, designers, and artists backing the same project. But as independant developers, our ressources are limited.

Your chances of making a game that looks more realistic /complete than call of duty are rather slim. But you can definitely make something that people will remember more!
 

Yal

🐧 *penguin noises*
GMC Elder
Big gaming companies have access to intellectual properties, and all they need is to drop the name of one of their mascots in the title and they'll get millions of copies sold.
It's important to keep in mind that people recognizing an IP as good - within their subjective frame of reference - is way more important than them recognizing it in general. People buy new Mario games without hesitation because they know they have a very high bar of quality, but I'm pretty sure releasing a new Bubsy game wouldn't result in a single non-ironical sale. Or for a more mainstream example, look at the reception modern Sonic games has gotten. The majority of them has gotten major critical panning, and the main reason people play them are for morbid curiosity rather than for speed and attitude. Sonic '06 hasn't even been ported to Steam (unlike more or less all other Sonic games) because Sega is aware what a trainwreck it is. (Or possibly because Steam quality assurance stopped it, I guess).

I would probably call myself an informed customer - I only buy games once they start showing up in LPs or reviews by people I trust, and of course only if they are received positively. The problem is that there's a lot of uninformed customers that buys games that are given exposition and seem OK, over something hidden away that is superior. Grandmas buying a copy of Pokémon Dash for little Timmy because it has a Pokachu on the cover, and things like that. Not to mention people that want the latest part in their favouite series and don't want to wait for the reviewers to roll around... or God forbid, people that pre-order games. (*nods towards the crowd of Mighty No.9 backers in the corner*)
 
N

nvrogers

Guest
The thing that defines games is gameplay. Therefore, everything else should be in service to the gameplay. Because of this, in good games, art, story, and gameplay are inseparable. The presentation of the game (art, audio, animation) is primarily there to create immersion and satisfying game feel, making it a part of the gameplay. Similarly, while the overall narrative contextualizes the action, the moment-to-moment play has to tell a good story with appropriate pacing and interesting twists. That kind of story telling is called "level design." You can't just separate things into categories without missing the point of game design. Imagine Super Hexagon, but with the realistic art style of COD and the story of Final Fantasy. Yeah. It would be a complete mess.
 
or God forbid, people that pre-order games. (*nods towards the crowd of Mighty No.9 backers in the corner*)
Yeah most people only bought this game because the maker of megaman made it. Also because it's basically a megaman game. The disappointment was harsh!
 

Yal

🐧 *penguin noises*
GMC Elder
Yeah most people only bought this game because the maker of megaman made it. Also because it's basically a megaman game. The disappointment was harsh!
Nah, people bought it because it was hyped up. It being made by Keiji Inafune of course contributed to that hype a lot but I think the initial hype kinda snowballed as people started getting each other's expectations up too high.
 
Top