How important are graphics to you.

[dimensional]

Depends on the game really if it wants me to just explore its world and enjoy it then graphics are quite important I wouldnt have enjoyed Oblivion anywhere near as much if it wasnt for the pretty graphics although I would say art direction is always more important than graphics.

Usually though I really am not bothered by dated graphics just the weekend gone I was playing Legend of Zelda a Link to the past for example hardly stellar graphics but its got a great art style so things dont get blurred same with Secret of Mana which I also played recently I also regularly play Punch Out from the NES days (virtual console for this one) and its still perfectly playable same with FFVII and Baldurs Gate 2 great games that are still fun to play despite not looking great by todays standards.

I will admit that good graphics rarely if ever hurt a title though but in most games they take a back seat to other factors i.e story, gameplay etc while of course text adventure games dont really need graphics at all.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Graphics certainly aren't the most important thing compared to good gameplay, polish and story (if applicable) but it's still pretty damn important.

I tried playing Deus Ex after really liking DX: Human Revolution but I quit after 10 mins because it just looked so awful!

edit: forgot to add original Silent Hill and Resident Evil to this list.

When it was first released, I quit Deus Ex after about five minutes, and plain refused to give it another go... too ugly, people's heads were attached to their chests, ED-209 walked the starting area, everything looked so much uglier than other games at the time, especially all tose fancy new games on those super stylish consoles...

then I forced myself to play it, got used to the crap graphics and discovered it was just about gaming heaven - I started to respect and love it.

Couldn't wait for DX:HR to get released... and when it finally did, it felt like bonsai Deus Ex with much better graphics. In comparison to Deus Ex, it looked like the super sexy braindead brother sitting in the corner, drooling all over himself and wetting his pants.

Much less game, much less choice, much less freedom, much less everything. I ended up selling DX:HR, and I gave the original Deus Ex another go - the graphics are even more abysmal today, but the game kept me entertained for two months worth of weekends... AGAIN.

The same goes for just about any other updated or re-invented franchise these days. Too bad they don't make games like that any more. I'm getting rather annoyed with all that visual overload that seems to get more and more random. I liked playing large stretches of RAGE, the ending felt as if my game disc had a scratch and randomly played a scene completely out of context. I liked playing Driver: SF, but the MTV-style ADD switching between player-controllable scenes, cut scenes and tv-style fmv sequences made me want to try out Adderall to cope with it.

The latest Mortal Kombat had clearly better graphics than ye olde MK uglies of old, but the fancy new bone-breaking cut scenes were fun for about a weekend or so, after two weeks we went back to play MK-MK3, going to GameFAQS to refresh our handling of fatalities and babalities and whatnot THAT ARE NOT DISPLAYED ON SCREEN AS IF WE WERE ALL RETARDS and we really haven't touched the latest Mortal Kombat since. It's a shame - the ugly old games with much simpler graphics can still get us to waste hours after hours, and the new ones grow stale after just a few sittings. Something's amiss, I tell ya.

I wanted to say something completely different, but, alas, fact is: top graphics are empty calories for the eyes, seemingly soothing the soul, but they just cannot replace the fun of proper, original, fresh new games.

http://topcrew.de/pics/wizball.gif

 

[LilithSlave]

I doubt it would.

Perhaps I misspoke. I do miss the 2D era, though.

I sure wish graphics didn't sell. I miss the era where they didn't.

And brown is the worst.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Graphics are extremely important.

I know that thinking this way is seen as shallow, but lets not kid ourselves; We want our media to look the part, whether it be movies or games.

I'm sorry, but they are not. They are a nice optional extra, but are in no way the be all and end all of games. If graphics were important, games like

Spoiler: this

and

Spoiler: this

and even

Spoiler: this

wouldn't be so popular. If a game is deep, involving, immersive and overall just fun to play, then graphics really do take a back seat. A lot of very mediocre games are elevated to 'great' in this day and age because they get a free ride from their graphics.

I said "look the part".

This means they need a good visual presence for what they represent.

I never played Minecraft, but the visuals have a charming simplicity too them. Had Minecraft been all wireframe it would've lost a lot of it's appeal. Visuals aren't end all be all, but they're just as important as gameplay and story. This is why Resident Evil 4 looks better than Resident Evil 5, and why any new Final Fantasy game with actual good gameplay would still suck because the riduculous visuals lack any real focus.

 

[thedo12]

graphics (resolution/number of polygons texture quality ect are important but not deal breaking, aesthetics (the look and style of the game) however is deal breaking, playing an ugly game is horrible.

 

[LilithSlave]

and why any new Final Fantasy game with actual good gameplay would still suck because the riduculous visuals lack any real focus.

Wait, what? If anything, visuals are the place that Final Fantasy isn't lacking. Final Fantasy XIV is the most high graphical fidelity MMORPG ever. It's simply badly reviewed because it doesn't have the content to go with it.

Final Fantasy XIII is perhaps the highest fidelity graphical game to date PlayStation 3 game to date. These games both, also have a worthy aesthetic. Final Fantasy Online has unique and interesting races for the MMORPG genre(perhaps the most endearing in the entire genre).

If anything, Square are a great example of how graphics destroy. Instead of spending so much time making solid and great games, they focused on graphics and created Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy XIV.

I can't even imagine Final Fantasy with "ridiculous visuals". So this is a horrible example. If anything, people are reminiscing the time when Square didn't actually care about graphical fidelity.

Remember how gorgeous this game was and how well it played?

 

[Necroid_Neko]

For me, I like my graphics to be nice and clean, but they don't have to be amazing or incredibly detailed. This generation of games has reached my expectations fully, I don't need better graphics than what most games have now, so I think I'll leave the tide behind and stay in this generation of games and consoles for a little while, it'll be cheaper too!

 

[mrhappy1489]

Well I'm a Nintendo fanboy, so...
No. Not at all.
Yeah, games like Gears Of War have loads of polygons and hi-res textures, but you'd have to be daft to say that they were easier on the eye than, say, Okami.

My friend, that is essentially, give or take a few words, the exact description I was about to provide. You sir, are a mind reader

 

[EternalFacepalm]

I doubt it would.

Perhaps I misspoke. I do miss the 2D era, though.

I sure wish graphics didn't sell. I miss the era where they didn't.

And brown is the worst.

I miss it as well, however the graphics we have now are here to stay, and be improved upon. Perhaps sometime much, much later, people will get over the graphics of a game. As of now I still regularly hear "I won't play it, the graphics suck", so it'll probably take a while. :/

 

[Casual Shinji]

and why any new Final Fantasy game with actual good gameplay would still suck because the riduculous visuals lack any real focus.

Wait, what? If anything, visuals are the place that Final Fantasy isn't lacking. Final Fantasy XIV is the most high graphical fidelity MMORPG ever. It's simply badly reviewed because it doesn't have the content to go with it.

Final Fantasy XIII is perhaps the highest fidelity graphical game to date PlayStation 3 game to date. These games both, also have a worthy aesthetic. Final Fantasy Online has unique and interesting races for the MMORPG genre(perhaps the most endearing in the entire genre).

If anything, Square are a great example of how graphics destroy. Instead of spending so much time making solid and great games, they focused on graphics and created Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy XIV.

I can't even imagine Final Fantasy with "ridiculous visuals". So this is a horrible example. If anything, people are reminiscing the time when Square didn't actually care about graphical fidelity.

I suppose it depends on what you go for, but to me the newer FF games look like shit. The past decade Square has gotten it into their head that putting on tons of belts and zippers, impractical hairdo's and dresses, equal beauty. They don't.

A while back I saw picture on DeviantART where someone had taken the main characters from Miyazaki's Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind and redesigned them in a FF aesthetic. While it was impressive on a technical standpoint, the characters themselves had become shallow representations of their former selves. Their visual presence had become dependent on hundreds of little shiny bits instead of actual style.

And that's what Square's games have all looked like ever since Final Fantasy 10; It doesn't have a style, just hundreds of little shiny bits all over the screen.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

>snip<

I said "look the part".

This means they need a good visual presence for what they represent.

I never played Minecraft, but the visuals have a charming simplicity too them. Had Minecraft been all wireframe it would've lost a lot of it's appeal. Visuals aren't end all be all, but they're just as important as gameplay and story. This is why Resident Evil 4 looks better than Resident Evil 5, and why any new Final Fantasy game with actual good gameplay would still suck because the riduculous visuals lack any real focus.

Fair point - but then surely we're talking about aesthetics, not graphics? And even then the argument doesn't extend particularly well to Roguelikes, where the presence of a red dragon is typically indicated by a red 'D', or an orc chieftain is indicated by a purple 'o'. Oh, the 'look' command comes in useful here, providing a paragraph long description of a highlighted beastie, but graphically all that is there is a letter or symbol. These games are still hugely entertaining (and massive, given the amount of development time not spent on graphics) despite being neither graphically or aesthetically pleasing.

 

[RuralGamer]

Graphical quality can be ignored when gameplay is good. Graphical quality makes no difference if a game has poorly designed controls, interface and/or mechanics. Ultimately I would always argue that graphical quality is one of the least important aspects of a game, but it is a bit of a deal-maker when it comes to deciding whether to invest in a game I've heard good things of.

 

[Soxafloppin]

Saying that they don't matter is just a lye, I remember playing God of War 3 and Castlevania: Lords of Shadows, countless times I just had to stop and say "Woah".

Good Graphics are a good thing

its been said time and time again, good game design will always triumph over Graphics.

 

[The Last Nomad]

Graphics are extremely important. Not just how things look in screenshots, but how they actually move in the game. If things have clear fluid movements then that makes gameplay much better.
good graphics don't necessarily mean detailed textures everywhere, a game could be make up of 3 colours on flat surfaces and still have amazing graphics.

Good graphics can make a good game great, but bad graphics can also make a good game bad.

 

[Griffolion]

I'm on your side. It's nice to have good graphics, but if the game/controls/story/characters/etc all suck, I'm not playing it. No matter how beautiful it is. It's kinda like how I look at women. I don't care how gorgeous you are, if you're not at least somewhat nice, you're dumb as a rock, you're insanely full of yourself, and you're just plain a *****, I'm not interested. Looks are one of the last things I look at either way.

I'm with you. Though with women, looks are the first things I see but one of the last things I consider when determining suitability as a partner.

 

[LilithSlave]

I can't even imagine Final Fantasy with "ridiculous visuals". So this is a horrible example. If anything, people are reminiscing the time when Square didn't actually care about graphical fidelity.

I suppose it depends on what you go for, but to me the newer FF games look like shit. The past decade Square has gotten it into their head that putting on tons of belts and zippers, impractical hairdo's and dresses, equal beauty. They don't.[/quote]
I don't understand what people hate so much about belts and zippers. Or weird and fantastic hair, or androgyny. And I prefer the old aesthetic. Mostly because I think Final Fantasy was magical at making fantasy games. For instance, Final Fantasy IX is my favourite of the PlayStation generation.

And I have no idea what you're talking about with shiny little bits. But the place that Square is sorely lacking, is gameplay only. I liked the old aesthetic better, but I could seriously care less about the aesthetic they choose at all right now. So long as they start making better gameplay. Because right now Tales of and Persona are the jRPG flagship because they've failed to deliver.

The most irritating aesthetic choice they ever made was with Nier. Where they outright stated they designed the main character the way they did, was because they took at the idiots who said "get the nasty androgyny faggots out of Final Fantasy and out of video games. I don't wanna play as a stupid queer" into consideration, and made the main character a muscleman for the Western release while retaining the Japanese style of character for the Japanese release.

I don't think I've ever been that irritated with Square in my life.

 

[babinro]

Controls and gameplay are tied for being most important, followed closely by replay value.

Nail those aspects and I'll love the game regardless of other elements. After those I'd still place sound design and story above graphics.

Graphics would have to be intentionally bad to have an impact on the game. If you designed a game with early 3D generation polygonal graphics today, it would influence my decision to try the game because of how poorly they stood the test of time.

I've read a lot of complaints about the graphics on recent games like SWTOR or Diablo 3. I for one don't see it. It's clear these games aren't as pretty as say Battlefield 3 on PC. But these games hardly have graphical downfalls sufficient enough to detract from the experience.

 

[mrhappy1489]

I doubt it would.

Perhaps I misspoke. I do miss the 2D era, though.

I sure wish graphics didn't sell. I miss the era where they didn't.

And brown is the worst.

I miss it as well, however the graphics we have now are here to stay, and be improved upon. Perhaps sometime much, much later, people will get over the graphics of a game. As of now I still regularly hear "I won't play it, the graphics suck", so it'll probably take a while. :/

Reading this and some other comments got me thinking, maybe we could stay at this level of graphics for say 10 more years. In that time I'm sure new upgrades will come along that will enable similar depth in today's system that was present, in say deus ex. I know that will never come to fruition, but imagine a world of that size with our standard today, honestly that would be a dream come true.