How important are graphics in your opinion?

[ReeseJamPiece]

For some, high-end graphics are an essential part of the gaming experience. But for others, it's more about the gameplay rather than the visuals. I prefer high-end games but I wouldn't mind playing some older titles. What are your thoughts on graphics? Are they truly all that important or are they pointless?

[Redneckerz]

Gameplay triumphs graphics, because without good gameplay, you don't have a good game. You could have the most photoreal game in the world, if it does not play well and it isn't fun to play, then its not a good game.

 

Graphics are subjective. Gameplay is objective.

[hybridial]

Well, you do need graphics to form any game visually that isn't text based, so its pretty important?

 

But I imagine that's not quite what you're getting at. For me, it's important that I like the aesthetic, and frankly I don't seem to like the aesthetic of most high end games, so I'm in this odd position really, like seriously, what do I find more aesthetically pleasing, Cyberpunk 2077 or Shadowrun Dragonfall just as an example? The latter. I'd rather play an RPG in isometric anyway. 

[snapshot]

Enjoy both high-end and low-end games equally, as long as the core game is fun

[seed]

Gameplay is obviously the most important aspect, but a good art style combined with good technology for their time can enhance its visual appeal upon the player when done tastefully.

 

There are very specific games where I am a bit more concerned than usual for eye candy though, namely the older NFS games where I have a small selection of mods I use on the PC version of MW2005, Carbon, and UG1. Nothing grand, like those huge overhaul mods - which I think clash artistically pretty badly in some ways and also make the cars look worse than the game world. 

 

It should always be the other way around, not that way. My small selection of mods just fixes stuff such as broken car reflections, cubemaps, missing shadows, and brings the games' visuals on par with the X360 counterparts, which were visually more impressive than the PC ports - MW2005 has better shaders, lighting, reflections (both roads and cars), effects, and higher resolution car vinyls there for instance.

 

Thankfully, these enhancements have been ported to PC recently as well, so we can enjoy that 360 sexiness too. Like this:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

As I said, nothing extravagant, just some improvements for higher visual fidelity.

Edited February 4, 2021 by seed

[GraphicBleeder]

Personally I don't really mind graphics as long as the game itself is fun, I think that's why so many people still enjoy old Atari 2600 and NES games, they aren't too up to date anymore but they're still enjoyable games.

[xX_Lol6_Xx]

I really don't care about graphics. I'd play both DOOM Eternal (MAX Quality) and SNES Doom (256x224 low detail mode). I really prefer performance over graphics. (I know, SNES Doom was crappy, but I like it)

[GarrettChan]

Don't really care about graphic, but my closest pick is 3 maybe?

 

For example, my computer is completely fine with ultra-high-max (or whatever high is) setting of something like Doom Eternal, but I always set those to medium for most of the games. Modern games have good enough graphics for me most of the time. The extra shininess doesn't really make me feel like/hate it more.

[Doomkid]

As long as the art style / color choices / etc are nice to look at, I couldn't care if there's 8 pixels or 8 billion pixels. I picked 3 since it's the closest to how I feel!

[xvertigox]

Aesthetics > Graphical Fidelity

[NoXion]

Does Minecraft with shader mods to make the lighting look more natural, but still in its original 16x16 texture resolution, count as low-end or high-end graphics?

Either way it looks good.

[BoxY]

I really can't remember a single time in the past decade or more where a game's visuals have impressed me specifically because of the technology being used, and the amount of meaningful rendering advances you can make just by pumping more computation into them is obviously quickly reaching an asymptote as hardware generations march on. Even ray tracing which was supposed to be the next big thing to go apeshit over has mostly just been used to make puddles and windows slightly shinier for the past 2 generations of GPUs.

 

On the other hand stuff like janky software palettes, crispy textures, warping PS1 polygons and so on will always have a special place in my heart, it just feels like worse is better sometimes.

[Bloxwess]

I don't care about the graphics as long as the gameplay is good.

[TenenteZashu]

I value lighting over graphics because in my opinion even if the graphics are Doom-clone era but the lighting is good it's gonna be much better than a game with good textures but bad lighting, take for example this spot in DOOM 64, the textures are clearly ''bad'' but the lighting makes it look much better than, say, upscaled textures

[Steve D]

For me, this question is only relevant in the world of Doom, since I'm not a gamer per se, just a Doomer. And I like classic Doom. I stopped playing Doom 2016 because it just didn't speak to me. I have Doom Eternal and I reckon I'll install it . . . some day. Besides, I have so many mapping projects that I basically have no time for any game except Doom. 

 

That said, within the world of Doom, fun gameplay trumps everything else, but if the maps are beautiful as well as fun to play, they go to the head of the class.

 

Sometimes lesser graphics can have an advantage. My second favorite game is Breathless, an Amiga Doom clone. It came out in '95 and had certain advantages, such as freelook and a fantastic fog effect. The graphics are pretty much on par with software Doom at 320x200, but there's something about the visual shortfalls of Breathless that can sort of take me out of myself and send me into a kind of dream state where it seems like I'm in an alternate reality. I've never had this experience with higher-end games or even Doom. I'm guessing it's because my imagination kicks in and tries to fill in the missing details. It's a cool feeling. :)

[HQDefault]

The way I see it it's a combo of art direction plus graphics.

The art direction has to be good. Beyond that, the graphics need to be good enough to support that art direction.

 

If your art direction is too ambitious for your graphics to support it, it's gonna look like shit.

If your graphical fidelity is decent but your art direction looks flat and boring, or just generally ugly, that's just as bad.

 

Gotta hit that balance.

[Omniarch]

22 minutes ago, xvertigox said:

Aesthetics > Graphical Fidelity

What he said!

 

Most of the games I find most visually appealing are either indie or came out in the 2000s. Graphical fidelity is not an acceptable substitute for a personality.

[HLRaven]

I don't mind great graphics and old graphics, I can enjoy both. In some cases old graphics are better for example horror (while I like the ps1 era horror games I do feel like late 90s 3d graphics needs to represented, same with mid 2000s)

 

One thing I don't like about great graphics is the fact that it makes the game fill up alot of space on my disk, which is mostly because of really high quality textures and uncompressed audio, (By the way, am I the only person that thinks 4k textures dosen't really matter when you have really great lighting? how often do you look close to the floor or wall in a game besides VR and walking simulators and how much do you care)

[Dubbag]

not at all. I think there's actually too much focus on graphics over gameplay these days.

[OxalaiaQuilombensis]

Graphics ins't the main attraction,but they are important,they gotta be readable,visible and give the game it's own personality

[E.M.]

When I was a kid, I was obsessed with games that had cool looking graphics. Now I'm at the point where I only care about the gameplay.

 

3 hours ago, xvertigox said:

Aesthetics > Graphical Fidelity

 

Also this.

[Retro Dino]

IMO if you call yourself a gamer, but say that the game has bad graphics and you won't play it. I got news for you, you're not a gamer. Graphics mean nothing, it's the gameplay that matters. Graphics are an added touch! 

[continuum.mid]

Graphics are very important as part of the whole of a game. Gameplay is definitely the most important thing to get right, but inconsistent or ugly graphics can ruin otherwise great games, and amazing graphics can make the gameplay more fulfilling.

 

That said, people should stop judging graphics based solely on how technically impressive they are. I'd contend that the graphics of some JRPGs for the Super Nintendo have better graphics than most of what has come since, because they are more timeless, aesthetically pleasing, and consistent. There are good reasons why so many indie games have used pixel graphics.

[[McD] James]

35 minutes ago, Retro Dino said:

IMO if you call yourself a gamer, but say that the game has bad graphics and you won't play it. I got news for you, you're not a gamer. Graphics mean nothing, it's the gameplay that matters. Graphics are an added touch! 

 

I'm reminded of the time crapgamerreviews said that you're not a gamer if you don't play on Xbox. A gamer is simply anyone that plays games. Nothing more. 

[P41R47]

Instead of graphics, i would said aesthetic is important to me.

Pac-Man aesthetic is not only good for it time, it is also functional and gorgeous to look at, too.

Pong! on the other hand, was a pure functional game, with aesthetic reduced to it functionallity.

When a good gameplay comes with a good aesthetic, sometimes they are for better, one good example is Space Invaders: it has a really addictive gameplay, easy to learn, challeging to master, but aesthetic wise, is rather plain. Later on, some really graphical upgrades come with the same formula, giving it a fresh and interesting even more appealing look retaining the good gameplay it already had.

 

One example of good combination of aesthetic and gameplay is Braid.

Gameplay wise its a plataformer-puzzle game with time manipulation mechanics to spice things up.

Aesthetic wise, its art in montion, and just a few games come to be at that level.

 

Combination of both things are important, and an unbalance may come to create serously interesting experiences.

Deadly Premonition is one that throws people away with it old PS2-esque graphics, but gameplay wise is a masterpiece combining mood and atmosphere with interesting features.

Better graphics could make it more accepted by people, but when the experience is so emotionally powerful, there are no graphic that come as important to it.

 

[Retro Dino]

22 minutes ago, [McD]James said:

 

I'm reminded of the time crapgamerreviews said that you're not a gamer if you don't play on Xbox. A gamer is simply anyone that plays games. Nothing more. 

To me the definition of a TRUE Gamer is someone who is willing to play any game, at basically any time. Someone who can jam on Frog Bob, then move onto a triple A game on any console. Also, the console wars would honestly be ridiculous to a real gamer. All consoles have their upsides and downsides. Good exclusive games, and different communities. Same thing with PC, it's just another platform to play games on, it has it's ups and downs. That's a TRUE gamer to me. I feel like EVERYONE is a 'gamer' these days, because everyone play's games. Are they true gamers though? In my eyes, no. Most people aren't. Someone playing Call of Duty when they get off work doesn't make them a gamer, I'm not sure what to call those type's of people. Game players? lol. This is just my opinion though. 

[Mr. Freeze]

"Gameplay or graphics" is such a trite, dumbo argument that topics like this throw me into an incoherent rage. Don't focus on the amount of polygons, look at the art style. People are barking up the wrong tree and ignoring the central thing that makes all graphics, good or "bad", work correctly. 

 

Pictured: Donkey Kong Country 2. Not the prettiest SNES games in terms of fidelity or palette, but it's armed with an art style that practically leaps out of your CRT.

 

Pictured: Alien Isolation. Home to some ugly animations and bad lip-syncing, but possessing an art style so accurate to the first film you feel like Ron Cobb did the environments.

[snapshot]

1 hour ago, Mr. Freeze said:

Don't focus on the amount of polygons, look at the art style. People are barking up the wrong tree and ignoring the central thing that makes all graphics, good or "bad", work correctly.

Hate to be that guy, but pretty sure when someone talks about graphics they're taking into account everything on display, including the art style.

eg: when someone says wind waker still looks good or RE:V looks almost real.

Edited February 5, 2021 by sluggard

[DRM-MAN]

Mostly gameplay matters to me, artstyle too i guess, but i like when the lighting is good, or when the game doesn't have a bunch of ugly post processing effects.

[Silhouette 03]

“Good graphics” I find to be a subjective taste. I prefer a game with good art direction and a unique art style. Games that break the mold with their visuals by doing something unique with them.

To answer the question, gameplay and art style( and atmosphere in some cases)  are the driving forces that occur when I decide to purchase a game. If a game looks good but the gameplay is stale, monotonous or repetitive, but looks graphically incredible, than the  game’s beauty is only skin deep. Their is no worth besides “ it looks amazing” since it has no depth beyond the surface