I wish people would stop saying this because you know good and well that you wouldn't play Quake if it was butt ugly.

I wish people would stop saying that because it's largely irrelevant.

You are perfectly right - there's a certain minimum standard (different for everyone, of course) that a game will need to be at in terms of graphics/sound/etc for people to play it at all. But in order to continue playing (or re-playing) a game, the gameplay has to be pretty solid or you'll pass on it.

Don't get me wrong, Doom 3 is obviously a quality game and I played it through to the end (which in itself is a remarkable thing these days). However, I wanted to see it through to the end despite the gameplay flaws, rather than because it was truly fun. The art and atmosphere (when it wasn't being spoiled by shitty monster-spawning-behind-you tactics) was exceptional and made me want to see more.

Ok, the gameplay was mediocre rather than actively bad for the most part, but the problem is it was Doom motherfucking 3! Expectations for the gameplay were so high because Doom was (and still is) the best single-player FPS of all time, and Doom 3 failed to deliver (falling drastically short of the mark). Simple as that.

p.s. you know full well that Quake is butt-ugly by modern standards, but we continue playing it because the fun factor is high. :D 

"p.s. you know full well that Quake is butt-ugly by modern standards, but we continue playing it because the fun factor is high. :D"

For me, that's incorrect. I really like how Quake looks. It exudes a personality that few games are able to match. The graphics are a LARGE part of the Quake experience for me.

And nothing you said refutes what I said. Gameplay is clearly NOT the only thing that matters. 

I can't refute what I agree with. You're right. Gameplay is not the only thing that matters.

It is however, as I said originally, the only thing that really matters. 

*pokes Fribbles with a sharp stick* 

Obviously a rift in our opinions here lads!

I personally think that Doom3 is an excellent game! I quite like the gameplay. The areas which are supposed to be "lame" in gameplay I dont think are too bad. I like the way the player is made to feel restricted in movement, and I like the fact that you cannt have a flashlight and a gun at the same time. It adds to the tension.
I also love the deserted feel to the game. The exploratory bits are cool!

The graphics were mind-blowing at the time!!

I still play it. Nitin has re-played it. Some of us have mapped for it. We argue about it all the time!

Fribbles is allowed to complain about it. Its his job!

Gaming companys: Increase your output! I wouldn't mind paying an extra 10 pounds for a game if there were more games to play and the games were bigger. MORE RELEASES!!! CREATE AN ARMY OF STAFF TO MAKE MORE GAMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

"I can't refute what I agree with. You're right. Gameplay is not the only thing that matters.

It is however, as I said originally, the only thing that really matters."

You're still saying that gameplay is the only thing that matters - you're just doing it with many more words. The meaning is the same. And you're wrong. 

Try an experiment - play a game of Quake in "r_drawflat 1" (or whatever that mode was called). Still fun? No? Surprise! 

everybody plays mp in as shitty graphics as possible to see better. 

I know. The fact that a small niche community downgrades the graphics to mud doesn't mean that the "gameplay is the only thing that really matters" mantra is universally true. 

Or, I could counter by saying that when I and my friends play multiplayer games we play in the highest settings our machines can manage. Point negated. 

in a game, all features count. IMHO visual / ambiance is at least as important as gameplay. In Doom3, I was not deceived at all by the gameplay, as I remind how it was difficult to finish some level in Doom already, having to play in the safest possible way, saving after each kill, each corner.
Doom3 is in the direct Doom style, with more tense, more scariness, more fear... How would you react if you were the player in reality ? Would you jump into the melee or would you try to save your life at any price ? Would you run through corridors, or would you progress slowly in order to avoid bad surprises ?
Well, each player has his own point of view, but definitively for me: Doom3 was a success, and I love this game...

... I want to see Doom4 now !! 

i want doom2 again with more grafics!!!

fuck Doom4 :p 

Don't be mean :P 

I would have to say that if its done properly, the graphics/sound enters into the gameplay realm to make even mundane activities fun.

Take Stalker for example, a lot of the factory areas were empty of enemies, yet it was fantastic to just walk through them and explore because the atmosphere was so thick, the gameplay was basicly walking along and not fighting at all, but it was just as fun and involving as a shoot-out.

So my opinion is that graphics/sound is very much part of the gameplay and really matters... ;) 

the only game that u loved also was Painkiller the only problem that Painkiller have is no, exploracion or puzzle is just kill kill kill :\ but the guns and the monsters are fucking cool!!! 

... each player just found what he likes where others just see crapiness... How do you want to please everybody ? It is impossible ! 

Shame of Doom3 was that the leaked alpha had more gameplay than the game itself.

Hopefully in Doom4 the design team won't run out of time for level design and just leave it to the artists. 

yes, you right JPL i was joking :p 

Try an experiment - play a game of Quake in "r_drawflat 1" (or whatever that mode was called). Still fun? No? Surprise!

Yes, absolutely. It should be noted though that I love Quake DM and I play it almost purely for the fun factor rather than anything else.

I probably wouldn't want to play SP with those settings, because I don't find Quake SP anywhere near as fun gameplay wise as DM, so I'd want a little extra incentive ;)

You're still saying that gameplay is the only thing that matters - you're just doing it with many more words. The meaning is the same. And you're wrong.

Look, you understand what I'm saying, you just don't agree with me. I understand what you're saying, and I don't really agree with you. A difference of opinion on an internet forum? Surely not!

We can agree to disagree, but without any offence intended I would say it's fairly ignorant to try to suggest that your opinion is the only one that matters, and that everyone else is just plain wrong. 

The fact that a small niche community downgrades the graphics to mud doesn't mean that the "gameplay is the only thing that really matters" mantra is universally true.

No, but it certainly is indicative of the fact that for some people, the focus lies much more heavily on gameplay than the graphics.

Or, I could counter by saying that when I and my friends play multiplayer games we play in the highest settings our machines can manage. Point negated.

For you maybe. In multiplayer games I'll always prioritise framerate over visuals because it will allow me to experience more fluid gameplay. I might try the higher settings on the first run, but if the game is worth repeat plays then I'll quite likely turn the settings down for more FPS or (in some cases) better visibility (of other players in a DM situation, for instance). 

 

Where are the bees !!!??? 

r_drawflat 1 is not a downgrade. It's a useful feature. Similarly, I don't play chess with pieces painted like characters from the Lion King or The Simpsons. It's too distracting. 

When I "play" UT3 I don't even notice the detail. It's all a blur to me anyway. It's too cluttered, there's too much stuff, not very unified. I tend to get the "big picture" but that's about it.

Of course, I don't play UT3, cuz the game sucks, so all I do with it is go around and look at the detail. I basically got it as a benchmark to test my system.

Having said that, yes, ultimately a game boils down to one thing and one thing only: GAME PLAY. Yes, game play. Super detailed ultra advanced graphics are nice, but are not required for a good game. Period. 

Similarly, I don't play chess with pieces painted like characters from the Lion King or The Simpsons.

Personally I play chess with my brain, regardless of which set I use.

Of course, there may be an essential flaw in comparing a fast paced action game where you should people with rockets and rely on reactions to an ancient game of strategy and thought.


Also, I like the attempt to resurrect the UT3 is good/bad debate, but unfortunately When I "play" UT3 I don't even notice the detail. It's all a blur to me anyway. It's too cluttered, there's too much stuff, not very unified. I tend to get the "big picture" but that's about it seems like a complaint that could also be levelled at life. While I agree that the ability to simplify life to make it easier to deal with would be useful, it would somewhat remove the challenge.