you know what?...fuck it....graphics ARE important

[Benni88]

Someone lock this person up! His ideas are dangerous and entirely original!

 

[Clearing the Eye]

I couldn't care less about graphics, really. I've been playing GBA and DS games a lot lately, plus some old, old, old PC titles I have on floppy. I can get into them and enjoy them as much as, say, Crysis (which I loved).

 

[Vault101]

[snip.

oh, that mod looks cool

if there was a magic mod to fix the issues I have with Deus Ex.....

I love gameplay...obviously, but I'm just being honest here....to really lose myself in the world I like things to look....well to look nice, polygons and boxes are too distracting for me..thats not really somthing I can help

 

[havoc33]

It can be sometimes brutal to go back to the classics of old, but often I find that after the initial 'shock' has gone away I will start to enjoy the graphics again. I'm currently playing FFVI, and the entire world there is ten times more beatiful and imaginative than anything found in FFXIII. Also, when playing an old school game for a longer period of time, to the point where you are totally into it, your mind sort of paints the game prettier than it really is. Due to the limitations of the graphics, you are left to fill in the blanks so to speak, to use your imagination a bit, much like what happens when you are reading a book.

In the end, if the art direction is poor, or the gameplay/story fails to really draw you into the game, it does not matter how good graphics you have; the game will still suck. Which is why I never ever got excited by seeing a tech demo, or bothered to play Crysis for example.

 

[piinyouri]

I've always sort of thought this whole discussion arose from someone who had the opportunity to play an old game from their past and they still enjoyed it immensely, and thus, graphics don't matter since they still enjoy a game they enjoyed when they were younger.

I'll echo what everyone else has said, while being important, they are not the most important piece of a game.
In fact, nothing is "the most important part" of a game.
All the aspects of a game should be represented equally and given as much care and development as the other.

In my own experience, it tends to favor my mood.
Some days I can load up older games, and some days I just don't want to see or deal with blurry un-detailed levels/worlds/models.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

They really messed that up. The original is much creepier--just look at that face! The former seems like something at home in Silent Hill, while the latter looks like a corridor crawler from Doom 3--a.k.a.: cheesy and silly. The original also genuinely looks like a human that's been "infected" by the machine, left as a haunting shell void of humanity--a robot wearing human skin. The spindly legs feel almost insect like. You can imagine it sporadically twitching around the halls and rattling the cold steel. The Rebirth model, on the other hand, looks like it's trying way too hard to get that look. The arm is cliche, the breasts are stupidly large, the eyes don't look anywhere near as creepy and the wires coming out of the chest are something young kids would suggest to make it look more like a robot.

/rant

 

[Casual Shinji]

I don't think graphics are that important. Take Silent Hill 1 for example. It looks like crap now, but it gives the game a certain atmosphere that I love. Besides, if it plays good, who cares if it doesn't compare graphically to the newest games?

The graphics in Silent Hill were extremely important. The mist, the wonky camera, the distorted sound, and grainy graphics, all helped create the terrifying atmosphere. Which is why Silent Hill as well as every other survival horror game doesn't work in this generation, because everything is too slick, clean, and cinematic to create any suspense or tension.

OT: Coincidentally I recently bought the Ratchet & Clank HD collection. And while the PS2 graphics are upgraded to a nice high definition, it still has those sharp polygon corners that can take a man's eye out. Right after I finished R&C3 (the best one in the series) I went straight into R&C: Tools of Destruction for the PS3. And while the graphics looked amazing, the story and the characters had lost all of their wit and humor.

So yes, graphics are important, but not the most important. It's an important bridge to initially help you get into a game, but after the stardust of the high end graphics settles down the game's "personality" will have to take over from there. And no matter how graphically impressive a game looks, if it has no personality it won't draw you in.

 

[Luftwaffles]

Can somewhat relate.

I didnt finish Deus Ex coz it looked like arse (and the tranq crossbow was totally anticlimactic)
Tried playing the old Half Life and the expansions, couldnt be arsed coz i finished them multiple times before and the weird blockiness kinda stood out.

on the other hand

FarCry 2 i didnt finish even though it looked awesome (can stare at fire all day) but missions were a drag
Penumbra series had semi decent graphics but i didnt care coz i was too busy running away from zombie dogs


Point is, i am not sure what the discussion is anymore and something something my opinion.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

modding is a long process...

I like that one much better! I still prefer the original--I think it's the face--but that last one there is awesome.

Yeah, modding is a slow process. I consider myself fairly well above average when it comes to hardware, less so with software, but even I find modding work, especially frames and textures, just way too tiresome. I always make sure the people behind the mods I use get a big thank you ^^

 

[Elemental]

Seriously,
Graphics are important, but story is important too.
Half Life 2 is simultaneously the worst and best game ever.
Women shouldn't be subjected to sexism.
I am now my avatar.
CoD is brown.
and Mass Effect 3 destroyed your faith in God.

We get it.

I love you, have a cookie.

 

[Starik20X6]

The surprising thing is that a game can stand on good graphics as well.

Naughty Dog pretty much admitted they started with the set pieces and then build the games around them when it comes to the Uncharted series.

That ofc doesn't make graphics more important than say music or gameplay. They all supplement each other. A 3d platformer wouldn't be possible without the 3d in the same way LA Noir wouldn't have been possible a few years ago. And none of the games would have been as good with a shitty soundtrack. Games are a combined experience with different element unifying to make the complete exp.

That's a fair point, though one could argue Naughty Dog design by "wouldn't it be cool to play through this set piece" rather than "wouldn't this set piece look awesome".

Again, while I do think graphics play a vital role in bringing a game world to life, the interactivity is what makes games stand apart from other mediums, which is why I'd argue that the gameplay is a more important part.

For example, take the DS vs PSP. They've sold over 150 million DS units, and the games look like this...

... while the PSP has sold 71 million and has games that look like this...

When you compare the two, it seems like the superior gameplay offered by the DS trumps the superior graphics of the PSP. Obviously it's not an entirely accurate comparison and both systems have their merits and yada yada yada, but I can't help but feel based on the numbers a fun and unique experience is more important than it looking pretty.

 

[Vegosiux]

Graphics are important you say?

Let's get one thing clear here. It's important how the game looks. It is. But that accounts to more than just the raw polygon count.

 

[Buizel91]

Am i the only one who can play a game simply because it's fun, and look past the graphics and story? Sure they help, but if i don't find a game fun, then there is no point.

For example, Oblivion. It's gorgeous, and i've heard it has a really good story, however, i can never get more than a few quests past getting out of the jail until i turn it off and go on something else. I just don't find it fun.

However, games like Transformers War for Cybertron, Red Faction Guerilla, and Assassins Creed 2, Sure the Graphics aren't amazing anymore, and the story may seem repetitive in these games. However i can play them for hours on end, because they are so fun, WFC i ahve completed about 5 times over, it's a story i simply cannot get bored of and in my opinion, has a quite a bit of replayability.

Obviously everyone has different opinions on what is fun and if you want to play games with amazing graphics, then fine, but in my opinion they don't matter, as long as the game draws me in and keeps me playing.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

I wouldn't say they're not important, but for me graphics are like the decorations on an already delicious cake. Sure good graphics help the immersion and help you to enjoy the game more. But, to me personally, a good story and good gameplay are far more important.

 

[Lt._nefarious]

Graphics certainly add to my overall experience of a game but I don't think they make or break a game... I like good graphics but I can easily get immersed in a game that has bad graphics. Unlike "Vault101" I can play a game like Doom and still enjoy it... Urg... What I'm trying to convey, despite doing a very poor job, is that good graphics are very nice and lovely and matter a bit but they don't make a game good or bad...

 

[Griffolion]

I think graphics are important. But I just consider it one part of a bigger meal. Sunday lunch is made up of a good joint of meat, many types of veg, potatoes and other things. Focussing on the broccoli misses the point of the whole meal. This is a bad analogy.