Do you care about graphics.

[uguu]

Every character that wasn't in the center of the screen turned horribly fuzzy.

That means your TV is shit. It wasn't like that on my 10 year old TV.

I developed a philosophy with a friend of mine (the guy who runs handheld wii). We only need good graphics if the game is all (as the main theme, not some generic random enemy) about Dinosaurs. No dinosaurs, then I'll be happy with Atari graphics.

Holy fuck. You and your friend are the smartest people evur.

Mind=blown.

[_____]

That means your TV is shit. It wasn't like that on my 10 year old TV.

Considering that this has happened to just about everyone I've spoken to who has the game (That's a lot of people; it's the internet), I think you're a bit off.

[Super Mecha Death Christ]

Only dinosaurs deserves good graphics, everything else does not. Since there are like 2 dinosaur games out there (modern generation), we really can't complain.

[uguu]

Considering that this has happened to just about everyone I've spoken to who has the game (That's a lot of people; it's the internet), I think you're a bit off.

:/

K, I have a question. What kind of TV do you have?

[Super Mecha Death Christ]

Every character that wasn't in the center of the screen turned horribly fuzzy.

Center of the screen? You sure you're not seeing depth of field? Wind Waker uses it a lot too. A lot of GC games uses DOF last generation.

That or you need to use component (or was it the other) cables for your TV.

Edited January 5, 2009 by Super Mecha Death Christ

[_____]

:/

K, I have a question. What kind of TV do you have?

It's a very new TV. :/

Center of the screen? You sure you're not seeing depth of field? Wind Waker uses it a lot too. A lot of GC games uses DOF last generation.

It's possible. I don't really know.

Edited January 5, 2009 by ChaosNinji

[Melodia]

I don't mind playing games where graphics aren't the best, but having better graphics certainly improves it. I guess if they get too bad, I might not enjoy the game at all, but that has never been too much of an issue.

I guess I can't mind graphics too much, since I still enjoy going back and playing my N64 occasionally. :/

[Florete]

For me, it's about 15% graphics and 85% other stuff. Like, I don't give a shit how Windwaker looks because it's an amazing game. At the same time, it's tough for me to play older games because I'm just not used to what can now be thought of as "bad" graphics. Not bad for their time, but bad now, and it makes it harder for me. I can play any modern game without any regard to graphics.

[Super Mecha Death Christ]

It's a very new TV. :/

It's possible. I don't really know.

DOF is one of the under appreciated effects. It looks like shit, and is extremely process intensive.

[uguu]

It's a very new TV. :/

I meant is it HD, SD, what?

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

It's good to have good graphics and all but I care about the story more since it's more appealing.

[Father Wood]

In a word:

Here's how I see it: If a game is good, then it's good. I can't stand anything below SNES gameplay though. However, I will embrace a game with great graphics and great gameplay with a great story more than other games unless I've got nostalgia for those other games.

I definately agree with Shantotto though. Sound is definately important, I'd say more important than graphics. Especially the music. Whenever I play a SNES quality game with sound hiccups, it annoys the hell out of me. But what annoys me even more is that some video game companies don't hire orchestras to compose and play music for them. Instead, we get terrible quality computer generated music.

Don't get me wrong though, gameplay (and story) are far more important than sound/music too.

Edited January 5, 2009 by Yourgranny

[Loki Laufeyson]

Games don't need great graphics to be good. I don't think it's "equally" as important as gameplay. I value gameplay over everything. Like, if I rate games... It's like, 60% Gameplay, 25% story 15% graphics.

this

graphics dont make the game for me..if a game has mediocre graphics but awesome everything else, that game becomes a classic in my opinion...FE doesnt have stellar graphics and yet its excellent!

[Ragnell]

I like good graphics, but they are in no way required for me to like a game. And I mean good graphics, not necessarily realistic graphics. I actually don't like realistic graphics because they never get it quite right and certain things look weird and awkward. Like Link's hair in Twilight Princess. I hated it because it didn't look real enough to fit in with the environment.

But it is bad when graphics are so bad that they get in the way of gameplay. Like when something doesn't look like what it's supposed to be. Then it makes the game worse.

[Tamara]

To say the least, graphics are part of what gives the game its atmosphere, in conjunction with the plot. The detail of graphics isn't what matters, as much as the style that the graphics are presented in.

The only time graphics truly turn a game experience bad is when you have to deal with jagged polygons. Those things are fucking ugly. That, and how some games seem to think immediate and dark shadows are the way to go--the kind where if there's a wall, there's a blackhole in the vicinity sucking out any amount of light possible to be reflected, refracted or otherwise cast around said wall into the dark crevice. It's when the graphics play against you, and do the opposite of their intention, that it turns sour.

You understand! Bad graphics ruin gameplay, good graphics support the atmosphere/improve immersion -> graphics are important.

The mistake many people make is thinking "top tier current gen = good graphics, everything else = bad graphics. Conclusion: graphics aren't important, because I like games that aren't top tier current gen." But can you honestly say games like Advance Wars have bad graphics? Sure, it's not eye-candy, but as far as functionality goes the graphics do an excellent job and because the graphics do their job, we can enjoy the gameplay.

[burning_phoneix]

Graphics are important, but not in a "more polygons! more polygons or it sucks!" kind of way.

1. Graphics need to be functional at the very least. If menu's are mess, you can't tell one characters from another etc a game is unplayable.

2. Good graphics have more to do with style than with specs. All the games from the nineties that used 3D just because they couldlook like crap now. It's games like Yoshi's Island that still look attractive, even after more than a decade. Games that have a timeless and easy to recognise style, those games have good graphics.

I agree with this post. Can't really think of anything more to say. :/

[Starwolf_UK]

Only dinosaurs deserves good graphics, everything else does not. Since there are like 2 dinosaur games out there (modern generation), we really can't complain.

I'd say it applies to more than Dinosaurs. As in other animals. You cannot denny the importance of graphics in games like Afrika/Hauna Mutata/National Geographic: Africa (who knew a game could has so many names), Aquanauts Holiday or Endless Ocean.

Though mentioning Endless Ocean brings up a good point. The underwater parts are fine for SD but the surface...oh dear god. The graphics are utterly horrible. It is the contrast which is irritating more than anything.

It isn't like Afrika is flawless either while the animals are great with their behavious (they will attack you though sadly the game doesn't show you getting mauled to death by Lions...) and noises the humans as far as I know don't even talk...

That or you need to use component (or was it the other) cables for your TV.

Component but the real answer is whatever the TV will take using the below list to work out. You want the highest both your TV and thing you are hooking up accept.

Connection methods, from best to worst -

HDMI/DVI

VGA

Component

RGB Scart

S-Video

Composite

RF

Use the best that's avaliable.

Sadly that doesn't emphasise enough the huge gaps between S-video and below or (if it is HD content, ED is just smoother and in the case of NTSC; correct colours) Component and below.

Edited January 5, 2009 by Starwolf_UK

[Celice]

The mistake many people make is thinking "top tier current gen = good graphics, everything else = bad graphics. Conclusion: graphics aren't important, because I like games that aren't top tier current gen." But can you honestly say games like Advance Wars have bad graphics? Sure, it's not eye-candy, but as far as functionality goes the graphics do an excellent job and because the graphics do their job, we can enjoy the gameplay.

Which is funny, when people consider older games to have "bad" graphics. They aren't bad, only in a different "Style" than their generation is accustomed to.

Just because you didn't grow up with it doesn't make the graphical detail bad. Just as modern writing conventions doesn't make older trends obsolete and ugly (if anyone knows their stuff it's actually quite the opposite).

[YokaiKnight]

I'd like to say that a similar principle applies to women.

teeheehee

Graphics are definitely the least important part of a game.

Whoa, that's not always true. Sometimes, the sound adds little or nothing to the main appeal of a game. Originality is something I'll often toss aside--sometimes, its good to get more of the same gameplay- or concept-wise. Graphics are not invariably unimportant.

BLS also made a point about having great gameplay but ugly graphics. Bad graphics can definitely detract from gameplay. Excellent graphics can help to create strong presentation, especially in story-driven games.

Like, I don't give a shit how Windwaker looks because it's an amazing game.

Sorry to be a contrarian, but I do give a shit how WW looks, because the graphics and visual effects are generally great and help to flesh out the setting of the Wind Waker world.

Which is funny, when people consider older games to have "bad" graphics. They aren't bad, only in a different "Style" than their generation is accustomed to.

You can't deny that there are some just plain ugly NES/2600/whatever-else-was-out-in-that-era games, though.

[Clonez]

As long as the graphics are decent enough to look at, I'd play it.

[Celice]

You can't deny that there are some just plain ugly NES/2600/whatever-else-was-out-in-that-era games, though.

Just as there's plain ugly versions of 360/P33/PC games (Wii's a shoe-in with developers who don't give a rat's ass). It's "style" is as far as the system allows.

[Killer Poleax]

I don't really care about graphics as long as the game is fun. Gameplay>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>graphics

If a game is really fun for me, I can usually ignore the graphics cause I'm too into the game to care about the graphics.

Edited January 6, 2009 by KSFF2150

[Loki Laufeyson]

Which is funny, when people consider older games to have "bad" graphics. They aren't bad, only in a different "Style" than their generation is accustomed to.

Just because you didn't grow up with it doesn't make the graphical detail bad. Just as modern writing conventions doesn't make older trends obsolete and ugly (if anyone knows their stuff it's actually quite the opposite).

Being possibly the oldest person posting here, i know exactly what you mean....the NES was really what put gaming on the map and it wasnt until the early 90s did it finally end there...Notice how theres all this fancy pansy bullshit with realistic graphics and stuff and yet people are STILL putting NES games on their Virtual console! why? because those games are fun! it doesnt matter WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE as long as its an enjoyable game...

and trust me, i find "realistic" graphics often very unattractive...it eats up too much of the meat of the game...notice how these games with rich and wonderful graphics are often short and unfulfilling?

[Edorian]

Graphics do matter, they are more important in games like RPGs and FPS where the graphics have to pull you into the game to get really involved in the story and enjoy it to the max. Graphics have to be adequate to the game, have a certain style that fits to the game.

Old -good- games have their graphics according to the game, for example ToZ OoT has great graphics for its time, add a very good story and a revolutionary gameplay (I think it's the first game to implement Z targeting) and you get a masterpiece, a classic. Now with te same example, Ocarina of Time, I can still enjoy it even though its graphics worse than current graphics, why is this, because the game is so great that even with outdated graphics it so fun to beat the game. But still you can't say graphics aren't important, in its time I think graphics really were something fantastic that helped get involved much deeper into the game.

In graphics you have to take style into account too, Fire Emblem for GBA is great as it is, graphics aren't that good but the style is fitting to the gameplay. Style can be very important, I didn't like Fire Emblem PoR at first because I got used to the GBA style so much that I couldn't really play PoR.

Gameplay isn't more important than graphics nor are graphics more important than gameplay. A video game is a mixture of different things (graphics, gameplay, sound, etc) that combined need to get to only one result, and that is: The game has to be fun.

[Posaydal]

I find it not always wise to segregate a game into several parts (gameplay, graphics, sound, story etc) because the game is the sum of it's parts. If the parts mesh well together, the game is presented well and the concept is playable it will usually be a good game. It can take any one of the factors to make a game unplayable.

However, passable graphics are usually good enough without detracting from the rest of the game, other things are generally less forgiveable.