How important are graphics to you.

[LilithSlave]

and why any new Final Fantasy game with actual good gameplay would still suck because the riduculous visuals lack any real focus.

Wait, what? If anything, visuals are the place that Final Fantasy isn't lacking. Final Fantasy XIV is the most high graphical fidelity MMORPG ever. It's simply badly reviewed because it doesn't have the content to go with it.

Final Fantasy XIII is perhaps the highest fidelity graphical game to date PlayStation 3 game to date. These games both, also have a worthy aesthetic. Final Fantasy Online has unique and interesting races for the MMORPG genre(perhaps the most endearing in the entire genre).

If anything, Square are a great example of how graphics destroy. Instead of spending so much time making solid and great games, they focused on graphics and created Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy XIV.

I can't even imagine Final Fantasy with "ridiculous visuals". So this is a horrible example. If anything, people are reminiscing the time when Square didn't actually care about graphical fidelity.

Remember how gorgeous this game was and how well it played?

 

[Necroid_Neko]

For me, I like my graphics to be nice and clean, but they don't have to be amazing or incredibly detailed. This generation of games has reached my expectations fully, I don't need better graphics than what most games have now, so I think I'll leave the tide behind and stay in this generation of games and consoles for a little while, it'll be cheaper too!

 

[mrhappy1489]

Well I'm a Nintendo fanboy, so...
No. Not at all.
Yeah, games like Gears Of War have loads of polygons and hi-res textures, but you'd have to be daft to say that they were easier on the eye than, say, Okami.

My friend, that is essentially, give or take a few words, the exact description I was about to provide. You sir, are a mind reader

 

[EternalFacepalm]

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.

I miss it as well, however the graphics we have now are here to stay, and be improved upon. Perhaps sometime much, much later, people will get over the graphics of a game. As of now I still regularly hear "I won't play it, the graphics suck", so it'll probably take a while. :/

 

[Casual Shinji]

and why any new Final Fantasy game with actual good gameplay would still suck because the riduculous visuals lack any real focus.

Wait, what? If anything, visuals are the place that Final Fantasy isn't lacking. Final Fantasy XIV is the most high graphical fidelity MMORPG ever. It's simply badly reviewed because it doesn't have the content to go with it.

Final Fantasy XIII is perhaps the highest fidelity graphical game to date PlayStation 3 game to date. These games both, also have a worthy aesthetic. Final Fantasy Online has unique and interesting races for the MMORPG genre(perhaps the most endearing in the entire genre).

If anything, Square are a great example of how graphics destroy. Instead of spending so much time making solid and great games, they focused on graphics and created Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy XIV.

I can't even imagine Final Fantasy with "ridiculous visuals". So this is a horrible example. If anything, people are reminiscing the time when Square didn't actually care about graphical fidelity.

I suppose it depends on what you go for, but to me the newer FF games look like shit. The past decade Square has gotten it into their head that putting on tons of belts and zippers, impractical hairdo's and dresses, equal beauty. They don't.

A while back I saw picture on DeviantART where someone had taken the main characters from Miyazaki's Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind and redesigned them in a FF aesthetic. While it was impressive on a technical standpoint, the characters themselves had become shallow representations of their former selves. Their visual presence had become dependent on hundreds of little shiny bits instead of actual style.

And that's what Square's games have all looked like ever since Final Fantasy 10; It doesn't have a style, just hundreds of little shiny bits all over the screen.

 

[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.

 

[RuralGamer]

Graphical quality can be ignored when gameplay is good. Graphical quality makes no difference if a game has poorly designed controls, interface and/or mechanics. Ultimately I would always argue that graphical quality is one of the least important aspects of a game, but it is a bit of a deal-maker when it comes to deciding whether to invest in a game I've heard good things of.

 

[Soxafloppin]

Saying that they don't matter is just a lye, I remember playing God of War 3 and Castlevania: Lords of Shadows, countless times I just had to stop and say "Woah".

Good Graphics are a good thing

its been said time and time again, good game design will always triumph over Graphics.

 

[The Last Nomad]

Graphics are extremely important. Not just how things look in screenshots, but how they actually move in the game. If things have clear fluid movements then that makes gameplay much better.
good graphics don't necessarily mean detailed textures everywhere, a game could be make up of 3 colours on flat surfaces and still have amazing graphics.

Good graphics can make a good game great, but bad graphics can also make a good game bad.

 

[Griffolion]

I'm on your side. It's nice to have good graphics, but if the game/controls/story/characters/etc all suck, I'm not playing it. No matter how beautiful it is. It's kinda like how I look at women. I don't care how gorgeous you are, if you're not at least somewhat nice, you're dumb as a rock, you're insanely full of yourself, and you're just plain a *****, I'm not interested. Looks are one of the last things I look at either way.

I'm with you. Though with women, looks are the first things I see but one of the last things I consider when determining suitability as a partner.

 

[LilithSlave]

I can't even imagine Final Fantasy with "ridiculous visuals". So this is a horrible example. If anything, people are reminiscing the time when Square didn't actually care about graphical fidelity.

I suppose it depends on what you go for, but to me the newer FF games look like shit. The past decade Square has gotten it into their head that putting on tons of belts and zippers, impractical hairdo's and dresses, equal beauty. They don't.[/quote]
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.

 

[babinro]

Controls and gameplay are tied for being most important, followed closely by replay value.

Nail those aspects and I'll love the game regardless of other elements. After those I'd still place sound design and story above graphics.

Graphics would have to be intentionally bad to have an impact on the game. If you designed a game with early 3D generation polygonal graphics today, it would influence my decision to try the game because of how poorly they stood the test of time.

I've read a lot of complaints about the graphics on recent games like SWTOR or Diablo 3. I for one don't see it. It's clear these games aren't as pretty as say Battlefield 3 on PC. But these games hardly have graphical downfalls sufficient enough to detract from the experience.

 

[mrhappy1489]

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.

I miss it as well, however the graphics we have now are here to stay, and be improved upon. Perhaps sometime much, much later, people will get over the graphics of a game. As of now I still regularly hear "I won't play it, the graphics suck", so it'll probably take a while. :/

Reading this and some other comments got me thinking, maybe we could stay at this level of graphics for say 10 more years. In that time I'm sure new upgrades will come along that will enable similar depth in today's system that was present, in say deus ex. I know that will never come to fruition, but imagine a world of that size with our standard today, honestly that would be a dream come true.

 

[alfawx]

I'd say I enjoy graphics, but don't require them. In fact, although I love running around in 1080p land, there's many times I'd rather be playing my N64. On second thought, I'd say graphics aren't really something that add value to a game so much as a part of a game that has no inherent value; Silent Hill 2 is a horror game with fairly okay graphics. Silent Hill Homecoming had more modern graphics. It's not so much a grade as it is an integral chunk of a game's identity.

 

[Casual Shinji]

>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.

 

[Kriptonite]

I am of the opinion that graphics are one of the last things you should look at then judging or critiquing a game

I wouldn't say last, only because if the graphics tie into the game in an implicit way, I believe that that makes them more important. However, for most games, I could car less about graphics.
My standpoint is this: If I can tell what it is, the graphics are fine [footnote]Unless I'm not supposed to know what it is[/footnote].

 

[mental_looney]

Icing on the cake though a I prefer a cohesive visial style over simply lots of shiny things that look nice

 

[DasDestroyer]

I can't say I don't enjoy good graphics, otherwise getting a computer for playing games on high graphics settings would have been a bit stupid. But at the same time, graphics are on of the few things most games don't "need" per say. A game with bad graphics but a compelling story, developed characters, tight mechanics and good gameplay is significantly better than a game with amazing graphics, but lacking in even one of the other departments.

 

[C F]

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.

I personally have a surprisingly high tolerance for crappy UIs and HUDs. I'm a quick learner, so I find myself jumping through a heck of a lot of hoops without a care in the world before too long. Doesn't bother me much. I understand your argument, but it would seem a bit petty if I agreed to it.

Onto the actual graphics: So long as it doesn't give me a headache, we're gold. High resolution is nice and all, but am I seriously going to appreciate the fine details in the midst of heated gameplay? All signs point to no.

 

[Polarity27]

Not at all important. Sometimes I'll stop and admire the scenery, but most of the time I either barely notice or am pretty forgiving. Some of my favorite games had crappy graphics, but then I grew up when Atari first came out so I wasn't exactly raised to expect pretty games.