Graphics

[fredthehylian]

One time when my friend was telling me about a new Xmen game or whatever, he told me the graphics were the best of all time. The next day I thought to myself: Do graphics really matter that much? I mean come on. Graphics don't enhance gameplay that much. Although if graphics were so bad that they used a dot to represent a building, then the graphics need some serious changing. But if the game is too realistic, bright, or whatever, then that would cause some optic problems if those games are played too much. So what is your opinion on this matter?

[Niko Bellic 817]

I never care about the graphics in video games. It's the gameplay that is most important and the music. I also like playing NES games a lot even though their graphics are primitive. Twilight Princess for example is critisized for it's graphics though I personally thought the graphics were great. Nowadays, it seems people are much more concerned over a game's graphical appeal than how fun the game is. Halo 3, for example is praised for it's great graphics, though in terms of single-player gameplay I've heard that there wasn't much to it (I don't own the game.)

[Evenstevenp]

I must be the only person in my school who isn't like "OH MY GODDDD GEARS OF WAR 2 DA GRAPHICZ ARE SOOO GOOD ZOMG"

People who play NES, SNES or N64 games at my school (mainly me and my friend Josh) are ridiculed because those games have crappy graphics and are too kiddy.

I hate my school so much.

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

Heh, this made me chuckle a bit actually. I guess Xmen: Origins is now the best game ever because it has the best graphics and tons of blood am I right? Wrong. I've played it. It's so extremely repetitive, that it's laughable. Beat up bad guys. Go the next area. Beat up bad guys. Go to the next area. Fight a super bad guy. Got to the next area. Repeat until game is finished. There's absolutely no variety to that game at all. But, people will always buy games like that, just because they look pretty. Heck, that's why people think the 360 and PS3 are superior to the Wii: Just because the graphic capability is superior. But that doesn't mean crap if all of the games are just rehashes of past titles, which is exactly what 85% of the games on those systems are. That is why I prefer Nintendo and its games. There's always something new, be it the gravity function in Mario Galaxy, the sword controls in LoZ: TP, or the brand new FPS system featured in Metroid Prime 3 and soon to be in Other: M. Even some of the Sonic the Hedgehog titles seem better to me on the Wii. As long as Nintendo continues to bring fresh ideas and games I find to be enjoyable, I'll always be a "Nintendo fanboy", because Nintendo is currently the only gaming company worthy of being a fanboy of.

I think this is a nice way to put: If a game sucks, it's going to suck, no matter how fancy you try to dress it up.

[Deku Scrub]

I always go by the policy of Gameplay > Graphics. It's incredibly annoying how typical people that like video games always focus on "OMGZ...THE GRAPHIKZ IZ SO AMAZINZ..." when the game is the biggest load of crap ever with terrible controls, repetitive gameplay, and zero replay value whatsoever.

That's why I never buy games based on graphics, which is basically all Nintendo games...all Nintendo systems. Not that the graphics aren't good, they are actually very good for their time, but Nintendo games are the ones that you can always trust that they'll be good. And plus, I ain't payin' 500 freakin' dollars for a stupid PS3 so it'll look good. What fun is that?

You can always trust Nintendo, though. I always have, and I pretty much always will.

GAMEPLAY > GRAPHICS!

[Petman1325]

I wouldn't buy a game based on graphics. I would concider graphics on a review of a game (coughsuperman64cough), because I want to see what is happening. I mean, you also have to concider what the console can do, such as gameplay and the length of an adventure. I wouldn't want to play a game with life-like graphics that is only 2 hours long.

I don't mind playing a game with good visuals. I think that graphics add on to the game, but, I also believe in art styles. Sometimes, a game deliberately has a lower quality for a reason (Wind Waker, but I thought it looked really nice). I live in a community in which they believe that graphics are everything (They also are ignorant upon plot, etc)(I do have friends who also believe in plot, controls, and Nintendo's epicness), so that makes me a bit mad.

[Smitie]

The problem with graphics is that the standard changes every day. When I played OoT for the first time a lot of years ago I was absolutly stunned about the awesome graphics. When I played Harry Potter and the philosphofers (I know it is spelled wrong) stone on the PC, I was again stunned. The facial features where to most realistic thing I've ever seen eventhough they didn't move their mouths and they even had a hand with a thumb and finger that could move seperatly from the rest of the fingers which were glued together.
If you look at OoT or Harry Potter 1 today, you will all agree the graphics look extremely goofy. So judging a game on it's graphics is a bit useless.

That is why I don't care about graphics much. I rather have a game with a good story and good gameplay than a graphics explosion. I also think that a lot of gamers think that good graphics mean realistic graphics, but I can easily say that Okami is graphicly way better than Gears of whatever 2.

[basement24]

I'd say good graphics are a bonus to good gameplay. You can still have a great game with lousy graphics, and conversely, good graphics can't hide the fact that a game's gameplay is terrible.

If I'm evaluating graphics alone, I think it depends too on the system. I don't need 360 realistic textures and the like in a Wii game. If a game on the Wii has good graphics, then it's good for that system. IE - I can still go back and play 8-bit NES titles and love their graphics. They, in no way, compare to the life-like work done on the next gen systems, but they are still good graphics for the system they were on. So, it's all relative.

I definitely get attracted to a game because of graphics, because in internet videos, that's all you really have to go on is appearances. I was really excited for Batman Arkham Asylum based on graphics alone, but really, it needs to have good gameplay in order to be a good game. Luckily, I had a chance to play it for a good amount of time, and it's a tight controlled, fun game.

I suppose it's a bit like entering a relationship. The first impressions are often based on appearances and initial physical attraction. Then, you get to know the game more and find out either it's as good as the appearance is to you, or it's horribly bad, and you should run for your life. :P

[colonialman456]

You know i don't really beleive that graphics matter. I mean Ocarina of time was great but i still love A Link to the past more. Gameplay rolls around here.

[Zenox]

Graphics aren't a big problem all that much. If they can be enhanced, go for it, as long as the game is good, I'll play it. I love the original LoZ, because I don't care about graphics. My friends say most NES games suck because of how the graphics look. If a game has terrible graphics, they won't play it. I keep trying to prove to them that the Adventure of Link is by far the hardest Zelda game, but the graphics "Suck too bad", so they refuse to play it. I don't get this point at all. Sure, graphics could make a game slightly better, but the gameplay isn't different at all.

If they were to make any handheld game such as MC in LoZ graphics, I would have still bought it. I would have still loved it.

If graphics can be enhanced, however, I'm totally fine with that, it's not a big problem for me. I don't understand why Nintendo fights to make the "best game possible", but they mostly just focus on making a game that is pleasant to look at. It doesn't make the game any better in my opinion.

[Yumil]

I always find these debates interesting despite the fact that there are only a few points of view that get repeated constantly. As such, I must fill my role and include another point of view in your post.

Graphics do matter because they are not separate from gameplay. Graphics are a part of the gameplay and having better graphics can enhance the gameplay. "Better graphics" are not all about more polygons and smoother models. It also includes lighting and other real world effects and these effects are not just novelties.

Since this is a Legend of Zelda site, let's look at a Zelda game as an example. I don't think anyone here is denying that Twilight Princess has the best graphics in the series - regardless of how you feel about the game in general. I'm going to use a specific fight as my example: Blizzetta.

During the fight, Blizzetta hovers above you and drops large chucks of ice on top of you before trying to crush you herself. The camera in the game purposefully tilts so that you cannot see what is happening above you. Instead, you can only look at the floor, and when you do you see Blizzetta's reflection in the ice as she is hovering above you. This allows you to watch where she will attack and gives this fight a unique touch that no other fight in the series mimics.

Blizzetta is definitely not the best boss in the game for this mechanic, but it proves what the enhanced graphics of Twilight Princess allowed the game developers to do that could not be done in the 2D era (though shadows are used in some fights) or in Ocarina of Time. There's plenty of ice in Ocarina of Time, but you aren't seeing your reflection in it.

Graphics alone cannot make a game, but gameplay without graphics is broken gameplay. Improving the graphics can enhance the gameplay by allowing game creators to do things that were impossible previously.

[Yoshi_FTW]

I always find these debates interesting despite the fact that there are only a few points of view that get repeated constantly. As such, I must fill my role and include another point of view in your post.

Graphics do matter because they are not separate from gameplay. Graphics are a part of the gameplay and having better graphics can enhance the gameplay. "Better graphics" are not all about more polygons and smoother models. It also includes lighting and other real world effects and these effects are not just novelties.

Since this is a Legend of Zelda site, let's look at a Zelda game as an example. I don't think anyone here is denying that Twilight Princess has the best graphics in the series - regardless of how you feel about the game in general. I'm going to use a specific fight as my example: Blizzetta.

During the fight, Blizzetta hovers above you and drops large chucks of ice on top of you before trying to crush you herself. The camera in the game purposefully tilts so that you cannot see what is happening above you. Instead, you can only look at the floor, and when you do you see Blizzetta's reflection in the ice as she is hovering above you. This allows you to watch where she will attack and gives this fight a unique touch that no other fight in the series mimics.

Blizzetta is definitely not the best boss in the game for this mechanic, but it proves what the enhanced graphics of Twilight Princess allowed the game developers to do that could not be done in the 2D era (though shadows are used in some fights) or in Ocarina of Time. There's plenty of ice in Ocarina of Time, but you aren't seeing your reflection in it.

Graphics alone cannot make a game, but gameplay without graphics is broken gameplay. Improving the graphics can enhance the gameplay by allowing game creators to do things that were impossible previously.

I think the last paragraph in that massive speech (just kidding) is totally true. True, gameplay is around 50-60% of how I judge a game, but Graphics is probably the other 40-50%. And the other 20% is just plot, story, etc. Horrible graphics can make a game bad no matter how good the gameplay is. That's my opinion.

[General Lee]

Ah great thread. Me being a classic gamer, I have this argument with people CONSTANTLY. For me you can never judge a game on graphics. Well there is some instances. Example with modern day gaming I guess would be ok to say anything about graphics, like for games like Call of Duty. They are the same game for PS3 as 360 but if one has better graphics you can argue that.

So anyways, I judge a game on first of all game play. I don't care if the graphics look dang near real life, if the game is junk it means nothing. The game play to me is honestly what makes a game. Missile Command on my 2600 is one of my favorite games. Why? Because its fun and simple. I will never judge a game like that on its graphics.

You also can NEVER compare a game that was made 20+ years ago to one made in this era. You don't think if back in '85 they had technology like they do today, NES games wouldn't look like the ones now? So really you can't compare. In 20 years people will be saying the PS3s apparently "amazing" graphics will be bad.

And also back around the NES' time, games like Super Mario Bros 3, and Kirbys Adventure had great graphics for the system. And you ask any modern gamer if those look good they will say they look like something made on Microsoft Paint. I used to think the N64 had killer graphics and they were a big step up from the NES and SNES. But, that still doesn't mean the NES/SNES games were garbage. A few games that have bad graphics but are still amazing include Doom, and Starfox 64. Doom was the second FPS game ever made and without it we would have the Call of Dutys, or Halos or whatever of today. And the graphics are so sloppy but its still amazing and has killer music. Then look at Starfox 64. You look like your just flying polygons arround, but it doesn't mean its bad.I mean where else would we get "Do a Barrel Roll!" from?

Another thing I tend to say is how people shouldn't be playing emulators or ROMs. (as they are illegal lol) but at least these people appreciate the games of the past and don't mind the graphics.

Thats all for now, I may come back to this.

[Immortal_One]

Games should not be based on graphics alone. Yes, graphics are a part that shouldn't be neglected when judging a video game, but they shouldn't be the main thing to judge a game on. Even then, graphics shouldn't be judged on face value. Graphics should be judged on how they relate to the time they are from. Take Star Fox on the SNES for example. By today's standard, it's graphics are crude and unappealing. Back when it first came out though, the graphics were revolutionary. That game was one of our first glimpses into the third dimention in a video game.

With that said, graphics aren't as big a deal as graphical ingenuity is in a game. As Ver-go-a-go-go said X-Men: Origins was nothing more than a nice-looking beat-'em-up. It had little variation in gameplay and the storyline is already layed out for it with the movie and all. Games like Gears of War, which have no substance to them in terms of gameplay are games that I just never got into. I miss the days of games like Megaman, Zelda and Metroid on the NES and SNES. Graphics weren't a big deal, they were more of just icing on the cake rather than the main course.

[basement24]

But, that still doesn't mean the NES/SNES games were garbage. A few games that have bad graphics but are still amazing.

Very true. There's next gen games out there that pale in comparison to some original NES games in terms of gameplay. They're all flash and no substance, and if there's no substance in a video game, then you're just looking at some pretty pictures. If that's the case, then I'd rather buy a coffee table book of the graphics and forego the pain of playing the bad game!

[fredthehylian]

Very true. There's next gen games out there that pale in comparison to some original NES games in terms of gameplay. They're all flash and no substance, and if there's no substance in a video game, then you're just looking at some pretty pictures. If that's the case, then I'd rather buy a coffee table book of the graphics and forego the pain of playing the bad game!

Thats not entirely true. Personally, I find Halo 3 as a better game than Punch-Out, Mega Man, and Kid Icarus. But that doesn't mean the Mario and Donkey Kong Country trilogy aren't as good. I'd play those games over Halo 3 any day.

[Zeruda]

I'm not going to say I don't think graphics are necessary, but I don't think they are what make a game. There are many games out there that may have horrible graphics, but they still make games with great graphics look like junk. Still, there are some games that have both great graphics and great gameplay.

For instance, I played Resident Evil 5, and while the graphics were great, I have seen better. The gameplay, though, was incredible. Well, let me rephrase that- coop was incredible, CP AI sucked.

But then there are some games that might not be graphically incredible, but they are still great. For instance, when Metroid Prime came out and I saw condensation on the visor, I almost died. When I saw Samus' reflection, I almost died. And, recently MP Trilogy has been released. No, the graphics aren't as balls-to-the-wall good like X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but the controls are so...just... jeez, the controls make me think, "This is how FPS should be." It might not match up to other games in terms of graphics, but that's not necessarily important, obviously.

Do I think graphics are important? Only in games where the graphics are part of the main focus. Otherwise, no. I think eye candy is a nice plus, but not often important.

[Megamannt125]

I've never cared about graphics, the only thing graphics really improve a game is if it's a game with a big adventure field like twilight princess where you can just ride around randomly and enjoy the scenary.

[Hayzer]

This is how I see it. Mario Galaxy is really how good Nintendo has to be. In all honesty, that graphical style suits Mario perfectly, and I think they should keep it. If you get "too realistic" in a cartoon based game, it's gonna suck (I'll admit, I wasn't that big of a fan for Mario's overalls in Melee and Brawl). Now, I can understand that graphics need to be good in a Zelda game, but gameplay wins out in importance.

It's funny. With all the dumb games out for the Wii, they're actually fun and have great controls and gameplay. PS360 have occasional Goldmines, but mostly gameplay is poop.

Wii: Mario, Zelda, Metroid, SSB, Wii Series, Mario & Sonic, several other appealing franchises, some sports games.

PS360: Shooters...Sports...Racers...and that's about it. Nothing to really get you going. Spyro is good, Crash is good, Banjo used to be good. But Shooters, Sports, and Racers are all those systems have going for them. While most have good graphics, gameplay is poo.

[fredthehylian]

This is how I see it. Mario Galaxy is really how good Nintendo has to be. In all honesty, that graphical style suits Mario perfectly, and I think they should keep it. If you get "too realistic" in a cartoon based game, it's gonna suck (I'll admit, I wasn't that big of a fan for Mario's overalls in Melee and Brawl). Now, I can understand that graphics need to be good in a Zelda game, but gameplay wins out in importance.

It's funny. With all the dumb games out for the Wii, they're actually fun and have great controls and gameplay. PS360 have occasional Goldmines, but mostly gameplay is poop.

Wii: Mario, Zelda, Metroid, SSB, Wii Series, Mario & Sonic, several other appealing franchises, some sports games.

PS360: Shooters...Sports...Racers...and that's about it. Nothing to really get you going. Spyro is good, Crash is good, Banjo used to be good. But Shooters, Sports, and Racers are all those systems have going for them. While most have good graphics, gameplay is poo.

Mario should indeed stay cartoony and not have cheesy RPGs *cough*marioandluigi*cough*. Zelda needs the graphics to build drama but I think in TP I think alot of it was hideous *cough*midnazantandooccoo*cough*.

I think all games for Wii have something good in them. Even though I only use it for VC.

I hate how people say that PS3 doesn't need gameplay and how awesome all those Fighters, Shooters, and Racers are. MvC is good, Virtua Fighter sucks, Halo is decent, Ratchet and Clank is the only good thing on PS3, and 360... Conker. PS360 suck because they need to go to gameplay school. Do you know why that disgraceful sonic game was only released on PS360? Because it sucked and its only natural for it to go on the suckish systems.

[Nepolink]

Well i don't say i like Halo only for the graphic's, even i can say that Halo is a little bit overrated, If you look back they just copy and paste some places, give it a new environment and a new place has born. But overall i think graphic's doesn't make the game a prefect game, how many times i told that anyway?
I'm not a huge fan of realistic graphic's, i like the graphic's from the Legend of Zelda, Spyro and Mario ways more. I remember a friend of me bought a new game with ''prefect'' graphic's, well his opinion then. After that he didn't like the gameplay, kind of stupid. I don't remember the game anyway.

For some people the graphic's are just everything and doesn't look at the gameplay, for the others the gameplay is a greater importance. I have to say all the games with good graphic's are out of my taste. I played the newest GTA game on the Xbox360 but the graphic's aren't that great, while the gameplay was very nice. I have to say i don't like every game with very good graphic's just because they are out of my taste, it's always nice to see a game with such great graphic's. I like how they made The Legend of Zelda, it has not the best graphic's around here, but who wants to see a realistic Zelda game? It will ruin the whole game in my opinion

Graphic's aren't important. I can't say a game doesn't need good graphic's, it will always be great to have sharp and semi-realistic game around. I look at Super Mario Galaxy how they made the galaxies and other stuff. I pick the apple as example, it looks halfway real and how they did the reflection's and other stuff, amazing for just a Mario Game.
The gameplay and story is the most important thing to put in a game. Is the story interesting? Are the characters interesting? and much more. Well that's just my opinion, great graphic's would be nice.
But i shall never buy a game because the graphic's are ''the best''. Most of them are out of my taste and very boy-ish games.

Like others say. I love the very old games on the SNESS and N64 ways more than the current ones. Because the lack of good graphic's those games are win in gameplay, or it has a nostalgic reason. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are my favorite games ever, they don't have great graphic's, so i say graphic's isn't a importance, it will always be nice.

[Master Kokiri 9]

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll i like good graphics to say the least but really they're just the frosting on the video game. Graphics enhance only the way the game looks and really i like graphics in games like tp and oot but really they're just the frosting on the cake so to speak. It just appeals to the consumer with colorfullness and let's the other factors like gameplay, story, and humor hook(shot) you in. so long story short graphics matter but they don't matter much.

[chrisbg99]

Graphics are an important aspect of a game for sure but degrade in importance as you go. So if a game is going to keep your interest years after it better have hooks whether they be gameplay, story or whatever that can make it still capable of being played years after it's release.

[hsb39]

Sorry if what I say has already been mentioned.

I think that graphics do count for something but not too much. The thing is, I emphasise that this should not be taken as realistic graphics make the game better, in many cases I think that they make the game worse when a more creative style could be used. I love 8 Bit, and think that it actually *looks better* than most of the stuff we have today. Take Megaman 9 even, I loved how that looked. Much more creativity. In fact, it was graphics limitations that made Mario the lovable character that he is today, rather than the ever so popular white scruffy guy, used because realism makes it look "cooler". Windwaker is possibly my favourite game graphics wise, just so well done and different, suiting the purposes of the game.

I could go on for a while, but the general point is that graphics don't matter too much, but when they do matter, most of the time making it look really realistic etc. is not the way to go, and can actually detract from the game (whatever happened to bright colours?).

[Camisado]

I don't normally care about graphics.

People being ridiculed for playing older consoles? That's like saying the DS is rubbish compared to the Wii. You can't make the comparison. =| I still play with the NES (when it works), SNES, N64 and GameCube regularly, and I don't notice the graphics. I've played Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess in the same day before and it's not bothered me or even occurred to me. It's gameplay that really matters to me. And what if the graphics have been developed to a point where the game is seriously crippled by the abilities of its hardware? I believe this happened with a Spyro game on GameCube.

Also, Mr Miyamoto speaks some wonderful words of truth on the fight between realism and graphics (they're more often than not, mutually exclusive).


Shigeru Miyamoto: What role does realism play in videogames I ask myself. Is this image more interesting? Sometimes... however, what if a "detailed" hand with 5 fingers is catching a bottle but the fingers pass right through it? Is this still realistic? Rather than to show each meticulous and tiny detail of a finger, it is more important to make the end action look more credible by working on the movement and functionality of the arms and the hand in relation to the object.

I think the only place I'd miss good graphics is The Sims 3 (for which I just bought a nice new graphics card, though mine was three years old and on its way out)...I like all the little details on the Sims and their houses. :> And ah, I needed more video RAM.

[elliotstriforce]

well uuummm graphics are a pretty big deal for alot of people but not me my friend sez oot graphics suck but i disagree for the time it was made there awesome but not as awesome as tp

[fredthehylian]

well uuummm graphics are a pretty big deal for alot of people but not me my friend sez oot graphics suck but i disagree for the time it was made there awesome but not as awesome as tp

So you're one of those people who has a community with people who vote graphics over gameplay? I think I should be grateful I have friends who accept my retro age video game obssession.

[hsb39]

So you're one of those people who has a community with people who vote graphics over gameplay? I think I should be grateful I have friends who accept my retro age video game obssession.

I know a lot of people who think graphics just make the game, seemingly not caring about gameplay or true artistic features.

[fredthehylian]

I know a lot of people who think graphics just make the game, seemingly not caring about gameplay or true artistic features.

Here's an idea for a game that would appeal to them:

A game where you would just play as an ordinary, grey, levitating block flying through different landscapes to admire them and whatnot (grassland like the one from Twilight Princess, a Star System like Metroid Prime, a forest maze like SMRPG, etc.) It would be 584 bit or something closer to that. No need for gameplay. Just great graphics and some stellar soundtrack. That is what would be good for those types of gamers. And to back it up, a marketing ploy: Super Gamma Light. The Glass Processing graphics worked for SEGA no? Why should SGL not?

[hsb39]

Here's an idea for a game that would appeal to them:

A game where you would just play as an ordinary, grey, levitating block flying through different landscapes to admire them and whatnot (grassland like the one from Twilight Princess, a Star System like Metroid Prime, a forest maze like SMRPG, etc.) It would be 584 bit or something closer to that. No need for gameplay. Just great graphics and some stellar soundtrack. That is what would be good for those types of gamers. And to back it up, a marketing ploy: Super Gamma Light. The Glass Processing graphics worked for SEGA no? Why should SGL not?

No, no, no. It would need to be violent with some first person shooter elements remember?!

[Ver-go-a-go-go]

No, no, no. It would need to be violent with some first person shooter elements remember?!

Heh, you guys are pretty good with that. While the PS360 systems do seem to lean that way a vast majority of the time, I would like to point out that there are some great works of art for those systems as well. Soul Calibur 4 mixes excellent visuals and a great soundtrack for some very in depth and strategic game play. I could also say the same for Prince of Persia.

This isn't saying you guys are wrong, because I completely agree. The two "bigboy" systems seem to be full of rehashed concepts, on top of the violence and mature ratings it needs to be "hardcore". But just remember that not everything is like that, and there are some real masterpieces to be found there.

[hsb39]

Heh, you guys are pretty good with that. While the PS360 systems do seem to lean that way a vast majority of the time, I would like to point out that there are some great works of art for those systems as well. Soul Calibur 4 mixes excellent visuals and a great soundtrack for some very in depth and strategic game play. I could also say the same for Prince of Persia.

This isn't saying you guys are wrong, because I completely agree. The two "bigboy" systems seem to be full of rehashed concepts, on top of the violence and mature ratings it needs to be "hardcore". But just remember that not everything is like that, and there are some real masterpieces to be found there.

There are certainly some exceptions, I'm surprised that the concept of Dead Rising didn't catch on, I'd love to see Miyamoto try it (being able to use everything around you).

[fredthehylian]

No, no, no. It would need to be violent with some first person shooter elements remember?!

Ah yes. silly me. But don't forget the third person ones like WWII Paratroopers.

[hsb39]

Ah yes. silly me. But don't forget the third person ones like WWII Paratroopers.

Also GTA which people don't play because it's good (which it is), but because of the high levels of violence.

[Linky]

Gameplay is more important to me than graphics, but I like to have a game pretty balanced on both, I don't want the graphics to be so bad I feel embarassed looking at the screen. But if the graphics are too good that normally means the gameplay/ storyline is lacking. And everyone now a days seems to be spoiled over graphics, like they'll look at a Old zelda game or metriod game and they automaticly dump it without even playing it just because the graphics aren't amazing.

[Steve]

Graphics are an important thing for me, but it all has to do with the sort of game it is. The other thing to note is that good graphics does not mean the gameplay will be horrible. Games such as Little Big Planet and Assassin's Creed have wonderful graphics, but at the same time, I find them to be quite enjoyable experiences, in some cases more than the majority of the Wii. It is important to know that graphics are not the only thing that makes a game good something that the majority tends to think, because the gameplay and music are much more important in the long run.

Nonetheless, you should not say that graphics are meaningless if the technology is there. It is like saying you could care less if we lived in a polluted wasteland of a world, than a green and plentiful one, because that is the basic just of it. If the ability to create a beautiful landscape is there, then they should not hesitate to do so, because scenery is a very important aspect in gaming as well.

[hsb39]

A little bit of a change of topic, but I want to mention how the style of graphics can dramatically improve gameplay. WW added to the cheerful tone. Megaman 9 was perfect for its style. Probably the best example that I can think of is the WiiWare Defend You Castle. Everything about the game is just so perfectly funny. Graphics dubbed down and... funny. A bread packet sealer thingy is your cursor, there are giants with Pepsi heads, guys holding giant Paddle Pop sticks, and the background is done like a school diorama. The sound also aces it, no music, and all sound effects are done some guy making funny noises (the explosions are the best), and the gameplay is just perfect, never lauged so much. That is in my opinion one of the best examples of the graphic style both aiding the game greatly and NOT being realistic.

[jugglaj91]

This is one subject I never got. Why do people put so much emphasis on graphics. Obviously you don't want to look at a crappy game that hurts your eyes, or even a great game but hurts to much too look at. I do believe in Gameplay > graphics, but in a sense it has to be able to be looked at for a few hours at a time or else i won't stay interested no matter how good the story is.

My main thing is why people care about HD so much. So now the pretty games look prettier (lol prettier). There will always be crappy games no matter what, and i hope in 10 years or so maybe the AVGN can really show us the error in these games people love so much today.

[JacobDRich]

Although graphics are somewhat a factor, Gameplay first, then graphics.

[Ikana]

It has to have a good storyline,good game play, then the good graphics.But hey thats my opinion and many people want the good graphics to come first.

[Dark Princess]

Graphics have never been a big thing to me. I always play the game for the story. I can play any game with any kind of graphics. ;P

[Dr3W21]

I never care about the graphics in video games. It's the gameplay that is most important and the music. I also like playing NES games a lot even though their graphics are primitive. Twilight Princess for example is critisized for it's graphics though I personally thought the graphics were great. Nowadays, it seems people are much more concerned over a game's graphical appeal than how fun the game is. Halo 3, for example is praised for it's great graphics, though in terms of single-player gameplay I've heard that there wasn't much to it (I don't own the game.)

Actually HALO 3's gameplay is very great, at least in my opinion. But I do have to agree with you, TP's graphics were really good I thought.

[JosephII]

Realistic graphics do not equal good graphics. Graphics I do feel are important to the game. The style of the graphics are important to the overall theme of the game. Now that I have said that I would like to repeat that just because a game does not look realistic does not mean it has bad graphics. There are games for the NES and the like that have amazing and beautiful graphics.

[Aultimaespada]

I think that graphics are important, they can really enhance the game. But it's not the most important thing. I would buy a game with SNES graphs without even thinking if its gameplay is good and the game is really funny.

But more than the graphics quality, what matters more is the artistic style! For example: even with outdated graphs, Ookami and Metroid Prime stands out because of its creative style, being for looking like a old japanese drawing or for having realistic elements (like the breathing of Samus and her reflection in her helmet, as someone has has already said) without having the best graphics ever.

[Y2K3]

Graphics can be important, but "good" graphics can change amongst people. Like Joseph said, 'realistic graphics do not equal good graphics'. In my opinion, SMG's graphics are much better than Halo's. I mean, I'd take MM's graphics over Halo's. :P
Certain games, again, in my opiion, can pull off realistic graphics, while others cannot. For many games, I think the best bet is to try and find a balance between realism and cartoon.
I do think with some people it's becoming a problem with choosing games based on graphics and not gameplay, but I'd say that as long as there's still people out there who do rather the gameplay that there's nothing to 'worry' about.

[jbkarate9]

I honestly dont care about graphics its all about gameplay! But if the graphics are extreme bad then no i cant really play it. It needs to have some sort of good graphics.

[TriforceHunter]

Oh my god. if you go to YiouTube and click on a IGN or Machinima Wii video it seems like grafics are the major discussion subject. all you get is people(or New School 12 year old "Gamers" A.K.A n00bs) who always complain with such critisism like "This Grpheecks succkz ther4re this game suckz and itz gaey." or "Haloz looks better than this". and you will always see the REAL gamers telling them off and owning them in any way shape or form.And they also complain like its the wii's fault and not the fault of those lazy 3rd part developers. I mean once you look at games like Metroid Other M(Trailer) you will be inpressed of what the Wii can do.

end of line if you think grafics is all that matters you a re stupid.

[jlemon9721]

That is exactly what i think about sometimes! Well yeah your PS3 might have HD graphics, but are the games fun? I'm not saying anything bad about Sony, I'm saying that graphics don't make the game. i know that the 8-bit 'Zelda' graphics may seam pretty rough, but it is one of the best games ever made!

[Tom]

if you go to YiouTube and click on a IGN or Machinima Wii video it seems like grafics are the major discussion subject. all you get is people(or New School 12 year old "Gamers" A.K.A n00bs) who always complain with such critisism like "This Grpheecks succkz ther4re this game suckz and itz gaey." or "Haloz looks better than this"

So true. These guys are everywhere. Even on Ocarina of Time videos, posting stupid comments about how their favorite PS3/XBOX 360 videogame series kick Nintendo's butt. I hate this...graphics are the last thing I consider when deciding wheter I'll buy it or not. Sometime ago I used to play Runescape, and though many people say it sucks, most of them have never experienced the gameplay.

[TriforceHunter]

Yeah, I hate those people(as you can see) but half the time I think they are just Trolls that want to get in other peoples' nerves, but is kinda hard to believe that everyone of those guys is a Troll. Yet it's also IGN's fault for feeding their moronic fans their moronic Wii bashig articles.

[majorasmagic]

(sorry if theres a similar thread)

HEY!!! LISTEN!!!!!!!!!!!!

alright now that i have your attention

a lot of people say graphics dont matter.But of course they do.so i think when people do this they dont me it like this.

so what do some of you guys mean when you say graphics dont matter.

Heres what i mean
graphics should never come first. it should always have gameplay come first as the graphic style you choose can easily effect the gameplay drastically.
Also graphics dont have to be hd just to be good.
depending on what type of game it is the graphics have to express the emotion givin in the game (if it has any)

so yes graphics do matter but this is what i mean when i say graphics dont matter.

[BlueLink57]

You're kinda right. When people say graphics don't matter, it doesn't give a company an excuse to make a game with really bad graphics that can be much better on the consoles. But if a game is old and a person newer to video games or a person who has only played newer games, they think that the game sucks because the graphics look primitive (actually, the old games that are good have great graphics for their time). A good example would be Chrono Trigger. I was playing it, and someone came and said "Those graphics suck so much..The game probably can't even compare" when actually that game's graphics are pretty good to even today's 16-bit standards, and it's a game from 1995. So to sum this all up, graphics are certainly not the most important factor in making a game, Gameplay is prominent, with Replay Value and Music behind it.

[Turo602]

Well now, graphics do matter depending on what the style of the game is. Only because there is no excuse in this day and age to have poor graphics. If you're playing a game like Halo Reach, and it has some crappy graphics it wouldn't be as good as it is now. That's because the visuals is what makes a game into a piece of art. That's why games like Halo Reach, Mario Galaxy 1 or 2, Sonic Colors, The Legend of Zelda Wind Waker, and many others look like master pieces and that's because gameplay has to flow with beauty to make art. As for games of the past such as Ocarina of Time, yeah compared to games of today the graphics are horrible, but then again, Ocarina of Time is better then most games out now. Reason for that is because it's gameplay, music, and design, made up for it. So very few games can be playable today without the graphics bothering you, because most games feel too outdated. GoldenEye was a very great game for it's time no doubt about it, but by the time I played Halo Combat Evolved it didn't feel the same. Yes there's the older games like Super Mario Bros, and the Legend of Zelda, that have terrible graphics compared to now days. But you had to grow up into that in order to enjoy it first and have your memories of it, then you move on into improvements, not the other way around. Some games get doomed due to getting too outdated and some don't.

Yes I enjoy older games, and I am only 15. I'm one of the few people that like the classics such as Sonic, Mario, Streets of Rage, Battle Toads, etc for my age. And that's because I grew up with an NES and a Sega Genesis in my house, then I went on forward to the N64 and the Playstation, and etc. So I can appreciate older games without complaining about graphics.

So all in all, Graphics do matter for this generation of games, only because there's no excuse to have poor graphics. And for older games, they don't really matter if you grew into them they were good for there time.

[TheGreen]

I pretty much agree with all of the above.

I'd like to add that there really are subjective. If you can recall a game released for the Xbox arcade called 'Limbo', you will see what I believe to be stunning graphics. Some people will think that the silhouette style of 2D graphics has no place on such a graphically powerful console, but I'd be the first to disagree.

Graphics MUST contribute to the overall gaming experience. Minecraft has a very basic graphic style. The textures upon your first glance are horrid, but after you come to terms with the goal of the game, you begin to appreciate the simplicity and the ease with which a computer can render such basic textures.

There are three factors to the graphics: The designer, the medium (the console) and the receiver or the player. A three parts have to be working in harmony. Some designers are well suited for the computer while others are better for the graphical styles of weaker consoles. The users of said consoles also must be taken into consideration. A careful balance must be met, and simply putting the most realistic graphics or the most colorful graphics possible just won't cut it today.

[Mikau94]

Graphics matter. I honestly think the PS3 wouldn't have sold at all if the graphic wouldn't have been very well. Butgraphics arn't the only thing that matters. Gameplay and story play a huge part in video games. Think about it, people are still consistantly buying older games, hence the reason we have the Wiishop.

[fredthehylian]

These are the two requirements I usually have for graphics:
1. Intelligible- I have to be able to know what I'm looking at. This is a rule often broken by 3rd party Atari 2600 games, very rarely nowadays.
2. Not in the Uncanny Valley- As much as I say how good graphics look isn't important, if I'm staring at a game that's trying to be realistic yet it looks unnatural (i.e. this (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news_images/20090311/P1JP.jpg)) When you look at that image, doesn't something feel a bit unsettling? Having to sit through that just to have a bit of fun is what often kills a game.

Other than that, I could care less about graphics. Heck, if you actually think about it, the graphics on every FPS except for Wolfenstein, Doom, and Halo are bland; they are almost always shown through a camera with a green, blue, grey, or brown lens. That's the reason for most "graphics don't matter" comments. It's a flame to the FPS fanboys in disguise.

[Kybyrian]

I hate it when people say that graphics don't matter in the slightest - it's one of my biggest pet peeves - because they really do matter. They may not affect the game by a ton, but you have to admit that you'd probably enjoy a game better with decent graphics than absolutely horrible graphics. It's just the way things are. Graphics are sort of the invisible factor... If a game has excellent graphics that really appeal to you, then you enjoy the game 1.5x or so more(not actually calculated, a random guess). If the game has graphics that you believe are pretty good, but nothing special - in other words, neutral - then you enjoy the game about as much as you normally would. If a game has absolutely horrible graphics that you can hardly enjoy at all and don't appeal to you in the slightest, then you instantly dislike the game a little more.

I call graphics the "invisible factor" because they aren't the game-changing factor. They simply affect how much you enjoy the game a little bit, but not to the point - usually, that is - where you would end up not playing it. If the other aspects of a game are excellent, then you tend to ignore the graphics a bit. If, however, the other parts of a game are bad, and give you no sort of desire to play it, and the graphics are horrible, you may just put the game down. If the game is kind of bad, but the graphics are excellent to you, you may want to continue playing the game.

[BlueLink57]

I agree with that. Most games that were bad in my opinion had poor graphics, because as TheGreen said, it also depends on the developer, which means they didn't do a good job on the game or graphics. Good games have good graphics, not only because the graphics add enjoyment, the gameplay is already good, and the developer cared about the graphics as well.

[MrZach]

These are the two requirements I usually have for graphics:
1. Intelligible- I have to be able to know what I'm looking at. This is a rule often broken by 3rd party Atari 2600 games, very rarely nowadays.
2. Not in the Uncanny Valley- As much as I say how good graphics look isn't important, if I'm staring at a game that's trying to be realistic yet it looks unnatural (i.e. this (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news_images/20090311/P1JP.jpg)) When you look at that image, doesn't something feel a bit unsettling? Having to sit through that just to have a bit of fun is what often kills a game.

Other than that, I could care less about graphics. Heck, if you actually think about it, the graphics on every FPS except for Wolfenstein, Doom, and Halo are bland; they are almost always shown through a camera with a green, blue, grey, or brown lens. That's the reason for most "graphics don't matter" comments. It's a flame to the FPS fanboys in disguise.
I agree with this 100%. The graphics aren't as important as other things, nine times out of ten.

[darunia]

I agree with this 100%. The graphics aren't as important as other things, nine times out of ten.



to me graphics matter not one bit.

people go on about oh that game has great graphics isnt it brilliant.

the best games ive ever played are very poor graphically.
games like salamander,jsw,midnight resistance etc.

ok it was kind of hard to make sprites out but i didnt mind.
the games where that fun and enjoyable i didnit care about graphics.

to me graphics dont make the actual game better in terms of enjoyment.

if i had a choice between a ps3 game or a spectrum,c64 game etc ill always go for the c64,speccy etc.

to me graphics are totally meaningless.
i really do not understand all this graphics carry on.
gameplay, enjoyment of a game,music,story, all important graphics to me meaningless.

and i know many people who think the same.
graphics to me are just superficial.

[Master Kokiri 9]

Well, graphics matter. If you had a game that had the best story gameplay and music of all time, but the graphics looked like something you'd see on something like the Odeysey (white dots on a blue screen. I'm dead serious.) then the game would still be horrible despite the other factors being so great.

However, it's not to the point where graphics should be above all else: as long as the game's textures and stuff allow you to easily identify things and they look remotely decent for the style (IE Wind Waker pulling off the 'Toony style, Okami pulling off the Japanese-ish art style, Skyward Sword pulling off the "Anime" style as I like to call it, etc.) then you're set. Sure, some people will like certain styles of graphics better (IE I prefer the smooth brightness of Cel Shading ala WW/SS to the dull, dusty, and "realistic" color palette and textures while most other fans would tend to disagree).

So, to summarize, yes graphics matter, but they aren't everything.


I think it's pretty impossible for something to have a great story and great gameplay if it's just white dots on a screen. LOL

True, true, that was just an exaggerated example to try to illustrate my point that graphics DO matter.

[Erebea]

Well, graphics matter. If you had a game that had the best story gameplay and music of all time, but the graphics looked like something you'd see on something like the Odeysey (white dots on a blue screen. I'm dead serious.) then the game would still be horrible despite the other factors being so great.

However, it's not to the point where graphics should be above all else: as long as the game's textures and stuff allow you to easily identify things and they look remotely decent for the style (IE Wind Waker pulling off the 'Toony style, Okami pulling off the Japanese-ish art style, Skyward Sword pulling off the "Anime" style as I like to call it, etc.) then you're set. Sure, some people will like certain styles of graphics better (IE I prefer the smooth brightness of Cel Shading ala WW/SS to the dull, dusty, and "realistic" color palette and textures while most other fans would tend to disagree).

So, to summarize, yes graphics matter, but they aren't everything.

I think it's pretty impossible for something to have a great story and great gameplay if it's just white dots on a screen. LOL

[Link-182]

Graphics matter, and they certainly add a factor in value of the entire experience, especially when there is no nostalgia hooking you onto a game, but what I think people mean to say is gameplay is more important, which it is. If a game has amazing gameplay, you can focus on that other than the graphics and it can still be an incredible game. We just want people to be more open minded when it comes to judging a game by its graphics alone.

[Ralis]

Well, sorry to let about everyone that posted on this thread down, but I think graphics DO matter at least a little bit. I stopped playing OoT, because of how crappy the graphics, movement, sound, and setup were. I mean seriously, I just can't enjoy it like that. But I can agree with you on the X-Men (the X stands for eXtremely idiotic) thing. The game has no point. But, once again, I must let you down. I don't really like Nintendo all that much. I used to, but now, I think that it's really stupid. I really only play Halo Reach. Not just because of the graphics, though.

[blubb]

Well, I'm kind of split on that matter. On the one hand, a boring game can have very good graphics and still suck, on the other hand, bad graphics can ruin otherwise good games too. For me, both gameplay and graphics must be right, while my graphical expectations are a bit lower, probably because I grew up with the SNES.

Many of my friends go "graphics only" too when they judge a game, disregarding the rest. Plus many new games mainly consist of graphically impressive, but sometimes extremely long and boring cutscenes. Seriously, if I want to watch a movie, I'll go to the cinema. That seems to be a general trend which has been going on for over a decade in video gaming, games tend to be more slow-paced and artificially lengthened by over-long cutscenes and other quasi-idle phases (traveling through oversized rooms, world maps etc. with little action). To some extent, this development also applies to the Zelda series: From the highly action-packed NES and SNES games via the significantly slower N64 installments to the relatively story-heavy and sometimes empty GC titles. But don't get me wrong here, I still like even the newer games a lot because other gameplay elements make up for it, actually MM (and aLttP) are possibly my favourite games of all time.

Unfortunately, good graphics are often (mis-)used to overshadow lack of gameplay, story and innovation. For example, let's look at the Call of Duty series. Actually, the games are not even that bad at all, but here's the problem... there are like 8 "different" games now, all around 50€ each, but are they really that different from each other? MW2 and BO look exactly the same to me (I've only watched others play, so maybe I missed the small tidbits that are different). Graphical updates and other gimmicks (like the ability to ride tanks (useless) and the awful leveling system) aside: I can't really see much of a difference between CoD:BO and Wolfenstein 3D (1992!). No innovations at all. To me the series is just a cash cow that's being milked very regularly. And the same applies to the Battlefield, Halo, Gears of whatever, ... series too, they all just seem to copy off each other and slightly improve the gfx to the next game. For around 50 effing €. Each. Why do people buy that same stuff over and over again like crazy? I don't get it.
So much for the reason why I'm not going to buy any PS3 or Xbox, because a percieved >95% of the game libraries consist of FPS'es (I wouldn't want to play an FPS with an analog stick anyway - and why shelling out horrendous amounts of money for these consoles when most of these titles are released on the PC too?).

Now the other side...
Bad graphics or graphical styles which I dislike can really ruin a game for me, even if gameplay/story/music are quite good. This was the case for me with Wind Waker. I actually enjoyed the story and music of the game, but here, the graphics drained a lot of the overall experience. To me, it was way too goofy, too exaggerated (those body proportions...) and too bright. I would've rather prefered OoT/MM graphics over the ones that were used, because though they have lower polygons/texture resolution/shading... they don't look as ridiculous and eye-seizuring.
And here's the reason why I'm not buying a Wii: The resolution. And I don't understand what Nintendo is doing here. Nowadays, it's pretty standard for the vast majority of housholds to have ~40" HDTVs, at least where I live. I'd say that more than 75% of the households of people I know have such a TV, and neither we nor them are very rich, just normal average middle class, and most of them aren't tech-freaks either. Heck, even my grandparents who are farmers in their late 60s have such a TV. And I guess that the US and Japan have probably higher coverage, because here in Europe we're usually around a year behind with most tech stuff.
And here's the problem: The Wii only produces a 576i signal, and you have no idea how crappy that looks on a standard 42" 1080p LCD TV. I hate hate hate interlacing artefacts at low resolutions, here are some nice examples of that visual torture: http://www.aussievideosearch.com/posts/interlacing02.jpg http://www.aussievideosearch.com/posts/interlacing03.jpg I understand that interlacing was introduced to save bandwith for TV broadcasting [I]in the 60s, but now it's 2010! 576i has been in use for almost half a century for analog colour TV now - and while that was top notch quality for the tiny vaulted CRT-TVs people had back then, it just doesn't cut it for me anymore in AD 2010.
Hopefully they'll implement at least Full HD in the "Wii 2" and I also hope that it's coming soon (2012 would be great), I guess I'll have to wait with SS until then. After all, Nintendo has still the better game library by far, it's just the technical aspect of the graphics that's a bit poor ATM. The style of the graphics on the Wii can be good, as shown in games like Okami. The graphical style of SS is acceptable, it won't ruin the game for me like WW's did, but it doesn't blow me away either.

[fredthehylian]

Well, sorry to let about everyone that posted on this thread down, but I think graphics DO matter at least a little bit. I stopped playing OoT, because of how crappy the graphics, movement, sound, and setup were. I mean seriously, I just can't enjoy it like that. But I can agree with you on the X-Men (the X stands for eXtremely idiotic) thing. The game has no point. But, once again, I must let you down. I don't really like Nintendo all that much. I used to, but now, I think that it's really stupid. I really only play Halo Reach. Not just because of the graphics, though.

I feel as though you are trying to grab attention, but I apologize if this is false. I will admit, Ocarina of Time doesn't deserve all the praise it gets. However, flat-out calling Ocarina of Time crappy without much to say about it is kind of... boring. You didn't really say why it was crappy, you kind of just said "Ocarina of Time has bad graphics, sound, and setup," and left it at that.
I'm glad that you have a different opinion, but the fact that you have such a different one from most of the community and saying Halo is better, leads me to believe you might just want attention.

[Hylian Knight]

What are your thoughts about graphics do you think they really are necessary to make a game fun?

[MrLuigi]

Ask Nintendo Wii if graphics matter for a good game.

[goomboo]

good games defeat HD by a long way.

[00steven]

Gameplay is what matters first and foremost.

[fredthehylian]

I think this is the third thread regarding this issue. Please visit this thread that I posted quite a while ago (http://zeldadungeon.net/forum/showthread.php?5115-Graphics) to get the thoughts of myself and several others.

[Cel-Shaded Deku]

Not really. Gameplay comes first but none of us would play a game with REALLY bad graphics no matter how good it is. You wouldn't date an uguly girl would you?

[Aurelia]

Everyone has different opinion's on graphic's. I like any game as long as I can see what I'm suppose to see. 3D graph's are easier on my eye's and more visible too see, and I'm pretty sure it goes for almost anyone else.
Graphic's don't really matter to me, unless I can see what I'm looking at.

[Kybyrian]

Yes, definitely! I'm tired of people saying that graphics don't matter. Graphics do matter, but they just don't happen to be one of the biggest factors in the minds of passionate gamers. Graphics are a little modifier, sort of like an exponent, if you will. If the graphics are moderate, and you aren't really extremely impressed by them but at the same time are not displeased, then it's like an exponent of 1, and the game stays the same for you. If the game has unbelievable graphics that you feel are just right and take your breath away, then think of it as a larger exponent the better the graphics get. When the game has graphics that appeal to you, the game is better, you just don't quite notice it. The same can be said with bad graphics, but in an opposite manner. Bad graphics can represent the negative exponent. The worse the graphics get, the more you tend to dislike the game. If you're one of those that can ignore horrible graphics, then good for you! Most people, however, can't stand graphics that are extremely horrible.

With time our standards are increased. It also depends on what you plan on and are used to seeing. If they made a Call of Duty game in 8-bit then that wouldn't be considered very good, would it? It would be almost totally rejected by the market without even a second thought, no matter how good the game is! With a game like Zelda, however, it depends on what you plan to see as said earlier. If you really want a 2D game, then it doesn't bother you if they came out with a new game with 2D graphics. Some modern and younger gamers may not like the game so much, though. That being said... graphics do, they just aren't (usually!) a game-changing factor.

[Djinn]

This is kind of a hard one to answer. I would probably say graphics matter depending on the game I am playing and how new it is.

When I play NES games I do not care mostly because I know what I am getting into when I decide to play them. A 20-ish year old game with bad sound and 8bit graphics. Obviously it will look simple and bland. But the games themselves I like, I still want to play Contra even if the main character does look like a weird little faceless football player guy that shoots white dots at aliens. It is still a fun game. It is the same situation when I play Final Fantasy VII, I know I am playing an older game with dated graphics. The players have blocks for hands and often run in place. However in it's day it was the most impressive game graphically and amazed everyone that turned it on. Now nostalgia and love of the series if the driving force behind people playing it. But if the graphics looked like crap when it was released a lot of people would have never given it a chance. Regardless of any quality gameplay. And this is how I feel about modern games.

With new games I expect them to be state of the art. Or at least close to it. Especially if I am playing a new shooter, adventure or action game. I expect to be just as mesmerized by the cutscenes as I am with the gameplay. Amazing new graphics are a huge selling point behind a game, if a company were to skip out and have anything less than amazing people would give it a pass and go play the other new and amazing new title. If a game were to look terrible then it would only appear in EGM's Rest of the Crap. Most people want to be blown away by that first time turning the power on with a new game. Age is a huge factor in graphics vs. gameplay. Anyone playing a game that is several years old then they would not expect to be totally wowed by the scenes and just enjoy the game. They are very likely playing a prequel to a favorite game or a beloved old game found in their closet. In these cases graphics would not matter at all. Or they might have more fun mocking how terrible the graphics of that era really were and how they cannot believe they were so amazed by them so many years ago.

Many RPG's can be different though, they normally keep an anime style or certain cartoon look such as Blue Dragon and Dragonquest. Usually Japanese RPG's do this, western ones like to keep things realistic. But RPGs are very story driven with a lot of emphasis on characterization and gameplay. So with these gameplay is definitely more important than graphics. Other things like puzzle games and RTSs do not rely on graphics either. They are a nice bonus but are not too important to the game.

Art style goes pretty far as well. I was also reluctant to play Wind Waker because I hated the decision to use a very cartoon looking artstyle. The Gamecube was capable of better than that and I thought Nintendo was being cheap and coming out with a poorly put together game. I eventually played it and liked the game but still there was that initial decision to not give it a chance because of that style. As many more people have still not given it an chance for the same reason.

[Godkarmachine]

To me graphics doesn't matter as you said: as long as i see what I'm supposed to see
Lately gaming industry focuses only on graphics, but they aren't really all that important... take the atari jaguar as an example, or the virtual boy. They were supposed to be cutting edge on graphics but they failed, reasons being lack of support and harder games to program. Graphics can cause many people to stay away from games or consoles, the wii as an example (as it is no "high definition console"), even if there are some amazing games in there (ex. Metroid: Other M, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Tatsunoko Vs Capcom)
Not to mention that in hd consoles their best games are usually FPS... not to say there aren't good games, there are, but i think they lack variety
On the other side take Megaman 10, a game that appeared in 2010, it has 8 bit graphics and sound, but its waaaaaaaaay better than many games with cutting edge graphics. For me, the thing that really matters is gameplay, with graphics being an added extra

[Obscured]

they DO matter, but In my opinion Gameplay/story>Graphics...

[Raven]

I suppose that would depend on a few things, mainly the genre of the game and the system it was being played on. If it was an RPG i would say no, in fact the more old school the graphics the better, that would leave more space for loot, enemies, spells and other rpg things. However New Gen RPG's kind of change that. And if it was a first person shooter I would say that the graphics would be very very important.

If it was a side scroller I would say the graphics could anywhere in between retro and new gen.
If the platform is your computer I think the games should be graphically impressive. Same goes for PS3
XBOX 360 Arcade, Wii, DS and PSP do retro well.

I find more often than not, the gameplay matters more than the graphics, as long as the game is fun as heck I'll play it more than a better looking game. So for me looks aren't really a concern, but I know that in games like Call of Duty graphics matter. Which basically means, some games need good graphics to be good games, others don't. Or at least that's how I see it.

[butterbiscuit]

In my opinion, no. Most of my favorite games have old, pixelated graphics. Although good graphics are a good thing, I don't think they're required to make a game fun.
There are some games that could have used some better graphics such as Pilotwings to make things easier to see, but I suppose, as Raven said, it depends on what game it is.

[Turo602]

Graphics do matter. They matter just as much as the story and gameplay. In this generation there is no excuse to have poor graphics. You can't say that they don't matter just because you still enjoy games like Super Mario Bros and Ocarina of Time. Yes those games are fun, but for it's time it was amazing. The Nintendo pulled off what it could just as any other system did FOR IT'S TIME. Now we have very powerful systems we are getting so advance that we now have powerful hand helds. The reason games get outdated isn't because of it's graphics but it's gameplay. You can't just stop liking a game because it has worse graphics compared to what we can get today. But graphics need to flow with game play and story to make a masterpiece. Yes graphics shouldn't be the reason for buying a game. In fact, it should be the last thing you look for in a game but that doesn't mean it's not as important.

[mooper11]

Well, that's what some companies think. But why did we, the gamers, spend all of our quarters on Street Fighter and Double Dragon? Why did we spend hours and hours with our buddies playing Goldeneye007 and/or Perfect Dark. Why did we play The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess until our fingers bled. Because it was fun! Nobody gives a crap about graphics, at least they shouldn't *Cough* Wind Waker haters *Cough*. Gameplay is the only thing that maters, and I think that in the future, gamereviewing sites like GT and IGN should only judge a game on gameplay alone.

[Erebea]

Well, that's what some companies think. But why did we, the gamers, spend all of our quarters on Street Fighter and Double Dragon? Why did we spend hours and hours with our buddies playing Goldeneye007 and/or Perfect Dark. Why did we play The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess until our fingers bled. Because it was fun! Nobody gives a crap about graphics, at least they shouldn't *Cough* Wind Waker haters *Cough*. Gameplay is the only thing that maters, and I think that in the future, gamereviewing sites like GT and IGN should only judge a game on gameplay alone.
Actually, back then people thought the graphics of those games were top-notch, and a lot of people played and loved them because of this. Graphics have actually mattered for a long time, it's just that it's getting out of hand these days with these graphic hounds.

[Turo602]

Actually, back then people thought the graphics of those games were top-notch, and a lot of people played and loved them because of this. Graphics have actually mattered for a long time, it's just that it's getting out of hand these days with these graphic hounds.

Exactly. Graphics don't make a game horrible. Only the game play, presentation, and story. Even with games of the past. For it's time it was amazing. Graphics don't make a game stale either, the game play just gets outdated. Just like with GoldenEye. Once I played Halo COMBAT EVOLVED, GoldenEye didn't feel the same anymore. Reason being, that the game play formula has evolved for first person shooters.

[mooper11]

Yes, but did you play those games for the graphics? NO!!! You don't play a game just to say "Ooh, pretty colors,"!

[Pirgah]

Graphics do matter in a sense, for example, the games of today are much better (discounting nostalgia) then the 8 bit games from the days of the NES. In this Generation. Many people have been putting down the wii for having such 'terrible' graphics. But I'm under the impression that many of these people are confusing graphical style with graphical power, and graphic style is what matters (though different people will like different graphical styles).

For example, many people were in very excited about the graphics featured in the game "Monster Hunter Tri", however, if you removed the textures from those models, you would probably see rather unimpressive, low poly models, and there are probably other Wii games with much higher quality models but with a less realistic look, and people will probably say these games have 'bad graphics'.

This has become very apparent in the new legend of Zelda game: 'Skyward Sword'. I'm sure everyone on this site has seen at least one comment saying "These graphics are terrible", or "This is a downgrade from Twilight Princess", despite the fact that the models have a much higher poly count and look better overall.

Basically, I believe that people are mistaking "realistic" style graphics with overall better graphics. I personally believe that a realistic style is not always the way to go. I think that the graphical style of the game should reflect the atmosphere of the game.

[Erebea]

Yes, but did you play those games for the graphics? NO!!! You don't play a game just to say "Ooh, pretty colors,"!

That doesn't mean that graphics don't matter at all, which is what you were saying. I understand that you don't like the hype about graphics that are around today, but saying graphics don't matter at all is completely biased and pretty delusional.

[Kybyrian]

Yes, but did you play those games for the graphics? NO!!! You don't play a game just to say "Ooh, pretty colors,"!

People actually did buy a lot of games back then for top-notch graphics. When The Legend of Zelda was first released for the NES they released a commercial (Zelda rap, you can find it on Youtube) that even said, "Whoa, nice graphics!" in the commercial.

[Stallord]

Graphics, in my mind, do make part of the game, especially with today's standards. But, like everyone's been saying already, gameplay is more important than graphics. I hate it when games are considered the best games ever just because of the graphics. People need to consider ALL of the components that make a game, besides just the graphics.

[Zelda64]

What I think is that graphics do matter. That is all I'm going to say.

[SuperSilly]

Whether or not graphics are important is, I think, mostly a matter of opinion. Graphics have never really mattered that much to me. I’ve played games with nothing but text as graphics and still had fun. I’ve also played games with good, modern graphics and had fun. However I think that good graphics can and usually do add to a gaming experience. I’m not strictly talking about photorealistic graphics. These matter, and are important, but I’m really talking about graphics that suit the game.

Each game has its own style and atmosphere that it aims to impress upon the player. Fitting graphics are important. Whether that means blocky, pixelated graphics, almost no graphics, cartoony graphics, or photorealistic graphics, depends on the game, and what atmosphere the developers intend to communicate. I believe this is also true from a business perspective. You might want to design the graphics around the preferences of your target audience. (Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to this, and I’m no expert, but it’s a general observation.)

Are they going for a retro nostalgic feel? Perhaps those blocky graphics would be a good choice. How about the latest Halo game? Realistic graphics are probably fitting. Making a text-based game? Why bother with too much in the way of graphics at all? Perhaps you want an artsy, unique feel to go with your equally artsy, unique game? This could be any graphics style, really.

As I said before, I feel it’s mostly a matter of opinion. My opinion is that if the graphics add to the experience, then they’re ‘good’ in my book. This includes what some people may consider ‘ugly’ graphics. But what I really look forward to in most games is gameplay and storyline/character development. Graphics are important, but not nearly as important to me as these, and for me, graphics do not always need to be at a level of ultra-realism.

[Turo602]

Yes, but did you play those games for the graphics? NO!!! You don't play a game just to say "Ooh, pretty colors,"!

Um, read my first post. And when did I say anything about that? I said graphics don't make a game horrible. But they are still very important and have been important since the very first game. It's just not something that takes away from the game itself. Especially when we have powerful systems now. People say graphics don't matter but it really does and is part of the reason why some games are fine pieces of art. Just look at Mario Galaxy 2. It wouldn't be what it is today if it looked like Mario 64. Reason is because the Wii is so much more graphically powerful then the N64. Graphics don't make a game awesome but it doesn't mean it's not a key factor in games. It's like having a nice washed red apple instead of a bruised brown one. Do you see the point yet? Games on the NES didn't have horrible graphics. People just say that because they compare it to graphics that they see now. There's a big time difference. No one back then said "ill look at those horrible graphics", because it was the best they had at the time. So graphics do matter very much but shouldn't be the first thing you look for in a game.

[Mute]

I believe graphics do matter, but shouldn't be what people judge a game by. However, when I say they matter, I mean the style, not if they've got thousands of polygons and overly HD textures. The style of the graphics matter just as much as the music of a game does, it helps set the mood and make the game a lot more involving.

For example, take cartoons. They usually have characters and even objects that look over-exaggerated or look nothing like its real world counterpart would, but no one would call it "ugly" art, since it all fits into the style that the cartoon set for its self. Something else you'll notice is that the ones that look the most realistic have the more serious mood and story to them, while the ones that are more cartoony and bright have a lighter story and are probably more on a comedic side. If you mix the two up, though, they're not going to work unless you happen to have a miracle or find the perfect combination. Games are no exception to this.

But, other than that, polygon count and texture quality shouldn't matter. Don't get me wrong, if someone makes a game on one of the more recent consoles that looks like it came straight from the 64 (Without actually coming straight from it) then it's probably enough to cause some fuss about since it would show an obvious lack of quality/care in this day and age, but it shouldn't stop someone from enjoying or playing the game, just because it's got a little more primitive graphics doesn't mean it should detract you from the experience.

To sum it up, to me, the style matters more than the polygon count. I enjoy games for the game play first and foremost, even before story, so graphics are not something I think about very often, and when I do, sometimes I prefer older games' graphics over the newer ones because I much prefer the style over how not-blocky something is.

[mooper11]

Originally posted by Turo206
Um, read my first post. And when did I say anything about that? I said graphics don't make a game horrible. But they are still very important and have been important since the very first game. It's just not something that takes away from the game itself. Especially when we have powerful systems now. People say graphics don't matter but it really does and is part of the reason why some games are fine pieces of art. Just look at Mario Galaxy 2. It wouldn't be what it is today if it looked like Mario 64. Reason is because the Wii is so much more graphically powerful then the N64. Graphics don't make a game awesome but it doesn't mean it's not a key factor in games. It's like having a nice washed red apple instead of a bruised brown one. Do you see the point yet? Games on the NES didn't have horrible graphics. People just say that because they compare it to graphics that they see now. There's a big time difference. No one back then said "ill look at those horrible graphics", because it was the best they had at the time. So graphics do matter very much but shouldn't be the first thing you look for in a game.


Um, that question wasn't directed at you. But let me rephrase my question, do you still play games that are outdated and have crudy graphics? ID you do why?

[Turo602]

Yes. But only to games that have beat the test of time and prove to still be fun. Doesn't mean graphics don't matter.

[LolGames4U]

I think graphics add to the game; I will stop playing a game if the graphics are absolutely terrible, but they aren't extremely important.

[Zarom]

Personally, I don't really care about graphics. If the game is fun, I won't stop playing it only because the graphics are ugly or dated. Graphics are the less important part of a video game IMO. There are some NES games that I love more than current games for example, and now that I'm thinking about it, I think there's a certain charm to 8-bit and 16-bit graphics. Most games from the N64 don't look great today, but when I play back those games, I still have a blast without caring at all about the dated graphics.

[ZRetsirk]

as long as i can see what goin on, im fine, i just dont want it to be completely terrible, nor too good, too good hurtz my eyes...

[Hylian Knight]

Yes, definitely! I'm tired of people saying that graphics don't matter. Graphics do matter, but they just don't happen to be one of the biggest factors in the minds of passionate gamers. Graphics are a little modifier, sort of like an exponent, if you will. If the graphics are moderate, and you aren't really extremely impressed by them but at the same time are not displeased, then it's like an exponent of 1, and the game stays the same for you. If the game has unbelievable graphics that you feel are just right and take your breath away, then think of it as a larger exponent the better the graphics get. When the game has graphics that appeal to you, the game is better, you just don't quite notice it. The same can be said with bad graphics, but in an opposite manner. Bad graphics can represent the negative exponent. The worse the graphics get, the more you tend to dislike the game. If you're one of those that can ignore horrible graphics, then good for you! Most people, however, can't stand graphics that are extremely horrible.

With time our standards are increased. It also depends on what you plan on and are used to seeing. If they made a Call of Duty game in 8-bit then that wouldn't be considered very good, would it? It would be almost totally rejected by the market without even a second thought, no matter how good the game is! With a game like Zelda, however, it depends on what you plan to see as said earlier. If you really want a 2D game, then it doesn't bother you if they came out with a new game with 2D graphics. Some modern and younger gamers may not like the game so much, though. That being said... graphics do, they just aren't (usually!) a game-changing factor. I'm not saying Graphics don't matter which I think they do but it's not something I look at when I'm thinking about buying a game.

[DisappearingMist]

To me, they matter a little bit, but some of my favorite games come from the early 90s where graphics were not the priority. I didn't care then, and I still don't.

[Brave Huxley]

When you really give it some thought, Graphics now-a-days matter, purely for what you're paying for the game, as well as the public's view on how it should look. You're playing a next gen system, you're going to have some sort of improvement regarding the way your game looks. Plain and simple.

However, just take a look at the old N64 games, heck even the NES and SNES games. Beautiful game play (for the most part) with 8-bit graphics. If you played those kinds of games as a child, you didn't care. You were enveloped in the story, the plot, the game mechanics, and plus...Those were the next gen graphics of the age. I mean, I remember Pilotwings 64 looking absolutely beautiful back when I first played it, but now when I look at it, I feel jaded because of the kind of graphics out on the market right now-a-days.

It all depends on your taste I suppose. If you can throw a next gen game my way with less the satisfying graphics, I wouldn't mind. So long as the content was compelling enough to play.

[Djinn]

I recall graphics having an enormous priority in the early 90's. Where it was almost a major selling point behind several games. Donkey Kong Country being the biggest example. Te revolutionary graphics system it used helped make it the best selling game for the SNES. Which later led to DKC becoming one of the top 10 most overrated games of all time in 05. Due to the graphics maintaining the sales over gameplay. It actually outsold SMW 2:Yoshi's Island for Nintendo's use of kiddy style graphics and crayon drawn backgrounds. The initial draw for the Genesis was that it had 16 bit graphics over the 8 bit NES. Then the SNES with almost double the colors than the Genesis, then the Genesis had a faster processor. Gameplay mechanics never really came into these arguments at all, only how pretty and colorful the games looked.

The Genesis/SNES wars of the early 90's also used graphics as a major selling point by comparing various third party ports. They were both constantly declaring that Genesis Mortal Kombat had many more frames of animation over the SNES version, while SNES EarthWorm Jim had much better rendered backgrounds than the Genesis port. Graphics were the main argument with other ports such as Maximum Carnage, Clayfighter, or Jurassic Park. Then both companies tries using terminology to lure people in by saying that the SNES has the Super FX chip, while Genesis has "Blast Processing."
http://www.sega-16.com/Features/Marketing%20the%20Genesis/Sega%20Ad%203_jpg.jpg
http://socksmakepeoplesexy.net/images/irish/32x-print_small.jpg
http://101videogames.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/starwing_pal_box.jpg
Some of the tv commercials were just as ridiculous. Especially when it came to Gameboy vs. Game Gear.


To me it looks that people began choosing gameplay over graphics much later. Especially when companies started re releasing older games through ports and nostalgia generated interest. As well as franchises brought about interest in previous titles such as Final Fantasy or Mega Man.

[Brave Huxley]

I recall graphics having an enormous priority in the early 90's. Where it was almost a major selling point behind several games. Donkey Kong Country being the biggest example. Te revolutionary graphics system it used helped make it the best selling game for the SNES. Which later led to DKC becoming one of the top 10 most overrated games of all time in 05. Due to the graphics maintaining the sales over gameplay. It actually outsold SMW 2:Yoshi's Island for Nintendo's use of kiddy style graphics and crayon drawn backgrounds. The initial draw for the Genesis was that it had 16 bit graphics over the 8 bit NES. Then the SNES with almost double the colors than the Genesis, then the Genesis had a faster processor. Gameplay mechanics never really came into these arguments at all, only how pretty and colorful the games looked.

The Genesis/SNES wars of the early 90's also used graphics as a major selling point by comparing various third party ports. They were both constantly declaring that Genesis Mortal Kombat had many more frames of animation over the SNES version, while SNES EarthWorm Jim had much better rendered backgrounds than the Genesis port. Graphics were the main argument with other ports such as Maximum Carnage, Clayfighter, or Jurassic Park. Then both companies tries using terminology to lure people in by saying that the SNES has the Super FX chip, while Genesis has "Blast Processing."
http://www.sega-16.com/Features/Marketing%20the%20Genesis/Sega%20Ad%203_jpg.jpg
http://socksmakepeoplesexy.net/images/irish/32x-print_small.jpg
http://101videogames.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/starwing_pal_box.jpg
Some of the tv commercials were just as ridiculous. Especially when it came to Gameboy vs. Game Gear.


To me it looks that people began choosing gameplay over graphics much later. Especially when companies started re releasing older games through ports and nostalgia generated interest. As well as franchises brought about interest in previous titles such as Final Fantasy or Mega Man.

Oh my god..Look at that Star Fox box. Amazing!!

[Jimmy]

I think among the Nintendo community there is a slight aversion to hailing graphics as important, largely because Nintendo have never bothered fighting in the "realistic graphics" races like many other developers. This isn't to say some Nintendo graphics aren't brilliant, but more in a stylistic way than a high-resolution one.

There are many games I've played where graphics have had a huge impact on the fun of a game. Team Fortress 2 is one example. The game's cartoony, humorous style means players rarely take the game that seriously, and it's one of those games that doesn't attract a load of sweary 13 year olds who make "your mum" jokes all the time. They are too busy playing Call of Duty.

For the likes of single player games, World of Goo springs to mind. Without the music and the visual style it wouldn't feel the same and the vibe of the game would change. There are a number of other indie and small-developer titles that this applies to, but in short graphics are very, very important.

The trouble is that mainstream gaming has very uncreative graphics and art styles. Call of Duty, FIFA and Grand Theft Auto all aim for photorealism which to my mind is not very interesting. In that case the graphics have little impact on the game. They don't make you want to play the game but they don't repel you either. They just are.

Of course gameplay is what will you keep you playing. But graphics immerse you in the experience, if done properly.


http://socksmakepeoplesexy.net/images/irish/32x-print_small.jpgIs that some sort of sexual joke :lol:

Also worth pointing out that the most powerful systems often sell the worst.

[Heros Temporis]

I like games that are nice to look at. I do like a game to have good graphics, because it's easier to look at. More than graphics, though, I appreciate detail. All the largely unnoticed aspects of the world they put into the game. Individual blades of grass instead of a green carpet. Cracks and signs of erosion on rocks. Ripples and waves in the water; all the things that game developers do to make the game seem more real and detailed. Now, outstanding graphics and a large amount of detail often come in one package, which is why I like good graphics a lot.

But what do I consider "nice to look at" graphics like I mentioned when I started? Well, I have a long list of games that I think are nice to look at, as I have pretty easy criteria when it comes to graphics. I think OoT has good graphics. I think The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess have good graphics. I think Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime have good graphics. I think Halo Reach has nice graphics. But I also think that Halo 1,2, and 3 have good graphics. Any game that isn't going to hurt my eyes I usually consider "nice to look at". But it's gotta be detail that makes me appreciate visuals. That's where I start listing games with stunning graphics like Twilight Princess, The Wind Waker, Halo Reach, Metroid Prime and its sequel, (I'm currently about 1/4 through Echoes, I haven't played Corruption yet but I'm sure it has great graphics as well) and Super Smash Bros. Brawl because they not only have gorgeous, stunning graphics, but more importantly in my book, they have an outstanding amount of detail.

That's not to say I don't like old games because of their visual limitations. Ocarina of Time is still my favorite of all Zeldas, and I still love Majora's Mask, and Metroid Zero Mission, and A Link to the Past, Super Mario Bros., and the original LoZ, and all those old games that aren't as graphically advanced as current games.

In short, I do like good graphics, but they don't have to be absolutely drop-dead amazing (Ahem, Twilight Princess, Halo Reach, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Metroid Prime...) to make a game fantastic. Besides, N64 games are gorgeous in their own, polygonish way. Many locales in Ocarina of Time are just as breathtaking as ones in Twilight Princess. SNES games are gorgeous in their own way, and NES always has the great 8-Bit graphics. The difference between stunning detail and N64 polygon graphics don't matter to me when the game is amazing either way. Besides, we all know that basically anything Nintendo makes is going to be fantastic either way.

[darunia]

To me graphics are of very little importance.
For me they only account to 5 percent of a game.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
People now go crazy about graphics,i do not understand it.
Thing is a game can be great graphically but no good in any other way.
That sure does not make a good game.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I have played hundreds of games that are graphically poor but are still famtastic games.

For me gameplay,addictiveness, good story are far more important in a game.

Of course if a game is good in all those ways and also has good graphics thats a real bonus.

But when i buy a game i do not immediately think how good is it graphically i say is it addictive, will i play it for yrs and yrs to come has it great music.

I really feel to many game players are obsessed with grapgics.

[K4KING]

Graphics makes a game attractive to the eye, but the gameplay is what keeps the player playing the game instead of stopping.

People today base their impressions on how the game will look because the graphics are the first thing a gamer will see, then after that the gameplay then the storyline.
Some people tend to base their judgement on the graphics alone but that's being harsh, one must play the game and know the storyline with it for a game to be complete and exciting.

[Celeboy]

Graphics are for athsetics only. Gameplay makes you want to play it, but if it's not very eye-pleasing people may be put off playing it. OoT has crummy graphics, but it's an awesome game and wheelspin has alright graphics (better than OoT) yet it got stupidly low ratings because the gameplay was bad.

[Cuju]

For me, graphics really don't matter that much. When I'm playing Ocarina of time, I know that the graphics aren't pretty, but the game's controls and structure is so good, that I don't really care. When I'm playing Black Ops, however, I really do appreciate the graphics in that game, because I expect high end graphics from the 360 and PS3. On the other hand, my second favorite game ever, Monster Hunter Tri, has some of the best graphics on Wii, but I don't notice them really because I care about gameplay... Grrrr! I'll just say that I preffer good gameplay over good graphics...

[Seth]

No, not much anyways.
The game needs to look good obviously so they matter to an extant. But while TP obviously has better graphics than ALttP I still see ALttP as having beautiful graphics. It is all about style and what you do with the technology at your disposal. I still find OoT and MM graphics as great to.

[Caleb, Of Asui]

With a lot of people I know, there seem to be two different attitudes about graphics: (1) all amazing games have amazing graphics and everything that's not at Crysis 2 level is a piece of crap, and (2) you don't need good graphics to have a good game but all games with good graphics happen to be crap. In short, either good graphics or bad graphics are best. I don't agree with either of these perspectives, as they're very shallow.

There are some wonderful games out there that didn't match the graphical prowess of the more powerful consoles out at the time - such games include Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider, Shenmue, Sonic Adventure 2, Super Mario Galaxy, Red Steel, and No More Heroes. Few would say that any of these aren't wonderful games, and they were all for the significantly less powerful consoles of their respective generations.

On the other side of that token, though, that doesn't make games with good graphics bad games. I can appreciate when a sequel or a remake of a game is released and the graphics are significantly nicer than in the old game or the old version. When you start to compare the graphical quality of games from different series, though, especially within the same generation, you start to miss the point of each individual game. Sure, games should try to take advantage of their consoles' power, but you shouldn't get too focused on that. If anything at GameCube level has "bad graphics," you might be crazy.

It's also worth noting that the graphical style of a game is infinitely more important than the graphical quality. Is it cel-shaded, or is it a more realistic style? Are the characters drawn more like anime characters, or in what other style are they drawn? That has a tone more to do with the specific game you're playing, as it's controlled directly by the creators of the game, whereas if they don't have the hardware to make something have a ton of polygons or complex lighting, that's not the fault of the creator of the game.

[Man_of_Squid]

It's true that gameplay is far more important than graphics, but good graphics add a level of enjoyment and depth to a game and serve to enhance the gameplay of a game
These two screen shots are of the exact same game, with the exact same gameplay, but think about which version you would rather enjoy and play.
11830

Now I'm not dissing the wii. I think it is a great system, I really do. All I'm saying is that the graphics of a game might be a little more important than you might think.

[Master Kokiri 9]

Of course they matter. Graphics can definitely effect the way you look at a game. If the graphics are horrible enough, then it's just too big a factor to ignore and you probably won't end up buying the game. The opposite can be said too, since absolutely stunning graphics can leave you really interested in the game, potentially prompting you to buy it.

However, it's not to say that just because the graphics are crappy that it's a bad game. No, no, no, no, no, no! Just take MOTHER 1 and MOTHER 2, NES and SNES games with bad graphics even for their retro systems. But, instead of being lauded as bad games, they are generally accepted as excellent Cult Classic games (okay, they ARE labeled as bad games because of their graphics, but reviews like those are rare). The reason for this is because they make up for the graphics with other things, like how charming the game is and just how dang FUN it is to play the game (trust me, if you've played MOTHER 2 or a good translation of MOTHER 1 then you probably know exactly what I'm talking about).

And, at the same time, a game that takes the best of both the fun factor (IE gameplay and usually plot) and the graphics can create an absolutely AMAZING experience (think Okami or Super Mario Galaxy or something).

All in all, yes graphics matter, but they don't matter as much as the other things unless they're really REALLY horrible and they make your eyes throw up.

[00steven]

I don't believe graphics make a game, but they definatly matter. You mean to tell me that games like The Wind Waker or Okami didn't gain attention do to there amazing graphics? Of course they did!

[Matt]

I'd say they are somewhat important. A game suffers if the graphics are poorly done. But certainly it's not the most critical thing. What's most important in a game is debatable, but what can mostly be agreed upon by most people is that it is not graphics. Graphics are like good clothes. Poorer quality clothes work well enough, but better clothes are more appealing. And of course really bad clothes are not a good thing. But clothes that are too over-the-top are off-putting, distracting, and don't exactly help.
The analogy works for me. :P

So I prefer that the graphics be well done, not sloppy, but not so far as that they distract from the more important elements in the game. Such as adding distracting lens flares (ha, ha Star Trek!). In real life you can shield your eyes from them by closing them slightly or with your hand. Not so in most games.

[PhantomTriforce]

Graphics do not matter all that much to me when playing any video game. Sure, I'd like to see some good looking graphics, but if the graphics aren't the best, then it isn't the end of the world for me. I played Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask after I play Twilight Princess and the Wind Waker, so I had a different mindset and higher expectations walking into these two games. However, I did not let it affect my views on the games, for I also have to take into account the fact that they were released long before Twilight Princess and the Wind Waker; almost at the beginning of 3D gaming.

Super Mario Galaxy had great visual graphics, which is something I enjoyed a lot about the game, and I think it might have enhanced the gameplay of Super Mario Galaxy and it's sequel. Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door and Super Paper Mario had the same graphics, and I think that the graphics are perfect for the mood and "paper" feeling of the game. Another game I use to refer a lot while discussing this topic is Oracle of Ages. I always thought that the graphics were not up to date with that game, and that better graphics would have made the game more enjoyable to play. But now, I don't quite agree with myself on my own views due to perhaps a different feeling it tried to create.

[bluelink]

no they dont matter Im 12 and i still love playing the original zelda and also games on the atari

[llamaman000z]

well for me they dont have to be completely excellent if its a fun game then the graphics dont matter

[Zanzibar]

well it depends, like a FPS the graphics should be a bit better. but other games such as zelda and stuff it really doesn't matter.

[fredthehylian]

I think this video should offer some interesting points on the discussion:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3201-Graphics-vs-Aesthetics

On a side note, I'm utterly shocked that this duplicate thread has lived so long without someone pointing out the existence of the original: http://zeldadungeon.net/forum/showthread.php?5115-Graphics

[Hanyou]

Thanks for the heads-up. In the future, a formal report will help the staff merge threads more quickly, so that's probably the best course of action to take for whoever does spot duplicates.

Threads merged :)

[GanonSlayr]

I'm tired of people saying graphics don't matter, cause they do. When i'm playing an NES or SNES game, and people say "that has bad graphics" i'll say "they were good for the time. If they are today, i will expect the graphics to be good. while how good the graphics are do not determine a games greatness, htey are important, as they will help market the game, as well as improve the playing experience(sometimes)

[amaterasu]

I am just going to say to everybody that GRAPHICS DONT MATTER! Geeze! It's all about the game, storyline, characters, things like that. The game Earthbound really shows that because it's graphics are crap and they often glitch, but it's still one of my favorite games.

[fredthehylian]

The game Earthbound really shows that because it's graphics are crap and they often glitch, but it's still one of my favorite games.

Pardon me, but Earthbound's graphics aren't crap. The battle backgrounds are actually very nicely made, since they have a cool "kaleidoscope" effect. Also, I'm pretty sure the Giygas animations are considerably well-animated; it wasn't every day that you saw that magnitude of image warping on the SNES.

Better examples for your argument would be Pitfall, Pac-Man, Bomberman, and Joust. All of them have subpar graphics, but they are highly revered as the all-time classics of the gaming industry.

[amaterasu]

wait what? Sorry, i know they're not crap. The Gigas background i think is really scary, but at the same time really awesome. Moonside was just trippy.

[fredthehylian]

wait what? Sorry, i know they're not crap. The Gigas background i think is really scary, but at the same time really awesome. Moonside was just trippy.

With regards to the general discussion of graphics, I believe effects (such as the warping effect used for Giygas' animation) are important, as they can help basic graphic engines set moods and tones far better than without. Another example of this was in Final Fantasy VI, when the airship was rushing to the Floating Continent, the extremely fast Mode 7 effects gave a true sense of urgency to stop Gestahl and Kefka. Final Fantasy VII however, uses the graphical techniques rather poorly, since all of the pre-rendered graphics in cutscenes add really nothing to the scenes (although it made the Supernova cutscene look very cool I'll admit.)