Poll: Would you sacrifice graphics in a game for something else?

[Dragonpit]

Graphics aren't important. I'll turn down graphics on the games I play if it means I can keep my games from crashing, for example, and truly, graphics don't necessarily make a game. But ideally, there shouldn't be such a sacrifice...

 

[Weaver]

I still play roguelikes that look like this

But are unfathomably more complicated and have miles more depth than pretty much every AAA game released. I feel that should answer this question.

 

[YeyJordan]

Yes yes yes! Just last night I was playing Black Ops and thinking, I don't care if it had to go back to PS1 graphics as long as it ran the same speed for everyone's connection and had perfect hit detection.

 

[DivineBeastLink]

I would prefer that games focused on a distinct visual style in the graphical department instead of focusing on superHD. That way, a game can be visually appealing without having to spend half the game development time on the graphics budget.

 

[Krinku]

I would go back to 8 bit if it would make the game godlike, hell even Atari era if it did. It's not all about gfx either its more about the aesthetics of a game that matter(to me at least). As long as the gameplay is awesome then I'm good(story and music is a + though)

 

[S3Cs4uN 8]

Hell yes, this has been something I have wanted developers to do for a LONG time. Besides which they kind of have done it. Dwarf Fortress is made by 2 people, and yet it's a hundred times more intricate, complex, and all-round good than most AAA games just because all of the effort is put into game-play.

How much "Fun" have you had?

 

[jbchillin]

graphics are not the point of the game. i love when games look clean but i dont want to affect gameplay solely for graphics

 

[kurokenshi]

I'll take a decent story and decent gameplay over graphics anyday.

 

[Innegativeion]

As Extra Credits put it: the aesthetics. Make it look nice before making it look real.

That and pretty much anything else that makes a game great.

Story, gameplay, humor, innovation, handling, etc. So long as it doesn't look godawful I don't care much about graphics. They're a nice thing to have of course, though.

 

[Novijen]

As long as the gameplay is solid, and the story fun and engaging, I'll play it.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I'd like to say yes, but I've turned out to be such a terrible graphics whore the answer would probably be something else. I think developers should concentrate more on the consistency of the graphics rather than fidelity (textures etc.). Ie. no texture pop-in (goddamn you Oblivion) as big drawing distances as possible, smooth animation, consistent framerates etc. These things affect immersion far more than any high quality textures. What takes you more out of the experience: realizing that nearby wall has a little less pixels than Crysis 4, or the fact that the game's framerate studders all the time?

I probably would give a shit about Morrowind if it let me see more than 40 meters ahead. And give a proper bloody tutorial while we're at it.

 

[ultrachicken]

Yes, I would be fine with sacrificing graphics for gameplay. Duh.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Minecraft.

That is all.

But, to say more, graphics have always been one of the pillars of gaming, but just one. Not the most important or the least important; a single pillar. If sacrificing the graphics improves the other pillars (controls, writing, design, what have you), then yes please, go for it.

I don't think the Minecraft argument is valid here. MCraft's terrible graphics are meant to look like that. It's deliberately trying to look like a pile of blocks. It is MCraft's aesthetic (once again, Extra Credits). If Minecraft suddenly got a 100-trillion dollar graphics budget, do you think they'd suddenly turn it to the next Messiah of photo-realism? Likely not, they's use it to run more smoothly, probably improve the drawing distance or somethinlikethat.

 

[Smerf]

i think brink is a good example of how graphics arn't everything. its got great graphics but the gameplay get be game-breakingly awful. it might just be me, but i can barly tell which team everyone is on. and the s.m.a.r.t. system is overzelous at best.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The only time graphics absolutely need improvement, is when they either confuse the player, or otherwise frustrate the experience.

It's part of why I couldn't quite get into Dwarf Fortress fully.

 

[Halceon]

Yes. Each and every time. A game that looks astonishing, but plays like crap is only good for screenshots. You can hang it on the wall, but not play it. On the other hand, I play dwarf fortress without graphic tilesets occasionally and it has never bothered me.

 

[Kingpopadopalus]

I blew off the dust of my NES, played some old games and came up with this question. Would you sacrifice the graphics from our current generation games , for something else. Meaning if a developper decided to NOT polish a game graphically ( not necessaraly going back to 8-bit era ) but instead use the time and money to enhance another aspect of a game would that be a fair trade for you ? and if so what would you sacrifice graphics for ?

Graphics? really? Go watch extra credits: Graphics vs asthetics.

 

[dantoddd]

for me art is more important than graphic quality. A game need not have crysis level graphics, but it needs to have good art design.

 

[Veldel]

Only fools think graphics really mater.

Id give up all the shiny or pretty graphics for better gameplay and story :3