Let's have a little discussion on graphics and how important they are.

I honestly won't play a game with bad graphics. I don't mean like ps1 era 3d where it doesn't match up to today's graphics, I mean genuinely bad graphics. I always look for nice art and visuals in a game.

What do you guys think? Graphics important or is it only gameplay that matters?

well
i don't think their as important
like 40% graphics and 60% gameplay
but thats just my opinion

For me, I kinda think of it as a game with great graphics as a bonus. I'd play them as much as I'd play a game with okay graphics and sub par graphics. I mean, of the graphics are just too ugly, i won't buy it, but most times, I buy a game because of the game play. If it has breathtaking graphics as well, that's fantastic.

Same can be said as I won't just but a game because of amazing graphics, (I.E. Crysis).

I do have to admit that while I think graphics are important, I dunno about AS important as the gameplay, I think my view is more 40/60 or maybe even 45/55

i think a big misconception a lot of 'hardcore' gamers make is when they hear "good graphics" they assume that means "expensive graphics that take a long time and a lot of people and money to make, so the budget won't be spent as much on gameplay-related things," and they get all defensive; this just shows that they don't know anything about art (some gamers are uncultured manchildren?? shocking i know) at all or what makes a game visually appealing (it also is their chance to try to appear like a unique snowflake when they stand up and say "I JUST THINK GAMEPLAY MATTERS")
hint: visual appeal is not how many polygons are in something, or wait uh-oh what about all that art that existed before computers those don't have any!!
it really surprises me that i saw someone think that here on the fucking spriter's resource, you know the place that has pixel art from video games, some of which looks good!! and sometimes isn't complex too!! or at least would be less complex to make than the graphics from your average high-budget Xbox 360/PS3 title

now this explains why it isn't hard to make good graphics (sort of, i'm not about to get into a full-on explanation of what fucking aesthetics is) but not really WHY visually appealing graphics are more necessary than you might think, i will probably post again later w/ that!! unless giz posts in here about that b/c I know he has before (in other places) and might be able to explain it better than me

If a game can't afford good graphics, odds are it can't afford good gameplay let's say... 6 or 7 times out of ten. That's not to say that a game with bad graphics is an unlikeable experience overall, and also it's not saying that a game that has worse graphics compared to another because of system or cost limitations doesn't mean that a game is worse gameplay wise.

Err, I guess what I'm saying is that a game has to be fun first and foremost. Then the decision on how good the graphics are kind of stems from the company that made it, how much they could afford and how much time they could have taken to make it look great.

But if there's one thing I know, I'm getting sick of games that look grey and brown. Pfft.

I usually say that gameplay is more important than the graphics. The game could at least have decent graphics, but it doesn't have to blow my mind.

If the game looks really bad, well, chances are I'm not going to play it. I'll still play games with bad graphics, as game play makes is what makes the game fun; but looking at graphics alone, I probably wouldn't play the game.

Graphics are what draws you in, gameplay is what keeps you there.

I personally view "Good graphics" as graphics that achieve the aesthetic style the creator intended. I'd like to cite in particular the game Runman for my point.



The game is pretty much entirely done in an MS Paint style, but its simplicity, colorful levels, and childlike drawings are what makes it so appealing to look at. A game doesn't have to have artwork by Da Vinci to have good graphics, it just has to have a sort of constant style that stands out as the artistic direction of the game.

(06-20-2010, 12:10 PM)TheProtalGruru Wrote: I personally view "Good graphics" as graphics that achieve the aesthetic style the creator intended. I'd like to cite in particular the game Runman for my point.



The game is pretty much entirely done in an MS Paint style, but its simplicity, colorful levels, and childlike drawings are what makes it so appealing to look at. A game doesn't have to have artwork by Da Vinci to have good graphics, it just has to have a sort of constant style that stands out as the artistic direction of the game.

yes this is also all true

yes, this is a fact: graphics are very important.

however it isn't quite as simple as people would like it to be - it isn't an issue of "good graphics" (high polygon count, etc.) versus "bad graphics". its more about "better graphics" versus "worse graphics". in other words, it isn't solely a matter of individual quality, its a matter of how well the graphics represent the concepts and ideas within the game. how much they fit, and how well they show the action and environments. its as much about personality, style, coherency and cohesiveness as it is individual quality.

a simplistic gameboy style game can still have "better" graphics than a massive 3D action game with a million polygons.

would say more but i gotta go!!

It honestly depends for me

I couldn't care about the graphics most of the time, but nice graphics tend to be a plus for me

But really, it's all a matter of defining what "good graphics" are. I have several friends that absolutely hate Team Fortress 2 because of the cartoony graphics, and yet I personally love the game for the art style.

It honestly depends on the atmosphere the game is trying to give to me. TF2 is a goofy game, so goofy graphics work for it. Madworld is supposed to be a surreal game with a ton of gore, so the black-white-red color scheme worked well for it. Hell, Wind Waker went with a cartoon style to match its comic atmosphere, and it worked. And yet people will despise these games for the stylish direction it went in

Really, I'm getting tired of the "super realistic graphics" that *every* *game* *is* *trying* *to* *pull* *off*. It's become so mainstream nowadays to make the visuals as realistic as possible that it's not that cool anymore. When we got the first games to pull off stunning visuals and made the games seem too real, they were literally the best things in the world. Now? It's just redundant to see how many games there are today that have the "realism" going for them.




But as long as the game is fun, I could honestly care less.

well another problem with realistic graphics is that it's basically just going "look this is how far we can push this technology, wow!!!" and it impresses everyone for a few months or a year or two, but then technology improves and no one gives a shit
since they had literally nothing going for them (aesthetically) other than being new and fancy, by their nature they must become outdated

Couldn't agree more. Games have just lost that unique artistic style that made you look at them and go "Hey, that's ______!" Now, everything looks the same. It's horrible.

As long as it isn't a game like sonic 06 then really I could view graphics as an important factor.
Really Gameplay is a hell is more important then graphics, but I don't want the graphics like an eye sore ether. It goes both ways