The "Gameplay" Myth

[NoeJeko]

You'll never hear "it's not how fast a car goes, but how it handles" by a race fan at Indianapolis. Likewise, you'll never hear "it's not how good the song actually is, but how well the musicians play their instruments" by a Beyonce fan at the Grammys.

Then why, pray tell, do people even mutter "it's not about the graphics, it's about the gameplay"?

I hear that phrase more often than I'd like to admit, and I really think that it's become a reflex response for the so-called "serious gamer". In a recent conversation about classic video game systems, I was discussing the longevity of a certain console which stretched well past the years of its own generation when I heard someone utter that particular phrase yet again.

World of Warcraft made its millions from its stunning use of gameplay.

If you feel the same way, I've got news for you. You're wrong. Ever since the advent of the Magnavox Odyssey in the 1970's, it's been about the graphics and always has been. Graphics have always been the single defining point that seperates every console generation -- not only that, but video games even says so in its name: it's a visual form of entertainment, first and foremost. A deaf person can (and they do!) enjoy playing along in World of Warcraft, but blind folks are out of luck. Think about it -- if graphics really aren't the most important factor and it truly takes the backseat to the almighty "gameplay", why isn't the industry still centered around the 6 switch behemoth that Atari unleashed in 1977? Hell, it could play a mean game of Space Invaders, that's all we really need, right?

Gameplay, dammit!!!

Whenever Microsoft brought Vista to the public, they had a problem -- namely the fact that most consumers were still pretty happy with Windows XP and didn't see any reason to upgrade. So, they gave us an ultimatum in the form of DirectX 10. You want your games to benefit from all the new graphical features it offers? Better cough up the money for an upgrade, because that stuff ain't coming to XP, buddy. Did people pay the premium and deal with the obstinate and buggy nature of Vista just to have prettier game graphics? You bet they did.

Also, what has driven the PC industry for the past 20 years? It sure isn't the business and home applications. It wasn't Word or Photoshop that were straining the processor to its limit; it was games, plain and simple. Quake, at the time of its release, ran comfortably without a 3D accelerator, with all of its gameplay intact. That didn't stop Quake from singlehandedly causing the aftermarket 3D card market to explode. There's a reason ATI and Nvidia are fighting tooth and nail for dominance, and the way they're going about it has nothing to do with how to handle joystick input. If gameplay was the end-all be-all, then I'd be writing this on a 486.

Consoles, historically, have tried to balance a cost-effective hardware which came as close to the arcade as possible (a benchmark that sadly does not exist anymore). Sega's Megadrive arrived in 1989 with Altered Beast as a pack-in, giving Sega their first taste of success after the abysmal market performance of the Master System. Altered Beast is now (rightly) considered to be a pretty sorry game, but as a pack-in, it made kids of that generation drool. Gigantic characters filling the screen and duking it out was far out of Nintendo's league at the time and everyone knew it. As expected, Nintendo played tit-for-tat and released an even more graphically powerful console because they knew they had to win the consumers over.

CliffyB can suck it.

Don't take me wrong, I'm not attacking the relevance of gameplay. Without it, like graphics, it just isn't a video game. However in the industry, it's not a mover and shaker. Also, unlike graphics, it's a constant. It hasn't changed a bit since Atari set up shop in Sunnyvale in 1976. Atari also learned a hard lesson with their Pac-Man port in in 1982: Just because it plays great and relatively faithfully doesn't mean squat when the game looks like a pile of ass. It was soundly rejected by the consumers and now fertilizes weeds in the New Mexico desert. In modern day terms, The Force Unleashed was a love letter to the graphical power of the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. Critics and players loudly complained that the game's control was pathetic and it just wasn't fun, but damn it was pretty to look at. And it sold like hotcakes, with even more updates coming for it.

For those of you who still disagree with every point I brought up, be it common sense or historical, I can only imagine that your idea of heaven is a shovel and a plane ticket to Alamogordo. Have fun while racing that beam, partner!

Written by Ethane



More...

[Noperative]

Controversial stuff there @.@

[7hatGuy]

E had a post on this in the rant forum. It looks like it's been refined from the rant forum so I'm gonna read up on it again.

[Zamte]

While I agree overall with what you're saying, I think it's being taken out of context just a tad.

The point of the statement is that a game is still a game with subpar graphics. Yeah pac-man doesn't look great, but it's a fun and addicting game regardless of that. The same can be said for hundreds, if not thousands of past game titles.

Nobody is going to take gameplay and poor graphics over gameplay and good graphics, but when given the option between a pretty game with impossible controls that make the game nearly unplayable (The Conduit for the Wii is pretty close to this), or gameplay that's just boring or buggy, or a game that's a bit less to look at, but significantly more fun, they will usually take the later.

Your examples are just a bit too much. Comparing the Xbox 360 and PS3 to the Atari and the Master System is like comparing a Ferrari of our day and age to the Oxen-pulled carts of the Gold Rush days. Those systems were less complex, had less memory to work with, worse graphics, simpler controls, and were in almost all ways worse off. However, there are plenty of PS2 or Gamecube games I'd take over some of the current PS3 or Xbox 360 titles. There are even some Wii games (as much as I hate their "everything has to be a party game and use some ridiculous motion controls" take on things) over some Xbox 360 and PS3 games. In fact, your example of "The Force Unleashed" is one of them. The wii version may not get to download the new content, and it may not get a "Sith edition", but the fact that the objects are lessened and the use of motion controls actually makes sense makes it more fun for me. It's easier to control the Wii version, and to grab what you want at any given time. I'd take the Wii version of it over any of the others.

[Torikakae]

An argument of one extreme against another. One reasons with the power of "instant hits" (big sellers, most are forgotten) while the other surges with the "cults of the classics" (long lifespan, could've looked better). The poles may argue, but I find happiness in the balance~

I remember your anecdote back in Random a long time ago about the trucker in the gas station. He picked on you because of what car you were driving (aesthetic and value), and you countered with how much mileage it had (practicality and usefulness). Likewise, a videogame needs both its "video" and "game". Your argument has the "video", your car had the "game"~

Not to mention, there are games with absolutely stunning graphics (for its time and generation) but did not "sell like hotcakes". Remember ICO? A visually stunning game that sold mediocre at best during release.

[Godbot3000]

I cannot approve of any argument that relies more on force of delivery than actual facts and rhetoric for proof.

But they do make funny reads.

[Ethane]

Originally Posted by Godbot3000

I cannot approve of any argument that relies more on force of delivery than actual facts and rhetoric for proof.

Oh I admit, one part of it is a jab at self-proclaimed "serious gamers" but the other part is just using industry trends and plain facts to present a case. There's plenty of holes that someone can shoot through my argument, but the majority of the responses so far have been to use singular games and nostalgia as counterarguments. Yes, Super Mario Brothers and (the original) Sonic are timeless. That's not the point.

I think the whole argument stems from gamers refusing to look at the evolution of the industry in the past thirty years from an objective viewpoint. Games have either played well or like crap since the very beginning, but the graphical capabilities of consoles have always evolved, and eventually the consumer (of which the "serious gamer" is a tiny percentage of) eventually wants something nicer and shinier looking. You can point out old classic games that are near and dear to your heart all the day long, but all I have to do is point out what's stocked on the shelves in stores and the sales figures of games selling today.

[Lime]

I think it's also worth pointing out that a lot of these "classic" games were usually very advanced for their time, either in graphics or music.

Chrono Trigger, Super Mario Brothers, Pac Man (for being the 1st non-generic game character.)

FF 3 (or 6) Those spell effects were pretty awesome no?

Doom; Yeah, that amazing FPS deathmatch action was brought to you via technical advancements.

Pretty much a great deal of 'classics with unaging gameplay' had amazing graphics for its time.

Yes, even Super Mario 64 at one point was considered a graphical marvel. Why? FULLY 3D environments and characters.. Most early attempts at 3d gaming, usually were 2.5d such as Clockwork Knight and Bug. and used sprites opposed to actually making 3d characters.

As a matter of fact. Super Mario 64 is the perfect example as to why graphics and hardware power MATTERS. It's revolutionary gameplay would not even be POSSIBLE without full 3d environments and characters! SM64 upped gameplay standards with the use of analog control. And FREE roaming nonlinear stages the Sega Saturn just didn't have the hardware power to match. ...That's right, Saturn couldn't truly do what SM64 did cause the system wasn't powerful enough...

Spoiler!

Truthfully, Saturn did technically have the power,but unlike most systems, Saturn used dual processors. something that was just too tricky for most 3rd parties to use fully. bad move sega for not making hardware power usable.

If this game had not been fully 3d we would not have even see such a revolution in gaming controls. Graphics and the power of the 64's hardware made that possible.

So, in the face of "it's not about the graphics, it's about the gameplay"... Super Mario 64, one of the most 'revolutionary' changes to the standard of gameplay. Would not exist if it were not for the graphics.

Can you imagine accurately catching those ledges, or correctly judging those cannon shots if Mario was a 8 directional sprite, or if long distances were replaced by static prerenders?

It is about the graphics, it is about the gameplay.

But as i said in the thread that inspired this article; it's ultimately about the experience.

[Metty]

Originally Posted by Lime

FF 3 (or 6) Those spell effects were pretty awesome no?

The actual third game(whoever came up with the 3 is 6 and 6 is 3 rubbish is a retard) used pretty much the same sprites as the first and second games. The real 6th game however did have a larger improvement on things such as spells and various sprites.

[Godbot3000]

Originally Posted by Ethane

You can point out old classic games that are near and dear to your heart all the day long, but all I have to do is point out what's stocked on the shelves in stores and the sales figures of games selling today.

And that's what bugs me the most about what you're presenting. Sales figures are nice and all, but they do not give any indication that is remotely relevant to your argument. While yes, plenty of the money maker games out there right now are fairly graphically intensive, and certainly, you'd be really hard pressed to find a SNES game in any game store today; but neither of these facts say anything at all about whether gameplay is less relevant than graphics.

Let's take a look at your Star Wars: The Force Unleashed example. You claim is that because it sold well in spite of critical panning regarding its gameplay aspects, it must be that the graphical components of the game is its main selling point. From this, it must follow that graphics are more important than gameplay. Is this really the case however? Have you taken into account some of the outlying factors that may be surrounding the game? I personally recall a heavy handed marketing campaign and tons upon tons of hype, not to mention the bit about it being a Star Wars game. The entire "be a Jedi/Sith and use the Force as you wilt" thing is a major driver of interest, especially for the crowd that was around for all of the movies. Were I to propose that these factors are a stronger force in motivating sales than the game's graphics, would it be completely unfounded?

I cannot invest too much time in analyzing the rest of your argument due to other stresses, but much of it is mostly composed of similar cases of selective amnesia. But I'll do something random and end this post with a fun equation:

U(g,p) = g^(x)p(1-x)+c
Where g represents the graphical quality of a game, converted to some scaled, quasi-arbitrary number, p represents the gameplay quality of a game similarly converted, and c represents any other factors that might be of interest, similarly converted.

Question would be, what quantity would x be for you, and what would this equation represent?

[Dook]

All of this merely to argue that graphical prowess is a better driving force than gameplay to the video game industry? I believe you'd be needing this:

Well, superior graphics that will please the audience is much easier to produce than a unique gameplay that is really often a gamble in terms of success. (E.g. Spore)

Still, the relevance of the quote is a matter of personal preference. That quote is more applicable to the players, not the makers.

Is that quote accurate in describing the trend of video gaming over its history? Well no, for the reasons you've already mentioned.

I agree with Lime's point.
Why do I like my DS and Wii so much? The games I own on that platform are unique in gameplay and control. It's a great gaming experience

Why the hell am I bawwing about the lack of $$ for computer upgrades and/or a PS3? I want better graphics for great gaming experience

[Beato]

The questions of Aesthetics vs Design have been questioned... for centuries.

Epic poets (Homer) vs Socrates
Arts vs Plato
Less philosophically construed...
Attractiveness vs Personality
Lyrics vs Writing
Abstract vs Meaning
Same thing, yes/no? I don't even want to get into the religious parts of it...

Towards the latter half of Ethane's topic, the meaning that is trying to be infused to graphics is brushed aside to appease "oh yeah game-play is still cool". It's probably because I'm just completely the wrong audience or what? Pointing to sales figures and filling the void with... no... as evidences for graphics over game-play is as ludicrous as saying if it was otherwise. The reality of the market system has far too many underlying variables to sum up into one particular cause.

In most cases, people with sufficient intellect are much more likely to agree that meaning presides over the appeals of abstract qualities or whatever it may be called. Most people in this forum have played a generic MMO, or too many, long enough to say that game-play (with friends) is more important than graphics in a gaming community as a whole.

[Ethane]

Originally Posted by Godbot3000

While yes, plenty of the money maker games out there right now are fairly graphically intensive, and certainly, you'd be really hard pressed to find a SNES game in any game store today; but neither of these facts say anything at all about whether gameplay is less relevant than graphics.

Try making Katamari Damacy work on a legacy console. How about EA's sports lineup? It'd be unfair to say that the gameplay hasn't changed since Madden first arrived, but it's still based on the same basic principles that made the original on the Genesis so easy to pick up and play. That's not the big part of it, though, people want to experience the thrill of a big-time game that they're in control of with a filled stadium of screaming fans and they like it to look realistic as possible. If you try to give someone an 8 or 16-bit version with the exact same gameplay elements and they're just going to look at you funny.

How about taking Silent Hill 2 back a few generations? Would it still have the same atmosphere and impact? I guess it would, if you were only playing to enjoy just uhm... how well it plays. Or something.

This is from the average consumer's point of view, not the "gamer". "Gamers" make a very, very small part of the actual market. Also, I'll say this again - a game plays like garbage or it doesn't. That's never changed. Technology has changed, how we've played a game has changed, but a game that plays horribly is still a bad game.

This all started with the statement of "it's not about the graphics, it's about the gameplay." I decided to step back and look at that comment objectively, and the way the money changes hand and the industry moves, that's not true. It may be something that people will hold onto here, because this is a gaming forum, but in the big picture it really is irrelevant.

I also think that people here are equating the concept of "gameplay" with "fun", and I'm not even making an argument about what's fun or not. Not only is that the most subjective concept ever, I'm not even qualified to offer an opinion in that department simply because of this: a few years ago I managed to not only finish Super Pitfall (google it, AVGN and countless others have discussed it) with its horrible controls, buggy programming, terrible graphics, ear-grating music, etc etc but I finished the second quest that came after it (a la Zelda 1.) And I enjoyed doing it.

[Mitchi]

What's sad is a lot of people will claim I'm not a "real gamer" for this, but yes, Graphics are pretty damn important. But I look at the game for the whole package (looks, sounds, when it was made (ie not expecting super smooth 3d from a ps1), colors, gameplay). Neither are more important to me than the other, because if the game is good enough, I stop caring about the graphics (which goes for if it's a pretty game too, with some exceptions. *coughMystcough*

Originally Posted by Ethane

Try making Katamari Damacy work on a legacy console.

No one plays Katamari for it's graphics. I love Katamari, and I'm one of those people that WILL admit to graphics being a big part of a game I play (I refuse to touch FF7 because it hurts my eyes), but GD Katamari has some pretty bad graphics to be honest. You can't have really high rest stuff though, not with how many little individual objects there are on the screen. Ever notice how your gameplay slows down a ton right before it does the mini cutscene where it zooms out?

Hell, for the latest installment, some people actually complained about the improved and sleeker looked graphics (the one on the PS3, Katamari Forever).


Now, not to knock your argument, but I'm gonna list a few observations:

For a while (I don't know about now, I haven't checked), Target sold an "Atari" console that was preloaded with a shit ton of classic Atari games. So the Atari not being in stores thing (even the whole "not being produced" thing) isn't entirely valid (though it mostly is).

"Classic" games are always being remade. Look at the huge pile of compilations that came out: Megaman, Sonic, Megaman X, Namco Museum, Final Fantasy, etc. The handhelds have gotten their share of "classic game" re-releases too (Chrono trigger (Which has been re released twice now. Once on PS1 and again on DS), Rhapsody, Disgaea, etc.)

I'm not 100% sure on this (haven't fact checked it or anything, once again, this is observation) but some of the most popular (admittedly, they're japanese so in the US it's diehards and weaboos) RPGs in the gaming market are made by Companies like Nippon Icchi, who generally employ the use of sprites. In the eyes of most people (non gamers, mind you), Sprites are seen as inferior to a rendered 3d model.

"Good" graphics is still subjective. I know a lot of people who want it as real as it can get (Newer final fantasy), people who will take shoddy 3d Character models over good sprites, and people who would die for more Cell Shading. I'm in the rare group that favors sprites, so I don't expect most games to cater graphically to my particular preference.


For the record, my favorite game I've played is probably the game that's THE most reliant on Great graphics, MYST.

[Godbot3000]

Originally Posted by Ethane

Try making Katamari Damacy work on a legacy console. How about EA's sports lineup? It'd be unfair to say that the gameplay hasn't changed since Madden first arrived, but it's still based on the same basic principles that made the original on the Genesis so easy to pick up and play. That's not the big part of it, though, people want to experience the thrill of a big-time game that they're in control of with a filled stadium of screaming fans and they like it to look realistic as possible. If you try to give someone an 8 or 16-bit version with the exact same gameplay elements and they're just going to look at you funny.

How about taking Silent Hill 2 back a few generations? Would it still have the same atmosphere and impact? I guess it would, if you were only playing to enjoy just uhm... how well it plays. Or something.

This is from the average consumer's point of view, not the "gamer". "Gamers" make a very, very small part of the actual market. Also, I'll say this again - a game plays like garbage or it doesn't. That's never changed. Technology has changed, how we've played a game has changed, but a game that plays horribly is still a bad game.

This all started with the statement of "it's not about the graphics, it's about the gameplay." I decided to step back and look at that comment objectively, and the way the money changes hand and the industry moves, that's not true. It may be something that people will hold onto here, because this is a gaming forum, but in the big picture it really is irrelevant.

I also think that people here are equating the concept of "gameplay" with "fun", and I'm not even making an argument about what's fun or not. Not only is that the most subjective concept ever, I'm not even qualified to offer an opinion in that department simply because of this: a few years ago I managed to not only finish Super Pitfall (google it, AVGN and countless others have discussed it) with its horrible controls, buggy programming, terrible graphics, ear-grating music, etc etc but I finished the second quest that came after it (a la Zelda 1.) And I enjoyed doing it.

...I apologize but I can no longer comprehend what exactly you are arguing for. However, I can see that you have missed my point entirely. And so I am forced to repeat myself:

Originally Posted by Godbot3000

U(g,p) = g^(x)p(1-x)+c
Where g represents the graphical quality of a game, converted to some scaled, quasi-arbitrary number, p represents the gameplay quality of a game similarly converted, and c represents any other factors that might be of interest, similarly converted.

Question would be, what quantity would x be for you, and what would this equation represent?

...And better yet, how is it relevant to the topic at hand? (Perhaps I should not leave so much to the interpretation of the audience)

But if I'm reading you correctly and that you're argument is that the general public of people who play games care more for graphics than gameplay, what would you say to the fact that said public more commonly plays flash games, which offer only a pittance of graphical splendor, as opposed to say Halo 3.

[Ethane]

Originally Posted by Mitchi

No one plays Katamari for it's graphics. I love Katamari, and I'm one of those people that WILL admit to graphics being a big part of a game I play

That wasn't my point, though. I'm trying to get you to imagine what trying to pull that same game off on legacy hardware would be like, which is damn near impossible. Same goes with the Madden and Silent Hill examples.

For a while (I don't know about now, I haven't checked), Target sold an "Atari" console that was preloaded with a shit ton of classic Atari games. So the Atari not being in stores thing (even the whole "not being produced" thing) isn't entirely valid (though it mostly is).

"Classic" games are always being remade. Look at the huge pile of compilations that came out: Megaman, Sonic, Megaman X, Namco Museum, Final Fantasy, etc. The handhelds have gotten their share of "classic game" re-releases too (Chrono trigger (Which has been re released twice now. Once on PS1 and again on DS), Rhapsody, Disgaea, etc.)

Those cute little classic console versions are marketed for nostalgia and niche purposes, though. Disgaea and Rhapsody are both very fun games and I'll admit one of my biggest reasons for wanting a PS3 is to play the third game. Which I'm going to have to special order, because no store in this area stocks it. Because it's not in high demand. However, if I wanted to get my Madden or Halo or Mass Effect on, I won't have to look far - see where I'm going with this?

[Zamte]

The problem though is the viewpoint, I think. You're looking at it from the company's perspective. Generally businesspeople, even the ones in gaming companies, know little, and care even less, about gaming. The CEO of Blizzard has been quoted as saying he'd like to remove all the fun from the games he makes, and just make them glorified tech demos. They only care about money, and if they thought games about pizza would sell best, then every game would be about pizza. We know that "upgraded hardware = shinier graphics" is an easy concept for them to grasp.

However, the statement you're talking about is made by the gamer, not the company. It's obvious by the ratio of good to bad games that most companies that make the games wouldn't know a good game if it hit them in the face. However, in the end, the gamer who does or does not buy the game is buying it for entirely different reasons than the person who made it or the person who decided if it would be on the shelf or not.

For some gamers, particularly the newer gamers who only jumped into gaming with the Xbox or PS2, or even the PS3 or 360, graphics are important, because they've always been "good". However for those of us who grew up on the NES, SNES, Genesis, and so on and so forth, we used to be perfectly content with terrible graphics that had nothing even close to realistic images, and usually didn't look anything like what they were meant to be. We didn't care though because we enjoyed the game for being a game. The reality is that if I want pretty images that look like reality, I'd go out in reality, or at least put in a DVD. I play a game for the gameplay, and if it's just a fancy tech demo then there's no reason to pick the game console over the blu-ray player. Games will continue to look better, and I have no qualms with that so long as the game is good. I will play a good game with bad graphics but not a bad game with good graphics.

In the end, as I said before, it's not a fair comparison to compare the 360 to the atari. Compare the 360 to the PS3 to the Wii, or even the PS3 to the PS2. A lot of games made now for the PS3 are also on the PS2. That right there proves it's not all about the graphics. People will still enjoy the game on the PS2, with it's lower graphical capacity, and the fact that they go to the trouble to make a PS2 version just proves this is true. Furthermore plenty of games that are made for the PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii, sell better on the Wii than the other consoles, due to adjustments which make the game more fun. As I also said previously, I'd take "The Force Unleashed" on the Wii any day over the PS3 or Xbox 360 versions. The later have better physics, but they try too hard to take advantage of them, and have far too many objects with a half-assed targeting system which makes it near impossible to grab what you want. Aside from that, which basically negates itself under the heading of "Good intention, bad implementation", all it has are the graphics. I could just play the Wii version, enjoy the motion controls which are one of the few decent ones shoved into a Wii port, and be happy to be able to select what I want 90% of the time instead of 20%, so I can actually use those force powers with some semblance of tactics.

[xFu]

Well. I'd like to give some input here. I do acknowledge that there are people do play games because of the gorgeous graphics that come along with it. Please don't attack me if I've already said something that someone else said.

However, I see that you are telling me that "Graphics" is what sells games and not "Gameplay". Personally, I would like to interpret "Gameplay" in a different way: Perhaps when many people say Gameplay>Graphics, they mean how much fun they have when playing the game and not how much a critic might have when they play the game.

Some points:
1.) For instance (let's use your example), several of my friends loved Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. In fact, the first time I've heard anyone saying (quoting an unnamed and unlinked critic site in this case) that the controls were bad.

Example Scenario: If Adam tells Bob that this game is good, then Bob might be willing to buy it. Even if Bob reads a critique and gets discouraged, Adam owns the game so Bob could go over to Adam's house and play the game to see if he likes it (or perhaps rent it from a store). If he likes it, he might go buy a copy of the game himself. To Adam and Bob (if Bob has fun playing the game), the gameplay is good. If Bob likes the game, he probably will probably disagree with the statements that critics have to say about it. To him, the gameplay is good. Perhaps Bob has a friend named Dean. Bob tells Dean that Adam has introduced Star Wars: TFU to him and it is a fun game. In due time, Dean goes over to Bob's house and tries the game. It turns out, Dean does not have fun while playing the game. The end result is that Dean does not buy the game and prefers to avoid playing the game. To Dean, the gameplay is bad.

In this case, whether the gameplay is good or not depends on the individual player and is what determines if someone buys it. The experience is what counts and Derek just doesn't buy it.

2.) Example number two. Some people refuse to play games that have graphics under a standard (unique to the individual). They love the terrific graphics of the xbox360 and or ps3 and elect only to buy the games that look good.

Example Scenario: Let's say that Derek is this type of person. One day, Adam walks up to Derek and tells him about Star Wars: TFU. Derek has heard that Adam loves the game and is telling everyone about it. However, Derek has read critiques, but thinks Star Wars: TFU's graphics are terrible (this is Derek's opinion). Adam asks Derek if he wants to try it out but Derek declines, saying "The game looks terrible" and or "The game hurts my eyes if I look at it too long" (Touhou anyone?). End result? Derek never goes over to Adam's to try out the game. He never buys the game and in the end, he never plays the game.

In the end, "gameplay" is non-existant for Derek. He does not care whether or not a game is fun. In fact, if the graphics are not up to his standard, he won't even touch the game. There is no gameplay<graphics || gameplay>graphics. There is only graphics.

3.) Alternate Universe: Let's say Derek suffers to peer pressure a lot. Not only has Adam told Dean about all the wonders of Star Wars: TFU, but Bob tells Derek that he is really missing out. Derek gives in and agrees to try the game.

Now then, three things can happen, but most likely, Derek will go into the game with a biased mind (the "graphics are so poor").

A.) He actually enjoys the game. Despite the negative perspective on the graphics he had going into the game, he ends up having fun playing the game. He even buys the game shortly after.
Comments: In this situation, the graphics ended up not affecting how much he enjoyed the game. To Derek, the gameplay is good and Gameplay>Graphics.

B.) He does not enjoy the game. Despite the negative perspective on the graphics, he was willing to try the game in case it turned out to be quite fun. Unfortunately, he found the controls to be terrible and non-responsive (his opinion). To Derek, the gameplay is bad. However, the gameplay is not bad because the graphics were bad. He simply did not have fun because of a lot of control problems. It is impossible to make a Graphics<>Gamplay comparison here.

C.) He dislikes the game. He tried the game but because of the poor graphics, he doesn't have fun.

Analysis: In this case, there was something obstructing Derek from even experiencing or worrying about how the game itself plays: the graphics. He did not have fun playing the game because the visuals did not match up to his standards. Instead of saying : "To Derek, the gameplay is bad," it is correct to say "To Derek, the gameplay is bad because the graphics are bad."

Derek did not have fun playing the game. Why? Because the graphics were bad. In this case, you still cannot compare the game's graphics to its gameplay. To Derek, they are both bad. In fact, gameplay is immediately bad because the graphics are bad.

Comment: I see no reason why we cannot continue to claim that it's about the "gameplay" and not the "graphics". It is our experience that we are talking about here. However, forcing this belief onto others, is not the way to go.

Statement that I acknowledge to hold truth: Graphics have always been ONE of the single defining points that seperates every console generation. Control system is the other (equates to part of the reason why Wii's are successful).

Evidence:
1.) Why the Nintendo Wii is so Successful

2.) Five Lessons from the Success of the Nintendo Wii - Darren Krape

3.) Nintendo Wii Console reviews - CNET Reviews

Implied statement that I do not acknowledge to hold truth: World of Warcraft made its millions from its stunning use of graphics. No. Simply put, there are more World of Warcraft players than MMORPG's with better graphics. I believe that most of the people that play World of Warcraft (WoW) do it because they have fun in the game (to them, gameplay is good). Another large portion of the people who play WoW do it because of the gameplay.

Evidence:
1.) Why should I play WoW - Yahoo! Answers

2.) World of Warcraft (PC) PC Game reviews - CNET Reviews

3.) World of Warcraft (PC) user ratings and PC Game user reviews and reviews - CNET Reviews



Additional comment: Unfortunately, it saddens me to see such a possibility happen. To use a similar analogy to the thread starter: "The song is immediately bad, because musician is not good at his instrument."

Unfortunately (I could probably cry about this forever), the previous statement seems obvious, but there are many important instances where the statement just is not true.

For instance, Kenny G is a Grammy winning American saxophonist (Kenny G - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). That instantly means one might imply that Kenny G is an amazing and talented saxophonist. Unfortunately, I have actually visited three musical institutions where the Saxophonist professors and the students make joke about Kenny G in a negative light. In fact, even some fellow musicians don't think that Kenny G is a jazz musician at all (in terms of music theory).

Pat Metheny - (Pat Metheny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
One of the most successful and critically acclaimed jazz musicians to come to prominence.
Pat's take on Kenny G - (Pat Metheny Explains Why Kenny G Sucks - Jazz Link Found on Fanpop).

BACK on topic.

To quote the thread starter (Ethane) : " Likewise, you'll never hear "it's not how good the song actually is, but how well the musicians play their instruments" by a Beyonce fan at the Grammys.
Then why, pray tell, do people even mutter "it's not about the graphics, it's about the gameplay"?

Instant answer: Actually, you WILL hear it quite often (because it exists...and quite often at that). Additionally, that is WHY people even mutter "it's not about the graphics, it's about the "gameplay."

Apology: I cannot use evidence refute the claim of cars and Indianapolis simply because I do not possess much knowledge about it and would prefer not to spend time learning about it in order to use it here.

Quoting another aspect of the thread starter (Ethane)'s post:
"For those of you who still disagree with every point I brought up, be it common sense or historical, I can only imagine that your idea of heaven is a shovel and a plane ticket to Alamogordo. Have fun while racing that beam, partner!"

There is no need to be so condescending towards your fellow ggftwers. Your argument is not close to being flawless and I'm not poking my fingers at small, minute details. Additionally, some people may take it quite offensively.