Are You A Graphics Junkie?

[Blanka]

Hi Everyone.

I like good graphics as much as the next guy, but I find that playability plays a larger role for me. Take my brother for example. He's so hung up on graphics
that it becomes a major factor in his decisions to buy games. Myself, I get just as much if not more enjoyment out of a title such as Dragon Warrior III (nes) than I would with a game like FF X. Are you all about the graphics?


Godspeed.
Blanka

[Ventus]

I don't really care much about graphics, but it has to have good gameplay and music for me to play it. I mean If I'm going to be playing a game for some time I want some music that's quite enjoyable to listen too and I want to gameplay to be fun and a overall enjoyable experience.

[mrz84]

I prefer a focus on the actual gameplay. A game can look super realistic, but have horrible controls, a boring plot, forgettable characters, and the worst music in history.

[Jirin]

I definitely put gameplay before graphics.

Though, I do enjoy really good graphics, but I don't consider 'Good graphics' to necessarily mean 'Technically advanced graphics'. For me, good graphics are anything from any era of gaming that is beautiful to look at and contributes well to the atmosphere of the game. For example, Super Metroid is a game I consider to have great graphics. Whereas in Assassin's Creed III when you notice the back alley of every house looks exactly the same it's extremely offputting.

[BtjCraft]

I don't pay too much attention to graphics as long they look reasonable, I don't care. Gameplay is completely superior.

A relative of mine is a complete graphics junkie though, she doesn't even want to touch the 8-bit games, and only periodically plays 16-bit games.

[Aliem]

This depends entirely on what you mean by "graphics", because while being that vauge the answer is a universal yes. We all like to know what we're supposed to be looking at when playing a game. I assume this is on photorealism, though, and to that end, it depends on the game. Some games really do benefit from photorealistic graphics, while some are hindered by them. "gritty" shooters- Battlefield and COD- benefit from photorealism, while more fantastical shooters- Team Fortress 2 and Borderlands- would lose much of their charm with photorealism. Stylization is important to a game's asthetic. Take Wind Waker, for example. That game, and I will stand by this statement, did not need an HD remake. The original GameCube game still looks gorgeous. It's, for my money, they best looking game on the system. Cartoony as hell, but so perfectly Zelda and intricately beautiful.

Now, look at a game like Limbo. If the graphics were anything but what they were, the game would lose most of it's ambiance; it's soul would evaporate. If Limbo were colorful, it would be destroyed. If Braid didn't look like a moving painting, would it be regarded so highly? (or am I seriously the only person on the planet who did not like that game...?)

We can say we don't care about graphics all we want, but the fact is, graphics- which are fueled by an art direction- are as huge a story telling element as the dialogue... And in some cases, like in Journey, a game can rely completely on art direction and graphical cues.

[Jirin]

Graphics were definitely a big plus in Braid, but the puzzle design was also excellent, and that last level is extremely well designed. Braid's story did more for me in that 'Braid' level than most newer games do for me with millions of dollars of cinematography.

[Dark Knight]

Ignoring PC graphics, which can be ugly or beautiful depending on your settings and hardware.

I prefer my graphics to look like they belong on the console the game is being played on (or at least the current generation). I do not expect them to be super-high res but I certainly expect them to be high enough quality to be able to say "yep, this is a Xbox 360/PS3/Wii game". I also expect graphic quality to increase the longer a console is on the market. However, graphics are far from the most important aspect of a game. Gameplay is far more important than how many pixels a texture has or how realistically water glistens. The only exception would be RPGs. Story reigns supreme here, my only other requirement being gameplay that is engaging enough to drive me forward.

[SUCCESSOR]

Graphics are very important. Like many have said, this doesn't exactly mean super realistic. There are some games that benefit from super realistic graphics. There are games that work better with cartoony or cel shaded graphics. Other games can't be recreated apart from their pixel graphics. No matter what the art style quality is always important. Low quality graphics can severely hinder a game, especially when they make gameplay confusing or difficult. All in all Graphics are just as important as controls, physics, and design. Am I a graphics junkie? Not necessarily. I love quality sound but I am not an Audiophile.

[Chris Miller]

Graphics aren't really up there on the list for me, though as DK said just now, they should look appropriate for the system they're on. The graphics can (sometimes) indicate the quality. If you're playing an NES game, and it looks like something from the Atari 2600, it's probably junk.

I don't expect Metroid to look like Super Metroid, or Ocarina of Time to look like Twilight Princess. I'd certainly take OoT over TP, though, in a second.