How much do graphics matter to you?

[PokÉmblem]

Pick 1-10.

Me personally I say 3 since I expect good graphics but not to a huge degree. Some NES games I can't get into mostly because of difficulty and some of the graphics. I don't really like gamers who put graphics as #1 priority though, really over gameplay?

 

[Cyn]

Some of the most fun games to this day for me are oldies. Their outdated graphics hold no importance to me. It's the experience that counts.

3

 

[finalark]

As long as I can tell what's on screen it doesn't really matter.

Of course, I expect newer games to have better graphics but I won't be turned off by an old game just because it's graphics aren't comparatively good.

That being said, one of the most surprisingly addicting games I've ever played was a little gem on the Atari called Yars Revenge. So yeah, I don't think I really care about graphics.

 

[DragonBlade64]

Honestly, I care more about artistic direction than graphical power, which may not seem like a big difference, but some of the prettiest looking games I've played are some of the least realistic out there. That being said, graphics don't really make a big difference to me as long as the game is fun.

I don't really like gamers who put graphics as #1 priority though, really over gameplay?

This is the main problem I have with a lot of gamers nowadays. They won't care how bad a game really is, as long as it looks realistic, they'll buy it

 

[Spak]

Honestly, I'd rather play a good game and has graphics like a DOS game than a game that has horrible gameplay but the graphics are really good. That said, good graphics are nice to have. I'll give it a 2.

A good framerate is important to me, though. I noticed that my sister was playing Harvest Moon: Animal Parade the other day and she was commenting on how much prettier the graphics are in that game compared to Tree of Tranquility. I agreed with her until we got to the town, where the framerate dropped to about 18-ish. She reacted like it was nothing, but I was disgusted by the lack of optimization in their Draw function. The slightly worse graphics and no framerate problems made ToT a MUCH more pleasurable experience than AP's slightly worse graphics and framerate drops. I consider any console game that dips below 24 (unless on a loading screen) on more than a rare occasion unfinished, unoptimized, and unfit for release.

 

[finalark]

I never really cared that much about frame rate. As long as it doesn't make the game unplayable or if it's not jarring as all hell then I'm fine with it.

Then again, I used to play WoW at 2FPS no problem and I can't tell the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS, so what do I know?

 

[aldelaro5]

To me,....it matters.....to a certain point.

Like, graphics should be an integral part of the design, not jsut something that looks good. I mean it should look good, but not the way that it ABSOLUTELY NEED to be near real, i mean it should have some consistency to it.

Like playing old games really is sometime surprising what graphics can acheive without even the intent to look real. Sometime, it can be jsut to immerses a feel to the player like earthbound with its simplicity, or wind waker with its abundance of green (I just love flash green ).

However, hd graphics is just a technology, it might sounds awesome on paper (lol), but the way it's used can go either way. If you make a game JUST to use hd graphics, I think there;s a problem in the design as it just doesn't feel there was a design purpose other than having good graphics. If you use hd graphics to actually make the design feel more present according to its goal, that's good.

For me, it;s like music, you don;t need ultra precise and complex sounds, but if it helps to express the feel the composer wants, then it;s fine.

In fact, I actually pay more attention to sounds than graphics, but to me, it;s a technology, it's awesome.....if used right when needed

 

[Spak]

Also, because of the diminishing returns of polygons, graphics probably won't e a leading factor in games anymore and a certain level of poliginal rendering will just be assumed. This picture pretty much summarizes the poliginal diminishing return; your eyes can only perceive a certain level of detail, and multiplying the amount of triangles X10 again won't make nearly as much of a difference as there was between the 60 triangles and the 600 triangles.

Basically, I'm hopeful for the future of gaming because companies will eventually have to come up with more new and inventive game ideas or they would have to go out of business. They would no longer have graphics (a criteria that doesn't effect me that much) to use as a crutch to support their game while it's suffering from poor programming or game design.

 

[Deleted member]

No, they do not. Graphics might add something to the video game in question, but in the end, it's the gameplay that matters.

 

[Mr Snakey]

Graphics matter nothing to me, what does matter is very fun local multiplayer. I have two sisters and I have fun playing fun games with them, graphically pretty or not.

 

[SlickJ]

People and especially Nintendo fans seem to be at the general consensus of "Gameplay over graphics," I'm on the "Why not both?" campaign. I want all new games to be an immersive cinematic experience, I want games to be as beautiful and as fun as they possibly can be, there shouldn't have to be a trade off and graphics shouldn't have to be sacrificed to get fun gameplay or vise versa.

Graphics matter, I like high resolutions and things that look beautiful, I want developers to push their graphics and consoles to the limit, I want to be stoked over how good a game looks while at the same time having a great time playing their game.

I personally like to play new games because I'm always excited to see how good it'll look and how fun it'll play, I have a hard time playing old games because you can just feel and see how much they've aged. There are a few PS2 classics I would make an exception for because the PS2 had so many awesome hidden gems or games that just make me nostalgic, some of them being games that wont get sequels or be remade.

Other than that I like to game on 7th and 8th gen consoles for the buzz of the new and to play some of the games I missed out on and I like to play remade games.

 

[Deleted member]

Graphics matter to me a bunch, but not so much from a hardware perspective but more so from a style perspective. I want cool looking art styles. I prefer gameplay the most, but it is nice when you can immersive yourself in a world along with the gameplay.

 

[the.tok]

Graphics matter very little to me.
Gameplay and content are much more important, otherwise handheld consoles wouldn't appeal me as much I guess

 

[AZ_Spellbound]

To me, graphics are the icing on the cake. I rather a game have a great story or mechanincs then have it basically be a polished turd.

 

[PokÉmblem]

Graphics matter to me a bunch, but not so much from a hardware perspective but more so from a style perspective. I want cool looking art styles. I prefer gameplay the most, but it is nice when you can immersive yourself in a world along with the gameplay.

Art styles mean a lot to me too. That shows a games aging more or less. Games like windwaker might not have good graphics by today's standards but an amazing art style still holds relevant. I prefer a cartoon, anime type style that focuses in on small details like shading, movement, etc.

 

[Opossum]

They matter, but they're not the most important thing. It's less so graphics in general, but more so a graphics-compared-to-time ratio, if that makes sense. Like, I won't fault an old game for having poor graphics, but at the same time, I expect SOME integrity out of newer games. Taking pride in your work, you know? Helps with the immersion.


Though I'm admittedly a stickler for music. It's gotta have good music.

 

[wingedarcher7]

A good looking game is nice to have. There should be standards when it comes to that kind of thing, but people shouldn't be able to except a bad game just because it looks nice. I'm more accepting of a game with average graphics but really fun gameplay because that's what matters more, but graphics do matter in their own way.

 

[oZzIIgk]

I think that "looking nice" and "looking realistic" are two things that often get used interchangeably but are anything but similar. There are many games that look STUNNINGLY like real life that I hate to look at, and there are many games that look far from it that are immensely interesting to me.
As an example, I have never understood the appeal of Skyrim's graphics but stand by Earthbound's as some of the best ever. The things evoked by the light colors of Onett and the strange pallet of Threed always keep my attention.
So, I do think that graphics matter quite a bit because they are a crucial part of making a game interesting. Imagine The Binding of Isaac in Ken Sugimori's art style (don't imagine Pokemon in Edmund McMillen's art style though, because that's actually cool and would work). Graphics tend to change the mood of a game, and often set a tone.
this is cluttered
TL;DR: what does it even mean for graphics to be good?-- a lot of unrealistic games look great.

 

[Substitution]

It's the same with that of music or voice acting: as a rule you want decent graphics, regardless of the art style or tone of the game. But if you don't have the gameplay to back it up, you could have the prettiest worlds and it'd still be for naught.

 

[§leepy God]

I prefer my games looking beautiful in a unique style, as long as the game play can follow it. I never liked near realistic, or the games with bad FPS but good looking graphics.

 

[oZzIIgk]

or the games with bad FPS but good looking graphics.

#consoleproblems
Seriously though Witcher III is a great example of this.

 

[ChikoLad]

Good, engaging, and immersive art direction is all I care about in terms of graphics.

Thomas Was Alone is one of the best looking and most immersive games I've ever played, and it looks like this:

Journey is also in that category, and it looks like this:

Two very different games, one uses barely any of the PS3's horsepower, the other pushes it to it's limits. But both are absolutely beautiful and completely pull me into their worlds.

 

[ReZo-nancE]

For me, it's an attraction factor. The prettier a game is to me, the higher the chance is that it'll catch my eye. As long as the game is good, I'll keep playing. So yeah, they matter on an entry level to me. (This is how I got into Okami, actually!) It's always great to be pleasantly surprised by a game that doesn't attract me with being pretty, though- like what happened with The Binding of Isaac.

Really, I care more about art direction than graphical power, though I can't help but admire the power of the Wii U and how shiny everything is. It all looks so good!

 

[Khao]

A lot.

I don't buy into the idea of separating all aspects of a game and treating one as more important than the other. A video game is the combination of all its parts. Graphics, sound, mechanics, design, and anything that applies to that specific game all builds towards the final result.

I also don't buy into the idea that good graphics = highly technical photorealism or whatever. Good graphics are well excecuted and fit the rest of the game and all its other aspects. Good graphics can be simplistic and undetailed if they go well with the rest of the game. All parts of a game have to complement eachother as best as they can.

That said, there's also certain "degrees" of how important they might be to a game, simply because different games require different things.

Pulling the above example of Journey... If you ask me, Journey wouldn't be anywhere close to being as fantastic as it is if it wasn't for how ****ing beautiful it looks. Journey is a very visual experience, so its graphics need to be the best as they can be. Jouney simply wouldn't work if it didn't look as breathtakingly good as it does. Or at least, wouldn't work as well.

Other games may require less. Or may even require more in other areas that also fall under "graphics", but not necesarily in others. For one, fighting games pretty much require perfectly excecuted animations. A poorly animated fighting game would probably not be a good game by itself. But they don't really require much effort into looking good to actually work as a game. Of course, its always a bonus, and I can't think of any popular fighting game that doesn't look good or at least decently excecuted, because yeah, they're kinda professionally made and there's standards to meet, but I think you get what I'm talking about.

 

[Thermithral]

If I am playing something like a point and click, 8-10, as that is the only real focus of those types of games, as mechanically they are as minimalistic as possible, I feel. Once we get into more interactive genres the graphics become less significant, so long as they are not Minecraft levels of disgusting and lazy, the visuals never take priority over mechanics, or in some games cases, story. I am more likely to hate a pretty game with a bad story *cough Skyrim* then a bad looking game with a good story. That being said, it is a VIDEO game, so if the visuals look nice, but impair my ability to focus on the correct things, like for example a good looking cave that also has a lot of dark areas I cant see in, I cant say I care for that.

 

[Synnett]

I usually despise good graphics, because I think they are ressources taken away from the actual gameplay. And I noticed that it's hard for me to really enjoy the game when the graphics are too overwhelming. I mean.. my favorite game of all time, Pokemon Mystery Dungeon Blue Rescue Team, had these small sprites and repetitive textures. But I didn't care, the game is a masterpiece! And even those repetitive textures looks awesome. They actually kept the good graphics for the friend areas, which are absolutely astonishing for the Gameboy era.

When Gates to Infini**** came out... meh. They focused so much on the graphics that not even one fourth of the pokemon were available, and the gameplay was deep garbage. They even tried to sell DLC.

Produce great games, these are not movies.

 

[Mario123311]

The only thing that graphics really matter to me is they need to not be "eye straining" like Bubsy 3D or so on, otherwise It doesn't matter. I still think some old games like Pac-Man World 2 still look good to this day.

 

[Spak]

The only thing that graphics really matter to me is they need to not be "eye straining" like Bubsy 3D or so on, otherwise It doesn't matter. I still think some old games like Pac-Man World 2 still look good to this day.

That game was fun until I got stuck at the end of the volcano.

Then I haven't picked it up in 10 years.

 

[Mario123311]

That game was fun until I got stuck at the end of the volcano.

Then I haven't picked it up in 10 years.

I enjoyed that level It's kinda hard at first but once you learn it or look up some help it's not so huge of a problem.

 

[Deleted member]

When it comes to games, the gameplay is the most important, but I feel that graphics add to the game as well.

The graphics in the game should complement for what the game is going for and should be detailed.
If the game is something like Mario or Kirby, the graphics should be bright, colorful, and just pop out. Super Mario 3D World is one of the best looking Wii U games because not only did the colors stand out, but the textures and graphics made the game feel more lively and gave it charm. Games like Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze and Yoshi's Woolly World have both a colorful art direction and have an enormous amount of detail, from the backgrounds to the fur on Donkey Kong and the little hair sticking out of the yarn on Yoshi.
If the game is going for something a bit more realistic, then the graphics should capture that to create some emersion for the player. Twilight Princess and the Metroid Prime games excelled at this at the time for the realistic and dark graphics, along with the amount of detail put into the game.

However, the art direction must mix with the graphical style of the game. Sonic 06 on the Xbox and PS3 failed in this department because it was going for realistic people and locations while retaining the colorful anthropomorphic animals.

I don't buy a game just because of how good the graphics or art direction are, but they do play an important role in emersion for the player, along with great gameplay and controls (and story in most cases).

 

[WishOn]

The technical level of the graphics doesn't mean too much for me, but if the graphics aren't aesthetically pleasing, I have a hard time really getting into the game, even if the gameplay is good. Games aren't just gameplay or just graphics; they are both equally important in my opinion.

 

[Sünta]

Graphics matter to a certain degree for me. 2d sprites can look great no matter what but some 3d models look nasty. Take this for example:

Spoiler

1995 sprite

1999 model

So for me, it only matters slightly for 3d games

 

[Foxus]

It really depends on the nature of the game to be honest whether breathtaking graphics would make or break the game. Take Star Fox Zero for example, the games graphics are being compared Star Fox 64 on the 3DS (honestly I can't see any difference graphically) then you have Super Mario Galaxy. Had the graphics in that game been like Super Mario Sunshine or Luigi's Mansion, there would not have been enough justice to create the environments needed for SMG.

 

[~Astra]

Ugh, this is a tricky one.

On one hand, you have the age-old rule that gameplay usually wins out over graphics; enjoyable games can be timeless coughSmash64cough. I've also been playing a bit of an old Half-Life mod with some friends that has some god-awful graphics and map modelling, yet really fun and interesting gameplay mechanics

Then again, a beautiful-looking game is also enjoyable. Bioshock Infinite was an absolute feast for the eyes; and I got drawn to Splatoon thanks to its bubbly art style and colour scheme. I'm hyped for FE:Fates just due to the neat graphical updates from Awakening.

****. I'm torn.

 

[Heroine of Winds]

I could care less about graphics. Most games I've played usually have good gameplay despite having mediocre looking graphics along with it. To me, gameplay is what matters to me more than how good or bad a game looks. However, I still praise for how good a game looks like Dust: An Elysian Tail & Okami, for example.

For me, gameplay>graphics.

 

[Murlough]

Depends on the game.

If it is a game like Shovel Knight then realistic graphics would be too out of place for me.

Borderlands is a game with a cartoony kind of graphic style which works beautifully with the game.

The Last of Us is a game designed to make characters that resemble humanity very closely. Therefore the graphics should represent that.

 

[windlessusher]

For me, as long as I like the artstyle, I'm pretty much golden, I still think Dreamcast games look good. But typically, I prefer they not look realistic.

 

[A17]

In the end it depends on what you're trying to go for.

Retro graphics are retro graphics. Art style is art style.

If you don't have one and are trying to make realistic looking things (or realistic renders), then it BETTER look as good as possible. If the studio wants to make realistic models, their goal (to me) should be to make it look as realistic as possible.