Poll: Do you give a crap about graphics?

[vato_loco]

While I voted NO, I do have to make a short statement.

If a game is graphically inaccurate (meaning, it looks godawful), it could mean one of two things:

- They figured they'd throw the big bucks to the script and gameplay department, which is good.
- They didn't give a crap and wouldn't even bother to cover it up with pretty backgrounds and boobies, which is bad.

So, if a game looks regular but its gameplay, story and character development are great, then I'm in.

 

[cefm]

Bad graphics can hurt a game, but good graphics won't save one.

As long as the designers are using graphics appropriately, then the level of sophistication won't matter. In other words, Metroid for the NES had primitive but great graphics. Many games are made with much more sophisticated technology that fails because of either bad art or just flat out not being able to tell what's going on.

Usually the failure of graphics is in trying to do too much.

 

[Stormz]

No I don't really care that much for graphics as long as the game is good. I think there is a difference between bad and ugly graphics though. I think bad graphics can still be nice/artistic, Ugly Graphics are those games where it doesn't even look like the devs tried, they're dull and uninspiring.

 

[FinalHeart95]

Yes. I play 16-bit as well, but the graphics still don't look like shit then. Although it's pretty rare, if graphics look like absolute shit, then I really don't enjoy it.

I'm not asking for Crysis-level graphics, just as long as I can discern my enemies from my allies fairly easily.

 

[TehCookie]

As long as I can tell what the thing is suppose to be I'm fine with it, and as long as it's [color= blue]c[/color][color= orange]o[/color][color= green]l[/color][color= red]o[/color][color= cyan]u[/color][color= indigo]r[/color][color= purple]f[/color][color= pink]u[/color][color= yellow]l[/color]. My imagination fills in the crappy graphics so they look realistic in my head, and I prefer that so the company can focus on the game play and story rather than having thousands of people and spending millions of dollars to make a leaf. And that lead better be bright green than some dull dust covered brown.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

It really depends on the game. Windwaker was unique in that it's Graphics were odd as hell, but the gameplay was exactly as we'd hoped for the new Zelda of the time. 3D Dot Game Heroes looks like an amazingly fun little toy, and it's literally a 3D version of the old 8-bit pixels. God of War 3 really needed the eye-watering graphics that it used, as did InFamous, Prototype, Dragon Age, etc. Just depends on the game.

 

[Gigano]

As much as I'd like not to, It's pretty evident to me when I revisit 5+ year old games that they've lost some of their visual shine. I can still enjoy stuff like Sands of time, but some of the wow-factor is undeniably gone.

The only games I can replay without any sense of loss is Might & Magic 6 and 7, which didn't have great graphics when they came out (and certainly not by the time I got hand of them), and thus never wow'ed me the slightest on that account.

 

[hopeneverdies]

No, I do not. Why? Because I am extremely used to less modern graphics. Not only that, I think they look fine. The visuals don't need to be anywhere near top of the line. As long as a character is distinguishable from a wall, the graphics are fine.

For some reason, devs think that extremely good graphics are one of the most important things ever. Trying to outdo another company in terms of viusals removes more and more time and money from aspects that really matter, like gameplay and writing.

 

[darkonnis]

I recently bought the original star craft and BW just to play through the story and actually get a feel for the game so that when i started SC2 i actually knew who kerrigan was and good ole jim raynor. I've done 2 thirds of the campaigns in the original (not BW) and i've gotten to a point were i'd actually prefer to play flash games. I dont mind the pathing being terrible, but with the graphics not being good to look at it, ahhhh i'll just skip it.
That said, i'm not a graphics whore, but a game is alot nicer to play and generally keep my attention when the visuals are great and run smoothly

 

[Skops]

If i believed they matter at all times, I wouldn't be playing MAG as often as I do.

 

[capacollo]

They do matter. I'm not saying that they take precedent over story and gameplay, but I can forgive a lot of annoyance if a game is beautifully presented.[footnote]See: 2008's Prince of Persia[/footnote]

You nailed it there. They're the least important corner of the triangle, but they're important nonetheless.

I agree for games that are intended to be more immersive it complements good gameplay and story. Good graphics is subjective but again so long as it complements the game and style. One of the reasons why I enjoyed Myst is for that fact. The beautiful scenery was a big component of the game due to help realize the story and complement the style of play which required visual interaction.

 

[LockeDown]

Graphics alone don't sell a game for me, but given the sizable investment in both my consoles, I expect the game's visuals to be at least somewhat better than last-gen, if only to help me legitimize the hundreds of dollars spent on my PS3 and 360.

 

[cynicalsaint1]

They do to a degree. I can forgive inferior graphics for compelling game play, and I generally don't hold an older game's graphics against it, but gorgeous graphics can add quite a bit to a game if used properly.

For example I don't think riding around in Red Dead Redemption would be as awesome as it is, if the scenery wasn't as great as it is.

 

[KaiRai]

If I'm paying 45 quid a game, it had better look good. On the whole though, no, as my most played games lately are WoW and Digimon 2. Damn you breaking xbox, damn you....

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

They do matter to a point, but I voted no because they're probably the least important aspect of the game to me.

 

[Fenra]

Not every game needs crysis level visuals but I voted yes because (aside from being a bit of a graphics wh*re) people dont seem to realise how much it actualy adds to a game. 2 examples that come to mind for me are first of all bioshock, when that first came out it looked amazing and I find myself thinking if the graphics hadnt been anywhere near that good, particularily the water effects I wouldnt have enjoyed it or been drawn into the world anywhere near as much as I was.

The seconds is Prey, not the most technically advanced game but after I had played that I found myself looking through old PC games magazines (looking to see which I could throw out) and I saw very early pictures of it, back when it was first in development (1996 I think it was) with HL1 style graphics and found myself thinking "wow, for everything they wanted to do with the game, that really wouldnt have worked, glad they held off for the technology"

So yeah to me its very important, still comes behind story in my priorities but shares the 2nd spot with gameplay

 

[craddoke]

Pretty pictures are nice, but they should be a game's dessert rather than its entrée. There also seems to be a disturbing correlation between crappy RPGs and 3D graphics - indeed, no 3D game would make in on my top 20 list of RPGs; this makes me think that the unwise allocation of limited design/production resources to graphics may be partly to blame.

Of course, I'm probably a hopeless iconoclast/logophile (in the traditional senses of both words) - give me a thousand words (and 2D sprite animations) any day of the week.

 

[Snotnarok]

I want to say no, but I'm an artist and I like seeing great artstyles and such. Also being able to see what I'm playing really helps.

Though I play PSOne and Master System games so graphics matter only so much.

 

[mad825]

........

I wish the question or at least the poll could have been more refined as I am only been given an option to say that "I like to play games with no graphics" with also opposed "I like pointless games like Crysis"

I would prefer game with 800x600 resolution, 16-bits at least and it also depend on the other aspects of the game, I would never buy game solely based on graphics alone as it is the last minor judgement I make about a game