Do graphics matter?

[Sinndogg]

It really depends on what is meant by "good graphics". If good graphics means poly count, then its the last thing i consider. But if good graphics means a graphical style and feel that underlies and supports the immersion of the game, then its as important as any other aspect.

Just look at any old survival horror. Poly count was crap then, compared to what it is now, but most of them manage to create an atmosphere thats, IMHO, far more immersive than what we usually see in today's games. If that counts as good graphics, then thats just as important as any other part of the game.

As I said in my post, art style isn't the same as graphics, it's how you take advantage of them.

 

[Nexus4]

I would say no, but it depends on what it is being rendered by the graphics. I find it a waste to put unnecessary detail into things players would probably not care about, kinda like in Crysis where so much detail is put into rendering the bark of a tree or a simple chair. However I reckon graphics can become a greater priority when doing something for an overall artistic effect, like the Illusive Man's office in mass effect 2 that had a really artistic design and background. What i'm saying is that graphics can take priority when it is going for artistic flair and not when it is doing so for the sake of doing so.

 

[e2density]

For bad players who have never played good games, graphics do matter.
To regular gamers, nope. They don't matter that much.

 

[Dr. HeatSync]

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?

What happens if visuals really didn't matter:

1) You'd never be able to see anything (Doom 3).
2) The characters would be completely dis-proportioned or badly represented.
3) Your game's frame rate would jitter due to poor optimisation of the engine.
4) Hitboxes would be completely wrong (due to them not being aligned to the 3D model correctly)
5) The game would actually play much worse due to the issues I'm listing (buggy framerate? Good luck timing your blows/shots)
6) Lets pick a game, TF2. Imagine instead of Blu vs Red and the cartoony look, it was a failed attempt at realism. The game is still the same, but you'd never like it as much.
7) Poor choice in object polycounts (a massively subdivided AK-47.... in the background of a platforming game).
8) Animation would be horrendous, really cheap, tacky and unconvincing (Oblivion, Fallout 3)
9) Do you like flickering normals? Bits of texture flickering black?
10) How about not being able to tell a platform from an object from the background? A fault of many an older system.

Thats just a small amount of the many many problems you'd get if the game you were playing really has bad graphics. This is relevant because many people seem to think that visuals purely mean how pretty the game looks. MineCraft? Bad Visuals? No, thats the developer comprimising because not everyone has a very strong graphics card. That is GOOD visuals because you aren't encountering major problems that affect your experience. Instead the game adds to it.

In regards to GTA IV, thats actually not 'good visuals' if you have a problem with it. Dull colours and grit clearly aren't your thing, and so the game doesn't appeal. Well, not good style anyway, but I'm willing to bet that if the game looked like TF2, you'd be more interested.

This next bit is more directed to everyone else:

If you were one of the people who quoted a SNES or other retro game, I find your argument (mainly that its visuals are apparently worse than today's games) irrelevant because 2D Sprite games have that charm. In many ways, a SNES game could actually have better visuals than, say Gears of War, but that is because of the way it is presented, the style, and the fact that it is on a system that is quite old. But it makes the best use it can of the system, and thats what makes it have good visuals alongside the forced chibi style that it has to implement (Embrace thy limitations).

You like sprite art but didn't like the greys and browns of GeOW? Thats fine, and while I'm here I'm going to recommend you Recettear, a great sprite based game about running a shop to pay off your fathers loan.

Please for the love of god can we stop this pointless view of one or the other? That a game either has good visuals or gameplay, but not both? Visuals and gameplay go hand in hand because games are a visual medium. If you don't like how brown and dirty some games are, thats ok, but you can't call it good visuals. Its not an advancement, its not appealing to you, so therefore its not appealing visuals!.

If you just mean how technically pretty it is, I suggest you remember that a game industry is made up of teams of designers who work in different areas. Asking their concept artists to do the game designers job is a stretch isn't it? If you find the gameplay lacking, you might want words with the game designers instead of the art directors.

To try and conclude this monstrously long post (I do apologise) I suggest that gamers revisit Unreal Tournament 3. Go back and look deeply into the game. Fast paced, quite fluent and well designed but has massive amounts of detail in many areas. This is because the Unreal Engine is so well optimised. Now go play CTF on Hydrosis and look at the map, the weapons and how its all laid out. There are brilliant choices in the map's design, which shows that games are not a war between mechanic and visuals. Certainly the game could be more colourful, but with the power of the engine, we've seen really damn good games (Batman Arkham Asylum).

It shouldn't be some kind of fight between Game and Graphics, it should be harmony.

 

[Dr. HeatSync]

Hahahaha, I love those threads...most people argue without thinking, they just give those funny anwers like e2density (for example).
You can't just ask "Do graphics matter?", because the answer should always be simply yes. The real question should be how much do they matter for a specific game.

Example:
BioShock...would not be so cool, if the graphics were not so good, because it would ruin the atmosphere of the game.

Graphics + Story = Atmosphere

You sir, are my absolute hero. This quote a million times.

 

[Alfador_VII]

I like pretty pictures as much as the next person, but while good graphics might attract me to a game, if the story and gameplay is crap it won't hold my attention.

And yes like many others on this thread I've put a lot of time into Minecraft, which would never sell itself on screenshots, as it's about as basic as you get these days, graphically.

I also play SNES hames from time to time, so I can cope with 16 bit, or even 8 bit sprites.

I've even played Rogue-likes which technically don't even have graphics. When you can identify with a heroic @ exploring passages with .... on the floor and walls of ***, killing random letters of the alphabet for punctuation mark loot, it shows you really don't need HD graphics to enjoy a game.

 

[Ennui]

I may have a different perspective than a lot of gamers, I'm epileptic. I also mainly play RPGs and MMORPGs. I really enjoy what others have referred to as 'pretty games' but not necessarily 'cute' ones. If the game has the option for me on my not so spectacular computer to turn down some of the graphics options, it helps because often times if the graphics begin to glitch, I get a constant flickering going on on my screen which can lead to a seizure.

While I'm all about game content, I do like having eye candy. I used to play MUDs, but keeping so much information either in my head or maps and such scattered around on other tabs also makes the game a bit more difficult to get into. Going overboard and focusing only on graphics can ruin a game, just like it can ruin a movie to only have massive amounts of special effects with no plot. There has to be a balance.

Beyond just the graphics, as some have mentioned previously, the HUD/UI in a game to me is just as important. Why bother putting in awesome graphics if half of the screen is going to be covered in junk? I'm going to fall back on WoW, though I no longer play it, as an example. I really enjoyed the graphics. I can't honestly tell you how many adjustments in my UI were made by things available by player options and how many were from addons, but having the ability to tweek each and every bit of my display to my personal preferences was part of what kept me playing for so long (4 years.) I also enjoyed being able to turn off many graphical enhancements like the weather as it lagged me which made the screen jerky.

Some games are just too full of clutter and I can't get past the HUD long enough to figure out whether I care about the story line or not. Even though a lot of these are attempts to make them more user-friendly for beginners, they are off putting. The designers need to allow for more customization so that players can hide things they don't use often.

I've found that either the epilepsy or the meds make it pretty impossible for me to do much in the lines of FPSs and games with over the top effects. On the same vein though, I miss out on most 'geek' movies these days until I can catch them in the safety of my own home in case the CGI knocks me down. So yes, graphics matter, but there has to be more than graphics for it to be worth playing.

 

[PureChaos]

they aren't the most important thing. a great game that has great graphics is a bonus

 

[Daniel Laeben-Rosen]

Of course graphics matter. Engaging in visual, yet interactive, entertainment without any form of visual doesn't really work at all.
But they don't really matter in that they have to be a certain way or look a certain way.
Might just be me who played his first game on the Commodore.

However good a game looks though, it just doesn't matter if it doesn't play well. That's what matters in a game after all. Nice graphics and not just "Hey I can see it"-graphics are always a nice addition though.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

They do to an extent. For my computer, I'll take gameplay over fancy looks any day of the week, mainly since it can't run some of the best stuff out there.

My Xbox however is a different story, all Xboxs can run every game the same, there shouldn't be a reason why they can't look good.

I'm more patient about Graphics with my PC, mainly because I know that until I upgrade it, it's the best I have, that isn't the case with consoles.

 

[Flamezdudes]

It depends, most of the time it doesn't matter but it can add to thr WOW factor of the game if everything looks beautiful.

 

[Keava]

In a way. They should be pleasing to the eye, the technology and computing power increased for a reason, if it's there the developer should make use of it. Same time graphics do not make a good game alone, it's more of a feature that can make the whole thing better.

 

[JaysonM]

Some games they matter... games like world of warcraft or red dead redemption I really do require good graphics to immerse myself into the game.

But yeah... give me half life death match multiplayer over most of the stuff on the market at the moment =D

 

[blankedboy]

I'm currently playing Minecraft

WOOOOOOOOOOOOT

Yeah, I honestly couldn't care less about graphics. I find games like Daggerfall, SMB, Minecraft [sub]obviously[/sub], etc, completely playable.

 

[Legendsmith]

Did someone say grafics?

Memes aside, a game needs enough graphics to adequately convey the player what is going on in such a manner that they can respond appropriately. Anything more is eye candy.

 

[kidwithxboxlive]

Im always open to graphics. it all depends on the game type. GTA4 i expect realistic. Borderlands i expects something crazy like animated. Basically war games i feel have to be realistic graphics like mdw2 but anything else im open for.

 

[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?

What happens if visuals really didn't matter:

1) You'd never be able to see anything (Doom 3).
2) The characters would be completely dis-proportioned or badly represented.
3) Your game's frame rate would jitter due to poor optimisation of the engine.
4) Hitboxes would be completely wrong (due to them not being aligned to the 3D model correctly)
5) The game would actually play much worse due to the issues I'm listing (buggy framerate? Good luck timing your blows/shots)
6) Lets pick a game, TF2. Imagine instead of Blu vs Red and the cartoony look, it was a failed attempt at realism. The game is still the same, but you'd never like it as much.
7) Poor choice in object polycounts (a massively subdivided AK-47.... in the background of a platforming game).
8) Animation would be horrendous, really cheap, tacky and unconvincing (Oblivion, Fallout 3)
9) Do you like flickering normals? Bits of texture flickering black?
10) How about not being able to tell a platform from an object from the background? A fault of many an older system.

Thats just a small amount of the many many problems you'd get if the game you were playing really has bad graphics. This is relevant because many people seem to think that visuals purely mean how pretty the game looks. MineCraft? Bad Visuals? No, thats the developer comprimising because not everyone has a very strong graphics card. That is GOOD visuals because you aren't encountering major problems that affect your experience. Instead the game adds to it.

In regards to GTA IV, thats actually not 'good visuals' if you have a problem with it. Dull colours and grit clearly aren't your thing, and so the game doesn't appeal. Well, not good style anyway, but I'm willing to bet that if the game looked like TF2, you'd be more interested.

It shouldn't be some kind of fight between Game and Graphics, it should be harmony. (snip)

I am not asking that we go back! I'm asking that we need not go farther at the sacrifice of other things, so yes harmony, but unfortunatly for many a studio such things are made impossible by time money or other constraints. You seem to think that I was fine with A shitty framerate and crappy hit boxes but regardless of who programms it so, it is part of the GAMEPLAY in my opinion.

 

[TurtleBay]

Yes and no. You don't need good graphics to make a good game. But for certain games to land on the "realistic" side of the uncanny valley good graphics are needed. For example GTA: Chinatown Wars is a great game but Rockstar had to intentionally make the characters resemble cartoons (their body was out of proportion and they were cell shaded) because they could not make perfectly realistic characters on the DS. Meanwhile on the consoles they did go for a more realistic look because the consoles were capable of it. Basically, there are things that game designers can do with good graphics that add to the game, but not all good games need good graphics.

 

[Valdsator]

Graphics don't matter. I play NES games, and I like low-poly models. They look kind of cool. As long as I can understand what's going on, and graphics don't affect gameplay, I don't really care.

But... graphics are getting worse, I think. I just recently tried the Medal of Honor beta. I was playing in a desert level, and I realized they got rid of black, and replaced it with dark brown. The game basically only has 2 colors, with different shades. :[