Graphics. Everyone likes them, but not everyone thinks they are necessary for making the "best" games.

Here is serious question, which proves to be more like profiling for my own benefit: Does age play a factor when graphics are given more weight in regards to "great" games?

Here me out here; I'm not attempting to mock anyone, but with the rapid development of video games in the last twenty+ years, including graphics, it seems that depending on when you started playing video games graphics might seem to bear more weight in the minds of certain age groups.

For instance, the first video game system I played was the Atari. That was when I was like three or four. I've played nearly every major console to hit the U.S. market, and I was a heavy arcade gamer growing up; Arcades not always having the best graphics compared to whats hot off the console market. I also subscribe to the philosophy that the best graphics, or graphical ability of a console, don't equal great games.

Perhaps this has a lot to due with the fact that I had lots of fun playing, for example, Pitfall as a kid.  Or what about Food Fight for the Atari? The Original Mario Bros.? Donkey Kong? etc.

What I'm getting at is that I grew up during an age of gaming were graphics were absudly limited compared today. So perhaps my age and exposure to gaming during that period of development plays key with my philosophies about what constructs a great game.

I could see how this might be different for say a kid who first got into games with the original Playstation.

I do think that the water gets a bit more murky due to the fact that many downloadable games these days are very limited in scope compared to the multi-media production giants we see on a regular basis now.

So what are your thoughts, and or personal experiences regarding this question? Has age, experience, and your own growth within the development of gaming played a factor to your own philosophies about graphics and their potency for making "great" games?

if i would have answered this question a daay ago i would have said of course it does .but.... i have just gotten done with playing the nintendo wii all day for the 1st time ever.. they were just simple games not the most mind blowing graphically but they were fun... so my answer is no... maybe people from the age group 25 to 39 think that way but im not in that age group ..so no hell no... at least thats not the way i think

Does a kid say something is ugly yes, does a adult yes.

No game with crap graphics is ever best.

The Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is still said to be the best game ever created by a vast majority of reviewers, and yet the graphical quality is less than that of, say, Resistance, or Gears of War.

I would say that from what I have experianced that If a game is of the highest graphics quality on the system it is released for at the time it comes out, it has a great chance of being a good game. I started gaming on the SNES and have owned every Sony, MS and nintendo (+) dreamcast (-) Wii since then. It has always been the samethe games I had the best time with were the best looking ones. Even right know I am replaying the Jakk and ratchet series', although not as good as in their prime graphically they are still a high quality product, that is fun to play. So I guess what it boils down to this, Games that look graphically amazing when launched compared to others games launched at the same time are always taking better advantage of the system. Usally when a system is pushed by a game the devs have spent a great deal of time on the game and 90% of the time thouse games are very fun. In return 10 years later when you go back and play one of these games they are still the best on the console.

Even though I grew up on Pong and PacMan, I have to still xay no. Yes, kids today have OMG! graphics, but they also have Gameboy, cell phones, even calculators that play games. Like good comic book covers, pretty graphics may get more kids to pick up a game, but it's content that holds them.

So long as it doesn't rape my eyes (Oww! Ocular penetration!) and is fun, me likely. I'm more a music fan than a visual fan anyway. If it's clean, whether she's the prettiest girl at the ball or a bald midget, I just care about if she's a freak in bed and the noises she makes.

- Started gaming in 1988.
- Doctors don't trust me.

 TLoZ: OoT is one of the greatest games ever made but we compare it to games of generations after it which is really annoying. Each generation has it's own Zelda so if a Zelda cant be made that matchs past games oh well. We need to compare generation to generation then look at quality vs quality of all games. The generation Gears and Resistance are way better then Twilight Princess but no they cant compare to Ocarine.. Ocarina is just the wow of its generation.

Graphics doesn't mean good games...

I don't get the age thing, but if people are looking for great graphics then it might.

Why is that really annoying? O o

I compare Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time to every game I've played since, and it's still better. Why is that annoying?