-

[Raayzx]

It kinda depends. A game is a game whether it's graphics are horrible like minecraft but it's still loved by tons of people. I do care about graphics in shooter games, in my opinion it must have realistic graphics to enjoy it.

 

[Mr. Cat]

I actually miss having "bad" graphics. I feel like games were more focused on storylines, puzzles, and small details than they are now. I really miss that. Graphics never mattered much to me, but it definitely seems like a really big deal to everybody else.

 

[debinoresu]

im not picky. i like when graphics are used well. you can break down the technicals of graphics all you want but at the end of the day a well applied style in the story is all that matters to me. many old gamecube games have some of my favorite graphics because the graphics are so creatively applied within the limits of technology at the time.

if i do dislike graphics, it's usually because it's too realistic/boring

 

[Midoriya]

I don’t normally dislike graphics. I care about the story more than anything else.

 

[xSuperMario64x]

I don't really pay attention to graphics, especially since most games I play are from the 80s-90s.

The only time I'm bothered by graphics is when the game looks like the designers didn't care at all about making the game look good (like the game Action 52 on NES).

 

[Hellfish]

I do care about graphics because bad graphics are different then having a retro or old art style. For example low poly count games back in the day would've been good graphics for their time. I guess what I'm trying to say is it depends on when the game was released, what the games art style is and whether its painful to look at or if its insignificant.

Plus I really like taking screenshots in my games so I appreciate a game that has eye candy ^-^

 

[Alienfish]

Well as long as the game is playable and not ruined by graphics glitches and bug, no I don't. If there is one thing I hate, then it's those heavy loaded graphics games with little to no content aside that.

 

[Chris]

I'm definitely a graphics snob. Partially due to motion sickness when playing older/certain styles of games (Minecraft included - it physically makes me ill), partially just because if it doesn't appeal to me visually I'm probably not going to become engrossed enough in it's trailers to want to buy it in the first place.

Nostalgia is usually a good workaround, if I can physically play it that is. e.g. I've tried to go back to the original Spyro PS1 games dozens of times but I can't play them for more than fifteen minutes without feeling sick.

 

[visibleghost]

yes, how a game looks is really important to me. i love pretty games, it doesn't have to be realistic as long as it's nice looking and has a style. realistic games aren't necessarily beautiful though.
i find that i don't enjoy games nearly as much on lower graphics settings, especially in games like the sims but also in story based games. a game being ugly just ruins the experience for me

when it comes to minecraft it can be made to look better with mods but honestly i think it's fine as it is because it's the style of the game and fits the gameplay and concept of the game you know?? like the blocks are what makes it the game it is so even though it would make no sense for other games to look like that i still think it's alright. minecraft isn't a great looking game but i don't think it's ugly.

 

[MalinkaLuna]

The gameplay of a game can be as good as it wants, if the grafics dont Appeal to me, I probably wont enjoy it as much. For most of the time I play games to explore worlds, so I love to have an aesthetically pleasing word which Appeals to me.

But also, there are games which werent that good when it came to grafic and yet i still played the heck out of it. So I say it depends. I always give games a Chance before I judge them grafically wise.

 

[Psydye]

Eh..I care for them in the sense that I prefer games that have "creative" graphics, or retro or whatever. Like, I think most people here have said what I already mean. Examples of games I enjoy more because of their graphics would be like Okami, Night in the Woods, Axiom Verge, etc. vs. ones that are just realistic and **** all the time, like Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, etc. Honestly, I think this comes down to me preferring indies vs. AAA-titles as they're usually more creative.

 

[Tao]

Really depends how we're defining this.

Technically a game like Wind Waker or Super Metroid might not be all that impressive or 'good' by today's standards, but aesthetically they've stood the test of time and still look appealing on a superficial level.

Then we get Final Fantasy VII, Sonic Adventure or Morrowind that were impressive for their time but they're absolute garbage by today's standards, to a point where it actually does harm my enjoyment for various reasons.


So yea, I guess either way I am going to look for games that are visually appealing, but that doesn't necessarily mean I look for photorealism in games (in fact, those are the ones that tend to age the worst). An appealing artstyle is always going to catch my eye over raw graphical power.

I actually miss having "bad" graphics. I feel like games were more focused on storylines, puzzles, and small details than they are now. I really miss that. Graphics never mattered much to me, but it definitely seems like a really big deal to everybody else.

I agree but not for those reasons...Especially storylines, story is way more a focus these days.

Lack of detail in older games left more up to the imagination. A lot of visual detail wasn't given to you, leaving you to fill in the blanks.

I remember when I was younger drawing video game characters I had only seen via simple sprites and crude low res textures stretched across basic 3D polygonshat. Let me tell you, Final Fantasy's white mage looked absolutely nothing like they were supposed to when I drew it, but that's what I imagined they looked like from the small amount of visual information I was given in the game.

These days it's basically impossible to do that since you're given all the details. You know how the character looks, there's no room for interpretation, imagination isn't required.

 

[Matt0106]

Well, I only ever bought Nintendo consoles, so you can see where this is going.

No. Graphics don't necessarily matter to me, really. I actually have a soft spot for very old, retro graphics, so I can tolerate lots of things. A 3DS for example, only has a 240p screen, but given its size, I know I should not expect much. My main console however, the Nintendo Switch, has it slightly harder since it's a home console. As long as a game is 720p docked and is at least 30fps 75% of the time, I won't care. Anything below that does bother me a little bit; it won't make it unplayable, no, but I am one of those people who admires environments and it's kind of hard to do that when the resolution is below 720p and I'm getting stutters all over the place.

As much as it's nice to have beautiful graphics, it's not everything. I find that a game like Zelda: Breath of Wild is astonishingly amazing because of how beautiful it can look while also allowing you to interact with the environment, such as cutting grass or setting it ablaze and using it as a updraft. Horizon Zero Dawn for PS4 looks like a beautiful game and it's a powerhouse of a game (probably the best-looking game of 2017); it has volumetric lighting, 1080p resolution, a near smooth 30fps and motion blur and so much more. But because of how much memory these gorgeous graphics take, the environment is stagnant; you cannot cut grass, you can't chop down trees, fire arrows stay lit in water (or should I say on water; they don't go past the surface and stay stuck there) for a few seconds (don't know how that works). The environment looks realistic, but doesn't feel realistic. Breath of the Wild had its problems (I got it on Wii U since at the time I didn't have a Switch, and boy, was that frame-rate everywhere), but it's gameplay was so realistic, I couldn't not love it.


My Opinion:

Gameplay > Graphics

 

[SolarInferno]

Generally, as long as some care has been taken to make the game look as good as it can for its genre and price-tag, I'm fine with it. That said, there are some games I've just plain disliked because they just look silly. I play a lot of indie games, so sifting through the rubbish and the good stuff, there's a lot of stuff I just ignore because I don't like the ui, or look of the game. While I see a lot of people saying "gameplay over graphics" with Nintendo, I don't personally think that's the case - the gameplay isn't really better than a lot of indie games, and doesn't offer the graphics to boot either, in my opinion, Nintendo are just lazy(I mean, they're about 7-8 years behind the times) because people still buy the same stuff providing it has the IP on it because it reminds them of their younger days. That's not to say that I think that all Nintendo games are ugly or boring, but I do find a lot of them to be. I really wish they'd up their act, and put more thought into what they produce.

 

[Romaki]

It depends on the type of game, but generally speaking no. I grew up playing GBC games and I can play any style of game as long as the gameplay is fun. But of course I wouldn't play like an exploration walking simulator if it had bad graphics.

 

[Halloqueen]

I don't care much at all about graphics. The important parts for me are the gameplay and story, if there is one. As long as it doesn't look like a child drew/designed the stuff then it doesn't bother me.

 

[lars708]

I don't really care as long as the graphical fidelity is relative to the hardware that it's on. There are tons of indie games for example that look extremely ugly despite the hardware that's running it being able to achieve much more. In games like that it annoys me that they didn't care to optimize their game.

But then there are also games that are designed in a way that make bad graphics acceptable, like Minecraft. I love Minecraft and its graphical style works great with the gameplay.

 

[DJStarstryker]

No, graphics generally don't matter that much to me. The only exception is the games that give me motion sickness, like Mirror's Edge, for obvious reasons.

Story and gameplay are the number one things to me. Good music is also great.

 

[xSuperMario64x]

I've tried to go back to the original Spyro PS1 games dozens of times but I can't play them for more than fifteen minutes without feeling sick.

RIP Tina :,(

 

[MapleSilver]

I think it's a little jarring at first to play an older game, but I can get used to it fairly quickly. My mind can adapt to most graphics.

I think aesthetic has more to do with whether a game looks good or not. Some games can look absolutely hideous because the art looks terrible, even if the graphics are "good".