Poll: Do graphics really matter to you?

[PurpleRain]

Gears Of War made me fall asleep. Honestly, the game didn't faze me a bit. The graphics were top notch, they really wowed me, but the single player didn't live up to the hype. There I said it. The game was good, it just wasn't anything special. it got me thinking, were people only giving 10/10 reviews just cause it looks really shiny? Or was I playing it blindfolded?

Do you think that super-duper-life-like-can't-be-beat graphics are really that important in gaming as say to the story line... or even how fun the game is? I still play many hours of Fallout 1 and 2 because they're just fun (and I can go from town to town shooting dogs and children) but they don't look to pretty themselves. Would Bioshock be just as fun if it didn't have that little extra gleem on the water? Or would Frogger be the next-gen title of the year if they really made it life-like?

 

[arcstone]

I really don't think that the graphics is the most important part of a game.
I actually think that the graphics in, say, the legend of Zelda: twilight princess is quite good enough.

...but I do of course not say NO to good graphics if I'm granted that.

 

[dannyodwyer]

Im guilty of enjoying games that lacked originality, because of their graphical deliciousness. But apart from good graphics, a tasty art-style like Loco Roco, Katamari or Okami helps a lot too.

But in terms of your Frogger reference, i think a lot of publishers are guilty of thinking new graphics on an old game makes them more appealing. Rush'n Attack anyone?

 

[PurpleRain]

Like Crysis. I'm sorry to anyone who thinks this games the dogs balls, but to me it looks like a reamped version of Far Cry on the xbox. Same sort of style as well. I wouldn't go out and buy a whole new computer just to play it for that.

 

[Keljeck]

It depends on the game. Tetris doesn't need the latest cutting edge graphics. It's fun even on the Game Boy.

Mario can't really go any further than this point because the style is so cartoony, same with a game like Rayman.

Some games need every bit of graphical power or else it's just not satisfactory. Such as Mass Effect or Halo.

I don't care much about how many numbers are being crunched. I can play an SNES game or a PS2 game just as well, what matters is how well those numbers are used and the art style. OoT has aged far better than FF7 in my opinion. I was blown away by Metroid Prime 3's style even if it was running on Gamecube 1.5.

Okami is still breathtaking.

So to answer your question, as long as it looks good I'm fine with it.

 

[Chris Evans]

If it suits the game then I don't really mind, Call of Duty and the Half-Life 2 games are brilliant, and not just for their graphics even though they are a factor. Other games like UT3/Gears of War/Crysis just seem to be a case of getting the best graphics possible no matter what, whether for those games it has been to the detriment of the gaming experience I cannot say.

As long as the game plays well and has a good story then as long as the graphics are somewhat modern then I am fine.

 

[PurpleRain]

True. I'm imagining if Mass Effect came out when KOTOR did (with those graphics I mean) would it still have the same impact. Do we just shrugg off some games because they don't meet our standards in the way they look, a form of 'Judgeing a book by it's cover'

With Halo, I had the most fun with the first Halo, not including the mutiplayer. I think it's because it really made a difference with the whole FPS genre. Then Halo 2 was just more of the same, but you could dual-weild and was more shinnier.

 

[Combustible Monkey]

Personally, I'm inclined to say that art design is way more important than graphical technowhoozits.

You can go ahead and have a game-world with all sorts of shiny, normal-mapped realism, but is it interesting to look at?

For example, while Metroid Prime 3 is basically running on two lashed-together GameCubes, it's much more compelling from a visual standpoint (giving you a world that you really do want to explore) than say, Crysis which - even though there's still not a PC in existence that can run it at full graphic detail and fps - is, when it boils down to it, just another subtropical, Third-World jungle environment.

 

[Testing]

I don't really care much about graphics as long as the animation is good. It seems like a lot of games boast to have good graphics, but then look like you're playing under a strobe light.

 

[Combustible Monkey]

Yeah, see, and that's an example, I think, of mis-allocation of resources. You spend all this time and computing resources building these high-poly models leaving you a)less GPU power to keep the framerates up and b)less development time to put towards good, believable animation.

Why make something that you know is going to cause the system to chug?

 

[PurpleRain]

My friend and I play alot of Warhawk. Not the greatest graphics but it's so easy to overlook it because of how fun it really is.

 

[Zoidbergio]

Geometry Wars is still fun after two years and it's a bunch of simple shapes, though there are some cool effects that might not have been possible on previous hardware generations.

Mario Galaxy, RE4 Wii, and a bunch of other Wii games are just as compelling as any of the shinier offerings on other systems.

And to agree with the OP, Gears of War was a mediocre game with impressive graphics. It did not deserve all the hype. Several games have come since, such as CoD4 and Assassin's Creed, that have topped the graphics while having compelling gameplay to back it up.

 

[p1ne]

Crap, I should have read the other options more carefully before I voted.

Of course graphics matter, but in the sense of whether or not they can successfully communicate the game's feel and atmosphere. Good/effective art direction and tasteful design is a far more important contributor to a game's visual attractiveness than the actual technology used.

But yeah, if I didn't care about graphics at all I'd be playing Chess.

Edit: And since you mention Gears of War, I'd have to say that imho it's actually kind of visually boring. It looks great at first, but the dull, brownish ("gritty") industrial theme gets kind of old after awhile. I'd take Far Cry or Crysis any day. Or Team Fortress 2! God, that game looks fantastic.

 

[Deg]

It kind of depends on the game really. If a game has a really good story/game play (I like to value story highly even though I would make a poor critic of it) then the graphics usually wouldn?t matter so much. Yet, then there are those games that sort of need to have nice graphics in order to get across the 'feel' of the game.

Shadow of the colossus is kind of like this to me. Its fun, has a back-story of sorts, and is very atmospheric. But would it have really been as great if it had trashy graphics? Possibly but it also would loose some of its wow factor and atmosphere.

I don?t think graphics should be played as a trump card to all else, but they can help.

 

[PurpleRain]

Geometry Wars is still fun after two years and it's a bunch of simple shapes, though there are some cool effects that might not have been possible on previous hardware generations.

I still find Geometry Wars fun and addictive even more so then some recent games.

Another mistake was CoD3! That game was graphics up the arse but it didn't change the way I felt about it. It was too over the top (I don't know how they did it, but they succeded) and enemies seemed to zurg you alot instead of being more tatical, like say BiA is. I spent more time looking at the mud and grass then I did fighting. I haven't played number 4 yet, but I hope they change the formula a bit.

 

[jadedcritic]

I wish they didn't - because it's shallow, but yea, they do matter to me. I know this because I have some difficulty picking up my old games off the shelf and replaying them. Oh sure, I smile for the nostalgia of it, but there's always that voice in the back of my mind that says. Holy cow, I used to think this was cool!

Graphics train the eye, next thing you know you're spoiled. It's like getting a pay raise versus taking a pay cut. Everyone can always adjust to getting paid more, but not everyone can adjust so easily to getting paid less, and down always hurts more then up.

 

[blackfly01]

Pff, not really. I've found games with bad graphics tend to have a better emphasis on game play. That's how the chances are for most arcade games.

 

[Lance Icarus]

Graphics don't mean crap to me. Granted this is coming from a guy who still plays Lucasarts point-and-click adventure games, but the most important things about a game is gameplay. Sure graphics can add to it, but you can't frost a fourth of a cake and expect it to stand. Graphics are and always will be a non-issue for me, just as long as I can have fun with the game.

 

[Geoffrey42]

Another vote for D. Good art direction.

The graphics don't need to be awesome, in terms of poly-count, bitmap resolution, photo-realism, etc, as long as the style is consistent, and serves the gameplay instead of hindering it. The most basic graphics can be effective, and the most advanced graphics can be equally effective. Just don't put so little effort into the graphics that they end up looking like they were drawn by a 3 year old (unless, of course, it fits the motif of your <a href=http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=467483>game).

And to the reference about not caring about graphics and playing chess: honestly? Many chess sets are works of art. But, again, similar to games, a good chess set isn't just pretty. It's purposefully crafted, with good weight distribution and an easy grip.

 

[Sylocat]

All we hear about in mainstream game reviews is graphics. It's always the first thing asked about and the first thing talked about. I believe Yahtzee said something like "After so many years, we've officially reached the point where the graphics aren't going to get much better, so maybe it's time to give up the graphics and start making games with some real depth."

I agree with the good art direction. High-tech graphics chips don't mean anything unless you know how to use them properly. But really, how much can graphics compensate for a lousy story or bad gameplay?