How much of your gaming enjoyment comes from graphical fidelity?

[4K_shmoorK]

With so much of the discussion upon new releases being focused on graphics, I thought it would be interesting to see what people here value most in a game.

Can a game have potato visuals and still be considered 'good' or even 'great' in this modern age?

Is there a cut-off for what is and isn't considered acceptable in terms of graphics anymore?

If the answer is yes, does that also apply to indie/small developers who can't afford to drop big $$$ into an engine/assets?

Is there hope for GameWorks or is the only solution to throw in the bin altogether?

Do gameplay and the associated mechanics play as much of a part in your enjoyment of a title as the visuals?

What say you, Anans?

 

[Mushkins]

I think this debate always misses the mark on one very important thing.

Quality visuals do not necessarily have to be the latest and greatest photo-realistic 3d renders with perfect skeletal movements and facial animations.

Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete is a PSX game and it still looks great today. Yes, its 2D, yes it's an *old* top-down JRPG, but the art style hold up extremely well even though it's simple colorful 2D art. Just because it's not perfectly modern it's still visually appealing and does not hinder the gameplay at all.

Whereas a game like The Witcher III relies on those detailed 3D world assets to immerse the player and often picking out small details in those environments (blood pools, scratches, footprints, interactables, etc) is critical to gameplay. If it looked like 3D renders from 2001 it would reasonably affect gameplay in a negative way.

 

[tg2708]

Mine comes from gameplay and performance. Take for instance fo4 its graphics is dated but I liked the previous games and will most likely enjoy this one since I'm a big fan of open world games. But with the issues with performance on AMD cards ill have to hold out, but for how long I don't know.

 

[Insomniator]

I've played 10x more Dota 2 and Sc2 than any graphically intense game over the past few years.

For a one time single player play through I do enjoy/seek out excellent graphics (crysis, farcry etc)... but really for me almost ALL of my gaming time is spent online competitively where graphics are rarely a factor or focus. I've been playing a lot of the Overwatch beta as well, and that has good, but certainly not advanced graphics compared to whats out there.

At this point its either online multiplayer or essentially tech demo's for me. I'll be interested in say Crysis 4 just for the graphics, but other single player games that at one time I'd probably camp outside of gamestop for (GTA V, MGS V) I just don't care about anymore

 

[xorbe]

Unless it's a slow kick back exploration game, I actually prefer simpler graphics for fast paced titles.

Looks good > looks real
Fun > realistic

 

[dogen1]

Almost none. High quality art is way more important to me than technologically sophisticated visuals 95% of the time. The Metal Slug series, for example, are still some of the best looking games ever made, IMO.

 

[KingFatty]

If you take any fun/enjoyable game, would increasing the graphical fidelity make the game "worse"?

I don't think so, unless you have a forced constraint like limited graphical computing power that forces a compromise in quality. I can play tic-tac-toe on an 80's era mainframe like in the old movie Wargames and the graphics can be hugely simple. But it would be nice if the graphics were higher fidelity Xs and Os when playing that game.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

I'd say it's gameplay, but every year, going back and playing my old favorites is a little more painful. So I guess I'm a sucker for eye candy.

 

[MrTeal]

Depends on the title. I am looking forward to Ashes, but I still play (and enjoy) Alpha Centauri and GalCiv. Some titles have aged better than other, but a lot of that is due more to gameplay than graphics. Playing FF6 or Lunar:SSC is still fun, but playing the original Final Fantasy less so because the gameplay just isn't as good as what's come since.

OTOH, FPS games don't tend to age as well for me. With the exception of four player GoldenEye, the graphics seem to be a larger component of the package with a shooter and going back to play Quake just isn't that interesting vs a newer shooter. Same thing with adventure games; I wouldn't go back to play old Tomb Raider over new Tomb Raider.

 

[Erenhardt]

There can by ugly game that is fun to play, and there can be fantastic looking one that is just bad.

For me personally, I need good graphics to enjoy the game. Otherwise it breaks immersion, looks funny and I loose interest. Tried witcher 1 recenty. It was installing longer than I played it.

I mean graphics as a whole, rendering techniques, and art design.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I think graphics are what gets me. But great graphics isn't always pushing polygons. Sometimes the art direction matters more. That is where the indy's can impress.

For example, I actually think many NES games aged better than SNES and Genesis games. The big square pixels show up cleaner on a digital flatscreen than some of those 16 bit games who tried to play tricks with now non-existent scanlines. Or when I look back at the Saturn/Ps1 generation the games that aged the best were the ones that sparingly used polygons like Castlevania: Symphony of the Night or Dragon Force.

Fast forward to today and MGS 5's Toy Story 2 level cutscenes are just as wow to me as the fact that the Stick of Truth looks like I am playing an episode of South Park. But in ten years time those MGS 5 cutscenes will look like dated crap while Stick of Truth will still look like an episode of South Park.

 

[tential]

Any game that has adventuring/exploring for me needs to have great graphics. Amazing.
It's what immerses me in the world and I've spent 1000s these past 3 years to make that immersion feel real.

For multi-player it's 100% game play.

For a adventure game, it can be fun, but no visuals and I'm bored. It's why I can't replay games like ff7 but I can play cs on all low settings if I need to to gain a competitive edge. To each their own, but for me, 4k is my minimum spec in 2016(even now lol I have games waiting for the 4k treatment.) on a 4k freesync screen.

 

[bystander36]

There are games where the graphic detail is what drew me in, and there are games where artistic style drew me in. There are other games with a great game concept that drew me in. I do have a minimum level of graphics I need to be happy, but style and game play needs to be good.

 

[MajinCry]

I'm fine with Morrowind-esque graphics, but the animations had better be up to par. Nothing is more jarring than having your character waddle whilst the character is *running*, for example.

Decent shaders are always nice, though. Texture resolution? Polygon counts? Ptooey. Shaders are where it's at.

 

[sandorski]

30% maybe. If gameplay sucks, it won't matter how nice it looks. If gameplay is real good, the better the graphics the more impressive the game seems.

 

[Zodiark1593]

As long as the game looks reasonable and has decent art, I'm good. For example, Final Fantasy XII on the PS2 looks reasonable (aside from aliasing), good art, not much that stands out that draws my attention from the game itself. For sure, it doesn't wow me anymore, but at the same time it doesn't really detract any either.

In a game targeting realism, it is far too easy to pick out flaws that stick out. For example, on the PS3 (older games), blocky shadows look absolutely terrible, and really stand out despite technically being more advanced than having no shadows at all.

 

[thesmokingman]

If it plays well and is optimized for my gear, I could live with reduced IQ. On the flip side if it runs terribly it doesn't matter how good it looks, I'm not buying it.

 

[Silverforce11]

I've played very good pixel-art games that were more enjoyable than AAA blockbusters.

Graphics fidelity should only be judged when a game aims to have realistic art styles, such as most FPS. Why destroy hardware by simulating accurate lightning, shadows etc if it ends up looking crap?

Whereas a game that aims for a non-realism style, needs to be judged purely on aesthetics. You can have pixel art or 2d sprites look excellent, despite it being far from realistic or high fidelity.

Low-poly 3D styles are also quite appealing if done well.

Generally, gameplay >> graphics.

 

[Silverforce11]

There's also the other factor, pricing.

When games ask for $60 USD like most AAA titles, we come into it with the expectations of superb production values. As such, if it looks lo-fidelity for the performance, it's not good.

This type of pricing is rarely ever applied to non-3D games.

Whereas great pixel art or 2D games are priced <$20 and are judged differently, where gameplay trumps all.

 

[Spanners]

I think it's moderately important, I wouldn't let "old-school" graphics get in the way of enjoying a great game though.

Consistancy is more important that quality, nothing like a glaringly bad texture or bush floating in mid-air to ruin the immersion.

 

[Rakehellion]

This argument again.

My belief is that it doesn't need to be such a ham-handed dichotomy.

 

[5150Joker]

I think a game with weak graphics (e.g. textures that aren't super HD and doesn't employ all the latest filters) but really good art direction and gameplay can be more compelling than a game that has all the visual tricks but very little substance. Ideally we all want something that blends both but that sort of creation is extremely rare. I think GTA V is a game that falls into my former description while games like Battlefront fit the latter. In the end, it comes down to what you enjoy and the compromises that come with that choice.

There's also the other factor, pricing.

When games ask for $60 USD like most AAA titles, we come into it with the expectations of superb production values. As such, if it looks lo-fidelity for the performance, it's not good.

This type of pricing is rarely ever applied to non-3D games.

Whereas great pixel art or 2D games are priced <$20 and are judged differently, where gameplay trumps all.

To digress a little, even if the MSRP is at $60, you can usually get it at a much lower price on release if you know where to shop. Greenman Gaming for example has been running a 20% off voucher for new games this month which is a fair amount below the $60 price listed on Steam and Origin.

Anyhow, for the AAA games like Battlefront, that $60/$45 (depending on where you buy) is just the entry price because these companies sell DLC/Season Pass that costs as much as the game itself. My buddy paid $120 for Battlefront which is pretty ridiculous considering it's a very simple and bland shooter with less depth than Battlefield. So it's not always so much an expectation for superb production values as much as what you look for in a game--it doesn't always need cutting edge graphics or gameplay to be worth $60/$120.

 

[calyco]

Prob 30%, it enhances a good gaming experience but of course.. gameplay gameplay gameplay

 

[boozzer]

it really depends on the game genre. in an exploration type of game, graphics matters a hell of alot. perfect examples would be witcher 3, skyrim, fallout 4. great graphics really ups the immersion + wow factor.

rts games is 100% gameplay. (alot of gamers play starcraft 2 on the lowest setting)
fps games is 100% aiming and moving. (counter strike 1.6 was played for over 10 years)
2d top down rpg is 100% story and gamedesign(skills, interface) games like pillars and divine divinity.
exploration type of rpgs is almost 50-70% graphics.

of course graphics matter in all of the above, but in exploration type games it matters a hell of alot more.

 

[bystander36]

it really depends on the game genre. in an exploration type of game, graphics matters a hell of alot. perfect examples would be witcher 3, skyrim, fallout 4. great graphics really ups the immersion + wow factor.

rts games is 100% gameplay. (alot of gamers play starcraft 2 on the lowest setting)
fps games is 100% aiming and moving. (counter strike 1.6 was played for over 10 years)
2d top down rpg is 100% story and gamedesign(skills, interface) games like pillars and divine divinity.
exploration type of rpgs is almost 50-70% graphics.

of course graphics matter in all of the above, but in exploration type games it matters a hell of alot more.

For me, the graphical importance is a lot different than your list. I'm guessing it has to do with what your favorite genres are. Great graphics can get me to play genres I don't normally play that often, yet in the genres I like the most, graphics don't have to be as good. I guess it boils down to a games enjoyment is a product of graphics, art, game play and story. The more of those that are good to me, the more likely I'll enjoy it. Great graphics can make a game I wouldn't normally like become more enjoyable.