Graphics: Do they matter?

In my case it's not graphics strength or quality that will make playing a game particularly painful. It's visual style and aesthetics. While Link to the Past is a much more advanced game than Link's Awakening I would much, much rather look at the latter as I hate the sprite design in the former.

It doesn't necessarily drive me away most of the time though it has before as in the case of Minecraft.

Pretty much what Aon said. The quality is not in question in general. Or if it is, yeah, more quality is good. Always.

The artstyle is a different(but related) concept. If an art style is bad, no matter the quality, it'll turn off a player.

Albeit, I have yet to find a game that has a terrible enough artstyle, even if the graphics look horrible.(Quest 64 on a HD Screen just looks terrible, despite the beautiful art itself)

There's a huge difference between art style and technological graphics. Having more pixels and polygons (almost) always makes games look better, but the thing that really matters is whether they combine nicely with the feel of the game. For example, Minecraft's pixelly cubes fit the feel of the game very nicely (although there are occasions where the low-quality textures are a hindrance, mainly with Cobblestone). However, the game still needs good technology. Using smooth cubes may be simple, but with a bad display the edges of the cubes become pixellated, ruining the effect.

Graphical design gives the game that "Wow!" factor that pulls one into the world and makes one want to explore. When I started Skyrim, I was immediately immersed in the sheer beauty of the environments. I couldn't have cared less what that beauty bespoke in terms of pixel shader programs or polygons per second, just that the world looked amazing. Then I started getting distracted by the sheer density of detail — it was hard to get my bearings at first, in fact.

Good visual design can make or break your initial attempt to sell Willing Suspension of Disbelief, and it's the first thing many people look at. It's the cover that your book is judged by.

Obviously, a beautiful game that falls flat on the story or gameplay or controls is going to turn players off and get poor reviews, which will ultimately lead to worse sales than if they were top notch, but in terms of what gets people to buy the game in the first place, they're secondary. Far more significant are the dollars spent on marketing, the tie-ins to existing IP (either by being a sequel or by having a big name on the cover like Batman or Star Wars), and the viral spread of trailers and fansite interest. For these things, it helps if you've got some peppy graphics to show people.

Not every game needs to follow this trend; look at Minecraft for a game with objectively crappy graphics that has a huge following. But those aren't the A-list, big budget titles that the major publishers will throw marketing money at. (Incidentally, my six-year old son loves Minecraft, largely because it's such a simple game at heart and he can grasp the concepts so easily.)

I will say this personally, however — the games I remember and go back to over and over again are the ones with compelling story and gameplay, not pretty visuals.

edited 7th Feb '12 11:38:09 AM by Fighteer

Graphics are very important in so far as bad graphics can make a game nigh unplayable due to having to hunt down pixels and other such small things that my even be nearly the same colour as everything around them and uninteresting environments. The graphics don't need to be all ultra high-def, but they can hinder or improve gameplay greatly.

Gameplay might be important, but graphics can be part of that. Now, just because the graphics are older or lower resolution doesn't make them worse. Really, the way I see it, 2D stuff often ages better than 3D stuff and doesn't necessarily play worse either. It's not how flashy the graphics are, it's how smart you are with them (taking graphics to be the sum of the visual design of the game).

I'll agree with those that said "art" matters. The graphics themselves, while a plus, are not as important to me as something that looks appealing and beautiful. I know there's people out there who would say things like "I don't care if it's all a bunch of lines and rectangles as long as the gameplay is good," but I know I wouldn't be able to become interested, much less stay interested, in a game like that

Here's my view. Incredible graphics can't save shitty gameplay. If the underlying game or story is crap all amazing graphics will do is make it incredible looking crap. However, tremendous graphics can elevate great gameplay to the next level.

Good example. Battlefield 3 looks incredible. The single player campaign is cliched and full of awful quick time events. The graphics can't fix either of those problems. Multiplayer though is very balanced, a ridiculous amount of fun, and very engaging. It also looks incredible. The graphics can't salvage the single player, but it does enhance the multi-player experience greatly.

Fighteer has a son???

Anyways, I think it depends on the art style than just the graphics. I do mind graphics, but not to the extent of story or gameplay or music.

Absolutely. Graphics are key to a games enjoyment. Personally I prefer graphics to be more stylized, like Okami or Kingdoms of Amalur. I know they're far from the first games to use a more stylized look but they're what jump to my mind. Particularly seeing Amalur's bright color palette. It's a nice break from Skyrim's washed out winter look.

No. It's like comparing the paint set of a Renaissance Artist to the paint set of the guys doing Egyptian Hieroglyphics.

Graphics have always mattered, as has art style. For every good-looking game like Castlevania or Megaman on the NES, there were a thousand lousy messes; having worse technology did not help. Game developers now have more variety in what they can make due to higher graphical capabilities, both for realistic and stylized art.

I actually dislike those palettes, the worst offender for me being World Of Warcraft with all its cartoonish models and many contrasting colors at once. I prefer color palettes like those of Skyrim, The Witcher 2 or Dragon Age, because instead of seeing them as "washed down" I see them as more harmonic and immersive.

I think high graphics are good, but PIZAZ, aka style, needs to compliment it.

edited 8th Feb '12 4:48:43 AM by eternalNoob

The problem with the more realistic graphics is that it does create a problem with easily distinguishing objects in the world. Skyrim is an offender there, in that it can very frequently be hard to discern interactive objects from static ones. As much as I enjoy looking at lush beautiful environments, I don't want to engage in a Pixel Hunt to find the stuff I need. There's also the Real Is Brown problem that many games that go for "realism" suffer from.

Realism does look good when used in certain ways, but it frequently leads to dull colors and Real Is Brown.

If you can improve the graphics, by all means, do so. but for me, over gameplay, Graphics will come second, every time.

I won't add to the many responses of "gameplay over graphics," so I will say this: I appreciate games that do let you go pretty high with the effects and such, though I say that since I do have a higher-end setup.

I've heard people criticize Kingdom Of Amalur Reckoning's graphics, but I think it looks fine.

What I look for in a game's graphics is enough detail to make (important) characters easily distinguishable from the environment and one another. TF 2 is another game does this well enough. I don't need Skyrim graphics, Mass Effect 1 and Assassins Creed still look fine enough to me.

edited 8th Feb '12 10:20:53 PM by Firebert

Single player, yes.

Multi-player, no, turn that sh*t down to minimum.

I found that Battlefield 3 is one of the few games out there where the quality of the graphics as well as it's Real is Brown colortone actually have a significant effect on the gameplay. For example, the flashlights, light/dark contrast, and glare from the sun are actually things you'll want to factor in during firefights, because the glare can potentially blind you or help conceal your sniper position if your back is to the sun. Whenever entering buildings your character's eyes will need to realistically adjust to the sudden decrease in light, and the same goes for whenever exiting them as well.

Choosing the proper camoflague for certain maps (particularly Caspian Border and the Back to Karkand maps) is actually recommended, thanks in part to the subdued color scheme and the fact that you can seriously blend in well if you find the right dark corner to hide in. The only other games that did such a great job with camoflague were from the Metal Gear Solid series, particularly MGS 3.

All those things are only possible because of the quality of the graphics engine: without it, it would be the typical "look for the most detailed or odd object in the environment, that's the enemy" rountine.

I'll go with the "art style > technical aspects" bandwagon; no matter how good graphics turn out to be, it would be still weird to play Mario in realistic settings. Yes Olympic Games, I'm staring at you.

But I must also add that in most games nowadays it's actually good to have a "ooh shiny" distraction while you're not in action. So yeah, better graphics are still nice and help the experience.

Extra Credits had an interesting look that the concept of graphics vs. aesthetics.

For develop a game, content (game play and story) must come first. The aesthetics though can be used to increase the experience. It is a matter of how you use them. There is also the case that making the work age well is good policy.