Do good graphics really matter?

[JeanLuc761]

In what is predominantly a visual medium, of course graphics matter. However, the problem is that developers tend to focus too much on making the most realistic dirt or trees, thinking that's what makes graphics good, instead of focusing on quality visual design and aesthetic style.

Summed it up perfectly. I'm surprised this question is still asked, much less on a weekly basis.

Good graphics will ALWAYS matter and always be important, but "good" does not necessarily mean "photorealistic." Mass Effect 2, for example, is not as realistic as Crysis but it has incredible artistic design and style.

 

[joe90]

It really depends on the games art style and genre. if a FPS had awful graphics, it would become unplayable, whereas a story heavy RPG can forego certain visual enhancements to allow for more content. It could also be argued that some games have such outlandish art styles that better graphics would have ruined it. Imagine Okami without the chunky black outlines!

 

[Bloodstain]

They can make a good game better, but they cannot make a bad game good.

 

[katsumoto03]

It really helps with immersion. Graphics should never be top priority, but it is important to be able to know what's going on.

(Capatcha: molecule frocce)

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

They matter alot to me.

Graphical prowess is the difference between Metro 2033 being an interesting game, and being a game that gives me chills.

Furthermore, if I buy Crysis 2...it'll be in hope that it'll stress my GPU before it'll be for the gameplay, though I am still awaiting reviews.

 

[Bakuryukun]

Well to me, Good Graphics means, that they are functional within the game, and make it easy to see what is going on, and what needs to be done and ideally fills the game with atmosphere. Other than that I think art style is more important than poly-count, a unique art style leaves a big impression on me, it just makes the game really memorable, ie: Kirby's Dreamland 3, Okami, Odin Sphere.

So yeah Graphics are important seeing as without them we couldn't SEE. But if that's all a game has, and it's graphics aren't serving the greater purpose of assisting gameplay at that point I would say that the emphasis on graphics has become too much.

 

[hyker]

it depends on the game, I think getting decent graphics isn't that hard, if someone has limitations, they should count that in and have some kind of clever idea to address that (like amnesia: enemys aren't that well-detailed, but you can't really see it because if you would they would claw your face off, or minecraft: the graphics just add to the charm)
and as for $100 million budget realistic ps3 esclusive shooter, they have money, so they have no excuse for bad graphics, thought that will be outdated within a few years

and yes itt matters, I just played max payne 1 a few days ago and I were just so annoyed that max payne's face was allways having that smirk, even when getting shot, shooting, or seeing that his wife and child died

 

[BoredDragon]

there are three main factors that usually go into games: story, graphics, and gameplay. In my opinion story and gameplay are neck and neck with gameplay a little out in front. If one of those two are somewhat lacking while the other is still above average, I will still play the game to either further enjoy the gameplay or see what happens in the story.

Graphics are more of a tie-breaker with games. If you judged by graphics and art-style, then Fable 3 would be a great game. However, as it stands, it is lacking in both gameplay and story in which no amount of pretty pixels can make up for.

I will conclude by saying that if graphics really mattered than most of the indie games that I hold dear to me would be considered bad, despite having fun gameplay or an amusing story. So I say that graphics matter only as a tie-breaker to games with both equally good story and gameplay.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

They do but its the gameplay that counts most. I still get addicted to old classics I discover or to too many to count indie jewels out there.

 

[Xanadu84]

Good graphics are a great thing. They can help with immersion, open up gameplay mechanics, options, and feedback, and can be appreciated in their own right. The fact that some games focus of graphics and also happen to be bad do not necessarily mean that graphics were focused on at the expense of gameplay.

 

[BoredDragon]

I'm a little bit curious - where does the idea that it's always a choice between graphics and gameplay come from? Because from what I understand, separate people code separate things and a studio, given the funds, is always capable of creating a game that excels in both sides of this so-called duality.

Naturally, graphics are always important. Always.

I guess that makes sense, but do graphics really tell how good a game is? I have played many indie games that might not be that match to look at, but were really fun and/or had an amusing story.

 

[Siege_TF]

playstation 2 level graphics are good enough for me, I only bought a 60 gig PS3 because it meant the PS2 would be dying out, and because it's the most backward compatable model.

 

[teutonicman]

Yes they do. Look at KotOR, it looks like shit. I look at Jade Empire in comparison and it looks significantly better even when factoring in that it came out two years later.

 

[willsham45]

Graphics are hugely important.

Without the right graphics you cannot tell, who or what you are, what is friend or foe, what I can interact with and what I cannot, what ledges I can climb on. How much health I got how much ammo I got, what gun (if apparent) I got. To that end Graphics are essential, and most games now don't much that up. you can usually tell what is what, some older games had graphic problems with confusing textures and a lack of an interface of any real sort.

Although that is not what you are talking about is it you are on about realism, how detailed the characters are. It does not matter what the graphical style the game uses, be it photoreal, cell shaded, retro. As long as you know what you need to know it is fine.

I was not put off vvvvv or mine craft because of its looks more was I compelled to play crisis or stalker for there glistening graphics.

good graphics you know what stuff is bad you don't. And by you know what stuff is I mean you know what is friend foe a table, castle etc not I know that is a elf as apose to a dwarf or human etc.

But again they all depend on the game. (even text based games have graphics)

 

[RadiusXd]

Crysis proved that you can get away with only average gameplay if your game looks really, really nice.

personally I think that Crysis has really fun gameplay, love approaching the same problems in entirely different ways.

OT: the whole art style over graphics argument holds some weight, but would avatar have been nearly as good if it had used the same tech as the Shrek movies, only to use some cartoony art style to cover up the shabby polygon count?

 

[joshthor]

do good graphics matter? yes. do great graphics matter? no.

 

[Caligulove]

Depends on the game. Some games are simulators or are trying to convey a sense of realism through their graphics- then yes, of course they matter. Although, good gameplay and story never rely on good graphics, and neither are they a deciding factor when it comes to a game.

People use it as an example all the time, but I've probably logged more hours on Minecraft in the past few months than anything on my current gen consoles.

 

[loc978]

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

...low polygon counts causing artifacts in smoke and such [http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/9/90445/1639513-rome_super.jpg] in games touting "photorealistic" graphics mean I beg to differ. If I could put GT5 on my PC (or run it on several PS3s working together to render it like they did for commercials), it wouldn't do that.

OT:
I think it depends heavily on the game.
Does a modern 2D platformer need better graphics? No. Most folks wouldn't even notice.
Do RPGs benefit from better graphics? Ye gods no. Look what happened to Final Fantasy.
Shooters? Sure. Being able to tell the difference between an enemy sprite and a background sprite is nice.
Real-Time Strategy? Not really. As long as you can tell your units and the enemy's units apart from each other and the terrain, you're golden.
Simulation (driving, flight, et cetera) games? Yes. Realistic visuals and as close as possible to realistic controls are what make those games.
Immersive, Hybrid-genre games? Yes. It helps with mood and immersion when you can actually see the sun set (et cetera) in-game.

 

[kek13]

It's nice when a game has good graphics, however if the other elements aren't as good then no, no matter how pretty it looks no amount of beautification is going to hide the terrible quality of that game.

On that note however, good graphics can make a pretty decent gaming experience absolutely extraordinary.
Bottom line is that if it has good graphics along with other elements then yes to a certain degree it does matter but if other parts of the game are sacrificed to make it look nice then frankly it just isn't worth the time of day.

 

[funguy2121]

No.

Absolutely not. The only time they did was the PSOne/N64 era where the nintendo games had to be shrouded in fog and sometimes still looked like crap, and the PSOne games that were actually 3D (resident evil, tomb raider, et al.) suffered so horribly from aliasing/jaggies that all the characters appeared to be in a perpetual epileptic fit