Poll: How important are the graphics of a video game?

[lucky_sharm]

Are clean, vividly detailed graphics what sells a video game? Should graphics just be good enough to not distract you while playing the game? Should a game look like an eye straining piece of hog shit but have great gameplay? Could the art direction of the graphics matter, too? How important are the graphics of a video game and how good should they look?

 

[reg42]

As long as they are... I can't really explain it. I tried to play Red Alert, but the really tiny sprites got to me. I think the models have to look somewhat realistic for me to cope.

 

[omega 616]

As long as you can tell a tree is a tree and a man is a man (with round elbows), I am happy.

Just 'cos you can see the individual bumps on a brick doesn't make the game any better.

The more a game is praised for it's graphics the less likely I am to play it, from my experience the better the graphics the worse something else is, such as story.

In my mind the importance goes gameplay -> story -> graphics -> sound (including voice acting).

EDIT:

I would like to add, I think the only improvement left to do with graphics is destructible scenery and people, at the moment it's kind of implemented but it's still below level of red faction in most cases.

You drop bombs and grenades on the floor and all they do is leave scorch marks, walls fall apart in massive blocks rather than just a hole appearing in the wall till the wall can't support it's self and it falls down and a supporting wall brings a building down and you either blow an entire body part off, blow them apart or they just fall over.

Stop with lighting and wind effects and implement this!

I haven't found a game to do any of that, if it was made I think it would sell better than MW2.

 

[Extravaganza]

I'm getting sick of people complaining about Starcraft2's graphics as there not all the bad. Sure.. they might not be up to par with some of the new games, but people (me) still play Starcraft Broodwar and because the graphics are comprehensible we play it for the gameplay.

 

[whycantibelinus]

As long as I don't get stuck on stupid shit in the enviroment *looks at Borderlands vehicles* then the graphics are ok in my book.

 

[Blatherscythe]

As long as it doesn't intervere with immersion or become irritating (the fuzzy jungles of the N64 do that to me now) it shouldn't matter. So as long as they're passable I should be fine with it.

 

[Space Spoons]

I'm actually not a huge fan of near-photorealism in graphics. I find it constricting, and more than a little creepy. I tend to lean more towards stylized graphics in the style of No More Heroes, Street Fighter IV and The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker.

So really, technical strength doesn't really matter to me as much as presentation does. Graphics that even the Wii is capable of producing would hold more appeal for me over something like Heavy Rain.

 

[02y211]

Well, I do still play oldies but goldies with great gameplay(Deus Ex, Diablo 2 ect.), but graphics do hold some value.
I like Blizzards take on graphics, it looks ok, but you play it for the amazing gameplay (along with the setting, music, atmosphere and so on).

 

[Hallow'sEve]

I'm not playing a game if I can't tell what's going on or if it's so ugly I can't watch it. That being said, graphics don't matter.

 

[fd18e3d0-816e-11e4-b4a9-0800200c9a66]

I feel the most important thing is Gameplay. I can play a game with poor graphics if it's entertaining. Games that sacrifice everything for looks seems pointless.

 

[DreadfulSorry]

Graphics don't really matter to me that much. I mean, I can play the polygonal nightmare that is FF7 and still get embarrassingly immersed, but for all the beautiful graphics of Assassin's Creed I just can't get into it.

 

[Ancientgamer]

I voted that the art direction is what's important, but please note that doesn't preclude Extremely detailed and vivid graphics. Bioshock had very realistic graphics along with good art direction.

 

[Kajt]

As long as I can tell NPC from a rock, I'm happy.

 

[Mortons4ck]

As long as you can tell a tree is a tree and a man is a man (with round elbows), I am happy.

QFT.

As long as the graphics aren't distractingly bad, I'm good.

 

[Jasper Jeffs]

I like graphics and attention to detail, FPS's become more badass/realistic, sandbox/RPG's become more immersive etc. A good example for me is Saints Row 2, if it would've been made with a bigger emphasis on presentation, I would've liked it a lot more. GTA IV did have that direction, and that's why I love it. Driving a quad bike on GTA IV would be awesome, it's shit on SR2 because it looks/feels retarded.

 

[TPiddy]

I think there should be certain graphical standards for each console generation, and if you're above that you're good to go.

Dragon Age is probably as low as I'll go for console graphics this generation.

 

[A random person]

I consider art style and direction to be quite important to a game, and I far prefer stylized graphics to "real is brown" designs. For example, to me, Valkyria Chronicles, the Tales games, and Wind Waker are far more beautiful games than Gears of War or a lot of FPS's.

As for polygon count, textures, and technical things like that, however, I just look for them to be functional and not make the game seem off.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

For the millionth time:

It. Depends. On. The. Game.

Would Mass Effect 2 or Oblivion be as immersive without the pretty graphics?

No.

Would Pong be more fun with HD backgrounds and 6000 colours?

No.