Phantasy Star: Fringes of Algo

Y'know, something that keeps coming up (especially with all the new consoles coming out with enhanced graphics and such) is how all the newer games are supposedly better than older ones, mostly because of the powerful engines that can handle the said graphics and other things.

Now, this obviously isn't true, but it's something to consider when it comes to what people look for in games. While some may like a visually pleasing game, others may want something with a solid, compelling story that'll really interest them as it unfolds. Heck, I'm sure there's people who just want a good, balanced game.

That said, which do you prefer? A game that looks nice, or a game that has a gripping story behind it?

Also, while I'm on this topic... If a game is remade cosmetically, basically improving the old graphics, then would that make a game any better?

Story... for me it's all about the story. Gameplay just makes it better.

I couldn't care less for the story unless its just plain nonsense, the graphics are my type of thing, into realism in video games, and the gameplay is another big thing, I'm not gonna have a game where they change the controls for every different person or have powers that make no sense at all. XD

A bit of all three for me. Gameplay is the major factor - if the game isn't fun to play, then I won't touch it. Story and graphics are great icing on the cake, but I've enjoyed games that didn't excel in either department. The most beautifully designed game on earth would be terrible if it had bad gameplay.

Story can be an important factor in a game like an RPG, but it isn't necessary for a bad game. There's little worse than a game that has a story, but it turns out to be a bad story. Story is a case of something worth being done well or not at all.

Graphics... well, it depends on the game. If it's horrid to look at, then the gameplay won't even be tried. Something like Tetris only needs basic graphics, but an RPG has to have recognizable landscapes and so on.

Also, while I'm on this topic... If a game is remade cosmetically, basically improving the old graphics, then would that make a game any better?

If nothing is changed other than the graphics, I would say usually not. If the old graphics were exceptionally terrible, then new graphics might make a better game. For example, I wouldn't say Generation 1 is a better game than the original Phantasy Star just because it had improved graphics. Someone who is used to 3D graphics and has never played a 2D game might disagree, though.

I want a good story. I wish games would get to the point where they can have stories that are as entertaining as a good movie or novel. Gameplay is important, but not as much as the story. Without compelling characters, I don't care about moving cursors around the screen. Nice graphics are okay, sometimes helpful as a storytelling aid, but story is where it is really at.

I would say to the improving of graphics to improve the game, that it would only help by half a percent. Just enough to turn that B grade into an A. or something similar of course, but it a good quality game, it won't do anything.

When it comes to games, graphics aren't that important. I think that, despite my choice in the poll (a bit of each) gameplay is the biggest factor. I've played mindless games with poor stories (Star Ocean, is one of them, though the story isn't that bad) over and over again purely because the gameplay was addicting.

Tetris is a good example. No story behind it whatsoever, and all you have are the colorful shapes and you place the pieces accordingly as they fall. It's a fun game, though I always get bored after awhile.

I voted gameplay. That is about the only thing that can break a game for me. It can have the best story in the world, incredible graphics, but if the gameplay is off, I don't want to play it. On the other side, the story can be horrible, the graphics can be bad (as long as they aren't horrible to look at), but if the gameplay is fun, I'll play it. I love utterly mindless games with horrible stories as long as playing it is fun; nothing is as therapeutic as Rampage: Total Destruction after a hard day of classes. That's general, though. For an RPG, I want a good story and good gameplay.

I don't think updated graphics necessarily make a game better. Then again, I often find that between the original and new adaptations or remakes, I prefer the original. I find this with the Sonic games and Spyro the Dragon games (and others). I prefer the Genesis games and the Insomniac trilogy, respectively, over the new stuff.

I went for Other, because I didn't think Humour would fit under Storyline.

I'm sorry, but this is why I'm still enjoying Ratchet and Clank: It's funny.

Ok, opinion time.

Graphics: You're not going to convince me that a game is "life-like". That's currently impossile with our technology. So shut up about it. However, I think that a nice looking game could save it from being in the Bargain Bin.

That being said...I want to see a new 2-D game, damnit!

Storyline: If they can write one that's deep, makes sense, and doesn't put me to sleep, then I'm sold. Untill then, I'll stick with my Unreal games and their somewhat lack of storyline. XD

Gameplay: And this is where I cram in my "Wii is a gimmick joke". Because so far, aside from Nintendo's contributions to the system, it's a gimmick, crammed full of mini-games and whatnot. That is not how you do proper, longlasting Gameplay.

Different, yes. Innovative, yes. But look at Gears of War. Look at how hard it was for a Halo player to adjust. (Not me, honestly. I tended to hide behind crap in Halo 2. XP) Look at it's different structure. That's working Gameplay.

I voted for a bit of each. I think they all can work together to make a game fun, interesting, and worth playing. The opposite is true too in that if they don't have some of each, then a game can be a total bore in my opinion.