How important are graphics to you.

[Casual Shinji]

I don't understand what people hate so much about belts and zippers. Or weird and fantastic hair, or androgyny. And I prefer the old aesthetic. Mostly because I think Final Fantasy was magical at making fantasy games. For instance, Final Fantasy IX is my favourite of the PlayStation generation.

And I have no idea what you're talking about with shiny little bits. But the place that Square is sorely lacking, is gameplay only. I liked the old aesthetic better, but I could seriously care less about the aesthetic they choose at all right now. So long as they start making better gameplay. Because right now Tales of and Persona are the jRPG flagship because they've failed to deliver.

The most irritating aesthetic choice they ever made was with Nier. Where they outright stated they designed the main character the way they did, was because they took at the idiots who said "get the nasty androgyny faggots out of Final Fantasy and out of video games. I don't wanna play as a stupid queer" into consideration, and made the main character a muscleman for the Western release while retaining the Japanese style of character for the Japanese release.

I don't think I've ever been that irritated with Square in my life.

I don't mind belts or zippers, but when a character's outfit is almost entirely comprised out of them it starts to look ridiculous. Ofcourse there needs to be some fantasy "swirl" to the overal design, but past a certain point it starts to lose all its practical sense and recognizable features.

When designing a fantasy setting the audience needs enough recognizable features of their own world as a stable foundation to be able to enjoy the fantastical elements. Otherwise they won't be able to place themselves in the setting because everything feels way too alien. Prime example of this is FF13.

My favourite looking FF is probably 9, too. And that's because it had a solid visual style. And while some of the designs could be a bit overzealous it still worked, mainly because of its cartoony nature.

As for androgyny, I think most people are mainly annoyed that Square feels the need to put in that one male character with the Meg Ryan hairdo in each of the major entries.

 

[Rheinmetall]

Graphics are very important to me. Essentially they are the whole game. Graphics are not just the looks, but they define the function of game-play.

Thats an interesting idea please explain.

What i say is that graphics is part of the game-play. Take "L.A. Noire" for instance; I haven't played it but I have heard that big part of the game's play revolves around questioning suspects and "reading" their facial expressions, as you try to figure whether they are telling the truth, or not. This type of game-play can only be materialized with a powerful and modern graphics engine.

Let me give you another example: Metal Gear Solid. Would it be possible to have this kind of stealth game-play without the 3D environments and characters?
Also,if you have played the first three Resident Evil games on the PlayStation you probably remember those hideous giant spiders that terrorized so many of us. Those creatures were terrifying because they were very detailed in terms of appearance and had realistic animations. I agree that the feeling of horror can be achieved with many ways, not only visually, but the power of image is undeniable.

Video-games are all about image. In a concrete building you have the walls and the walls' decoration separately, and surely the walls are more important than the decoration, but in games where there is only an illusion of space, the image plays a decisive role.

 

[kasperbbs]

Well its 2012, so i would expect AAA titles to be pretty, but if the gameplay/story is garbage then i might as well be looking at a screensaver.
EDIT: If GTA 4 didn't have a physics engine, car damage and detailed animations it would lose a lot of its appeal, it simply wouldn't be as fun causing havoc to the city.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Love good graphics, very important. But that also is linked to the game the graphics are in. MW2 and BF3 were boring but had great graphics. Same with Crysis 2, great graphics but okish game. They lacked substance, they werent bad games at all. Just, like most people, they want the next big shooter, something new and maybe something with a bigger playing area or city. (WW2 open world shooter please...finger crossed).

But then its strange because Limbo had great graphics and it was simple black and white shapes, but it worked in context with the game.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

>snip<

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.

Fair point - but then surely we're talking about aesthetics, not graphics? And even then the argument doesn't extend particularly well to Roguelikes, where the presence of a red dragon is typically indicated by a red 'D', or an orc chieftain is indicated by a purple 'o'. Oh, the 'look' command comes in useful here, providing a paragraph long description of a highlighted beastie, but graphically all that is there is a letter or symbol. These games are still hugely entertaining (and massive, given the amount of development time not spent on graphics) despite being neither graphically or aesthetically pleasing.

I never played that game, but I reckon that even there the visuals, no matter how simple, make sure that the player knows exactly what's what and how to act accordingly. Actually, you could say that because of the simplicity of the visuals the gameplay is improved.

HUD's, for example, are all visual, but if they're badly designed it can scew up the entire game, no matter how good the gameplay is.

True enough, but I still think that this is down to aesthetics than good/poor graphics. As you rightly say, games with top-notch graphics put together in an aesthetically confused way can ruin a game, but the OP (or more accurately, the OP's friend) was saying that without top-notch graphics a game is unplayable. To which I (and I think you) disagree.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Also. I do wonder if in the old days of C64 and Spectrum gaming. A person used more imagination. A blob is you, another blob is an alien. Like reading a book, you imagined it all out. They werent blobs of pixels in your mind, but real looking people. So i wonder if now that games have very real life graphics that the brain has lost its imagination (to a point) and thats why we want more because we look more at story and the rest?

This could be dumb though. I remember being hooked way more on games like Turrican 2 and Creatures 2 than on modern games. But then that could just be that ive aged.

 

[RagTagBand]

Quite Important IMO as they're the biggest barrier, for me, for immersion. They're not "The" biggest important thing, fun gameplay and a good story come first, but I find that if the graphics aren't to a certain standard I have a hard time focusing or enjoying the game.

That being said, the "Standard" I set the bar to isn't particularly high, I don't demand xbox360 level graphics, but there is a point that my eyes just won't forgive me for looking at for too long.

Also, aesthetics are just as important and a game with shit graphics can be saved by good aesthetics.

 

[Saltyk]

It's sort of a mixed bag.

I don't think graphics are paramount to the game being good. Good graphics are nice, and I enjoy them. But there are plenty of great games that I have played and will still play that don't have good graphics. Some of my favorite games look bad by today's standards. Final Fantasy 7, Suikoden II, Legend of Legaia are all PSOne games with terrible graphics compared to Deus Ex: Human Revolution or Rage. But I remember them fondly and I'm not above picking them up at anytime.

That being said, I notice the less than great visuals. There have even been times that I have been turned off by bad graphics. If your game doesn't hit a minimum standard for graphics by the days standards, I probably won't look at it (if you couldn't make decent looking models the rest of the game probably isn't very polished).

Really, great visuals and graphics are more icing on the cake than anything else to me.

 

[Mighty Lighty]

I do think graphics are important but it depends on the game
for example in uncharted 3 the awesome graphics make the game more exciting and beautiful
but on the other hand, I just replayed resi 4 last week and found the rough graphics mare scary than I did with resi 5

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Meh. As long as the low-fi or lack of graphics (i.e. Dwarf Fortress) don't make the game unreadable, it's fine. Still, it's always amusing to see bleeding-edge enthusiasts blow thousands of bucks on overpriced hardware all so they can go back to playing Minecraft.

"Oh, but I'm different!" they'll say. "I patched my game to support high-resolution textures and I'm using a fan-made shader!"

Doesn't change the fact that it's Minecraft.

I really don't mind, personally. Some of the more striking games I've had the chance to play in the last few years had incredibly simple or primitive graphics. Stuff like Passage, Canabalt, Revenge of the Titans or The Binding of Isaac.

I think the real question should be "What drives bleeding-edge enthusiasts?" Are they really getting the most out of the constructed gameplay *because* they can run it in 1080p with all visual options cranked to the max and a custom .INI file?

I have to run Skyrim on Low since the latest patch, as the ENB series of shader and color saturation mods has become far too taxing for my system. It's also started to run a bit sluggishly in its initial settings even if the executable is supposed to have been patched to handle more than two gigabytes of RAM. In some ways, this patch has been a severe downgrade for me, as I could run the game on High with little to no slowdowns and with concessions made to water reflection levels.

Does this mean my enjoyment of the game has diminished? Of course not. Skyrim manages to create an immersive experience even with its visuals set on "Worse than Dog Shit", and that's largely because the level designers are smart enough to create a world that speaks based on its aesthetics, and not based on how much specular bump-mapping or Full-Scene Anti-Aliasing is being used.

 

[VondeVon]

Vital. No graphics, no game.

I struggle to get into a game if it looks shoddy. I struggle to connect with the characters.

Then again, I also struggle to get into a game if it's top-of-the-line 'gritty' realism, where every blackened pore is lovingly detailed.

 

[everythingbeeps]

I usually don't care too much unless there are problems with them (i.e. poor framerate, screen tearing, etc.)

 

[HandsomeZer0]

Graphics don't mean much to me, they are nice but non essential. If every game looks as good as skyrim thats cool, but if a game is immersive as metal gear solid 1 its wonderful.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I thought this might be a nice straightforward topic for my first thread.

Actually, it isn't. Define "graphics" for instance. I really can't answer your question as it is.

 

[BLAHwhatever]

I love Dwarf Fortress.
That about says it all, doesn't it?

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

I always love good graphics, but if the game is good I will accept really bad graphics for a really good game.

But, I really REALLY LOVE graphics!

 

[thejackyl]

Gameplay > Aesthetic > Graphics

The game has to be fun to play, hands down. A pleasing or interesting aesthetic (See: TF2 for good example. Graphics aren't really great, but are pleasing to look at) can make up for some gameplay shortcomings. And than graphics comes in last for me.

Also I'll throw this out here: What generation of games has dated the worst? Personally it's a tie between N64/PS1 era, and possibly ATARI 2600 and earlier. mainly because once 3D became the norm technology to make it better increased GREATLY between consoles. However Sprites and the 2D look of NES and SNES games help them remain playable.

Though I do enjoy a few of those games that have aged horribly, graphics wise.

 

[Wolfram23]

I loves me some hardcore high end graphics like Metro 2033 and Battlefield 3.

However, it isn't the "high end"-ness or realistic-ness of the graphics that matter the most. That's more just me being a PC hardware nut. No, what I really want is where the graphics, animations, and overall art style all mesh together. I don't care if I go back and play FF2 or A Link To The Past on ZNES, they have good graphics. On the other hand, a game like Kingoms of Amalur: Reckoning has, IMO, bad graphics. Not just that they are low quality, but there's aspects of it I find jarring.

 

[The Abhorrent]

I don't place too much emphasis on graphical fidelity, but I certainly do place a great deal of value on overall asthetic design. A game with a high polygon count or a super-detailed textures does not automatically make it better looking. Good art design goes much further than this, and quite often helps the game age significantly better than games which are built around a high degree of fidelity. Games which make use of sprites have continued to improve in quality since the 16-bit era (a lot of little touches have been added for the most part), but for the most part they don't have to look much better than they were at that point. They're timeless at this point, they'll never look bad provided the art design is up to snuff; many of the re-release ports from that era are either complete overhauls (Final Fantasy IV) or largely untouched (Chrono Trigger).

---

To look at some of the more modern titles, art design is still superior to raw graphical detail. Here's a few examples of what I feel are the best looking titles in the past decade or so of gaming:

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow
This game is underrated as a whole in my opinion, but few can deny how great this game looks. Yes, it has a very high level of fidelity; it's not uncommon for the game to buckle under the strain of it's own ambition at times (particularly the Xbox 360 version). Nevertheless, it's a very colourful game (except the parts of the game which are supposed to be a wasteland) which makes great use of all the fidelity it's given; while other hack & slash games are also much better looking than your average shooter (argh, so much brown), they actually end up looking somewhat bland besides LoS. Not only that, it's significantly longer than games within the same genre; a bit more than double the normal length for the genre isn't an unreasonable estimate, meaning that many more beautiful vistas to see.

Final Fantasy XIII
Another game which gets more dislike than it deserves (again, in my opinion), though the flaws in this one a bit more pronounced than CV:LoS; both games take much longer than they should to hit their stride, but they're actually quite good once they do. But we're talking about asthetics here, aren't we? Say what you will about the rest of the game, but Square's art design is still one of the best in the business. Again, we have a very high degree of fidelity; again, it's another game which puts it too good use.

Shadow of the Colossus
Previous console generation, copious amounts of brown colours, loves bloom lighting (... I think); despite all that, this game still looks great. I'm not referring to the somewhat recent HD remake either, the original still holds up fine. As I said, it mostly comes down to art design; in the case of SotC, the minimalist approach works fairly well. Detail work didn't play a huge role in this game, but overall shape and scale certainly did. While many are quick to criticize colour palettes which are predominantly brown, this is a game which isn't hindered by it; perhaps proof that a lot of brown isn't necessarily a bad thing for a game's asthetics, even if most have no idea how to use it.

The Metroid Prime Sub-series
The first game in the series impressed me with it's impressive level of detail, much of it shown through the HUD of Samus' helmet: rain droplets on this visor, lens flares, fogging up when going through steam vents, catching a glimpse of Samus' face under the right circumstances, and many other things. The second and third games of the sub-series are no different. The level of fidelity in all the games is superb, especially taking into account the fact Nintendo's consoles aren't known for being the most powerful consoles, which makes the next point all the more impressive: all three games run at a rock solid 60 frames per second. The first two examples above are known to struggle under the weight of their own fidelity, while SotC's minimalist approach means maintaining it's framerate isn't an issue. The Prime games look just as good, if not arguably better, and manage to run like greased lightning; even better, they age very gracefully.

---

Now, the question of whether graphics (or even overall asthetics) are more important than gameplay is a different matter. An amazing level of detail will not make up for a game which is awful to play. The first two examples above may not be the greatest games, but they're certainly not bad games either; the challenge getting the rabid masses to not hop on the bashing bandwagon and be reasonable about their opinions. However, the latter two examples are quite renowned for being outstanding games; the fact they look greate is just the icing on the cake.

I personally don't feel that graphics are the end-all for me, and for the most part I only view them as an additional perk to a good game. I didn't get the PC version of Skyrim because it looks better, I got that version so I could enjoy the mods. Speaking of which, it's a good looking game... but the art design isn't overly impressive in my opinion. Back to the point, a graphics aren't critical to my enjoy of a game; however, they do hold more water than the opinion of those on the bandwagon.

 

[LilithSlave]

I don't mind belts or zippers, but when a character's outfit is almost entirely comprised out of them it starts to look ridiculous. Ofcourse there needs to be some fantasy "swirl" to the overal design, but past a certain point it starts to lose all its practical sense and recognizable features.

We disagree. As a fan of the rivethead culture in general I think it looks amazing and fanciful.

And there isn't a single aesthetic failure from XIII as far as I'm concerned. Or XIV for that matter, apart from some recycled areas.

The only place XIII is lacking, is gameplay. No aesthetic changes would fix XIII.

I'm sorry, but you can't chalk up the failures of XIII to anything but gameplay.