How important is graphics to you???

[Mozgus]

But games like Chrono Cross...it honestly hurts my eyes so much I'm unable to play the game again.

Wait, what? Chrono Cross is a visual masterpiece.

[Ack]

Seriously, I actually cant look at the game anymore. It hurts my eyes.

[corn619]

My favorite game is Zork so I guess that would be no.

[RyaNtheSlayA]

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.

I agree but in general graphics can make gameplay more fun, when Lost Planet came out on 360, it was fun but what made it special was the quality of graphics. The adreneline i got as a rocket wized by my head while fighting 3 other guys online was simply amazing.

Do graphics make a great game? No
Are great graphics required? He!! No
Do they make that awesome game better? Yes

[gradualmeltdown]

Resident Evil 5 has new pics out and it just looks amazing. RE4 was fantastic and looked amazing on Gamecube. The graphics definately helped that game for me. The intense village scene was made possible by the detail and number of ememies. Being sawed in half in detail by a chainsaw wielding maniac was just awesome even in death.

Every game has a different requirement for graphics to support the gameplay. If they succeed you will either never think about graphics or be wowed by them. Games that have inferior graphics considering thier platform and competition shouldn't be ignored, but if a game plays well and looks great I'll always choose it first.

[bawitback]

I can't stand next generation graphics that are deemed realistic :/

pre 32-bit polygon resolution for me ..

[peace4myheart]

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".

I think I understand what you are trying to say about "context". If the girl is really pretty, then you should watch your porn on High Definition ala Blu Ray. If the girl is really ugly, then less is more and thus you should watch your porn on Betamax or VHS. HE HE HE.

[The Apprentice]

Nice to have, but not a necessity. Take F-Zero X and compare to Wip3out, or even F-Zero GX, and you'll see what I mean.

[Gamerforlife]

I picked the second option. Graphics are always important, but second to gameplay. EVERYTHING is second to gameplay, but a game with crappy graphics is inexcusable. Of course, my definition of good graphics is more artistic than technical.