Your stance on graphics.

[Dfskelleton]

I don't mind old graphics, but bad graphics can be a problem for me if it's really bad.
Old graphics, like in Doom, Metal Gear Solid, Half Life, I don't mind. The graphics are aged, but not bad. In fact, despite being heavily pixelated, I prefer the aesthetic designs of the Cyberdemon or Psycho Mantis to many modern boss designs.
Bad graphics are when the map seams are frequently visible, the textures are ugly and blurry, and/or the animations are buggy. For example, Duke Nukem Forever.
Other than that, graphics aren't a big deal, although I do regard games well when the graphics are mind-blowingly good.

 

[thom_cat_]

Gameplay
Aesthetics
Graphics

In that order.
BUT. If you have shit graphics I'll be sad, because that's still potential lost.
It's not "the most important" but it's still important in the scheme of things.
Functionality before design. But that's not to say design isn't wanted or needed!

 

[Gindil]

Gameplay
Aesthetics
Graphics

In that order.
BUT. If you have shit graphics I'll be sad, because that's still potential lost.
It's not "the most important" but it's still important in the scheme of things.
Functionality before design. But that's not to say design isn't wanted or needed!

I was just about to type something similar, but then you wrote everything a lot more eloquently than I could. Thank you.

 

[neonsword13-ops]

As long as all the pixels are sharp and crisp and all the surfaces are rendered correctly, i'm good with the game.

Just don't over do it.

Or don't stop in between with the graphics. Either make it good, or simple. No Call of Duty treatments here. I want either Team Fortress 2 simplicity or Crysis 2 fidelity.

 

[YouEatLard]

I love graphics, but....... Minecraft (just one of many examples).

It'll depend on the game. A 3D racing games, FPS's, and many other games should have great graphics. However a unique game can be very worthwhile without requiring a leaf blower and ridiculous cpu/gpu.

An awesome storyline and/or mechanics can make a game go a long way. I mean really, who plays WoW, Eve-online, Minecraft, and many others for the graphics? They may have good graphics, but not great and many people will play games on the lowest possible settings because they want the experience of the game, but don't care about the "shiny".

My vote: err..... kinda? Sometimes? It can make a good game better, but can't make a crap game better.

 

[MuppeTeN]

Couldn't Care less about graphics. I preffer that It looks good rather than having incredible graphics like Crysis 2( Which I haven't played yet cause it doesn't look or motivates me :S)

So.. yeah, graphics don't make a good game, but makes a good game look better.

 

[DethKid]

Graphics, in the end, are just a part of an entire package.

Yes. I like nice graphics. But the game has to follow through with dynamic, enjoyable gameplay and well as a narrative if applicable.

Great graphics but a terrible game, is still a terrible gaming experience.

Less focus should be put on Graphics as a separate part of a gmae that should be judged on its merits separately

 

[Vohn_exel]

Graphics can be important, but should never be the deciding factor in a game. That's why people still find things like Super Mario, Angry Birds, and Minecraft fun. They're fun games. I've always thought the three most important things in a game is Gameplay, Story, and Graphics, in that order.

There is no excuse for tons of tears in the landscape or glitches everywhere. But you don't have to have everything look like Crysis. If you can't get your graphics to look really awesome, don't worry about it and just go with what you can. Concentrate on the game alone instead of making it look pretty.

 

[voidraz]

I think the expense added by trying to create a game which lives up to the graphical standards expected of gamers today ultimately cheapens the overall experience. Instead of getting dozens of hours out of a game with a healthy medium of graphics, we're bombarded with five hour games because so much money is going in to making sure every blade of grass independently and realistically interacts with the light and wind. It feels like this leaves games bankrupt of ideas because of how much money goes into the presentation of the content rather than the actual content. The only people able to deliver are large companies who dominate the landscape and only release products with the highest probability of returns. It's not the entire cause of the problem, but it's a definite major contributing factor.

This. A thousand times this. I love good aesthetics in a game, but good graphics come at a price. And we're paying that price more and more these days.

 

[Zyxx]

Good graphics can catapult a "good" game into the "great" category; they can slightly improve a bad game, but cannot save it.

Bad graphics can slightly devalue a good game, but cannot ruin it; they can completely destroy an already bad game.

 

[TheLoneBeet]

I don't really care about graphics. I have a much better time playing a game that's well written with good gameplay over a game that looks incredible but plays like the kid from down the street that eats paste.

 

[Sleekgiant]

I play TF2 in DX8, graphics mean nothing to me, only controls and playability.

 

[spartan231490]

my stance on graphics is that I really don't care one whit about them. I'm kinda the opposite of the OP actually. I will note really good graphics and be like, nice. but I dont' really care if a games graphics are bad. Unless they are so bad they interfere with playing the game.

 

[Gearran]

I don't care about graphics - so long as they're arranged in a comprehensible fashion. It doesn't matter if you have graphics from the FUTURE, if what is supposed to be the protagonist beating on a cowering enemy looks like some sort of badly rendered Escher painting. Conversely, if the graphics look like they were made to run on a cartridge (anyone else remember those?) but they fit together well, then it is an improvement over the first example.

To give this a bit more meaning, I love Earthbound (aka Mother 2 for those of you with power in japan). It is, without a doubt, one of my favorite games of all time. For those of you who haven't played the game, the graphics are 16-bit old, and look like they were drawn with magic marker. However, its graphics are all consistent (or, to quote a certain Extra Credits episode, it has a unified aesthetic) and not only does this have a greater impact on the game, it is part of the game I enjoy. The graphics are old, and purposefully cartoony, but they make up a great part of a deeply enjoyable game.

 

[Warlord211]

I will forgive bad graphics if the gameplay can overcome it.

 

[Hollock]

the graphics aren't the big deal, it's the style. Like Okami has kinda shit graphics, but it still looks amazing.

 

[blankedboy]

I honestly have no love for graphics whatsoever. Alot of my games hang around 720x480 resolution at minimum settings (because I have a shitty computer) and I don't mind it one bit. I crank it up in less graphics-card-intensive games, but only if I can keep the FPS above about 40.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Depends on the game style mostly, something like Crysis cannot do without top level graphics because they have no style, they only do real world.
Nintendo games on the other hand are all style that needs very little graphical power, ofcourse they can't go realistic.

It's up to the craftsman to know his tools and limits.
Dragon Age and Mass Effect are good examples, ingame animations work very well, but those sex scenes are piss poor.
Know your limits and work around them, render that sort of stuff separately, pull a blur over the screen or just show some shadows, just don't let us see where your game utterly fails.

 

[Chibz]

Depends on the game style mostly, something like Crysis cannot do without top level graphics because they have no style, they only do real world.

I'd actually argue that aesthetics are far more important than graphics. (AKA: What you do with it is more important than how far you can go).

I'm serious, look back. The games that rely WAY too much on visually wowing their audience don't quite age as well as games that are genuinely beautiful with what the developers had.

 

[Drakmorg]

While I do like a game to have good graphics (after all why would I want a game to look bad?) Bad graphics aren't a deal-breaker.

On the other hand, if the graphics and aesthetic are so goddamn horrible that I can't even stand to look at them, that can be a deal-breaker if the gameplay or story fails to draw me in during the first half hour or so.