Do you care about graphics?

[revolutionaification]

As everyone else has already said, I tend to favour gameplay more than graphics.

However, a series I've never played any of with a new release is far more likely to drag me in with spectacular (and I mean truly breathtaking, not necessarily realistic) views than with fairly standard graphics. This can be outweighed if I've heard favourable reviews of the game itself or its series or developers but generally, it's snazzy eyecandy that most violently grabs my attention, after, of course, an original plotline.

 

[gardyna]

quality graphics can make a good game great and a decent game good but no matter how good your graphics are the graphics can not make a bad game tolerable.

on a side note: Kane and Lynch 2 had mindbending poly count (and so on and so on) but for me it just looked ugly and the gameplay wasn´t helping however Kirby´s epic yarn was (in my opinion at least) an average game but the beautiful graphics elevated the experience to a whole other level(Minecraft is another example cause i think it has a style that fits uniquely with the gameplay(and looks darn charming to boot)).

 

[Mike Laserbeam]

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.

Well Halo: Combat Evolved came out before TimeSplitters 2 (After TS1 though) but if it was after Halo 2 you played it at least in 2004, which wasn't too long after I played it first (2003 probably). But are you saying that Halo 2 looks much better than TS2 does? I would say that if it did at all it wasn't by much, so I'm not entirely sure of your point there...

Also, are you saying that Locoroco and Angry Birds have bad graphics? I would disagree there too, obviously their graphical content isn't on the same level as GT5 or something, but it's not like they're bad looking games. Although I see how you could be saying that they're not graphically focused like some recent games (Despite most of the charm of Locoroco being in the way it looks)

I understand your argument entirely, game content is much more important than the way it looks, but I also think that it is important for a new game to be able to hold up to the standards of its time.

 

[Fellwarden]

I like graphics. A lot. However, as long as the game is good enough to immerse me in its world, graphics are irrelevant, though it's certainly a welcome bonus.

 

[Imp Poster]

In terms of the situation you say, no, it doesn't matter. If I find it engaging, then I am playing it.
But games these days, usually you are given a choice between which systems you want to play the same game on. In general, I would like to play on a PC because the graphics are better, but now, I am really comfortable with playing games on a controller so I prefer a 360/PS3 unless it is a FPS, mouse and keyboard all the way.

 

[espada1311]

to be honest, i think that it should be relevant based on the game's selling points. Ex; shattered memories, the game is provided to give you a psychological horror experience, to base the game solely on its graphics would be kind of silly. However. if the game in question is using scenery as its selling point, like crysis, then it would be appropriate to judge it on its graphics. the visual is only a means to convey the story in which a story writer wants to convey. If the graphics are clear enough to see, then its good to me.

You can also think about it like black and white movies, it's old and has no colour, but if you really think about it, you dont entirely mind it, do you? not to mention some of the best story movies came from black and white (Casablanca) but before i seem like a "old is awesome" guy, i also want to say that some of the worst has come from it too (Gone with the wind. 7 hrs of nothing and watching people get picked off like the rag-tag group of people in a chainsaw massacre film )

 

[conzan]

matter really with a game like TF2 i love the graphics and wouldn't have it any other way but as long as things are clear and its not an eye sore (graphics jump about or flicker a lot) and its fun to play then yeah i will play it

 

[DustyDrB]

Improving on the graphics we have today is very low priority now. I wish developers would focus more on AI. That's the area where the biggest innovation is going to be in the near future I believe. Or at least that's where innovation needs to be.

 

[Blaster395]

Realistic graphics are unimportant, easy to use interface and easy to understand graphics are.
Its the reason why dwarf fortress has such a high difficulty cliff followed by overhang, because the graphics are so bad that you have no clue what is happening.

 

[CatmanStu]

Graphics to me are the most important part of a game. The mechanics are what make the game enjoyable, but without the right graphics the mechanics are just sitting there doing nothing. Eg. if an Indiana Jones game looked like an Uncharted game you would never use the whip as you wouldn't know where to aim it, but use the same scenario but fade out the contrast or colour on everything but the relevant scenery when the whip is equipped and bingo, the graphics are doing there job.
The advent of the GPU has made graphics and mechanics seem like separate entities these days which they aren't.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I love pretty graphics, but I'll happily take a smooth frame rate and play experience over them any day.

 

[Mistermixmaster]

I could say no, but I'd be lying if I did. Graphics do matter. They don't have to be over the top of awesome, but I must be able to see what is what clearly. A friend of mine said I oughta play FF 7 because of it's awesome story, but sadly I have not been able to play that as much as I'd like because the graphics HURTS MY EYES. I'm serious, I have to take breaks every 50 min or so =/ (also, it's harder to relate to characters that look like pointy polygons out of combat...)

 

[PureChaos]

i didn't but then i played Resident Evil 2 the other day. i suppose it's not that the graphics are bad, it's just poorly done.

 

[Ultraman950]

Graphics aren't that big a deal for me. So long as I can tell what's going on and know whether or not what I'm about to step on is going to blow my legs off, it's fine with me.

That said, there should be some effort put into them. I like to imagine that the thing I'm talking to in-game is not a goddamn robot.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

To me its actually about the most unimportant part in a game.

 

[EOD Tech]

Graphics are not important at all. Look at Uplink. Literally no graphics whatsoever and it was great.

And think of all the old really fun BBS door games. Tradewars, Legend of the Red Dragon, Drug Lord, etc. Entirely text-based and I defy about 90% of current gen games to be as fun.

 

[xDHxD148L0]

Not really, it can certantly add to a game, but most of the time I find that it can take away from a game if all there is to do it look at the pretty scenery.

 

[JeanLuc761]

I absolutely think graphics matter, but they're definitely not the most important aspect of the game (storytelling and gameplay take that spot). However, I do appreciate when a game has an appealing visual style or top of the line visuals as oftentimes it adds a lot to the experience.

For example, the original Spyro the Dragon may not have all the graphical bells and whistles of today, but it has a very appealing graphical style that compliments the gameplay. Same goes for Crysis. They made the game look and play very realistically, yet it doesn't take away from the gameplay in the slightest. If anything, it makes the game even more immersive.

 

[Dana22]

Nope. Graphics are at the very bottom of my priority list, even lower then sound.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I don't care if graphics are dated or even bad, as long as they aren't ugly. I remember I stopped playing Red Steel on the wii partially because... well it was fucking terrible, but the graphics were just unbearable. If there was a pile of rubble it looked like a hardened pile of vomit. if a character was wearing dull colors he blended into the wall. Even though it technically has better graphics than say, the N64 Zelda games, it's less tolerable to look at because of the way everything is designed.