Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Poll [32 votes]: Gameplay or graphics which one would you like to be prioritized
  • Poll [32 votes]: Gameplay or graphics which one would you like to be prioritized
Subject: Gameplay or graphics which one would you like to be prioritized

Moderator Notice: This user has been blacklisted from this forum. Until the user is removed from the blacklist, all posts this user has made have been hidden, and all topics created by this user have been censored.
  • 11.20.2009 5:40 PM PDT

I wish I was still legendary.

Gameplay.

BTW, both your choices are actually graphics related, neither is actually 'gameplay' oriented.

[Edited on 11.20.2009 5:44 PM PST]

  • 11.20.2009 5:43 PM PDT
  • gamertag: dafin0
  • user homepage:

Jesus loves you, but everyone else thinks you're a twat.

Posted by: RELLIK PIR
One allows the game to be a game


um... what?

P.S
most games are not 60FPS but locked at 30FPS
and for the most part you cant tell the differences in the FPS unless the FPS jumps all around the place (from 25FPS to 35 ect)

[Edited on 11.20.2009 5:59 PM PST]

  • 11.20.2009 5:57 PM PDT

Also known as Entropy91
Black Water Ops representative.
See you on the battlefield.

Both of the options presented are graphics oriented. I'd like to see all of the problems Halo 3 had on the gameplay side of things fixed before any polish is added. You can polish a turd, but it's still a turd.

  • 11.20.2009 6:02 PM PDT

Personaly I said who cares about graphic ?

I mean the graphic are just extra after a great gameplay has been created...

Priority to gameplay !

Graphics come after as an extra...

  • 11.20.2009 8:28 PM PDT

I wish I was still legendary.

Posted by: RELLIK PIR
You could just say Halo 3. Instead of saying in vague terms. And the only other big game on the market COD is 60FPS and everyone I talk to says it looks so much smoother.


Your eyes can't actually distinguish the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. The only advantage is that Framerate drops are usually less obvious, but it's STILL a graphics problem.

  • 11.20.2009 8:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

No.

If the FPS is over 25, then I'm good.

If the graphics have beautiful lighting, but blew all their load on that so they don't have ragdoll physics and the partical effects suck (MW2.... Then no.

  • 11.20.2009 8:33 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey
A real test of a man is if he is willing to scrape a sharpened razor up and down his junk just to please a woman.

I could care less about graphics honestly.

  • 11.20.2009 8:42 PM PDT

I never had a problem with Halo at 30 fps before. Only time I suffered bad framerate drops were for Halo 1 on some big areas. Halo 2's backwash 4 player split-screen and system link on a 50 inch television. I only had one instance of framerate problems on Halo 3 and that was during the double scarab fight. That quickly went away though.

  • 11.20.2009 8:45 PM PDT

What kind of idiot would pick graphics over gameplay?

  • 11.20.2009 9:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Have you ever seen a game called Killzone 2?
It was a response from Sony to Halo.
That game runs @ 30fps and it looks fine, you cant tell its not 60 fps, and its absolutely gorgeous.
Its second only to Crysis maybe uncharted is better.
Its the most technically advanced shooting game ever made. FOR NOW.
I hope Halo:Reach kills it, then tea bags it no-stop and i hoep it does the same to MW2 (as good of a games they both are and i like both i still want HAlO: Reach to absolutely ravage them up the but)

  • 11.20.2009 9:42 PM PDT

I'm sorry, but is this a serious question?

Only 12 year old graphics whores would pick graphics over gameplay, there is so much more to a game than just looking pretty.

  • 11.20.2009 9:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag: dafin0
  • user homepage:

Jesus loves you, but everyone else thinks you're a twat.

Posted by: Taldarin the AI
I'm sorry, but is this a serious question?

Only 12 year old graphics whores would pick graphics over gameplay, there is so much more to a game than just looking pretty.


i must say that i am a graphics whore, not just because i like pretty pictures but im into the technical side of this, i love seeing new types of rendering techniques and seeing how designers have found ways to make different things happen

p.s im not 12 but 20, and with all that said i still dont buy games just because they are pretty, but i am just really interested in graphical design

[Edited on 11.20.2009 11:56 PM PST]

  • 11.20.2009 11:55 PM PDT

I wish I was still legendary.

Posted by: dafin02
Posted by: Taldarin the AI
I'm sorry, but is this a serious question?

Only 12 year old graphics whores would pick graphics over gameplay, there is so much more to a game than just looking pretty.


i must say that i am a graphics whore, not just because i like pretty pictures but im into the technical side of this, i love seeing new types of rendering techniques and seeing how designers have found ways to make different things happen

p.s im not 12 but 20, and with all that said i still dont buy games just because they are pretty, but i am just really interested in graphical design


As am I, except I'm interested in the modelling and texturing more than the lighting or animations. That said, none of that would be important if the game played badly, because no amount of shininess and high detailed stuff can make up for badly made gameplay.

Have good gameplay, THEN focus on the graphics. Otherwise (and I'm sorry to bring this up, but it's true) you end up with MW2's campaign - It LOOKS really good, but the replay value is very little and the enemies always do the same things.

[Edited on 11.21.2009 12:16 AM PST]

  • 11.21.2009 12:11 AM PDT
  • gamertag: dafin0
  • user homepage:

Jesus loves you, but everyone else thinks you're a twat.

Posted by: llamalizard
Posted by: dafin02
Posted by: Taldarin the AI
I'm sorry, but is this a serious question?

Only 12 year old graphics whores would pick graphics over gameplay, there is so much more to a game than just looking pretty.


i must say that i am a graphics whore, not just because i like pretty pictures but im into the technical side of this, i love seeing new types of rendering techniques and seeing how designers have found ways to make different things happen

p.s im not 12 but 20, and with all that said i still dont buy games just because they are pretty, but i am just really interested in graphical design


As am I, except I'm interested in the modelling and texturing more than the lighting or animations. That said, none of that would be important if the game played badly, because no amount of shininess and high detailed stuff can make up for badly made gameplay.

Have good gameplay, THEN focus on the graphics. Otherwise (and I'm sorry to bring this up, but it's true) you end up with MW2's campaign - It LOOKS really good, but the replay value is very little and the enemies always do the same things.

i think its pretty safe to say that wont happen in halo reach, the COD games have always been really scripted, that works very well for the first time you play it because lots of cool stuff can happen but yeah reply value is really hit hard. halo has always been about walking into a encounter space that is pretty unscripted and the AI is free to move around anywhere in that space, this can be harder to make fun but the reply is a lot higher because it can play out different each time.

yeah i know this kinda went off topic a bit :)

  • 11.21.2009 12:21 AM PDT

In the days of old, there were legends of a land long lost to time. This land was known as Ranna'Mor. Ranna'Mor was said to contain in its borders 7 warriors. These warriors had once unleashed a veritable hell upon the ancient world, until they were locked away. My name is Toriad, and I am one of those warriors. Our return is approaching. Do not run away, do not cower in fear; take solace in your final days, for that is all we can do. -Legend of Ranna'Mor

I would rather they focus on gameplay, because that is the selling point of games. Is it fun to play? People still play classic arcade games am games from the 90s (i.e. half life 1, marathon, final fantasy VII) because they are really fun to play. Graphics should be good, but not the focus.

  • 11.21.2009 12:29 AM PDT

Posted by: RELLIK PIR
Campaign is never played much so it might as well look really good when you do and it gives the artists something to do.


Haha. Sorry but that's a pretty crap way to open up don't you think?

As for your question, it really depends. I'd take 60 fps over 30 fps with a slight graphical improvement but if the graphical improvement is significant then I'd take the improvement with a slower fps.

Gameplay is the most important thing and anything to improve the gameplay (including a better frame rate) is good but if the graphical improvement is more beneficial to players than the increased frame rate then the choice is obvious.

  • 11.21.2009 12:54 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Check out my group if you love talking about music.
The Haven for Music
Another good groupNew Mombasa

If the gameplay is broken then what the hell do good graphics do for you.

I don't want to run around in a game that looks incredible but plays like -blam!-.

  • 11.21.2009 1:20 AM PDT

ClintBeastWoodx

I say, Why cant it be both???

  • 11.21.2009 1:55 AM PDT