Gameplay is more important than the graphics but those same graphics have to be good enough that I don't cringe when seeing them. I have had problems playing 1st Deus Ex again because of this and for FF7 thank christ for PC resolution mods.
How important are graphics to you.
- Thread starter stvncpr236
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Graphics (along with story) are nearly completely irrelevant for me, and I can be just happy ASCII games like Dwarf Fortress.
For me, gameplay mechanics are what hole my interest, and the more sophisticated the mechanics, and the more the game lets me get creative with strategy, the happier I am with it.
For me, gameplay mechanics are what hole my interest, and the more sophisticated the mechanics, and the more the game lets me get creative with strategy, the happier I am with it.
The actual graphical quality rarely bothers me. Visually what I find important is the art style which is a far more important factor in a good looking game. Sure a game like Crysis can get by on graphical fidelity alone (although it's worth noting that it WASN'T a samey bown corridor shooter but a semi open tropical island) whereas a game like bioshock didn't have nearly as much power behind it but it looked great, a really distinct and pretty style.
That said I tend to put gameplay/story before prettyness (yes I know that isn't a word).
That said I tend to put gameplay/story before prettyness (yes I know that isn't a word).
I hate them. As in, I hate how current gen. graphics are killing video games.
As for graphics on their own, they're useless to me. The only time graphics are even remotely useful, is when they're used for an aesthetic I love.
But most of the time, higher graphics means my kind of aesthetic is dying. And as such, I think most 16-Bit games look better than most current gen. games. Not to mention I think they play better.
To be frankly honest, I think a move back to 2D sprites making up the majority of games would be a step in the right direction.
As for graphics on their own, they're useless to me. The only time graphics are even remotely useful, is when they're used for an aesthetic I love.
But most of the time, higher graphics means my kind of aesthetic is dying. And as such, I think most 16-Bit games look better than most current gen. games. Not to mention I think they play better.
To be frankly honest, I think a move back to 2D sprites making up the majority of games would be a step in the right direction.
For me, it's all about aesthetics. The I recently re-played Gothic and Thief 1 both games have pretty bad graphics for today standarts, but the aesthetics are so damn cool. If you can make your environment look vibrant and aesthetically pleasing to the eyes, It doesn't matters if the game uses dated graphics or not.
As long as I can tell what everything is supposed to be and is distinguishable from everything else, it can be as polygonal, pixelated or whatever else. All I really need to do to get my argument across is point to Minecraft- pixelated cubes as far as the eye can see and it's one of the most popular games around.
What you really need to be concerned with, as many have already said, is art direction. Zelda: Wind Waker is a game that will always look good, thanks to it's fantastic art direction. I personally put 'realistic' graphics as a thing I tend to shy away from, because the vast majority of the time they turn out either a) uncanny valley monstrosities, b) like viewing the game through brown murky dishwashing water, or c) both a and b at once.
For me, "good graphics" are ones that are visually interesting and pleasing to look at, which, in my view, seems to exclusively apply to stylised graphics.
What you really need to be concerned with, as many have already said, is art direction. Zelda: Wind Waker is a game that will always look good, thanks to it's fantastic art direction. I personally put 'realistic' graphics as a thing I tend to shy away from, because the vast majority of the time they turn out either a) uncanny valley monstrosities, b) like viewing the game through brown murky dishwashing water, or c) both a and b at once.
For me, "good graphics" are ones that are visually interesting and pleasing to look at, which, in my view, seems to exclusively apply to stylised graphics.
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 likeCasual Shinji said:
and
and even
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.
What's important about the visual is a nice aesthetic, not good graphics, unless the graphics aren't good enough to support the aesthetic properly, in which case either get better graphics or change the aesthetic. Really, I can't imagine it being easy to have shitty enough graphics to not be able to support the aesthetic; I mean, as far as I'm concerned, Majora's Mask is a beautiful game.
Graphics don't matter to me, gameplay does. I can play a Might&Magic 3 even today without trouble. Games like Ultima Underworld II only cause me issue because the jumping mechanics are, plain and simple, terrible.
If a game has good gameplay, the graphics can be NES-style for all I care.
I'm currently happily playing the old Might&Magic titles
And their graphics really are pretty bad. So what?
If a game has good gameplay, the graphics can be NES-style for all I care.
Who is "we"? I sure am not included in the we.
I'm currently happily playing the old Might&Magic titles
And their graphics really are pretty bad. So what?
I can't stand the bit era games any more but as long as I know whats there I am not fussed.
For example, I am quite happy to play dead space 2 at the lowest settings or the highest, doesn't make much difference to me. I can't play minecraft 'cos it looks like ass (among other reasons none graphic related).
Same goes for pineapple smash crew, the game has retro graphics, which means I don't want to play it 'cos I don't like the look.
I can't tell if AA or v synch is on.
For example, I am quite happy to play dead space 2 at the lowest settings or the highest, doesn't make much difference to me. I can't play minecraft 'cos it looks like ass (among other reasons none graphic related).
Same goes for pineapple smash crew, the game has retro graphics, which means I don't want to play it 'cos I don't like the look.
I can't tell if AA or v synch is on.
I would say Gameplay > Graphics.
i do appreciate today's graphics that's not the problem but gameplay seems to be an afterthought sometimes in modern games.
i do appreciate today's graphics that's not the problem but gameplay seems to be an afterthought sometimes in modern games.
I doubt it would.LilithSlave said:
Currently, many producers put graphics above gameplay because hey, graphics sell. However, downgrading graphics won't help. What the industry needs is for graphics to be used right.
Gameplay should always be preferred, yes, but graphics enable gameplay. FPS games, for example, don't work nearly as well with 16-bit sprites as they do with 3D models.
What we need is for graphics to be used only, and I mean only for it to enable the aesthetic it's attempting to pull off. Of course, some games go with the "realistic brown" aesthetic, which isn't exactly great. But reverting won't help.
A cartoony aesthetic is nigh impossible with sprites and retro graphics. A 3D platformer wouldn't work at all with sprites.
(Just to make this clear, I know you said "the majority of games", however I still believe that's a wrong step entirely.)
How I evaluate graphics:
Is it an old game? If yes, yeah the graphics are okay.
Does it look better then the graphics on my Gamecube? If yes, then yeah the graphics are okay.
If No to both, then no the graphics look bad and need work.
Then I proceed to actually evaluate the game after that bit of wasted time.
Is it an old game? If yes, yeah the graphics are okay.
Does it look better then the graphics on my Gamecube? If yes, then yeah the graphics are okay.
If No to both, then no the graphics look bad and need work.
Then I proceed to actually evaluate the game after that bit of wasted time.
