Simple question. How important are graphics. I want to know what the general community thinks about this. I see a lot of people comparing graphics of different games, but I always wondered if those people actually cared about the graphics itself, or was it the oppurtunity to compare games in a fairly objective aproach. I'm sure a lot of people enjoy discussing technology and such, but when you're actually playing a game, do you really think about a game's graphics? Do you do like the reviewers say when playing a graphical beast and stop and stare at the beautiful environments?

Graphics are fairly insignificant in my view. As long as a game's graphics are clean & not ugly, then graphics don't really affect my enjoyment at all. (and by "clean", I mean no super sharp edges, zero textures, ps2 lighting, etc) When I play any of my favorite games, I never feel an extra sense of happiness because of graphics. A lot of favorite my games have pretty average graphics. Even my favorite games that do have amazing graphics, I never think back to the visuals when I think of all the fun I had. It's pretty insignificant to me.

I just don't see why people care about it much. Now I can understand the application of graphics, or art style. But simply raw graphics, how does that affect enjoyment at all. Personally, a game's color scheme is much more important than a game's textures or anything like that. For example, a game like say Ratchet & Clank: A Crack in Time's graphics are easier on my eyes than a game like say, Killzone or Gears of War. Call me childish if you want, but the bright & vibrant colors brings me a lot more joy than amazing lighting or realistic textures. The world in Ratchet & Clank is more pleasing to be in than those other games, even if the technicals are inferior.

Don't get me wrong, I won't settle for ugly graphics. If a game looks like a N64 game, I'll take note. But I'm just saying the technicals don't have to be that great for it to look good. Nintendo handles their games well in this department. I thought Mario Galaxy looked fine. I wouldn't care if it looked any better. Sure, it has much weaker technicals than the HD consoles, but the developers made the game clean & used a good color scheme, and that's all that really matters to me.

As you may have noticed, I only have one standard for graphics: for them to look clean. Once a game passes that standard, any more of an improvement won't make a different. For example, I like Ratchet & Clank's graphics as much as Uncharted 2's. Of course, when playing, I can tell Uncharted 2 is way better, but my brain receives no more euphuria from looking at it. If I were to write reviews, the visual section would probably be like one sentence. I consider myself to have been a well-informed gamer for several years, and I still don't know what pop-in or anti-aliasing is. And I'm pretty sure I like it that way. When it comes to games, Just make em clean & make em pretty, that's all I ask. What about you?

If it's gonna have realistic graphics, then I want it to look really good. Otherwise, I don't really mind much about whatever the graphics are, as long as it doesn't do an aweful job of trying to be photorealistic.

like Skyward Sword. It didn't try to be realistic, and the art style worked, so I liked it.

If a game has shitty graphics, I know itll be shit. If a game does not have enough polygons, I know I wont be playing it.


/s


Nah homie, I think some SNES and PS1 jRPGs have the best storylines ever in a videogame, I love them. Chrono Trigger/Cross, FF7 and the likes are one of my fave games eva

Make sure to play them on decent platforms, with 1080p and Pete's shaders some PS1 games look like early PS2 games.

There's no absolute judgement. The graphics of every game complement each and every one to a different degree, depending on absolutely everything else in the game.

A simple statement about some other arbitrary feature being better or worse than an other is just massive oversimplification.

Even the oldest games have good graphics to me, but I'm a retro gamer.

Anyways, yes graphics are very important to me, I like pretty visuals.

Graphics only matter to me when a game looks like crap. Like really, really bad. I can deal with most of true Wii games graphics as long as the core of the game is good. If its not, the graphics don't make up for it and I won't play it.
The thing that mostly matters to me is Artstyle.

I dont understand this graphic hype. Good graphics are a good addition to a game, but they should not the thing that sells the game. The most important thing for is gameplay and story.

(This is on Ultra settings on PC)

I just purchased the "close quarters" Map DLC for Battlefield 3 and I have to say, this is the pinnacle of visuals in my eyes. I don't care if a game looks any better than this. Physics, Animations, etc, all the other aspects that rely on a console's power, I still feel like they can improve and I look forward to that.

As far as straight up visuals go, I'm fine with BF3's CQ visuals.

It depends what the game is going for, like a cell shaded look or a very realistic look, it all depends.

The Wind Waker in my opinion is still the best looking game made. And that's nearly ten years old now. Couldn't say that about most recent games in ten years time.

If a game has average graphics that doesn't bother me in the slightest.