How important are graphics to you.

[LilithSlave]

I hate them. As in, I hate how current gen. graphics are killing video games.

As for graphics on their own, they're useless to me. The only time graphics are even remotely useful, is when they're used for an aesthetic I love.

But most of the time, higher graphics means my kind of aesthetic is dying. And as such, I think most 16-Bit games look better than most current gen. games. Not to mention I think they play better.

To be frankly honest, I think a move back to 2D sprites making up the majority of games would be a step in the right direction.

 

[LilithSlave]

absolutely not important. For me most important things in games is in this order: Story--->Characters--->World Design\Art Work--->Gameplay

I mainly play consoles and my favourite genre is J-RPG

I... I think I love you. Can we be internet married?

 

[Mordekaien]

For me, it's all about aesthetics. The I recently re-played Gothic and Thief 1 both games have pretty bad graphics for today standarts, but the aesthetics are so damn cool. If you can make your environment look vibrant and aesthetically pleasing to the eyes, It doesn't matters if the game uses dated graphics or not.

 

[Starik20X6]

As long as I can tell what everything is supposed to be and is distinguishable from everything else, it can be as polygonal, pixelated or whatever else. All I really need to do to get my argument across is point to Minecraft- pixelated cubes as far as the eye can see and it's one of the most popular games around.

What you really need to be concerned with, as many have already said, is art direction. Zelda: Wind Waker is a game that will always look good, thanks to it's fantastic art direction. I personally put 'realistic' graphics as a thing I tend to shy away from, because the vast majority of the time they turn out either a) uncanny valley monstrosities, b) like viewing the game through brown murky dishwashing water, or c) both a and b at once.

For me, "good graphics" are ones that are visually interesting and pleasing to look at, which, in my view, seems to exclusively apply to stylised graphics.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Graphics are extremely important.

I know that thinking this way is seen as shallow, but lets not kid ourselves; We want our media to look the part, whether it be movies or games.

I'm sorry, but they are not. They are a nice optional extra, but are in no way the be all and end all of games. If graphics were important, games like

Spoiler: this

and

Spoiler: this

and even

Spoiler: this

wouldn't be so popular. If a game is deep, involving, immersive and overall just fun to play, then graphics really do take a back seat. A lot of very mediocre games are elevated to 'great' in this day and age because they get a free ride from their graphics.

 

[Ziame]

depends on a game. for example, i wouldnt like Mass Effect so much if it wasnt for great visuals.

on the other hand i didnt mind the shit graphics in deus ex; though they didnt help the game. it has too much retarded concepts.

 

[putowtin]

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to go back to C64 graphics

but story always wins out for me, the graphics could have been designed by Da Vinci but if I'm not engrossed I lose interest quickly.

 

[Dethenger]

What's important about the visual is a nice aesthetic, not good graphics, unless the graphics aren't good enough to support the aesthetic properly, in which case either get better graphics or change the aesthetic. Really, I can't imagine it being easy to have shitty enough graphics to not be able to support the aesthetic; I mean, as far as I'm concerned, Majora's Mask is a beautiful game.

 

[zefiris]

Graphics don't matter to me, gameplay does. I can play a Might&Magic 3 even today without trouble. Games like Ultima Underworld II only cause me issue because the jumping mechanics are, plain and simple, terrible.

If a game has good gameplay, the graphics can be NES-style for all I care.

I know that thinking this way is seen as shallow, but lets not kid ourselves; We want our media to look the part, whether it be movies or games.

Who is "we"? I sure am not included in the we.
I'm currently happily playing the old Might&Magic titles And their graphics really are pretty bad. So what?

 

[omega 616]

I can't stand the bit era games any more but as long as I know whats there I am not fussed.

For example, I am quite happy to play dead space 2 at the lowest settings or the highest, doesn't make much difference to me. I can't play minecraft 'cos it looks like ass (among other reasons none graphic related).

Same goes for pineapple smash crew, the game has retro graphics, which means I don't want to play it 'cos I don't like the look.

I can't tell if AA or v synch is on.

 

[Arina Love]

absolutely not important. For me most important things in games is in this order: Story--->Characters--->World Design\Art Work--->Gameplay

I mainly play consoles and my favourite genre is J-RPG

I... I think I love you. Can we be internet married?

you making me blush baka ^_^

 

[Poetic Nova]

I would say Gameplay > Graphics.
i do appreciate today's graphics that's not the problem but gameplay seems to be an afterthought sometimes in modern games.

 

[EternalFacepalm]

I hate them. As in, I hate how current gen. graphics are killing video games.

As for graphics on their own, they're useless to me. The only time graphics are even remotely useful, is when they're used for an aesthetic I love.

But most of the time, higher graphics means my kind of aesthetic is dying. And as such, I think most 16-Bit games look better than most current gen. games. Not to mention I think they play better.

To be frankly honest, I think a move back to 2D sprites making up the majority of games would be a step in the right direction.

I doubt it would.

Currently, many producers put graphics above gameplay because hey, graphics sell. However, downgrading graphics won't help. What the industry needs is for graphics to be used right.

Gameplay should always be preferred, yes, but graphics enable gameplay. FPS games, for example, don't work nearly as well with 16-bit sprites as they do with 3D models.

What we need is for graphics to be used only, and I mean only for it to enable the aesthetic it's attempting to pull off. Of course, some games go with the "realistic brown" aesthetic, which isn't exactly great. But reverting won't help.

A cartoony aesthetic is nigh impossible with sprites and retro graphics. A 3D platformer wouldn't work at all with sprites.

(Just to make this clear, I know you said "the majority of games", however I still believe that's a wrong step entirely.)

 

[Twilight_guy]

How I evaluate graphics:
Is it an old game? If yes, yeah the graphics are okay.
Does it look better then the graphics on my Gamecube? If yes, then yeah the graphics are okay.
If No to both, then no the graphics look bad and need work.

Then I proceed to actually evaluate the game after that bit of wasted time.

 

[katsabas]

Gameplay on top. Graphics are my side salad when it comes to games cause it's just nice to have them. Part of the reason I still play PSone games.

 

[dimensional]

Depends on the game really if it wants me to just explore its world and enjoy it then graphics are quite important I wouldnt have enjoyed Oblivion anywhere near as much if it wasnt for the pretty graphics although I would say art direction is always more important than graphics.

Usually though I really am not bothered by dated graphics just the weekend gone I was playing Legend of Zelda a Link to the past for example hardly stellar graphics but its got a great art style so things dont get blurred same with Secret of Mana which I also played recently I also regularly play Punch Out from the NES days (virtual console for this one) and its still perfectly playable same with FFVII and Baldurs Gate 2 great games that are still fun to play despite not looking great by todays standards.

I will admit that good graphics rarely if ever hurt a title though but in most games they take a back seat to other factors i.e story, gameplay etc while of course text adventure games dont really need graphics at all.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Graphics certainly aren't the most important thing compared to good gameplay, polish and story (if applicable) but it's still pretty damn important.

I tried playing Deus Ex after really liking DX: Human Revolution but I quit after 10 mins because it just looked so awful!

edit: forgot to add original Silent Hill and Resident Evil to this list.

When it was first released, I quit Deus Ex after about five minutes, and plain refused to give it another go... too ugly, people's heads were attached to their chests, ED-209 walked the starting area, everything looked so much uglier than other games at the time, especially all tose fancy new games on those super stylish consoles...

then I forced myself to play it, got used to the crap graphics and discovered it was just about gaming heaven - I started to respect and love it.

Couldn't wait for DX:HR to get released... and when it finally did, it felt like bonsai Deus Ex with much better graphics. In comparison to Deus Ex, it looked like the super sexy braindead brother sitting in the corner, drooling all over himself and wetting his pants.

Much less game, much less choice, much less freedom, much less everything. I ended up selling DX:HR, and I gave the original Deus Ex another go - the graphics are even more abysmal today, but the game kept me entertained for two months worth of weekends... AGAIN.

The same goes for just about any other updated or re-invented franchise these days. Too bad they don't make games like that any more. I'm getting rather annoyed with all that visual overload that seems to get more and more random. I liked playing large stretches of RAGE, the ending felt as if my game disc had a scratch and randomly played a scene completely out of context. I liked playing Driver: SF, but the MTV-style ADD switching between player-controllable scenes, cut scenes and tv-style fmv sequences made me want to try out Adderall to cope with it.

The latest Mortal Kombat had clearly better graphics than ye olde MK uglies of old, but the fancy new bone-breaking cut scenes were fun for about a weekend or so, after two weeks we went back to play MK-MK3, going to GameFAQS to refresh our handling of fatalities and babalities and whatnot THAT ARE NOT DISPLAYED ON SCREEN AS IF WE WERE ALL RETARDS and we really haven't touched the latest Mortal Kombat since. It's a shame - the ugly old games with much simpler graphics can still get us to waste hours after hours, and the new ones grow stale after just a few sittings. Something's amiss, I tell ya.

I wanted to say something completely different, but, alas, fact is: top graphics are empty calories for the eyes, seemingly soothing the soul, but they just cannot replace the fun of proper, original, fresh new games.

http://topcrew.de/pics/wizball.gif

 

[LilithSlave]

I doubt it would.

Perhaps I misspoke. I do miss the 2D era, though.

I sure wish graphics didn't sell. I miss the era where they didn't.

And brown is the worst.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Graphics are extremely important.

I know that thinking this way is seen as shallow, but lets not kid ourselves; We want our media to look the part, whether it be movies or games.

I'm sorry, but they are not. They are a nice optional extra, but are in no way the be all and end all of games. If graphics were important, games like

Spoiler: this

and

Spoiler: this

and even

Spoiler: this

wouldn't be so popular. If a game is deep, involving, immersive and overall just fun to play, then graphics really do take a back seat. A lot of very mediocre games are elevated to 'great' in this day and age because they get a free ride from their graphics.

I said "look the part".

This means they need a good visual presence for what they represent.

I never played Minecraft, but the visuals have a charming simplicity too them. Had Minecraft been all wireframe it would've lost a lot of it's appeal. Visuals aren't end all be all, but they're just as important as gameplay and story. This is why Resident Evil 4 looks better than Resident Evil 5, and why any new Final Fantasy game with actual good gameplay would still suck because the riduculous visuals lack any real focus.

 

[thedo12]

graphics (resolution/number of polygons texture quality ect are important but not deal breaking, aesthetics (the look and style of the game) however is deal breaking, playing an ugly game is horrible.