Graphics

[fredthehylian]

One time when my friend was telling me about a new Xmen game or whatever, he told me the graphics were the best of all time. The next day I thought to myself: Do graphics really matter that much? I mean come on. Graphics don't enhance gameplay that much. Although if graphics were so bad that they used a dot to represent a building, then the graphics need some serious changing. But if the game is too realistic, bright, or whatever, then that would cause some optic problems if those games are played too much. So what is your opinion on this matter?

[Niko Bellic 817]

I never care about the graphics in video games. It's the gameplay that is most important and the music. I also like playing NES games a lot even though their graphics are primitive. Twilight Princess for example is critisized for it's graphics though I personally thought the graphics were great. Nowadays, it seems people are much more concerned over a game's graphical appeal than how fun the game is. Halo 3, for example is praised for it's great graphics, though in terms of single-player gameplay I've heard that there wasn't much to it (I don't own the game.)

[Evenstevenp]

I must be the only person in my school who isn't like "OH MY GODDDD GEARS OF WAR 2 DA GRAPHICZ ARE SOOO GOOD ZOMG"

People who play NES, SNES or N64 games at my school (mainly me and my friend Josh) are ridiculed because those games have crappy graphics and are too kiddy.

I hate my school so much.

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

Heh, this made me chuckle a bit actually. I guess Xmen: Origins is now the best game ever because it has the best graphics and tons of blood am I right? Wrong. I've played it. It's so extremely repetitive, that it's laughable. Beat up bad guys. Go the next area. Beat up bad guys. Go to the next area. Fight a super bad guy. Got to the next area. Repeat until game is finished. There's absolutely no variety to that game at all. But, people will always buy games like that, just because they look pretty. Heck, that's why people think the 360 and PS3 are superior to the Wii: Just because the graphic capability is superior. But that doesn't mean crap if all of the games are just rehashes of past titles, which is exactly what 85% of the games on those systems are. That is why I prefer Nintendo and its games. There's always something new, be it the gravity function in Mario Galaxy, the sword controls in LoZ: TP, or the brand new FPS system featured in Metroid Prime 3 and soon to be in Other: M. Even some of the Sonic the Hedgehog titles seem better to me on the Wii. As long as Nintendo continues to bring fresh ideas and games I find to be enjoyable, I'll always be a "Nintendo fanboy", because Nintendo is currently the only gaming company worthy of being a fanboy of.

I think this is a nice way to put: If a game sucks, it's going to suck, no matter how fancy you try to dress it up.

[Deku Scrub]

I always go by the policy of Gameplay > Graphics. It's incredibly annoying how typical people that like video games always focus on "OMGZ...THE GRAPHIKZ IZ SO AMAZINZ..." when the game is the biggest load of crap ever with terrible controls, repetitive gameplay, and zero replay value whatsoever.

That's why I never buy games based on graphics, which is basically all Nintendo games...all Nintendo systems. Not that the graphics aren't good, they are actually very good for their time, but Nintendo games are the ones that you can always trust that they'll be good. And plus, I ain't payin' 500 freakin' dollars for a stupid PS3 so it'll look good. What fun is that?

You can always trust Nintendo, though. I always have, and I pretty much always will.

GAMEPLAY > GRAPHICS!

[Petman1325]

I wouldn't buy a game based on graphics. I would concider graphics on a review of a game (coughsuperman64cough), because I want to see what is happening. I mean, you also have to concider what the console can do, such as gameplay and the length of an adventure. I wouldn't want to play a game with life-like graphics that is only 2 hours long.

I don't mind playing a game with good visuals. I think that graphics add on to the game, but, I also believe in art styles. Sometimes, a game deliberately has a lower quality for a reason (Wind Waker, but I thought it looked really nice). I live in a community in which they believe that graphics are everything (They also are ignorant upon plot, etc)(I do have friends who also believe in plot, controls, and Nintendo's epicness), so that makes me a bit mad.

[Smitie]

The problem with graphics is that the standard changes every day. When I played OoT for the first time a lot of years ago I was absolutly stunned about the awesome graphics. When I played Harry Potter and the philosphofers (I know it is spelled wrong) stone on the PC, I was again stunned. The facial features where to most realistic thing I've ever seen eventhough they didn't move their mouths and they even had a hand with a thumb and finger that could move seperatly from the rest of the fingers which were glued together.
If you look at OoT or Harry Potter 1 today, you will all agree the graphics look extremely goofy. So judging a game on it's graphics is a bit useless.

That is why I don't care about graphics much. I rather have a game with a good story and good gameplay than a graphics explosion. I also think that a lot of gamers think that good graphics mean realistic graphics, but I can easily say that Okami is graphicly way better than Gears of whatever 2.

[basement24]

I'd say good graphics are a bonus to good gameplay. You can still have a great game with lousy graphics, and conversely, good graphics can't hide the fact that a game's gameplay is terrible.

If I'm evaluating graphics alone, I think it depends too on the system. I don't need 360 realistic textures and the like in a Wii game. If a game on the Wii has good graphics, then it's good for that system. IE - I can still go back and play 8-bit NES titles and love their graphics. They, in no way, compare to the life-like work done on the next gen systems, but they are still good graphics for the system they were on. So, it's all relative.

I definitely get attracted to a game because of graphics, because in internet videos, that's all you really have to go on is appearances. I was really excited for Batman Arkham Asylum based on graphics alone, but really, it needs to have good gameplay in order to be a good game. Luckily, I had a chance to play it for a good amount of time, and it's a tight controlled, fun game.

I suppose it's a bit like entering a relationship. The first impressions are often based on appearances and initial physical attraction. Then, you get to know the game more and find out either it's as good as the appearance is to you, or it's horribly bad, and you should run for your life. :P

[colonialman456]

You know i don't really beleive that graphics matter. I mean Ocarina of time was great but i still love A Link to the past more. Gameplay rolls around here.

[Zenox]

Graphics aren't a big problem all that much. If they can be enhanced, go for it, as long as the game is good, I'll play it. I love the original LoZ, because I don't care about graphics. My friends say most NES games suck because of how the graphics look. If a game has terrible graphics, they won't play it. I keep trying to prove to them that the Adventure of Link is by far the hardest Zelda game, but the graphics "Suck too bad", so they refuse to play it. I don't get this point at all. Sure, graphics could make a game slightly better, but the gameplay isn't different at all.

If they were to make any handheld game such as MC in LoZ graphics, I would have still bought it. I would have still loved it.

If graphics can be enhanced, however, I'm totally fine with that, it's not a big problem for me. I don't understand why Nintendo fights to make the "best game possible", but they mostly just focus on making a game that is pleasant to look at. It doesn't make the game any better in my opinion.

[Yumil]

I always find these debates interesting despite the fact that there are only a few points of view that get repeated constantly. As such, I must fill my role and include another point of view in your post.

Graphics do matter because they are not separate from gameplay. Graphics are a part of the gameplay and having better graphics can enhance the gameplay. "Better graphics" are not all about more polygons and smoother models. It also includes lighting and other real world effects and these effects are not just novelties.

Since this is a Legend of Zelda site, let's look at a Zelda game as an example. I don't think anyone here is denying that Twilight Princess has the best graphics in the series - regardless of how you feel about the game in general. I'm going to use a specific fight as my example: Blizzetta.

During the fight, Blizzetta hovers above you and drops large chucks of ice on top of you before trying to crush you herself. The camera in the game purposefully tilts so that you cannot see what is happening above you. Instead, you can only look at the floor, and when you do you see Blizzetta's reflection in the ice as she is hovering above you. This allows you to watch where she will attack and gives this fight a unique touch that no other fight in the series mimics.

Blizzetta is definitely not the best boss in the game for this mechanic, but it proves what the enhanced graphics of Twilight Princess allowed the game developers to do that could not be done in the 2D era (though shadows are used in some fights) or in Ocarina of Time. There's plenty of ice in Ocarina of Time, but you aren't seeing your reflection in it.

Graphics alone cannot make a game, but gameplay without graphics is broken gameplay. Improving the graphics can enhance the gameplay by allowing game creators to do things that were impossible previously.

[Yoshi_FTW]

I always find these debates interesting despite the fact that there are only a few points of view that get repeated constantly. As such, I must fill my role and include another point of view in your post.

Graphics do matter because they are not separate from gameplay. Graphics are a part of the gameplay and having better graphics can enhance the gameplay. "Better graphics" are not all about more polygons and smoother models. It also includes lighting and other real world effects and these effects are not just novelties.

Since this is a Legend of Zelda site, let's look at a Zelda game as an example. I don't think anyone here is denying that Twilight Princess has the best graphics in the series - regardless of how you feel about the game in general. I'm going to use a specific fight as my example: Blizzetta.

During the fight, Blizzetta hovers above you and drops large chucks of ice on top of you before trying to crush you herself. The camera in the game purposefully tilts so that you cannot see what is happening above you. Instead, you can only look at the floor, and when you do you see Blizzetta's reflection in the ice as she is hovering above you. This allows you to watch where she will attack and gives this fight a unique touch that no other fight in the series mimics.

Blizzetta is definitely not the best boss in the game for this mechanic, but it proves what the enhanced graphics of Twilight Princess allowed the game developers to do that could not be done in the 2D era (though shadows are used in some fights) or in Ocarina of Time. There's plenty of ice in Ocarina of Time, but you aren't seeing your reflection in it.

Graphics alone cannot make a game, but gameplay without graphics is broken gameplay. Improving the graphics can enhance the gameplay by allowing game creators to do things that were impossible previously.

I think the last paragraph in that massive speech (just kidding) is totally true. True, gameplay is around 50-60% of how I judge a game, but Graphics is probably the other 40-50%. And the other 20% is just plot, story, etc. Horrible graphics can make a game bad no matter how good the gameplay is. That's my opinion.

[General Lee]

Ah great thread. Me being a classic gamer, I have this argument with people CONSTANTLY. For me you can never judge a game on graphics. Well there is some instances. Example with modern day gaming I guess would be ok to say anything about graphics, like for games like Call of Duty. They are the same game for PS3 as 360 but if one has better graphics you can argue that.

So anyways, I judge a game on first of all game play. I don't care if the graphics look dang near real life, if the game is junk it means nothing. The game play to me is honestly what makes a game. Missile Command on my 2600 is one of my favorite games. Why? Because its fun and simple. I will never judge a game like that on its graphics.

You also can NEVER compare a game that was made 20+ years ago to one made in this era. You don't think if back in '85 they had technology like they do today, NES games wouldn't look like the ones now? So really you can't compare. In 20 years people will be saying the PS3s apparently "amazing" graphics will be bad.

And also back around the NES' time, games like Super Mario Bros 3, and Kirbys Adventure had great graphics for the system. And you ask any modern gamer if those look good they will say they look like something made on Microsoft Paint. I used to think the N64 had killer graphics and they were a big step up from the NES and SNES. But, that still doesn't mean the NES/SNES games were garbage. A few games that have bad graphics but are still amazing include Doom, and Starfox 64. Doom was the second FPS game ever made and without it we would have the Call of Dutys, or Halos or whatever of today. And the graphics are so sloppy but its still amazing and has killer music. Then look at Starfox 64. You look like your just flying polygons arround, but it doesn't mean its bad.I mean where else would we get "Do a Barrel Roll!" from?

Another thing I tend to say is how people shouldn't be playing emulators or ROMs. (as they are illegal lol) but at least these people appreciate the games of the past and don't mind the graphics.

Thats all for now, I may come back to this.

[Immortal_One]

Games should not be based on graphics alone. Yes, graphics are a part that shouldn't be neglected when judging a video game, but they shouldn't be the main thing to judge a game on. Even then, graphics shouldn't be judged on face value. Graphics should be judged on how they relate to the time they are from. Take Star Fox on the SNES for example. By today's standard, it's graphics are crude and unappealing. Back when it first came out though, the graphics were revolutionary. That game was one of our first glimpses into the third dimention in a video game.

With that said, graphics aren't as big a deal as graphical ingenuity is in a game. As Ver-go-a-go-go said X-Men: Origins was nothing more than a nice-looking beat-'em-up. It had little variation in gameplay and the storyline is already layed out for it with the movie and all. Games like Gears of War, which have no substance to them in terms of gameplay are games that I just never got into. I miss the days of games like Megaman, Zelda and Metroid on the NES and SNES. Graphics weren't a big deal, they were more of just icing on the cake rather than the main course.

[basement24]

But, that still doesn't mean the NES/SNES games were garbage. A few games that have bad graphics but are still amazing.

Very true. There's next gen games out there that pale in comparison to some original NES games in terms of gameplay. They're all flash and no substance, and if there's no substance in a video game, then you're just looking at some pretty pictures. If that's the case, then I'd rather buy a coffee table book of the graphics and forego the pain of playing the bad game!

[fredthehylian]

Very true. There's next gen games out there that pale in comparison to some original NES games in terms of gameplay. They're all flash and no substance, and if there's no substance in a video game, then you're just looking at some pretty pictures. If that's the case, then I'd rather buy a coffee table book of the graphics and forego the pain of playing the bad game!

Thats not entirely true. Personally, I find Halo 3 as a better game than Punch-Out, Mega Man, and Kid Icarus. But that doesn't mean the Mario and Donkey Kong Country trilogy aren't as good. I'd play those games over Halo 3 any day.

[Zeruda]

I'm not going to say I don't think graphics are necessary, but I don't think they are what make a game. There are many games out there that may have horrible graphics, but they still make games with great graphics look like junk. Still, there are some games that have both great graphics and great gameplay.

For instance, I played Resident Evil 5, and while the graphics were great, I have seen better. The gameplay, though, was incredible. Well, let me rephrase that- coop was incredible, CP AI sucked.

But then there are some games that might not be graphically incredible, but they are still great. For instance, when Metroid Prime came out and I saw condensation on the visor, I almost died. When I saw Samus' reflection, I almost died. And, recently MP Trilogy has been released. No, the graphics aren't as balls-to-the-wall good like X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but the controls are so...just... jeez, the controls make me think, "This is how FPS should be." It might not match up to other games in terms of graphics, but that's not necessarily important, obviously.

Do I think graphics are important? Only in games where the graphics are part of the main focus. Otherwise, no. I think eye candy is a nice plus, but not often important.

[Megamannt125]

I've never cared about graphics, the only thing graphics really improve a game is if it's a game with a big adventure field like twilight princess where you can just ride around randomly and enjoy the scenary.

[Hayzer]

This is how I see it. Mario Galaxy is really how good Nintendo has to be. In all honesty, that graphical style suits Mario perfectly, and I think they should keep it. If you get "too realistic" in a cartoon based game, it's gonna suck (I'll admit, I wasn't that big of a fan for Mario's overalls in Melee and Brawl). Now, I can understand that graphics need to be good in a Zelda game, but gameplay wins out in importance.

It's funny. With all the dumb games out for the Wii, they're actually fun and have great controls and gameplay. PS360 have occasional Goldmines, but mostly gameplay is poop.

Wii: Mario, Zelda, Metroid, SSB, Wii Series, Mario & Sonic, several other appealing franchises, some sports games.

PS360: Shooters...Sports...Racers...and that's about it. Nothing to really get you going. Spyro is good, Crash is good, Banjo used to be good. But Shooters, Sports, and Racers are all those systems have going for them. While most have good graphics, gameplay is poo.

[fredthehylian]

This is how I see it. Mario Galaxy is really how good Nintendo has to be. In all honesty, that graphical style suits Mario perfectly, and I think they should keep it. If you get "too realistic" in a cartoon based game, it's gonna suck (I'll admit, I wasn't that big of a fan for Mario's overalls in Melee and Brawl). Now, I can understand that graphics need to be good in a Zelda game, but gameplay wins out in importance.

It's funny. With all the dumb games out for the Wii, they're actually fun and have great controls and gameplay. PS360 have occasional Goldmines, but mostly gameplay is poop.

Wii: Mario, Zelda, Metroid, SSB, Wii Series, Mario & Sonic, several other appealing franchises, some sports games.

PS360: Shooters...Sports...Racers...and that's about it. Nothing to really get you going. Spyro is good, Crash is good, Banjo used to be good. But Shooters, Sports, and Racers are all those systems have going for them. While most have good graphics, gameplay is poo.

Mario should indeed stay cartoony and not have cheesy RPGs *cough*marioandluigi*cough*. Zelda needs the graphics to build drama but I think in TP I think alot of it was hideous *cough*midnazantandooccoo*cough*.

I think all games for Wii have something good in them. Even though I only use it for VC.

I hate how people say that PS3 doesn't need gameplay and how awesome all those Fighters, Shooters, and Racers are. MvC is good, Virtua Fighter sucks, Halo is decent, Ratchet and Clank is the only good thing on PS3, and 360... Conker. PS360 suck because they need to go to gameplay school. Do you know why that disgraceful sonic game was only released on PS360? Because it sucked and its only natural for it to go on the suckish systems.

[Nepolink]

Well i don't say i like Halo only for the graphic's, even i can say that Halo is a little bit overrated, If you look back they just copy and paste some places, give it a new environment and a new place has born. But overall i think graphic's doesn't make the game a prefect game, how many times i told that anyway?
I'm not a huge fan of realistic graphic's, i like the graphic's from the Legend of Zelda, Spyro and Mario ways more. I remember a friend of me bought a new game with ''prefect'' graphic's, well his opinion then. After that he didn't like the gameplay, kind of stupid. I don't remember the game anyway.

For some people the graphic's are just everything and doesn't look at the gameplay, for the others the gameplay is a greater importance. I have to say all the games with good graphic's are out of my taste. I played the newest GTA game on the Xbox360 but the graphic's aren't that great, while the gameplay was very nice. I have to say i don't like every game with very good graphic's just because they are out of my taste, it's always nice to see a game with such great graphic's. I like how they made The Legend of Zelda, it has not the best graphic's around here, but who wants to see a realistic Zelda game? It will ruin the whole game in my opinion

Graphic's aren't important. I can't say a game doesn't need good graphic's, it will always be great to have sharp and semi-realistic game around. I look at Super Mario Galaxy how they made the galaxies and other stuff. I pick the apple as example, it looks halfway real and how they did the reflection's and other stuff, amazing for just a Mario Game.
The gameplay and story is the most important thing to put in a game. Is the story interesting? Are the characters interesting? and much more. Well that's just my opinion, great graphic's would be nice.
But i shall never buy a game because the graphic's are ''the best''. Most of them are out of my taste and very boy-ish games.

Like others say. I love the very old games on the SNESS and N64 ways more than the current ones. Because the lack of good graphic's those games are win in gameplay, or it has a nostalgic reason. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are my favorite games ever, they don't have great graphic's, so i say graphic's isn't a importance, it will always be nice.

[Master Kokiri 9]

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll i like good graphics to say the least but really they're just the frosting on the video game. Graphics enhance only the way the game looks and really i like graphics in games like tp and oot but really they're just the frosting on the cake so to speak. It just appeals to the consumer with colorfullness and let's the other factors like gameplay, story, and humor hook(shot) you in. so long story short graphics matter but they don't matter much.

[chrisbg99]

Graphics are an important aspect of a game for sure but degrade in importance as you go. So if a game is going to keep your interest years after it better have hooks whether they be gameplay, story or whatever that can make it still capable of being played years after it's release.

[hsb39]

Sorry if what I say has already been mentioned.

I think that graphics do count for something but not too much. The thing is, I emphasise that this should not be taken as realistic graphics make the game better, in many cases I think that they make the game worse when a more creative style could be used. I love 8 Bit, and think that it actually *looks better* than most of the stuff we have today. Take Megaman 9 even, I loved how that looked. Much more creativity. In fact, it was graphics limitations that made Mario the lovable character that he is today, rather than the ever so popular white scruffy guy, used because realism makes it look "cooler". Windwaker is possibly my favourite game graphics wise, just so well done and different, suiting the purposes of the game.

I could go on for a while, but the general point is that graphics don't matter too much, but when they do matter, most of the time making it look really realistic etc. is not the way to go, and can actually detract from the game (whatever happened to bright colours?).

[Camisado]

I don't normally care about graphics.

People being ridiculed for playing older consoles? That's like saying the DS is rubbish compared to the Wii. You can't make the comparison. =| I still play with the NES (when it works), SNES, N64 and GameCube regularly, and I don't notice the graphics. I've played Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess in the same day before and it's not bothered me or even occurred to me. It's gameplay that really matters to me. And what if the graphics have been developed to a point where the game is seriously crippled by the abilities of its hardware? I believe this happened with a Spyro game on GameCube.

Also, Mr Miyamoto speaks some wonderful words of truth on the fight between realism and graphics (they're more often than not, mutually exclusive).


Shigeru Miyamoto: What role does realism play in videogames I ask myself. Is this image more interesting? Sometimes... however, what if a "detailed" hand with 5 fingers is catching a bottle but the fingers pass right through it? Is this still realistic? Rather than to show each meticulous and tiny detail of a finger, it is more important to make the end action look more credible by working on the movement and functionality of the arms and the hand in relation to the object.

I think the only place I'd miss good graphics is The Sims 3 (for which I just bought a nice new graphics card, though mine was three years old and on its way out)...I like all the little details on the Sims and their houses. :> And ah, I needed more video RAM.

[elliotstriforce]

well uuummm graphics are a pretty big deal for alot of people but not me my friend sez oot graphics suck but i disagree for the time it was made there awesome but not as awesome as tp

[fredthehylian]

well uuummm graphics are a pretty big deal for alot of people but not me my friend sez oot graphics suck but i disagree for the time it was made there awesome but not as awesome as tp

So you're one of those people who has a community with people who vote graphics over gameplay? I think I should be grateful I have friends who accept my retro age video game obssession.

[hsb39]

So you're one of those people who has a community with people who vote graphics over gameplay? I think I should be grateful I have friends who accept my retro age video game obssession.

I know a lot of people who think graphics just make the game, seemingly not caring about gameplay or true artistic features.

[fredthehylian]

I know a lot of people who think graphics just make the game, seemingly not caring about gameplay or true artistic features.

Here's an idea for a game that would appeal to them:

A game where you would just play as an ordinary, grey, levitating block flying through different landscapes to admire them and whatnot (grassland like the one from Twilight Princess, a Star System like Metroid Prime, a forest maze like SMRPG, etc.) It would be 584 bit or something closer to that. No need for gameplay. Just great graphics and some stellar soundtrack. That is what would be good for those types of gamers. And to back it up, a marketing ploy: Super Gamma Light. The Glass Processing graphics worked for SEGA no? Why should SGL not?

[hsb39]

Here's an idea for a game that would appeal to them:

A game where you would just play as an ordinary, grey, levitating block flying through different landscapes to admire them and whatnot (grassland like the one from Twilight Princess, a Star System like Metroid Prime, a forest maze like SMRPG, etc.) It would be 584 bit or something closer to that. No need for gameplay. Just great graphics and some stellar soundtrack. That is what would be good for those types of gamers. And to back it up, a marketing ploy: Super Gamma Light. The Glass Processing graphics worked for SEGA no? Why should SGL not?

No, no, no. It would need to be violent with some first person shooter elements remember?!

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

No, no, no. It would need to be violent with some first person shooter elements remember?!

Heh, you guys are pretty good with that. While the PS360 systems do seem to lean that way a vast majority of the time, I would like to point out that there are some great works of art for those systems as well. Soul Calibur 4 mixes excellent visuals and a great soundtrack for some very in depth and strategic game play. I could also say the same for Prince of Persia.

This isn't saying you guys are wrong, because I completely agree. The two "bigboy" systems seem to be full of rehashed concepts, on top of the violence and mature ratings it needs to be "hardcore". But just remember that not everything is like that, and there are some real masterpieces to be found there.

[hsb39]

Heh, you guys are pretty good with that. While the PS360 systems do seem to lean that way a vast majority of the time, I would like to point out that there are some great works of art for those systems as well. Soul Calibur 4 mixes excellent visuals and a great soundtrack for some very in depth and strategic game play. I could also say the same for Prince of Persia.

This isn't saying you guys are wrong, because I completely agree. The two "bigboy" systems seem to be full of rehashed concepts, on top of the violence and mature ratings it needs to be "hardcore". But just remember that not everything is like that, and there are some real masterpieces to be found there.

There are certainly some exceptions, I'm surprised that the concept of Dead Rising didn't catch on, I'd love to see Miyamoto try it (being able to use everything around you).

[fredthehylian]

No, no, no. It would need to be violent with some first person shooter elements remember?!

Ah yes. silly me. But don't forget the third person ones like WWII Paratroopers.

[hsb39]

Ah yes. silly me. But don't forget the third person ones like WWII Paratroopers.

Also GTA which people don't play because it's good (which it is), but because of the high levels of violence.

[Linky]

Gameplay is more important to me than graphics, but I like to have a game pretty balanced on both, I don't want the graphics to be so bad I feel embarassed looking at the screen. But if the graphics are too good that normally means the gameplay/ storyline is lacking. And everyone now a days seems to be spoiled over graphics, like they'll look at a Old zelda game or metriod game and they automaticly dump it without even playing it just because the graphics aren't amazing.

[Steve]

Graphics are an important thing for me, but it all has to do with the sort of game it is. The other thing to note is that good graphics does not mean the gameplay will be horrible. Games such as Little Big Planet and Assassin's Creed have wonderful graphics, but at the same time, I find them to be quite enjoyable experiences, in some cases more than the majority of the Wii. It is important to know that graphics are not the only thing that makes a game good something that the majority tends to think, because the gameplay and music are much more important in the long run.

Nonetheless, you should not say that graphics are meaningless if the technology is there. It is like saying you could care less if we lived in a polluted wasteland of a world, than a green and plentiful one, because that is the basic just of it. If the ability to create a beautiful landscape is there, then they should not hesitate to do so, because scenery is a very important aspect in gaming as well.

[hsb39]

A little bit of a change of topic, but I want to mention how the style of graphics can dramatically improve gameplay. WW added to the cheerful tone. Megaman 9 was perfect for its style. Probably the best example that I can think of is the WiiWare Defend You Castle. Everything about the game is just so perfectly funny. Graphics dubbed down and... funny. A bread packet sealer thingy is your cursor, there are giants with Pepsi heads, guys holding giant Paddle Pop sticks, and the background is done like a school diorama. The sound also aces it, no music, and all sound effects are done some guy making funny noises (the explosions are the best), and the gameplay is just perfect, never lauged so much. That is in my opinion one of the best examples of the graphic style both aiding the game greatly and NOT being realistic.

[jugglaj91]

This is one subject I never got. Why do people put so much emphasis on graphics. Obviously you don't want to look at a crappy game that hurts your eyes, or even a great game but hurts to much too look at. I do believe in Gameplay > graphics, but in a sense it has to be able to be looked at for a few hours at a time or else i won't stay interested no matter how good the story is.

My main thing is why people care about HD so much. So now the pretty games look prettier (lol prettier). There will always be crappy games no matter what, and i hope in 10 years or so maybe the AVGN can really show us the error in these games people love so much today.

[JacobDRich]

Although graphics are somewhat a factor, Gameplay first, then graphics.

[Ikana]

It has to have a good storyline,good game play, then the good graphics.But hey thats my opinion and many people want the good graphics to come first.

[Dark Princess]

Graphics have never been a big thing to me. I always play the game for the story. I can play any game with any kind of graphics. ;P

[Dr3W]

I never care about the graphics in video games. It's the gameplay that is most important and the music. I also like playing NES games a lot even though their graphics are primitive. Twilight Princess for example is critisized for it's graphics though I personally thought the graphics were great. Nowadays, it seems people are much more concerned over a game's graphical appeal than how fun the game is. Halo 3, for example is praised for it's great graphics, though in terms of single-player gameplay I've heard that there wasn't much to it (I don't own the game.)

Actually HALO 3's gameplay is very great, at least in my opinion. But I do have to agree with you, TP's graphics were really good I thought.

[JosephII]

Realistic graphics do not equal good graphics. Graphics I do feel are important to the game. The style of the graphics are important to the overall theme of the game. Now that I have said that I would like to repeat that just because a game does not look realistic does not mean it has bad graphics. There are games for the NES and the like that have amazing and beautiful graphics.

[Aultimaespada]

I think that graphics are important, they can really enhance the game. But it's not the most important thing. I would buy a game with SNES graphs without even thinking if its gameplay is good and the game is really funny.

But more than the graphics quality, what matters more is the artistic style! For example: even with outdated graphs, Ookami and Metroid Prime stands out because of its creative style, being for looking like a old japanese drawing or for having realistic elements (like the breathing of Samus and her reflection in her helmet, as someone has has already said) without having the best graphics ever.

[Y2K3]

Graphics can be important, but "good" graphics can change amongst people. Like Joseph said, 'realistic graphics do not equal good graphics'. In my opinion, SMG's graphics are much better than Halo's. I mean, I'd take MM's graphics over Halo's. :P
Certain games, again, in my opiion, can pull off realistic graphics, while others cannot. For many games, I think the best bet is to try and find a balance between realism and cartoon.
I do think with some people it's becoming a problem with choosing games based on graphics and not gameplay, but I'd say that as long as there's still people out there who do rather the gameplay that there's nothing to 'worry' about.

[jbkarate9]

I honestly dont care about graphics its all about gameplay! But if the graphics are extreme bad then no i cant really play it. It needs to have some sort of good graphics.

[TriforceHunter]

Oh my god. if you go to YiouTube and click on a IGN or Machinima Wii video it seems like grafics are the major discussion subject. all you get is people(or New School 12 year old "Gamers" A.K.A n00bs) who always complain with such critisism like "This Grpheecks succkz ther4re this game suckz and itz gaey." or "Haloz looks better than this". and you will always see the REAL gamers telling them off and owning them in any way shape or form.And they also complain like its the wii's fault and not the fault of those lazy 3rd part developers. I mean once you look at games like Metroid Other M(Trailer) you will be inpressed of what the Wii can do.

end of line if you think grafics is all that matters you a re stupid.

[jlemon9721]

That is exactly what i think about sometimes! Well yeah your PS3 might have HD graphics, but are the games fun? I'm not saying anything bad about Sony, I'm saying that graphics don't make the game. i know that the 8-bit 'Zelda' graphics may seam pretty rough, but it is one of the best games ever made!

[Tom]

if you go to YiouTube and click on a IGN or Machinima Wii video it seems like grafics are the major discussion subject. all you get is people(or New School 12 year old "Gamers" A.K.A n00bs) who always complain with such critisism like "This Grpheecks succkz ther4re this game suckz and itz gaey." or "Haloz looks better than this"

So true. These guys are everywhere. Even on Ocarina of Time videos, posting stupid comments about how their favorite PS3/XBOX 360 videogame series kick Nintendo's butt. I hate this...graphics are the last thing I consider when deciding wheter I'll buy it or not. Sometime ago I used to play Runescape, and though many people say it sucks, most of them have never experienced the gameplay.

[TriforceHunter]

Yeah, I hate those people(as you can see) but half the time I think they are just Trolls that want to get in other peoples' nerves, but is kinda hard to believe that everyone of those guys is a Troll. Yet it's also IGN's fault for feeding their moronic fans their moronic Wii bashig articles.