Poll: Would you sacrifice graphics in a game for something else?

[subject_87]

I'm annoyed if a game is obviously trying to coast on graphical prowess and pretty much nothing else; I don't really care what the graphics are like, so long as I can tell what things are reasonably easily. Case in point: Age of Mythology's graphics by today's standards are rather subpar, but it's still one of the best and most enjoyable RTS's I've ever played.

 

[Capcom4ever]

It depends on the extent at which I sacrifice graphics. If it is downgraded to cartoony looking (Zelda: Wind Waker type), but it friggin' awesome otherwise, I would take that. But if it was downgraded to 8-bit or worse, there will be problems.

 

[jpoon]

I absolutely will sacrifice some graphical bells & whistles for a more polished and improved gameplay. 80% of game devs nowdays have obviously ignored this.

 

[Legendsmith]

Hell yes, this has been something I have wanted developers to do for a LONG time. Besides which they kind of have done it. Dwarf Fortress is made by 2 people, and yet it's a hundred times more intricate, complex, and all-round good than most AAA games just because all of the effort is put into game-play.

Yepp, all into gameplay. They've made a great game. But there are times that I wish they'd put some effort into the user interface.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

Graphics matter, but not nearly as much as gameplay, story, characters, and replayability.

 

[triggrhappy94]

People have odviously never tried to play a game on a PC that could berely support the game at low graphics.
Sometimes you have to lower the sets if you don't want your computer to melt.

 

[Danceofmasks]

People have odviously never tried to play a game on a PC that could berely support the game at low graphics.
Sometimes you have to lower the sets if you don't want your computer to melt.

Haha, ikr?

Heck, I've seen someone play Portal 2 on the lowest settings, and it looks like crap.
It still plays like Portal 2, though.

 

[Canid117]

Yes

I would sacrifice them for fun

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

Great graphics aren't necessary, obviously. But bad graphics can be distracting. Primitive graphics can work if they're simplistic and functional. But there's that middle era of gaming, the PS1 and N64 days, where so many games tried too hard to look awesome and those are the games that are just too ugly now to enjoy.

 

[Scratch17]

I know it sounds like a knock-off to quote Extra Credits, but "graphics should be there to serve the asthetic." And for that matter, everything else.

Best example I can think of right now: Doukutsu Monogatari, AKA Cave Story. 8-bit graphics, but a simple platformer with a heart-wrenching plot line, lots of great characters and upgradable weapons. I liked this game more than the cookie-cutter stuff they kept churning out in that time, but I am a bit biased towards platformers, so cut me some slack.

Also, GTA San Andreas VS GTA IV... San Andreas hands down. Bigger map, more relatable characters, broader line-up of support characters, wider variety of missions based on setting, involving storyline... Yeah... I still enjoyed SA more than IV.

I would sacrifice graphics for storyline, good controls, realistic characters or innovative design choices almost every time.

 

[andy25100]

I play Dwarf Fortress, i think that's a complete & compelling argument right there.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Minecraft, Dwarf Fortress, etc...

 

[AlternatePFG]

I would sacrifice graphics if it meant the game had more significant choices. That's why many times I prefer older RPGs to newer ones, before voice acting and 3D graphics, because those games didn't require a huge budget to make, so they could make the game more open and give players more options.

 

[kickyourass]

A million time yes, if a game is enjoyable to play then I can forgive alot when it comes to graphics. For an example look at a few of the older Total War games, by today's standards they're down right ugly if looked at in the wrong light, but the game play is so spot on I barely even notice that my line of pikemen is made up entirely of clones.

 

[StBishop]

Yeah, namely, the art style.

 

[Nexus4]

So long as the aesthetics are good, I do not mind if the graphical quality is not jawdroppingly perfect. For example: Morrowind, Ocarina of Time, Shadow of the Colossus and Resonance of Fate.

 

[CarlsonAndPeeters]

Minecraft.

That is all.

But, to say more, graphics have always been one of the pillars of gaming, but just one. Not the most important or the least important; a single pillar. If sacrificing the graphics improves the other pillars (controls, writing, design, what have you), then yes please, go for it.

 

[Shio]

What's with the anti-graphics gravy train lately?

They aren't the be all and end all of video games. We know. We get it. Why go about spurting it like it's some revelation?

 

[wkim564]

I have tried playing really old games and the aesthetic has been really hit and miss for me. i.e. Could stand FFVII, couldn't stand Deus Ex the original as superficial as it sounds.

I would sacrifice graphics as pretty as Resistance 3, Uncharted 3, Assassins Creed, if the look, refer to the graphics thing from Extra Credits, was still bearable but the gameplay or plot must be amazing to compensate.