Your stance on graphics.

[omega_peaches]

So, I'm pretty sure most people here prefer gameplay to graphics, and I agree.
But, there is a point where I care about graphics.
For instance, I won't praise a game for it's graphics, (save Crysis, GoW, and Killzone,) but I will criticize a game for BAD graphics.
What are your stances on graphics?

 

[Robert Ewing]

I'm going to sound shallow and say I think graphics are important. And aesthetics are important as well. But if a game has bad graphics, I struggle to get involved and connect with the world. If it doesn't look right, I won't believe it. And if it looks pretty, i'll notice it and praise it more.

Sort of like a builder on women really.

 

[Blueruler182]

Meh. Depends, I guess, I kind of expect things from today's technology, but I'll be just as judgemental towards incredibly realistic graphics because they're all greys and browns these days. But in the end it comes down to what style they're going with... TF2 looks way better than most games in my opinion, and gears of war looks like utter shite, but graphically Gears is much more advanced.

 

[shrekfan246]

So, I'm pretty sure most people here prefer gameplay to graphics, and I agree.
But, there is a point where I care about graphics.
For instance, I won't praise a game for it's graphics, (save Crysis, GoW, and Killzone,) but I will criticize a game for BAD graphics.
What are your stances on graphics?

First of all, I'm going to direct you to this video:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3201-Graphics-vs-Aesthetics

...other than that, I don't particularly have an OT for this. That sufficiently sums up my opinion more eloquently than I could.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I'm the opposite. I like good graphics (here I mean "realistic," not "lol lets crank up the bloom slider") but I don't hold primitive graphics against a game.

 

[intheweeds]

I feel like it entirely depends on the game whether I value aesthetics or graphics more.

For instance in a platformer, aesthetics all the way. I don't really care how how many polygons it has so long as it looks good. Super Mario 3 looked incredible then and it still does to me now. If i'm wanting to play an online shooter though, I begin to value graphics more.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

I think the expense added by trying to create a game which lives up to the graphical standards expected of gamers today ultimately cheapens the overall experience. Instead of getting dozens of hours out of a game with a healthy medium of graphics, we're bombarded with five hour games because so much money is going in to making sure every blade of grass independently and realistically interacts with the light and wind. It feels like this leaves games bankrupt of ideas because of how much money goes into the presentation of the content rather than the actual content. The only people able to deliver are large companies who dominate the landscape and only release products with the highest probability of returns. It's not the entire cause of the problem, but it's a definite major contributing factor.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Aesthetics and art design are far more important than graphics. World of Warcraft might be showing its age but damn if Silvermoon City ain't a beauitful place still! I know plenty of games that shoot for top notch graphics but fail the the art design department.

 

[AlternatePFG]

It doesn't particularly matter to me, as long as the game isn't unplayable or really ugly because of them. When graphics are good however, I notice them for sure.

 

[zspartancats]

Graphics don't bother me unless someone points them out. As long as the gameplay is good, the game could look like a (insert witty joke) and I would still love it.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I think the expense added by trying to create a game which lives up to the graphical standards expected of gamers today ultimately cheapens the overall experience. Instead of getting dozens of hours out of a game with a healthy medium of graphics, we're bombarded with five hour games because so much money is going in to making sure every blade of grass independently and realistically interacts with the light and wind. It feels like this leaves games bankrupt of ideas because of how much money goes into the presentation of the content rather than the actual content. The only people able to deliver are large companies who dominate the landscape and only release products with the highest probability of returns. It's not the entire cause of the problem, but it's a definite major contributing factor.

It can be done.

They made that game on 1/3 the budget of Dragon Age 2. There was a 4 year dev cycle, though. But still, it shows that graphically intensive games that don't skimp on content are absolutely a possibility. I would prefer that games aimed more at content than graphics as a general rule, though.

 

[thelastmccabe]

I think that what people seem to call art direction is what matters more. Simply how many polygons a game is pushing or how photo-realistic it looks doesn't matter as much as the world being an interesting place that looks appropriate. For example, I thought a lot of the 2d environments in Planescape Torment were just as nice to look at as something spectacular and 3d in a more modern game. Also, it's nice to play a game where it's just a simple isometric view and I don't have to screw around with the camera because it's in 3d. The "necessity" for 3d graphics, particularly on consoles, seems to force developers to make certain types of games that need those types of graphics. All that said, some of the environments in newer games (like Oblivion) and the vistas you can see are pretty spectacular, and I think that does have an impact on making the game more exciting. But when it comes down to it I'd rather play a game with worse graphics but better everything else.

At some point though, really rudimentary graphics in especially older games can get to me. For example I tried to play Lord of the Realms 1 for a few minutes and was immediately thinking I can't handle how bad this looks. Jagged Alliance 1 looks the same way to me. I'm not sure if there is some date I can set as a cutoff though. The older Mario games look fine, and the Urquan Masters is from like 1992 and I thought it looked pretty good.

 

[trooperpaul]

My stance on graphics:
It needs to be more than letters on black. Seriously, at least use pictures. This is probably my main complaint with Dwarf Fortress 2.

 

[evilneko]

Count me solidly in the "As long as they achieve a good aesthetic" camp. I for the longest time played FO3 on settings lower than what my computer could handle, simply because it looked "good enough" to support the aesthetic I wasn't really motivated to try and push the settings higher. I just accepted the defaults and moved on. Eventually I got curious though and maxed them out.

Another example: I vastly prefer Diablo 1 over...that alleged sequel. Aesthetics. The alleged sequel just didn't do it for me, even though the graphics were better in every technical way possible.

 

[rt052192]

I don't need good graphics, but they sure do help. I've never been much of a stickler for graphics until I played Dragon Age: Origins. They sucked, but I still loved the game.

 

[DEAD34345]

One of my favourite games is Dwarf Fortress, and I think that pretty much sums up my opinion on graphics.

Spoiler: Just in case you don't know what Dwarf Fortress looks like, here's a screenshot of an exciting fight scene.

 

[Richardplex]

Whatever makes the game more immersive. Gameplay, Aesthetics, graphics, music, story, character development, they're all of fairly equal importance to me as they all contribute strongly to Immersion, the most important factor of a game for me. And most undefinable.

 

[thirion1850]

If a game draws me in, good. But a fine visual is always a nice thing to have.

 

[Saltyk]

Graphics are not the be all end all of a game to me.

When I was younger, I thought that graphics had to be pretty good for a game to be worth anything. If a game didn't have some of the best graphics to date, it wasn't worth playing.

Today, I'm happy as long as the game looks good. That was one of my complaints with my limited experience with Duke Nukem Forever (a friend had it and came over with it). The characters looked terrible and moved so stiffly. Seriously, look in a mirror and jump, then try not to laugh at how horrible it looks. Watching some girls walk off was less sexy and more disturbing. Maybe 10 years ago it would have flown, but today it was pathetic.

I'm going to go ahead and bring up Cell-shading as some people don't like it. Personally, I have seen plenty of games that looked great Cell-shaded. I think it can fit certain games perfectly.

Now, I know that my statements haven't supported my argument just yet. But, one of my favorite games of all time is FF7. Which I play even today (on my PSP). Those graphics haven't aged well, but they don't deter me as I play. And I really wanna play Legend of Legaia, but my copy seems to have been borrowed, and probably won't be returned in a playable fashion. If at all.