Do graphics matter?

[PureChaos]

they aren't the most important thing. a great game that has great graphics is a bonus

 

[Daniel Laeben-Rosen]

Of course graphics matter. Engaging in visual, yet interactive, entertainment without any form of visual doesn't really work at all.
But they don't really matter in that they have to be a certain way or look a certain way.
Might just be me who played his first game on the Commodore.

However good a game looks though, it just doesn't matter if it doesn't play well. That's what matters in a game after all. Nice graphics and not just "Hey I can see it"-graphics are always a nice addition though.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

They do to an extent. For my computer, I'll take gameplay over fancy looks any day of the week, mainly since it can't run some of the best stuff out there.

My Xbox however is a different story, all Xboxs can run every game the same, there shouldn't be a reason why they can't look good.

I'm more patient about Graphics with my PC, mainly because I know that until I upgrade it, it's the best I have, that isn't the case with consoles.

 

[Flamezdudes]

It depends, most of the time it doesn't matter but it can add to thr WOW factor of the game if everything looks beautiful.

 

[Keava]

In a way. They should be pleasing to the eye, the technology and computing power increased for a reason, if it's there the developer should make use of it. Same time graphics do not make a good game alone, it's more of a feature that can make the whole thing better.

 

[JaysonM]

Some games they matter... games like world of warcraft or red dead redemption I really do require good graphics to immerse myself into the game.

But yeah... give me half life death match multiplayer over most of the stuff on the market at the moment =D

 

[blankedboy]

I'm currently playing Minecraft

WOOOOOOOOOOOOT

Yeah, I honestly couldn't care less about graphics. I find games like Daggerfall, SMB, Minecraft [sub]obviously[/sub], etc, completely playable.

 

[Legendsmith]

Did someone say grafics?

Memes aside, a game needs enough graphics to adequately convey the player what is going on in such a manner that they can respond appropriately. Anything more is eye candy.

 

[kidwithxboxlive]

Im always open to graphics. it all depends on the game type. GTA4 i expect realistic. Borderlands i expects something crazy like animated. Basically war games i feel have to be realistic graphics like mdw2 but anything else im open for.

 

[Theninja'skatana]

I understand moving ahead with the times but now it seems like core gameplay is being sacrificed for the "shiny" appeal. I've grown tried of realistic colors as it usually ends up being gritty and dirty (gta4 or perhaps the upcoming quantum theory). I don't mean we should go back to 8-bit but perhaps a bit more polish to the core would help yeah?

But what do you think?

What happens if visuals really didn't matter:

1) You'd never be able to see anything (Doom 3).
2) The characters would be completely dis-proportioned or badly represented.
3) Your game's frame rate would jitter due to poor optimisation of the engine.
4) Hitboxes would be completely wrong (due to them not being aligned to the 3D model correctly)
5) The game would actually play much worse due to the issues I'm listing (buggy framerate? Good luck timing your blows/shots)
6) Lets pick a game, TF2. Imagine instead of Blu vs Red and the cartoony look, it was a failed attempt at realism. The game is still the same, but you'd never like it as much.
7) Poor choice in object polycounts (a massively subdivided AK-47.... in the background of a platforming game).
8) Animation would be horrendous, really cheap, tacky and unconvincing (Oblivion, Fallout 3)
9) Do you like flickering normals? Bits of texture flickering black?
10) How about not being able to tell a platform from an object from the background? A fault of many an older system.

Thats just a small amount of the many many problems you'd get if the game you were playing really has bad graphics. This is relevant because many people seem to think that visuals purely mean how pretty the game looks. MineCraft? Bad Visuals? No, thats the developer comprimising because not everyone has a very strong graphics card. That is GOOD visuals because you aren't encountering major problems that affect your experience. Instead the game adds to it.

In regards to GTA IV, thats actually not 'good visuals' if you have a problem with it. Dull colours and grit clearly aren't your thing, and so the game doesn't appeal. Well, not good style anyway, but I'm willing to bet that if the game looked like TF2, you'd be more interested.

It shouldn't be some kind of fight between Game and Graphics, it should be harmony. (snip)

I am not asking that we go back! I'm asking that we need not go farther at the sacrifice of other things, so yes harmony, but unfortunatly for many a studio such things are made impossible by time money or other constraints. You seem to think that I was fine with A shitty framerate and crappy hit boxes but regardless of who programms it so, it is part of the GAMEPLAY in my opinion.

 

[TurtleBay]

Yes and no. You don't need good graphics to make a good game. But for certain games to land on the "realistic" side of the uncanny valley good graphics are needed. For example GTA: Chinatown Wars is a great game but Rockstar had to intentionally make the characters resemble cartoons (their body was out of proportion and they were cell shaded) because they could not make perfectly realistic characters on the DS. Meanwhile on the consoles they did go for a more realistic look because the consoles were capable of it. Basically, there are things that game designers can do with good graphics that add to the game, but not all good games need good graphics.

 

[Valdsator]

Graphics don't matter. I play NES games, and I like low-poly models. They look kind of cool. As long as I can understand what's going on, and graphics don't affect gameplay, I don't really care.

But... graphics are getting worse, I think. I just recently tried the Medal of Honor beta. I was playing in a desert level, and I realized they got rid of black, and replaced it with dark brown. The game basically only has 2 colors, with different shades. :[

 

[Dr. HeatSync]

-snip

(snip)

I am not asking that we go back! I'm asking that we need not go farther at the sacrifice of other things, so yes harmony, but unfortunatly for many a studio such things are made impossible by time money or other constraints. You seem to think that I was fine with A shitty framerate and crappy hit boxes but regardless of who programms it so, it is part of the GAMEPLAY in my opinion.

Well then what do you propose to do? Hire less 3D modellers and concept artists (who ultimately make the assets we see), and instead hire more thinkers instead? Like how there are only so many artists that perform exceptionally and stand out, game designers who think about the mechanics in much more depth are also not very common (and you'd have to look pretty damn hard for people who can do both). Even though the game industry is made of many teams, its the those faces like Sakurai, Sakomoto or Cliffy B that make it seem like an auterish medium. My point with that is that a group or a small team can say 'yes lets think a bit more about the mechanics before we try to model stuff' but when theres a massive group of people who all have different jobs, how exactly do you prioritise the mechanics when the other half of the team are asking 'Do we have anything else we need to draw/model/texture yet? We've only got a year left!'

The problem is not our attempts to advance our games (and we've certainly still got ways to go), its that the publishers like 'safeness' and right now our 3rd person cover based shooter is the (apparently) safest possible bet. Its that our game designers are not being told 'lets make a unique or fun game' but instead 'lets make GeOW or COD or whatever, it feels safe and relatable enough to make money' and the writers and artists are told to come up with new assets and story and whatnot around this basic frame. If anything, these guys are more original than our game designers, if only slightly due to them ripping off Alien(s) or something every thirty seconds.

The reason why I count framerate problems as a problem with the visuals is because it ultimately is as a result of poor optimisation of the visual game assets. If it was purely a gameplay problem, it wouldn't be fixed by getting a better graphics card, and it would have to be a failure as a concept. Theres a reason why you could have so many zombies on the screen in L4D without the game chugging the GPU. The problems AFFECT the gameplay, but it is not a result of the gameplay being flawed. Flawed gameplay cannot be fixed with a beefier set of processors. It needs a concept, many iterations and very thorough testing.

Hitboxes are what we use to tell if a bullet hit the enemy. The thing is is that you need the visual aspect to be able to say 'yeah I definitely hit him'. A misaligned hitbox means the game is lying to your eyes, its a failure to implement an element of the mechanic, but ultimately means the visual aspect cannot be trusted. I'd call it a mix of visuals and gameplay functionality.

You don't want to go back? I don't either! Where exactly did I say that? I wrote that post telling people that our visuals are not as good or bad as they seem, or rather as they make them out to be. Our visuals in most games are actually kind of average; not functionally problematic, but they can be dull and lack in detail at times. It's exactly why I wrote that saying a SNES game has worse graphics but better gameplay is redundant because the SNES visuals have become so iconic to people its a charm. The chibi look being as a result of optimising the hardware by using smaller sprites, and that means good visuals with strong and memorable characteristics, which means that the visuals on it aren't bad at all.

Conclusion: Gameplay and visuals affect each other, can't have one without the other in a game, poor concepts/optimisation of one hurt the other and so on. They're interlinked. Thats why I find the Gameplay versus Graphics war retarded. If there was a sacrifice to one, it was probably either the publisher or a lacking in experienced workforce.

Games are a visual medium. We should be advancing our game engines (Unreal Engine, again very well optimised engine, not possible without extensive innovation in the visual department) and we should be advancing our game mechanics (Half Life 2 giving us a physics engine, probably requiring the GPU to calculate it, but it was implemented in the gameplay mechanics)

 

[Super Toast]

Graphics matter far more than some people say, but still less than any other part of a game.

 

[MrNickster]

Yes, they do. With 'graphics whoredom' being a crime akin to going back in time and personally killing Gandhi, Martin Luther King and JFK, a lot of people feel the need to say graphics don't matter at all in what makes a game great in order to avoid any accusation of graphics whoredom. Not true, graphics are a part of a good game. If it plays great, but looks like squashed pig testicles, you're still going to wish that it didn't look like squashed pig testicles. Think for a second-If Crysis didn't look spectacular, no one would care about it. If Fallout 3 had hidious textures and stiff character models, you would notice it and that would be a big letdown.

Are graphics important in games and their development? Yes, of course they are, don't be so bloody idiotic. If a game looks bad, it's going to take a hit when it comes to immersion. But does that mean I can't enjoy games from past eras that don't look good compared to today? No! You judge a games appearance from its timeline, its artstyle and what hardware its running on.

Graphics matter. Without them, there would just be a blank screen.

 

[Lord Honk]

Currently, my gaming time is torn between StarCraft 2 and MineCraft. I dunno, but graphics, for me, are more of a garnishment than a key aspect, tho bad graphics can bog down an otherwise good game, as well as a sh***y game remains sh***y, even with "next-gen graphics".

"Polish a turd, it's still a turd."

 

[SpireOfFire]

if the graphics are good or at least average, then i dont mind them.

but when they're bad, thats when i have to (in a loud, booming, voice) say "NO!"

EDIT: to me, graphics dont matter. gameplay does.

 

[The Lunatic]

Yup.

They do.

They're not the be-all-and-end-all, but to say they don't change a thing is just silly.

 

[hurfdurp]

For something to look good it doesn't necessarily have to look realistic. They need to make more games that don't surround a post-apocalyptic setting which would tone down that gritty brown paste.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

Graphics not so much but a strong nice style can add a certain amount of added pleasantness to the experience. Better graphics allow for more styles and more types of pleasant visuals. Of course the visuals in themselves serve many purposes and to a point maybe the graphics help with that. Things like detail and lighting can be used to help guide a player.