Are graphics important or not?

[Zoglog]

I know there are many people on this board who claim that graphics have no merit in video games. Personally I think they're just narrowminded and whatever but hey that's just me. I think it's a side effect of people getting hyped about graphics only to end up with a crappy game yet people still give it achievement. Some people find that rediculous apparently since it wasn't a good game overall. And often they seem gameplay being suffered at the cost of graphics development so they just take an absolutist stance which is rediculous in my opinion.

to me graphics are a necessary evolution that people take for granted and therefore some people may consider them superfluous. However graphics technology enhances things like framerate and immersiveness that indeed make a game great (like GTA series when it was taken 3D). The game had many flawed elements but it was damn fun to play downright and the story made it engaging.

Now sure some people may still not agree and say gameplay is all that matters. Well can you create good gameplay if all you could display was 1 pixel on a 1x1 pixel screen? I'm taking it to a theoretical extreme bare minimum here but if that's the case one would clearly see that graphics evolution is not something to be bitter and nazish about but to embrace.

Just my thoughts on the whole thing =p

[peteloaf]

Saying graphics aren't important is like saying you don't like you don't like Adam Sandler movies*. Most people say it as an image/coolness thing, but everybody does. If graphics weren't important why the hype for Xbox 360/Playstation 3? Why are there $600 video cards for the PC? Why are people mad about Nintendo skipping HD on the next gen. Because graphics matter.

*Not sure if everybody likes Adam Sandler movies, it's just an example...

[jkam]

I think they matter to a certain degree. Some franchises were actually more fun in 2D then they were in 3D. I think the same goes the other way around. When I played Prince of Persia Sands of Time it just felt like a completely different game than the one I played on the NES back in the day. The graphics, the voices, and story gave the game real life.

There are some games I can enjoy to this day that don't offer much in terms of graphics but hold up for me because they are just plain fun. That is what a game should be anyway...fun.

I think most people can pick out the good games from the bad and no graphical presentation can save a truly bad game. I wouldn't mind seeing a future with 2 and 3D games because I enjoy both.

[megashock5]

Great games can have sub-par graphics and horrible games can have great graphics, but they do have some importance.

I want better graphics from one generation of consoles to the next, but that doesn't necessarily mean more realistic.

So many companies seem very focused on making things photorealistic, and I guess that has a place in traditional sports and racing games, etc. However, look at the graphical improvement from Super Mario 64 to Super Mario Sunshine (not talking gameplay, just visuals here), it's a definite leap in graphic quality without going toward a realistic look. I just hope there are enough games this next gen that skew toward a more colorful, less realistic style.

And you're right, jkam - 3D and 2D should both be viable options in game design no matter how advanced the technology becomes.

[willardhaven]

I agree, graphics matter as long as the gameplay comes first.

For that matter, graphical variety is imporant too. I read in Penny-Arcade I believe "when someone discovered sculpture, artists did not stop painting". 3d is great, but I love fully 2d games as well. I'd love a fun game with average graphics far more than a crappy game with amazing graphics. If graphics were everything I'd just watch tv.

[punqsux]

i hate adam sandler comedies.

i love when he is in actual movies, like the wedding singer or punch drunk love, but hes just not aht funny, same goes for jim carrey.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Good design is good design, independent of graphics. Having more things to work that design around though is nice.

I'm playing Koudelka for the PS1 right now. it looks like ass. but its the only game ive ever seen to attempt to blend together surival horror and tactical rpg. Its great. I actually intend to play nothing but PS1 games for the rest of the year.

Graphics can help you get immersed in the experience, but if you've been a gamer beyond this current generation, then you've been absorbed into things that look like ass.

Its all icing on the Cake. Perhaps when that power is used for new things like AI or Physics, we'll have something more substantial to talk about. Graphics certainly matter more to some than others. Those who are whining about HD for the Revolution are an insignificant minority. It just so happens that members on a gaming related forum arent just a representative sample of the population.

Gaming has gotten more mainstream as of late, and has drawn in a lot more superficial people who play one game and all of a sudden are 'gamers'

And Adam Sandler movies do indeed suck.

[madmage]

Graphics dont make the game but they can make it better. Graphics create immersive enviroments and bring you into the world you are playing in. However, if the storyline and gameplay suck then graphics are just eye candy and they dont make the game worth playing (hence why i did not like far cry).

[Mospeada_21]

Video Games = Video display w Gameplay. Good & great graphics are par. Poor graphics stand out. Gameplay, the most important element. (Sound is important, too)

[The VGM]

They are important. I don't want to go into detail and explain what I think on the subject, I'm just going to say that they are important.

[Ecofreak]

I, too, think graphics are important. But there's a point of diminishing returns and I'm not too sure how the generation after the next is going to be better graphically unless it's all photo realisitc.

[PsyKyX]

Good design is good design, independent of graphics. Having more things to work that design around though is nice.

I'm playing Koudelka for the PS1 right now. it looks like ass. but its the only game ive ever seen to attempt to blend together surival horror and tactical rpg. Its great. I actually intend to play nothing but PS1 games for the rest of the year.

Graphics can help you get immersed in the experience, but if you've been a gamer beyond this current generation, then you've been absorbed into things that look like ass.

Its all icing on the Cake. Perhaps when that power is used for new things like AI or Physics, we'll have something more substantial to talk about. Graphics certainly matter more to some than others. Those who are whining about HD for the Revolution are an insignificant minority. It just so happens that members on a gaming related forum arent just a representative sample of the population.

Gaming has gotten more mainstream as of late, and has drawn in a lot more superficial people who play one game and all of a sudden are 'gamers'

And Adam Sandler movies do indeed suck.

I'm not trying to generalize or anything but it seems that those that didn't come from gaming back in the day can't fathom playing a game that doesn't "look so cool!". It's not just younger gamers either. It's those that just didn't play. It's sad, since we've lost genre's and mutilated/merged others. Take adventure back then, hard as hell and expansive and all that jazz... with the acceptance of 3D we lost a lot of that adventure type game and it started to fold over with platforming. Platforming and adventure are almost the same type of game today.
For those that say graphics are a lot, they are missing out.
Once I was playing Sonic Mega Collection and some friends came over. One guy said the game was "whack" (I was playing Sonic & Knuckles BTW) 'cause the graphics "looked like ass, and sucked." I personally think S&K looks great for it's time.
Basically, if you care about graphics that much you miss out. Katamari doesn't have the best graphics but it is a cult hit, of course many people haven't played it 'cause it "looks like ass" but whatever.
Graphics do help the game along but don't deliver the gameplay.

[Quackzilla]

Play Metroid: Zero Mission (GBA remake of original), then play the NES version.

Yeah, I thought so.

[RBM]

Since game graphics seem to suck up a disproportionate amount of the develoment budget for games and some folks feel that their contribution is not equally proportionate in the final product, it's an easy point to complain about. "Why did you turkeys spend so much money & focus so much on improving the graphics, only to neglect basic faults in the game mechanics? You guys just made it prettier, added cosmetic changes and milked me for another fifty dollars for yet another un-innovative, over-hyped first person shooter/real-time strategy title, or Dynasty Warriors/Armored Core installment, etc."

However, it's too broad a statement to say that graphic quality isn't as important as storyline/voice talent/fight engine/physics engine/etc. Does focusing on graphics drive hardware purchases? Darn tootin'. Do better graphics improve immersion in a game and heighten the enjoyment? They sure can. Do I want eye candy wrapped around an overall crummy game? No. Bottom line for me: if I were on a software development team or publishing company, I'd pay close attention to graphics quality, because pretty game clips most likely translate into better sales...however, I'd try not to fall prey to graphical "tunnel vision," because in the long run, a pretty & crappy game's reputation will spread and even if it's profitable, your name will be associated in the public's (admittedly short-lived) memory with bad titles.

[RelentlessRolento]

good examples of this put to use: Killer 7, Rez, Fantavision, Vib Ribbon

also... if anyone thinks graphics don't matter when playing a game, try playing Ninja Gaiden with a blank screen and only sound... yeah... it sucks.

[Trakan]

i hate adam sandler comedies.

i love when he is in actual movies, like the wedding singer or punch drunk love, but hes just not aht funny, same goes for jim carrey.

Wedding Singer was an Adam Sandler comedy. ;)

I think that graphics definitely do matter in some games, not all.

[Mookyjooky]

Of course graphics matter... its the 1st impression.

If you see a girl, and she has a bangin ass...the most lushious tits you've ever seen... but you take her to you're house and she has a raging case of vaginosis so bad it looks like someone dumped a pint of cottage cheese on her vulva and cinnamon ring.... are you gonna stay and play?

See may look awesome.... the hottest you've ever seen... but that only gets so far.

[Kayden]

Good graphics don't ensure a good game and bad graphics don't automatically make a game bad.

I enjoy Super Mario 1 more than Sunshine. I like Chrono Trigger more than the last Saga game. However, in its day, CT took graphics to a whole new level, it was the Doom 3 of its time. I think a lot of games with poor graphics are launch titles. They're reason for sucking is two fold. One, they don't have the graphics down and two they don't have the controls down. Neither of those excuse a poor story, but I'm babbling.

System Shock 2 has clunky graphics but its engrossing and scary.

I'm don't want to say people shouldn't make things visually astonding, but I do think they shouldn't forget to work on the quality of the actual gameplay.

[Apossum]

I think they can make a good thing better. and why not make them look good nowadays? I'm not talking amazing, just designed with decent aesthetics in mind.

They can also ruin my experience though-- I can't stand playing many PS1 games with choppy polygon graphics-- they really haven't stood the test of time like sprites have. there's only a few i still play.

[dtcarson]

Sure, graphics matter. I'd rather play a cool looking good game, than a crappy looking good game. But I'd rather play a crappy looking good game than a cool looking crappy game.
Crappy crappy crappy, I tells ya.
Anyway, I think it's not that people don't think graphics are important, but that more people need to realize that great graphics doesn't necessarily translate into great game.
This is all about 'playing' games. There are some games I wouldn't mind watching, because they look cool, but I personally don't like the way they play.

[javeryh]

Graphics matter.

[Parathod]

Graphics are important, but not in a "this game has more polygons than this one" way. It's all about style and flair. There are plenty of SNES games with graphics that are more appealing than current generation games.

[javeryh]

Graphics are important, but not in a "this game has more polygons than this one" way. It's all about style and flair. There are plenty of SNES games with graphics that are more appealing than current generation games.

I don't know about "plenty"...

1. Yoshi's Island
2. Super Metroid

I think that's the list...

[guyver2077]

hell yea graphics are everything!!

[punqsux]

are graphics important? well it depends on what youre asking if they are important to the relation to.

graphics mean nothing when it comes to gameplay, ill play the worst looking abomination if it offers quality gameplay.

graphics are however important to the total immersion of the game and enviroment. obviusly graphics have to suit games too, like how 2d still works great for rpgs and strat games, but shooters have moved into 3d.

are graphics important to me? no. its all about gameplay, good graphics are nice, but if theres nothing to back it up, i wont be playing it.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

They matter, if the game in question is more of an experience than just a game. Really shitty graphics can take you out of the game (MGS) Or they can make it much better (Doom 3).

[Scrubking]

Are graphics important? Of course they are important. The name videogame denotes some kind of visual aspect so you can't have a "videogame" without some kind of visuals.

The real question is: Are high-res textures, Real-time lighting and shadows, high polygon models, etc, important?

No.

The gaming industry doesn't want you to believe this. They base their livelyhood on the pretty eye-candy that satisfies the simple minded. If they can get you to buy their game with impressive graphics then they have done their job. Graphics are about advertising - most people always go for the box with the better graphics. Do you think ATI or Nvidia would be selling overpriced $500 videocards if they didn't brainwash gamers into believing graphics are what matter? It's about getting in the door of your wallet. Once the nice visuals have lured you into wasting your money it doesn't matter if there is actually any substance to the "game" they are selling. They don't care - they already have your money. With rentals and reviews the chances are a little better that crap games don't get bought, but still gamers will be lured in.

Enjoying a game only for it's graphics and story is like appreciating a Ferrari for its stylish curves instead of what it was designed for - performance. Gamers seem to have forgotten that they are buying GAMES. Not a CGI movie, not a book but a game. A game is something that you INTERACT with. If you have no interaction then you have no game. That interaction is what a game is to be judged by NOT the accompanying elements. You don't say a steak was the best steak ever if you only smelled it, do you? For a steak to be great it has to taste great. So why do so many gamers do the same with games? They see a good story, they see nice graphics and all of a sudden they completely ignore the core element of what they are judging - the gameplay.

I fault the gaming industry mostly for this backwards outlook on games. They are the ones pushing high-res textures down our throats. They are the ones saying that these things are the most important because making pretty pictures is a hell of a lot easier than making a fun, compelling game that is new or unique.

Sadly this perverted outlook on games doesn't look to ever be righted. Every new game that hits the shelf emphasizes story, graphics and cutscenes more and more. I don't buy games to watch them - that's what movies are for. I buy games to play them - as everyone should.

[Blade]

Not important.

Graphics are minor. If a game is nothing but a giant FMV sequence of Chuck Norris beating up old women and only requires you to press the X button every two minutes, however awesome the concept might be, nobody will buy it.

On a note, I become disappointed when I read a review that deducts points for "poor graphics" or "this game hasn't aged well." When I noticed that Final Fantasy Dawn of Souls received mediocre scores due to graphics, I thought about cockslapping the EGM staff.

In truth, all regular gamers are graphics whores. Celebrities like TO and LeBron are always pictured playing the most visually stimulating games on 50" televisions. Everyone that knows enough about gaming to discern between a PS2 and a PSP sees these commercials and tries to emulate these celebrities. It's uncouth and uncalled for because we play video games to get away from reality.

Nothing can match the graphics of everyday life. With this said, the story should be the only important thing in a game. Story, script, gameplay, music, and then graphics.

That's how I roll.

[onikage]

On a scale of 1-10, this is the importance I place on the aspects of a game:

Gameplay: 10
Sound: 8
Control: 8
Story: 7
Graphics: 6

Gameplay comes first, followed by sound and control. Story is fairly important but not always necessary. Graphics come last but are still an important part of the game.

[punqsux]

i would say control is equally important as gameplay, as you cannot have good gameplay with poor controls. i also feel graphics are more important than sound. story...it depends on the game and how much of a tale it is.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

On a scale of 1-10, this is the importance I place on the aspects of a game:

Gameplay: 10
Sound: 8
Control: 8
Story: 7
Graphics: 6

Gameplay comes first, followed by sound and control. Story is fairly important but not always necessary. Graphics come last but are still an important part of the game.

All you need for a great game is gameplay and control. Everything else just enhances (or detracts from if it's rubbish) the experience.

[FriskyTanuki]

Of course graphics are important. If you're not able to convey the experience that you want the player to have with some success, it can take the player out of the game and can ultimately lead to a unsatisfactory experience. Burnout 3 wouldn't be nearly as fun if Criterion couldn't be able to get the message across to the player that they're going 150+ MPH in heavy traffic. Of course gameplay and controls are a little bit more important, but you've got to have an overall well made package to be a good game. If your car slid around a poorly designed course, you wouldn't care how it looked because you'd be cursing the devs for not making it fun. It also works vice versa, as if you couldn't tell what the fuck was going on onscreen, then you wouldn't care much if it had cool new gameplay and tight controls.