Do you care about graphics?

[Dogstile]

Didn't bother me until I got a good computer. Now I have a computer that's damn good...

Yeah, graphics factors in my choices of buying games. If I can't decide between two games, i'll look at which one has the higher requirements and buy that because I CAN

 

[blankedboy]

I don't really care how good the graphics are, but more how much effort is put into the aesthetics. Take Ocarina of Time for example, or Goldeneye 007. Both are N64 games, and therefore don't have very good graphics, but there's next to no scenery, just uber-high walls all around.
Zeno Clash is a Source game, therefore it has fairly good graphics, but it differs from the last two in that the scenery is one of the main points of the game. The backgrounds just overflow with raw effort.

 

[linkvegeta]

Does it really matter to you all that much? Would you rather play a game that looks smooth and beautiful than play a game that looks rough and jagged JUST because of the graphics rather than the gameplay? Had somebody given you an atari 2600 pacman or a PS1 game would you be turned off or bored playing it just because it doesn't look as nice as say, Gears of War or Uncharted?

For me, I'd say graphics restricts elements of gameplay I've come to love as well as making other elements more accessible, do I prefer GTA4 to San Andreas? No. Doom 3 to Doom? No. Ruse to the first Red Alert? No. But then thats just me, I thought Crysis looked amazing, but the gameplay became kind of a drag so it didn't keep me as stimulated as say Timesplitters 2 did. Gears for example didn't have me playing nearly as long as Crash Bandicoot and Spyro games did and they didn't have achievements or trophies and multiplayer and all that trifle.

And Final Fantasy games speak for themselves.

So, what do you think?

Not really all that much, a game could hqve great graphics and play like shit and the grphics would not make it a good game. Sorry about spell mistakes my fingers are too big for mu iphone

 

[Geekosaurus]

I only care if they're bad. I don't have big expectations when it comes to graphics, but if they're bad they can really take away from a game.

 

[Skoosh]

Graphics matter. If there are 2 games that are exactly the same, but one has better graphics, I'm going for that one. And I don't mean necessarily more pixels or realism, but a better look (e.g.: Windwaker had good graphics, but not realistic). The visual art behind a game is a huge part of what makes it good. Of course it isn't all the matters, there is no single element of a game that is.

But say, if one had obviously weaker graphics but it felt easier to play because of an element, it could be the controller, or more fun to play because of another element, like multiplayer or extra DLC, would you still be interested in the prettier looking one?

I'm not trying to convince you, you're entitled to you opinion, just keen to know what you would do in a situation like that one

It depends on how much easier and how weak the graphics are. If one has considerably better style and visuals behind it with a slightly more wonky camera, I'd still probably go with it. So maybe a remake of a PS game on the PS3 where the graphics are juiced up and flesh the world out completely that was previously only known on bad polygons and concept art, I'd still go with it even if the old PS one had multiplayer and the remake forgot it. Graphics alone don't make a game, obviously, but it does play a heavy hand in how good it will be for me.

 

[Grey_Focks]

Yes I do, but more so art style than actual level of detail and such. And THAT being said, I won't play a game just because it's nice to look at if the game itself isn't fun, but it is the icing on the cake if a fun game has pretty graphics or an excellent art style.

 

[XT inc]

Nope all I care about is interactivity,gameplay, story and physics/reactions.

I don't care how purdy the game looks, if fire extinguishers don't explode in awesome puffs of gas, or the glass just disappears, or tanks couldn't knock over a table, or tv's don't shatter.

All I've learned from lazy devs, is if I got sucked into a video game, I would make a suit of armor out of the god mode lightbulbs, that never get destroyed so no forward thinking has to go into lighting a level.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I didn't spend all that money on a high-end graphics card and a 50" 3D screen to play pong...

Graphics matter plenty to me. I've played Arkham Asylum in hi-res and in 3D, and I'm not going back.

 

[Thaliur]

Usually I don't care about graphics, as long as they serve their purpose (telling me what's happening in the game).
pixelly 2D is fine, perfect 3D as well, and anything in between really.

With the exceptiopn of what I would call "awkward 3D". 3D graphics that just exist just to make it 3D, without really adding anything to the game (or, in the case of Monkey Island 4, even making it quite hard to handle). I'm not talking about 2D gameplay in 3D graphics in general (New Super Mario Bros pulled that off great), I'm talking about companies almost making a 3D game, even if 2D would have worked as well and looked better. It mostly happened during the introductory phase of 3D gaming, with 3DFX, Direct3D and probably several more systems struggling for dominance, and games having jagged, badly-textured 3D models.
It was ok, as long as nothing organic was involved (Battlezone looked pretty good actually. The one with the biometal, not the arcade game)

 

[RatRace123]

No, not really, nice graphics are... well, nice, but the true appeal of a game for me comes from its story, writing and characters.
Graphics rank fairly low on my list of game priorities, sound is more important to me in a game than graphics.
A good soundtrack will be remembered a lot more than good graphics.

 

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

Enough detail to see what's going on, but I don't need to see a stupid fly flying around. Graphics aren't needed as much anyone - even sub-standard graphics from 2001 is enough for me. They have advanced plenty though what they need to do is booster the other parts of the video games that are required for a good game.

 

[The Human Torch]

Yes, I didn't survive the invention of the Commodore and witness it's evolution into modern day computers, only to play with Lego blocks on my screen.

 

[pulse2]

Graphics matter. If there are 2 games that are exactly the same, but one has better graphics, I'm going for that one. And I don't mean necessarily more pixels or realism, but a better look (e.g.: Windwaker had good graphics, but not realistic). The visual art behind a game is a huge part of what makes it good. Of course it isn't all the matters, there is no single element of a game that is.

But say, if one had obviously weaker graphics but it felt easier to play because of an element, it could be the controller, or more fun to play because of another element, like multiplayer or extra DLC, would you still be interested in the prettier looking one?

I'm not trying to convince you, you're entitled to you opinion, just keen to know what you would do in a situation like that one

It depends on how much easier and how weak the graphics are. If one has considerably better style and visuals behind it with a slightly more wonky camera, I'd still probably go with it. So maybe a remake of a PS game on the PS3 where the graphics are juiced up and flesh the world out completely that was previously only known on bad polygons and concept art, I'd still go with it even if the old PS one had multiplayer and the remake forgot it. Graphics alone don't make a game, obviously, but it does play a heavy hand in how good it will be for me.

Okay, I was just thinking of the PS2 vs Xbox debacle, because plenty a time Xbox ports of PS2 games were better looking, but not necessarily any more fun then thier original counterparts, might have something to do with the controller at the time, or the fact most people had a PS2 as opposed to an Xbox, either way, it was an interesting comparison.

 

[YouBecame]

Eye candy is the dessert to the main course of gameplay of the 3 course meal that is a game. If the game itself is awesome and fun, graphics can add to the experience. If they are functional then the whole meal works but could be better. If they're shit, then its like no dessert: Just no a 3 course meal!

 

[michiehoward]

Yes, graphics count, yes they are important is the art medium video games have become, artist should strive to make as good a piece of art as their tools allow.

One the other hand I still play games of the much older consoles, because great games are great games.

And if developers didn't go for at least passing graphics imagine the absolute shite they would turn out everyday LOL.

 

[Raven_Operative]

It depends, I think of games like resumes, first impressions, and presentations are everything. that's not to say that games with great graphics but horrible gameplay are acceptable for me, but I would prefer alot of graphics, and slightly buggy gameplay over flawless gameplay and crap graphics.

 

[zega frega omega]

Yes, I expect a game this generation to make clear what is happening on screen and have generally clear textures. When I'm playing older games, I'm not really annoyed by the bad graphics, except for Deus Ex. I know it's a great game, but I just couldn't get into it like other games because of the poor models and textures.

 

[Squidden]

I never have done it except for Deus Ex. That game just looked too terrible to me the entire time so I lost interest.

Also, you can't compare PacMan to Gears of War. PacMan is supposed to be top-down and 2D.

EDIT:

Yes, I expect a game this generation to make clear what is happening on screen and have generally clear textures. When I'm playing older games, I'm not really annoyed by the bad graphics, except for Deus Ex. I know it's a great game, but I just couldn't get into it like other games because of the poor models and textures.

Ninja'd

 

[Denamic]

Yes, of course.
Now, what is good and bad is highly subjective.
For example, TF2 has excellent graphics, imo.
As long as it stays away from the uncanny valley, I'm fine with it, pretty much.
Eyecandy never hurts though.