How important is graphics to you???

[peace4myheart]

I had my first taste of PS3 goodness yesterday at a friend's house. Call of Duty 4 in all its 720p glory on a 50" HDTV, my goodness!!! Before, I was content with my little sprites on my SNES or simple polygons on my PS1. But now I am spoiled. I don't think I will look at these games or any other games for that matter, the same way ever again. I think I might be a self-professed graphic whore??? Yes, it is a dirty dirty word. I thought gameplay was king, but now I am not so sure. I want all my games to be just as pretty as my women. Why can't I have it all, gameplay and graphics??? So how do you guys feel about the importance of graphics in a game. I know you guys are all retrogamers, but aren't there some superficial gamers out there too or am I just alone on this.

[Mozgus]

I've had CoD4 installed since it came out and I have yet to play more than 2 stages in it, and a few rounds of multiplayer. It hasn't hooked me yet. I'm running it at all highest settings. Yes it looks great and runs great but that's not enough for me.

[lordofduct]

I don't like the word graphics when describing the "visual quality" (yeah I hate a lot of words, I'm weird like that). I voted the last comment, "gameplay is how you spell graphics..." for two reasons.

A) I am a big fan of gameplay, I treat a video game like a women... she might be hot, but God damn it if she's an idiot I can't put up with her for more then 10 minutes.

B) Just like a women, no matter how smart she is. If she smells like dog shit, looks like she got hit by a train, and doesn't know how to dress herself... well sorry honey, get the fuck out!


So yeah, it's a give and take scenario. On top of that what constitutes hot graphics!? Yes I'm gonna continue comparing this to a pretty girl.

OK, first things first, what are graphics. Graphics are just the visual representation of stuff in code put on screen for you to interact with... thus the point of a video game. What constitutes better graphics? There is the issue, more processing power may mean more detail, which may mean more polys, a larger colour palette, and a higher resolution. But that's all clarity!

Let's go back to the 19th century when chemical processing of photographs became a realization and photography finally got its big boom after centuries of scientists playing with it. In the 200 years to follow photography gained more and more clarity, detail and so much more. A photograph taken today is crisper, brighter, and more detailed then any photo taken in 1843.

BUT, I guarantee there are millions of photos from the 19th century that are far more beautiful then the boob shot of miss 16 year old princess from San Fernando Valley!

My point is context. It isn't how crisp can the graphics be, but how does the artist use the limitations of their palette to their advantage. The true signature of the artist is to be handed less tools then he should really have to do a job, and still producing something amazing. Limitations fuel creativity!

So yes, graphics are a big importance to me... it's like that really cute girl you see at the library or something. She wears glasses, her blouse is wrinkled and she his a crooked nose. Her breasts are much below average and she is in need of some braces. But as you stare at her it and how she utilizes her flaws to her advantage, it dawns on you this is the most interesting person you've seen in a while.

Big boobs, blonde hair and a tight ass can only go so far. I see that every day on the cover of magazines and they age quickly... I might just grow board when I go home and turn on my console to see the same exact thing. Screw that, I want something interesting looking to me, and not something that is supposedly "hot graphics".

[Ack]

I require graphics to be decent...in that I have to be able to tell what is going on on the screen, and it can't hurt my eyes. One of the problems I'm finding I have nowadays is having trouble identifying what's taking place on the screen with my PS1 games. Now some of them look great still, and I can play them all day. But games like Chrono Cross...it honestly hurts my eyes so much I'm unable to play the game again.

Are they the things that should absolutely decide a game? No, but if it hurts to look at, don't expect me to play.

[NebachadnezzaR]

For me graphics matter, plain and simple. Of course that without gameplay to support it, it doesn't matter how beautiful the game looks, but on the other hand, how many great games of the past you missed just because nowadays you have shinier games grabbing your attention? I'm not a total graphics whore, but for me graphics matter, a lot, and are 2nd only to gameplay (because an ugly game with good gameplay is always more enjoyable than the other way around).

[racketboy]

It depends on the type of game, really.

Like racing games -- Unless I'm going for a nostalgic Out Run trip or something, I want the most realistic graphics possible.
The new Gran Turismo or the latest Project Gotham games look great (although I prefer more arcade-like racing)

I also appreciate high "visual quality" in 2D games as well. Hi-Res 2D artwork with smooth animation makes me drool.

Are good graphics necessary? no.
Do they help? yes.
But a game's long-term enjoyability factor is more dependent on it's gameplay mechanics.

[Cerulean]

It depends on the type of game, really.

Are good graphics necessary? no.
Do they help? yes.
But a game's long-term enjoyability factor is more dependent on it's gameplay mechanics.

thar you go.

[ott0bot]

It depends on the type of game, really.

Are good graphics necessary? no.
Do they help? yes.
But a game's long-term enjoyability factor is more dependent on it's gameplay mechanics.

thar you go.

Yep...i tend to agree.

But if the game is supposed to be realistic, then by god you must have realistic looking graphics. I can't stand alot of those "high tech" looking 3d polygon games on PS1 and Saturn that really look like crap compared all the great 2d sprite animated games. I guess you gotta start somewhere...but sheeesh give the technology a few years to update before you release it like that.

[racketboy]

It depends on the type of game, really.

Are good graphics necessary? no.
Do they help? yes.
But a game's long-term enjoyability factor is more dependent on it's gameplay mechanics.

thar you go.

Yep...i tend to agree.

But if the game is supposed to be realistic, then by god you must have realistic looking graphics. I can't stand alot of those "high tech" looking 3d polygon games on PS1 and Saturn that really look like crap compared all the great 2d sprite animated games. I guess you gotta start somewhere...but sheeesh give the technology a few years to update before you release it like that.

Yeah, but to give them credit, you have to start somewhere.
But they did push/emphasize 3D too much in the 32-bit era. 2D was really starting to shine, but got cut off as it was reaching its prime.

[jemsic]

Well, I'd have to say that graphics are certainly nice. But gameplay takes precedent.

Anytime graphics get in the way of gameplay, someone made an error in judgement.

Luckily, the hardware is so powerful nowadays there's really no reason to not have good graphics AND awesome gameplay (except lazy, unimaginative developers).