Do graphics matter ?

If you are not new to the world of the internet and the gaming community, you have surely stumbled upon more than a few individuals who claim that graphics are not important in videogames. Well I disagree, they are important. Graphics influences the overall immersion in the world (to what extend they do so is debetable), developers need to strive for better graphics in all games. However no other element should be sacrificied for it, for example, it would utmost ridiculous if developers sacrificed gameplay for graphics. I am by no means a ''graphics whore'', I really enjoy playing older videogames whose looks have not aged that well, and still enjoy them a lot and manage to immerse myself in them, but I would be a fool to think that if those games had today's graphics they would not be more immersing. And you know what, even if we seperate the ''immersion'' bracket from the rest of the games paramaters, and dissect into several different parts, such as voice acting, atmosphere, writing, art etc, graphics would still be the least ''important'' thing in that section, at least in my opinioin. Yet they should still matter, because no matter how small it's contribution may seem if we dissect it, the overall clockwork needs to have all pieces working in harmony.

But what do you think of this issue ? Are graphics completely irrelevant to you ? Or are they one of the more important parts that immerse you in video game world ?

(I'd love to create a poll but it seems that I can't have both)

That seems like a perfectly  reasonable position.

You'd have to pretty fucking dumb to imply that graphics don't matter.

I like good graphics, but I put preference on gameplay.

Not really. I just enjoy games when they look good, regardless of their graphical quality.

Graphics are important, but story and gameplay come first.

I like to see something on the screen when playing besides text. So they matter a little.

I agree totally. I mean, if it's aesthetically pleasing, that's enough, but Metro 2033 wouldn't be anywhere near as immersive and therefore enjoyable if it wasn't rendered so damn well. Darksiders would have been tough to handle with a bland, unoriginal/uninspired style.

And really awful looking games totally detract from the experience. If a game looks decent I'll be happy, but a great looking game will always have a more profound affect on me.

But I'm also pretty interested/passionate about what makes graphics "tick" so I guess I'm a little biased.

Graphical fidelity is artistically valueless. If the art itself looks good and works for the style of the game, then you don't need complicated particle effects and shaders. It doesn't even need to be polygonal.

Graphics are definitely important, But not just how realistic they look but the visual style of the game too.

Graphical fidelity is artistically valueless. If the art itself looks good and works for the style of the game, then you don't need complicated particle effects and shaders. It doesn't even need to be polygonal.

Of course they matter, but graphics alone wont save a game if all of its other parts suck. Kind of like great cinematography wont save a movie from bad directing or terrible acting.

Never really been all that bothered by graphics. Sure i appriciate it when devs make the effort (Red Dead, Uncharted etc) but its the last thing I look for in a game. I also appear to have a lower standards than most people when it comes to graphics. I played the BF3 Beta on PS3 and though the graphics were fine but when I looked on the forums people were complaining.

Any person who claims graphics don't matter either has an old PC or has seen PC games and is no longer satisfied with his console's weak graphical output. 
 
Story, gameplay, it all matters, a lot, and so do graphics. We're looking at a screen the entire time, this medium is dependent heavily on visuals, and we all love seeing eye candy.

@FluxWaveZ said:

@XII_Sniper said:

Graphical fidelity is artistically valueless. If the art itself looks good and works for the style of the game, then you don't need complicated particle effects and shaders. It doesn't even need to be polygonal.

Exactly. I think Ghost Trick is actually one of the best looking games of this year.

I completely agree, but the sad part is that you won't find a lot of publications/sites that are willing to interpret things that way when assigning "Best Looking Game of 2011"-type awards. Instead, something like Rage will win, because they built an engine that just allows for a bunch of super high-res textures. Regrettably, games that strive the most for graphical fidelity and/or photorealism tend to get way more attention.

So while we're on the topic, what would be a good shortlist of games that deserve an award for "Achievement in Art Design in 2011" or whatever? Ghost Trick? Zelda: Skyward Sword? Bastion?

Graphical fidelity is artistically valueless. If the art itself looks good and works for the style of the game, then you don't need complicated particle effects and shaders. It doesn't even need to be polygonal.

To me there's two types of graphics: Artistic and technical graphics. A game can be 10 years old and still have a good graphical immersion as long as the game got a unique look to it through atmosphere, color palette and contrast.

@BisonHero said:

Instead, something like Rage will win, because they built an engine that just allows for a bunch of super high-res textures.

To be fair, Rage's engine is extremely impressive and allows for some pretty awesome visuals on 5-6 year old hardware running at 60 frames no less!

It's fine if you think Ghost Trick is the better looking game, but don't come here saying that there isn't something impressive about what Rage did. : )

Graphics can help, but I don't think they add that much to the immersion. Sometimes it can even subtracts from it, such as when everything looks really good except for blank, or the FPS is hindered because of it.  
I appreciate style more, in my opinion Wind Waker looks as good/better than the Zelda HD Demo.

They're important and there are definite thresholds where games are unplayable for me, but gameplay is a much more deciding factor.  A good example was - one of my friends had dug out his N64 and we tried to play Goldeneye again. It was just impossible because of how utterly horrific it was.
 
When I first played Morrowind I was totally blown away by the fact you could pick pretty much any item in the game world up. I've never really had anything like that through a games graphics.

If it was irrelevant, I would enjoy a game even when blind.

I completely agree.

Graphics matter. From a technical aspect, graphics have their part in making a good game, but you can certainly have a good game without good graphics (by today's standards). It's not a requirement. Art direction and design are way more important than good tech in most cases. When they come together hand in hand, however, that's when magic happens.

@Cloudenvy: True. I'm not trying to bash Rage in particular. It's just that most places only seem to give technical awards for "Best Graphics", and I wish more gaming press would start giving both technical "Best Graphics" and artistic "Best Graphics" awards.

But that's probably an issue with game critics in general, in that there's such a heavy focus on technical criticism of the gameplay that you end up with technical analyses of other aspects of the game as well, instead of answering questions that I, personally, find more interesting, like "Is the story any good?", "Are the characters well written?", and "Is the level design original and memorable?"

no, graphics don't matter. you need good artists, but you don't need gpu-destroying textures and shades.

@BisonHero said:

@Cloudenvy: True. I'm not trying to bash Rage in particular. It's just that most places only seem to give technical awards for "Best Graphics", and I wish more gaming press would start giving both technical "Best Graphics" and artistic "Best Graphics" awards.

But that's probably an issue with game critics in general, in that there's such a heavy focus on technical criticism of the gameplay that you end up with technical analyses of other aspects of the game as well, instead of answering questions that I, personally, find more interesting, like "Is the story any good?", "Are the characters well written?", and "Is the level design original and memorable?"

I think that's more an "issue" with you than with game critics, no offense in any possible way. But I don't think that's the stuff that results in the most hits on your website or such, I think people want primarily to know about how the game plays and how it looks, which is usually why the answers to the questions you find interesting are only small mentions. : )

(then again, I could be entirely wrong about that assumption.)

I don't put too much importance on graphics. 

Heeeeeelllll yyeaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.

And Rage looks like shit. Perhaps the console versions are vastly superior (LOL), but that game has hella old textures and super low poly items littering everything.

@FluxWaveZ said:

Not really. I just enjoy games when they look good, regardless of their graphical quality.

Probably the most idiotic contradiction I have seen all day. Since when has the word graphics been a synonym for photo-realism? Which is what I assume you are implying?

A graphic is just a created image displayed on a screen of some sort, so in essence, 'graphical quality' just means how highly you personally would rate it. What you are saying is that you like games that look good, regardless of if they look good or not.

-

The quality of graphics is something that matters to every individual, considering we have to view these graphics for many hours. Now what differs between different people's opinions is what they prefer to look at, some people like photo realism, some people like high quality lighting, some people like sharp, high quality textures, some people like wacky art styles, some people like the way colours are used, and some people like cartoon style children. It really doesn't matter who likes what when it comes to this, it just matters how much they personally like the styles of a game as to whether they would rate it highly.

I personally am a big fan of high quality lighting and shadows, sharp lines, and high quality textures; other 'styles' are less important to me.

Yes they matter. Gameplay is the most important element but graphics draw a person attention. I'm a big fan of cell shading. The graphic style of Borderlands got me to check it out the gameplay hooked me for 80+ hours. The Battlefield 3 graphics(in the trailers) make me want to play it.

I think a strong art style lasts longer than graphics.

Good art matters.
 
I'll take highly-detailed hand drawn pixel art textures with little to minimal technical lighting effects and post processing over a Technical Graphic Extravaganza every time.
 
I'd prefer better AI over better graphics too.  Or larger environments.  Or more gameplay options.

Art direction and framerate always beats looking great in screenshots.
 
And along came Battlefield 3 and made my three year old computer look and move godly..

Limbo was black and white and I loved that game.

no, i don't think graphics are important. they are kind of good to have some graphics but they don't have to be great.

Graphics can be a significant factor as to whether one enjoys a game or not. Basically, does the game have the graphical fidelity to express the intended art style? That is my question. That can either be pulled off with something pretty low-res like Persona 4 or something gorgeous like The Witcher 2. Bigger issues arise when your game looks like Final Fantasy VII or Duke Nukem Forever, though one of those games obviously has enough to overcome its graphical flaws while the other does not.

Look at the persona games. Their graphics could be a TON better, but the gameplay is what makes it one of the best franchises for RPG's. At least to me anyways. Games like Crysis look cool and may be fun to others just dont apply to everyone since i could never play the damn thing till earlier this year when i bought it on my laptop which can run it on the highest settings but yet it doesn't feel as fun as it looks. Gameplay > Story / plot > Graphics. If your graphics are shit, the story / plotline and the gameplay better be awesome.

If the graphics don't hold up well enough to bring me into the games wonderful world, then on those terms, yes, graphics matter. Sometimes graphics can even ruin an otherwise great game, just like the sound. Everything that goes into games matter, and without one of those aspects (except on certain occasions), it can ruin a game. So yes, graphics do matter.

Personally my preferences are:
1. Gameplay
2. Animation
3. Art style
4. Sound
5. Graphics
 
The vast majority of games fail 1-4 and its why we get so very many that are pretty but terrible in all other aspects. I really hope that once next gen roles around and everyone gets over the "dood we NEED the best looking graphics to sell!" mentality we'll see a lot less shitty games.

Also, I'd just like to say that anyone who says that graphics are fine as they are now, and that the next consoles should stay the same, are idiots. We need to increase graphical fidelity in order to continue as a form of entrainment, and not just fade into obscurity, because games still look the same 5 years from now.

When I'm playing a game like Gears of War 3 (which people have used as an example as to how current consoles are fine, and should last a few more years), I'm just like: really?!

If we'd have just gave up with graphics at the end of the PS2/XBOX era, we'd be nowhere.

LOL ENTRAINMENT.

Autocorrect would have been useful there, iPod.

I'd say they're very important. Frame rate is even more important for me though.

They certainly don't hurt.

If they mattered that much, then I wouldn't be playing Tribes 2, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale and Grim Fandango as frequently as I do.

@Mageman said:

If you are not new to the world of the internet and the gaming community, you have surely stumbled upon more than a few individuals who claim that graphics are not important in videogames. Well I disagree, they are important. Graphics influences the overall immersion in the world (to what extend they do so is debetable), developers need to strive for better graphics in all games. However no other element should be sacrificied for it, for example, it would utmost ridiculous if developers sacrificed gameplay for graphics. I am by no means a ''graphics whore'', I really enjoy playing older videogames whose looks have not aged that well, and still enjoy them a lot and manage to immerse myself in them, but I would be a fool to think that if those games had today's graphics they would not be more immersing. And you know what, even if we seperate the ''immersion'' bracket from the rest of the games paramaters, and dissect into several different parts, such as voice acting, atmosphere, writing, art etc, graphics would still be the least ''important'' thing in that section, at least in my opinioin. Yet they should still matter, because no matter how small it's contribution may seem if we dissect it, the overall clockwork needs to have all pieces working in harmony.

But what do you think of this issue ? Are graphics completely irrelevant to you ? Or are they one of the more important parts that immerse you in video game world ?

(I'd love to create a poll but it seems that I can't have both)

Minecraft..

I think that graphics should serve aesthetic. Any developer with a fancy budget and some time can make a game with good graphics. I'm not saying games like Crysis look bad, I'm saying that a game with moderate graphics but a great aesthetic like Portal beats a game with the visa versa.

Of course they matter. Its the main reason why I can't take the drama in Final Fantasy VII seriously at all. Also, I doubt the gameplay of GTA could translate into the graphics hardware of the Atari. And a good art style is often the main selling point of a game.

No, because no matter what they suck balls this gen. Next gen, however...

I need graphics that are decent, but i don't need super blazing awesome graphics. but i would rather have less good graphics on 2d/isometric platform then less good textures and polygons in a 3d platform.

When you're staring at a game for hours it would be nice to be staring at something that looked good. Visuals should never get in the way of the game play but at the same time effort on the developers part to have the game looking presentable as a modern game.