Do graphics matter to you?

[Smokey]

When it comes to video games, are graphics important? Can a game still be "Great" or "Good" without stunning graphics nowadays? Personally, I think so. I love phenomenal graphics as much as the next person, but if a game has a compelling story and fun gameplay, graphics, at least in my opinion, can take a backseat. 

What about you? Do graphics make a game? Do they matter to you if the gameplay is good? 

[Shortie]

Graphics do not matter to me at all as long as the game I am playing is good in terms of the storyline. I would much rather play a game that has a great storyline and gets me drawn in than have great graphics and a terrible story line. I always feel that a good storyline for any game makes the game and really pulls you into the game and if the game is playable no matter how good the graphics are I am happy with that. 

[Knight Plug]

Well, I'd say yes, they are important. But I think in RE games, they are making everything too quiet and dark. There's barely any music. You can add the original soundtrack, which just feels meh. But really. The graphics aren't bad, but they just want everything to be too dark throughout practically every room you go into. It's not like that in older RE games. 

I still think the RE[1] remake on the GameCube has the most peachy graphics, despite coming out all the way back in 2002. I think it was out in March that year, but I got it in September, as the PAL release was late. If you had an Action Replay device, you could actually use it to play import games from other regions, months before it hit shelves wherever you may be. That was nifty, but then cheats got done away with, as well, it's cheating. Ain't it? 

I don't really like RE much anymore. It's not just because they are too dark. It's mainly just because the story is ass gravy now, and I think Capcom has hired some lame writers for their games. Plus, I don't know what to make of some of the zany stuff in RE8. But nonetheless, I felt it was a good series up to a point. And I do like RE4, as a general game judged by itself. Although it's hardly a sequel, as the plot is about the parasites in Europe. But it's not really like the previous games, which is why I say it's like RE had basically been turned into a new IP altogether, yet the name was carried across. And most of the games since 2005 have been uneven Steven. You know? But anyway, that's just because Capcom wanted to do different things each time, so of course some results will be bad, but some will still be effective.

[Shagger]

Whilst the graphics and aesthetics of a video game closely are connected, a game with bad graphics will be less apparelling to they eye than a a good with good graphics, they are not the same thing.

 

Weather or not a game's aesthetics are appealing and work to the mood and atmosphere a game is trying to create or not are tied into a number of things, mostly related to the creative vision of the game. Whatever style, ambiance, atmosphere or what (if anything) the game is trying to simulate is all tied up into the creator's vision. Any faults in with a game's aesthetics are down to a fault either with that vision, or a game's graphics to display that vision accurately.

 

Graphis are the technical part of the visuals, they have a function. They are there to display the game as the visual aid to help the player control the game accurately. Anything graphics do beyond that are just another part of the artistic vision of the game. The point is there is a difference between bad graphics and bad aesthetics, and it is very rare that we get a game with bad graphics as opposed to bad aesthetics in in this day in age.

 

Maybe this is better explained with examples. If parts of the user interface blend into the background making them hard to see, that's bad graphics. I'd also say if a game has low-res textures, graphical bugs and surfaces that look pixelated compared to the objects and environment around them, that's also bad graphics as the game is not displaying the objects and environment as envisaged by the creator accurately. Bad aesthetics is when the the game works fine, but the way things actually look don't work and serve to break immersion, interrupt the mood or otherwise distract the player. Or, perhaps, if environment, characters or objects are jus just flat out unappealing to look at, but depending on the games artistic vison that might be the goal, especially it's a horror game, so that doesn't always apply.

 

So ,do graphics matter to me? Yes, but all I really ask of them is to fulfil thier function as I described. I expect modern games to represent thier creators vision as accurately as the available technology will allow, but I won't dismiss a game for looking bit out of date. One of my favourite games in Tales of Berseria, a game that I admit has pretty dated visuals for a game that came out as late as 2017, but it's still a great game.

[runswithspatulas]

depends on the game. i don't much care for the graphics that minecraft offers up however, they have the same graphics in staxel but i don't mind that game. sometimes if the game play itself is good the graphics don't need to be perfect. however if it's a shooter then it's important to be able to see. so it varies for me.

[Knight Plug]

I remember people saying the fog and the radio in the SH games was also because of the limitations of the era, but they became a staple or recognisable asset to the series. Even the little doot doot sound when you pick up something, I like. You know it's a SH game if you hear the little noise.

[Empire]

Graphics only matters if you are trying to sell a game. Average consumers tend to judge the appearance of games is somehow equal to the quality of the game. Good luck trying to sell a retro style looking game for full $60. But end of the day your only can do what your PC can able to run the game at. I can play games on high and other games not on high. 

[Kane99]

Graphics do matter in some regards, but I don't think it's what makes a game. It's never a reason I decide to buy a game. I look at many more factors like gameplay, reviews, chatter among friends and social media, and so on. I take into account all of that and decide on getting the game off of that. And sometimes I still get a game even though it doesn't look interesting to me. 

Of course though, some graphics don't age well. A lot of the games during the PS1/N64/Dreamcast/Saturn generation don't look so great today. Early 3D graphics are the main problem. Back in the day they looked fine, but coming back to a lot of games, I found has been tough because of how rough the graphics were. Of course there are still good looking 3D games back then, but I think with it being still new to develop in, developers were just getting used to the idea of 3D gaming. So it took time to make it perfect, and in turn the graphics too. I think these past two generations have gone to a point where graphics look good enough, at least to me. I could go back to the 360 and look at a game and think how good it looks for a game from 2006 or something. HD gaming will look good for a long time to come. But retro 3D is a bit tougher to take in I think. 

[Smokey]

23 hours ago, thesaunderschild said:

I remember people saying the fog and the radio in the SH games was also because of the limitations of the era, but they became a staple or recognisable asset to the series. Even the little doot doot sound when you pick up something, I like. You know it's a SH game if you hear the little noise.

Yes, exactly, the fog was to make it so that texture pop-in wasn't as noticeable due to the draw distance allowed  due to the limitations of the original playstation. In turn, doing this as a unique way to hide such limitations, created an eerie atmosphere that became a staple of the series. 

[Kyng]

I think good graphics are in the "Nice to have" category. 

If a game has poor graphics, but has engaging gameplay, then I'll still enjoy it regardless - whereas if a game has shoddy gameplay, good graphics won't save it. It's like putting lipstick on a pig. 

With that being said, a game isn't going to make it onto my "Favourites of all time" list unless it has at least okay graphics 😛 . 

[Moonface]

To me, art style matters more than graphic quality. Nintendo games for example rarely have graphics that push the limit of what can be done or set a benchmark, but they always look good because of a very solid art style. It's why despite the graphical quality being very high, I think every single one of those Unreal Engine remakes of a Nintendo game you see on YouTube look absolutely awful; they strip away the art style of the original game in favor of super high levels of realistic detail, which just don't work for those games.

Other things like gameplay and story and such also matter more than graphics, because The Order: 1886 on PS4 was designed with very good graphics but other than that had very little going for it. Minecraft for example is not a game with high detailed graphics, yet has sold more copies than anything else. In fact, out of the 10 best selling games of all time, I'd argue only two of them feature graphics that are highly detailed; the rest are games that look good because of their art style and not their graphical fidelity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

[killamch89]

Graphics are nice to have but honestly, other things are even more important to me like the gameplay mechanics and story. I'd rather play a game with poor graphics but great gameplay and story rather than the inverse.

[The Blackangel]

This is a hard one. I play 8 bit graphics all the time, but then again I play games like RDR2 all the time as well. I think it all depends on the era your playing and what you're playing. I can't imagine SMB on NES having graphics like we see in RDR2. But then the reverse is also true. I can't imagine RDR2 having graphics like we have on the NES. So it just depends on the game and the era it was released. Which also means it can vary wildly from game to game.