Do you care about graphics?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I didn't spend all that money on a high-end graphics card and a 50" 3D screen to play pong...

Graphics matter plenty to me. I've played Arkham Asylum in hi-res and in 3D, and I'm not going back.

 

[Thaliur]

Usually I don't care about graphics, as long as they serve their purpose (telling me what's happening in the game).
pixelly 2D is fine, perfect 3D as well, and anything in between really.

With the exceptiopn of what I would call "awkward 3D". 3D graphics that just exist just to make it 3D, without really adding anything to the game (or, in the case of Monkey Island 4, even making it quite hard to handle). I'm not talking about 2D gameplay in 3D graphics in general (New Super Mario Bros pulled that off great), I'm talking about companies almost making a 3D game, even if 2D would have worked as well and looked better. It mostly happened during the introductory phase of 3D gaming, with 3DFX, Direct3D and probably several more systems struggling for dominance, and games having jagged, badly-textured 3D models.
It was ok, as long as nothing organic was involved (Battlezone looked pretty good actually. The one with the biometal, not the arcade game)

 

[RatRace123]

No, not really, nice graphics are... well, nice, but the true appeal of a game for me comes from its story, writing and characters.
Graphics rank fairly low on my list of game priorities, sound is more important to me in a game than graphics.
A good soundtrack will be remembered a lot more than good graphics.

 

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

Enough detail to see what's going on, but I don't need to see a stupid fly flying around. Graphics aren't needed as much anyone - even sub-standard graphics from 2001 is enough for me. They have advanced plenty though what they need to do is booster the other parts of the video games that are required for a good game.

 

[The Human Torch]

Yes, I didn't survive the invention of the Commodore and witness it's evolution into modern day computers, only to play with Lego blocks on my screen.

 

[pulse2]

Graphics matter. If there are 2 games that are exactly the same, but one has better graphics, I'm going for that one. And I don't mean necessarily more pixels or realism, but a better look (e.g.: Windwaker had good graphics, but not realistic). The visual art behind a game is a huge part of what makes it good. Of course it isn't all the matters, there is no single element of a game that is.

But say, if one had obviously weaker graphics but it felt easier to play because of an element, it could be the controller, or more fun to play because of another element, like multiplayer or extra DLC, would you still be interested in the prettier looking one?

I'm not trying to convince you, you're entitled to you opinion, just keen to know what you would do in a situation like that one

It depends on how much easier and how weak the graphics are. If one has considerably better style and visuals behind it with a slightly more wonky camera, I'd still probably go with it. So maybe a remake of a PS game on the PS3 where the graphics are juiced up and flesh the world out completely that was previously only known on bad polygons and concept art, I'd still go with it even if the old PS one had multiplayer and the remake forgot it. Graphics alone don't make a game, obviously, but it does play a heavy hand in how good it will be for me.

Okay, I was just thinking of the PS2 vs Xbox debacle, because plenty a time Xbox ports of PS2 games were better looking, but not necessarily any more fun then thier original counterparts, might have something to do with the controller at the time, or the fact most people had a PS2 as opposed to an Xbox, either way, it was an interesting comparison.

 

[YouBecame]

Eye candy is the dessert to the main course of gameplay of the 3 course meal that is a game. If the game itself is awesome and fun, graphics can add to the experience. If they are functional then the whole meal works but could be better. If they're shit, then its like no dessert: Just no a 3 course meal!

 

[michiehoward]

Yes, graphics count, yes they are important is the art medium video games have become, artist should strive to make as good a piece of art as their tools allow.

One the other hand I still play games of the much older consoles, because great games are great games.

And if developers didn't go for at least passing graphics imagine the absolute shite they would turn out everyday LOL.

 

[Raven_Operative]

It depends, I think of games like resumes, first impressions, and presentations are everything. that's not to say that games with great graphics but horrible gameplay are acceptable for me, but I would prefer alot of graphics, and slightly buggy gameplay over flawless gameplay and crap graphics.

 

[zega frega omega]

Yes, I expect a game this generation to make clear what is happening on screen and have generally clear textures. When I'm playing older games, I'm not really annoyed by the bad graphics, except for Deus Ex. I know it's a great game, but I just couldn't get into it like other games because of the poor models and textures.

 

[Squidden]

I never have done it except for Deus Ex. That game just looked too terrible to me the entire time so I lost interest.

Also, you can't compare PacMan to Gears of War. PacMan is supposed to be top-down and 2D.

EDIT:

Yes, I expect a game this generation to make clear what is happening on screen and have generally clear textures. When I'm playing older games, I'm not really annoyed by the bad graphics, except for Deus Ex. I know it's a great game, but I just couldn't get into it like other games because of the poor models and textures.

Ninja'd

 

[Denamic]

Yes, of course.
Now, what is good and bad is highly subjective.
For example, TF2 has excellent graphics, imo.
As long as it stays away from the uncanny valley, I'm fine with it, pretty much.
Eyecandy never hurts though.

 

[minimacker]

To an extent. Graphics will NEVER overweigh the gameplay. A great example would be comparing RTS games. Some units has to gain momentum before they can turn (Or they turn really, really slowly) because of TEH SLEEK GRAPHICS.
While RTS games where gameplay is in focus, it's a lot easier to control and units rarely get stuck.

 

[Bocaj2000]

Yes, graphics matter. They are a very important part of immersion. I was actually surprised how many people pretended otherwise on a forum like this. If the animation is lazy then the game is expected to be lazily made and neglected.

If the question is "Do I like old games?" then answer is "to a point." I can play games like Half-Life and Deus Ex and Wolfenstein 3D and 7th Guest and Tribal Rage and Warcraft 1, 2, 3 and others. Some of my favorite games ever made are on the N64 such as WWF:No Mercy and Turok Rage Wars. DOS based games are usually where things fall apart; although 2D arcade imports are fun I can NOT play Ultima. I found the graphics atrocious and confusing which turned me off completely.

Are good graphics important? Yes. Does that make older games with graphical limitations obsolete? No. Is it possible for older games to have good graphics? Yes though they may be outdated.

Did Avatar make Terminator 2's special effects suck? No, but they look dated by comparison/

 

[Sir_Auron_the_Badass]

Not as much as many people make it out to be. Video games can be likened to food; it can look all neat and pretty, which doesn't count against it, but if it's not enjoyable for what it is, there's no point in having it. While I do love how detailed some of these modern games can be (which I do have some and love them), graphics always take a backseat to gameplay and story. One of the best examples for a game I play is WoW; it runs on a nearly 10-year-old graphics engine, but it's really fun, immersive, colorful, and has an interesting lore. Despite these, some people look too hard at the graphics and gripe about its "flaws".

 

[zarix2311]

They are important, but they're definitely not everything.

 

[Aura Guardian]

NOt really. AS Long as I know whats going on.

 

[Sikachu]

Does it really matter to you all that much? Would you rather play a game that looks smooth and beautiful than play a game that looks rough and jagged JUST because of the graphics rather than the gameplay? Had somebody given you an atari 2600 pacman or a PS1 game would you be turned off or bored playing it just because it doesn't look as nice as say, Gears of War or Uncharted?

For me, I'd say graphics restricts elements of gameplay I've come to love as well as making other elements more accessible, do I prefer GTA4 to San Andreas? No. Doom 3 to Doom? No. Ruse to the first Red Alert? No. But then thats just me, I thought Crysis looked amazing, but the gameplay became kind of a drag so it didn't keep me as stimulated as say Timesplitters 2 did. Gears for example didn't have me playing nearly as long as Crash Bandicoot and Spyro games did and they didn't have achievements or trophies and multiplayer and all that trifle.

And Final Fantasy games speak for themselves.

So, what do you think?

The Final Fantasy games do everything for themselves. And you're just entering the age when you're getting less out of videogames because you've got more experience. Same gameplay, better graphics wins every time. Broken gameplay? Graphics irrelevent. Is Pacman now boring because games have moved so far in complexity (massively due to increased graphical performance)? Yes. Otherwise you'd be playing it a hell of a lot more.

 

[WingedFortress]

I respect when graphics can take the gameplay to another level. Graphics should always compliment the gameplay. Like a good sidekick, they know when we want them to shine, and know when to take their place next to the main event, in this case, the gameplay.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Well as long as the graphics are nice and well done for the time and there are no horrible seams showing(eg Blacksite Area 51) then I don't care. Graphics should be a residual thought of making games. I think they really should come last in prioritisation. Making decent gameplay and ironing out major bugs before releases should come before making decent graphics. Depending on the game and how it wants to be story telling should also come before graphics. I really don't see why graphics should ruin any game. I thin that is kinda shallow. As long as they hold up and are decent(ie doesn't do anything that breaks immersion) they shouldn't matter.