Do you care about graphics?

[PurplePlatypus]

As long as the graphics are functional and clear any amount of prettiness thrown on top is just a bonus really.

 

[Dexiro]

I care about graphics. They need to be appealing, and need to efficiently represent the gameplay elements.
On the other hand I don't care how high definition the graphics are, GoW3 looks just as good as Megaman 9, while on the other hand I thought Borderlands was a bit of an eye sore.

 

[jamman]

not really to me
gameplay / a good story is king for me

 

[Thundero13]

I find games with good gameplay, if the graphics are awful so be it, also the games that suposedly have good graphics are often just grey & brown, things that are more colourful are nicer/easier to look at, my favorite game is probably Twilight Princess, the graphics on it aren't that great but it's fun so who cares.

 

[DSK-]

Graphics to me aren't important, but at the same time I can't play something that looks like a slapped ass. A decent art style is always good.

 

[Skoosh]

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.

 

[Woodsey]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES.

If I'm going to be looking at something for the next 8-300 hours then I want it to look pretty.

 

[Dorby5826and360]

As long as I can tell what is going on I do not care about graphics. The two aspects of games that I care about are good gameplay and story, if the story is the focus of the game.

 

[linwolf]

No, gameplay and story are the two things that matter. I still play PS1 and DOS games.

 

[Chibz]

Not really, no. To this day I still load up & play NES games for a playthrough.

I leave graphic whoring to the PC gaming master race.

 

[pulse2]

Can we please define what "bad graphics" mean? Imo Minecraft has EXCELLENT graphics. why? It may be blockish, and low res, but A) It is crystal clear and not at all murky and B)It fits perfectly for the theme and tone of the game.

Contrast that with GTA4, say for example. Muddy browns and grays that make it hard to distinguish features; every road looks the same so you just stare at a mini-map all the time while driving. and most importantly the style barely ever portrays Liberty City as the vibrant energetic metropolis that it claims to be. In short, it had BAD graphics.

So yeah, i don't like bad graphics, because it kills immersion. Only when i say bad graphics I don't mean particle effects and frame-rates. I mean graphics that is not appropriate for the game.

Whatever you want to make of it mate, I suppose there are games that have a different interpretation of good graphics and those known to just have BETTER graphics, but I don't think many games have bad graphics per say unless there is clear flaws that impede vision and objectives, making gameplay frustrating.

That would mean graphics are preventing the gameplay from somehow being fun, or certain graphics are lazy implementations.

One might say that having a 3d audience in a WWE game is a statement of good graphics as opposed to cardboard ones with a focus on how realistic the main wrestlers are for example.

 

[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

 

[doodger]

Minecraft and urban terror are two of my favorite games. You've all seen the first one, and the second one is a quake 3 mod (ya,seriously).

The way i see it, game have 4 things: graphics, gameplay, story and music. If a game has all 4, it is a really excellent one. If one of them is missing, say, graphics, the others have to make up for it. Graphics can modify your view of the music, the gameplay and even the story. However, lack of graphic doesn't kill a game.

So, yeah, graphic are a part of a whole.

 

[Dogstile]

Didn't bother me until I got a good computer. Now I have a computer that's damn good...

Yeah, graphics factors in my choices of buying games. If I can't decide between two games, i'll look at which one has the higher requirements and buy that because I CAN

 

[blankedboy]

I don't really care how good the graphics are, but more how much effort is put into the aesthetics. Take Ocarina of Time for example, or Goldeneye 007. Both are N64 games, and therefore don't have very good graphics, but there's next to no scenery, just uber-high walls all around.
Zeno Clash is a Source game, therefore it has fairly good graphics, but it differs from the last two in that the scenery is one of the main points of the game. The backgrounds just overflow with raw effort.

 

[linkvegeta]

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?

Not really all that much, a game could hqve great graphics and play like shit and the grphics would not make it a good game. Sorry about spell mistakes my fingers are too big for mu iphone

 

[Geekosaurus]

I only care if they're bad. I don't have big expectations when it comes to graphics, but if they're bad they can really take away from a game.

 

[Skoosh]

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.

 

[Grey_Focks]

Yes I do, but more so art style than actual level of detail and such. And THAT being said, I won't play a game just because it's nice to look at if the game itself isn't fun, but it is the icing on the cake if a fun game has pretty graphics or an excellent art style.

 

[XT inc]

Nope all I care about is interactivity,gameplay, story and physics/reactions.

I don't care how purdy the game looks, if fire extinguishers don't explode in awesome puffs of gas, or the glass just disappears, or tanks couldn't knock over a table, or tv's don't shatter.

All I've learned from lazy devs, is if I got sucked into a video game, I would make a suit of armor out of the god mode lightbulbs, that never get destroyed so no forward thinking has to go into lighting a level.