Do you care about graphics?

[Macrobstar]

They're the cherry on the cake, if a game with great gameplay has good graphics AWESOME, but if a game with horrible gameplay has good graphics BLEH! BLEH I SAY!

 

[RicoADF]

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?

I still play the origional C&C at times, heck even Homeworld, T3:WotM and other older titles get my attention from time to time, so nope graphics mean nothing to me if the game is awesome

 

[JoshGod]

Yes i do, however graphics are the last thing on my list of what is the most important thing in games, however they are still important.

 

[Lieju]

I care more about how I'm allowed to interact with the environment.

But unless it's bad on the eyes or makes it difficult to tell what's what, I don't usually care, although seeing interesting-looking and pretty environments is a plus.

 

[The Night Shade]

I don't really care about graphics but a videogame needs to look nice and have fluent animation to be enjoyable

 

[LightningBanks]

I dont care about graphics over performance, as I always turn my graphics down to lowest if a game doesent run smoothly straight away, id rather the game ran perfectly rather than looked amazing (pc btw)

But for some reason old games put me off, I still play games like half life and diablo 2, but for some reason I cant for long. Maybe its the graphics being THAT far behind, or gameplay or whatever, they dont seem to appeal for long

 

[pulse2]

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.

But did you, or did you not, think that TS2 had fantastic graphics when you first played it?
In relation to every other game of their time graphically Crysis and TimeSplitters could be on the same level, but TS2 is a far superior game fun-wise.
You can't really compare things like that I don't think. You're comparing games to more fun predecessors and then saying the difference if graphics.

Maybe if you'd come at them from a different perspective, having never played either of those games and play them now, you might think differently. But because you played games like GTA:SA or Spyro when they were first made, and the graphics available for comparison at the time didn't make them look nearly as dated as they do now.

Try comparing two games that come out in the same year graphically, not ones that come out 8 years apart

Not neccessarily, because I wasn't comparing the graphics directly, I was comparing the fun I had playing the two games to determine how much the graphical elements influenced my gaming enjoyment.

I didn't play TS2 when it came out, I played it rather late in fact, by then, Halo and Halo 2 were out, amongst other better looking games, I simply enjoyed playing TS2 more than I did Crysis, heck, even more than Halo games, and that says a lot because I have a blast playing Halo games.

I agree that it probably wouldn't be as fun playing it on an atari 2600, but I don't think thats particularly down to the graphical limitations per say, but just the gameplay possibilities. But hell, I'm always proven wrong I happened to enjoy Pixel Junk Monsters, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Patapon, Locoroco and Angry Birds than many graphical focused games I've played on Wii, PS3, 360 and PC.

 

[V8 Ninja]

In terms of 3D graphics, if a game looks as good as the original Half-Life, I'll pretty much play it without griping over the graphics. For 2D, I'm fine with 16-bit graphics. I don't have very high standards. =P

 

[UnwishedGunz]

if your one of those people who play minecraft then im sure your the type of person who doesnt care about the graphics in a game

 

[Gasaraki]

I like graphics but I can't help but feel that graphical advancements have given developers the opportunity to be lazy, especially JRPG makers.

 

[eelel]

As some one who's favorite game is Nights into Dream I would have to say no

 

[Nannernade]

I care more about the story I can work with jagged but the smoother it is the better chance it has at creating immersion no?

 

[DanielBrown]

I'm a graphic whore, unfortunetly. Have tried to replay some of my old games that I grew up with, but the graphics makes me unable to keep playing for more than an hour tops.

 

[kidcrash]

I actually think that games with "poor" graphics tend to look better. I was watching my friend play Black Ops on PS3 and I couldn't stand how jaggy it looked. I also find myself very sensitive to drops in frame rate. Anything 30 FPS or below just looks bad. Seeing the FPS dive when particle effects come in is just depressing.

So, graphics do matter to me, I just tend to think that simple graphics look better than detailed ones. I'd choose Counter-strike's graphics over any modern game's.

 

[Chorionicstu]

I care about graphics but not nearly as much as I care about gameplay. There are games for the N64 that I would still play over games such as; Black Ops and other high end graphics games. I find that older games are much more fun whereas games these days are obsessed with competitiveness and balanced gameplay.

 

[Drakmorg]

As long as the game doesn't look like it was constructed out of lego (Minecraft excluded of course) then I'm fine with the graphics.

Pretty much the only time I ever stopped playing a game because I couldn't stand the graphics was the first time I played Morrowind.

Thankfully I've been able to mod it to look even nicer than Oblivion, so now I'm enjoying it.

 

[Senaro]

Depends on the game. Sometimes I really dig super quality graphics, like Soul Calibur 4. But I also love games with graphics like Minecraft or other simpler themes.

 

[Dufaunce]

Personally as long as the game has a good narrative I'll play it through to the end, if the graphics are essential to the narrative then yes, I do care .

 

[pulse2]

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?

I still play the origional C&C at times, heck even Homeworld, T3:WotM and other older titles get my attention from time to time, so nope graphics mean nothing to me if the game is awesome

But then to counter my original point, I couldn't deny how beautiful Homeworld looked when I first played it, it was stunning and that beauty crossed with the amazing gameplay got me addicted to it, I loved Homeworld 2 for that as much as the first one, but I wasn't as addicted to it as the first.

I could say the same for Ground Control which sits atop some of my favourite strategy games of all time, same goes for Ground Control 2, I simply liked the idea of controlling my units from directly on the ground and having limited resources to work with as opposed to C&C's style of strategy or AOE.

Both games made by Sierra, both games incredible experiences, even now I still love those two games, and thier storylines were so gripping.

To be honest, I could say that these two games had the perfect mixture of everything. To this day I could still play those two over and over and still be shocked at how amazing they look.

 

[TehCookie]

I almost like older graphics more because they leave it up to your imagination. Playing the original Pokemon was more immersive to me because it was hard to tell what exactly that Pokemon looked like and I didn't see them as anime characters I saw them as living creatures. Unless you want to play a realistic game is the only reason for realistic graphics. Otherwise we could finally stop focusing on graphics and work on gameplay and story.