How much do graphics matter to you?

Are they more or less important than the gameplay? Do you like games with original art styles or realistic graphics more? I'm just wondering because there are so many threads on which game has better graphics. For me, it ranks like this:

8. presentation

7. sound design

6. music

5. voice acting

4. graphics

3. art style

2. story

1. gameplay

I don't think it affects gameplay negativly when graphics are bad, but it affects it positivly when they are good. For example, I would have had as much fun as I did playing gta4 if it had bad graphics, but it is more fun if the graphics are good. Als, I would take a good art stlye even if the graphics suck to a game with crazy graphics and gray, bland graphics. An example would be that I like okami's graphics more than killzone 2's. What are all your thoughs?

Original art styles are always more interesting, but I am partial to some realistic graphics from time to time.

Aslong as neither compensate for anything else in the game, its all good.

It really just depends on the game.

But for sports games, most fps, 5racing games and rts i'd want good graphics, other genres like puzzle, mmo, rpg and action adventure maybe not so muh.

About this much:

To me, graphics are extremely important. They are the #1 reason why console makers make new consoles every generation.

If I get a game and the developer did a lazy job with the graphics, and the game is mediocre, I won't play it. If the game is mediocre and the graphcis are AAA, then it makes the game tolerable.

Graphics to me, don't need to be technically OMFG WTFBBQ Crysis level kind of graphics, as long as they suit the kind of feel of the game then thats all that matters. For example, Mega Man 9, the game looks like it was made 20 years ago, but I like it. But then take a game like Killzone 2, it's set in the midst of a huge war, I want technically impressive graphics there to make it feel more believeable, as though im actually in the battle and what not.

Long story short, as long as they suit the game then thats all that matters.

They don't matter unless they have a negitive impact on a game. Meaning that they are detrimental.Blackbond

That's impossible. Graphics can't negatively affect a game unless they make it impossibel to see whats happening on the screen. Other than that, they can only enhance a gaming experience.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]They don't matter unless they have a negitive impact on a game. Meaning that they are detrimental.phantom-4112

That's impossible. Graphics can't negatively affect a game unless they make it impossibel to see whats happening on the screen. Other than that, they can only enhance a gaming experience.

You say its impossible, but then give an example of how its possible....

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]They don't matter unless they have a negitive impact on a game. Meaning that they are detrimental.phantom-4112

That's impossible. Graphics can't negatively affect a game unless they make it impossibel to see whats happening on the screen. Other than that, they can only enhance a gaming experience.

Wrong

1. Bad Frame Rates
2. Bad Draw Distances
3. Pop Ups
4. Clipping
5. Texturing Meshing
6. Screen Tearing
7. Killzone's Fog Zone
8. SFIV being 3D instead of 2D

Those being my own personal examples with #6 being personal taste.

It depends on the genre of game really. I expect certain games to pursue realism (e.g. FPSs) and others not so much (RPGs). Upcoming cell-shaded games such as Valkyria Chronicles look really great I think. I've learned from past gens that though I always say gameplay is most important great graphics can fool me into thinking the gameplay is awesome when really it's not, a retrospective realisation.

Well they matter alot since the whole point of getting NEW systems is updated everything.

I am not paying that extra money for nothing. If graphics were not a thing games would be about 40 and not $60.

Well they matter alot since the whole point of getting NEW systems is updated everything.

I am not paying that extra money for nothing. If graphics were not a thing games would be about 40 and not $60.

chaoz-king

How would graphics determine price?

[QUOTE="phantom-4112"]

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]They don't matter unless they have a negitive impact on a game. Meaning that they are detrimental.Blackbond

That's impossible. Graphics can't negatively affect a game unless they make it impossibel to see whats happening on the screen. Other than that, they can only enhance a gaming experience.

Wrong

1. Bad Frame Rates
2. Bad Draw Distances
3. Pop Ups
4. Clipping
5. Texturing Meshing
6. Screen Tearing
7. Killzone's Fog Zone
8. SFIV being 3D instead of 2D

Those being my own personal examples with #6 being personal taste.

Some of those don't have to do with graphics and are technical problems, but I see your point. But if you had read my post, I said they cant affect gameplay unless they make it impossible to see whats going on in the game. Like that one ghost recon. I cant remember the name but I could not tell what was going on at all. It was annoying. Or oblivio. Great game, but the framerate issues and draw distance annoy me a lot.

[QUOTE="chaoz-king"]

Well they matter alot since the whole point of getting NEW systems is updated everything.

I am not paying that extra money for nothing. If graphics were not a thing games would be about 40 and not $60.

SpruceCaboose

How would graphics determine price?

Crysis costs $100 thats why.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]They don't matter unless they have a negitive impact on a game. Meaning that they are detrimental.phantom-4112

That's impossible. Graphics can't negatively affect a game unless they make it impossibel to see whats happening on the screen. Other than that, they can only enhance a gaming experience.

Incorrect. There's more than one way that graphics can negatively affect a game. One of the things about level design is that not only does the level have to be different in terms of layout and enemies in say an FPS, but it also has to look different too to get the player to feel that they're going somewhere, that they're making progress.

They certainly make the game much more enjoyable for me. I appreciate good art styles more than anything.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="chaoz-king"]

Well they matter alot since the whole point of getting NEW systems is updated everything.

I am not paying that extra money for nothing. If graphics were not a thing games would be about 40 and not $60.

Blackbond

How would graphics determine price?

Crysis costs $100 thats why.

I admit, I laughed.

[QUOTE="chaoz-king"]

Well they matter alot since the whole point of getting NEW systems is updated everything.

I am not paying that extra money for nothing. If graphics were not a thing games would be about 40 and not $60.

SpruceCaboose

How would graphics determine price?

Graphics don't. But it takes much longer to make games now a days. Everything takes more time to do. More time of working = more money.

It depends on the cost of the video game. For example: I would never buy Spiderman 3 for the Wii. majadamus

[QUOTE="phantom-4112"]

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]They don't matter unless they have a negitive impact on a game. Meaning that they are detrimental.Technoweirdo

That's impossible. Graphics can't negatively affect a game unless they make it impossibel to see whats happening on the screen. Other than that, they can only enhance a gaming experience.

Incorrect. There's more than one way that graphics can negatively affect a game. One of the things about level design is that not only does the level have to be different in terms of layout and enemies in say an FPS, but it also has to look different too to get the player to feel that they're going somewhere, that they're making progress.

Thats still more in the technical and presentation sides of games, but I totaly agree with you. Bad level design can ruin a game. Just like bad voice acting.

It depends on the game. TF2's visual design helps the game express its character a whole lot. STALKER's visuals help retain the dark, gritty atmosphere. Also CoH's visuals are gameplay changing in a way like the destruction of buildings and such.

But with games like Crysis, in which they're only really for show, don't matter that much to me.

on the technical side....there effect is not as big on me anymore. some games like crysis get a wow....but then i just start playing and stop noticing the perty. i dont analyse all the effects going on or anything. so on that front im beginning to care less. HD and the lack there of also dont bother me...ill happily go from playing my PC at better than HD resolutions to the 360 and to the wii.

all i expect of graphics now is that there pleasent to look at overall, the game runs smoothly and theres no pixelated effect (obhiously i dont hold that standard to older games....ill play FF7 in its origonal form no problem). i dont mind if its 2d or 3d or isometric or not. if its pleasent too look at then im happy on the graphics front. art direction is more important than technical capability too.

About this much:

SpruceCaboose

Thats what she said!!!!

*runs out of thread*

A little. Gameplay is more important IMO.

Are they more or less important than the gameplay? Do you like games with original art styles or realistic graphics more? I'm just wondering because there are so many threads on which game has better graphics. For me, it ranks like this:

8. presentation

7. sound design

6. music

5. voice acting

4. graphics

3. art style

2. story

1. gameplay

I don't think it affects gameplay negativly when graphics are bad, but it affects it positivly when they are good. For example, I would have had as much fun as I did playing gta4 if it had bad graphics, but it is more fun if the graphics are good. Als, I would take a good art stlye even if the graphics suck to a game with crazy graphics and gray, bland graphics. An example would be that I like okami's graphics more than killzone 2's. What are all your thoughs?

phantom-4112

Are you enjoying your Wii?

graphics barely matter to me. there are older, less pretty games that blow games like Crysis out of the water.

until they start screwing up the gameplay, then it matters. little graphical annoyances don't matter to me.

I think you should ask how much do graphics matter to fanboys.

PS3: 100% "Our graphics > You're graphics"

360: 60% "We have good games that have great graphics"

Wii: 0% "Fun is all that matters to me and my family"

gameplay and grafics have about a 60/40 split.

turn off your TV...your playing a game without grafics

disconnect your controler, your either playing metal gear solid 4 or a game without gameplay.

I think you should ask how much do graphics matter to fanboys.

PS3: 100%

360: 60%

Wii: 0%

Truth_Hurts_U

That's just stupid. I own a PS3 and trust me graphics are not tops in my books. You need to have good gameplay, sound, story is helpful but not needed (see MGS 4's terribly written story). I still play Ps1 games because they are amazingly fun and even though the graphics are terrible by todays standards they don't effect my opinion of the game or make it a poor game.

I find myself having more fun with simple games, and games from the 80s and 90s much more. Skill and gameplay to me are the best. I love 2d fighters also.

I think the only real genre that is great for graphics is FPS, i think they need to age with technology. Maybe some RPG games.

One thing i like bout guitar hero is it reminds me of old games where its just bout the high score and bragging rights

That's just stupid. I own a PS3 and trust me graphics are not tops in my books. You need to have good gameplay, sound, story is helpful but not needed (see MGS 4's terribly written story). I still play Ps1 games because they are amazingly fun and even though the graphics are terrible by todays standards they don't effect my opinion of the game or make it a poor game.

whackedjob213

Henc why I said fanboys.

I too have more fun with PS1 and PS2 games then PS3 games.

But all the fanboys talk about is "THE CELLL", "THE BLU RAYYYY"and "THE RSXXX". "With there powers combined I am PS3"... "The most over hyped system ever!!!"

This is how much I care. STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl>>>>Crysis.

impressive graphics to me can mean 2 different things

-how pretty the game is. Beefing up the framerate, smoothing out the character models, just adding more muscle to the game to clean it up. I like looking at games like this, but the more I play them, the less I notice. Conversely, if I play a graphically unimpressive game like on the n64 I am initially turned off by the graphics but warm to them as I play.

-expanding the game. Bigger environments, more characters on the screen, more detail. This is the kind of upgrade that I actually notice more and more as I play.

[QUOTE="phantom-4112"]

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]They don't matter unless they have a negitive impact on a game. Meaning that they are detrimental.Blackbond

That's impossible. Graphics can't negatively affect a game unless they make it impossibel to see whats happening on the screen. Other than that, they can only enhance a gaming experience.

Wrong

1. Bad Frame Rates
2. Bad Draw Distances
3. Pop Ups
4. Clipping
5. Texturing Meshing
6. Screen Tearing
7. Killzone's Fog Zone
8. SFIV being 3D instead of 2D

Those being my own personal examples with #6 being personal taste.

lol at 8 :lol: i think they shouldve done some amazing 2d HD art st yle with uber special effects and 60fps framerate. or they couldve done something much more similar to the teaser trailer.