Graphics

[Turo602]

Yes. But only to games that have beat the test of time and prove to still be fun. Doesn't mean graphics don't matter.

 

[LolGames4U]

I think graphics add to the game; I will stop playing a game if the graphics are absolutely terrible, but they aren't extremely important.

 

[Zarom]

Personally, I don't really care about graphics. If the game is fun, I won't stop playing it only because the graphics are ugly or dated. Graphics are the less important part of a video game IMO. There are some NES games that I love more than current games for example, and now that I'm thinking about it, I think there's a certain charm to 8-bit and 16-bit graphics. Most games from the N64 don't look great today, but when I play back those games, I still have a blast without caring at all about the dated graphics.

 

[ZRetsirk]

as long as i can see what goin on, im fine, i just dont want it to be completely terrible, nor too good, too good hurtz my eyes...

 

[Hylian Knight]

Yes, definitely! I'm tired of people saying that graphics don't matter. Graphics do matter, but they just don't happen to be one of the biggest factors in the minds of passionate gamers. Graphics are a little modifier, sort of like an exponent, if you will. If the graphics are moderate, and you aren't really extremely impressed by them but at the same time are not displeased, then it's like an exponent of 1, and the game stays the same for you. If the game has unbelievable graphics that you feel are just right and take your breath away, then think of it as a larger exponent the better the graphics get. When the game has graphics that appeal to you, the game is better, you just don't quite notice it. The same can be said with bad graphics, but in an opposite manner. Bad graphics can represent the negative exponent. The worse the graphics get, the more you tend to dislike the game. If you're one of those that can ignore horrible graphics, then good for you! Most people, however, can't stand graphics that are extremely horrible.

With time our standards are increased. It also depends on what you plan on and are used to seeing. If they made a Call of Duty game in 8-bit then that wouldn't be considered very good, would it? It would be almost totally rejected by the market without even a second thought, no matter how good the game is! With a game like Zelda, however, it depends on what you plan to see as said earlier. If you really want a 2D game, then it doesn't bother you if they came out with a new game with 2D graphics. Some modern and younger gamers may not like the game so much, though. That being said... graphics do, they just aren't (usually!) a game-changing factor.

I'm not saying Graphics don't matter which I think they do but it's not something I look at when I'm thinking about buying a game.

 

[DisappearingMist]

To me, they matter a little bit, but some of my favorite games come from the early 90s where graphics were not the priority. I didn't care then, and I still don't.

 

[Brave Huxley]

When you really give it some thought, Graphics now-a-days matter, purely for what you're paying for the game, as well as the public's view on how it should look. You're playing a next gen system, you're going to have some sort of improvement regarding the way your game looks. Plain and simple.

However, just take a look at the old N64 games, heck even the NES and SNES games. Beautiful game play (for the most part) with 8-bit graphics. If you played those kinds of games as a child, you didn't care. You were enveloped in the story, the plot, the game mechanics, and plus...Those were the next gen graphics of the age. I mean, I remember Pilotwings 64 looking absolutely beautiful back when I first played it, but now when I look at it, I feel jaded because of the kind of graphics out on the market right now-a-days.

It all depends on your taste I suppose. If you can throw a next gen game my way with less the satisfying graphics, I wouldn't mind. So long as the content was compelling enough to play.

 

[Djinn]

I recall graphics having an enormous priority in the early 90's. Where it was almost a major selling point behind several games. Donkey Kong Country being the biggest example. Te revolutionary graphics system it used helped make it the best selling game for the SNES. Which later led to DKC becoming one of the top 10 most overrated games of all time in 05. Due to the graphics maintaining the sales over gameplay. It actually outsold SMW 2:Yoshi's Island for Nintendo's use of kiddy style graphics and crayon drawn backgrounds. The initial draw for the Genesis was that it had 16 bit graphics over the 8 bit NES. Then the SNES with almost double the colors than the Genesis, then the Genesis had a faster processor. Gameplay mechanics never really came into these arguments at all, only how pretty and colorful the games looked.

The Genesis/SNES wars of the early 90's also used graphics as a major selling point by comparing various third party ports. They were both constantly declaring that Genesis Mortal Kombat had many more frames of animation over the SNES version, while SNES EarthWorm Jim had much better rendered backgrounds than the Genesis port. Graphics were the main argument with other ports such as Maximum Carnage, Clayfighter, or Jurassic Park. Then both companies tries using terminology to lure people in by saying that the SNES has the Super FX chip, while Genesis has "Blast Processing."
http://www.sega-16.com/Features/Marketing the Genesis/Sega Ad 3_jpg.jpg
http://socksmakepeoplesexy.net/images/irish/32x-print_small.jpg
http://101videogames.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/starwing_pal_box.jpg
Some of the tv commercials were just as ridiculous. Especially when it came to Gameboy vs. Game Gear.


To me it looks that people began choosing gameplay over graphics much later. Especially when companies started re releasing older games through ports and nostalgia generated interest. As well as franchises brought about interest in previous titles such as Final Fantasy or Mega Man.

 

[Brave Huxley]

I recall graphics having an enormous priority in the early 90's. Where it was almost a major selling point behind several games. Donkey Kong Country being the biggest example. Te revolutionary graphics system it used helped make it the best selling game for the SNES. Which later led to DKC becoming one of the top 10 most overrated games of all time in 05. Due to the graphics maintaining the sales over gameplay. It actually outsold SMW 2:Yoshi's Island for Nintendo's use of kiddy style graphics and crayon drawn backgrounds. The initial draw for the Genesis was that it had 16 bit graphics over the 8 bit NES. Then the SNES with almost double the colors than the Genesis, then the Genesis had a faster processor. Gameplay mechanics never really came into these arguments at all, only how pretty and colorful the games looked.

The Genesis/SNES wars of the early 90's also used graphics as a major selling point by comparing various third party ports. They were both constantly declaring that Genesis Mortal Kombat had many more frames of animation over the SNES version, while SNES EarthWorm Jim had much better rendered backgrounds than the Genesis port. Graphics were the main argument with other ports such as Maximum Carnage, Clayfighter, or Jurassic Park. Then both companies tries using terminology to lure people in by saying that the SNES has the Super FX chip, while Genesis has "Blast Processing."
http://www.sega-16.com/Features/Marketing the Genesis/Sega Ad 3_jpg.jpg
http://socksmakepeoplesexy.net/images/irish/32x-print_small.jpg
http://101videogames.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/starwing_pal_box.jpg
Some of the tv commercials were just as ridiculous. Especially when it came to Gameboy vs. Game Gear.


To me it looks that people began choosing gameplay over graphics much later. Especially when companies started re releasing older games through ports and nostalgia generated interest. As well as franchises brought about interest in previous titles such as Final Fantasy or Mega Man.

Oh my god..Look at that Star Fox box. Amazing!!

 

[Jimmy]

I think among the Nintendo community there is a slight aversion to hailing graphics as important, largely because Nintendo have never bothered fighting in the "realistic graphics" races like many other developers. This isn't to say some Nintendo graphics aren't brilliant, but more in a stylistic way than a high-resolution one.

There are many games I've played where graphics have had a huge impact on the fun of a game. Team Fortress 2 is one example. The game's cartoony, humorous style means players rarely take the game that seriously, and it's one of those games that doesn't attract a load of sweary 13 year olds who make "your mum" jokes all the time. They are too busy playing Call of Duty.

For the likes of single player games, World of Goo springs to mind. Without the music and the visual style it wouldn't feel the same and the vibe of the game would change. There are a number of other indie and small-developer titles that this applies to, but in short graphics are very, very important.

The trouble is that mainstream gaming has very uncreative graphics and art styles. Call of Duty, FIFA and Grand Theft Auto all aim for photorealism which to my mind is not very interesting. In that case the graphics have little impact on the game. They don't make you want to play the game but they don't repel you either. They just are.

Of course gameplay is what will you keep you playing. But graphics immerse you in the experience, if done properly.

http://socksmakepeoplesexy.net/images/irish/32x-print_small.jpg

Is that some sort of sexual joke

Also worth pointing out that the most powerful systems often sell the worst.

 

[Heros Temporis]

I like games that are nice to look at. I do like a game to have good graphics, because it's easier to look at. More than graphics, though, I appreciate detail. All the largely unnoticed aspects of the world they put into the game. Individual blades of grass instead of a green carpet. Cracks and signs of erosion on rocks. Ripples and waves in the water; all the things that game developers do to make the game seem more real and detailed. Now, outstanding graphics and a large amount of detail often come in one package, which is why I like good graphics a lot.

But what do I consider "nice to look at" graphics like I mentioned when I started? Well, I have a long list of games that I think are nice to look at, as I have pretty easy criteria when it comes to graphics. I think OoT has good graphics. I think The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess have good graphics. I think Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime have good graphics. I think Halo Reach has nice graphics. But I also think that Halo 1,2, and 3 have good graphics. Any game that isn't going to hurt my eyes I usually consider "nice to look at". But it's gotta be detail that makes me appreciate visuals. That's where I start listing games with stunning graphics like Twilight Princess, The Wind Waker, Halo Reach, Metroid Prime and its sequel, (I'm currently about 1/4 through Echoes, I haven't played Corruption yet but I'm sure it has great graphics as well) and Super Smash Bros. Brawl because they not only have gorgeous, stunning graphics, but more importantly in my book, they have an outstanding amount of detail.

That's not to say I don't like old games because of their visual limitations. Ocarina of Time is still my favorite of all Zeldas, and I still love Majora's Mask, and Metroid Zero Mission, and A Link to the Past, Super Mario Bros., and the original LoZ, and all those old games that aren't as graphically advanced as current games.

In short, I do like good graphics, but they don't have to be absolutely drop-dead amazing (Ahem, Twilight Princess, Halo Reach, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Metroid Prime...) to make a game fantastic. Besides, N64 games are gorgeous in their own, polygonish way. Many locales in Ocarina of Time are just as breathtaking as ones in Twilight Princess. SNES games are gorgeous in their own way, and NES always has the great 8-Bit graphics. The difference between stunning detail and N64 polygon graphics don't matter to me when the game is amazing either way. Besides, we all know that basically anything Nintendo makes is going to be fantastic either way.

 

[darunia]

To me graphics are of very little importance.
For me they only account to 5 percent of a game.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
People now go crazy about graphics,i do not understand it.
Thing is a game can be great graphically but no good in any other way.
That sure does not make a good game.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I have played hundreds of games that are graphically poor but are still famtastic games.

For me gameplay,addictiveness, good story are far more important in a game.

Of course if a game is good in all those ways and also has good graphics thats a real bonus.

But when i buy a game i do not immediately think how good is it graphically i say is it addictive, will i play it for yrs and yrs to come has it great music.

I really feel to many game players are obsessed with grapgics.

 

[ケンジ]

Graphics makes a game attractive to the eye, but the gameplay is what keeps the player playing the game instead of stopping.

People today base their impressions on how the game will look because the graphics are the first thing a gamer will see, then after that the gameplay then the storyline.
Some people tend to base their judgement on the graphics alone but that's being harsh, one must play the game and know the storyline with it for a game to be complete and exciting.

 

[Celeboy]

Graphics are for athsetics only. Gameplay makes you want to play it, but if it's not very eye-pleasing people may be put off playing it. OoT has crummy graphics, but it's an awesome game and wheelspin has alright graphics (better than OoT) yet it got stupidly low ratings because the gameplay was bad.

 

[Cuju]

For me, graphics really don't matter that much. When I'm playing Ocarina of time, I know that the graphics aren't pretty, but the game's controls and structure is so good, that I don't really care. When I'm playing Black Ops, however, I really do appreciate the graphics in that game, because I expect high end graphics from the 360 and PS3. On the other hand, my second favorite game ever, Monster Hunter Tri, has some of the best graphics on Wii, but I don't notice them really because I care about gameplay... Grrrr! I'll just say that I preffer good gameplay over good graphics...