Do good graphics really matter?

[moretimethansense]

Depends on what you mean by "good" graphics, if you mean "good" as in you can tell what you are looking at without needing an illustrated manual then, yes they are.

If you mean "good" as in photo-realistic with a grey and brown art direction then, no, no they're not.

 

[Juk3n]

Graphics matter to everyone, sure, i can enjoy a game where a retro feel is used and implemented well..but lets not kid ourselves, a stunning looking - great storyline driven game is better than a terrible looking great storyline driven game.

 

[Bender Rodriguez]

For me they add substance, i get a good feeling from it.
Like a luxury.

But still, plenty of games don't have spectacular graphics and still rock today.
Look at most of the N64 library.

 

[Necromancer1991]

IMO art style trumps polygon count every time, just make sure the game doesn't physically hurt to look at and I'm fine with it

 

[emion]

portal would still be an amazing game without the great graphic but its an awesome bonus :3 the gimmick often sells the game

 

[ghall89]

Good graphics don't matter as much as polished graphics. I've played plenty of games that don't have the greatest graphics but they still look well done. I've also played games with really top notch graphics but with sloppy presentation.

 

[SoulIsTheGoal]

*points at the first Sonic the Hedgehog then at Final Fantasy XIII*
No. No they do not.

 

[MassiveGeek]

I don't know, graphics are vital for a game - or rather, the visuals are vital for gameplay. The graphics of a game are what we see of it, they're a big part of conveying the whole feel of it and how we are supposed to view it.
I am a sucker for crisp, pretty graphics and such, would never deny it, and some games I used to love have such horrific graphics that it hurt when I can't bring myself to play them. But of course every single game doesn't need modern technology super graphics, but they do play an important part.

In my opinion.

 

[Neverhoodian]

Graphics aren't that big of a deal for me. As long as I can easily identify what the important objects are, I don't mind. Solid gameplay trumps beautiful visuals any day. The only exceptions to this rule are artistically stylized visuals like Team Fortress 2 and Zelda: Wind Waker (and those have excellent gameplay, so it's a win-win all around), or hand-crafted ones like the claymation in The Neverhood Chronicles.

Perhaps I'm just easier to please than some due to being brought up in the 8 and 16-bit eras. I remember playing games that pushed the graphical boundaries of the time, like Tie Fighter and Donkey Kong Country. In my opinion, they still hold up visually today, even more so than many N64/PS1 titles (early 3-D characters look like crap nowadays). To this old-school gamer, just about anything released in the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox era onwards looks excellent.

 

[Goody]

They are a nice bonus.

I think the first reply is a perfect response, they are in fact simply a nice bonus, a game can be good without good graphics, take [PROTOTYPE] for example: really fun game, ps2 quality graphics, and Crysis 1: Excellent graphics, OK game. But it nice when a game is fun to play and has good graphics.

 

[Juk3n]

*points at the first Sonic the Hedgehog then at Final Fantasy XIII*
No. No they do not.

bad example, at the time Sonic games looked amazing, they were near the limit of what you could accomplish with 16bit vector graphics, the speed and details were awsome.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

It's overdone. Most AAA titles these days try to push the threshold of graphical quality. It's all well and good, especially for the console market where it's simply taking advantage of a specific systems capacity. Problem is a lot of these games end up making the more substantial content (gameplay, innovation, plot and general script writing, themes etc.) get secondary and tertiary treatment.

If a budget is blown mainly on graphics then I know a game is not going to be that memorable, at least not for the right reasons.

The real issue in the market now is saturation of identical games and sequels after sequels (and movie game tie-ins). While this may be another topic altogether I can't help but feel the two are related.

 

[Ralen-Sharr]

I think that high polish graphics can really help immersion.

However, if the game sucks, good graphics aren't going to save it.

Depends on what purpose they serve. I consider them a story telling technique so for me it's a big "Yes".

DX10 + DX11. Advanced lighting shaders are the future of the horror genre!

QFT this is my point exactly. The fancy lighting scheme can help with the immersion, and by extension the gameplay for something like a horror game.

 

[Phoenixlight]

They do to a certain point but when some PC gamers say that PS3 games look awful then it's just ridicoulous.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

*looks at Doom*

No.

*looks at Metro 2033 and Crysis*

But it is nice.

 

[e2density]

No, they do not matter...
Or all of the games in the past 10 years would have been "failures" except for Crysis, which really wasn't all that interesting.

 

[Stammer]

Well, the only thing that matters to me when it comes to gaming is immersion. If I can lose myself in the game world and forget about reality for a little while, I'm content with a game. If a game has any glaring flaws, that's usually good enough to break immersion so I don't like it.

Usually graphics don't matter to me in the slightest. I'll notice them for the first few minutes and then if I get taken in by the other features I'll forget all about the graphics. On the other hand, graphics can be so damn good that I'll be taken out of the game and find myself staring at something like a beautiful horizon or even grass and think to myself "damn, games have come a long way", which of course ends up bringing me back to reality. Same goes for when they really suck. Something clips into something else or something looks wildly "off" from what it's supposed to, I'll usually fall into reality again.

I find it equally hard to enjoy games like Uncharted and Crysis as I do games like Oblivion and Fable.

 

[BlueSinbad]

They are a nice bonus.

Completely agree with this, sure it would have been nice to have such things as Final Fantasy 7,8 and 9 with the PS3 tech demo graphics, but honest to God I don't think all in all I would have loved those games as much if they were all nice and shiny, the stories took a hold of me so well that graphics, well, I just couldn't care less actually come to think of it.
I just love the Golden Age years of games where they actually had a meaning.

Golden Age years were mid-90s to about 2003/4

 

[gl1koz3]

A nice bonus, but one should not be sacrificed for the other. If gameplay is crap, then the game is... well... crap. Graphics can't really compensate for that other than turn it into implied dick-waving game. I'm not saying gameplay doesn't do the same, but with the graphics it kinda automatically is.

 

[Woodsey]

No, they do not matter...
Or all of the games in the past 10 years would have been "failures" except for Crysis, which really wasn't all that interesting.

Just because graphics are worse than Crysis' doesn't make them bad.

And I beg to differ: smacking a soldier in the face with a shovel and then beating him to death with his cap is highly interesting!

They do to a certain point but when some PC gamers say that PS3 games look awful then it's just ridicoulous.

Well, surely it depends on what games they're talking about? inFamous, for example, is ugly as sin for the most part.

OT: Yes, they do, but they don't have to be the best, and they don't have to attempt hyper-realism. I'm just as likely to cream over great art direction as I am over great textures.