How important are graphics to you.

[alfawx]

I'd say I enjoy graphics, but don't require them. In fact, although I love running around in 1080p land, there's many times I'd rather be playing my N64. On second thought, I'd say graphics aren't really something that add value to a game so much as a part of a game that has no inherent value; Silent Hill 2 is a horror game with fairly okay graphics. Silent Hill Homecoming had more modern graphics. It's not so much a grade as it is an integral chunk of a game's identity.

 

[Casual Shinji]

>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.

I never played that game, but I reckon that even there the visuals, no matter how simple, make sure that the player knows exactly what's what and how to act accordingly. Actually, you could say that because of the simplicity of the visuals the gameplay is improved.

HUD's, for example, are all visual, but if they're badly designed it can scew up the entire game, no matter how good the gameplay is.

 

[Kriptonite]

I am of the opinion that graphics are one of the last things you should look at then judging or critiquing a game

I wouldn't say last, only because if the graphics tie into the game in an implicit way, I believe that that makes them more important. However, for most games, I could car less about graphics.
My standpoint is this: If I can tell what it is, the graphics are fine [footnote]Unless I'm not supposed to know what it is[/footnote].

 

[mental_looney]

Icing on the cake though a I prefer a cohesive visial style over simply lots of shiny things that look nice

 

[DasDestroyer]

I can't say I don't enjoy good graphics, otherwise getting a computer for playing games on high graphics settings would have been a bit stupid. But at the same time, graphics are on of the few things most games don't "need" per say. A game with bad graphics but a compelling story, developed characters, tight mechanics and good gameplay is significantly better than a game with amazing graphics, but lacking in even one of the other departments.

 

[C F]

HUD's, for example, are all visual, but if they're badly designed it can scew up the entire game, no matter how good the gameplay is.

I personally have a surprisingly high tolerance for crappy UIs and HUDs. I'm a quick learner, so I find myself jumping through a heck of a lot of hoops without a care in the world before too long. Doesn't bother me much. I understand your argument, but it would seem a bit petty if I agreed to it.

Onto the actual graphics: So long as it doesn't give me a headache, we're gold. High resolution is nice and all, but am I seriously going to appreciate the fine details in the midst of heated gameplay? All signs point to no.

 

[Polarity27]

Not at all important. Sometimes I'll stop and admire the scenery, but most of the time I either barely notice or am pretty forgiving. Some of my favorite games had crappy graphics, but then I grew up when Atari first came out so I wasn't exactly raised to expect pretty games.

 

[Casual Shinji]

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.

I don't mind belts or zippers, but when a character's outfit is almost entirely comprised out of them it starts to look ridiculous. Ofcourse there needs to be some fantasy "swirl" to the overal design, but past a certain point it starts to lose all its practical sense and recognizable features.

When designing a fantasy setting the audience needs enough recognizable features of their own world as a stable foundation to be able to enjoy the fantastical elements. Otherwise they won't be able to place themselves in the setting because everything feels way too alien. Prime example of this is FF13.

My favourite looking FF is probably 9, too. And that's because it had a solid visual style. And while some of the designs could be a bit overzealous it still worked, mainly because of its cartoony nature.

As for androgyny, I think most people are mainly annoyed that Square feels the need to put in that one male character with the Meg Ryan hairdo in each of the major entries.

 

[Rheinmetall]

Graphics are very important to me. Essentially they are the whole game. Graphics are not just the looks, but they define the function of game-play.

Thats an interesting idea please explain.

What i say is that graphics is part of the game-play. Take "L.A. Noire" for instance; I haven't played it but I have heard that big part of the game's play revolves around questioning suspects and "reading" their facial expressions, as you try to figure whether they are telling the truth, or not. This type of game-play can only be materialized with a powerful and modern graphics engine.

Let me give you another example: Metal Gear Solid. Would it be possible to have this kind of stealth game-play without the 3D environments and characters?
Also,if you have played the first three Resident Evil games on the PlayStation you probably remember those hideous giant spiders that terrorized so many of us. Those creatures were terrifying because they were very detailed in terms of appearance and had realistic animations. I agree that the feeling of horror can be achieved with many ways, not only visually, but the power of image is undeniable.

Video-games are all about image. In a concrete building you have the walls and the walls' decoration separately, and surely the walls are more important than the decoration, but in games where there is only an illusion of space, the image plays a decisive role.

 

[kasperbbs]

Well its 2012, so i would expect AAA titles to be pretty, but if the gameplay/story is garbage then i might as well be looking at a screensaver.
EDIT: If GTA 4 didn't have a physics engine, car damage and detailed animations it would lose a lot of its appeal, it simply wouldn't be as fun causing havoc to the city.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Love good graphics, very important. But that also is linked to the game the graphics are in. MW2 and BF3 were boring but had great graphics. Same with Crysis 2, great graphics but okish game. They lacked substance, they werent bad games at all. Just, like most people, they want the next big shooter, something new and maybe something with a bigger playing area or city. (WW2 open world shooter please...finger crossed).

But then its strange because Limbo had great graphics and it was simple black and white shapes, but it worked in context with the game.

 

[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.

I never played that game, but I reckon that even there the visuals, no matter how simple, make sure that the player knows exactly what's what and how to act accordingly. Actually, you could say that because of the simplicity of the visuals the gameplay is improved.

HUD's, for example, are all visual, but if they're badly designed it can scew up the entire game, no matter how good the gameplay is.

True enough, but I still think that this is down to aesthetics than good/poor graphics. As you rightly say, games with top-notch graphics put together in an aesthetically confused way can ruin a game, but the OP (or more accurately, the OP's friend) was saying that without top-notch graphics a game is unplayable. To which I (and I think you) disagree.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Also. I do wonder if in the old days of C64 and Spectrum gaming. A person used more imagination. A blob is you, another blob is an alien. Like reading a book, you imagined it all out. They werent blobs of pixels in your mind, but real looking people. So i wonder if now that games have very real life graphics that the brain has lost its imagination (to a point) and thats why we want more because we look more at story and the rest?

This could be dumb though. I remember being hooked way more on games like Turrican 2 and Creatures 2 than on modern games. But then that could just be that ive aged.

 

[RagTagBand]

Quite Important IMO as they're the biggest barrier, for me, for immersion. They're not "The" biggest important thing, fun gameplay and a good story come first, but I find that if the graphics aren't to a certain standard I have a hard time focusing or enjoying the game.

That being said, the "Standard" I set the bar to isn't particularly high, I don't demand xbox360 level graphics, but there is a point that my eyes just won't forgive me for looking at for too long.

Also, aesthetics are just as important and a game with shit graphics can be saved by good aesthetics.

 

[Saltyk]

It's sort of a mixed bag.

I don't think graphics are paramount to the game being good. Good graphics are nice, and I enjoy them. But there are plenty of great games that I have played and will still play that don't have good graphics. Some of my favorite games look bad by today's standards. Final Fantasy 7, Suikoden II, Legend of Legaia are all PSOne games with terrible graphics compared to Deus Ex: Human Revolution or Rage. But I remember them fondly and I'm not above picking them up at anytime.

That being said, I notice the less than great visuals. There have even been times that I have been turned off by bad graphics. If your game doesn't hit a minimum standard for graphics by the days standards, I probably won't look at it (if you couldn't make decent looking models the rest of the game probably isn't very polished).

Really, great visuals and graphics are more icing on the cake than anything else to me.

 

[Mighty Lighty]

I do think graphics are important but it depends on the game
for example in uncharted 3 the awesome graphics make the game more exciting and beautiful
but on the other hand, I just replayed resi 4 last week and found the rough graphics mare scary than I did with resi 5

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Meh. As long as the low-fi or lack of graphics (i.e. Dwarf Fortress) don't make the game unreadable, it's fine. Still, it's always amusing to see bleeding-edge enthusiasts blow thousands of bucks on overpriced hardware all so they can go back to playing Minecraft.

"Oh, but I'm different!" they'll say. "I patched my game to support high-resolution textures and I'm using a fan-made shader!"

Doesn't change the fact that it's Minecraft.

I really don't mind, personally. Some of the more striking games I've had the chance to play in the last few years had incredibly simple or primitive graphics. Stuff like Passage, Canabalt, Revenge of the Titans or The Binding of Isaac.

I think the real question should be "What drives bleeding-edge enthusiasts?" Are they really getting the most out of the constructed gameplay *because* they can run it in 1080p with all visual options cranked to the max and a custom .INI file?

I have to run Skyrim on Low since the latest patch, as the ENB series of shader and color saturation mods has become far too taxing for my system. It's also started to run a bit sluggishly in its initial settings even if the executable is supposed to have been patched to handle more than two gigabytes of RAM. In some ways, this patch has been a severe downgrade for me, as I could run the game on High with little to no slowdowns and with concessions made to water reflection levels.

Does this mean my enjoyment of the game has diminished? Of course not. Skyrim manages to create an immersive experience even with its visuals set on "Worse than Dog Shit", and that's largely because the level designers are smart enough to create a world that speaks based on its aesthetics, and not based on how much specular bump-mapping or Full-Scene Anti-Aliasing is being used.

 

[VondeVon]

Vital. No graphics, no game.

I struggle to get into a game if it looks shoddy. I struggle to connect with the characters.

Then again, I also struggle to get into a game if it's top-of-the-line 'gritty' realism, where every blackened pore is lovingly detailed.

 

[everythingbeeps]

I usually don't care too much unless there are problems with them (i.e. poor framerate, screen tearing, etc.)