Do Graphics Matter To You?

[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.