1080p discussion

[marks]

Story is important. Consistent art style is important. Audio design is important.

 

But in the end gameplay is king.

 

But is it? Journey? Gone Home? Dear Esther? Those games would disagree I think.

Edited August 20, 2014 by marks

[Vilham]

Journey I would give you, as that was actually a game and it was amazing. The others aren't in my opinion, they are just interactive stories, there is no gameplay and they aren't "good games".

[dux]

I'm betting Witcher 3 gives you all of your 1080p cake to eat then teabags you with its story balls before slapping you with its gameplay dick.

[AlexM]

The question seems to be about 1080p vs 60fps games but the poll says gameplay vs graphics. 

 

This poll doesnt work because resolution and framerate are not directly related. If you are CPU bound because of say heavy AI calculations then you could have the exact same framerate at 720p and 1080p.

[Vilham]

Also resolution doesn't equate exactly to image quality.

[Chimeray]

Resolution > FPS > Any graphical setting.

That's it for me when I'm gaming on my laptop that can't run every new game. I absolutely hate gaming on any resolution that's not native since it makes everything look blurry. After that I turn down AA, AO, usually medium shadows quality and then go from there to get a good framerate. So graphics are usually inferior to me but you'll have a hard time convincing me not to play on a native resolution... Definitely when I'm only sitting 3m from my big-ass TV.

 

@Rolling101 For me a PS4 gives me exactly the same as an Xbone but with a crisp image rather than a blurry one... I'm sure there's differences in services and whatnot but that's not a factor for me since I only play games on them. So why exactly would I prefer an inferior image quality that doesn't sacrifice FPS or anything? I don't think that's lame at all... I really don't understand your statement o.O I could understand if there's a trade-off but there's no catch...

[text_fish]

As somebody who only ever plays games on PC I find it hilarious and absurd that this is even a thing that's being discussed.

 

I'd say game-play definitely trumps graphics every time, although in many cases graphical fidelity can have a dramatic effect upon gameplay -- in this case resolution effecting FOV and UI in certain types of game.

 

I would also say that gameplay trumps story, largely because I'm literate enough to read novels written by master storytellers writing in a medium that affords them sole authorship of the end product -- whereas game stories are normally ham-strung by factors such as budget, gameplay continuity, running time etc. Basically, because I want to have the best of both worlds, I will always play games for gameplay and read books (or sometimes watch films/tv) for story.

Edited August 20, 2014 by text_fish

[Sentura]

 

Story is important. Consistent art style is important. Audio design is important.

 

But in the end gameplay is king.

 

But is it? Journey? Gone Home? Dear Esther? Those games would disagree I think.

 

 

The experience is king. A huge part of the experience is gameplay, whether the game is Journey, Gone Home or Dear Esther. Exploration is still gameplay.

[Buddy]

Games need gameplay lol, should be obvious enough.

 

I think some of the modern day titles should have a new name for what they are, hard to call some stuff a "(video) game" anymore (which is OK, its just that we created a new category of entertainment, between games and movies and it needs a name).

[Pampers]

gameplay complements graphics and vice versa, no need to be binary about it

[DrywallDreams]

Let's make it look real, but sub 30 fps. 

 

Really though, I find it pretty mind boggling that up to now, no one has really played with art style except indies.  Nintendo has been putting out amazing looking games running at 60fps (albeit 720p) on the Wii U, just because they use a less realistic art style.

[Niller^.-]

A thing about graphics in general, which doesn't seem to have been mentioned, is that it can be a deciding factor for whether or not you're going to try out a game. Who hasn't bought a game on this premise or maybe skipped another title for the same reason? I'm not saying graphic is above gameplay or that the graphic has to be next gen, only that if the graphic is not satisfying, one might never give the game a chance. I do try some games for the graphic (it's hard to tell if you dig the gameplay before you've tried it), and if I keep playing, it's obviously for the gameplay

 

Some eye-candy surely doesn't hurt alongside good gameplay, I do prefer 1080p (as long it's not game breaking) 

Edited August 20, 2014 by Niller^.-

[2d-chris]

The problem is when eye candy does hurt game play, which happens more than you'd imagine.  

 

These days, I see games like classics. Chess, Football, Monopoly ... they are very interesting from a game mechanics perspective - they have art in them to compliment the design. 

 

There are also "experience" based games, which are far more about telling a story, cinematic, world exploration, discovery and wonder. These have a much deeper connection with artistic work, and of course are just as valid as an experience. At this point though, it's definitely easier to give in to pretty visuals at the harm of the experience, because these days we're finding it very hard to come up with unique game play. So, just as the movie industry struggles to make something fresh and new, they complement it with over the top effects. Thank goodness the industries and trends shift about every decade or so.

 

My issue is when developers (or mangers) assume you can make the best looking, best story, best mechanical depth and best performance all at the same time, this to me suggests a lack of focus in development - this has nothing to do with developers doing the best they can, it's about understanding what your making and why - it's naive to think that pushing deeply in one direction will have little consequence elsewhere.

[Pericolos0]

Alot of games running at 30 fps (or less) usually do so because of a few graphical effects that only marginally increase the graphics fidelity. I've seen very few games where the graphics actually deserve the low framerates. Very often it looks like if they just used slightly less complex effects or lower res shadows, the game would probably run at 60 fps. It's always some bullshit thing pulling the framerate down imo. 

 

And the funny thing is, 60 fps by default makes games look better. The smooth framerate gives a great impression of graphics being more crisp, even though they might have less "stuff" in it. 

 

Coming from an artist: you can have both 60fps and good graphics. And it's not even that hard imo, just make the right choices and put less focus on bullshit effects that don't really help the big picture. 

[Pericolos0]

Oh yeah, I guess this discussion is about resolution.

 

Having been playing games on PC at resolutions higher than 1080p for probably over 10 years, and at 60 fps, I'm extremely disappointed in the latest console generation. It's mind blowing that in 2014 on a nextgen console, there are games coming out running at 30 fps on resolutions lower than 1080. That's just embarassing