Graphics

[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.

 

[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, ...[insert another martial-sounding title here] 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 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]

Graphics: Do They Really Matter?

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 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