How deeply do you care about the graphics in a video game?

I imagine by "graphics", you mean the technical side of a game's looks as opposed to the aesthetic, right? I only care about it in relation to the aesthetic: if it intrudes upon it, I'll have some problems, but otherwise, graphics are fine.

I don't need mind-blowing graphics with every game I play. I'd like if they were something good to look at, but I'd much rather have fluid and responsive controls over a pretty picture.

Do you mean it in technical terms like polygon count, or aesthetic terms? I think you're talking in technical terms given the "prefer console over the other" as that would have no effect on aesthetics.

Aesthetic = Extremely important

Technical = I don't give a shit

Yes i do mean technical graphics

Sense I'm old-school graphics aren't a big, its the gameplay that matters the most. A game could have the best graphics in the world, but if the gameplay ain't poppin then graphics means shit to me.

I play Dwarf Fortress alot. A game were a screenshot needs words and arrows to show you what is going on. I would be able to tell whats going on just by looking.

E.G

So Graphics don't mean much to me.

Not very much. Aesthetic can add a lot to a game, but it's unlikely to actually make or break a game for me. If the graphics combine well with the sound and gameplay to create a great atmosphere, though, that could be a huge plus for it. Still, I think I'm more likely overall to buy a game for its gameplay than its atmosphere.

It is the least important part of a game to me.

It's the least important part but I still care about it. If I didn't I wouldn't have gotten a gaming rig or pre-ordered a PS4.

I like pretty things.

I mean, if you just mean technical graphics then no, they don't matter much. But "graphics" are much more than just polygon counts. Indie games don't need to be technically amazing but they get by with having interesting art styles. If you're just asking if it's important that a game look nice then yes, it's important but that could mean a multitude of different things.

Depends on the game.

The graphics for a game like FTL or Mark of the Ninja are perfect. And I actually prefer the isometric style of games like Baldur's Gate, which is why I look forward to the remakes. (Which I suppose is more of an argument of style than anything else.)

But games like Skyrim I want the bestest (est) graphics, because of the exploration and wonder of the game.

So, yeah, it depends.

I won't say that graphics don't matter at all - they do, I bought Crysis to look at the pretty and got two thirds of a good game with it - but they are far from what I value most in a game.

Aesthetics are more important and long-lasting. Chrono Trigger and Metroid Prime are both still beautiful games to this very day. Metroid Prime 3 outclassed most games released at the same time that it did on all systems, and still does. However, detail and clarity (what I usually associate graphics with) can really do wonders for aesthetics - the two go hand-in-hand.

Side-note: With these new consoles, sixty frames per second should be an expected standard. If it isn't running at a rock-solid sixty from minute one to the credits, then you're doing something wrong. If the fucking Wii can produce games as good-looking as Metroid Prime 3, Mario Galaxy, and Skyward Sword, then the PS4 and Xbox One ought to be able to keep up a solid 60 and still look fantastic.

C was closest, but I do like it when games have cohesive graphics (but not necessarily great). I mean, L.A. Noire had fantastic facial animations, but the heads didn't fit at all with the level of detail for the rest of the bodies, and less so the actual game world. I have an easier time playing a 20+ year old stuff like Silpheed CD or Inferno: The Odyssey Continues, with raw, untextured polygons, than something like the recent Star Trek game where there's this massive cliff between the complexity of the character's models and textures, and that of the environments. Or for that matter when games do that thing where there's a bulletin board in a room, with one paper you're supposed to read which is crystal clear and in high resolution, while the rest of the board is a low res blurry mess.

Still playing games on my PS2, so... no. Although it is a plus!

^ 100% agree with this, all the way. Play my PS2 more than my PS3 even.

Also still enjoy busting out the NES, or some original Gameboy games every once in a while.

So yeah. A fun game is a fun game, no matter what it looks like.

I'm torn. If I can mod it, I'm on it. If I have to play it as is, play it. If I like it, can not or can mod or just want to play it, play it. I play the hell out of a video game that's playable no matter how it looks. Final answer.

Good graphics are a plus. Obviously.

Will i spend 5 extra minutes getting that high res texture pack when first installing/setting up a game? You bet your ass I will.

But, I'll also play old ass games, games with "meh" graphics. I'll buy the console version over the PC version for comfort and playability reasons even though they dont look as good (looking at you Witcher 2). I mean the fact I'm still playing my 360 instead of jumping ship to PC like most people do should tell you that graphics aren't that important to me.

That being said, I'm still really looking forward to next-gen. Looks really nice.

They can enhance my experience with the game for sure. They did with The Witcher 2. I remember spending five minutes just looking at walls in that game. The clothing as well, great texture work all round.

I play games for the gameplay, I want to do things, insane things, that make me feel great.

I care about graphics alot, meaning I will always max out a game and download texture mods, but that doesn't mean I base my purchase decision on the game's stock graphics.

Its nice to have, but I would rather have good gameplay.

I can overlook dated graphics, but there are plenty of indy games people swear by where I've passed due to their visual style being intentionally crappy. I'm not a hipster.

What now? 'puts down Rogue Legacy for a bit'
Meh, graphics don't really matter that much, they're a nice thing to have, sure but Text Adventures usually don't and I still enjoy some of those.
Also, DND games(Pen and Paper version, of course) don't have that fancy graphics either

I care deeply like old ladies, friend because if it wasnt for better graphics, why would i bother buying a next gen console. Why would they bother making a next gen console. Its the graphics, the dynamic/large open worlds, the stage interaction, the incredible backdrops. All of that potential working at the same time without hickups to the best of its ability. This is why i next gen. If i didnt care about graphics the only thing id buy are psn games, and thats just not a reality for a friend like me, friend.

i guess it depends. if im playing a game for the story, it doesnt really matter how the game looks. But if im in the mood for shootin up some biz, i'd rather have it look nice; hence me being a big battlefield fan.

Not much. But what I find "good" about graphics seems to differ greatly from the majority. High-definition 3D polygonal graphics aren't necessarily "good" graphics to me.

I wanted to say not at all, but recently I went back and tried to play Saints Row 2 on the 360 and I was finding it very difficult to look at. The case is very rare were the visuals impede my enjoyment of a game, but apparently there are cases in which that exist. I'm still happy to go back and play (most) N64/PS1 era games though, and have no issue with the older graphics.

That said, I like being able to turn things up pretty high on a PC and spend way too much time fiddling with config files to get a steady framerate on the best visuals I can. To be fair though, that probably has more to do with me deriving some weird form of fun from that rather than the necessity to have the best of the best at all times.

Right down to the bone marrow of my balls.

I like games that have good art styles. So, I don't really care if it's photorealism, as long as the game's graphics fit its style and look appealing. Limbo is a good example of where everything is black but that matches the theme of the game so well and the actual animation is so great that I would deem that game to have good graphics. Same goes for MGS4 or even Super Meat Boy. It's all about how the dev plays with the style they have chosen. If it fits, then I am happy.

I like games to look nice, but as we've seen over the last few years you can get some really stunning results without necessarily going for the bleeding edge.

I dont mind graphics ... but that does not mean that I will give a pass to shitty ones either.

I can usually pass it up for good gameplay and/or writing. But it is nice to look at something pretty while I play.

The misconception is that "good graphics" is the same as "HD textures, high polly count, and smooth animation". Graphics are important but then again I still think Saturn had some of the best looking games of all time so what do I know.

I do most of my console gaming on a 27" SDTV so hi-res graphics aren't the most important thing for me. If I had a gaming comp maybe I'd be more interested.

Depends on the game.

I like clear aesthetics. I don't care if something's 8 bit or latest gen, I just want to be able to see what I'm doing. If I lose the sprite or the camera sucks that's a bigger problem.

I will say games from 96-02, the early 3d stuff, are kind of the hardest to go back to because they look like a mess today.

I think of graphics like I do women.

Yes, great graphics are always great to look at but if you just got looks, you got nothing.

You need substance, longevity and pleasure.

I don't really care about graphics at all. I've been playing a bunch of PS1-era 3D platformers lately and not once did I think to myself "MAN THESE GAMES LOOK LIKE CRAP".

I'll concede that poor animation can definitely bother me, though. Was really jarring in The Walking Dead: 400 Days when hefty dialogue was being delivered by a woman flipping violently between happy and sad.

I don't know exactly what your referring to because "graphics" could be defined in a lot of ways. Here's how it would break down for me though.

• Art style is super important
• Nice animations are always cool.
• Technical performance is nice but I will always prefer a great frame rate.

Just to be clear, this is regarding technical graphics quality, as you clarified you meant.

I voted D but it's really somewhere between D and C.

If I'm playing an older game for the first time, graphics help a good deal, though sound helps much more. If I discover that you released a CD-ROM version with spoken dialog, the chance I'll finish your game increases dramatically.

If I've played it before or it's a newer game, I notice the graphics immediately but stop caring completely after ten minutes or so.

Recently started playing Flower, a game that rests almost entirely on its graphics for appeal. "Graphics," I assume, is used as an umbrella term for how the game is visually presented to you? If so, Flower's satisfaction and wonderment are like 70% graphics and 25% controls and 5% story. And it's still a great game, even if it almost comes across as a benchmarking test.

It's one of the reasons I gravitate to games but it is utterly dependant on the individual game in question.

While photo-realism is nice, i think i prefer to have a more stylized graphical design... which is why i tend to like cel shaded and cartoony like games.

The only thing that bothers me about graphics is that fuzziness that older polygonal games have. It isn't that much of an issue, but it can be hard to look at after awhile. Otherwise, I don't really care how a game looks, as long as it plays fine.

Mount and Blade Warband nuff said.

But yes i still like pretty games and just devs cant just neglect grafix just cause "GAMPLAY YEW WUT?"

Everything matters primarily but stuff can be exclusionary depending on the strength on one or more different aspects.

I just want something that looks, sounds and plays good first of all.

If I can roll art design and animation to "GRAPHICS" then yes, they matter quite a bit.

eg. Shadow of the Colossus is still a stunningly beautiful game.

Is the rest is great, I can take bad graphics. I prefer style over technical impressiveness, though. Cel-shading is fantastic.