Do good graphics really matter?

[Kroxile]

I still play games like pong, asteroids, and missile command so I don't think graphics need to be any better than a clearly defined here's you, and here's them, have fun!

This is not to say I don't like having super awesome realistic graphics, I'm just saying they aren't necessary for a game to be good nor have they ever been. Just look at the virtual console sales for Super Mario Bros 3 on the Wii if you need any proof of how awesome (older) games hold up in comparison to all the newer stuff today.

 

[GothmogII]

Be clear: Make the distinction between -graphics- and aesthetics.

Minecraft is a graphically poor game in terms of the visual technology used, but is also aesthetically rich. It has a style in mind from the start and fleshes it out magnificently.

Even if a game is good visually on a technical level, this does not necessarily make it good on an aesthetic level, a common complaint being that many FPSes tend to look very similar. This actually has little to do with the technology, but rather because the developers did not strive to create something that visually belonged to their game alone, often seemingly content to work purely on several smaller portions of game art that they want to associate with the game, i.e. character, vehicle or weapon models or specific buildings or locations within the game.

IMO, of course.

 

[Toaster Hunter]

Good graphics are a great bonus and make a game more enjoyable, but I won't avoid a game or buy one for that reason alone. Good graphics help, but as long as I can identify what is going on its not to much of a problem

 

[Verlander]

Games are a visual media. I used to think they don't, but when you switch between a PC or next gen console, to a Wii, it really devalues gameplay

 

[Clockwork-Fox]

Personally I think being spoiled by good graphics is a problem in modern games. There are a lot of games people will simply dismiss as being cheap or bad just because they aren't rendered to death. Personally I don't care if I can see every blade of grass or drop of sweat, as long as I can see where I'm going and what to kill.
And if there are lots of things to do.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

If they don't look like lastgen graphics, they're good enough. At least thatway we know that developers are trying.

 

[Mechsoap]

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.

Or a even better example, dwarf fortress, it is a extremely fun game but you can hardly see the difference between a fish and a tree.

 

[jopomeister]

Not necessary, but can make the experience be more like you are IN the game. I mean, I recently played Assassins Creed II, and that game represents the Renaissance with great beauty. Loved it.

 

[Sakurazaki1023]

It depends on the game. For games like Just Cause 2 where exploration was a necessity, then having gorgeous graphics and scenery made the game far more enjoyable. By comparison, Crackdown had fairly minimalist graphics that were excused because of the cell shading. It compensated for a lack of graphical prowess by creating a gorgeous world using non-realistic graphics and I think that the game was better for it.

That being said, I generally prefer stylized graphics over realistic. Borderlands managed to be more interesting and original than every other RPG or FPS on the market because it stood out by using heavily stylized art.

Good gameplay can excuse bad graphics, an original aesthetic can excuse bad graphics, but good graphics cannot excuse a bland aesthetic or bad gameplay.

 

[thatman]

Never really had an obsession over graphics, most of my favourite games are on older generation consoles anyway. So while i can admire some really good graphics (here's looking at you FF13)i don't think they make a game at all. In fact, some games with great graphics can kinda suck (here's looking at you FF13!)

 

[tahrey]

Good enough graphics are important. Enough to make the game immersive, or at least not eye-stingingly ugly, and in keeping with the machine's tech level (or attempting to go beyond it, even).

However they are not the be-all and end-all. As awesome as a top-notch graphics demo may be, you can't really get much enjoyment out of "playing" it. If you have to drop the quality a bit - and do so gracefully so it doesn't just look like a cack handed attempt at something better - in order to improve the gameplay, then by all means so so.

(uber case in point: Minecraft ... I think I played some things on my old 486 or even atari that looked superficially better, but they didn't have the sheer weight of stuff that was going on behind the scenes - to do even half of it they'd have had to drop down to low-animation 2D, such as in Civilisation)

tl;dr so long as it "looks good" in its own context, but not everything has to be a DX11 miracle. And design can be as important as the actual technical power.
(Would I be forgiven for preferring FF6's style and graphics over FF7, or even FF10?)

 

[Ailia]

They're a nice bonus, but not necessary. They need to be good enough that I can distinguish enemies from NPCs, and characters in general from the background (I couldn't play FF7 for this exact reason, even with the pointers over their heads I still couldn't tell what was a wall and what was a person).
My computer's a pile of crap when it comes to playing games, so I play DA on the lowest graphic quality and it doesn't bother me. As long as the game's good I can forgive a lot of little things, graphics included.

 

[albania614]

they matter however companies spend too much time on them and forget about the game.

 

[Eumersian]

Graphics actually do matter.

I'm not saying that I can't play SMB3 without vomiting at its primitive graphics. I love games for their gameplay. However, the thing is, we live in an age where big-money developers have the moolah to hire some good artists and other stuff. So a big-time, mainstream title with mediocre graphics is going to perhaps not make the game worse, but make the company look bad. Indie and artsy games I can understand, but if the level of detail in Skyrim does not meet my expectations, I will kill myselfloljk.

Just sayin'?

 

[Kyrian007]

Graphics mean nothing. Rating a game on a scale of 1 to 10, good graphics raise its rating .001 or so. Much more important is story, characterization, gameplay, mechanics and control. Several people have mentioned immersion. Immersion is broken for me on all of the above, but I've never said "the graphics aren't good enough for me to "get into" a game." It's just not important. Thinking that graphics make a difference is just as shallow as disliking a classic movie for being b/w, or a foreign movie for subs or dubs.

 

[kingcom]

As long as what is going on is clear, graphics take a back seat....on a bus.

 

[Emilin_Rose]

short answer - no
long answer - nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-etc.

Take minecraft for an example. Blox. That's it just blocks. Even the monsters look like blocks. does it matter? no. You know what the creeper is and what its going to do. Does it need high-def realistic looking slime tentacles to ruin your day? no. You can tell what it is and what it's there for. That's all you need really. I can get games getting more realistic over time but at a point it just becomes redundant. Look at the game Twilight Princess. On the gamecube, on the wii, noticable difference? no. not at all. Graphics can only make a game to a certain point. I hear games praised for graphics all the time and after the third game i make it a mental note that the source of said praise is most likely retarded. If a game doesn't have good gameplay, people will still buy it, sadly, same with story. Are these people stupid, brought in by the something sparkly on the box or wherever? probably. But all the great games of time, old and new, from super mario, donkey kong, and duck hunt, to the newer epics like Team fortress 2, left 4 dead, disgaea, modern warfare, portal, all have something greater than simply being shiny. Now ask a common graphics urchin drooling over the newest generic graphics engine wank what disgaea is, they'll say 'gezunteit?', team fortress will just get a blank stare, Ocarina of Time will just net a 'something about nintendo?'. They'll insist that said picture-wank is way waaaaaaay better than those other titles by merit of graphics and that they'd never heard of them(god damn it this is longer than i wanted it to be). (waaaaaay longer)So why has gaming taken this route? it isn't the generic termed 'casual gamers' who are happy with things from popcap, not known for dark gritty hd graphics, its the actual 'casual gamers' who play games an hour a night because it's 'cool' and 'hardcore' and only play 360 because wii is for kids and grandmas and 'casuals'(like they have any right to use that word)and the ps3 is for 'fags' and all that stuff they think make s them awesome. Is this ever going away? no. like owning your own car gaming will remain cool forever.

How do we fix this retarded mess? There are more gamers worldwide than there are of them. We just need to act out more. Not just angry emails to the company. Publicly burning copys of games if we have to. Actively talking to people about the finer points of gaming, going to stores and talking openly about how bad the titles are. Getting together publicly and showing what gaming is(was(is losing quite rapidly)) and what gaming is not, should not be, and will be if we don't.

Rise my brothers and sisters, take to the streets about this nonsensical bullshit that's being spoon fed to the slack-jawed jocks of the world and being shoved down our throats, before we lose gaming forever.

Hell, using the now popular minecraft as an example, if this were put on tv for the masses it would be slammed as worthless and stupid, and yet its popularity is proof that there are not just some of us left, but many of us, enough of us, all of us. We have the numbers, we have the influence and it's time to make a stand. Even if my post means nothing, at least, even if you didn't enjoy minecraft(i didn't) specifically, to go out there. it doesn't matter how scared or shy or 'apathetic' or uncharismatic you are. You can change things. Get together with friends, or just people in your city, make a stand, start speaking out.

Gaming is dying. That's all there is to it. Like the first child of a middleclass family, neglected and abused as the new baby comes in, beaten, stabbed, and starved. He is going to die because everyone saw it happening and no one spoke out.

Everyone, rally a cry. If you take nothing else from me, take that small spark that it doesn't matter how shy or quiet or nerdy you are, you are the voice of gaming as it lays dying. The only one who can save it.

This post has been general but now I'm directing it at you. Yes you. There is no one else here who will take my words and use them. they will listen, they will understand, they will agree, but they will not do. That task is yours and yours alone. and with your voice, the others will follow. With your words, others will act, with your actions, others will rise. You are the leader of this revolution. Not me, not them, you and only you can do this. Save what you love, what we all love. Be the hero he, and all the rest of us, need. Not then, when it's dead, it doesn't need a revival. Now, when it needs its salvation and be known forever more if as nothing else than the first voice to speak to save everything you and we hold dear. Rise, stand, scream if you have to, but this is all on you now, and you are the one to save us.

 

[slightly evil]

who cares? I'm playing silent hill 1 and it's really creepy, way scarier than deadspace, it *feels* creepy, I cant think of any modern game that can match it

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

No, yes, maybe, depends on the game...

Can we please stop fucking talking about this?

In some games you need good graphics, either because part of the ambience of the story is provided by the scenery and set pieces (Tomb Raider, Uncharted), whereas in others the graphics are tertiary to the other considerations.

Also, whenever people complain about how we didn't need no good graphics back in the days of FFVI or Grim Fandango, remember that those games looked beyond incredible for their time, and were pushing the engines in new and unseen ways, FFVII had fully rendered cuscenes, and that was new and unusual, whereas now we take it for granted. When using an argument to back up your case, try and find me an example of a game which has more than niche appeal from the last two years but has graphics that look like they came from the PS1. I know everyone rags on the Wii but if you go back and play your old PS1 games sometime you'll realise just how far we have come.

No, not every game needs to have top of the line HD 1080p graphics, but then again if a game was released today looking like Toy Story 2: The Adventures of Buzz Lightyear everyone, including the most die hard 'only story and gameplay matters' elitists would crticise it for being unfinished. We demand a better quality of product now because we are capable of it.

But one way or the other, can we please stop having so many threads about this?

 

[ramboondiea]

depends on the aim of the game, horror games can benefit greatly from better graphics (anyone who brings up silent hill as a counter example: shush! the game was scary at the time, play it now and its pretty pathetic) but other then that its nice to have something pretty to stare at for several hours