@otakum yeah extra credtit rules! They make some truly great vids about video games! I would just like to echo everything in that video you posted.

Anyways, art style means a lot more to me than pretty graphics - but graphics are important, no doubt about it. But it never determines what games I buy; I buy games if they look like fun and interesting. Games are interactve, and tthat's how I like playing them.

yes

Beautiful aesthetics complement the game but aren't the core principle for quality.


Nice graphics often entice me in trailers though,

More powerfull hardware allows for better graphic capabilities which provides enhanced aesthetics for artistic design.

The jump from 8 to 16 bit graphics brought with it a huge leap in aesthetic design.

Which is what the Vid tells you.

The problem with games in the last few years is Graphics for the sake of Graphics, not for the sake of Aesthetics.

I don't see a problem with "Graphics for the sake of Graphics". If that's what people want let them have it. Those who have an eye for artistic design have their games too. Both can exist without ruining the other. Michael Bay makes his movies while James Cameron makes his. Some people like Bay and others like Cameron. Nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with liking graphics for the sake of graphics and those who prefer artistic aesthetic design do not have better taste than those who don't.

I prefer style, but I wouldn't tell a fan looking forward to BF4 that they have no taste.

The game play has not really changed a great deal over time but the change in graphical quality over time has been incredible. Yes games with the better graphics are a lot more noticeable than small tweaks in game play. Graphics in some games look as good or even better than reality.

They do matter, when stuck with the choice of 2 games with everything exactly the same except graphics. People are going to pick the one with better graphics unless they're a hipster.

imo FPS, resolution, screen tearing bothers me a lot. I'd rather games turn off bells and whistles like Wipeout HD to run at 60 FPS and a high resolution.

Graphics do make certain games better, for instance crysis 3 on PC is a game I'd give like a 6-6.5, but I'd give it a 7.5-8.0 because it's a spectacle. The thing with spectacles is they aren't spectacles forever. I'd get hanged for this, but the animation in uncharted makes itself a better experience. If the animation wasn't so good, I'd be much less excited to play it.

If 2 games are exactly the same, but have different graphics, people will go for the version of the game available on their console. People won't buy Battlefield 4 for PS4 if they only have a PS3.

If you mean similar games, it's hard to find an example of two similar games available on the same console, one with good and one with bad graphics. I could mention New Super Mario Bros. Wii outselling Galaxy, but it was bundled, and they gameplay is different.

What about Call of Duty and Killzone? Yes Killzone is sci fi, and CoD isn't, but Killzone 3's online feels a lot like Modern Warfare 3, and Killzone is the better game graphically, yet people buy CoD over it.

So it would appear to me that graphics have little, to no say on a games sales.

----

Are you're saying that graphics only matter in FPS's, but in other genres people care more about animation, and maybe artistic design?

Umm yes and no. With Mario for example I really don't care about graphics. But a game like Skyrim (which IMO is an incredible game) the gorgeous graphics really play a big part. They make me feel like I'm living it as opposed to just playing it. Saying that however I also feel some games are alive without hyper realistic of even good graphics, again like Mario or Pokemon. I like the suggestion that Otakumegane brought up of aesthetics as opposed to graphics; I've never thought of it this way but it's very true. Thanks for that! *thumbs up* =)