So, how important are graphics/aesthetics?

[Dastardly]

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.

It depends on how much you expect your player to depend on them. If it's a game about sniping, and your draw distance sucks, there's a problem. If it's a game about hidden traps, and you can't spot the tripwires or hidden triggers, there's a problem. Players tend to only notice graphical limitations when they are pointed out by the game, in the same way I only notice my cupboards are empty when I'm hungry.

 

[orangeban]

Graphics aren't too important (well, not strictly true, I appreciate the difference between an Xbox and Comodore 64) but aesthetics are incredibly important. Good aesthetics are what can make a game. This is why people applaud Skyrim for its beauty, but the beauty of, say, COD is rarely remarked on. COD 8 may have a better engine (not actually sure, but let's assume it does) than Skyrim, but the engine is just a tool, not the product in itself, you have to make somthing with it.

Good graphics are meaningless if you don't make something good with it, much in the same way the best cooker in the world is useless if you can't cook for shit.

Recently I bought Zeno Clash on Steam. Zeno Clash is made with the aging Source engine, but it is one of the most visually striking and beautiful games around (in my opinion) because the developers put care into making it pretty with the tools at hand.

An even better example of this is Abe's Oddysee/Exoddus. These two games were released around 2000, on the original Playstation, but that doesn't stop them from being beautiful, which they are. The developer's used limited tools to craft something great.

 

[Bad Jim]

Extra Credits did an episode on this, right?

Yes, and they confused everybody. They correctly pointed out that aesthetics are far more important than the polygon count or fancy shader effects. But they made everyone think the word 'graphics' was only about polygon counts and shader effects.

Graphics means "mathematically derived images". The word existed long before computers. There is no rigidly defined way of saying one graphic is better than another. It's subjective. In games, good graphics help you enjoy the game while bad graphics hinder your enjoyment of the game. Higher detail usually makes graphics better, but it is quite possible to reduce detail and nonetheless improve the graphics.

Aesthetics are a subset of graphics. If aesthetics are important, then so are graphics. If graphics are unimportant, then aesthetics are also unimportant. It's the technical qualities of graphics that aren't important.

Will you guys please stop trying to 'correct' people who say graphics are important. You are wrong, not them.

 

[JET1971]

To me when it comes to a AAA title the graphics and aesthetics need to be stunning, they are just as important as the core gameplay for the price of the game. if it looks like shit and I paid $60 for it then i will be pissed the same as if the gameplay was shit. If its a sequal and full price like COD then the graphics better improve with each title otherwise its just an expansion, new maps and new gameplay. to me thats not worth the extra money.

as for indie games and older titles I dont expect new AAA quality graphics. I expect the game to be fun even if it looks dated. I dont put as much stock in the quality of the graphics because I pay for less or the game is not graphics oriented.

in order of whats important its always "is it fun" first with graphics and controls tied for second, everything else is genre specific. so to me yes graphics are very important but not what will make or break a game.

 

[satanslawer123]

graphics are good but people should really not put so much effort in to them, i mean look at the playstion 1 graphics they the cutting edge in some cases and everyone loved them but they also loved the story the game told now look at the current generation everyone is busy going on about how great there graphics are i mean how go is a game if its just graphics you need something to back it up or else is just going to be a bunch of rubbish for people who want a decent game

 

[octafish]

Look I play X-Com regularly, am an ardent fan of 90's Point and Click adventures, have clocked untold hours of Minecraft, and have a sizable GOG collection. That doesn't mean I didn't drool a little bit when I first booted up Battlefield 3 on my PC. Battlefield 3 is one of those games where everything comes together. The look, the feel, the gameplay, the technical powess, and the sound, the fabulous, fabulous, sound. Graphical fidelity isn't all important but it can add a lot to an already brilliant game like BF3, or The Witcher 2.

I think I need to see some Skyrim screenies from a PC, because I fail to see what the fuss is graphically.

 

[NerfedFalcon]

Allow me to answer your question with four unlabeled screenshots from four of this year's games. However, you should be able to work out what most of them are on your own, unless you live under a rock.

Spoiler: Click here to waste bandwidth!

As unbiased as possible, which of these games has the most graphical power and the best looking scenery?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Aesthetics are incredibly important for me, because they are what brings the setting of the game to life. If the setting doesn't look interesting to me, then I won't enjoy the game nearly as much, regardless of how good the gameplay and controls might be.

Graphics aren't that important though, and good aesthetics can definitely make up for low graphical capability. Just look at any cartoony games like TF2 or Psychonauts and they hold up now just as well as when they came out, even though their graphics are fairly poor by today's standards.