• 63 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Empirepaintball (1456 posts) -
#2 Posted by DystopiaX (5378 posts) -

This thread has been made before, like 10000 times.

For the record, moderate. It's nice if a game looks good but a shit looking game isn't going to stop me if it has good gameplay.

#3 Posted by Toms115 (2325 posts) -

completely unimportant. don't give a fuck about the fidelity of your assets, i just want decent assests.

#4 Posted by Empirepaintball (1456 posts) -

I was having this debate with my brother and his friends. They were playing some CoD 4 and I pointed out that the graphics weren't as good. He immediately said that the graphics don't matter at all and if you think that they do, you're an idiot. To that I said "What if Call of Duty 2 came out today? Who would buy it?" He was all defensive about it, but the point was that I think graphics are becoming a much more integral part of games, whether we like it or not.

#5 Posted by Coombs (3507 posts) -

Nice graphics make a good game better, 
But gameplay MUST come first

#6 Posted by Arker101 (1484 posts) -

Having something look nice and sharp is definitely a high point in a game ME3 and LA Noire wouldn't be the same with worse textures, but in less story oriented games, meh, not as much.

#7 Posted by Empirepaintball (1456 posts) -
@DystopiaX said: True. I should have been more specific, as I'm more concerned about graphics in shooters than in other things.
#8 Posted by Redbullet685 (6197 posts) -


#9 Posted by DystopiaX (5378 posts) -

@Empirepaintball said:

@DystopiaX said: True. I should have been more specific, as I'm more concerned about graphics in shooters than in other things.

Then probably more important than for other genres. Partially because most shooters play exactly the same nowadays and partially because I feel graphics have less of an impact on you in RTS/RPGs when you're viewing the action either statically or farther away; feeling part of the world and looking at things close up really makes graphics more important.

#10 Edited by Grumbel (1010 posts) -

What matters for me in games is what I like to call "interactive density", i.e. how many things are there to interact with in a meaningful way? Better graphics can help with that, but they can also get in the way when polish becomes more important then interactivity. See games with destructive terrain for example, X-Com had it, Magic Carpet had it, after that it was essentially removed from games for the next 10 years, as the way to get graphics pretty was static level layout that allowed prebacking lighting and BSP structures, so no more dynamic terrain. 
I still appreciate it when graphics are pretty or when there is some jump in what they can do (facial animation in LA Noire, realtime radiosity with Enlighten, etc.), but it is really just a nice addition, not something I actively care about. If anything, I care a lot more about very basic things such as solid framerates, that the game supports my screen resolution, that the button icons on screen match my actual controller, that the fonts are readable, etc.

#11 Posted by AbeTheGreatest (137 posts) -

I just played through final fantasy 7, and the graphics never got in the way of my enjoyment at all

#12 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8553 posts) -

Totally graphic whore here to the max.

#13 Posted by RobotHamster (4236 posts) -

I guess it would depend on what type of game it was.

#14 Posted by Empirepaintball (1456 posts) -
@RobotHamster said: Yeah, I wasn't specific enough in the title. I'm talking about shooters.
#15 Posted by monstersnsoup (85 posts) -

I used to not really care, but lately I seem to find bad looking games annoying. I guess maybe it feels like the devs were being lazy and that really detracts from the game. The game doesn't have look amazing but a strong art style or just some kind of effort is nice.

#16 Posted by JJOR64 (19548 posts) -

I really don't care.  As long as the game is fun, I can ignore shitty graphics like Deadly Premonition.

#17 Posted by Afroman269 (7440 posts) -

I appreciate nice graphics.

#18 Posted by Asian2Go (201 posts) -

Less about graphics, and more about performance and frame rate to me.

#19 Posted by THRICE (179 posts) -

Yeah good graphics are nice and expected from big AAA titles. The more the bar gets raised the more out of place sub par graphics look. You look at Crysis 2, Killzone 3, Battlefield 3, and Uncharted 3 and see how amazing they all look and then you see Modern Warfare 3 and it looks like it's from four years ago its distracting knowing there are games doing the same thing but better yet a brand new game looks the same as a game released in 2007 did.

#20 Edited by ShiftyMagician (2163 posts) -

I find graphics very important to me so I picked A, however that doesn't mean I can't play older games at all as I am very flexible in what I can tolerate for graphics.  That also doesn't mean I don't find gameplay less important than graphics at all, as both must complement each other in games.  However whenever I purchase a new game that has the intent to immerse you into their world, they must have good enough graphics to give you that fuzzy feeling that you just got warped into that world because it looks so amazing.  
This is separate from artistic graphics of course, as what is considered good in that area is purely subjective.  However advances in any of the major areas of technical graphics are always appreciated (especially with the enthusiast crowd).  The facial capture tech from LA Noire sold me that this game would be important in the game industry, as it is a proof of concept that we can now reach a new level of quality for commercial games that didn't exist before the technology's creation.

#21 Posted by JasonR86 (10006 posts) -

Sort of Important.
I only really notice graphics when they are really good or really bad.  In terms of how I would review a game, I would place it on the same level as the sound design and score/soundtrack.  It is important but not as important as gameplay.

#22 Edited by CodyMetro (120 posts) -

Not really important at all. I still find a lot of 20+ year old games that still look pretty good to me. I can still say that there are pretty 2D graphics and there are also pretty 3D graphics.

#23 Edited by McBEEF (375 posts) -

As long as the gameplay is fun and I can tell what things are supposed to be, im set. 
I do appreciate good graphics or a well done graphic/art style but I enjoy games for their story mostly.
Also my laptop isnt exaclty a powerhouse so maybe if I had an amazing computer I would care?

#24 Posted by RandomInternetUser (6805 posts) -

Pretty important, a game having bad graphics won't make it unplayable (though it makes it less playable, a game from 2000 will have to be VERY good for me to still have fun with it), but having great graphics makes me like a good game a LOT more.

#25 Posted by EVO (4028 posts) -

Sort of, but it doesn't stop me from playing games like, say, God Hand.

#26 Edited by ChickenPants (931 posts) -

I really couldn't care in the less about graphics. A majority of my gaming time is spent with 90s PC games so I'm well used to substandard graphics.
Hate the way gaming has gone: where graphics are more important than gameplay,story etc.
Also annoys me when the Giant Bomb guys are asked to give their impressions on a game and the first thing out of their mouths is ''Well, it looks nice.'' Every game looks nice nowadays. I don't see why it's such a deal-breaker in your opinion of a game.

#27 Posted by Yanngc33 (4551 posts) -

Depends on the expectations.

#28 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8734 posts) -

Still an avid gamecube player and my GBA SP is seeing enough use too.
Its more about gameplay for me, the overall style.

#29 Posted by Vexxan (4624 posts) -

I stopped caring about graphics a long time ago. Sure it's nice when a game looks good but I've never based my decision to buy a game solely on what the game looks like.

#30 Posted by JoeyRavn (5122 posts) -

Something between moderate and sort of important. I don't care about how impressive graphics are, as long as they look nice. Art direction is much more important than the HD-ness of the graphics in a game, if you ask me.

#31 Posted by Vestigial_Man (317 posts) -

I only game on an SD TV so I don't care so long as it isn't objectively ugly.

#32 Edited by ryanwho (12012 posts) -

automatic thread generator. 
Anyway the ability to interact with things around you is more important. That's why Terraria can look like shit and be fun. That's why Killzone 2 can technically look good yet feel super static. You can spend a week modeling a perfect TV but if I shoot it with a shotgun and nothing happens to it, your TV sucks. Your TV is killing the rules of the world.

#33 Posted by EchoForge (170 posts) -

I'd be lying if I said graphics weren't important to me. I used to one of those 'graphics don't matter' cultists back in the late 90s, then I watched a dev diary of Splinter Cell, explaining that because the systems were powerful now, they can use lighting and such to affect gameplay, as it did in Thief. After that, I tempered a bit. And then I started swinging to the other side more as time went on; not to say that graphics are the only thing, but I've admittedly become snobbier over the years; PlayStation/N64-era games that I played in the mid-aiughts started to hurt my eyes, I played all of 20 minutes of Twilight Princess, while I completed Wind Waker (more of an art direction thing than graphics, admittedly) and while I'm not the biggest technophile in the world, I still appreciate a good hi-def set up, with kick ass games to show it off, from Super Stardust HD to Street Fighter IV to Red Dead.

/And I, for one, welcome our new facial texture overlords from the teams that brought you LA Noire

#34 Posted by DrBendo (237 posts) -

Graphics are very important. People who claim that they aren't strike me as having incredibly unsophisticated taste. Saying that graphics don't matter is akin to saying that cinematography doesn't matter in film or that diction is irrelevant in prose.
I'd say that graphics are easily among the most underrated elements in gaming. People seem to take pride in suggesting that they're insignificant. There are exceptions, of course, when the graphics are pretentious or indie (Limbo springs to mind.), but technical graphics are frequently met with derision and claims to faux depth.
It seems that even many of those who do see them as important feel the need to couch their opinion by bringing up gameplay or story. There seems to be this misconception that an appreciation for graphics is somehow shallow and that putting stock in them precludes caring about other aspects of a game. There's nothing frivolous about visual quality, and there's no need to cover one's enjoyment of it by bringing up more acceptable game components. I rarely see the "...but gameplay is what really matters" qualifier in threads about voice acting, sound design, score, or character development. People seem so afraid of this nonsensical "graphic whore" label that they seem almost ashamed to acknowledge the significance of visuals.
It's also rather pitiful that so many people act like contemporary gaming is obsessed with graphics to the detriment of all else, and they're special and deep because they think that gameplay is more important. I can't recall a time when this misconception wasn't a popular opinion, but every generation, pretentious nits convince themselves that the desire for high-end graphics is new and is to blame for a laundry list of their complaints.
I've enjoyed many an ugly-ass game, but that other important features can make up for shitty looks does not make them any less a flaw.

#35 Posted by Monte (235 posts) -

I'd like to think I don't care about it, but I do. If a game looks like crap (Dragon Age 2) its going to bother me.

#36 Posted by crusader8463 (14744 posts) -

Don't care about the graphics. It's the art style that matters.

#37 Posted by Kjellm87 (1735 posts) -

As long the gameplay is good it can be a new Snes game for all I care.

#38 Posted by ervonymous (1299 posts) -

Moderate I guess.

Older games don't bug me at all unless they were considered an abomination when they were released, but if something catches my eye in a game made just recently..

what am i watching

I still prefer 2D over 3D where applicable.

#39 Posted by DrSpaceman (180 posts) -

Graphics are a bit like dating women. The flashly good looks are great, but it's the gameplay counts in the end.

#40 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8020 posts) -

Not important at all for me.

#41 Posted by ZeForgotten (10368 posts) -

'looks up from his Pen & Paper Dungeons and Dragons session
What's that? Oh, not that important

#42 Posted by Oldirtybearon (5211 posts) -

I guess I'm moderate. Crysis 2 I think is a prime example of technically amazing visuals but did absolutely nothing for me. Sure it's pretty, I guess, but there's no real aesthetic behind any of it. BioShock I feel is a much prettier game than Crysis 2, even if Crysis 2 has the superior tech behind it.

#43 Posted by RoyCampbell (1092 posts) -

I can still admire the look of PS1 and PS2 games these days. It's cool to be able to remain unbiased with what games look like today. And I still find it impressive how Metal Gear Solid on the Playstation didn't fall victim to the dreadful draw distances some PS1 games had, even taking into account MGS1 had two discs. I still love the look of it, too.

#44 Posted by AhmadMetallic (19303 posts) -

while the graphics don't make or break a game for me, it's very important to look at detailed environments and enjoyable scenery, since, you know, my eyes are fixed on the screen for the entirety of my gameplay

#45 Posted by Hennet_sim (350 posts) -

Moderate  in importance. For me game play and story are the main assets of a game. Then sound background music, Voice actors, Ambiance. Finally the Graphics I would not completely honest  if I said that the graphics had no effect on my opinion of the game they are what they game world looks to you the art direction is very important.  

#46 Posted by SuperSambo (3020 posts) -

Graphics are very important, however no where near as important as gameplay.

I have spent hours on Minecraft without having a problem with the graphics, however texture pop in and rough edges just put me off.

#47 Edited by Meowayne (6168 posts) -

One of my favorite games last year was Digital - A Love Story. 

Go figure. It is perfectly understandable to be unable to enjoy what is a brilliant game for purely aesthetic reasons. But if you are unable or unwilling to play something for reasons of technology, and every game developer and producer that puts development time and ressources into technology where it would be needed elsewhere is a moron.
#48 Posted by MikeGosot (3235 posts) -

Art Direction is way more important than graphics. But the point is: A Game doesn't needs to be beautiful, but it helps.  Just think about it: Would you date with a girl if she was horrible, but very cool? Beauty always helps.

#49 Posted by kingzetta (4497 posts) -

As long as they look as good as the most average looking game this gen I'm fine.
The next gen is not even going to be a amazing improvement,so it doesn't really matter.
Buying games just because they are pretty died like 5 years ago.

#50 Posted by mutha3 (5025 posts) -

Technical prowess has never been able to impress me that much. Art direction is key.
But if the OP means "aesthetics" instead of "graphics", then yeah, that's very important to me in a game. If a game with good gameplay looks like shit, I might just skip out on it altogether. Of course by "shit" I mean "bland". I'd much rather play a poorly looking game than a bland looking one.