21. I think graphics are very important, but only for the job they do. For instance, the graphics must make a game presentable, obviously a game where the visuals are so terrible you can't even look at them is not good.

The graphics must also give a game atmosphere and its own unique look (which sound aids as well). How are you supposed to feel like your in a scary old forest if the graphics don't look the type?

So there's just a few examples that graphics do matter, but super graphics are not necessary to provide good atmosphere. Plenty of 2D games from a decade ago look and feel awesome, even if the graphics are dated by today's standards.

All-in-all it comes down to other things over graphics in my opinion. Does the game have a good story? I can endure many a bad looking game if the story is gold.

Does the game control well? It doesn't matter how it looks if you can't get your danged character to move in the right direction.

Does it sound well? Sound doesn't have to be 7.1 surround to do its job. Take Phoenix Wright for example, there's really nothing special about its sound track, but it is executed at perfect moments to provide suspense, joy, anxiousness etc. That isn't to say that I don't love an epic sound track, on the contrary, I love a good score.

And of course the most important factor, how is the gameplay? Is the game fun and enjoyable? Are the activities interesting? It doesn't matter how many polygons you throw into a game, if it lacks this key than it is pretty much worthless as a game. At that point it becomes a pretty moving picture and nothing more.

So all in all, I believe graphics are important, yes. Every feature that makes a game more enjoyable is good. But I think graphics should be secondary to game play and the actual control and story for the game. As such, while it is neat to see a great looking game, I'd rather have and play one that maybe doesn't look as good, but has much better game play elements and other fundamental things.


With all due respect,
Fox

Posted at 5:19PM on Jan 24th 2007 by Fox

22. Nintendo fans always cry "graphics < gameplay", since our consoles and handhelds tend to be lagging in the graphical department.

MS/Sony fans like to show off with awesome graphics...

Of course, gameplay is always the most important thing. Graphics are also quite important though. Where people get caught up is deciding what makes good graphics. The kley is graphics that suit the game. Graphics that immerse the player.

Realistic graphics do not make good graphics unless your game is realistic.

People have mentioned Yoshi's island - good example of graphics matching gameplay. Ditto animal crossing - cute simple casual game, cute simple casual graphics...

This is why realistic games on the DS are generally a bad idea. It's almost inevitable that the gaphics will fail to immerse the player.

Posted at 8:18PM on Jan 24th 2007 by Kefka

23. Welllll, my favorite game ever is Super Metroid, which for its time, had some of the best graphics, but was soon to be outshown by DKC, but the atmosphere of the graphics and art style and color palets used still hold up better than most games.

One of my favorite games (and favorite game in the Zelda series) is Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages. I like it because its so well made, so addictive, has a lot of challenging and rewarding dungeons and puzzles, and a large cast of colorful and diverse cast of characters and areas that all seem to give off their own personality and charm. The graphics are horribly primitive, its lucky to have color, but as long as I can tell who I am, who the enemies are and what direction their facing and all that, it works for me. Of course, with a tiki/voodoo themed tropical island, having gamecube or 360 style graphics would have been a dream come true for me. I really like marine and tiki themes, and the moonlit grotto and crescent island are some of the best tiki themed places I've seen in a video game, but thats of course using my imagination, because if you didnt know it was tiki themed, you wouldnt be able to tell very well from the graphics. The ancient tomb would have been really sweet to see in some enhanced graphics. But when it all comes down to it, it doesnt make the game any worse having primitive graphics, unless its so horrible, you cant tell who you are or who the enemies are or other key parts to the game like that. Having great graphics does make a game more appealing, but it doesnt really make a game good or bad.

While playing Twilight Princess, I missed the windwaker art style on a few occasions. The sharp cel shaded graphics really helped set the mood in a lot of places, where as the generally dark and brown graphics of Twilight Princess grew dull after some time, while Windwaker still impresses me every time I turn it on.

So graphics do make a game more atmospheric, which is one of the most important aspects of a game I can think of, right behind the actual gameplay itself. If the lack of graphics makes a game less atmospheric than it could or deserves to be, it does bring the game down somewhat, but doesnt make a game bad and unplayable. But sometimes, it can be like Pirates of the Caribbean compared to a pirate-themed high school play. They both could have great and imaginative scripts and stories, but pirates of the caribbean is going to defenitely draw you in more as its a lot more believable then just imagining whats happening.

Posted at 8:32PM on Jan 24th 2007 by SeaofMadness666

24. three most important aspects of a game:gameplay, gameplay, and gameplay. i heard that somewhere, just cant remember where lol. graphics should be nice, but they shouldnt be the core, or heart if you will, of the game, it should be more like the appendix or tonsils. you need em, but they arent really THAT important.

Posted at 9:12PM on Jan 24th 2007 by Osaka

25. Graphics certainly matter, they're just not the be-all-end-all.

It's just like sound, story, controls, or any other individual aspect of a game. The overall experience of a game is the amalgamation of its parts. Every aspect affects the overall quality and enjoyment of a game, but no one aspect will make or break a game except in extreme circumstances.

Posted at 12:38AM on Jan 25th 2007 by Abscissa

26. Just adding my $.02, since it seems like most of it has already been covered. I prefer good, creative art style over high-poly counts and the "shiny effect," or today's new blooms and browns. Recent vgcats comic said it perfectly. However, I'm looking forward to getting TP in two months or so because I think I'll enjoy the realism that it brings. Artistic games like WW and soon Phantom Hourglass (I'm a Zelda nut, but not a darknut ;)) offer a refreshing break from realism.

Posted at 1:09AM on Jan 25th 2007 by Ibrahim

27. with the ds I have a nintendo 64 in my pocket with some of its best games what more could you ask for???
The psp has the graphics but I can't think of a game on that system that would justify me buying it.

Posted at 6:55PM on Jan 25th 2007 by NEO1X

28. Graphics have to fit the game and the mood or feel of the game. As for "Realistic" and all that jive I dont care for the most part. That is one thing nintendo does more than anyone else... They look at the best they can do with the system in question and normally go for a fun cartoonish clean look that stands the test of time longer.

Posted at 9:36PM on Jan 25th 2007 by hurt

29. I think FUN is the most important thing! and with my DS FUN is not a problem. the PSP just doesn't seem to have fun games, so the DS was an obvious choice.

Posted at 9:50AM on Jan 26th 2007 by JKAntwon

30. Graphics do, indeed, matter. I won't play a game that looks like crap, purely because it's hard to get sucked into the game.

However, many should consider exactly what I mean by this. Good graphics can mean a lot of things. Twilight Princess and Gears of War both have good graphics. Wind Waker has good graphics. Yoshi's Island has good graphics. Cooking Mama has good graphics.

These are all very, very good-looking games. A lot of it doesn't rely on super fantastic technology (i.e. Cooking Mama or Yoshi's Island), and many not on realism (pretty much all of those except Gears and maybe Twilight Princess to an extent), but mainly on art direction. Even still, what you LOOK AT is still considered to be "graphics."

Now, imagine playing all of your games and having them look as crappy as, say, Bomberman Act Zero. Annoyingly dank textures, an overall bad production, ridiculously bad art direction... If Zelda looked like that, nobody would play it.

So, in the end, graphics matter. The only problem is that people tend to focus on realistic vs. non-realistic, and that's where the problem lies. I think Loco Roco looks as good as Gears of War for different reasons. Just because you can't see pores, scars, specks of dust, etc. doesn't mean a game has bad graphics.

Posted at 7:41AM on Jan 27th 2007 by Cameron

31. i love graphics. i want my games to look as real as possible but at the same time, if a game with bad graphics is more then i want to play that. its rare that you get that combo (last games i played like that were God Of War and Twilight Princess - o so polished they were!). this whole thing is pretty much why i decided to opt for a Wii before buying my PS3 (well that and i didnt have an extra arm and leg to spare to get a PS3.) so i think graphics matter, but only to an extent, id play an 8 bit game if it was more fun than a next-gen game.

Posted at 1:54AM on Feb 1st 2007 by B1gC72