Who does not care about graphics?

I could care less about graphics. But, I can understand how they are important to a game; however, they shouldn't be the determining factor on whether you should buy a game or not. Or, whether a game gets a good or bad score.

How many gamers out there think that graphics are not very important when reviewing a game?Dorby5826and360

I think it does matter just not as muhc as gameplay and story. I have limits though, if a game comes out with abd graphics it can't get a perfect score but it can still get a good one.

I think we all appreciate good graphics, but for some people, like myself, they hardly make a mediocre game good or an new game better than an older one.

F.e. Fallout 3 is a joke compared to Fallout 2, graphics are not going to change that.

Graphics can't make a bad game good. But not only are graphics an important aspect of the gaming experience, it is also laziness for a developer to make a game that shines in every aspect but the graphics. If the technology is available use it to the fullest. Why would anyone want developers not to do their very best in every aspect possible?Diablo-B

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"]Graphics can't make a bad game good. But not only are graphics an important aspect of the gaming experience, it is also laziness for a developer to make a game that shines in every aspect but the graphics. If the technology is available use it to the fullest. Why would anyone want developers not to do their very best in every aspect possible?RBerry82

Artistic style is more important to me than technical graphical capabilities, but it does allow greater freedom when applying your style. Also, it's very conducive to player immersion in the game world.

[QUOTE="RBerry82"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"]Graphics can't make a bad game good. But not only are graphics an important aspect of the gaming experience, it is also laziness for a developer to make a game that shines in every aspect but the graphics. If the technology is available use it to the fullest. Why would anyone want developers not to do their very best in every aspect possible?Diablo-B

No, I assure you it's the exact opposite. Investor and developer are not the same person in big productions, so the developers have to follow deadlines and budgets given by the person who grants the budget, regardless of their own opinions and wishes.

I really don't care.

There are so many more important aspects of a game, but pretty much all the focus seems to go on graphics. I hate that.

[QUOTE="RBerry82"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"]Graphics can't make a bad game good. But not only are graphics an important aspect of the gaming experience, it is also laziness for a developer to make a game that shines in every aspect but the graphics. If the technology is available use it to the fullest. Why would anyone want developers not to do their very best in every aspect possible?Diablo-B

How many gamers out there think that graphics are not very important when reviewing a game?Dorby5826and360

When reviewing a game? Graphics are very important. If you attached a poll to this thread and asked people whether they thought graphics were essential for a game, irrelevant or they couldn't care I reckon you'd have about a 50/50 split. There are plenty of readers out there who love pretty graphics and decent sound. Therefore, when reviewing a game, it's worth mentioning.

If graphics weren't important to a decent swab of purchasers then movies like Transformers and the 3rd Spiderman movie wouldn't sell.

To my opinion. I think graphics are an essential tool in creating an immersive atmosphere to further involve the gamer in the game they are playing. Same as music, voice acting, story telling and presentation. That said the most important factor in any game has to be the game play. Without decent gameplay all you have is pretty effects. Some of my favorite games still don't have fantastic graphics but they use what's available to create an experience that draws me in and makes me pay attention to a story. To be honest if a game had terrible graphics I probably wouldn't pick it up to play, unless it had some killer reviews.

Somy answer is I think they're very important when reviewing a game but less importnat when evaluating a game for personal play.

i think for me its more enviroment than graphics

like when i came out from that bunker next to the washington memorial in modern warfare 2, that was amazing

Well, it depends on the game. Tetris, I couldn't care less about the graphics.....they are there purely for functionality, nothing more. I recently started to play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. for the PC, now that I have a rig capable of running it. I began without any mods, then decided to install the complete 2009 mod pack which pretty much overhauled all the textures, added new particle effects, and so on. I must say, it's much more enjoyable with the new visual facelift (it's a '07 title and has aged poorly), as the atmosphere it creates is one of the main draws. Without it, it wouldn't be nearly as good.

So yea, it's all dependant on the game.

Graphics are certainly important, and I do care about them. But I care about how fun a game is more than how good it looks.

How many gamers out there think that graphics are not very important when reviewing a game?Dorby5826and360

I think we all appreciate good graphics, but for some people, like myself, they hardly make a mediocre game good or an new game better than an older one.

F.e. Fallout 3 is a joke compared to Fallout 2, graphics are not going to change that.

wide_ocean

Graphics add NOTHING for me as of late. In fact, I almost want to say that the more graphics evolve, the more I feel like I'm forced to hold unto a rope the whole way through a given game.

I agree the graphics are there to make a game look interesting, but I still will review a game mainly on gameplay and story, depending on the games focus.

I have gotten to the point where if a game does not feature widescreen support or optionally fails to play in a window, it is not getting played. Aspect ratio's that are off really bug me and swapping out monitors is not gonna happen.

A yeah, that is a function of graphics, just not quite what the OP had in mind.

EM

I do not want a game with bad graphics. If I get a game with good gameplay and good graphics, I am happy. If I get a game with great gameplay and good graphics, I am very happy. If I get a game with great gameplay and great graphics, I am estatic.

The focus of graphics often times gets in the way of the gameplay. That is the main problem. To put things in perspective, lets bring up tetris. The graphics do their job. The gameplay has been drilled into society so much so that, if the game didn't play properly, it would be noticeable by almost everyone. So, let's say the next iteration was some super high resolution-pieces are made out of polygons-elaborate backgrounds-hardware taxing sort of game, which in turn created stutters in the core gameplay. I don't think anybody would choose to play that version.

I remember being impressed by the visuals of the first Uncharted game. I like and enjoyed the game. However, there were so many bugs and glitches in respect to how the character would get stuck on the environment--sometimes to the point where the game would crash. Just the thought of knowing that your game could crash at any time takes away from the experience imo.

Graphics are very important if you ask me. Especially in games with a story. You can get away with some graphical hitches in sports games if the gameplay is top notch but for games like Final Fantasy and Heavy Rain the graphics have to be there. If I didn't really care about graphics I wouldn't really play video games instead opting for reading a book. When you can look around at a world and really take it in, it makes you feel like you're there.

Then again I disliked Killzone 2 but that game did itself in with the horrible story and clunky controls. I think I can usually deal with 2 out of 3 but 1 out of 3 isn't going to cut it (graphics, story, gameplay).

By the same token I absolutely enjoyed Silent Hill Shattered Memories for PS2. Obviously the graphics were poor by todays standards, heck they were clearly outmatched by their Wii counterpart. However the gameplay and story were top notch (again 2 out of 3), and it's not like the graphics were that bad either, just that at this point they're a little outdated.

Given that human beings are visual animals and that the primary method of delivering a video game is visually, I don't understand how anyone could "not care" about a game's graphics.

Visuals are important in a game, but gameplay, replay and sound design comes first imo, if we didn't care about graphics then we would still be playing NES and Atari games.wizdom

Check out my now playing list. There's Final Fantasy 13, Dante's Inferno and Super MArio World on SNES :)

To me graphics are somewhat important. I want them to be good in order to suit the game, not being amazing graphics, but much the game. Eg: borderlands would have been better wtihout those art graphics, they simply dont much the game. dakan45

Really? I think they match the game perfectly. It was one of the reasons I was interested in the game in the first place. Same as the 2008 Prince of Persia and XIII

Graphics add NOTHING for me as of late. In fact, I almost want to say that the more graphics evolve, the more I feel like I'm forced to hold unto a rope the whole way through a given game.

Heirren

That said I do agree with you a little. The computer gaming industry hasgrown greatly in the past 10 years or so and the story telling aspect of games is infinitely more important now. Take a look at Dante's Inferno. Great cinematics, great in game graphics, excellent environments...but the gameplay is very straightforward and the levels very linear. Almost like, as you say, they've spent all their development time on the graphics and cinematics to the detriment of gameplay and versatility.Suits me as I had a great time playing it but it does reinforce your point. Another good example would be FF13. From whta I've heard they've taken away a great deal of the exploration and "openess" taht made the games great and gone with a more linear style to complement strong storytelling. Can't offer an opinion myself as I'm only an hour in but it does seem to

Imagine if Mario Bros came out today with the story of, Princess gets captured, go to castle 1, beat bowser kid, she's not there, got to castle 2....oh wait w have that don't we :)

Whether we like it or not we are a media crazy society now and most people's expectations regarding graphics has grown to the point where games with a poor appearance just won't get played. It's good as stuff like that keep JAmes Cameron making bucketloads of cash prettying up already told stories (Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of his work but you have to admit the stories he tells aren't fresh :) )

Not at all. I've been playing many titles I;ve missed out on NES/SNES and they are extremely addicting.

Really? I think they match the game perfectly. It was one of the reasons I was interested in the game in the first place. Same as the 2008 Prince of Persia and XIIIChickan_117

I believe graphics do play an important part in games.

But despite that, I will always value story, music and enviroment over it.

To me graphics are somewhat important. I want them to be good in order to suit the game, not being amazing graphics, but much the game. Eg: borderlands would have been better wtihout those art graphics, they simply dont much the game. [QUOTE="wide_ocean"]

I think we all appreciate good graphics, but for some people, like myself, they hardly make a mediocre game good or an new game better than an older one.

F.e. Fallout 3 is a joke compared to Fallout 2, graphics are not going to change that.

dakan45

Fallout 2 is the deepest RPG game of the whole series. I felt that Fallout 3 was too combat focused. Fallout 2 had a better hand to hand combat system, a better targetting system (groin/eye, kicks/shots) a better skill system (non combat skills were implemented much deeper than just hacking computers or picking locks, many quests involved no combat at all). Fallout 2 had lots of details that made you feel much more involved in the surrounding (prizefighting, affiliation with different organized crime families etc.)

The things that Fallout 3 has and Fallout 2 has not can't compensate that, neither can visuals. At least for me.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

Graphics add NOTHING for me as of late. In fact, I almost want to say that the more graphics evolve, the more I feel like I'm forced to hold unto a rope the whole way through a given game.

Chickan_117

That said I do agree with you a little. The computer gaming industry hasgrown greatly in the past 10 years or so and the story telling aspect of games is infinitely more important now. Take a look at Dante's Inferno. Great cinematics, great in game graphics, excellent environments...but the gameplay is very straightforward and the levels very linear. Almost like, as you say, they've spent all their development time on the graphics and cinematics to the detriment of gameplay and versatility.Suits me as I had a great time playing it but it does reinforce your point. Another good example would be FF13. From whta I've heard they've taken away a great deal of the exploration and "openess" taht made the games great and gone with a more linear style to complement strong storytelling. Can't offer an opinion myself as I'm only an hour in but it does seem to

Imagine if Mario Bros came out today with the story of, Princess gets captured, go to castle 1, beat bowser kid, she's not there, got to castle 2....oh wait w have that don't we :)

Whether we like it or not we are a media crazy society now and most people's expectations regarding graphics has grown to the point where games with a poor appearance just won't get played. It's good as stuff like that keep JAmes Cameron making bucketloads of cash prettying up already told stories (Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of his work but you have to admit the stories he tells aren't fresh :) )

Too many of the hobbys kids and teens have revolve around the computer. Thats the problem. Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, Streaming Netflix, and even the phones they use these days stress almost all of those. Far too much time is spent on a material device--it's quite sad, imo. So I would say that the biggest problem, is the lack of IMAGINATION. I was estatic about Mario Bros. Same with A Link To The Past. The evolution of graphics as really added nothing to the younger gamer. I say this because when I see younger kids play games, they don't talk about the graphics or technical sides of things. It's the same kind of excitement I had when playing those older nes/snes games--more about the character and making that character do what you wanted it too. The story of todays games, while good in their own right I guess, detract from that attachement the player can get when playing a game. If the character is very detailed and fleshed out--especially in regards as to what he/she is about--there's not question that this doesn't let the player become more engulfed in the game, at least in a manner of speaking. If you look at whats popular now, it seems to be things along the lines of Pokemon/anime/etc--Simple design, where the goal is broad and leaves room for the player to fill in the gaps with things that the game/music/design INSPIRE them to think up.

I don't care about graphics any game can have good graphics then it can have bad camera angles which makes the game more harder to play and sometimes unplayable. The gameplay, controls and the camera angles are most important to any game I think

For me, not important at all.

But, in a review, as it should be focused in a broad section of game players, it should be very important, varying with the genre.In a FPS, for example, it should be the most important aspect, since it's the first thing the majority os the fans of genre look, on the other hand in managerial simulator, it should be much less important, just something to write a few lines about and add, or take away a few points if it is really good or bad.

And about fallout, in my humble opinion,

fallout 1 = astonishing creative, a true classic

fallout 2 = one of the greatest games of all times

fallout 3 = a good game, but with the bitter taste of deception

I don't factor it into the score unless it does two things:

1) It actually hinders the gameplay, i.e. enemies are hard to see, mission goals are hard to recognize etc.

2) It greatly, greatly enhances the experience, mostly in games that aim for a cinematic approach like Heavy Rain

Otherwise, I don't care much for it. It's a pretty face, but it's the gameplay that matters. I often like artistic direction more than just shiny, realistic graphics. Examples of that are Eternal Sonata, Okami and Braid. Of course, if a game has great or bad graphics, I point it out in my reviews, but that is more to show the technical aspects of the game, and there are some that value that highly. To me, though, graphics aren't all that important. Good to have? Yes. Necessary? To me, no.

I still play GC,N64 and SNES and PS1 games, so no. Graphics dont mean anything to me.

A tricky question.

If I know that a game is old, then I am under no illusion that the graphics are going to be poor.Therefore I never really take them in to consideration.

If I pick up a game these days then yes, I do expect very good graphics. The hardware these days is spectacular (and now with the release of DX11 capable cards, yummy) and so I expect devs to fully utilise everything they can. Plus, for newly released titles that cost £40 a shot then I expect graphics to match the price tag. However, I'd never slate a game just because it had a few mushy textures or a few cases of clipping - I'm fairly tolerant.

Ever try to play split screen on a game with low resolution textures and sprites and stuff? Awful. Graphics make the experience for me more enjoyable for one, but sometimes end up influencing the quality of your game play.

For me, not important at all.

But, in a review, as it should be focused in a broad section of game players, it should be very important, varying with the genre.In a FPS, for example, it should be the most important aspect, since it's the first thing the majority os the fans of genre look, on the other hand in managerial simulator, it should be much less important, just something to write a few lines about and add, or take away a few points if it is really good or bad.

And about fallout, in my humble opinion,

fallout 1 = astonishing creative, a true classic

fallout 2 = one of the greatest games of all times

fallout 3 = a good game, but with the bitter taste of deception

Open_Sights

You're right but which of the three sold the best though? That's why crap like Sony's Arc and MS Natal are being introduced. Reviews are written for the larger commercial market and therefore graphics will always be important as most paying consumers prize it above gameplay.

Just to throw this point out there. Let's not forget that graphical improvements allow the right companies to create better games in some instances. If there was never a drive for improved graphics we may not have made the move to usable 3D environments. Graphics, when done properly, canallow a better game experience by better navigation thru a world.

If graphics weren't important, as someone said above, everyone would still be playing older games. That said if graphics are important then why is the new Super Mario Bros game the best selling game of all time? And explain to me how Megaman 10 is so popular. I guess, to be fair, they have an immense fan base and a new game with similar graphical styling may not be so succesful but anyway...