thats how i actually see a good from a bad game.

to be honest, Graphics don't matter to me, even thought i play most games on PC, it isn't because i want better graphics its the case of "Because i can" , since i have a PC that is able to run it better so why don't i use it?

but back to the subject, would you actually play the games that get into the "this game is the GRAPHIC KING!" arguement , if they had bad graphics?

whenever a game comes out that has good graphics i ask myself, is this something i'd play if it had shitty graphics? , personally i'd still play Deus Ex , Skyrim, Final Fantasy even if they had bad graphics, the older games are still playable, even though they're not very good looking nowadays, and i'd see myself about 5 years from now, still playing them because they're fun.

game's need good graphics these days or else you dont feel imersed in the experience.

you didn't answer my question.

lol ok,

anyways i wouldn't deem a game bad because it had bad graphics but it would have to make it up BIG with something else eg addictive multiplayer or an amazing story mode.

and i play my Nintendo Wii and Playstation 2 alot so im used to bad graphics but those games have amazing gameplay which make's up for it, i have still yet to find a game that is addictive as tony hawks Pro skater 4 or Timesplitters 2, also putting gears in the same level as uncharted (graphic wise) is a bit of a compliment.

there you go, so you'd rather developers focus on good gameplay first rather than good graphics.

yes defiantly i don't need every game to look like uncharted or battlefield, as long as the game is addicting and make's me spend hundreds of hours into it, im game.

although i am a sucker for good graphics i would not put it over gameplay and that is why cod is doing so amazing, people hate the game for the lack of graphics and not being realistic but cmon! it's one of the only game's 2date that stays true to/and can be compared to the amazing the amazing ps2 era type of gaming, it's simple it's arcady and it doesn't focus on realism.

Yes but to a lesser extent

i kinda agree with this, i agree because , CoD games have all the fun ofline multiplayer elements . that you'd love, split screen , online split screen, lots of game modes....ect ect.

but i disagree because the call of duty games had a real dip in the single player deparment since CoD 3 , they're all the same nowadays, and i'm not talking about graphics, nor the setting, they're all very much play the same, lots of scripted Bangs and exaggrated explosions and lots of cheesy "war is baaaaaaaddd" scenes, and also lots of "corridor" shooting.

i think the game that is very much hated because its popularis Halo , it does all these fun modes and always add new modes AND it got great campaigns that feel "fresh" with every game release. i think Call Of Duty should learn a thing or two from Halo rather than Battlefield or whatever comeptition it has nowadays.

When I first bought Uncharted, I had a old tube TV. So graphics weren't really an issue for me.... Infact, I don't think I've ever played Uncharted since I got my HD tv...I'll play it tonight. :)

I've played many games that don't have 'great graphics' and enjoyed them a lot.

I've had a couple of games that looked really good but simply were not fun (Shadows of the Damned, Killzone 3). I'll likely never play SotD again and Killzone 3 was the first game I traded in to Gamestop in ages. Good graphics are not enough for me.

Now I admit that I only bought Gears 1 and Uncharted 1 to showcase the power of their respective consoles. After that, it turned out that both were good games. So yeah, I would still buy both if they didn't look as pretty.

Latley, I've been having a lot of fun with my Wii. Zelda TP, Starfox Adventures, and World of Goo, mostly. These games don't look bad but they aren't "jaw-droppers", either. They engrossed me more than a lot of technically impressive games, though. Like finding a mate, good looks will get you noticed. It's what's inside that counts.