Your stance on graphics.

[Gearran]

I don't care about graphics - so long as they're arranged in a comprehensible fashion. It doesn't matter if you have graphics from the FUTURE, if what is supposed to be the protagonist beating on a cowering enemy looks like some sort of badly rendered Escher painting. Conversely, if the graphics look like they were made to run on a cartridge (anyone else remember those?) but they fit together well, then it is an improvement over the first example.

To give this a bit more meaning, I love Earthbound (aka Mother 2 for those of you with power in japan). It is, without a doubt, one of my favorite games of all time. For those of you who haven't played the game, the graphics are 16-bit old, and look like they were drawn with magic marker. However, its graphics are all consistent (or, to quote a certain Extra Credits episode, it has a unified aesthetic) and not only does this have a greater impact on the game, it is part of the game I enjoy. The graphics are old, and purposefully cartoony, but they make up a great part of a deeply enjoyable game.

 

[Warlord211]

I will forgive bad graphics if the gameplay can overcome it.

 

[Hollock]

the graphics aren't the big deal, it's the style. Like Okami has kinda shit graphics, but it still looks amazing.

 

[blankedboy]

I honestly have no love for graphics whatsoever. Alot of my games hang around 720x480 resolution at minimum settings (because I have a shitty computer) and I don't mind it one bit. I crank it up in less graphics-card-intensive games, but only if I can keep the FPS above about 40.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Depends on the game style mostly, something like Crysis cannot do without top level graphics because they have no style, they only do real world.
Nintendo games on the other hand are all style that needs very little graphical power, ofcourse they can't go realistic.

It's up to the craftsman to know his tools and limits.
Dragon Age and Mass Effect are good examples, ingame animations work very well, but those sex scenes are piss poor.
Know your limits and work around them, render that sort of stuff separately, pull a blur over the screen or just show some shadows, just don't let us see where your game utterly fails.

 

[Chibz]

Depends on the game style mostly, something like Crysis cannot do without top level graphics because they have no style, they only do real world.

I'd actually argue that aesthetics are far more important than graphics. (AKA: What you do with it is more important than how far you can go).

I'm serious, look back. The games that rely WAY too much on visually wowing their audience don't quite age as well as games that are genuinely beautiful with what the developers had.

 

[Drakmorg]

While I do like a game to have good graphics (after all why would I want a game to look bad?) Bad graphics aren't a deal-breaker.

On the other hand, if the graphics and aesthetic are so goddamn horrible that I can't even stand to look at them, that can be a deal-breaker if the gameplay or story fails to draw me in during the first half hour or so.

 

[Squilookle]

Graphics can make a great game better, but graphics cannot make a great game.

This pretty much sums up my stance on the subject too.

For me graphics are to games what paper is to books. As long as it isn't rough on your senses and presents the content clearly enough, it is fine. Any extra gloss is just window dressing.


After all, if it came down to choosing between this:

And this:

I would take lesser graphics for more action ANY day.

 

[Katnap_Devikat]

I second Mount and Blade as good example of Good Gameplay vs Mediocre Graphics.

I also still play the original Empire Earth, so yeah graphics don't do it for me all that often.

 

[brainslurper]

I think it is either 2d or hyper realistic crysis graphics. And there is no in between.

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/videogames/detail-page/metro.2033.05.lg.jpg
Like this.
http://bulk.destructoid.com/ul/167059-/BTR_Screenshot_04-620x.jpg
Or like this.
That is all.

 

[veloper]

For a full-priced game you can demand everything, including nice visuals.

From a very cheap indie game, I only expect good gameplay.

 

[brainslurper]

Graphics, in the end, are just a part of an entire package.

Yes. I like nice graphics. But the game has to follow through with dynamic, enjoyable gameplay and well as a narrative if applicable.

Great graphics but a terrible game, is still a terrible gaming experience.

Less focus should be put on Graphics as a separate part of a gmae that should be judged on its merits separately

Now that I think about it, there are really no genuinely bad games with superb graphics. Games like Crysis and Metro 2033 both have great stories and great graphics. I am of course talking modern 3d games here. Usually suck games have suck graphics.

 

[LittleBlondeGoth]

I have two stances on this.

First is for when I'm playing older games. In this instance, the graphics don't bother me. If I'm playing FFVI, then I know I'm going to have blocky sprites, but that's actually part of its charm. It was made God knows how many years ago, I'm not going to hold graphics against it - that was then and this is now. So I won't be stopped from enjoying something because it's old and not incredibly shiny any more, because times change.

New things. Shoddy graphics still won't stop me playing something, but I'm more willing to call a game out on it. In this day and age, there's very little excuse for having poor quality aesthetics. Look at God of War, Mass Effect, Gran Turismo. It can be done, so do it. Case in point here is Dragon Age. I love that game, I really do. But when I play it, there's a niggling bit of my brain that says "look at the hands on those models, surely they could have done better than that?".

 

[ImprovizoR]

Graphics are important to a certain degree. But they are never important as gameplay, atmosphere, story and even music. Look at Morrowind and Oblivion for example. Oblivion is prettier of course, but I still like Morrowind better because it's more immersive thanks to all the other factors I mentioned.

 

[ReaperGrimm]

Some of the greatest games I've played have pretty lame graphics by today's standards. Give me good game play and interesting story, characters, world ect, and i'am good. Nice graphics are just nice to have.

 

[Vrach]

I like graphics. I like good graphics. I like photo realistic graphics. I like well-executed cartoon graphics (f. ex. XIII). I like stylized graphics. I will praise a game on good graphics. I will scold a game for bad graphics.

It's a part of the game, like any other. It has its value, it doesn't hold the same value for every game and I take it with everything else, not based on some rule set that's supposed to prove how awesome I am at picking games I play.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I'm pretty much the Gameplay over Graphic since I think it's quite shallow for my brother wouldn't play Star Wars: Knights of the old Republic because of the graphic (something I don't want to become but I'm not implying everyone are like that). I do how to admit that I was in awe when I saw Gear of War with my own eyes when he brought it over last time so graphic does got values.

 

[Vault101]

they are important

if they werent than we would ALL be A-ok with playing a game with Deus ex type graphics (those polygon people....*shudder*)

it also has to do with ones ability to be drawn in

 

[BigTortoise]

Please don't hurt my GPU is all I'm saying ;_;

 

[omega3711]

I can play a game with bad graphics provided that the gameplay does something to make up for it and I am willing to forgive a game for poor mechanics if the graphics truly are spectacular.