So, how important are graphics/aesthetics?

[TheAweDude]

So I was playing Nethack at school the other day (it was during lunch, don't worry) and a friend came over. He was wondering what game I was playing, so I told him. He said the developers must be really poor because there was no "graphics" to speak of.

The next day, we were talking about games in general, and the topic of Skyrim came up. Now, I have never played it (or any Elder Scrolls game), so I asked him, "Well, what exactly is so good about it?" He, immediately,replied that the graphics are amazing, and you can shout at enemies. Specifically, he mentioned the vastness and epicness of the environment. How it felt really "big" and open.

Now, this got me thinking, exactly how important are the graphics, or even the entire aesthetic or thematic feel, to a game? I even want you to consider games where the aesthetic is vital to gameplay, like Amnesia and Bioshock.

Personally, I am not wowed by graphics anymore, but I also don't care about the "theme" of a game. I gladly play Pokemon on simulators, and I play games with graphics that would be deemed bad for the SNES. Heck, I would play a game meant for little children if it had a deep enough metagame.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

The Aesthetics are different from the graphics.
Minecraft has terrible graphics but great aesthetics... If minecraft had as good graphics as skyrim it wouldnt fit the nature of the game at all.
Same goes for skyrim, the graphics are good.. but so too are the Aesthetics. The world of skyrim really feels like a truly cold and violent place because of how it looks.
Also look at Battlefield 3, the graphics are pretty realistic as far as todays tech allows, which fits with the game, these same graphics wouldnt work for pokemon.

So really, graphics and aesthetics are probably one of the most important aspects of a game when trying to convey a feel for the game. but that doesnt mean every game has to have 50 billion dollar budget to spend on graphics.

 

[cthulhumythos]

kinda. as a person who likes to play games like morrowind and majora's mask to this day, i don't really mind if they're not great in the graphical department.

however, if skyrim had really poor graphics, i'd be disappointed. because one of it's features was being better looking than oblivion.

but graphics do not determine if a game is 'good' or not, that's ridiculous.

 

[King of the Sandbox]

Graphics are nice, but if all you do is focus only on 'polishing' the graphics to get your game attention then it's going to do badly. Most games that fell to this fate relied on making the graphics stand out.. but not the story line, the mechanics, not even the character's main role overall.

Skyrim is simply amazing and the best game ever. However, it's graphics aren't what got me hooked. The freedom, the choices you can make, the constant overflowing events that happen with alternative solutions is what sells the game. So again, graphics are a good bonus but come up with an amazing game that has a neat theme with a good mindset on what it stands for then get with the graphics.

This, kinda.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't place the highest importance on graphics either, but I do realize that with certain games, it's key to the immersion. The thing is, that amount needed, for that immersion, is variable among different people.

For example, Snake, a very simple, fun game, has no real need for graphics on par with Crysis, since it's a skill game and doesn't try and tell a narrative.

For a game like Final Fantasy, the stories have always been at the forefront of my enjoyment for them, but as I've watched the graphics improve, I've been able to immerse myself better, and thus, enjoy the games more. Are they necessary? No, but they are a nice compliment, and I don't complain about it when they dont, as long as the story and gameplay remain good.

For a game like Crysis, which is another shoot the aliens type game, (not hating here, it's one of the best video game ideas ever, that's why it's still popular), the only thing you can really improve on are the graphics. Sure, you can tweak gameplay, add a few other bells and whistles, but the graphics are what drive these types of game. And in those types of games, I feel it's ok to expect outstanding visuals.

So, yeah, that's my opinion.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

Extra Credits did an episode on this, right?

 

[Keava]

Aesthetics are pretty important in any game that uses graphics. The art style, the choice of colours and shapes and how it all work together can make or break the whole experience, no matter how good other parts of gameplay are.

Now as far as fidelity of graphics goes, it's secondary however still important. It generally gets more important the bigger the game is.

Indie studios making funny, innovative games can cut some corners because they often simply don't have the resources to create all the fancy visuals, often working with limited stock versions of engines without access to some of the core features. They often make up for that with really amazing aesthetics and art design.

When it comes to AAA titles with AAA price tag and AAA marketing I expect them to have graphics that measure up to that. I expect those games to be able to utilize the hardware available, I pay more for quality experience and if They don't deliver it, what's the point? It sadly began to be really annoying from PC perspective, due to games being developed with the outdated console hardware in mind, and many of the games suffer from lack of DX11 support, low resolution textures, lower poly count on meshes, limited AA and AF and subpar shading.

That's why I buy more and more indie games as opposed to big releases. If I get the same fun, for lower price why should I pay extra for the supposed quality that often isn't there? When You buy a car You don't pay a price of Bentley for a city car.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Graphics and aesthetics aren't the same thing. I don't feel that graphics are super important but I do feel that good art design is very important.
I can still bust my way through games with terrible "graphics" because the art design is amazing. Graphics certainly help some genres more than others, of course.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

I'll make it shorter then the rest and just join the canon:

Asthetics are very important, graphics secondary.
Example: look at bastion, graphics aren't that special, the asthetics are.

 

[Sixcess]

A game that has good graphics but lacks a strong and preferably unique style will never look as good as a game with inferior graphics but a strong style. Dragon Age: Origins has better graphics by far than Minecraft, but DA:O is a succession of small, drab environments in, to quote Yahtzee on Gears of War, every color of the dirt spectrum, whereas Minecraft manages to provide some of the most stunning scenery I've ever seen in a video game.

 

[Sethzard]

I prefer aesthetics to graphics. For example saints row doesn't have great graphics compared to say GTA IV but it's ridiculous colour schemes really do show the player exactly what they're in for.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Good graphics can become a very superficial crutch very quickly.
Really, to make a video game, there are only two absolutes:
1) That the graphics don't confuse the player (VIDEO Game, people)
2) That the gameplay mechanics get ironed out FIRST; otherwise, you end up with travesties like Too Human.

With the dominant console market finally hitting the ceiling on graphics for technical reasons, aesthetics may start to ramp up again over graphics (or it would if we could get out of this endless mire of dirty, gritty-realism. Tangentially, it still stuns me how excellent Bioshock looks today in comparison simply because it added some actual color to its world).

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Everyone else is going to say the same thing, but I might as well add my voice to the tumult. Graphics aren't really super important. Aesthetics are super important. They are not the same thing.

Graphics are about your polygon count and your texture quality and whether your trilineal bitmapped quozyplonks have been roobified.

Aesthetics are about the unifying visual theme of your game.

A game with good graphics and shit aesthetics is lifeless, drab, dull. It has no soul. It feels dead and mechanical.

A game with shit graphics and good aesthetics can still feel and look amazing.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Aesthetics are so much more important than graphics. Nobody's gonna say:

"Well the gameplay's solid but HOLY CHRIST! LOOK AT THE TEXTURE QUALITY ON THAT WALL! GOTY!"

Basically what everyone's already said in this thread.

Also, *insert shameless Persona 4 plug here*

[sub]Goddammit single line paragraphs, stop stalking me![/sub]

 

[Sixties Spidey]

I'm pretty sure Extra Credits did an entire episode on this. They've said pretty much what I would say along with what everyone else in this thread has said.

That being said though, I found graphics to be the least of my worries when playing through recent AAA games lately. MW3 springs to my mind. Dated graphics, fun game.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Graphical power isn't important to me. To be honest, I'd have been satisfied if we would have stayed at the gamecube level of graphics.

That said, I find Aesthetics to be VERY important. It's what helps draw you in. And if done well, a good aesthetic can make up for low graphical power. For example, I run borderlands on low graphics, and it still looks really good. Minecraft is just a bunch of pixellated cubes, yet it looks good. And Bloody Roar Primal fury looks DAMN good for a gamecube game because they went for a well balanced aesthetic, and made some of THE best animations in a fighting game ever (every hit looks PAINFUL as hell).

Of course, gameplay is far more important than the visuals. But they're still important. That said, I'll take a game with excellent art direction and mediocre graphics over a game with eyeball searing graphics, but crap art direction.

 

[Qitz]

Extra Credits did an episode on this, right?

Yes, they did. [http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics]

To make their points shorter. Graphics make things look real and more detailed but Aesthetics is the style of the game, or how well the game looks as a whole including Sound, Music and the overall visual look of it.

Battlefield 3 has high graphics.

Trine 2 or Mass Effect 2 has high Aesthetics.

"Graphics exists to serve Aesthetics."

Considering I can play a game like Chuthulu Saves the World, a game with the aesthetics of a 8 bit RPG, Aesthetics is, arguably, THE most important part of the game.

 

[YawningAngel]

So I was playing Nethack at school the other day (it was during lunch, don't worry) and a friend came over. He was wondering what game I was playing, so I told him. He said the developers must be really poor because there was no "graphics" to speak of.

The next day, we were talking about games in general, and the topic of Skyrim came up. Now, I have never played it (or any Elder Scrolls game), so I asked him, "Well, what exactly is so good about it?" He, immediately,replied that the graphics are amazing, and you can shout at enemies. Specifically, he mentioned the vastness and epicness of the environment. How it felt really "big" and open.

Now, this got me thinking, exactly how important are the graphics, or even the entire aesthetic or thematic feel, to a game? I even want you to consider games where the aesthetic is vital to gameplay, like Amnesia and Bioshock.

Personally, I am not wowed by graphics anymore, but I also don't care about the "theme" of a game. I gladly play Pokemon on simulators, and I play games with graphics that would be deemed bad for the SNES. Heck, I would play a game meant for little children if it had a deep enough metagame.

Play Pathologic, and you'll have your personal answer. Some people find that the aesthetics really work, others find the game just plain looks like crap.

 

[veloper]

I reckon that if a company asks full price for a game, you can reasonably demand everything to be good, including the graphics.

Cheap games including indies and oldies can get away with poor graphics, even with poor aesthetics, like some people here like to differentiate it.

So yeah graphics are important to a high profile game, it's where the greater portion of those multi-million game budgets go.
Gameplay is something the cheap indies and golden oldies already got down and should be the bare minimum.