Depends on how much the game relies on graphics for it to be good. A game like RDR2 has amazing graphics but an even better story and a fun open world. A Ubisoft game might be gorgeous but playing it is the equivalent of watching paint dry.
Why is the general consensus that we can’t have both good gameplay and graphics lol. Graphics shouldn’t take away from good core mechanics those are two different departments
Nope. Having great graphics is a plus, but great gameplay is all I need. Great gameplay with poor graphics? Ok. Great graphics and bad gameplay? Never.
Now when you say “graphics” are you only speaking of hyper realistic games? Or does stuff like Grounded, Sea of Thieves, or The Long Dark that have a very specific art style and are SOLID in both gameplay and appearance count?
Gameplay/Story>Graphics nothing new there most players i know see it this way
but that a game gets played less isn’t tied to its graphics tho sometimes it’s not even that the game is bad at times people juat get tired of the same overall experience in different games
Graphics are why I didn’t play Pokémon arceus. You need a balance of both for certain games. That said, I love Rimworld and the graphics are complete shit. Arceus just looked so bad for visuals. I’d rather play the old school Pokémon games
I played all of System Shock 2, and while…. definitely dated in terms of visuals, you do get used to the visual design.
On the other hand, I recently played Horizon 2 on the PS4. And while it looked beautiful, the graphical pop-ins and draw distance made it a little less enjoyable.
As long as the quality is consistent, and isn’t…. TRULY ugly, then you do care less every hour. But if it changes, it more or less regresses you on that timeline.
I used to play the civ games with all the animations turned off and with the simplified tile setting on. I just wanted to play the game as quickly as possible.
I’d say it’s a bit steeper after that initial flat bit. Then an a small spike in the middle when you get to the area they tried to make really good. Maybe a 2nd Spike if you’re lucky. As soon as you’re done you go back to not caring.
Good graphics help sell the game in the trailer but gameplay keeps me playing. It isn’t that simple though, if the game looks like ass then the gameplay needs to be something truly innovative and exceptional to keep my interest.
Both matter, good graphics augment good gameplay.. but all that is then further augmented by a good story.
Nah. Put over 100 hours into horizon forbidden west and still, everytime I play I spend a third of the time just admiring the graphics, detail and scenery. Same with rdr2.
[This](https://youtu.be/-z_JTU3t0Ws) is one of my favorite RPG games of all time. The game looks ugly as sin, quite frankly it is difficult to convince people this game really fun.
I think there is something to be said about how the presentation of the game lends into gameplay. Take the Guilty Gear series for example. Before Strive and Xrd, no really played GG, even people who played fighting games. Part of the reason I enjoy Guilty Gear Strive is because [amazing visuals](https://youtu.be/dBtwvFdlh2Q) are constantly upfront. People arent into fighting games and Guilty Gear have been swarming towards this game because it is fun to perform stylish moves on demand and it has a visual style is incredibly unique to Guilty Gear.
In my experience people who care about graphics tend to buy every AAA game and play them for a few hours before trying the another one. So I’d say this is pretty accurate. I don’t think the graphics are the issue. What are the best AAA games of the past year? They have decreased in quality.
If the gameplay is trash, all the graphics in the world won’t save it. If the only good thing about your game is graphics; in 5 years, your game will be called trash. What really sells is art style, some of the most remembered games are the ones that the art still looks good (borderlands, KH, etc)
It really depends on what someone means by “graphics.” Colloquially, a concept advertising has latched onto, “graphics” have come to mean “similar to realism.” In that, I’d say the graph’s probably close to accurate.
If you use the word the way it’s meant to be used in a game context, I think graphics matter to people the entire time they’re engaged with the experience. Solid character and setting design, integrated and efficient UI design, and engaging effects are really what people end up remembering and caring about.
From that perspective, I’d say Wind Waker has better graphics than Skyrim, since Skyrim doesn’t really have a ton of legitimate conceptual design going on, learning primarily on realism and real-world looking objects and creatures, so has fewer items, settings, characters, and experiences I could remember as vividly or specifically as Wind Waker.
“Graphics” is a gimmick that’s used to create a sales point spectacle. Graphics are the well designed, well executed visuals that drive memorable and unique play experiences delivered through a broader scope and array of artistic aesthetics and styles.
Why do people hate on graphics. Like I’m all for people choosing to make and play games with fun and wacky art styles but sometimes I just want to play a game with barely any visible pixels because it looks awesome. Wanting something pleasant to look at isn’t shallow it just lets you enjoy a fun game with cool graphics.
I don’t typically care about graphics, if the game has a neat premise and sounds like something I like I’ll play it.
The only aesthetic I get judgy with is side scroller games, it takes an immensely interesting game to even make me CONSIDER buying a side scroller, it’s 2022 and if I want side scrolling games that look like they were made in MS paint I’ll go on Newgrounds.
Gameplay -> graphics -> story (i just cant focus on stort driven games)
Depends on how much the game relies on graphics for it to be good. A game like RDR2 has amazing graphics but an even better story and a fun open world. A Ubisoft game might be gorgeous but playing it is the equivalent of watching paint dry.
Yes, but if you take a 2week break then there is a lower threshold above where you left off.
Why is the general consensus that we can’t have both good gameplay and graphics lol. Graphics shouldn’t take away from good core mechanics those are two different departments
Nope. Having great graphics is a plus, but great gameplay is all I need. Great gameplay with poor graphics? Ok. Great graphics and bad gameplay? Never.
Now when you say “graphics” are you only speaking of hyper realistic games? Or does stuff like Grounded, Sea of Thieves, or The Long Dark that have a very specific art style and are SOLID in both gameplay and appearance count?
Gameplay/Story>Graphics nothing new there most players i know see it this way
but that a game gets played less isn’t tied to its graphics tho sometimes it’s not even that the game is bad at times people juat get tired of the same overall experience in different games
People always claim they don’t care about graphics and yet consumer trends say otherwise. One of y’all is lying!
From 2015 to 2021 I was forced to play games on GeForce 210. Lightly speaking I don’t give a fuck about graphics
Stardew Valley.
I must admit to sinning sometimes, I often launch cyberpunk 2077 just because it looks good…
Depends on the game like everyone else is saying.
Minecraft for example, with the right hardware, it can be the most beautiful thing ever but the gameplay doesnt change!
I feel like that can be how long I’ve been playing games, period.
I grew up with the Atari so hearing people cry about “only” 1080p is funny
Stupid
Graphics are why I didn’t play Pokémon arceus. You need a balance of both for certain games. That said, I love Rimworld and the graphics are complete shit. Arceus just looked so bad for visuals. I’d rather play the old school Pokémon games
Gameplay and lore are the most important imo. Graphics are just a plus
Not even a little bit.
This poorly drawn graphic reminds me that Subnautica while it has issues none of them remove how much fun that game is.
It should be logarithmic, not linear, with some sort of offset on the x axis so it still hits 0.
It kinda depends.
I played all of System Shock 2, and while…. definitely dated in terms of visuals, you do get used to the visual design.
On the other hand, I recently played Horizon 2 on the PS4. And while it looked beautiful, the graphical pop-ins and draw distance made it a little less enjoyable.
As long as the quality is consistent, and isn’t…. TRULY ugly, then you do care less every hour. But if it changes, it more or less regresses you on that timeline.
No…why do people constantly need to try to start arguments here. Ugh
I used to play the civ games with all the animations turned off and with the simplified tile setting on. I just wanted to play the game as quickly as possible.
I’d say it’s a bit steeper after that initial flat bit. Then an a small spike in the middle when you get to the area they tried to make really good. Maybe a 2nd Spike if you’re lucky. As soon as you’re done you go back to not caring.
It depends on the kind of game! When there are good titles, the only thing that matters is the story.
No, love me some eye candy and following the tech that makes it possible.
Just because gameplay is more important doesn’t mean I gradually care less about visuals.
Good graphics help sell the game in the trailer but gameplay keeps me playing. It isn’t that simple though, if the game looks like ass then the gameplay needs to be something truly innovative and exceptional to keep my interest.
Both matter, good graphics augment good gameplay.. but all that is then further augmented by a good story.
“old school Runescape has entered the chat”
Nope once you notice how shitty something looks you see it like a swore thumb.
No. It should be how much I care about the gameplay.
Correlation is not causation, and many studios invest in graphics to avoid the more challenging problem of making better gameplay.
Nah. Put over 100 hours into horizon forbidden west and still, everytime I play I spend a third of the time just admiring the graphics, detail and scenery. Same with rdr2.
No, it is not.
[This](https://youtu.be/-z_JTU3t0Ws) is one of my favorite RPG games of all time. The game looks ugly as sin, quite frankly it is difficult to convince people this game really fun.
I think there is something to be said about how the presentation of the game lends into gameplay. Take the Guilty Gear series for example. Before Strive and Xrd, no really played GG, even people who played fighting games. Part of the reason I enjoy Guilty Gear Strive is because [amazing visuals](https://youtu.be/dBtwvFdlh2Q) are constantly upfront. People arent into fighting games and Guilty Gear have been swarming towards this game because it is fun to perform stylish moves on demand and it has a visual style is incredibly unique to Guilty Gear.
i hope devs realize soon good graphics doesnt equal good game
In my experience people who care about graphics tend to buy every AAA game and play them for a few hours before trying the another one. So I’d say this is pretty accurate. I don’t think the graphics are the issue. What are the best AAA games of the past year? They have decreased in quality.
If the gameplay is trash, all the graphics in the world won’t save it. If the only good thing about your game is graphics; in 5 years, your game will be called trash. What really sells is art style, some of the most remembered games are the ones that the art still looks good (borderlands, KH, etc)
It really depends on what someone means by “graphics.” Colloquially, a concept advertising has latched onto, “graphics” have come to mean “similar to realism.” In that, I’d say the graph’s probably close to accurate.
If you use the word the way it’s meant to be used in a game context, I think graphics matter to people the entire time they’re engaged with the experience. Solid character and setting design, integrated and efficient UI design, and engaging effects are really what people end up remembering and caring about.
From that perspective, I’d say Wind Waker has better graphics than Skyrim, since Skyrim doesn’t really have a ton of legitimate conceptual design going on, learning primarily on realism and real-world looking objects and creatures, so has fewer items, settings, characters, and experiences I could remember as vividly or specifically as Wind Waker.
“Graphics” is a gimmick that’s used to create a sales point spectacle. Graphics are the well designed, well executed visuals that drive memorable and unique play experiences delivered through a broader scope and array of artistic aesthetics and styles.
No if it’s red dead redemption 2
Why do people hate on graphics. Like I’m all for people choosing to make and play games with fun and wacky art styles but sometimes I just want to play a game with barely any visible pixels because it looks awesome. Wanting something pleasant to look at isn’t shallow it just lets you enjoy a fun game with cool graphics.
Not accurate.
I like good graphics. They make a good game even better.
So.. the more you care about graphics, the shorter amount of time you play the game?
I’m not sure I understand what you mean with the graph
Pretty true. I still play final fantasy tactics and other ps1 games
I don’t typically care about graphics, if the game has a neat premise and sounds like something I like I’ll play it.
The only aesthetic I get judgy with is side scroller games, it takes an immensely interesting game to even make me CONSIDER buying a side scroller, it’s 2022 and if I want side scrolling games that look like they were made in MS paint I’ll go on Newgrounds.