do graphics matter

[thegame07]

i think graphics matter a lot. However gameplay should come first. some people dont think the same way but think about it would you buy a console with brillaint gameplay but with snes graphics these days i dont think so .

 

[H8TR]

Anybody who says no is a liar. If Final Fantasy looked like Pong would you still buy it? Does the fact that the PSP has better graphics over the DS matter? No. Does the fact that the PS360 has better graphics over the Wii matter? No but do I want my games look like they were developed in the 70's/early 80's? Of course not.

 

[thegame07]

Anybody who says no is a liar. If Final Fantasy looked like Pong would you still buy it? Does the fact that the PSP has better graphics over the DS matter? No. Does the fact that the PS360 has better graphics over the Wii matter? No. Do I want my game look like they were developed in the 70's/early 80's? Hell No!

exactly what i was thinking people lie when they say they dont care about graphics.

 

[Deleted User]

Of course I care about graphics. This almost sounds like a "Do appearances matter?" type question ... relating to relationships 'n dating.

Graphics and gameplay ... it's not one or the other that makes a great game. It's both of them ... and more, such as sound & replay value. Now, it's just a matter of opinion of which outweighs the other. In my opinion, gameplay is more of a deciding factor by far. If there was a game that sported the most amazing cutting edge graphics, yet was just plain boring and frustrating to play ... I probably wouldn't go near it. But if there was a game that was absolutely fun to play but had crappy dated graphics ... I'd still give it a chance, just cuz it's fun albeit hard on the eyes.

It's really the entire package that makes a great game. But if it isn't fun, I don't see any point of playing it just for the sake of eye candy.

I'll never ever get sick of playing multiplayer Bomberman. I don't need any antialiasing, reflections, bump/texture mapping, lighting effects, or any of that sort for me to have a blast with a few buddies.

 

[dice]

i think you should have changed the wording to the question. Despite what you're saying anyone would be mad to answer no to the poll

 

[reilina]

i think it depends on the game

 

[FAST6191]

The fact it is 1 in the morning means coherency is probably to be AWOL but here goes:

I have played some otherwise well balanced FPS titles (decent weapons, decent level design in terms of potential for tactics) but as the graphics cut out for mid range combat the game was all but ruined. Graphics are necessary.

Equally I have played glorified tech demos (I will avoid names right now as I can not be bothered to deal with ruffled feathers). Graphics are nice but I need gameplay not a button to watch a film.

I think the best example for this sort of thing would have to be the GTA 3 line, the shooting mechanics: Wolf3d probably had better, driving: I could probably give reason to why a Kart game I had for my 486 was so much better, graphics: lens flare perhaps but still nothing special, audio: some decent tracks but otherwise nothign special, time I wasted playing it: lets just say my kidneys may not have forgiven me yet and it has been several years since vice city.

An aside, despite having a computer capable of more I tend to lower graphics settings as well, normally no anti aliasing (maybe 2x if I am curious) and no fancy shadows/lighting and a sensible resolution.

What Nestea80 said about bomberman is right on as well, to this day my friends and I still have a blast on megadrive bomberman (or DS bomberman).

Summary:
Important yes, all important: as I am not 14 (apologies to sensible 14 year olds) no.

 

[Kyoji]

brillaint gameplay but with snes graphics these days i dont think so .

I think to have brilliant gameplay you need graphics to a certain capacity. Take the wii, if Nintendo had made a Wii-mote for the SNES, it just wouldn't have worked, you need a true 3D environment. I think it all really depends on what the game's main focus is: either a theatrical presentation to really "throw you in the game" by visuals, or through enhanced interactivity to place you in the game.

 

[bobrules]

Graphics doesn't matter for relaxing games, eg: Who cares about the graphics for tetris?

 

[nintendofreak]

I think it depends... (ambiguous answer, i know

) but look at Sudoku for example.. People [are] addicted to it, and its graphics are as simple as Tic-Tac toe! Is it a wonder that the DS, a "inferior" system in comparison to the PSP (well it is inferior raw power wise) is selling Several times more units? People Like fun.

But hey, thats my opinion

 

[shaunj66]

Yes graphics do matter. But only to a certain degree. When we get to the point where Solid Snake's moustache grows in real time, and you can still see crumbs in it from the corn flakes he had for breakfast... That's just too much.

Rather than improving the bump mapping on that stain on the toilet seat, developers should spend more time improving gameplay ideas and mechanics, with things like physics and weather etc.. That's why Half-Life 2 is one of my all time favourite games. The graphics were incredibly impressive yes, but the gameplay, story and interactivity are what made the game for me.

 

[Arkansaw]

Of course not, didn't you realize that racing games started with only TWO lines?!

A game is essentially a game, a game without gameplay is life without a soul!

And actually snes graphics is still quite acceptable, it's only a matter of resolution

 

[jaxxster]

Graphics obviously arent as important as the gameplay but i dont want my games to be ugly to the point where i dont want to play them.

 

[Arkansaw]

Lol, ugliness is subjective to time and technology..
even now I don't mind playing some of my old 256 color dos games.

If the gameplay is great but the graphics is just plain, some pple will still play. But I doubt pple will be playing certain games simply because they can watch hair grow, and nothing else.

 

[Elrinth]

Yes graphics do matter. But only to a certain degree. When we get to the point where Solid Snake's moustache grows in real time, and you can still see crumbs in it from the corn flakes he had for breakfast... That's just too much.

Rather than improving the bump mapping on that stain on the toilet seat, developers should spend more time improving gameplay ideas and mechanics, with things like physics and weather etc.. That's why Half-Life 2 is one of my all time favourite games. The graphics were incredibly impressive yes, but the gameplay, story and interactivity are what made the game for me.

guess what.. physics add alot to the graphics. motion can be added to the graphics group too. but yeah, graphics definatly matters, no matter how you look at it. http://www.naturalmotion.com/ shows what todays physics can do with character animation. even tho the models are quite ugly the motion is REALLY nice which in the end makes beautiful graphics because it's so natural and nice.

as a game programmer I say programmable shaders are the future of visual goodness. the wii lacks this, which is a BIG letdown for any developer who wants to make a visually nice game such as for example: Lair. No matter if we cut down the polygon count to 6 per character in the whole game the wii won't be able to show of these visual effect. It simply doesn't have enough computation power. even if you would try to work around to create ur own support for shaders.. it would cost ALOT of development time to add the visual effects on the wii which simply no developer wants to add for something which already is free (or cost very little development time) on other platforms.

but yeah in for example text based games you want a really nice and readable font. so graphics here again matters.

a really nice and comfortable font makes the game much more appealing.

most important things is solid camera, control and motion in games where you control a character. (other than the gameplay which makes the game a certain genre)

we deal with cheating when we develop games... our motto: if it looks good, it is good

anyways, enough rant.

 

[Taras]

PS3 boasts nice graphics. So do custom PC's which have the added bonus of upgradeable hardware. Sony/PS3 may warm up to the homebrew scene live Xbox live. PC's are already made for this. Sony is losing exclusives, Sony wants to have proprietary industry standards for everything they deal with, Sony's programming platform is said to be inordinately more difficult than most others. Sony left rumble out of their controllers (claiming it wouldn't work with wireless motion sensing - bs). All they can claim to do better is graphics, cell processing and blu-ray (which may fail). Get an Alienware if you want movie-quality HD graphics.

That being said, Wii's innovative controls and price point are proving to be the winner for this round of next gen's. And yes, it's more important than running 720 or 1080 HD.

 

[imyourxpan]

In my opinion it matters sometimes because certain games don't need a lot to be addictive and very fun. Ex. Sudoku on Brain Age. I do agree that with the Wii and FPS the player is to feel like he is in the game and have that 3D space and it could be somewhat done like Doom. I don't think you can really compare SNES and the Wii now because times have changed it's rare to see a 2D game(besides the Metal Slug Anthology Game) on the Wii/360/PS3.

Where games certainly need working graphics if the engine isn't smooth. I don't think the engine is well done if you feel sick after playing for a bit of time. I was playing The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and the graphics are good, but far from where we are right now. The game is amazing though, story and gameplay, by far better than some games being released.

Beautiful games might sell, but the ones with better gameplay and storylines will succeed.

(If the game is just down right hideous and hard to even look at, it could ruin the game. I don't think there is a real answer to that question, it's too vague.)

 

[Opium]

Graphics as in visual material do indeed matter. That also includes art and art style.

Depending on the game, graphics do not have to be really detailed and life like. Some games do benefit from it though such as first person shooters. Others usually create atmosphere with the artistic style rather than super crisp graphics.

But all in all, yes graphics are very important!

 

[Westside]

I would pay $50 for Castlevania with SNES graphic if it does have brillian gameplay. Last time I checked , dawn of sorrow didn't have too many things that the SNES couldn't do, however, I did not say graphics don't matter.

 

[Psyfira]

Yes. I don't need the latest, greatest and most realistic looking graphics, I'll happily play most stuff made during or after the PSX generation (admittedly FFVII is showing its age). But I'm unlikely to play a "retro" game unless I grew up with it (nostalgia) or it looks like Yoshis Island, which looks f'ing amazing for a 2D SNES platformer.