Do Graphics Matter To You?

[SonicBoom]

Do Graphics Matter To You? If you saw a game that had absolutely terrible graphics would you not play it? I Know some people do, But does anyone on this forum do that?

[The Shawn]

Of course.

Yes they matter.

Is this a trick question? Do I win a prize?

[Junkyrdsalesman]

They don't matter to me, as long as you can tell what you are doing . When i see bad graphics, i just laugh and get on with the game. Good graphics to me are just an added bonus. But if it's the same game on 2 different systems and one looks a little prettier, of course i'll get that one.

[Sunnyvale]

Yes, of course they matter!

Which is why I really like my Colecovision better than my Intellivision. Donkey Kong looks so much better!

[treismac]

Yes, graphics matter to me. The look of a game is a big part of what sucks me into the video game's universe. I can't imagine me beating Okami three times (twice on PS2, once on the Wii) if I hated the way the game looked. Taking a further note from Okami's aesthetics, I don't need realism. I think many of Activision's 2600 games (Pitfall!, Pitfall II, Seaquest, Chopper Command, etc) look great and all the graphics are is a bunch of well placed, blocky, yet colorful pixels. With all of this said, if a game is engaging enough, I can overlook a certain amount of crappy graphics, I suppose. Nothing is coming to mind at the moment, but I'd like to think I'm not too shallow as a gamer. ;)

[substantial_snake]

Graphics don't matter as much to me as good art direction and style does. I happen to find that games who look visually interesting or distinct are usually better games then those who chose the more typical and boring route.

Graphics are either boring or interesting to me, I would only ever consider them "bad" if they interfered with gameplay. Things like popup, texture errors, etc. for 3D games and things like ill defined foreground/baclground, hitboxes larger then sprite, etc for 2D games.

[Greg2600]

not that much. grew up on 8-bit games.

[icbrkr]

Nope. If they did, I would have thrown away my Atari 2600 years ago. That said, I always like to see what someone can pull out of a classic machine graphics-wise. Look at the later 2600 games compared to Combat. Look at the final games for the C64 (commercial anyway) as opposed to the first releases.

Donkey Kong on the INTV looks good... now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErMgBMGirEE ;)

[kupomogli]

To a degree, yes and no. I'd prefer a game that is released to have better graphics than worse, but a good game is a good game, better graphics or not.

[Gameguy]

Yes they do, as long as the graphics look like they were well done with whatever technology was available at the time or for whatever style they were trying to accomplish they're fine with me.

Just compare most NES games to the graphics of Action 52, I might not have a problem with 8-bit graphics but the graphics in Action 52 suck. It sucks for other reasons too but the graphics definitely suck with that game. People complain about the Atari 2600 version of Pac-Man for being crap, someone else made a homebrew version with better graphics. Both versions are still old Atari 2600 style graphics but one version is much better.

[old man]

I can certainly enjoy and appreciate good artwork, but its not a game-breaker for me. Graphics, depending on how they're done, can be the icing on the cake or a fly in the ointment.

[j_factor]

Yeah, they matter. Not necessarily in a technical sense. I really like Comix Zone's graphics, for example.

[Yago]

Yes and no. For classic gaming obviously game play was the most important factor. Was a game fun to play and had great playability. If so, then graphics/sound mean nothing. With new games I would say yes. Why play a game with crummy graphics on a system that can dish out far superior capabilities? Shame on the developers for not taking advantage of the console's graphics capabilities.

[Game Hoarder]

Graphics do matter to me, but not as much as gameplay. So, yeah I can play old games with bad graphics and still enjoy them.:)

[Ryudo]

People need to learn the difference between graphics and aesthetics.

Graphics mean nothing to me. Graphics are the least important thing in gaming. They just allow more lighting and polys to be added. But if it has bad or no aesthetics it can still be an ugly game even with great graphics. Aesthetics do matter more. The things I look into most for games for me to enjoy are. Aesthetics,Music,Good gameplay.

Xenoblade. The graphics are not very good. However it has great aesthetics making it a beautiful game.

[TonyTheTiger]

Yeah, they matter. Not necessarily in a technical sense. I really like Comix Zone's graphics, for example.

Same here. Graphics matter to me in the sense that the game needs to be aesthetically pleasing. It doesn't matter if they're technically "good" graphics.

[Game Hoarder]

Xenoblade. The graphics are not very good. However it has great aesthetics making it a beautiful game.

I can't wait to get Xenoblade. I think the graphics look good as well as the aesthetics and the gameplay is going to be awesome too.

[Ryudo]

I can't wait to get Xenoblade. I think the graphics look good as well as the aesthetics and the gameplay is going to be awesome too.

Me personally think it's the best game this gen and the best and biggest rpg this gen. I imported it and plan to buy the US version as well. This feb I buy The Last Story as well. :)

[Dire 51]

Graphics don't matter to me, but in some cases designs do. For instance, I tried playing Psychonauts once and couldn't get past those godawful character designs. It might be a great game, but damn are those characters ugly.

[Game Hoarder]

Me personally think it's the best game this gen and the best and biggest rpg this gen. I imported it and plan to buy the US version as well. This feb I buy The Last Story as well. :)

Unfortunately, I don't import games.:( I hope they bring The Last Story to the US.

[Aussie2B]

I appreciate good graphics, but it's all relative. I don't consider games on older systems as having "worse" graphics. I consider the capabilities of the hardware, and I care about good design.

But I'll give anything a shot, and if it's fun, I'll keep playing even if it's ugly.

Oh, and one thing that is really important to me is the use of color. It's not like I want my games to be candy-coated, but there have been some modern games where the entire palette for the whole game looks gray/blue/brown. I find that really depressing and a huge turn off.

[Leo_A]

They matter to me, But I don't place the same weight on that aspect of a game as many casual gamers do. And my idea of good graphics doesn't necessarily match what the average person has in mind when talking about the term.

For instance, I think River Raid on the Atari 2600 performs well in this department. While basic and primitive looking these days, it's still an attractive game. The objects in the game look good, the game runs smoothly, the colors are pleasant, etc. It's still a pretty game. The aesthetics are just perfect.

Their appearance, not their technical prowess, is what matters to me. It takes more than statistics to make a nice looking game, it doesn't just rest on polygon count and texture resolutions alone. Like someone else said, it's the art direction and style that matter most in this area (And I'd have to add that how smooth it all runs at is also very important).

[MarioMania]

Nope..

[The 1 2 P]

They matter but I'll take a good story over good graphics anyday.

[retroman]

I think they matter some, but a good game is a good game

[Wraith Storm]

I don't expect anyone will agree with me on this, but graphics never really mattered to me until the PS2 on up to this generation. I am quite the opposite of most, but I hate the fact that games look so good these days.

The ENTIRE time I am playing classic games, I am analyzing and dissecting them. Especially the Saturn/Ps1/N64 era. I marvel at the level design on a technical level. I love seeing a strategically place hill or wall that obscures the pop up in the distance. It's creative and restrictive level design and the end result gives the impression of an amazing looking level. I just love discovering all the little techniques used in a game that are all around but usually go unnoticed by most.

The thing I miss most is pixelation. Anti-aliasing and the like have made games much less enjoyable for me. I can't tell you how many times, regardless what game I was playing, that I would run my character into a wall and stare at each and every pixel to see how they blended them in the texture map. I miss being able to see and appreciate the fundamental building blocks that make up a game.

These days, games look so good and the systems are less restrictive that its next to impossible for me to enjoy and dissect the individual pieces that make up the game.

I know I'm odd, and that's cool i'm content with that. It's hard to explain though. Here is the best way to describe what I mean...

You can look at a painting from across the room and tell that its a very nice painting. But its not until you get up close that you can begin to see and appreciate each individual brush stroke that makes the bigger picture.

I used to get so much out of games, but as graphics get better and systems more powerful, I get less and less fulfillment.

[Tatsu]

Actually I do agree with you, Wraith Storm. At least to a certain extend. I have to say I rarely play with my X-Box 360 and I only have two games for it (Sacred 2 and Fallout 3). Most games on that system have kick-ass graphics (if you compare it with the S-Nes, the PS1/2 and so on), still they don't move me at all. It might very well be me getting old but I have the feeling that most games focus too much on graphics and special effects as eye-candy instead of gameplay. For quite a long time I thought I might have grown out of gaming since I rarely played anything besides Guitar Hero and Wii Sports with my friends. Sacred 2 grapped me but that was about it. Then I bought a PSP and woohoo, here we go again! So many nice games (well, nice for my personal taste that is) that get you hooked to the console. I haven't felt like that in ages.

So to answer the original question: no, I don't really care about graphics. Sure, if I do have the choice I like my games to look good and being able to read the text blocks and being able to see what is going on on the screen ist a must. But I prefere an old-school style (pixeled for example) game over stuff like Asassins' Creed any day because with AC the gameplay is just boring to me.

[jonebone]

Are they the end-all be all? No. Do they matter to me? Yes.

[jdc]

Kind of siding with what Wraith Storm and Tatsu were alluding to. Oftentimes i'll run back to the "charm" of pixelation, which is why I love the PSX years. I also get a little embarrassed when I think of the days when my friend and I were adamant that graphics couldn't POSSIBLY get any better than the ones in the N64 games made by Rare.

[Informationator]

Graphics don't matter to me, but the aesthetic does.

[Aussie2B]

I also get a little embarrassed when I think of the days when my friend and I were adamant that graphics couldn't POSSIBLY get any better than the ones in the N64 games made by Rare.

Heh, I thought the same thing when I first played Ocarina of Time. I couldn't imagine games getting any more realistic than that, haha.

[kedawa]

Graphics matter, but they are not a deal breaker.
Poor graphics/aesthetics won't dissuade me from playing a good game, just as great visuals aren't enough to get me to play something boring.
The only graphical things that really make a game unbearable for me are technical wonkiness (clipping, flickering, etc.) or a bad framerate.


I also get a little embarrassed when I think of the days when my friend and I were adamant that graphics couldn't POSSIBLY get any better than the ones in the N64 games made by Rare.
People still do this, even on these forums. It's quite baffling when someone claims that there's just no way graphics could get any better than current gen.

[369WIERDO369]

I think it matters that thought goes into how the game looks.
Like, if a game developer is creating a game for a console that can produce amazingly realistic graphics, they should do so. I think they should use graphics as best they can.
The exception here is games where a simpler look is better for the game. Mario, for example, would look a little odd in Twilight Princess-style worlds.
But then when you have consoles like the Atari which weren't capable of as much, graphics are less important because there is less potential.

I think I've done a terrible job of explaining this, but I tried my best.

[jwmollman]

I grew up with 16-bit games. I think as long as the game has really good gameplay/storyline, the graphics wouldn't really matter to me. If the graphics are unbelievable, but there's no storyline, I'll probably stop playing very early into the game.

I mainly do my gaming with the SNES and PS1, and those graphics are beautiful to me.

[BydoEmpire]

They matter a little bit I guess, but art direction matters a whole lot more as far as visuals go. If you count frame rate as graphics, then yeah, that matters a bit more. Low frame rates in 3D games are hard for me to watch these days, although I can get used to it if I'm really digging the game. If there are two virtually identical games with the only difference being graphics, I'd choose the one with better graphics. I'm not "anti" good graphics, but I still play my 2600, 5200, 7800, XE, Inty, NES, SMS and Genesis more than my Xbox 360. I played my Wii more than my 360 as well.

[FireStar]

As long as they don't cause me physical pain, I'm fine with crappy graphics.

[treismac]

I know I'm odd, and that's cool i'm content with that. It's hard to explain though. Here is the best way to describe what I mean...

You can look at a painting from across the room and tell that its a very nice painting. But its not until you get up close that you can begin to see and appreciate each individual brush stroke that makes the bigger picture.

You're damn right that's cool!

Awesome post, Wraith Storm! The above selection really spoke to me. I remember in games like Wolfenstein 3D running up against walls and objects to take it all in, absorbing the pixels one by one, and then stepping back to see the object or wall further away again. I'm sure to the young kids of today who would know Pong from Pitfall! your technical/artistic appreciation of graphical limitations would seem absurd, but I'm more than with you! :)

In a way, the older first-person 3D games with blocky, pixelated graphics and objects that pop up suddenly in the horizon make me feel like I am inhabiting a strange dream where the laws that normally regulate the universe are more than a bit off kilter, where something very strange could happen with no warning at any moment that has no connection to the previous moment. The occasional glitch/bug only heightens this disconnected, surreal feeling.

[alec006]

Depends on what you mean by graphics, sure some games look all pretty, nice and life-like but without a story and replay value it sucks, it's boring, it's not worth the time.

Games like Sonic The Hedgehog 2 on the Genesis, Asteroids on the Atari 2600 or Super Mario 64 on the N64, may have what 10,20,30 year old graphics but they are still so much more fun to play and experience by yourself or with friends than any game now days.

Pretty much games you can just play and have fun with and not care about the console wars and stupid ass leader boards or trophys.

[Edmond Dantes]

I'm something of a graphics whore. When I'm gaming on a computer, I usually try to trick out the graphics as much as possible, but will scale them back if performance is taking too much of a hit. With console gaming, if a game is multi-console and I have all the consoles its out for, I like to go for either the one with the best graphics or the one with the most special features.

There are some exceptions to that second one though. Like I prefer Final Fantasy IV on the SNES to the PSP. The PSP version is great, but for some reason it feels weird knowing that this was original an SNES game but playing a version that looks like it could've been on the PS2. Dunno how that makes sense, but it does.

[Wrestlemaniac]

Hm well i think i might be a tad shizofrenic on this subject lol since i'm very divided on this matter.

I love nothing more than playing nes,snes and genesis games, it will forever be my golden age of videogames and those games had such charming presence and graphics and gameplay, which is a rarity these days to get all 3 at once.

HOWEVER, with anything from ps2 and after, i kinda expect good graphics, and i'm not talking hyper realistic,looks-like-a-movie graphics, but when a game comes out these days that looks like it was made for ps1 or something, with ugly blocky design, then yes that is a turnoff.

that's why i also have a hard time enjoying my old ps1 & N64 games, that period was fine back then, but hasn't aged well at all, aside from a few charming execptions like mario64 that still have enough class to make me look past his little blocky head, most games from that time just look so ugly it has made them unplayable for me. it's just....3D was new and they all wanted to be realistic but just didn't get it right just yet.

So with ps3,yes i want my games to look pretty, HOWEVER, if somehow 3D gaming dissapeared tomorrow and we have to go back to nes style games, i would be perfectly happy since the charm that was put into the nes and snes era had never been captured anymore afterwards. that's why i'm always the first to get excited over 2D-ish games like new super mario bros, paper mario,megaman 9&10 or that new rayman game. those are proof that just because we live in a ps3 era, games with a classic look and feel still work & sell as good as ever.

[Flack]

This is one of my favorite racing games:

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/7648/305776-atari2600_indy500_super.png

[Griking]

Obviously when you're comparing a game like Pac-Man on the 2600 to the 5200 version you'd be crazy to say that graphics didn't matter. But to me I think that the importance of better and better graphics started disappearing some time between the PS1 abd PS2 era in consoles. The thing about graphics is that too many companies try to use them as a smoke screen to hide a mediocre game. There's some absolutely gorgeous games out there that play like shit and games that aren't really that pretty but are as fun as hell to play. So I guess my answer is sometimes.

[icbrkr]

This is one of my favorite racing games:

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/7648/305776-atari2600_indy500_super.png

Indy 500 rocks.

[PresidentLeever]

Yes, but aesthetics are much more important to me than technical accomplishments.

Edit: and functionality, of course.

[Ninja_with_ Glasses]

Graphics are like looks for a woman. They are what initially attracts me to one, but there needs to be a good personality (gameplay) for me to stay interested.