How important are graphics in a game?

Submitted by Scott Tortorice on Sat, 10/31/2009 - 17:58

You cannot have a great game without great graphics!

36% (5 votes)

Graphics are important, but gameplay is equally important.

50% (7 votes)

Who needs graphics? All I care about is the gameplay!

14% (2 votes)

Total votes: 14

Comments

You cant have a good game

Submitted by SoccerDJ on Sat, 10/31/2009 - 19:11.

You cant have a good game without great gameplay, period. However, I think graphics are in the eye of the beholder. Obviously there are amazing graphics but I play plenty of games with what would be considered decent graphics or on my computer that cant have the graphics jacked up all the way and it does not detract from my game play at all.
And as a side note on another forum Im playing a interactive civil war game using the forum and PM system and the only graphics are have are google maps with unit bars put on in paint and its a whole lot of fun because of the gameplay.

Graphics

Submitted by Michael Dorosh on Sun, 11/01/2009 - 08:46.

I cut my teeth on a Telstar Combat in 1977 or so; think Pong with tanks. Moved to Intellivision not long after. Had a handheld Coleco football game, a handheld Battlestar Galactica game with red LED display. My first computer was a CoCo2 with a cassette tape drive; I tried to make a text-only version of UP FRONT, the Squad Leader card game, in BASIC for it. On my first IBM clones I had Empire and Under Fire! Played Combat Mission for years - still do, actually.

Graphics? I couldn't care less, honestly. When Red Baron got upgraded to Red Baron II, they stripped all the soul out of the game in favour of flashy looking animations. M1 Tank Platoon suffered the same fate when it became M1TP2. It looked 10 times better, but the gameplay suffered. Combat Mission's game play was trashed when the new game engine was released in CM:Shock Force, but they now have dynamic lighting.

There have been no further M1 tank simulators. Or World War I flight simulators. Have there? Gee, maybe that whole "graphics over gameplay" thing was a mistake after all...

Like you said, good graphics

Submitted by Scott Tortorice on Sat, 10/31/2009 - 19:38.

Like you said, good graphics are in the eye of the beholder. Would Chess be any better with 20,000 polygon pawns? No. But Medieval Total War would not be nearly as much fun to play without the 3D units. The trick is to find the right balance.

For me, that balance is where graphics start affecting performance. I would much rather have a game with good graphics that ran well, than a game with great graphics that chugged along. I guess that is why I am a fan of Stardocks approach to game design.

I completely agree with both

Submitted by Jason Waldrop on Sat, 10/31/2009 - 20:22.

I completely agree with both of you, balance along with performance is the key. Remember Doom from a few years ago, the game looked awesome, but the performance was iffy and the gameplay was repetitive and boring.

I am sometimes amused when I

Submitted by Scott Tortorice on Sat, 10/31/2009 - 20:36.

I am sometimes amused when I read some of the comments over at GameTrailers. You know, when you have a plain looking game and all the console guys chime in and say "Are they serious?!?" or "Awful graphics. FAIL!" Now, to be fair, there is a bit of truth to the idea that the worse the graphics, usually the worse the quality of the product (as graphics can be a reflection of skill and budget). But it is also true that great games can have a very dated look. It is okay to be circumspect, but I pity the gamers who pass up a game based upon a screenshot or a video.