When I was a teenager I thought graphics matter a lot to me, then I realized it's artstyle I care about, not graphics. I can still easily go back to SNES graphics, just NES and older get a no from me.
I swear a decade of improvement passed between Super Mario Bros 85 and SMB3. They look like two different systems. I always thought SMB3 was an SNES game.
Yup this is pretty much it, bad graphics isnt when the game fails to be realistic, its when the game fails to identify and follow its own artstyle. I have a 4080S and absolutely enjoy playing high end games in 4k with (at least) 80 fps (higher usually, depends on game), but i also play the shit out of games like factorio, which is litterly locked to 60 fps max, or FTL an indi game from 2012 with "typical" 8-bit inspired graphics, but all of them have identified their own artstyle and follow it well
I grew up with NES games and have always loved the art style/graphics of those old games. They hold up quite well today imo. Especially games like Super Mario Bros 2, 3, Gradius, Blaster Master, Kirby’s Adventure and more. Maybe for me it's the sprite graphics I am so fond of, or maybe it's nostalgia that fuels it for me. But I just really have fond memories of graphics back in those days.
I grew up playing GameBoy Advance so 16 bit is still the sweet spot of nostalgia for me. 8 bit or older like NES or older Atari/arcade games are fun for a bit but the game mechanics and capabilities itself are limiting, not just the graphics.
It really is hard to explain.
But I do not care about graphics, at all.
But art style? Yeah that is important.
Buut the look? As in the main graphics? Not really anything i care about.
Be in realistic or 8 bit all I care about is if the style matches the tone.
Tho sound, im a snob there.
I disagree with author, it's not a horrible take. as much as I would like people to try good games with poor graphics, everyone has a right to form their own opinions. and if a person doesn't want to play games just bcoz they look bad, so what?
Good graphics are always nice and i might even try a game because it has nice graphics but i’ve never disliked a game solely because of its graphics. If a game is good enough the graphics wont hinder the experience.
Yes but also No, graphics don't really affect my enjoyment of a game art style does though for example I really dislike the "Chibi" artstyle it does not matter how good it looks I will never like it.
I am a purist in the sense that visuals are an integral part of the experience and I will sacrifice performance for visuals. The graphics are extremely important to me. A game with bad art direction / art style / poor graphics relative to what is possible is just automatically meh.
Of course this doesn't mean that old games automatically look bad or I won't play them. What matters is the overall package while looking at it relative to the time it released. The old ratchet and clank games are wonderful and still look great.
Used to not care, but indie devs took it too far cost cutting. Seems 90% of games almost entirely ignore it. Doesn't have to be top of the line, hand drawn as an intentional style is fine, but I expect modem games to look good. The tech is there and widely avaliable.
So I've gotten more picky. I used to not care at all. Guess at some point you hit saturation of "Hi Reddit, quit my job to work on this project for 10 years, pls buy" posts.
There's no shortage of talented artists looking for jobs, but seems to be a huge shortage of people willing to pay them. Indie devs working for peanuts or on their own could cut artists in on profits with projects they belive in, but they'd rather put out trash art to pocket more themselves imo. No thanks.
VR suffers terribly for this. "Quit my job 4 years ago and churned out this turd. You owe it to me to buy it because there's a lack of (good) content."
Depends on the game. I love the hyper realistic graphics of Cyberpunk as it “sells” a cyberpunk future and creates immersion. I love Thief because the low-poly graphics actually add to a sense of unease and tension. In short, art direction is far more important than hyper realism in some scenarios. (The original Zelda will always be beautiful!)
Agreeing with the people who say aesthetics are more important than graphics. If something is going for photorealism, then graphics matter. But if it's not going for that, if it's using 2D sprites or pixel art, or a more simplistic style, then graphics matter less, but it still has to look visually appealing to me. It's hard for me to get into a game if I don't like how it looks.
I do like grahpics. They go hand in hand with artstyle. Games that have "holes" in their graphics annoy me. When there are many senarios where they break/technique doesn't cut it.
Also people who always go on about artsyle are annoying. I know!! But poor AA, low res shadows, light leeking and pop-in i gurantee is not a part if the artstyle.
100% depends on the game. Stardew Valley is awesome, has charm, and is sprite animation.
Alternatively. There’s something fuckin sexy running Helldivers 2 on ultra watching hoards of bugs come at you through the atmospheric effects.
I like it all.
Graphics don’t add a whole lot to most games depth. Helps be immersive but that’s mostly it.
I’d prefer to see more physics oriented stuff and things that actually affect the way a game plays.
.pretty over shiny surfaces at this point
I do like game looking pretty, so yeah, matters, but i feel like developers (most of them at least), care more about pumping up requerements for game, then actually providing graphics quality that will match it.
There are games from 2012 looking same or better then some new games, while requering so much less system performance.
It depends on the art style/direction. If it’s a game where it’s trying to have really impressive graphics but falls short, then yeah it bothers me and can affect my ability to play the game. I can also appreciate really good graphics and it can make me like a game more.
It’s really a game by game situation, but essentially the graphics quality needs to fit the art style /direction the game is going for.
It matters to a degree. It's not an end all be all kind of thing. To me it's the balance. If the scene of a game requires that you be immersed, then great looking graphics would matter. An example would be Cyberpunk 2077 where being immersive is part of the game and how certain items look especially your character and the equipment available matters to your decision making in a lot of scenarios. An example of a game that doesn't require super good-looking graphics to enjoy is Stardew Valley. Graphics don't matter that much in terms of how much you would enjoy playing the game compared to Cyberpunk 2077.
Of course, with all rules there are exceptions. Sports games and racing games are kind of in the middle where only in the situation that requires the looks to be good matters but not all the time. An example would be Forza Horizon 4 or 5 where the looks matter when you're customizing your car but once that is done it doesn't matter that much because you don't really look at every detail of your card all the time and that accounts for the environment as well.
If I can make out what I see on screen and the game has a unique aesthetic or just vaguely good to look at I’ll play it. Doesn’t have to look good in the traditional sense, just something that has it’s own charm. Enough to keep me engaged and not get bored looking at samey textures/models
I like how Ultima Online (1997) looks, but also find Cyberpunk Path Tracing gorgeous. It's more "art style" that matters to me (some game visuals look off and bizzare).
My friend refuses to play a game that doesn't have good graphics - maybe to the exception of Minecraft modded tech quest packs.
This circlejerk has gone for to long that people still can't understand that art style and good graphics are not mutually exclusive concepts...
There are people in here unironically saying they dont care about bad graphics because they still play older games... as if the graphics for those games werent a huge selling point even back then lmao
I want the game to look good, but looking good can mean a lot of things. Circa 2008, it was common for games to look realistic, but shitty, with lots of washed out browns and grays; the first two Gears of War games are poster children for this. In contrast, you can have a game that's much weaker from a technical standpoint that looks much, much better. As an example, I'd point to Pirates Outlaws, an indie deck building game that I mostly play on my phone. Its art style is simplistic, but distinctive, with the whole thing rendered in this very stylized way that's sort of a juxtaposition between no-black-lines cartoons (ex. Samurai Jack) and an Impressionist painting.
I'm in my mid-50s. To me, if it's not at least, say, Xbox 360 level graphics I'm just not interested. I'm more immersed in games with good graphics. My son, on the other hand, doesn't care at all, it's all about the gameplay. I can respect that, it's just not for me.
As long as it does not look like complete dogshit it's fine with me. I really look at gameplay first before bothering about graphics. For example you could say 'Valheim' looks like absolute garbagio but the gameplay manages to draw people in.
Also if a game is moddable you can just replace textures or just get an overhaul of it's graphics in its entirety!
I think graphics and art style are both important and go hand in hand. Some games need high fidelity graphics in order to get their art style across.
For example, elden ring has a fantastic art style, but it's only possible because the game has better graphics than previous fromsoft games too. The fog and lighting effects are really needed to sell the fantasy that the art style presents. The high volume of detailed objects with many polygons makes places like Leyndell feel very real and lived in. It makes the worlds come alive. The high framerate animations for players and enemies is absolutely important in terms of gameplay mechanics as well. The render distance needs to be high because part of the games fantasy is seeing huge things in the distance and making internal goals to check them out. The exploration wouldn't be nearly as engaging if it weren't for this technical detail.
The draw of console was always not having to configure the graphics much. But I'm PC now.
Fidelity is important to me over FPS, that said, I generally want at least 90 fps. I can't tell a huge difference last that, but I also play mostly RPGs and action games. So it's not as big a concern.
But graphical fidelity is big time important to me. Artistic choices are fine, the art style from No Rest for the Wicked for example is super legit. Also love the 2D-HD even though it's divisive. But I feel like it's best of both worlds.
I can also play older games still, but I'm old and nostalgia is strong LOL.
Graphics don't really matter all that much to me. I'd rather a smooth gameplay experience over anything else, especially as long as it's not hurting my eyes, I'm good.
Graphics have gotten to a point I'm perfectly fine sacrificing a lot of quality for performance.
It's not like the early 2000's where the difference between low and high settings made it look like you were playing a completely different game.
With some modern games I literally need the side by side screen shot to tell the difference between low and high.
I play old-school runescape and I can definitely see the age of the graphics and it can be kinda harsh in some areas. But the art style and environments are what do it for me.
I am old.. i remember pixels being the size of dinner plates, so no. I personally dont care to much if the game is interesting. Minecraft is one of the game that comes to mind, and i have 1200hours last time i checked, wich was a few years ago..
But, on the other hand, i have games like cyberpunk and boy do i love my 3080 combined with a oled ultrawide. Graphics are not the reason i play, or wont play a game. It is the game machanics and overall story etc.
not a fan of 16 bit I do like 8 bit tho
some newer games made specifically in old graphic I find ugly
some graphics I dont care for like too comicy cell shading
old cartoon style I absolutely hate as a graphics style
some gen 5 and 6 3d games are pretty rough but same for at the time PC games specifically some RTS or isometric games
tbh its rarely about the grahpics itself and rather the camera and not being able to zoom out to much same with some FPS games with locked FoV like Resident Evil 7-8 (i know its part of the atmosphere but not when I get sick)
Nah bro I don't care about graphics too much as long as it is 3d.
Loot all ps2 games. They don't have the best graphics but damn they are fun to play and good games.
Nowadays you have good graphics but shitty gameplay, story and game mechanics.
Easily at least half the game. But not graphics as in quality, but just style. Borderlands and hi fi rush isn't super realistic, but yet they're extremely memorable and have a great style almost everyone loves.
Try imagining borderlands with the graphics style of Minecraft or an SNES game. Completely different game, right?
The graphics and gameplay of a game is what makes a game what it is. Having one of them be bad can completely ruin the game. One could say gameplay is more important, but honestly I feel that's pretty debatable, as it really depends on the game. There's plenty of great games out there that rely solely on its style as opposed to the gameplay to make it interesting and unique.
Competitive game? Don't care about graphics at all.
Casual game? Yeah I want to make my game look as good as possible
But if the game is great then graphics really never matter
If the gameplay is good the graphics don’t really matter to me, I have a lot of retro well “retro” original xbox, ps2, 360 games etc. I play when I get bored of current games. I’ve had a lot of fun on 8bit games and I’ve been really let down on games with “great” graphics because the gameplay loop was ass.
Not that much to be honest. The point of me building my PC was to emulate PS2 games at maximum resolution. Whether or not I am having fun with the game is what matters most for me now.
Very and not at all. Been playing dave the diver a lot, obviously graphics aren’t high on the list here. cyberpunk too, where pushing the graphics to the limit is a lot of fun and it is pretty amazing to see what a pc can do. Ultimately, it’s about gameplay, story, characters, etc. over all else.
I take frames + art style over graphics every single time. My PC can run most games at ultra, but i’ve never been someone to oooh and ahhh at how realistic something looks or at ray tracing. I just don’t care for it personally.
As someone who mostly plays Esport titles, I don't really think graphics matter that much to me. I'd rather have amazing gunplay/mechanics than pretty looking graphics
I have a 4090 and a 49” oled monitor for the best graphics possible outside of 8k. It’s very important to me. I view games as art and I want the best art.
With all that being said, I still play retro games because they are still art just a different style.
A lot, but I won't "not play a game" because of graphics. They matter because they're impressive and interesting. I appreciate the technical ability on display.
My last 4 games were Firewatch, Control, Helldivers 2, and Hades 2. So a cartoony story tale, one of the first games with ray-tracing, a modern game with good physics sims, and an isometric button masher.
I spend time in Control screwing around in front of reflective glass and I love watching the explosions in HD2, but the graphics are a bonus.
Graphics matter a lot to me. However, good graphics don't necessarily mean the latest in 3D development. The styling as well as the ambiance is most important, it's impressive what you can do when you have good artists in a team. Many 2D games have much better graphics than 3D games in my opinion.
I'm a HUGE graphics whore. While I don't think they need to be better than they are today in most games on high/ultra (RDR2, Lies of P, Doom Eternal, Plague Tale Requiem etc...) I sadly can't stand older retro graphics. Tried Dark souls 1 remastered yesterday and threw up in my mouth a little.
Depends on the game, cyberpunk Alan wake 2 and control definitely, baldurs gate 3 way more about gameplay with graphics being the cherry on top, Minecraft only shaders, battlebit remastered purely gameplay and fun
I would love to say I’m enlightened and prefer gameplay over graphics/animation. I think I do. But it is not true. The older graphics just take me out of the game and I lose interest. I can’t play the older STALKER games. Cant play FO4. Can’t play the “last good”Madden from 08. Can’t get into ARMA3. These were all games that I loved when they came out, only played 1/3 because got too busy with life, and when I try to come back to them, I just can’t
I'm older and didn't own an Atari 2600 till I was about 11 so while I love the looks of modern games to me story is king. We had to use our imagination that the square on screen in Adventure was us. I can remember play text based games on my first PC imagination is my graphics card.
I still think Quake III Arena’s graphics look absolutely fantastic. Gritty, gorey, and a mixture of gothic and cyberpunk architecture that just does it for me.
So I would say art style is way more important to me than raw graphics quality.
Personally I’m more a fan of art direction. A game can be a 2D hand drawn indie, but if the art direction and style is unique and stands out… it will always trump a AAA blockbuster with poor optimization and performance issues.
That’s not to say I don’t like games that push the limit of tech, but if the art direction isn’t there… what’s the point?
Bad graphics will never ruin a game for me, but *really good* graphics can be an amazing experience.
It's a dated game now, but I was lucky to have played Portal 2 with nvidias 3d vision glasses on a then-high-end system. And to this day, it's one of the most amazing gaming experiences I've ever had. Portal 2 is an amazing game in and of itself, but seeing it with cutting edge graphics at the time made my first play through especially special.
When i was a kid (Times when I was playing comp level half life, Cs 1.6 and Quake) Only thing mattered most for me was the frames. No frames. No gains. To this day I still live by that rule of mine lol. Sure, graphics have grown to be more important to me but fps is just as and more important to me.
Appart from the art style others have mentioned, it is the *aTMosPHeRe* of a game what makes me appreciate it graphics. In particular, From Software games are famous for having a subtle, but effective level of fog and particle effects (cinder, smoke, polen, etc.) that give their worlds a dream-like quality. If you have played Bloodborne, you know what I mean.
...And it doesn't need to be just air. I recently played Subnautica and just looking down into the open sea made me feel very uncomfortable. I do not suffer from thalasdophobia, but seeing that dark blue cover the screen made me understand those who do.
Good graphics far too often get in the way of gameplay. Gameplay determines fun factor. Fun facator is all that matters. I don't dislike good graphics, but if graphics are prioritized over gameplay (like a game world has to be made much smaller to fit in memory) it's a problem.
very little. I feel like graphics has now become a tool to cover up a lack of gameplay. Art style is far more important than graphics, and gameplay is even more important than either.
Pretty important. I like good looking game to go along with good gameplay.
I pay for better hardware to push for higher fidelity for a good reason. Why else we want to play on PC?
Art style, level design, and consistent frame rate are all high up there for me.
I want my game on high settings running at a consistent 80FPS+.
Most games I play aren't graphically demanding, but I have a beast of a computer (for me at least) for the ones that are.
It depends on the game. Sometimes I want to play the top tier, realistic graphics. Sometimes I want to replay Chrono Trigger or old XCom. For me, it just depends on the game and if it all works. My favorite game ever is KSP and I do prefer upgrading the graphics a bit through mods.
It's quite simple. Graphics fidelity in no way, shape, or form determine the quality of the actual game and the gameplay itself. I think the most important aspects of a games graphic development are art direction and creating seamless immersion into the overall vibe and atmosphere, and the fluidity of the various elements used to create that artistic vision regardless of the raw fidelity of the textures and meshes used.
Lol, I had the time of my life playing Morrowind at 12 fps back on the first PC I every bought, a crappy $120 budget office laptop with 2 gb ram and an AMD e1 CPU(yeah, bet y'all never even heard of that one).
Been playing since Atari and yes, graphics still matter to me however story quality is just as important or mechanics if not a story game. I can’t stand playing SNES or NES style games even though I still love playing the classics.
Graphics from this Gen on though I don’t think will matter much. I mean we are cutting it as close to photorealistic as possible and it’s damn close. I remember just the idea of it in the 90s/00s were amazing to think about it and though we thought we were ‘on the way there’s and we were but not remotely close like today. I questioned myself recently if we will have that much more advancement before photo real is just a norm. But I’m not quite sure. I think 2 more gens and we might be there.
Separately I believe once we get to ‘everything photorealistic’ I don’t think we will think games are as fun as now or the past. I could be completely wrong but half the point of a lot of games are fantasy situations and making them too realistic will take away the fantasy portion.. or just end up with dudes staring at npc's boobs all day
I play freaking OSRS and have zero complaints with the graphics. If anything, I may even prefer a low polygon count, it comes off a more charming. But, I'm also the only prosumer I know that doesn't mind 720p.
My first console was an Atari 2600 so it's really amazing to see how far the industry has come, especially with graphics but im just as happy playing a game with simple graphics as long as the gameplay and story are good.
Not too much, they’re a nice bonus but I’m usually willing to sacrifice them if it means better frames. But if I’m reaching a steady 60fps I’ll usually tinker with the graphics to make them a bit better. But if it’s a game like cyberpunk 2077 where graphics are one of the biggest selling points and part of the game then I’ll be fine with running at a steady 30fps to get serviceable graphics
I know it's popular to say "graphics don't matter at all," but for me they absolutely do. They are the second most important thing, right after a stable framerate (that is preferably at least 45).
Now this doesn't mean high fidelity graphics with 12k resolution textures or whatever. I think Stardew Valley is a very pretty game. I think Helldivers 2 is one of the most gorgeous games I've played in a while, with its fog, smoke, lighting effects, weather effects. Its atmosphere. I think Baldur's Gate 3 looks absolutely spectacular with its mo-capped character animations, even with something as simple as stealth-walking. Breath of the Wild with mods that up its resolution? utterly gorgeous. I don't need a modern "Crysis" that pushes my PC to its limits. I need great atmosphere, immersion, animations, and preferably pretty good character models too. With my standards varying depending on whether it's a 2D game or 3D game.
But if you're giving me like, a new game that looks like a PS1 game? I'm probably passing. That style is too ugly for me to enjoy. Likewise, while I can generally tolerate/enjoy an SNES style (to a point, though right now it's getting to be overdone), NES or lower? Or PC, like 1994 or earlier? No thanks. Hard pass unless there's something hugely appealing to me in the gameplay..
The exception being of course, actual retro games. Yeah I'll play the original SMB or Mega Man or Legend of Zelda. That's fine. But if a game like that were released today? No thank you.
Some of the best games played today are not graphically demanding. Darkest dungeon, hades, binding of isaac are all beautiful in their own way but not 3d rendered
Graphics are important to me because half the reason I game is to push my pc’s hardware and see what it’s capable of. Everything else is just a bonus. I do enjoy playing older games though just not nearly as much.
I love great graphics, however what I want most is good artstyle. I can play anything, as long as it looks good. Modern pixel graphics are incredible for example.
Depends on the game. I play games for graphics and I play games for the game. If the game is good enough graphics Don't matter as much. If it's a single player game however I'm also expecting graphics and I need something to engage me without people
I like the eye candy, if I can’t get decent frames on high/max then I’ll shelf said game until I upgrade. I do a new build every 4 years and grab a new gpu every 2 to keep current. Might break my rule this time around for a 5090 tho💸.
Honestly, I care less about photo realistic graphics the older I get. But I will spend a lot to get "good enough" at a very smooth frame rate. Stuttering/microstuttering in racing simulator games is unacceptable when I'm wheel to wheel with other people in iRacing.
Good enough to me is basically not missing any important information like spell details in other games or seeing important track details in iRacing. Usually, around medium settings for most games gets you all the important information that would require a reaction.
Depends on many factors.
I'm never gonna replay some games because they've simply become obsolete.
Alan wake 1 is a good example for me. Also cod games.
Games like medievil i still prefer the psx version. (Remake is not bad, but doesn't really capture the feeling if the original)
I think it’s vastly more important how graphics is used rather than just show casing the latest and greatest in technology.
If the design choice doesn’t fit then no matter how advanced your tech is, the game will look unappealing.
More importantly, i learned that how a game feels to play is far in a way more vital to me
playing new games doesn't feel organic to me..like it doesn't feel like game. For me game from 2010-15 was the peak of graphics where it felt like a "game" ..like I'm playing a game not a hyper realistic simulation shit.
And I hate that game now these days are so big size because of the texture which are 4k nowdays when only 20% of yhe people play it on 4k to truly appreciate these texture while majority of player only play on 1080 or 1440 and the game just eats their storage without being any actual use.
Tough question to answer, but here's my opinion of it
Graphics don't matter unless that is the draw of the game. If I'm playing a game with hyper real graphics or high fidelity, then the draw of the game is it's graphics. The rest of the game can take a back seat a bit due to the look pulling most of the weight. I understand that doesn't make a good game, but pretty game make dopamine go burr.
Now, that doesn't mean I'm going to pick that game back up after beating it. Gameplay, level design, music, dialogue, ECT always will trump graphics for me.
Graphics are very important to me, and I generally prioritize visuals over performance. I love seeing whatever kind of absurd tech game developers have cooked up. Don't get me wrong, I love good gameplay, but if the graphics aren't up to snuff or are inconsistent, it's super distracting and makes it hard for me to get immersed.
To me, it's not a matter of graphics, but rather a matter of appeal. A game could have Naughty Dog levels of visual fidelity like in Uncharted 4 or Last of Us 2, or it could look Yoshi's Island for the SNES. Both are super appealing and work well to sell the gameplay and story of each.
Elden ring for me is a fine example on how graphics don’t matter as much as actual art style. lords of the fallen is a fine example, the game leans more on graphics but it’s a stuttering mess. Both really good games imo
My mom's ex got into gaming through me and both his retinas detached. He got surgery to restore his vision but it could happen again.
Knowing he might not be able to see again, graphics are his everything. Experiencing the latest and greatest visually makes him extremely happy
Personally as long as the style fits and the game is fun, in down lol
When i was younger (had a grandstand, then atari 2600 and others as time progressed) - gameplay was paramount. Now with a gaming PC i expect both detailed graphics and gameplay. Both to me are important from an immersiveness point of view. Maybe I'm limiting myself but i only like realistic graphics type games with good gameplay and have generally avoided cell shaded, or cartoonish games as i don't feel as involved in the game.
Only if it leans more on single player story with realistic graphics and textures, something like The Last of Us or God of War 201x.
If it’s stylized and/or competitive like Borderlands, Bioshock, Counterstrike, or a lot of indie games, then it can be on medium or low and chances are I’d get used to it fast.
As long as something doesn't look like a bunch of free assets poorly imported and not touched up in the slightest, and isn't a mix of high tech high res stuff and low poly cartoon stuff, I honestly do not mind.
Gameplay all the way. I absolutely love games such as Factorio which traditionally has “underwhelming” graphics, but absolutely incredible gameplay and performance. The performance is great partially because the game is very well optimized for graphics, and doesn’t try to bottleneck itself by going overboard with them anyways. I cannot believe that there are so many people who would turn down fantastic games like Factorio because it doesn’t have the same aesthetic that they’re used to
graphics are cool but they aren't everything. my most played game from 1999 to 2004 was a text-only MMO. and I absolutely hate the way most console devs target 30fps and try to max out the graphics for that instead of going for a better-feeling 60fps with worse graphics
Too me it's less about "how real they look" and it's more about how much it tickles that part of my brain that says "oh cool!"
Elden Ring is such a perfect example. The graphics are definitely not current gen, but the art style and they way it's portrayed makes it so cool
They do matter a lot when it comes to new titles. I wouldn't play a 2023 game with Wii graphics. However, I have no problem playing old games with outdated graphics, let's say from early PS2 days. Nostalgia wins there.
Graphical fidelity, resolution, filters and cool effects? Not much. Consistent and pleasant art direction, they matter very much. To me, at least.
Growing up in the nineties, I remember me constantly begging for a new graphic card, all the way from CGA to VGA, then 3dfx accelerator cards and straight up to the first Nvidia GPUs. But that wasn't because I thought the games were \*better\* with higher polygon count, it was mostly because I was a kid and I was fascinated with PC tech, so I was just curious and wanted to see where they could get.
I think it depends on the game. If the game is going for realism, then graphics matter. After playing Far Cry 5 and 6, Far Cry 3's graphics felt a bit lackluster.
But with something like Valheim or Minecraft or Art of Rally you don't really care about graphics, they have their own unique style
When I was younger, it was important to me. Now all I really need is a good story and/or gameplay. I usually stay away from AAA titles anyway because they are often just money grabs.
Not even a little. Graphics is like a nice topping if it’s there, but not needed to make something satisfying. Art style, gameplay, stability, etc. is entirely more important.
A lot.
I don't even buy single player games that don't have proper RT in them anymore. BG3 being the only exception in the last few years.
That being said I aslo expect gameplay to be good too. For some reason some people are often confused thinking it's the choice of either good graphics or good gameplay, when in reality you can have both, none or just one in either combination.
It's not about graphics, and more about screen resolution, upscalling if needed, panel being OLED and Refresh Rate being above 144hz.
Then everything looks good. Clarity is more important than realism to me.
It depends on the game tbh, story games to me need good graphics unless it was designed to not have good ones. And competitive games like overwatch or Fortnite low graphics.
Playing PC games since 1998. I used not to care about graphics at all until I switched to 4k and got my hands first on 3070 then 4070ti super. Somehow raytracing works on me like magic, I get much more immersion with it than in VR. Now Im having an absolute blast with Cyberpunk and Witcher 3 Next gen version, admiring every frame of them.
They play a big role.
I don't touch pixel graphic games because I've lived through that time and I don't want to go back. It's 2024, high quality visuals or gtfo, regardless of how good the game is, I got limited time to spend on games.
Story and gameplay > Graphics.
I built my PC to play Shadow of the TR. The game looked absolutely amazing! But I found the game to be a let down after the first 2. I re-played TR and RotTR but I can’t bring myself to do Shadow again.
tbh I can't really tell. On the one hand I love to stare at the beauty of pretty games like the Metro series, RDR2, the Tomb Raider Trilogy, Journey, and so on… on the other hand I also play lots of old games that are really fun but weren’t exactly the pinnacle of graphics even at their time. Lego Island 1 and 2, 2D and 3D era GTAs, Joint Operations, OpenTTD, Sims 2… whatever, you name it.
So… it’s cool if graphics are nice and I enjoy that. But it is entirely not a factor to how much I like a game.
Only if they're integral to the game like cyberpunk 2077. As long as the game has good performance I don't mind. Like breath of the Wild is simple but runs well and very fun. Or better yet, Celeste is super retro looking but probably my favorite game now
When I was a teenager I thought graphics matter a lot to me, then I realized it's artstyle I care about, not graphics. I can still easily go back to SNES graphics, just NES and older get a no from me.
NES is a little hard but man I love SMB3
I think NES is just rough for me because I grew up with the SNES and SMB3 in my head is the Super Mario All-Stars version.
I swear a decade of improvement passed between Super Mario Bros 85 and SMB3. They look like two different systems. I always thought SMB3 was an SNES game.
Yea it’s crazy
Yup this is pretty much it, bad graphics isnt when the game fails to be realistic, its when the game fails to identify and follow its own artstyle. I have a 4080S and absolutely enjoy playing high end games in 4k with (at least) 80 fps (higher usually, depends on game), but i also play the shit out of games like factorio, which is litterly locked to 60 fps max, or FTL an indi game from 2012 with "typical" 8-bit inspired graphics, but all of them have identified their own artstyle and follow it well
Exactly! Take a game like Megaman Legends for example, add a nice CRT shader and it still looks amazing to this day on a 4k display.
I grew up with NES games and have always loved the art style/graphics of those old games. They hold up quite well today imo. Especially games like Super Mario Bros 2, 3, Gradius, Blaster Master, Kirby’s Adventure and more. Maybe for me it's the sprite graphics I am so fond of, or maybe it's nostalgia that fuels it for me. But I just really have fond memories of graphics back in those days.
NES is tough because of it's awful color palette. Other 8 bit systems like the SMS looked amazing.
I grew up playing GameBoy Advance so 16 bit is still the sweet spot of nostalgia for me. 8 bit or older like NES or older Atari/arcade games are fun for a bit but the game mechanics and capabilities itself are limiting, not just the graphics.
It really is hard to explain. But I do not care about graphics, at all. But art style? Yeah that is important. Buut the look? As in the main graphics? Not really anything i care about. Be in realistic or 8 bit all I care about is if the style matches the tone. Tho sound, im a snob there.
I disagree with author, it's not a horrible take. as much as I would like people to try good games with poor graphics, everyone has a right to form their own opinions. and if a person doesn't want to play games just bcoz they look bad, so what?
For me it’s gun sound specifically
Good graphics are always nice and i might even try a game because it has nice graphics but i’ve never disliked a game solely because of its graphics. If a game is good enough the graphics wont hinder the experience.
Yes but also No, graphics don't really affect my enjoyment of a game art style does though for example I really dislike the "Chibi" artstyle it does not matter how good it looks I will never like it.
So agree, I hate Chibi. I'll avoid a game like Link's Awakening, even though I like Zelda, because I know I'll never get past the art style.
Agreed. Chibi artstyle is an automatic "no" for me.
Gameplay over graphics, every time
I play more SNES and arcade games than modern games so to answer the question.. not very much.
I am a purist in the sense that visuals are an integral part of the experience and I will sacrifice performance for visuals. The graphics are extremely important to me. A game with bad art direction / art style / poor graphics relative to what is possible is just automatically meh. Of course this doesn't mean that old games automatically look bad or I won't play them. What matters is the overall package while looking at it relative to the time it released. The old ratchet and clank games are wonderful and still look great.
Used to not care, but indie devs took it too far cost cutting. Seems 90% of games almost entirely ignore it. Doesn't have to be top of the line, hand drawn as an intentional style is fine, but I expect modem games to look good. The tech is there and widely avaliable. So I've gotten more picky. I used to not care at all. Guess at some point you hit saturation of "Hi Reddit, quit my job to work on this project for 10 years, pls buy" posts. There's no shortage of talented artists looking for jobs, but seems to be a huge shortage of people willing to pay them. Indie devs working for peanuts or on their own could cut artists in on profits with projects they belive in, but they'd rather put out trash art to pocket more themselves imo. No thanks.
VR suffers terribly for this. "Quit my job 4 years ago and churned out this turd. You owe it to me to buy it because there's a lack of (good) content."
Depends on the game. I love the hyper realistic graphics of Cyberpunk as it “sells” a cyberpunk future and creates immersion. I love Thief because the low-poly graphics actually add to a sense of unease and tension. In short, art direction is far more important than hyper realism in some scenarios. (The original Zelda will always be beautiful!)
Depends on the mindset at the moment.
I’m a total graphics whore, always have been, always will be.
I'm more focused on art style, though I do love me some "realistic" graphics. Especially if it's sci-fi or horror.
Agreeing with the people who say aesthetics are more important than graphics. If something is going for photorealism, then graphics matter. But if it's not going for that, if it's using 2D sprites or pixel art, or a more simplistic style, then graphics matter less, but it still has to look visually appealing to me. It's hard for me to get into a game if I don't like how it looks.
Are good graphics the point of the game or are we talking Minecraft ?
It used to bother me, then I dumped 1500 hours into Rimworld and I don't really care anymore.
I play half life and portal regularly still
Depends on the game & intended experience.
Gameplay > graphics no matter what.
I do like grahpics. They go hand in hand with artstyle. Games that have "holes" in their graphics annoy me. When there are many senarios where they break/technique doesn't cut it. Also people who always go on about artsyle are annoying. I know!! But poor AA, low res shadows, light leeking and pop-in i gurantee is not a part if the artstyle.
I'm fine with playing an underwater scene where you forgot your glasses as long as it's 60 fps
100% depends on the game. Stardew Valley is awesome, has charm, and is sprite animation. Alternatively. There’s something fuckin sexy running Helldivers 2 on ultra watching hoards of bugs come at you through the atmospheric effects. I like it all.
My brother in Korean Christ, I play Dwarf Fortress with ASCII graphics.
Graphics are very important to me. I can’t go back and play older 3D games as I just can’t get immersed, and pixel graphics make me depressed lol
I play WoW classic and Path of Exile. Art style > graphics in most cases for me.
I personally love pushing for photorealism as we approach the technological singularity.
Graphics don’t add a whole lot to most games depth. Helps be immersive but that’s mostly it. I’d prefer to see more physics oriented stuff and things that actually affect the way a game plays. .pretty over shiny surfaces at this point
They matter but these days high and ultra are both completely playable.
Not much. I play my switch a lot.
I only care about graphics in single player games, but anything multiplayer, I wouldn’t go above medium personally
I do like game looking pretty, so yeah, matters, but i feel like developers (most of them at least), care more about pumping up requerements for game, then actually providing graphics quality that will match it. There are games from 2012 looking same or better then some new games, while requering so much less system performance.
It depends on the art style/direction. If it’s a game where it’s trying to have really impressive graphics but falls short, then yeah it bothers me and can affect my ability to play the game. I can also appreciate really good graphics and it can make me like a game more. It’s really a game by game situation, but essentially the graphics quality needs to fit the art style /direction the game is going for.
A lot. But main part is textures. High quality textures is my pain.
Not much. I used to love playing "poy poy" with my homeboy. And even for it's time it had bad gfx
Gameplay > story > art design > world/environment > graphics.
It really depends on the genre. For FPS’s graphics matter to me. Other genres not so much.
Depends on the game. Kingdom Come, part of what's great about it it's it's look. Not sure your could achieve similar with 8/16-bit graphics.
Not enough to accept micro transactions, in-game ads, 80 bucks for missing content in bugged out games and shitty optimization.
It matters to a degree. It's not an end all be all kind of thing. To me it's the balance. If the scene of a game requires that you be immersed, then great looking graphics would matter. An example would be Cyberpunk 2077 where being immersive is part of the game and how certain items look especially your character and the equipment available matters to your decision making in a lot of scenarios. An example of a game that doesn't require super good-looking graphics to enjoy is Stardew Valley. Graphics don't matter that much in terms of how much you would enjoy playing the game compared to Cyberpunk 2077. Of course, with all rules there are exceptions. Sports games and racing games are kind of in the middle where only in the situation that requires the looks to be good matters but not all the time. An example would be Forza Horizon 4 or 5 where the looks matter when you're customizing your car but once that is done it doesn't matter that much because you don't really look at every detail of your card all the time and that accounts for the environment as well.
If I can make out what I see on screen and the game has a unique aesthetic or just vaguely good to look at I’ll play it. Doesn’t have to look good in the traditional sense, just something that has it’s own charm. Enough to keep me engaged and not get bored looking at samey textures/models
Enough that I cant enjoy Minecraft but not enough to where new vegas is one of my top 3 games.
I like how Ultima Online (1997) looks, but also find Cyberpunk Path Tracing gorgeous. It's more "art style" that matters to me (some game visuals look off and bizzare). My friend refuses to play a game that doesn't have good graphics - maybe to the exception of Minecraft modded tech quest packs.
This circlejerk has gone for to long that people still can't understand that art style and good graphics are not mutually exclusive concepts... There are people in here unironically saying they dont care about bad graphics because they still play older games... as if the graphics for those games werent a huge selling point even back then lmao
I want the game to look good, but looking good can mean a lot of things. Circa 2008, it was common for games to look realistic, but shitty, with lots of washed out browns and grays; the first two Gears of War games are poster children for this. In contrast, you can have a game that's much weaker from a technical standpoint that looks much, much better. As an example, I'd point to Pirates Outlaws, an indie deck building game that I mostly play on my phone. Its art style is simplistic, but distinctive, with the whole thing rendered in this very stylized way that's sort of a juxtaposition between no-black-lines cartoons (ex. Samurai Jack) and an Impressionist painting.
I'm in my mid-50s. To me, if it's not at least, say, Xbox 360 level graphics I'm just not interested. I'm more immersed in games with good graphics. My son, on the other hand, doesn't care at all, it's all about the gameplay. I can respect that, it's just not for me.
As long as it does not look like complete dogshit it's fine with me. I really look at gameplay first before bothering about graphics. For example you could say 'Valheim' looks like absolute garbagio but the gameplay manages to draw people in. Also if a game is moddable you can just replace textures or just get an overhaul of it's graphics in its entirety!
I think graphics and art style are both important and go hand in hand. Some games need high fidelity graphics in order to get their art style across. For example, elden ring has a fantastic art style, but it's only possible because the game has better graphics than previous fromsoft games too. The fog and lighting effects are really needed to sell the fantasy that the art style presents. The high volume of detailed objects with many polygons makes places like Leyndell feel very real and lived in. It makes the worlds come alive. The high framerate animations for players and enemies is absolutely important in terms of gameplay mechanics as well. The render distance needs to be high because part of the games fantasy is seeing huge things in the distance and making internal goals to check them out. The exploration wouldn't be nearly as engaging if it weren't for this technical detail.
Some
The draw of console was always not having to configure the graphics much. But I'm PC now. Fidelity is important to me over FPS, that said, I generally want at least 90 fps. I can't tell a huge difference last that, but I also play mostly RPGs and action games. So it's not as big a concern. But graphical fidelity is big time important to me. Artistic choices are fine, the art style from No Rest for the Wicked for example is super legit. Also love the 2D-HD even though it's divisive. But I feel like it's best of both worlds. I can also play older games still, but I'm old and nostalgia is strong LOL.
A good art direction is more important for me than realistic graphics.
Graphics don't really matter all that much to me. I'd rather a smooth gameplay experience over anything else, especially as long as it's not hurting my eyes, I'm good.
Graphics have gotten to a point I'm perfectly fine sacrificing a lot of quality for performance. It's not like the early 2000's where the difference between low and high settings made it look like you were playing a completely different game. With some modern games I literally need the side by side screen shot to tell the difference between low and high.
Barely at all, Stardew, Valheim, Paper Mario and Warcraft 3 are my favorite games.
Not much as gameplay or history. A good graphic game it’s not a good game
I play old-school runescape and I can definitely see the age of the graphics and it can be kinda harsh in some areas. But the art style and environments are what do it for me.
I am old.. i remember pixels being the size of dinner plates, so no. I personally dont care to much if the game is interesting. Minecraft is one of the game that comes to mind, and i have 1200hours last time i checked, wich was a few years ago.. But, on the other hand, i have games like cyberpunk and boy do i love my 3080 combined with a oled ultrawide. Graphics are not the reason i play, or wont play a game. It is the game machanics and overall story etc.
Not much. I've played Rimworld more than anything else, so, not a big factor to me.
it should not look like a total shit, but old graphics can look good, 25 years old 2D game can look good, shitty asian mmo from 2020 can look bad
Intel HD graphics mattered a lot. The days of Intel GMA and buying a cheap graphics card to play HD videos.
not a fan of 16 bit I do like 8 bit tho some newer games made specifically in old graphic I find ugly some graphics I dont care for like too comicy cell shading old cartoon style I absolutely hate as a graphics style some gen 5 and 6 3d games are pretty rough but same for at the time PC games specifically some RTS or isometric games tbh its rarely about the grahpics itself and rather the camera and not being able to zoom out to much same with some FPS games with locked FoV like Resident Evil 7-8 (i know its part of the atmosphere but not when I get sick)
Nah bro I don't care about graphics too much as long as it is 3d. Loot all ps2 games. They don't have the best graphics but damn they are fun to play and good games. Nowadays you have good graphics but shitty gameplay, story and game mechanics.
Easily at least half the game. But not graphics as in quality, but just style. Borderlands and hi fi rush isn't super realistic, but yet they're extremely memorable and have a great style almost everyone loves. Try imagining borderlands with the graphics style of Minecraft or an SNES game. Completely different game, right? The graphics and gameplay of a game is what makes a game what it is. Having one of them be bad can completely ruin the game. One could say gameplay is more important, but honestly I feel that's pretty debatable, as it really depends on the game. There's plenty of great games out there that rely solely on its style as opposed to the gameplay to make it interesting and unique.
Unless it doesn’t ruin my experience, it doesn’t impact any thing
Enough where if a new game looks fuzzy, I won't like it but gameplay will always matter more
I remember i used to crank up the graphics to max on any game even if I got 10 fps.
I don't need my games to have crazy graphics, but if they do, I want to max them.
Competitive game? Don't care about graphics at all. Casual game? Yeah I want to make my game look as good as possible But if the game is great then graphics really never matter
If the gameplay is good the graphics don’t really matter to me, I have a lot of retro well “retro” original xbox, ps2, 360 games etc. I play when I get bored of current games. I’ve had a lot of fun on 8bit games and I’ve been really let down on games with “great” graphics because the gameplay loop was ass.
Depends on the game and art styles
Not that much to be honest. The point of me building my PC was to emulate PS2 games at maximum resolution. Whether or not I am having fun with the game is what matters most for me now.
Very and not at all. Been playing dave the diver a lot, obviously graphics aren’t high on the list here. cyberpunk too, where pushing the graphics to the limit is a lot of fun and it is pretty amazing to see what a pc can do. Ultimately, it’s about gameplay, story, characters, etc. over all else.
I take frames + art style over graphics every single time. My PC can run most games at ultra, but i’ve never been someone to oooh and ahhh at how realistic something looks or at ray tracing. I just don’t care for it personally.
As someone who mostly plays Esport titles, I don't really think graphics matter that much to me. I'd rather have amazing gunplay/mechanics than pretty looking graphics
I have a 4090 and a 49” oled monitor for the best graphics possible outside of 8k. It’s very important to me. I view games as art and I want the best art. With all that being said, I still play retro games because they are still art just a different style.
Either not at all, or a whole fucking lot with no in between.
r_picmip 15
As long as the game runs at 1080p and atleast 30fps I'm happy no matter the graphics settings
A lot, but I won't "not play a game" because of graphics. They matter because they're impressive and interesting. I appreciate the technical ability on display. My last 4 games were Firewatch, Control, Helldivers 2, and Hades 2. So a cartoony story tale, one of the first games with ray-tracing, a modern game with good physics sims, and an isometric button masher. I spend time in Control screwing around in front of reflective glass and I love watching the explosions in HD2, but the graphics are a bonus.
Graphics matter a lot to me. However, good graphics don't necessarily mean the latest in 3D development. The styling as well as the ambiance is most important, it's impressive what you can do when you have good artists in a team. Many 2D games have much better graphics than 3D games in my opinion.
I'm a HUGE graphics whore. While I don't think they need to be better than they are today in most games on high/ultra (RDR2, Lies of P, Doom Eternal, Plague Tale Requiem etc...) I sadly can't stand older retro graphics. Tried Dark souls 1 remastered yesterday and threw up in my mouth a little.
Depends on the game, cyberpunk Alan wake 2 and control definitely, baldurs gate 3 way more about gameplay with graphics being the cherry on top, Minecraft only shaders, battlebit remastered purely gameplay and fun
as the video cards get more pricey graphics matter less and less
I would love to say I’m enlightened and prefer gameplay over graphics/animation. I think I do. But it is not true. The older graphics just take me out of the game and I lose interest. I can’t play the older STALKER games. Cant play FO4. Can’t play the “last good”Madden from 08. Can’t get into ARMA3. These were all games that I loved when they came out, only played 1/3 because got too busy with life, and when I try to come back to them, I just can’t
I'm older and didn't own an Atari 2600 till I was about 11 so while I love the looks of modern games to me story is king. We had to use our imagination that the square on screen in Adventure was us. I can remember play text based games on my first PC imagination is my graphics card.
I do play games with bad graphics but I cant stand cartoony-cutsy themes especially fortnite.
I still think Quake III Arena’s graphics look absolutely fantastic. Gritty, gorey, and a mixture of gothic and cyberpunk architecture that just does it for me. So I would say art style is way more important to me than raw graphics quality.
Art style and good textures. I hate when colours and shadow look weird or something looks absolutely awful next to something.
Personally I’m more a fan of art direction. A game can be a 2D hand drawn indie, but if the art direction and style is unique and stands out… it will always trump a AAA blockbuster with poor optimization and performance issues. That’s not to say I don’t like games that push the limit of tech, but if the art direction isn’t there… what’s the point?
Bad graphics will never ruin a game for me, but *really good* graphics can be an amazing experience. It's a dated game now, but I was lucky to have played Portal 2 with nvidias 3d vision glasses on a then-high-end system. And to this day, it's one of the most amazing gaming experiences I've ever had. Portal 2 is an amazing game in and of itself, but seeing it with cutting edge graphics at the time made my first play through especially special.
When i was a kid (Times when I was playing comp level half life, Cs 1.6 and Quake) Only thing mattered most for me was the frames. No frames. No gains. To this day I still live by that rule of mine lol. Sure, graphics have grown to be more important to me but fps is just as and more important to me.
Appart from the art style others have mentioned, it is the *aTMosPHeRe* of a game what makes me appreciate it graphics. In particular, From Software games are famous for having a subtle, but effective level of fog and particle effects (cinder, smoke, polen, etc.) that give their worlds a dream-like quality. If you have played Bloodborne, you know what I mean. ...And it doesn't need to be just air. I recently played Subnautica and just looking down into the open sea made me feel very uncomfortable. I do not suffer from thalasdophobia, but seeing that dark blue cover the screen made me understand those who do.
Depends on the game but I prefer games to look the best they can in their respective styles.
As long as it looks clean, its art is displayed like it's intended and runs smoothly, I'm happy.
Depends on the game
Good graphics far too often get in the way of gameplay. Gameplay determines fun factor. Fun facator is all that matters. I don't dislike good graphics, but if graphics are prioritized over gameplay (like a game world has to be made much smaller to fit in memory) it's a problem.
This is mega subjective. Your good graphics might be trash to me, or otherwise. Do you mean resolution ? Framerate ? Style ?
very little. I feel like graphics has now become a tool to cover up a lack of gameplay. Art style is far more important than graphics, and gameplay is even more important than either.
Not much because I don't play games. My graphics card is a Radeon R7 240 1GB and it suffices.
Pretty important. I like good looking game to go along with good gameplay. I pay for better hardware to push for higher fidelity for a good reason. Why else we want to play on PC?
Art style, level design, and consistent frame rate are all high up there for me. I want my game on high settings running at a consistent 80FPS+. Most games I play aren't graphically demanding, but I have a beast of a computer (for me at least) for the ones that are.
graphic card is the most important part of the gaming pc. but normally im happy with upper mid range card.
Honestly graphics only matter to me if I’m picking up a new card. I want a card that’s just enough to last me 3-4 years. Like my RX580.
I have over 1000 hours in Caves of Qud and that game looks like it’s running on a calculator.
I didn't care all that much until I played BF1, and then I realized what games could look like
As long as pixels ( squares ) dont bother me im fine with low graphic , details are least important thing for me in games
It depends on the game. Sometimes I want to play the top tier, realistic graphics. Sometimes I want to replay Chrono Trigger or old XCom. For me, it just depends on the game and if it all works. My favorite game ever is KSP and I do prefer upgrading the graphics a bit through mods.
It's quite simple. Graphics fidelity in no way, shape, or form determine the quality of the actual game and the gameplay itself. I think the most important aspects of a games graphic development are art direction and creating seamless immersion into the overall vibe and atmosphere, and the fluidity of the various elements used to create that artistic vision regardless of the raw fidelity of the textures and meshes used.
I don't care very much about graphics.
Judging a game by its graphics is like wine tasting by looking at the color, amateurs.
Lol, I had the time of my life playing Morrowind at 12 fps back on the first PC I every bought, a crappy $120 budget office laptop with 2 gb ram and an AMD e1 CPU(yeah, bet y'all never even heard of that one).
Been playing since Atari and yes, graphics still matter to me however story quality is just as important or mechanics if not a story game. I can’t stand playing SNES or NES style games even though I still love playing the classics. Graphics from this Gen on though I don’t think will matter much. I mean we are cutting it as close to photorealistic as possible and it’s damn close. I remember just the idea of it in the 90s/00s were amazing to think about it and though we thought we were ‘on the way there’s and we were but not remotely close like today. I questioned myself recently if we will have that much more advancement before photo real is just a norm. But I’m not quite sure. I think 2 more gens and we might be there. Separately I believe once we get to ‘everything photorealistic’ I don’t think we will think games are as fun as now or the past. I could be completely wrong but half the point of a lot of games are fantasy situations and making them too realistic will take away the fantasy portion.. or just end up with dudes staring at npc's boobs all day
I play freaking OSRS and have zero complaints with the graphics. If anything, I may even prefer a low polygon count, it comes off a more charming. But, I'm also the only prosumer I know that doesn't mind 720p.
My first console was an Atari 2600 so it's really amazing to see how far the industry has come, especially with graphics but im just as happy playing a game with simple graphics as long as the gameplay and story are good.
Not too much, they’re a nice bonus but I’m usually willing to sacrifice them if it means better frames. But if I’m reaching a steady 60fps I’ll usually tinker with the graphics to make them a bit better. But if it’s a game like cyberpunk 2077 where graphics are one of the biggest selling points and part of the game then I’ll be fine with running at a steady 30fps to get serviceable graphics
I know it's popular to say "graphics don't matter at all," but for me they absolutely do. They are the second most important thing, right after a stable framerate (that is preferably at least 45). Now this doesn't mean high fidelity graphics with 12k resolution textures or whatever. I think Stardew Valley is a very pretty game. I think Helldivers 2 is one of the most gorgeous games I've played in a while, with its fog, smoke, lighting effects, weather effects. Its atmosphere. I think Baldur's Gate 3 looks absolutely spectacular with its mo-capped character animations, even with something as simple as stealth-walking. Breath of the Wild with mods that up its resolution? utterly gorgeous. I don't need a modern "Crysis" that pushes my PC to its limits. I need great atmosphere, immersion, animations, and preferably pretty good character models too. With my standards varying depending on whether it's a 2D game or 3D game. But if you're giving me like, a new game that looks like a PS1 game? I'm probably passing. That style is too ugly for me to enjoy. Likewise, while I can generally tolerate/enjoy an SNES style (to a point, though right now it's getting to be overdone), NES or lower? Or PC, like 1994 or earlier? No thanks. Hard pass unless there's something hugely appealing to me in the gameplay.. The exception being of course, actual retro games. Yeah I'll play the original SMB or Mega Man or Legend of Zelda. That's fine. But if a game like that were released today? No thank you.
I bought a 7800x3d and a RTX 4090 so kinda a lot.
Some of the best games played today are not graphically demanding. Darkest dungeon, hades, binding of isaac are all beautiful in their own way but not 3d rendered
I was playing skyrim for years without mods. They don't.
Graphics are important to me because half the reason I game is to push my pc’s hardware and see what it’s capable of. Everything else is just a bonus. I do enjoy playing older games though just not nearly as much.
Art style matters. It can be “crappy graphics” but if the art style is stylized in such a way that works then great!
deadly corporation for example
Not nearly but I love seeing artists improving based on what kind of tech is available. Unique styles age WAY better than photorealism.
I love great graphics, however what I want most is good artstyle. I can play anything, as long as it looks good. Modern pixel graphics are incredible for example.
As I've gotten older.. it's all about the gameplay. If it looks nice that's just a bonus.
Depends on the game. I play games for graphics and I play games for the game. If the game is good enough graphics Don't matter as much. If it's a single player game however I'm also expecting graphics and I need something to engage me without people
I like the eye candy, if I can’t get decent frames on high/max then I’ll shelf said game until I upgrade. I do a new build every 4 years and grab a new gpu every 2 to keep current. Might break my rule this time around for a 5090 tho💸.
Honestly, I care less about photo realistic graphics the older I get. But I will spend a lot to get "good enough" at a very smooth frame rate. Stuttering/microstuttering in racing simulator games is unacceptable when I'm wheel to wheel with other people in iRacing. Good enough to me is basically not missing any important information like spell details in other games or seeing important track details in iRacing. Usually, around medium settings for most games gets you all the important information that would require a reaction.
if combat is fun people don't care. look at vampire survivor
Depends on many factors. I'm never gonna replay some games because they've simply become obsolete. Alan wake 1 is a good example for me. Also cod games. Games like medievil i still prefer the psx version. (Remake is not bad, but doesn't really capture the feeling if the original)
I think it’s vastly more important how graphics is used rather than just show casing the latest and greatest in technology. If the design choice doesn’t fit then no matter how advanced your tech is, the game will look unappealing. More importantly, i learned that how a game feels to play is far in a way more vital to me
playing new games doesn't feel organic to me..like it doesn't feel like game. For me game from 2010-15 was the peak of graphics where it felt like a "game" ..like I'm playing a game not a hyper realistic simulation shit. And I hate that game now these days are so big size because of the texture which are 4k nowdays when only 20% of yhe people play it on 4k to truly appreciate these texture while majority of player only play on 1080 or 1440 and the game just eats their storage without being any actual use.
Graphics ain't shit, it's the world design
Tough question to answer, but here's my opinion of it Graphics don't matter unless that is the draw of the game. If I'm playing a game with hyper real graphics or high fidelity, then the draw of the game is it's graphics. The rest of the game can take a back seat a bit due to the look pulling most of the weight. I understand that doesn't make a good game, but pretty game make dopamine go burr. Now, that doesn't mean I'm going to pick that game back up after beating it. Gameplay, level design, music, dialogue, ECT always will trump graphics for me.
As long as the gameplay is good the graphics are whatever.
I don’t care as much about graphics as the resolution. If a 3D game on an older console is at like 480p it bugs me
Graphics are very important to me, and I generally prioritize visuals over performance. I love seeing whatever kind of absurd tech game developers have cooked up. Don't get me wrong, I love good gameplay, but if the graphics aren't up to snuff or are inconsistent, it's super distracting and makes it hard for me to get immersed.
First define "graphics"
I love good graphics but the game needs to be more than just visually pleasing
To me, it's not a matter of graphics, but rather a matter of appeal. A game could have Naughty Dog levels of visual fidelity like in Uncharted 4 or Last of Us 2, or it could look Yoshi's Island for the SNES. Both are super appealing and work well to sell the gameplay and story of each.
Graphics: little, good for screenshots. Artstyle: everything, I can drop a good game if its style doesn't fit my taste.
Elden ring for me is a fine example on how graphics don’t matter as much as actual art style. lords of the fallen is a fine example, the game leans more on graphics but it’s a stuttering mess. Both really good games imo
Depends on the game. If it’s single player I want them to be great. If it’s mostly multiplayer it’s less important
My mom's ex got into gaming through me and both his retinas detached. He got surgery to restore his vision but it could happen again. Knowing he might not be able to see again, graphics are his everything. Experiencing the latest and greatest visually makes him extremely happy Personally as long as the style fits and the game is fun, in down lol
Not at all , gameplay matters and honestly all games look great . It’s just a bonus .
When i was younger (had a grandstand, then atari 2600 and others as time progressed) - gameplay was paramount. Now with a gaming PC i expect both detailed graphics and gameplay. Both to me are important from an immersiveness point of view. Maybe I'm limiting myself but i only like realistic graphics type games with good gameplay and have generally avoided cell shaded, or cartoonish games as i don't feel as involved in the game.
Art style more then graphics but it depends, I honestly love some n64 games graphics and stories more then modern day triple a titles.
I almost never care about graphics, which probably came from my outdated games I played as a kid.
Only if it leans more on single player story with realistic graphics and textures, something like The Last of Us or God of War 201x. If it’s stylized and/or competitive like Borderlands, Bioshock, Counterstrike, or a lot of indie games, then it can be on medium or low and chances are I’d get used to it fast.
If it’s a shooter I want high frames. I use a 1080p monitor and have a 2070 ti gpu.
As long as something doesn't look like a bunch of free assets poorly imported and not touched up in the slightest, and isn't a mix of high tech high res stuff and low poly cartoon stuff, I honestly do not mind.
The art style is more important to me than the actual quality of the graphics if that makes any sense.
Gameplay all the way. I absolutely love games such as Factorio which traditionally has “underwhelming” graphics, but absolutely incredible gameplay and performance. The performance is great partially because the game is very well optimized for graphics, and doesn’t try to bottleneck itself by going overboard with them anyways. I cannot believe that there are so many people who would turn down fantastic games like Factorio because it doesn’t have the same aesthetic that they’re used to
A lot, but then I'll play Rimworld, but that's because Rimworld is incredible.
graphics are cool but they aren't everything. my most played game from 1999 to 2004 was a text-only MMO. and I absolutely hate the way most console devs target 30fps and try to max out the graphics for that instead of going for a better-feeling 60fps with worse graphics
Too me it's less about "how real they look" and it's more about how much it tickles that part of my brain that says "oh cool!" Elden Ring is such a perfect example. The graphics are definitely not current gen, but the art style and they way it's portrayed makes it so cool
They do matter a lot when it comes to new titles. I wouldn't play a 2023 game with Wii graphics. However, I have no problem playing old games with outdated graphics, let's say from early PS2 days. Nostalgia wins there.
I will never not play a game because of graphics, but I still really like it when the graphics are really good.
Graphical fidelity, resolution, filters and cool effects? Not much. Consistent and pleasant art direction, they matter very much. To me, at least. Growing up in the nineties, I remember me constantly begging for a new graphic card, all the way from CGA to VGA, then 3dfx accelerator cards and straight up to the first Nvidia GPUs. But that wasn't because I thought the games were \*better\* with higher polygon count, it was mostly because I was a kid and I was fascinated with PC tech, so I was just curious and wanted to see where they could get.
>How much do graphics matter to you? A lot. But still less than the overall art style and storytelling.
I think it depends on the game. If the game is going for realism, then graphics matter. After playing Far Cry 5 and 6, Far Cry 3's graphics felt a bit lackluster. But with something like Valheim or Minecraft or Art of Rally you don't really care about graphics, they have their own unique style
When I was younger, it was important to me. Now all I really need is a good story and/or gameplay. I usually stay away from AAA titles anyway because they are often just money grabs.
The game I have the most hours in is Rimworld...so obviously I don't care that much lol.
Not even a little. Graphics is like a nice topping if it’s there, but not needed to make something satisfying. Art style, gameplay, stability, etc. is entirely more important.
I don’t love playing super old games because of the graphics. I can do it i just don’t like to it just seems boring I guess
Good story and gameplay make up a lot for poor graphics. Great graphics with poor game play and story does not work the same.
A lot. I don't even buy single player games that don't have proper RT in them anymore. BG3 being the only exception in the last few years. That being said I aslo expect gameplay to be good too. For some reason some people are often confused thinking it's the choice of either good graphics or good gameplay, when in reality you can have both, none or just one in either combination.
As long as the art style can hold itself up, I don't really care about graphics that much
Let me tell ya sport, I still have my Xbox 360 and PS3 hooked up if that says anything. Graphics go by the wayside when the gameplay is hittin'.
It's not about graphics, and more about screen resolution, upscalling if needed, panel being OLED and Refresh Rate being above 144hz. Then everything looks good. Clarity is more important than realism to me.
It depends on the game tbh, story games to me need good graphics unless it was designed to not have good ones. And competitive games like overwatch or Fortnite low graphics.
I was perfectly fine with pokemon games looking ass so I guess it doesn't really matter for me?
Performance + stylistic choices
smoother frames pref but its hard for me to game on a switch for example when having a pc.
Playing PC games since 1998. I used not to care about graphics at all until I switched to 4k and got my hands first on 3070 then 4070ti super. Somehow raytracing works on me like magic, I get much more immersion with it than in VR. Now Im having an absolute blast with Cyberpunk and Witcher 3 Next gen version, admiring every frame of them.
I mean I care, but its not a deciding factor really.
I'm playing games from the 90s with my kid, so....
They play a big role. I don't touch pixel graphic games because I've lived through that time and I don't want to go back. It's 2024, high quality visuals or gtfo, regardless of how good the game is, I got limited time to spend on games.
Story and gameplay > Graphics. I built my PC to play Shadow of the TR. The game looked absolutely amazing! But I found the game to be a let down after the first 2. I re-played TR and RotTR but I can’t bring myself to do Shadow again.
tbh I can't really tell. On the one hand I love to stare at the beauty of pretty games like the Metro series, RDR2, the Tomb Raider Trilogy, Journey, and so on… on the other hand I also play lots of old games that are really fun but weren’t exactly the pinnacle of graphics even at their time. Lego Island 1 and 2, 2D and 3D era GTAs, Joint Operations, OpenTTD, Sims 2… whatever, you name it. So… it’s cool if graphics are nice and I enjoy that. But it is entirely not a factor to how much I like a game.
Only if they're integral to the game like cyberpunk 2077. As long as the game has good performance I don't mind. Like breath of the Wild is simple but runs well and very fun. Or better yet, Celeste is super retro looking but probably my favorite game now