How important are graphics in your opinion?

It's complicated. I enjoy Doom, because it's sort of violent morning cartoon you can play. I prefer the best graphics the industry can provide, but gameplay and performance comes first. So this thought process let's me play all sorts of games.

I'm playing Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead (with tiles set, but still).

It's already describe my opinion about graphics part.

I think with a good Style your Game will have it easier to stand the Test of Time than a Game that only goes on Graphics.

I really do not enjoy most of the early 3D (Console) Games, because they look bad, have bad Controls and clunky Gameplay.

All right, who was the one peanut that selected the “games are unplayable unless they have photo realistic graphics” option”? Na Jks :-P I still love ya :-)

Personally, I don’t care about graphics that much :-)

Obviously if a game has amazing graphics that is a plus and games with really terrible graphics can suffer from it but for me the story, mechanics, gameplay, etc. are much more important.

If the only thing I cared about was seeing something really pretty on my screen, I’d just watch a movie. 

Graphics aren't a selling point, but I'd lie if I said I would play for instance Doom 2016 in low, especially after seeing the burning Mars sky in all its majesty...

Not graphics per se, but art direction is pretty important to me. If the art itself is trash, I probably won't play the game unless it has superb gameplay.

I'm not really sure what hi-end and low-end graphics means these days, but I notice that games with more "realistic" looking true 3D graphics (that take advantage of powerful video cards) that are on offer fail to interest me because they all seem to look the same. I mean, there are differences in the art style (and in what exactly is being depicted), but there's so much colour and lighting and other visual stuff it becomes hard to pinpoint what makes this or that game unique.

On the other hand, some of the modern indie-leaning games go for a simplified or even oversimplified style that seems incredibly bland. Just compare Braveland and Heroes of Might and Magic II. I would not say Braveland is the worst example here, but the cartoonish style feels pretty generic, while the sprites in HoMMII are true pieces of art.

Yet there are some very good modern games that are neither photorealistic nor exaggeratedly pixellated nor cartoonish, like Blasphemous.

Graphics used to be everything to me during the nineties (a decade of great graphics advancement, where every year we would get a quality leap), I even bought games only for their good graphics. And missed some good ones for the same reason.

This days I almost avoid graphically intensive games like the plague. I'm sick of needing a super advanced rig, keeping an eye on the GPU temperature, and being crazy because I finally got the graphics options to perform right but there's this infinitesimal stutter when going through that big hub area super populated by NPCs and geometry and then going back to tweaking options.

I regularly replay ultima underworld, system shock, thief so I couldn't care less for graphics right now but great gameplay/story. Besides the fact nowadays that the graphics improvement curve has very much flattened

It depends, really.. there are games made back in the day that had graphics that held up to this day [Doom being one of them] but there were others that... werent so fortunate... 

Im saying as long as the game doesnt look like battered ass, then i will play it... but the gameplay is way more important in my opinion... but no matter how good the gameplay is.. if it looks atrocious, it can be a strain on the eyes...

I think the main problem is that the tech part of a game's visuals has zero bearing on the artistic value, which entirely depends on the artist's skill. Beautiful, ugly and ok games exist in all categories and over a huge timespan over which the graphics tech have changed dramatically.

Another thing is that some games do use pretty visuals, but these are not really essential for actual gameplay. There's a somewhat recent adventure game called The Council which aims for pretty photorealistic visuals, yet it seems to me that the entire story could be rendered just as well as a text adventure, possibly with static illustrations, or a LucasArts style point-and-click cartoonish game, or as something else altogether.

But games like Doom are a lot more bound to the way they are represented visually. Sure you could make a text adventure based on the same plot, but it would be a completely different game.

My problem is that as technology advances, games contain more and more human labor-hours of audiovisual content, and as production values continue to explode there's a tendency for graphics to receive ever more priority. There's just an ever larger bucket to fill.

I'm skeptical of games whose design is obviously prejudiced toward production values. I think it's still possible to make a good game under those circumstances, but the economic forces are pushing against it. Breath of the Wild is wonderful, and I would like to get around to Ghosts of Tsushima and Doom Eternal at some point, but a game built around lower audiovisual production values is going to have an easier time placing emphasis on thoughtful or bold gameplay design choices.

There are games I won't play because everything looks shitty enough that they all blend together. so yes a bit of graphics help, especially if the art style is shit.

Arguably, there is a problem with the poll in that "Prefer low-end graphics but will play higher-end games" isn't an option and is not the same as "Only like low-end graphics". I am mostly disinterested in higher end graphics, lens flares, glowing corpses, and so on and could easily live without them. Given sufficiently immersive gameplay, my imagination is enough.

I lament the demise of the pure software-only ZDoom, because it's not updated with ZScript and bug fixes and it would take a long time, at the expense of my current projects, to gain the experience to do it myself. I do understand that putting a true software renderer into GZDoom isn't possible, as the rest of the scene composition chain would have to be too different and it would be a nightmare to support; as I understand it, even the modern software renderer needs at least OpenGL 2 just to move the pixels about.

Well, Doom is one of my all-time favorite games, so...

When I think about the question, though, I find myself torn between both ends of the spectrum. I'd be lying if I said graphics weren't important to me in some form - said form being that everything is clearly distinguishable and identifiable. What I mean by that is background and foreground elements are clearly distinct, interactable things look interactable, and things don't blend into the background. But at the same time, graphics are not-so-important to me in a lot of other ways, namely when it comes to things like "shine" and the number of polygons in a scene.

One thing I find especially intriguing as far as video game graphics are concerned is what people can create within certain limitations, e.g. using only 4 colors or emulating the look of PS1 games. The stuff I see on that side of things is honestly far more impressive to me than the latest advancements in AAA rendering technology.

I like @Samuel Slayer's answer: "I enjoy Doom, because it's sort of violent morning cartoon you can play."

I am willing to accept pixelated graphics in some instances, mainly while playing games that elicit nostalgia. But with the advent of newer games that depend on more advanced hardware, I feel I have gotten spoiled with beautiful (and realistic) scenery and movie-quality rendering.

some people already said it, and i'll join them: the OP question seems to put the equal sign between "low-res gfx w/o fancy effects" and "bad gfx". i don't think it works this way. good graphics is not about 4K textures and raytracing, it is about good artstyle and visual coherency. the interesting thing is that most of the time when a game has good gameplay, it also has good graphics (judging by the criterias from above). even ms paint filled circles and squares can be good gfx, if the game is stylistically coherent.

that is, the main task of the gfx is to immerse you into a game world, by stimulating your imagination. in this regard, photorealistic gfx could be even worse than low-res, because with low-res your imagination adds as much details as it wants. yet with photorealistic you're usually expecting all those details to be already in place (because the source is so detailed already). that's why good pixelart is not dead yet -- after you get used to it, you're starting to see the whole photorealistic models instead of those 16x16 sprites. ;-)

just look at first Nidhogg. its gfx is barely more than HUGE pixels of the same color slapped together... but somehow it shows a whole living world, and you belive that those stick figures with sticks in their hands are really skillfull fighters with deadly swords.

and, tbh, i am much less impressed by Nidhogg 2 gfx: yes, it is more detailed and good, but it lost that feeling of the eerie world, where's only you, your opponent, and Something Wiked just around the corner. strangely, the same happens with Spelunky HD for me: i just cannot see the world behind that HD gfx.

as long as it doesn't look like clown vomit then i'm good

There are instances where the graphics have so many problems it detracts from the playability, and this has especially grown more commonplace over the last 10 years as engines are lambasted with layers upon layers of different post processing effects.

Outer Worlds is one instance where I think the graphics are so bad it literally hurts to play. I can't play that game for more than 30 minutes before I start getting headaches and feel queasy. It had issues like really awful chromatic aberration hidden inside an obtuse setting also controlling several other visual features, but also way more overarching issues with its whole presentation (both in terms of rendering tech and artistic design) having so much damn visual noise on the screen making it really hard to focus on anything or even knowing what the hell you're looking at.

On 2/6/2021 at 12:43 AM, jupiter_ex said:

I regularly replay ultima underworld, system shock, thief so I couldn't care less for graphics right now but great gameplay/story. Besides the fact nowadays that the graphics improvement curve has very much flattened

I'm pretty much in the same boat with the Infinity Engine and Id/Build games being my vices of choice. Modern games can recapture a similar level of visual tastefulness, I really admire Amid Evil, Dusk, Blazing Chrome and Valfaris for their approaches. 

19 hours ago, lazygecko said:

way more overarching issues with its whole presentation (both in terms of rendering tech and artistic design) having so much damn visual noise on the screen making it really hard to focus on anything or even knowing what the hell you're looking at.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. Even Doom Eternal, which was well done aesthetically, to me still had an overstimulation problem just because of the overabundance of detail and effects. And most games at that level are not as aesthetically well done as that game is. 

I was tempted to write in 3 because I enjoy seeing impressive graphics, while they don't really make me remember a game better. But I couldn't think of an hi def game that I genuinely care about. Closest being Bloodborne, which I don't think is terribly graphically impressive. Loved the visuals of Alien isolation except for the character animations. But the game felt so empty for me. Like most modern AAA games.

On 2/16/2021 at 1:48 AM, kristus said:

Loved the visuals of Alien isolation except for the character animations

I never played Alien Isolation but from what I've seen the game at least genuinely tried to focus on gameplay and atmosphere instead of throwing shiny visuals in your way just for the sake of how supposedly "beautiful" they are.

It seems to me that for many big studios these days, the choice of technology level for graphics is more of a marketing than a creative decision. There's probably an idea that the audience expects a certain level of visual quality, and that the product must not be worse than that of competitors etc. At least indie devs can experiment with visuals as much as they like, although I cannot but help thinking that some part of the big pixel "retro" wave was simply an excuse for the lack of artistic talent in the dev team.

14 minutes ago, MrFlibble said:

I never played Alien Isolation but from what I've seen the game at least genuinely tried to focus on gameplay and atmosphere

Atmosphere maybe, gameplay; absolutely fucking not :P 

I will not argue here because I have not played the game. The point is that from videos, visuals did not appear overly intrusive, whereas many modern games that I come across seem to place a more conspicuous emphasis on the shiny, beautiful and photorealistic -- and I find it a bit annoying because I cannot get a good idea if the game itself is worth playing, because they're all shiny, beautiful and photorealistic, while seemingly reiterating some less than original story and gameplay concepts.

I will not deny that there is an appeal in playing something that is quite like what you've played before, so originality has to be measured too. But when we're talking 90s games there's a rather clear distinction between good and bad art, albeit the latter is not necessarily indicative of bad gameplay. With the photorealistic angle, it's neither easy to tell good art from ok art, nor to know if this or that game will hog your system resources should you happen not to have the latest cutting-edge video card.

Ahhh the good old graphics argument.

Overall in the grand scheme of things........ no.

Take 'Worms' for example even when that came out in like '95 it looked aged BUT still to this very day it's an absolute blast to play with friends.

The original GTA in '97 looked utter dog shit but was compelling and addictive because of its gameplay. It could be argued the lack of graphics in early txt adventures did not matter because of the adventure the game non the less provided.

Our own beloved Doom is probably the greatest example I can provide as in '93 and classic Dooms heyday the graphics were adored as much as it's mechanics and fluidity but now? It looks old BUT we still play it because it is STILL sooo good.

Games that rely on its graphics will wow audiences initially but without the substance or depth of gameplay there is nothing left but a pretty face.

On the subject of Alien: Isolation - That game is a masterpiece and that does look great but its heart is the engine. If you love the Alien franchise or fantastic survival horror. There is no better.

oh and @MrFlibble , it's great to see a Dwarfer on the boards. 

15 minutes ago, Eurisko said:

On the subject of Alien: Isolation - That game is a masterpiece and that does look great but its heart is the engine. If you love the Alien franchise or fantastic survival horror. There is no better.

 

We've already had this argument but I'll just say, yeah, that's one way to look at it.

I found it to be, whilst being the most expensive and largest scale execution of a genre that I like a lot and have had long history with, that being the survival horror stalker orientated niche, it is outright the worst one I have ever played. And I'm employing no hyperbole in that, I would call this game incompetent in the execution of its gameplay. Clock Tower on the SNES, the very first game to pioneer the stalker concept, is a better designed game on every point in regards to the execution of the gameplay elements, and also had a far better understanding of effective storytelling in executing its horror concept. 

Can't argue against the fact Alien Isolation is a very nice looking game and many talented artists spent many manhours creating a world that is very authentic to the look of the movie. They were completely, and utterly failed by the people who's job were the gameplay mechanics or to write a coherent, sensical storyline or to populate that world with remotely substantial encounters or characters. 

And to be honest I remember linking a video that went quite into detail on all these points and how insulting the final product was to completely reasonable expectations and I believe someone said that was just "nitpicking". I can't remember exactly who said that so I won't assume but that I have to say came that across to me as a very strange definition of "nitpicking".

Really I will just use all this to make a point that when designing a game, in most cases the substance of design in a game shouldn't really be ignored, or probably more likely what happened, stretched out far beyond its capacity to support the ridiculous length of the game. 

9 minutes ago, hybridial said:

 

We've already had this argument but I'll just say, yeah, that's one way to look at it.

 

I found it to be, whilst being the most expensive and largest scale execution of a genre that I like a lot and have had long history with, that being the survival horror stalker orientated niche, the worst one I have ever played. Clock Tower on the SNES, the very first game to pioneer the stalker concept, is a better designed game on every point in regards to the execution of the gameplay elements, and also had a far better understanding of effective storytelling in executing its horror concept. 

 

Can't argue against the fact Alien Isolation is a very nice looking game and many talented artists spent many manhours creating a world that is very authentic to the look of the movie. They were completely, and utterly failed by the people who's job were the gameplay mechanics or to write a coherent, sensical storyline or to populate that world with remotely substantial encounters or characters. 

I thought we had XD

I've seen many people hate the mechanics and I've seen plenty love them. I think it boils down to taste and preference and how much you're prepared to put up with.

The story is something I believe they agonised over for a while. Telling an epic tale that is set between two very iconic movies had to be a pain the ass and I've read my fair share of Alien novels that failed to do so. So yes the story is a little on the weak side at times - especially that ending- but I can get passed it.

I've never got my hands on a Clock Tower game. It has its fans and is well loved from what I gather. 

2 minutes ago, Eurisko said:

I've never got my hands on a Clock Tower game. It has its fans and is well loved from what I gather. 

Yeah, I don't bring it up on the premise of like "look a SNES game did this better" in a manner that belittles that game or the time it was made, but it was a pioneer and for a pioneer it did quite a bit to establish things that worked, and things that didn't, and it was impressive for how limited their options were to create what amounted to an interactive slasher movie. I mean, damn, it was made years before Resident Evil. And I saw Alien Isolation making such basic mistakes that I do think happened because they probably started making a 4-5 hour game and then were told to stretch it out without being given more time or resources to support that. 

Anyway, it was really cool to years later having played the Clock Tower games and kind of knowing that they had this weird and specific feeling of horror compared to other games, to see the films that were broadly its inspiration, Italian horror films like Suspiria and Phenomena. That point of inspiration is a selling point in their favour for sure. 

@hybridial Without derailing this topic further I've just had look for a Clock Tower Game and man oh man are they expensive!! Unless you're after an NTSC-J copy.

Weirdly enough:

In virtual reality, I can't stand looking at sprite-based and pixelated graphics like Doom and Duke3D.  Quake though, and Quake 2, are amazing in VR.  Not to mention that HL: Alyx is probably the greatest gaming experience I've had since the 20th century. 

Without VR, on a regular screen, I cannot stand looking at any graphics newer than maybe Unreal 2 / Doom 3 era.  The hyper-real shiny graphics don't do it for me, but again, if it was in VR I'm all about the modern look.  Because I'm actually there, dude.

(But don't listen to me, I'm weird and stuff.)

I mean, I grew up an NES kid, played my share of Atari 2600, and some of my favorite games ever are 20+ years old.

I like it higher and prettier if it's newer, but by and large, I'm more than fine with the older stuff.

And of course, that means to pull out this video.