Poll: do graphics matter to you?

[Georgeman]

Nope. I could care less whether said game has Shader 66.6, Antialiasing x65535 and details so fine and small I wouldn't notice unless I squint my eyes till I look like an idiot.

What I do care however is for the graphics to be balanced. I don't want a game with good textures but crappy shadows. Also, I start drawing the line when graphics impair gameplay. Pop up crap would be a good example.

And yes, two poll options is rather limited.

 

[Lieju]

If the graphics make my eyes bleed, I'd say they matter. Pretty graphics aren't the most important thing, but they are definetly a part of the experience. For me, it doesn't matter that much how lifelike the characters running around the game are, but if there is lot of empty space and the terrain looks boring, I'd say it affects the experience.

 

[Lamppenkeyboard]

I can play older games with no problems. But if a game released today has crappy graphics, then I do care.

 

[hobo_welf]

Well this poll is fundamentally flawed. You said "do graphics matter" in which case anybody who said "No" is a liar.

The question isn't "Are graphics the deciding factor in a game purchase" but "do graphics matter"

And yeah, they do.

 

[Acidoctor]

I don't mind if the graphics ain't ultra-uber-realistic. I just want to have environment that ain't completely plain like in Borderlands.

 

[Daedalus1942]

okay, see people for some reason when ever im plaing a good old ps2 game or saints row two some one starts to say the graphics suck, and what does this have to do with the game play? nothing. i can see my guy, the enimes, and the cross air im good buddy, but some people wont buy a game because of the graphics, thats how important they are to them

I feel graphics are important for a game, but only in terms of clipping.
If the graphics are so poor, that object aren't rendered how they should be, it pisses me off.
As for the actual graphics, Sonic and Knuckles still remains one of my favourite games of all time.
In more recent times, 358/2 has pretty awful graphics, but the gameplay is great, one of the best games I've played in a long time.
I'm not bothered about the graphics, but when a limb or something disappears or connects to something it shouldn't that annoys me.

 

[Deathman101]

I still play Doom 2, so I'd say no...

On the other hand, when a game has the ability to look better, I can't stand not being able to run it.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Graphics matter, but they can be made up for by good gameplay/story.

I also don't count bad graphics as being something in 2d etc, because if it's drawn well, then it can still look good. Also, 3D nowadays has kind of progressed to the point where it's rare you see something truly gamebreaking.

 

[Socken]

I feel limited by only 2 options

Exactly what I thought.

I mean they kind of do; great graphics can make a decent game great, bad graphics or an abundance of graphical glitches can make an ok game suck. But "good graphics" does not equal "good game", and graphics are generally the last thing I look at when trying to decide whether or not to buy it.
I remember the other day someone asked me how I could still play Skate 2, saying that the game sucks so bad and whatnot. I asked him why and all I got was "Dude look at the graphics, they're way outdated!" ...Yeah.

 

[Sebenko]

Not really.
The pretty bloom and poly-count didn't make me like Oblivion.

And Mount & Blade is great even without ZOMGCRYSIS levels of graphics.

 

[little.09]

a game shouldnt be rated solely on the graphics but the can help imerse the player in the game world. So its as important as music and voice acting but not as important as game play

 

[HotFezz8]

wow! i'm amazed by the almost exact 50/50 split there! i would have thought it would be good graphics or no graphics...

maybe its becuase (no offence) we have a lot of older gamers here, 25+ who played games back when the graphics truely did suck who liked them anyway, and learned to enjoy a game irreagrdless of visual quality, i'm 19 and spoilt by GTA 4, CoD 4, 5, and now 6, and games like Far Cry 2 (a game which proves simply ahving good grapihcs doesn't make it a good game). i can't understand why people would play a game with lesser graphics, probably becuase i have never been blown awaay bey a game with poior graphics...

 

[oppp7]

No, I care about gameplay mostly.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

If a game looks crap I feel somewhat less compelled to play it.

 

[TelHybrid]

Yes.

Graphics are what determine things like camera angles, interactive objects and environments and how they react to certain actions. They also determine what kind of atmosphere the game has.

Considering what we play are called video games, graphics are a big factor, and can play a big part in the gameplay.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

Yes.



If it came out before 2000, I have trouble looking at it.


After that I can handle it.

 

[aarontg]

Graphical quality is a very tricky subject with gamers, some people will berate a game for its poor graphical quality alone but I don't buy it.Heres something: what if they remade E.T for the atari 2600 with glistening high res graphics, if Im correct then it will be much better than the original right? wrong of course, good graphics should merely be a bonus to a solid game, graphics don't make a good game, in the same sense that because an apple is shiny that it makes up for the fact that its rotten in the middle.

 

[iJosh]

Yes but not to the point that I will not play a game if it doesn't have high end graphics.

I love teh older games too, I just beat OoT . I win.

 

[UtopiaV1]

I only play games with great graphics, thats why i'm spending all my time on ET on the Atari 2600...