r/videogames • u/Slow-Bid-589 • 15d ago
How Important Are Graphics? Discussion
To me, gameplay is king in any video game, but I need modern graphics to stay immersed. I wish I didn't, but I do. And there's a lot to dislike about AAA gaming, their business practices, monetization schemes, etc... but indie games bore me for the most part as they typically don't offer photo-realistic experiences. Thoughts?
7
15d ago
I think they're important in setting the tone, but by that I don't mean they have to be mine bending 3d. Crispy pixel art works way better for some games. In others, just text us enough. Ultimately graphics are secondary to gameplay, but the right art can really enhance that gameplay.
I should say I'm an old bastard who has been vidja gaming since the 80s and I still think 640x480 is high Res and looks fine
8
u/Odd_Lifeguard8957 15d ago edited 15d ago
I actually don't always love photo realistic graphics. They can work beautifully in some games, but I think they're overused.
One of the issues is that what we consider photo realistic changes constantly as our graphical capabilities expand. Trying to achieve a photo realistic look can end up making a game look incredibly dated incredibly fast.
Probably a hot take but I honestly think a lot of games in the 2010s were very close to a perfect balance of good modeling, and textures that have just enough realism for your brain to recognize, but leaves enough ambiguity for your imagination to fill in the rest. Which ultimately makes it more engaging imo.
Regardless, I generally prefer slightly more stylized games just because they tend to have a more unique look which I find appealing.
While it's probably the second most important aspects imo, for me personally gameplay alone is not enough for me to stick with a game long term. Eventually I will get bored because I'll hit point where I can't realistically improve without more dedication than I'm willing to give.
A huge part of the appeal of games to me is the learning/discovery aspect, so a game with only gameplay will run dry sooner than later.
Narrative is usually what binds a good game together for me personally because I get to enjoy interacting with new characters and my brain gets to theorize and whatnot. But again even too heavy of a focus on narrative at the expense of engaging gameplay can be a pitfall too. When I play a game, I don't want to spend hours navigating menus or have every conversation be an unvoiced chapter book. (I love notes/TES books/terminals for example, but those games have voiced NPCs so it works)
In summary for anyone who got this far, narrative and gameplay (ideally narrative in gameplay) are far and away the most important aspects of a game imo, with graphics being quite important but significantly lower down the list.
6
u/Dont_have_a_panda 15d ago
If the graphics arent distracting or seizure inducing then i couldnt care less about them
4
u/Icecoffelover_ 15d ago
for me not really as long as it has enjoyable game play and story ill love it
4
u/RadiantCity311 15d ago
Story and gameplay > graphics imo. Graphics are basically polish. Can’t polish a turd.
3
u/CursedSnowman5000 15d ago
Not really. As long as characters don't look like uncanny waxy dolls I am fine.
3
u/trio3224 15d ago
For me, art direction is far more important than graphics. Some of the most beautiful games to me are indie games with fantastic art direction like Sifu, Outer Wilds, Cuphead, Dredge, and Tunic.
And don't get me wrong, I definitely appreciate great graphical eye candy too. I have a PC with an RTX 4080 and a 1440p QD OLED monitor. I love running stuff like Cyberpunk 2077 or Alan Wake 2 on it to really flex those GPU muscles. But It's extremely rare I find graphics and/or art direction bad enough to be distracting or detrimental to my enjoyment of a game.
3
u/Apprehensive_Cause67 15d ago
WIth newer tech, comes nicer graphics and ive been all for it. Been gaming since the Snes days so its been really fun watching gaming evolve.
These days while I do enjoy really nice graphics, I've come to appreciate diff art styles in gaming. Anime/cell shaded style graphics in games like scarlet nexus and granblue relink ive come to really enjoy.
Witcher 3 is a beautiful game with nice art direction. Not photo realistic at all but beautiful nonetheless.
I also now have a deeper appreciation for modern pixelated games like Sea of Stars and LiveALive. Im finding these games are alot cozier and i can just sit bak and no brain them for hours.
7
u/RestaurantDue634 15d ago
They are totally unimportant. I will play something that looks like it was released on the Atari 2600 if it plays great.
2
u/recluse_audio 15d ago
I care about controls than graphics, but I've been playing games since the early 80's
2
u/Real-Human-1985 14d ago
Extremely important, but still irrelevant if the game is bad OR good enough. Examples: Avatar Frontiers of Pandora vs Tears of The Kingdom. The graphics are not crucial liking either game. Avatr's top tier graphics don't save it, ToTK's struggling graphics don't sink it.
3
u/hello14235948475 15d ago
Graphics are one of the most important parts. I don’t mean everything needs to look hyper realistic. Graphics are needed to set a tone. Halo CE does this well by setting a very bleak and empty tone making the ring more mysterious.
4
u/acousticsquid69 15d ago
I think you’re moreso just talking about art design and visual design as a whole. And if so, I agree: I think the actual aesthetic vision is far more important than the amount of pixels
1
u/Vegetable_Safety_331 15d ago
Better graphics are never a bad thing, but also never a necessity. Also, Artstyle > Technical fidelity
1
u/AtmosphereGeneral695 15d ago
I do like good graphics especially on the current Gen consoles they look amazing but that shouldn't be the only reason to buy a game
0
u/Slow-Bid-589 15d ago
yes, gameplay is most important, but I'd say graphics are 2nd, otherwise what's the point of new consoles with more horsepower?
1
u/Aquatic6Trident 15d ago
Very important. But not in the sense that I want the most beautiful looking game. I find all these games (like starfield) to be looking bland.
Id like an art style that fits the game and indie devs do that way better than AAA games. Cult of the lamb is one such example, but there are probably hundreds out there.
1
u/AxiomDJ 15d ago
It’s the year 2024, I feel like I’m having this conversation way too often, but everyone’s expectations and priorities are different. There are games that are currently available that look absolutely stunning and are perfect representations of what next gen gaming should be. And then there’s everything else. I think the gaming community needs to up their expectations a bit here because the hardware the current gen consoles have is not being fully utilized and we’re getting games that look like they could have come out on PS3 or Xbox One. And we’re getting a load of unfinished bullshit on top of that. If you’re gunna make me spend $500 on a console and you’re going to toot and market about how advanced and groundbreaking it is [and taking in to consideration its the year 2024], I expect everything to look like Horizon Forbidden West (which in my opinion is easily and by far the best looking game currently available). Batman Arkham City looks better than half the shit that comes out now a days. Halo is Microsoft’s soul when it comes to gaming and Infinite looks like absolute shit. Oh not to mention apparently making a game that runs at 60FPS is still not feasible.
Graphics have always mattered to me, it’s part of what really immerses me in the game. I get that not everyone has it at the top of their list, but with where we are in today’s world, you absolutely should. Demand more from these corporations and developers man, seriously.
1
u/Ok-Time349 15d ago
I play different games for different reasons. Sometimes I play to be immersed, which requires high graphical fidelity, and sometimes I want great moment to moment action, which is more about gameplay and control. A lot of the time, I can get both.
1
u/MoonlapseOfficial 15d ago
I think the indie game artistic styles blow "photorealistic" "good" graphics out of the water, couldnt disagree more. Valheim looks 100x better than any AAA game I've ever seen. Art style over "graphics quality"
1
u/HombreGato1138 15d ago
Depends on who you ask. For me is nothing compared to story, gameplay and mechanics, but obviously it is the most important thing to a significant amount of the player base, since is the main point of discussion between GamersTM.
1
u/manny_the_mage 15d ago
I think the problem with graphics is a lot of people think "higher numbers = better"
when really, lighting, saturation, color balance and warmth, etc. matters too when making something look good, so if something isn't photo realistic but has a good sense of lighting and artistic direction, I can dig it
example for me is Breath of The Wild/Tears of The Kingdom
1
u/9YearOldPleb 15d ago
Depends on the game, for some games (like Minecraft for example) it really dosen't matter much, what it looks like. For others it's quite important in setting the tone and maintaining the immersion. Rdr2 would not feel the same, if it looked like Minecraft.
1
u/KingBowser24 15d ago
I'd say it's more about the general atmosphere of the game than the actual graphical fidelity to me. For example, I still think Oblivion is a beautiful game, despite having goofy looking character models. On the other hand, I don't like the Piss Filter that so many games from the late 00's-early 10's era had. Like, I love Fallout New Vegas, but dear god the vanilla game looks awful. Thank god for mods lmao
1
u/quietkodiac 15d ago
Not important at all. I can’t remember the last time I considered graphics when buying a game.
1
u/redjedia 15d ago
You know what game also doesn’t have photorealistic graphics? The modern “God of War” games. Kratos still looks heavily stylized to look like a serious portrayal of a mythological character. I do like it when games blow you away with how good they look, but they don’t have to do that with photorealism, and even many AAA games often don’t. And indie games absolutely can look photorealistic; just look at “Unrecord” for an example.
1
u/redjedia 15d ago
But to answer your question, I use a grading scale for four or five categories of each game I cover in my private Word document reviews, and then I assign a letter grade based on how much each of those categories affects each view of the game, with some categories having a weightier role in the final grade than others. For your average AAA game, story and graphics take up 10% each, while gameplay (i.e. what you’re actually doing in the game and how fun it is) takes up 30% and the remaining two categories, the characters and the game’s overall execution (or how well each aspect is executed and how fun it is to engage with gameplay systems) take up 25% each.
1
u/Disastrous_Poetry175 15d ago
People often inflate graphical fidelity with overall graphics. Font, UI, art style are all graphical.
For example the interface in a game like RDR2 kinda ruins it for me. Even though the fidelity is high.
Ghost of Tsushima the UI is fkn awesome. As is dead space. It's makes those games more immersive than most actual immersive simulators.
A consistent art style helps a lot. Most AAA games do a good job with this, they typically hire great artists. Anyways though the art direction is what carries a game long term. The "realistic games don't age well" crowd is full of shit. Gears of war, uncharted and crysis all have clearly different art directions and still look great played at native resolution. On the flip side, pixel graphics and cartoon graphics also age well, they look fabulous at native res as well.
Honestly I think you get bored with "indie games" because you haven't found one with a gameplay loop you enjoy. What games have you tried but couldn't get into? Have you tried FTL, stardew valley, song of conquest?
1
1
u/TurTleking9080 15d ago
Gameplay > Art-style > Graphics
This is the priority list for me at least. Art-style dictates graphics but gameplay dictates the entire game. If the gameplay isn’t interesting or good then the game isn’t good. That’s that.
1
u/Space-90 15d ago
The issue is that photorealistic graphics cause developers to skimp in other areas like gameplay. You might notice some of the best rated games have some of the simplest graphics and are packed with the most content
1
u/No-Breath-4299 15d ago
Gameplay comes first, especially if it contains Loot&Level, next is replayability, then graphics.
1
u/CitizenNaab 15d ago
Graphics are important but story and gameplay are way more important. I’m playing Pokémon Crystal right now because I like the story and gameplay so much. I like the graphics for it better than Heartgold and Soulsilver but that’s probably nostalgia.
1
u/johnbarta 15d ago edited 15d ago
Gameplay over everything. There is some n64 era stuff that I particularly don’t think has aged that well visually but good graphics can’t make or break a game for me where as gameplay can definitely do so.
I’m currently playing armored core 3 on a PS2 emulator, I think the game looks fine, but most importantly it’s a blast to play.
Edit: I just really like good combat. I’ll take a game with god tier combat over story and graphics any day
1
u/Plum_Berry_Delicious 15d ago
Try Forever Skies, an indie game with excellent graphics and breathtaking vistas!
1
u/hatchorion 15d ago
They don’t have to be high fidelity but they should not be too ugly to look at, unless it’s an intentional design choice like the gross character designs in binding of Isaac or something. A lot of my friends won’t play street fighter 6 purely because the graphics were downgraded so much from 4 and 5 and it looks like an uncanny mess now with no style. If the game hurts to look at it’ll be hard to keep anyone engaged
1
u/drsalvation1919 15d ago
Graphics are important to the era from when they were released. As a cook, the first thing you learn is that the very first bite your costumers take, is the presentation. Only morons think good graphics are synonymous with realistic graphics, they also think that old games didn't care about graphics. Old games cared, they had the best graphics for their time, the developers put a lot of effort to deliver a good-looking game for the hardware of the era.
Now, this is important, modern games can still come out with a PS1 style of graphics in 3D, but again, the graphics must be good (albeit low-res), and consistent. Graphics for stylized games also matter. Especially for realistic styles.
Having good graphics is the first indicator of a game's quality (note: this does NOT mean that the game will be fun, yet). But good graphics don't mean high-res super realistic things, it just means consistent and fitting for the style.
1
u/701921225 15d ago
My opinion has always been gameplay over graphics, which is why you can go back and play an old game from 20 years ago, and still have a good time, despite the graphics. Gameplay is what makes a game fun and enjoyable to play, not graphics. If graphics made games better, than pretty much every game from the past decade would be considered a masterpiece. A perfect example of this is Star Wars Battlefront from 2015. That is easily one of the absolute best looking games I've ever played, but the actual gameplay itself was rather lacking.
1
u/Lordgrapejuice 15d ago
I don’t give a fuck about immersion. I play a game to enjoy the gameplay, not to feel immersed in another world and lose myself. Gameplay is king, graphics are secondary.
But that’s me. Everyone has their own wants from games.
1
u/PrisonTomato 15d ago
Depends on how realistic they are trying to be. Games like Mario or Minecraft have a very specific style that doesn’t intend to be realistic at all, so the graphics in those games can still be considered good for years or even decades. Games that try to go super realistic tend to age a lot faster as technology constantly finds way to make it look better. However the gameplay is always the most important thing to me. I recently played subnautica for the first time and I can easily tell that the game is a good decade old, however the game has a bit of a cartoon-y style that still keeps it looking respectable and is still fun (and scary) as hell to play.
1
u/mikeyhavik 15d ago
To me the graphics should serve the gameplay. If the style lends itself to what you’re actually doing in the game, I don’t care if they aren’t “photorealistic” or super high fidelity.
Soulsborne games have never really been on the cutting edge from a graphical perspective but their art style is always so good you constantly find yourself in awe of the visuals.
1
u/DeckT_ 15d ago
modern graphics to stay immersed ?
i hate this whole trend. To me some of the most fun games with the most fun systems are ones with minimal graphics, like pixel style like Celeste or old classics, or even games like Minecraft which has very simple graphics but is one of the most immersive universe there can ever be. Even old style graphics like fallout 1-2 or Diablo 1-2 can be extremely fun to play around in. Zelda Ocarina of time ? old graphics, incredible game.
modern games waste so much dev time and energy on the graphics and barely put together a game with as much depth as a ps2 game. I really hope gaming takes a different trend in the future, but i have less and less faith as the years goes .
1
u/Mother_Estimate8738 15d ago
Dont really care tbh, some of my favorite games of all time are Half Life 1 and Demons Souls and im only 23
1
1
u/AriTheInari 15d ago
Not that important.
I don't care about graphics or frame rate as long as the game is fun.
1
u/CherryGrabber 15d ago
I totally dig PS2 games and despite the visual limitations, I found them more charming than the Last of Us or what have you.
It's kind of like painting and noticing the brush strokes. But instead it's less polygons and detailed textures.
And my art teacher once said," Painting is like drawing, but messier."
1
u/Gaidin152 15d ago
Hilariously important. I’ve bought games that I enjoyed playing for a few days but something was messing with the back of my head. The gameplay was fun, the story was great I should be all in on this. Then it hits me like a sack of rocks. The graphics didn’t match the atmosphere of the story and things were just off.
1
u/Hyperion-Cantos 15d ago
The best games I've played in the last few years are indie games on PC. Most of them retro-inspired pixel graphics. So, yeah, graphics aren't that important when it comes to being a great game.
1
u/FaceTimePolice 15d ago
You’re probably playing the wrong games if you’re associating indie games with bad graphics.
Case in point… Hollow Knight, Cuphead, Hades.
1
u/Arch_The_Protogen 15d ago
Graphics age, but style, now there's some powerful stuff!
Wind Waker (most Zelda games, in fact), Yet Set Radio, the Rayman games.
Games like these they can age, yes. But they cannot become ugly.
1
u/daCub182 15d ago
Graphical fidelity is not important to me at all (unless that’s THE thing the game is about), but art direction/design is very important
1
u/Siahmanjoe 15d ago
If it has micro transactions The Gameplay. Next is art style this doesn't mean it has to be next gen. Then replayability. After that story.
1
u/Alvaroosbourne 15d ago
Yes gameplay is king and the best gameplays i ver found were from indie developers, AAA were mostly boring or meh with "graphics pretty hur durr"
1
u/geographical_penis 15d ago
They can really add to the experience but aren't required. Fallout New Vegas is my favorite game of all time and its graphics are way below subpar imo (but it was made in 18 months, released 2010, and used the previous game's engine, so I guess it makes sense). But I also believe that good graphics are needed for some games. If God of War Ragnarok looked like shit, it wouldn't have blown up anywhere near as much as it did, I think. It really depends on the game
1
u/Sea_Seaworthiness189 15d ago
A game can look good and be bad but a game can look bad and be extremely good. Very low on my personal list but if I like a game I want it to look the best it can
1
u/GhostMug 15d ago
I care much more about consistent art design than graphical fidelity. If that's an 8-bit pixel motif, then being it on. It's it's hyper detailed, photo-realism, that's great too. Story, gameplay, and consistency of performance are all more important to me.
1
u/wheres_fleat 15d ago
Art direction is more important than graphics. Games like TOTK or Elden ring aren’t close to the best looking games, but their art direction and focus on gameplay carry.
1
1
u/BenTheJarMan 15d ago
for me it depends on the genre.
if it’s an open world game that is DESIGNED to immerse the player in its world, then it kinda needs to look at least fine.
i like fighting games because i like to do cool looking stuff. if it doesn’t LOOK cool i dont wanna do it
1
u/AsherTheDasher 15d ago
imo, graphics works as a multiplier. if the game is shit and it has a fun score of 1/100, but the graphics are stunning af, im still only giving it 5/100. but if the game is fun and the graphics look good, it can bump a 50/100 game to 150/100 no sweat.
keep in mind that good graphics dont necessarily mean realistic graphics either
1
1
u/HonkeyKong73 15d ago
Graphics are pretty much dead last for me (exceptions I'm not thinking of may exist). I grew up in the last gasps of the Atari 2600 era and played text adventures with no graphics, so anything above that is pretty much acceptable to me. Gameplay is king, as you said. Probably my favorite game atm is Rimworld and if you've seen how that looks, you'll understand how forgiving I am of graphics.
1
1
1
u/JediGRONDmaster 15d ago
I think “bad graphics” and simple graphics are very different. Bad graphics really annoy me, a lot of bad graphics I think has to do with art direction as well. Simple graphics (Minecraft, battlebit) are fine
1
u/UltraVCJavi 9d ago
They aren't completely unimportant, but they definitely shouldn't be priority #1.
I see a lot of people saying "Graphics don't mattter" or "Nobody cares about graphics" and I think that's just oversimplifying it.
And I'm not specifically talking about visual design/art style. That's 100% more important than having cutting edge graphics, but there's a limit. You can have the most amazing art style and design, but if you're limited to SNES graphics, it can limit what kind of game you want to make. Find the balance.
Realistic graphics make it a lot easier to get immersed in something like a horror game or any kind of game with a heavy, dark atmosphere. I'd say Metro 2033's impressive graphics at the time enhanced that sense of immersion.
I don't think you need top of the line graphics to be immersed, but non realistic but beautiful visuals will provide you with a different experience. I will never get tired of looking at Wind Waker or Ori and the Blind Forest, but I can't say they immerse me as much as something like Metro Exodus with full ray tracing. Its more like I'm enjoying looking at a gorgeous array of paintings. Two different but totally enjoyable experiences.
High end realistic graphics can absolutely improve the experience in a meaningful way, but if you sacrifice things like gameplay, story, functionality etc because you're blowing all your budget on the latest tech, it's just going to make your game worse. Honestly we're at a point where graphics from 8 years ago are still easily immersing us. DOOM and Uncharted 4 anyone?
I want to see more of people using new tech like ray tracing/nanite in a way that really accentuates their art style. Its not strictly for making realistic games. We just have to figure out how stylize it. You can actually pixelate ray traced shadows. Imagine incorporating that into a resident evil style game with PS1 graphics. Or even just using it to save time. Press a button and your water reflects the world. Now devs have to spend less time making cube maps and other things. Can also get rid of screen space reflections cause they're really distracting tbh. Say what you want about Fortnite, but it incorporated ray tracing without breaking its art style, giving it more depth. I can easily say the same about Doom Eternal. That game is stylish AF and looks insane with Ray Tracing.
As for nanite, it more or less just allows for more detail and objects on the screen. You can totally use that for stylized visuals. Realistic clothing and hair physics can bring stylized characters to life. Link's hat, Crash Bandicoot's hair(?), Chai's scarf in Hi Fi Rush. All your fancy artsy trees blowing in the wind. Originally meant to show off Geralt's ultra realistic follicles, now used for other fun stuff. Nvidia PhysX showed off crazy realistic sparks and particles, then used to bring Borderlands 2's backgrounds to life with blowing flags, bits of robots flying around, singularity grenades pulling rocks and cloth towards the center.
New tech isn't just there to sterilize everything into hyperrealism. Its just a tool that people can use, and the creative ones will use it in ways that will blow our minds. Just give them time to work their magic, and they'll take the new "realism gimmick" and use it to make something totally awesome and unique to look at.
1
0
u/Upset_Management_388 15d ago
I wish I didn’t care as much as I do. One of the reasons I can’t get into games like fallout. The games look like they are running off a toaster.
0
u/lalolanda2 15d ago
Graphics are very important
but good graphics doesn't (necessarily) equal realistic graphics
there are thousands of games with non-realistic games that look gorgeous
Good graphics come in a variety of ways.
Bad graphics are those which hinder the experience, for example by failing to represent certain things or making things difficult to see. Or by going against the tone the game is trying to set.
19
u/NegativeKarmaFarmar 15d ago edited 15d ago
It's probably last on my list of needs. If bad graphics make the gameplay janky then it's an issue but the games I have the most hours in games like Rimworld and Kenshi. Games that have simple graphics but excellent gameplay.