Do you care about graphics?

[minimacker]

To an extent. Graphics will NEVER overweigh the gameplay. A great example would be comparing RTS games. Some units has to gain momentum before they can turn (Or they turn really, really slowly) because of TEH SLEEK GRAPHICS.
While RTS games where gameplay is in focus, it's a lot easier to control and units rarely get stuck.

 

[Bocaj2000]

Yes, graphics matter. They are a very important part of immersion. I was actually surprised how many people pretended otherwise on a forum like this. If the animation is lazy then the game is expected to be lazily made and neglected.

If the question is "Do I like old games?" then answer is "to a point." I can play games like Half-Life and Deus Ex and Wolfenstein 3D and 7th Guest and Tribal Rage and Warcraft 1, 2, 3 and others. Some of my favorite games ever made are on the N64 such as WWF:No Mercy and Turok Rage Wars. DOS based games are usually where things fall apart; although 2D arcade imports are fun I can NOT play Ultima. I found the graphics atrocious and confusing which turned me off completely.

Are good graphics important? Yes. Does that make older games with graphical limitations obsolete? No. Is it possible for older games to have good graphics? Yes though they may be outdated.

Did Avatar make Terminator 2's special effects suck? No, but they look dated by comparison/

 

[Sir_Auron_the_Badass]

Not as much as many people make it out to be. Video games can be likened to food; it can look all neat and pretty, which doesn't count against it, but if it's not enjoyable for what it is, there's no point in having it. While I do love how detailed some of these modern games can be (which I do have some and love them), graphics always take a backseat to gameplay and story. One of the best examples for a game I play is WoW; it runs on a nearly 10-year-old graphics engine, but it's really fun, immersive, colorful, and has an interesting lore. Despite these, some people look too hard at the graphics and gripe about its "flaws".

 

[zarix2311]

They are important, but they're definitely not everything.

 

[Aura Guardian]

NOt really. AS Long as I know whats going on.

 

[Sikachu]

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?

The Final Fantasy games do everything for themselves. And you're just entering the age when you're getting less out of videogames because you've got more experience. Same gameplay, better graphics wins every time. Broken gameplay? Graphics irrelevent. Is Pacman now boring because games have moved so far in complexity (massively due to increased graphical performance)? Yes. Otherwise you'd be playing it a hell of a lot more.

 

[WingedFortress]

I respect when graphics can take the gameplay to another level. Graphics should always compliment the gameplay. Like a good sidekick, they know when we want them to shine, and know when to take their place next to the main event, in this case, the gameplay.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Well as long as the graphics are nice and well done for the time and there are no horrible seams showing(eg Blacksite Area 51) then I don't care. Graphics should be a residual thought of making games. I think they really should come last in prioritisation. Making decent gameplay and ironing out major bugs before releases should come before making decent graphics. Depending on the game and how it wants to be story telling should also come before graphics. I really don't see why graphics should ruin any game. I thin that is kinda shallow. As long as they hold up and are decent(ie doesn't do anything that breaks immersion) they shouldn't matter.

 

[Drummie666]

Graphics are undoubtedly a plus, but they should never EVER be anywhere NEAR as important as gameplay.

 

[L4WLI3T]

Eye candy is good, but gameplay is better.

 

[soulsabr]

Gameplay before graphics. Some of my favs are still 8-bits.

 

[xMelior]

Well, of course graphics are important, but still, gameplay > graphics

 

[Jason Danger Keyes]

I like games to look nice, so I always try to set the graphics as high as my computer will run smoothly. Of course gameplay is more important, but the gameplay is what I'm there for. I buy a game so I can play it, looking great is a bonus that I always enjoy. I'm not a snob who will scoff at anything that looks shinier than pong.

I'm really sick of these gameplay vs graphics arguments. The consensus seems to be that games that look shitty are inherently better because gameplay is more important. But who ever said that good looking games can't have good gameplay, or that ugly games are automatically more fun? An analogy would be in finding a partner. Her/His personality (gameplay) is obviously the most important factor, and their looks (graphics) are bonuses on top of that. Some people are just into people for their looks, yes, and they're shallow. That's not to say that good-looking people are inherently bad people or any less interesting than ugly people.

Anyway, blah blah blah long story short: Stop bitching about good graphics. They're pointless when tacked on to a shitty game and a godsend when part of a great game.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I like pretty graphics, but I'm not going to turn a game away because it's ugly, nor am I likely to buy one just because it's pretty. About the only game that I've played with graphics so bad that they negatively impacted my experience was Final Fantasy IV, which literally hurt my eyes if I played the desert scenes in a darkened room. Also, PC games old enough to have CGA be the only graphics mode possible don't get much play from me, although if I find one that's a good enough game, and that the graphics don't make it impossible to play, I'll still play it. Hercules modes, and anything from EGA on, tend to be playable for me.

I think the best anecdote about my approach to graphics is Half Life. I'm playing it with the original models, instead of the HD pack, but I'm also forcing Anti Aliasing, Ansitropic Filtering, and Vsync through my graphics card drivers. I'd still play it if I couldn't do that, but since I have the tools to make it look better, I'll use them. (I'm not using the HD models because they change some of the weapons, and also break compatibility with some mods.)

 

[demoman_chaos]

Considering I prefer the older 2D games to most modern HD games, I'd say graphics are of no importance. 8-Bit graphics are better in my opinion. While not as detailed, they have a charm that no gritty brown and grey modern game could ever have. What game stands the test of time better, Call of Duty or Contra? Duck Hunt or Halo Reach? Tecmo Super Bowl or Madden 2010? Pong or Sega All-Star Tennis? Duck Tales, or Banjo: Nuts & Bolts? Doom or Dead Space?

And has anyone else noticed that a lot of games are heading back to the 2nd dimension? Sonic, Mortal Kombat, and others are going back to 2D (gameplay wise at least, animating a 3D model is easier than making sprites, notice how almost all modern animated movies are 3D models instead of hand-drawn).

 

[Reaper195]

Well, until game companies realise that we actually want decent and unique gameplay and story and characters....we'll have to stick with shiny crap (Crysis).

 

[Spoon E11]

Yes. I would like graphics but it doesn't need to be technically brilliant. They can be intresting or fun (TF2) just not ZOMG i can see my refection in their eye, ect. But thought and effort needs to go into graphics.

 

[MikailCaboose]

Gameplay over graphics, except when it just looks pure lazy, but then it usually comes down to the fact that the graphics weren't the only thing that suffered. Except for survival horror, where graphical quality (note, not "realism") matters a bit more, like with Resident Evil on the Gamecube. It played the same as the original, but it was the graphics that made it what it was.

 

[theguitarhero6]

I don't pre-judge games because of what it looks like because it doesn't mean right away that its bad.
HOWEVER, absolutely nothing takes me out of the experiance more than talking with a character with a poorly made structure or getting a good look at an item and seeing really crumby definition. This is a reason why I can't take Fallout seriously.

 

[DanyoSouth]

I played Ps2 games, but that's as far as I'm willing to go back graphics wise. Unless the art style was unique, then some games on the dream-cast are alright, but being spoiled by next gen. Last gen graphics usually strain my eyes -.-