Do graphics decide what games YOU buy?

[Rhayn]

To some degree. I didn't enjoy Warhammer Online because of its graphics.

But then again, MMO's are a bit of an exception. I don't want grind away at something I don't like the looks of.

Single player can get away with not having the best graphics, as long as the game is fun. For example, two games I play regulary; Medal of Honor: Spearhead, and BloodRayne 1. I do admit I look at the graphics when I decide whether or not I'll actually buy the game, but only if I'm really unsure about it, which is what kept me off buying Prototype.

 

[fedpayne]

Yeah, I do. Sure, I'm not going to buy a gorgeous but terrible game, but it does have an impact. I'd rather play something that makes me stop and say 'wow, that looks great' than, well, not. And good graphics don't neccesarily mean shorter game time, what about Fallout 3? Or GTA IV?

But, of course, I'd also rather have a game that made me go 'THAT WAS AWESOME' than one that wouldn't. But it's the same as films, it is to a great extent an aesthetic experience, and I want it to look good.

 

[Credge]

Gameplay is all that matters to me. If the game isn't fun, it isn't fun. It doesn't matter how terrible or great it looks. If it isn't fun to play, it isn't fun.

It's a very simple concept.

 

[Inco]

No, plain and simple.
Gameplay and story is the only great factors
and multi-player is reserved for MW2 or halo 3.
oh and the 'muck up factor' too, (like prototype and Saints row 2) where you can create your own awesome fun by going nuts.

 

[megapenguinx]

No, because I actually play games for their gameplay and story. As long as I can make everything out, the graphics are just fine.

 

[Burnout54]

Game play is definitely the major factor when choosing a game, but it is pleasing to the eyes when its a nice looking game. But, sometimes you can be surprised, like Crysis. I enjoyed that game play, and the graphics were nutz!

 

[Quaidis]

No,but to a degree...


Don't think I'm some jerk who can't like a good game just because the graphics aren't the best. But if a game has really really horrible graphics(looks like someone puked pixels everywhere),I just can't play it. It'll seriously make me ill. Motion sickness,or some noise...

The same goes for me as well: I have to read the back of the box to see if it's a 3d game or not and ask questions to anyone who has played it before purchase these days. Though it has less to do with the quality of graphics as it does how the graphics are put to use. For example, if the camera doesn't bob up and down or if the bg is in constant motion. It highly limits the games I can play.

(Metroid Prime 3 and Way of the Samurai are both 3d games I can play. One has up to date graphics and smooth walking. The other has very dated graphics, but the surrounding motion is limited. I also found I can play the latest Spyro games opposed to the older ones due to the darker color setting amongst other things.)

So in the end, graphics do not matter to me in the sense of, "Oh look, pretty." But do matter in the sense of making me decorate the bathroom with today's lunch. I like how the latest stuff looked at E3, yet I also like Final Fantasy 7 regardless of how it looks.

 

[Blow_Pop]

it depends. sometimes yes. but mostly it is how much the game interests me. I adore the graphics in Shadow of the Colossus but when you put it in a ps3....it looks like hell. i love my ps2.......

 

[jtwolf85]

heck no. Hell istill have 3 working ataris that i play on ocassion XD

 

[Jandau]

In a manner of speaking, yes. I don't let the level of technical advancement of the game's engine influence me as much as the visual design of the game. In all honesty, I'll be looking at the damn thing for a prolonged period of time, I expect to like what I see. Having said that, I consider Crysis and Oblivion to be some of the most visually unappealing games I've ever played.

 

[Death916]

No, i just re bought shin megami tensei nocturne and it has ps2 graphics lol. so no it doesnt.

 

[AlphaOmega]

No, if it doesnt have crap art design and it has good gameplay im all for it.

 

[Valiance]

I'll say what I always say.

Bad graphics don't usually ruin a game.
Good graphics usually make a game better.

Imagine Bioshock done with the graphics of the Quake 2 engine. The game would be much less immersive, much less detailed, much less awe-inspiring - especially the moment that you first see Rapture.

Now does Crysis having good graphics make it a good game? No. It's a good game because of other aspects of the game.
Does Mario 3 having "bad" graphics make it a good game? No. It's a good game because of other aspects of the game.

And to that I say: No.

 

[Russian_Assassin]

No. I never judge a game only by it's graphics. I would say more, but I would just be repeating the arguments of the posters above me.

Oh, and by the way, the YOU in the topic's title made me think of Uncle Sam pointing his finger at me :S

 

[Xrysthos]

Not at all. I usually play somewhat retro games anyways. However, if I'm buying a new game and the graphics are amazing, it's a good selling point and a positive aspect to the game. It doesn't decide which game I choose though.

 

[Abedeus]

Yes. If game has great graphics, but requires something like quad core (COUGH GTA IV PORT COUGH), I won't buy it.

If a game has weak graphics, then it will have low requirements. If not, I won't buy it - that means that engine is busted or something.

 

[Tharwen]

For me it's whether or not I get lag from my 5 year old graphics card.

 

[Vern]

I still play NES and Doom. Graphics don't mean crap if it's a crap game. If you put gold leafing and emeralds on a pile of shit, all you have is a pile of pretty shit.