Do you care about graphics?

[DragonChi]

In most cases, I am a GFX whore..as it were. I can't deny that I love a game that looks visually stunning, however..I only care about GFX where it matters. First thing I look at is Gameplay. A lot can be forgiven if the Gameplay is fun and solid (Case in point..LoZ:OoT) You also have to take into consideration what art style is being used. If a game is intended to use Realism or something similar, then yes..GFX matters (good gameplay providing). but if its taking a more casual road..it may not matter as much.

let me put it this way. If someone is wanting to make a game that uses realism (just as an example) before you do ANYTHING with complex GFX polishing...make sure the game is good first. THEN worry about it looking better. I HATE IT when they do the reverse, where they make it look all pretty..then do a half-ass effort on Gameplay and call it finished. GFX matters to me when the important stuff (Gameplay mechanics and story(if the game has one)) is looked at and finished first and is GOOD.

There are clearly MANY games that were plenty successful while looking simplistic and not jazzed up. Like all those games made on Flash or similar. So yea...Graphics are nice, I enjoy it when its done well, but Gameplay is most important and should take priority.

 

[Mike Laserbeam]

Oh no, no I wasn't stating that those games mentioned by any means had bad graphics, but when you compare the amount of detail put into say Gears of War compared to Locoroco, you can tell the obvious difference between graphical achievements, but that still seperates gameplay fun, the question you might ask is that if all gamers hypothetically thought the same way and believed Locoroco and Gears were in the same league of fun as each other, would Epic bother spending so much time and dedication on polygons and textures etc, facial expressions and lighting?

I by all means thought Halo and Halo 2 looked better than TS2 and 3, but I think that was more so because of the level design and atmosphere than character models, nitty gritty details like textures, lighting, immersivness, etc. That's not to say that TS2 and 3 didn't look pretty in thier own right, but it was a more cartoony level of beauty. Still, I appreciated both for what they were and loved them all the same.

When I talk, I'm mostly referring to gameplay elements I enjoy rather than the graphical quality.

Well this is how I'd look at it: if the same game was released twice, once with PS2 grade graphics and once with stunning 1080p Crysis-level visuals, wouldn't the natural choice be the second? Given that the content is exactly the same.
I'd say graphics do certainly matter given that situation.
However the reverse could also be said, with two games with the same graphical content but one being absolute crap, the choice then would obviously be in favour of the poor graphics.

That's why I think if you are simply talking about whether better graphics means a better game, then I would clearly say "Yes"
However when you start taking every other element into account the question isn't quite so simple!

By the way I think you make some very good points, and I'd imagine that not only did the team behind Locoroco spend less time on its graphics than Epic did on Gears, but they also probably spent a whole lot less time on their whole project! And I far prefer the TimeSplitters style to Halo, I've never seen the attraction of Bungie's visual style.

TL;DR? It's impossible for people to make two games that are just as fun as each other! And there's no real way to measure the entertainment quality of any game! But when you're trying to make a game as good an experience as possible one thing you can definitely see when comparing yours to others' is the quality of graphics. So to make a great game rise above the rest, I think it's necessary to make it shine!

 

[Continuity]

Yes, a lot, all the time. It's what I'll be looking at for hours and hours. If it looks bad and jagged, I do not want.

One word. Shallow.

OT: Gameplay is everything, and yes I mean everything, I don't care if its text graphics like the original rogue game or dwarven fortress, I don't care if its tile graphics like Exile 3, I don't care if its still screens like eye of the beholder, or if its pseudo 3d with sprites like lands of lore or dark forces, i don't care... etc etc you get the idea. A good game is a good game. That said, graphics are nice, though subordinate to gameplay.

 

[EBHughsThe1st]

I don't mind them. If they look good I'll take time to notice and marvel, but I'm fine with bad ones. As long as I'm having fun.

 

[trooper6]

1. I care about graphics. But I care about graphics in the context of what the game is trying to do and what is available to that game.

1a. What is available: So Pac-Man had great graphics for its time period. So I appreciated that and can still play it. There were games from the Atari age that had bad graphics in comparison. Those I didn't like so much.
1b. What the game is trying to do. Text based adventure games are clearly not interested in great graphics, so it seems unfair to judge them on that criteria. So I don't. Also, some people didn't like KotOR 2 because they wanted an updated graphics engine from KotOR1. That never bothered me. KotOR2 was not primarily about graphics and the graphics were good. They weren't blow you out of the water, but they were good.
1c. Note: I don't need revolutionary graphics, but I need good graphics for the game in context.

2. I care about gameplay. I care that the gameplay does not hamper my enjoyment of the game and within the context of what the game is trying to do.
2a. Hampering enjoyment. If the camera control makes it so that I keep dying, I'm not going to be happy with the game.
2b. What the game is trying to do. I have different gameplay standards for a point-and-click adventure than I do for a FPS. I care that the game does what it is trying to do well.
2c. Note: I don't need revolutionary gameplay, but I need good gameplay for the game in context.

3. Story. I care a lot about story, this is one of the make-or-break elements for me...of course within the context of what the game is trying to do. I really enjoyed Need For Speed 2: Hot Pursuit, and that had no story what-so-ever, but it had great graphics, great gameplay, great art design, and a great soundtrack.

4. Voice Acting. I care a lot about voice acting, another make-or-break element for me...of course within the context of what the game is trying to do.

5. Score. I love a good video game score and sound design. That can really help make the game.
6. Art Direction. I also love good art direction in a video game. Another really big bonus.

I think I go Story > Voice Acting > Gameplay = Graphics
with Score/Sound Design and Art Direction and Novelty of Concept as big bonuses.

 

[hazabaza1]

The only game I found myself being unable to play due to graphics was Dwarf Fortress.
Yay for tilesets!

 

[trooper6]

Oh, I'll add another datapoint. If the graphics offend me, I'm probably not going to stick with the game very long regardless of the polygon count. DOA: Volleyball offends me so that is out. I was enjoying Ninja Gaiden until I saw that crazy blonde who was objectified like crazy with an completely impractical fetish outfit. It rubbed me the wrong way...too much...and I couldn't enjoy the game and eventually quit playing it. I think that is one of the only games I have finished all the way through--bummer because I did enjoy fighting with the nunchucks.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Nope. Don't care. Gameplay is all that matters to me.

Besides, I can't tell good graphics from bad.

 

[Jelly ^.^]

I'm finding that characters from the last generation or two are easier to relate and empathise with, probably because they're not so far down the Uncanny Valley, and because they're more stylised.

For graphics as a whole, I think it's more important that they are profound in the feeling they instill in the player to look at as opposed to how spoogy they look, or how much shading up the arse is being used. If the graphics fit the narrative and are profound in what they convey, then it's certainly better than just filling a screen with bloom and calling it a day.

 

[trooper6]

I'm finding that characters from the last generation or two are easier to relate and empathise with, probably because they're not so far down the Uncanny Valley, and because they're more stylised.

For graphics as a whole, I think it's more important that they are profound in the feeling they instill in the player to look at as opposed to how spoogy they look, or how much shading up the arse is being used. If the graphics fit the narrative and are profound in what they convey, then it's certainly better than just filling a screen with bloom and calling it a day.

I agree with you. But for me, graphics that are profound in the feeling they instill are good graphics. Spoogy graphics with shading up the arse but no soul...those aren't good graphics to me. You know?

I mean Limbo? Those are great graphics! 2D? Yup. Stylized? Yup? Totally effective and enhancing of the video game experience? Yup!!!!

 

[luckshotpro]

gameplay and sometimes story play a much, much, much bigger role for me than graphics.
there are exceptions, but only where graphical flaws actually interfere with gameplay, case and point: Dead Rising

 

[bam13302]

i was about to say yes, then i realized i was playing minecraft

 

[The-Bad-Blooded]

Gameplay will always be worth more than Graphics, but who's to say graphics are worth it?
I'm sick of people praising a game for its Graphics, when gameplay-wise, it's a piece of crap.
I'd rather have a game that looks good and plays great, than a game that looks fan-tucking-fastic and plays like a giraffe on ice-skates.

But I also have a beef with socalled 'realistic graphics'
1) things that are realistic are not BROWN
2) Glare does not come-off of every reflective surface known to man
3) In real-life, not every single thing is filthy, some things are actually CLEAN
4) eyes are not rediculously white or luminant
5) hair is not like shadow, it clumps into locks.

 

[Vivace-Vivian]

I'm going to be the honest ass and say yes, I do care.

Now, that's not to say the game has to look like Mass Effect. There is style, and then there are graphics. There is nothing wrong with wanting your game to look good. It is an aspect of it, like aspects of films or movies. People who act like a game isn't tarnished at all by it's terrible looks are liars.

 

[Headsprouter]

I still play alot of older games and graphics never seemed like any kind of a necessity to me. An example might be DOOM, great game, poor graphics(nowadays) but its still very enjoyable. Just not scary anymore. Not sure if it was even scary then, but i know it scared my older brother when he was little because my dad used to play the game. He eventually wasn't allowed to watch(i assume).

 

[Kagim]

Yup, it's half the game.

Emphasis on half. Half a battery isn't going to power your train, half a game is going to suck.

As well good graphics does not mean "High tech 3d in your face!" graphics. It means good.

You know what games have good graphics? Infamous. Killzone 2. LBP. Resistance. Warhawk. Kingdom hearts 2. Shadow Hearts.

You know what else has good graphics? Super mario. Chrono Trigger. Asteroids(arcade). Donkey Kong Country. Zelda, namely the Super Nintendo one for me the n64 disappointed me. To anyone not old enough to know I am talking all nes, snes and gameboy lime and colors. Not the Wii versions.

Good does not mean the most techhed out. It means good and appeasing to the eye. It means what your looking at makes you think "That's a tree! That's some grass!". When you look at it you believe it is what it is supposed to be, thus you become immersed. It' not about tech, its about the passion the creator had for what they made.

Tech will never be a substitute for passion, but it can be an awesome tool.

MC kids and Paladin quest are good examples of bad graphics. Brown "realistic" graphics are an example of bad graphics. Tearing. I will stop playing a game for tearing alone.

When it comes to text games, they have there place to. Graphics are not part of the equation. Books do not need picture to be good do they? Text games immerse you with descriptions, much like books aim to. Rather then show you the game tells you.

The problem ultimately is when people say "Do graphics matter" what they are really asking is "Does a visual based game have to be teched out graphically to appeal to you?"

The answer, obviously, is no for anyone. Do the graphics have to be good though? Yes. They always have and always will be.

 

[bob-2000]

In my mind Story > Gameplay > Graphics.

 

[random_bars]

When I was younger I vehemently held the view that graphics don't matter at all, and gameplay is what counts. I've now come to feel that graphics do, in fact, make quite a bit of a difference - but generally it's not the actual graphical quality that matters. It's the art style, the colours, the animation - not whether the graphics are technologically advanced, but whether they look good. Obviously, gameplay is more important, but a good looking game is always much more enjoyable than a game that looks kind of shit, if their gameplay is equally good.

Like I said though, it's not about realism or anything like that. I think Grim Fandango is one of, if not the, best looking games there is, and that came out in 1998!