Do you care about graphics?

[trooper6]

I'm finding that characters from the last generation or two are easier to relate and empathise with, probably because they're not so far down the Uncanny Valley, and because they're more stylised.

For graphics as a whole, I think it's more important that they are profound in the feeling they instill in the player to look at as opposed to how spoogy they look, or how much shading up the arse is being used. If the graphics fit the narrative and are profound in what they convey, then it's certainly better than just filling a screen with bloom and calling it a day.

I agree with you. But for me, graphics that are profound in the feeling they instill are good graphics. Spoogy graphics with shading up the arse but no soul...those aren't good graphics to me. You know?

I mean Limbo? Those are great graphics! 2D? Yup. Stylized? Yup? Totally effective and enhancing of the video game experience? Yup!!!!

 

[luckshotpro]

gameplay and sometimes story play a much, much, much bigger role for me than graphics.
there are exceptions, but only where graphical flaws actually interfere with gameplay, case and point: Dead Rising

 

[bam13302]

i was about to say yes, then i realized i was playing minecraft

 

[The-Bad-Blooded]

Gameplay will always be worth more than Graphics, but who's to say graphics are worth it?
I'm sick of people praising a game for its Graphics, when gameplay-wise, it's a piece of crap.
I'd rather have a game that looks good and plays great, than a game that looks fan-tucking-fastic and plays like a giraffe on ice-skates.

But I also have a beef with socalled 'realistic graphics'
1) things that are realistic are not BROWN
2) Glare does not come-off of every reflective surface known to man
3) In real-life, not every single thing is filthy, some things are actually CLEAN
4) eyes are not rediculously white or luminant
5) hair is not like shadow, it clumps into locks.

 

[Vivace-Vivian]

I'm going to be the honest ass and say yes, I do care.

Now, that's not to say the game has to look like Mass Effect. There is style, and then there are graphics. There is nothing wrong with wanting your game to look good. It is an aspect of it, like aspects of films or movies. People who act like a game isn't tarnished at all by it's terrible looks are liars.

 

[Headsprouter]

I still play alot of older games and graphics never seemed like any kind of a necessity to me. An example might be DOOM, great game, poor graphics(nowadays) but its still very enjoyable. Just not scary anymore. Not sure if it was even scary then, but i know it scared my older brother when he was little because my dad used to play the game. He eventually wasn't allowed to watch(i assume).

 

[Kagim]

Yup, it's half the game.

Emphasis on half. Half a battery isn't going to power your train, half a game is going to suck.

As well good graphics does not mean "High tech 3d in your face!" graphics. It means good.

You know what games have good graphics? Infamous. Killzone 2. LBP. Resistance. Warhawk. Kingdom hearts 2. Shadow Hearts.

You know what else has good graphics? Super mario. Chrono Trigger. Asteroids(arcade). Donkey Kong Country. Zelda, namely the Super Nintendo one for me the n64 disappointed me. To anyone not old enough to know I am talking all nes, snes and gameboy lime and colors. Not the Wii versions.

Good does not mean the most techhed out. It means good and appeasing to the eye. It means what your looking at makes you think "That's a tree! That's some grass!". When you look at it you believe it is what it is supposed to be, thus you become immersed. It' not about tech, its about the passion the creator had for what they made.

Tech will never be a substitute for passion, but it can be an awesome tool.

MC kids and Paladin quest are good examples of bad graphics. Brown "realistic" graphics are an example of bad graphics. Tearing. I will stop playing a game for tearing alone.

When it comes to text games, they have there place to. Graphics are not part of the equation. Books do not need picture to be good do they? Text games immerse you with descriptions, much like books aim to. Rather then show you the game tells you.

The problem ultimately is when people say "Do graphics matter" what they are really asking is "Does a visual based game have to be teched out graphically to appeal to you?"

The answer, obviously, is no for anyone. Do the graphics have to be good though? Yes. They always have and always will be.

 

[bob-2000]

In my mind Story > Gameplay > Graphics.

 

[random_bars]

When I was younger I vehemently held the view that graphics don't matter at all, and gameplay is what counts. I've now come to feel that graphics do, in fact, make quite a bit of a difference - but generally it's not the actual graphical quality that matters. It's the art style, the colours, the animation - not whether the graphics are technologically advanced, but whether they look good. Obviously, gameplay is more important, but a good looking game is always much more enjoyable than a game that looks kind of shit, if their gameplay is equally good.

Like I said though, it's not about realism or anything like that. I think Grim Fandango is one of, if not the, best looking games there is, and that came out in 1998!

 

[Bang25]

I appreciate it when a game has good graphics, but they don't have to. An art design can be beautiful without taking away from gameplay, and beautiful doesn't have to mean complex.
Look at Limbo. The game looks fantastic and has real depth and prescence, and Limbo's art design is a bunch of shadows against a white background.

I think that if a game looks terrible, than I wouldn't play it. It should at least have "fair" graphics. I never played the origional Doom, or any Doom game for that matter. I think that if I wanted to play a game like it, I would just pop in Painkiller. It's a lot prettier and cooler looking and has great enviornments. Especially the Cathedral. That level is awesome.

Edit: Painkiller's gameplay is awesome too.

 

[AdamRBi]

first thing I do with newer games is lower everything graphics wise, with the exception of visual effects like motion blur and film grain. I'm actually currently fixing an Atari 2600, I can't get enough of those games.

However I don't play them as long as I do the newer games. The visuals are a big part of story and story is a big part of what drags me into a game, but it's the gameplay that keeps me locked in. So while graphics are important, it's only if the graphics help with story that they matter and they don't need to be high end to do that.

 

[warm slurm]

Not particularly, although I think some games have aged terribly in terms of graphics and are kind of an eyesore to play (Final Fantasy VII, for example), which can put a damper on things. I like it if they're there, though, but it isn't a big deal.

 

[ethaninja]

For the 70000000th time, no I don't care about them. Not when there is so much else to make up for.

 

[Ashcrexl]

obviously gameplay is more important, but if two games are about equally fun, i will definitely like the one with better graphics more. also, it's really much more about the art style than the actual resolution.

 

[LightOfDarkness]

I appreciate good graphic (though stylization like in TF2 or left 4 dead works better in most cases) but I draw the line when people start ignoring gameplay to up the resolution on textures that you won't notice on exactly all your playthroughs.

 

[wizzyboy12]

If game defelopers are just going to work on graphics you'll get GTA 4.
It looked like everything you where able to do in GTA San Andreas was taken away and replaced by these socalled good graphics.

That's the main reason why I still play: 007 James Bond Nightfire.
If you're reading this comment, just give it a try, you'll find that the game is really hard! Compairing to new games. And the possibility's

Why not give it a try?

 

[JeanLuc761]

Yup, it's half the game.

Emphasis on half. Half a battery isn't going to power your train, half a game is going to suck.

As well good graphics does not mean "High tech 3d in your face!" graphics. It means good.

You know what games have good graphics? Infamous. Killzone 2. LBP. Resistance. Warhawk. Kingdom hearts 2. Shadow Hearts.

You know what else has good graphics? Super mario. Chrono Trigger. Asteroids(arcade). Donkey Kong Country. Zelda, namely the Super Nintendo one for me the n64 disappointed me. To anyone not old enough to know I am talking all nes, snes and gameboy lime and colors. Not the Wii versions.

Good does not mean the most techhed out. It means good and appeasing to the eye. It means what your looking at makes you think "That's a tree! That's some grass!". When you look at it you believe it is what it is supposed to be, thus you become immersed. It' not about tech, its about the passion the creator had for what they made.

Tech will never be a substitute for passion, but it can be an awesome tool.

MC kids and Paladin quest are good examples of bad graphics. Brown "realistic" graphics are an example of bad graphics. Tearing. I will stop playing a game for tearing alone.

When it comes to text games, they have there place to. Graphics are not part of the equation. Books do not need picture to be good do they? Text games immerse you with descriptions, much like books aim to. Rather then show you the game tells you.

The problem ultimately is when people say "Do graphics matter" what they are really asking is "Does a visual based game have to be teched out graphically to appeal to you?"

The answer, obviously, is no for anyone. Do the graphics have to be good though? Yes. They always have and always will be.

Beautifully said, and I couldn't agree more.

Graphics will always, ALWAYS matter (unless, as you said, the game doesn't require them. See: text-based) and as long as there is good gameplay to back it up, then I'd say we're doing just fine.