Viewing Thread:
"Do graphics always matter?"

Lots of people have been complaining about the graphics of games, such as the new look Zelda, with it's pretty cool cel-shaded look. But if a game has excellent gameplay and is generally fun to play, why should graphics matter. Obviously if the game is rubbish as well as its graphics then steer clear but otherwise maybe we should take a look (or to be accurate, have a go) before we make our cynical, stereotyped comments.

The Xbox boasts about its huge processor and the rest but that doesn't mean the game is going to be great. Graphics aren't everything (my friend seems to think so, though) and thats why consoles like the PS2 and GC, with not as good graphical power still are high flyers in the console market.
The Xbox also has games, which, when you play them, has your average Joe graphics. The little movies developers like to show you are just the 'good' bits. In game, its a PS2 or a Gamecube. Nothing special, nothing great. Saying that, a game with good graphics is still fun to play than one with good gameplay and ok graphics. But would you not buy a game (or for that matter, a games console) because of its graphic (or size / look for consoles)? I don't think so somehow...

The we have games which it is obvious that they've spent hours and hours making great graphics, which are nice to look at and all, but the gameplay is not at that developers usual standard. This annoys me because gamers like myself will still play a game if its got ok (or even not ok) graphics. A prime example is the re-release of Final Fantasy
6. Sony / Square would not release this if they weren't confident it was going to succeed (for gameplay or for the demo of FFX..) but it certainly was going to succeed if all it relied on was its graphics. No-one cared 'back then' about graphics. Some tech freaks did, but most people just wanted the latest version of Pong, something simple and addictive. Leading me to my main point of has the market become far too addicted to graphics (and their progress) rather than the actual games themselves?

Games like Zelda. The public got a taste of whats to come when Shigeru Miyamoto showed the world his tech demo of Zelda for the GC. Lots of gasping and muttering of oooh...ahhh followed. But then he changes his mind, goes all
original on us and makes it cel shaded game. And what an
interesting reaction from the market. NOM magazine claimed it was a good idea (whether it be biased or not, im not sure). Letter's pages were filled to the brim with questions
about this new idea. And at first, I didn't hate the graphics, just thought they were 'original'. But then I asked myself 'why am i concerned about graphics when ive never even played the game'. So when the GC comes out, Ill buy one. When Zelda comes out Ill buy that too. But will some people not buy it just because of it's cel-shaded look?
I hope not, as my guess is more of that type of game is to come (Auto Modellista ... yay ...)

It works both ways as well, so those who dont buy a game because of non-superior graphics are left with very little choice of games.. If a game came out with rubbish gameplay but great graphics they still wouldn't buy it. So what do they buy? The rare game with both? Which is now, more than ever, rare. Then other factors will intervene. Will they not buy a game because it's colourful therfore kiddyish? I'd hope not. Spyro and Banjo Kazooie / Tooie are great games and not at all easy / boring. Will they not buy a party game or addictive puzzler because of its simplicity. All these questions are raised.

So what do you think? Any replies welcome.

Hope you enjoyed reading :)

Graphics dont always matter but for me, games like State of emergency, conflict desert storm etc.. need good graphics because of the type of game they are, you couldnt play Grand Theft Auto III on a PS1 in 3D the game wouldnt have a very good draw distance and would have continuos slowdown cough*Driver 2*cough

I've always thought that graphics don't matter.

$h@ne0 wrote:
> True point Foggie. Don't get me wrong - I want great graphics in a game, but
> it's not a neccesity in my opinion. I could live without them, because a
> reputation shouldn't be built around advertising or great graphics, but how
> great the game is to play.

"The success of games like Tetris and Pokemon
> show that gameplay is all you need"

And some mass marketing on the
> latter :0)

By the way, I copyrighted that quote and I am currently sitting at my Fisher Price My First Keyboard trying to work out a jingle to accompany it

I don't think it was mass marketing that sold the game, it was mass marketing that sold everything else, pokemon is genuinely a good game.
I think V.V.V.V.V. has a good point, graphics that suit the game make it, think he explained that well.
Realistic graphics are good, but not for a game like Zelda...etc because it's based on fantasy, don't see how FF got out of that, seems extremly realistic, thought a screenshot from the game was of real people, heh, but it works.

True point Foggie. Don't get me wrong - I want great graphics in a game, but it's not a neccesity in my opinion. I could live without them, because a reputation shouldn't be built around advertising or great graphics, but how great the game is to play.

"The success of games like Tetris and Pokemon show that gameplay is all you need"

And some mass marketing on the latter :0)

For me, graphics are just as important as gameplay. But by "good graphics" I mean visuals that suit the style of the game and compliment the gameplay.
Many people I know think that only "realistic graphics" are good graphics - this in my opinion is foolish and limited.
For instance: I think REZ has great graphics because they suit perfectly the atmosphere and vibe of the game, but if you used Rez's graphical style for GTA3, then they would be terrible graphics.

Russ (RM18) wrote:
> The success of games like Tetris and Pokemon show that gameplay is all you need

still don't see why Tetris was so adictive, i think the fact that your always trying to beat yourself is quite addictive.
also Pokemon, it's just like tamogotchis, but loads of them, and they fight + you get to walk round, catch them...etc. But yeah, thats gameplay, those games were great.

Thats true in some respects, but for RPGs and FPSs details needed, I think it helps the gameplay a lot, if you kill someone you want to see something come from it e.g. blood splattering behind them or a pool of blood left on the floor, you don't want to see pixels flying around (doom) you'll find that you'd play a game with better graphics for longer.
The new Zelda looks good to me, the last one looked great, but it's not a bad change, just because some people think a childish character = a childish game, well if they don't play it, it's not going to make me sad, i'll still play it because no doubt it's gonna be a huge game with loads of things to do lik the last 2, lush 3d surroundings...etc

but I think, even when it goes downto smaller consoles like the GBA graphics are still good, but you don't expect anything amazing from a handheld console.

The success of games like Tetris and Pokemon show that gameplay is all you need

graphics are in my opinion are not important.
yes it does help sell games but true games need not have great graphic.
e.g ff9 had amazing graphics yet most people prefer ff7.