Do graphics matter?

[Theninja'skatana]

I understand moving ahead with the times but now it seems like core gameplay is being sacrificed for the "shiny" appeal. I've grown tried of realistic colors as it usually ends up being gritty and dirty (gta4 or perhaps the upcoming quantum theory). I don't mean we should go back to 8-bit but perhaps a bit more polish to the core would help yeah?

But what do you think?

 

[DuplicateValue]

I'm currently playing Minecraft and some of the old Final Fantasy's.

Graphics obviously don't matter to me too much.

 

[TriggerHappyAngel]

For me they don't; Gameplay, Story, Characters, Music, Replayability and a lot of other things are way more important imo.

 

[Lightslei]

I've been playing Super Nintendo for the last like 3 weeks....


It's sort of why things like Katamari stick out. It is outside the expected.

 

[Lightslei]

Double pst x.x.

 

[Irridium]

It is a big part, but it should not be the primary focus. It doesn't matter how pretty a game looks, nothing can make up for bad gameplay. Even Crysis had decent gameplay[footnote]gameplay experiences vary from person to person[/footnote].

It would be nice if right now, we stopped with advancing graphics. Games look well enough, lets give everyone time to make the most of what they have now. They'd be able to learn the tech more, use it more efficiently, get it to run smoother and on more systems, keep costs down due to familiarity and cunning uses of said tech, allow more systems to run the tech, would allow devs to focus on more parts of the game, like story and gameplay, and basically it would be better for everyone.

Look at God of War 2. It shows any system can push out a great-looking game, you just need time to figure out how to use it.

Graphics look good enough now. Lets start focusing on other parts of games that really need attention, like voice acting and story. It would allow devs to have more time with the tech, which would result in it being used more efficiently, which would result in low costs, allow it to run on more systems, which equals more sales. It would be better for everyone. But now I'm just repeating myself, so I'll stop here.

 

[lithiumvocals]

Graphics do matter. I like my games looking good. That being said, I don't care if a game has less then stellar graphics, as long as said graphics aren't incredibly glitchy. But, as stated before, they shouldn't be the primary focus.

 

[ilspooner]

Graphics do matter, but they are not the most important thing. I want to see what is going on in the game, but I don't need everything to be perfectly polished. One of my fave games is Wizardry 8. It has bad graaphics, but it is really fun.

 

[Lord Devius]

My opinion: Graphics don't matter.

Qualifiers: Graphics don't matter, as long as their quality doesn't interfere with gameplay, story, characters, etc. via slowdown, or being so basic they interfere.

 

[Betancore]

For me, they matter to an extent. I like games that are visually appealing, but I won't put down a game just because it was made in 1998, and doesn't look that nice. There are other things to take into account, like gameplay and story. Even if it's a really pretty game (yes I refer to games with good graphics as 'pretty'), if it sucks to play in every other way, then it's not going to be very fun for me. If I wanted to look at something nice for sixty hours, I could very well just watch a movie.

 

[DustyDrB]

Like a lot of game elements, it depends. Graphics? Well Red Dead Redemption was strikingly beautiful. Riding around in the wilderness wouldn't have been nearly as much a joy if the graphics weren't what they were.

But in other games, I don't care so much. Dragon Age counts, but this also includes a lot of older games I can still go back to and enjoy.

But think about it: other gameplay elements don't always matter either, or sometimes they are paramount to a game.
Story: Mass Effect Mario
Voice Acting: Red Dead Redemption Zelda
Game Length: Call of Duty Oblivion.

 

[Pielikey]

Graphics can matter. They usually seem like the cherry on top. For instance, Just Cause 2 just wouldn't be the same if the graphics weren't as beautiful as they are.

Then there's Minecraft.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

It matters when you play games that are similar back to back. Try going for God of War 3 to Dante's Inferno, or play the NBA 2k11 demo then play the NBA Elite one.

 

[Zhukov]

Yes. I would rather look at something pretty then something ugly.

And in some games (i.e. good games) the visual design enhances or complements other aspects of the overall product. Eg. Bioshock, Team Fortress 2, Amnesia.

That said, story and gameplay are usually more important.

 

[icame]

Nope, better graphics can actually hurt a game in some cases as explained by Extra Credits in his 'where did survival Horror go' video.

Sure it is nice when a game looks awesome, but so many games today look the same i find that a colorful game with less polished graphics looks better then a beautiful looking Grey-Brown world. A good example of this is Saints row 2 in comparison to Gta4 respectively.

 

[cannot_aim]

Yes, but some old "classic" games are still a lot of fun to play just because of their retro crappy graphics.

 

[Primee133]

Here's where I disagree with everyone else. Graphics do matter, but in a sense of immersion. I highly doubt survival horror games and highly-regarded games like Mass Effect 2 would have the same effect if every looked like it did in Return to Castle Wolfenstein or Half Life 1. Amesia: The Dark Descent would be quite dissapointed if there was a large lack of shadow quality.

Basically, in summary, graphics don't make a game great, but bad graphics can break a great game.