Personal choice really... my first PC games were in CGA 4 color format...so any modern game is terrific in my book... so graphics really aren't that important to me other than as a gee-whiz factor.
But other folks have different likes and I'm sure its a major factor in their enjoyment of the game.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
As long as they aren't so terrible that they actually interfere with the gameplay, then no, graphics do not matter that much to me.
Please note, however, that there is a certain minimum level of competence I will accept in these matters. If the people making the game are so cheap and/or lazy that I feel insulted by their crappy spell effects, it is something of a turn-off. (I'm looking at you, AC and Vanguard.)
Of course, if they ARE that bad, then one could argue that the graphics ARE interfering with gameplay. Visual cues are extremely important during a battle, and if I can't figure out what's going on without reading the chat box, you have failed in your mission as an effects designer.
But what is important is not the technical aspect of the graphic, but the artistic one.
In short the graphic of a game should immerse the player in its world, but it doesn't have to be necessarily the most photo realistic graphic to do so.
EQ1 is an example, the graphic quality is really crap (7 y/o game), but the zones are quite immersive.
Same as WoW, the graphic might be simple and cartoonish but the zones are really unique and you feel part of the world.
I think that's part of the success of those 2 games, after all as for the gameplay they are not exactly cutting edge.
Graphics have always been important to me, not necessarily in the terms of technicality, but the artistic/aesthetic part. If it doesn't look appealing to me, personally, I won't be playing it. I just can't immerse myself in something that will constantly haunt me because of its, at least in my opinion, bad looks. Simplicity goes a long way and World of Warcraft is a good example of just that. I prefer 2D pixel graphics rather than "photorealistic" 3D graphics that just end up looking like plastic anyways. Gameplay is important, but I'm sure that graphics are at least more important than most would like to admit - if they're even aware of it.
I have to agree with those that say it is part of the equation when evaluating a game. If a game looks utterly horrible, I might not even get to the "good gameplay." A great example for me is Anarchy Online. When I first tried it in 2003, I thought it was horrible mostly because the graphics were so dated, the UI cumbersome, and the learning curve steep. Later I retried it in late 2004 and got beyond all that and enjoyed the game immensely for some time afterward. I found it was quite fun.
In the end, I would say it is important now days to get new players into a game. By the time everything is said and done though, graphics do not keep a player.
For sure it is an important aspect, as gameplay, comunity. Thats my opinion, some ppl dnt care much but i do, i like a good looking game if possible rather than spend hours looking for some trash on my screen.
I think developers fall into a quagmire trying to make great graphics, but end up with a unplayable game.
Look at the successes and the failures. Blizzard with Wow put out a game with decent graphics, yet nothing to write home about, but their client ran on most computers and hence had great success becuase of fun gameplay.
Now lets take some SOE games, like Vanguard and EQ2. Both had higher graphics requirements than the average computer could handle. They both initially did a nose dive. Niether are bad games, but both got the reputation of being very hard to run even on good systems. That caused a lot of players to stay away or leave the game.
I still don't run either of those games on my system, even though I do like EQ2, just don't like the poor performance I get from them.
It is pretty evident that graphics are a secondary trait, when it comes to playing a MMO. I have concerns that AoC is going to have similar problems.
Graphics are very important to the majority of gamers. Otherwise we would all still be playing on old PCs, or NES, etc.
Graphics may not be the MOST important aspect to customers but it is pretty high on the list. Graphics doesn't necessarily mean photo-realistic either. Otherwise the Wii wouldn't be selling very well.
What it does mean is that either the ART style or the Technical aspect of the graphics have to be grade A (or possibly both). i.e. WoW (ART is Grade A, Technical is pretty poor), EQ2 (ART is ok, Technical is Grade A) etc.
Developers have to be able to find a decent balance between Graphics and gameplay in order to get the customers they want.
Nope but most games made now have decent graphics, as long as the graphics are decent then the gameplay is very good people will play it.
If they tried releasing a UO or AC now then it would fail miserably because the standard people go by now are at least decent graphics mixed with outstanding to very good gameplay. Call them spoiled if you will.
My take on graphics is that a game with good graphics means the developers take great pains in having a great presentation of their game. A game can be fun with crappy graphics and still remain fun while a crappy game with great graphics will result in still a crappy game. I think a better analogy would be like food... if you see a food which is well presented it would enhance the food's decliciousness factor while a food that doesn't look too appealing would reduce a food's satisfaction level.
Comments
Personal choice really... my first PC games were in CGA 4 color format...so any modern game is terrific in my book... so graphics really aren't that important to me other than as a gee-whiz factor.
But other folks have different likes and I'm sure its a major factor in their enjoyment of the game.
To each their own.....
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
As long as they aren't so terrible that they actually interfere with the gameplay, then no, graphics do not matter that much to me.
Please note, however, that there is a certain minimum level of competence I will accept in these matters. If the people making the game are so cheap and/or lazy that I feel insulted by their crappy spell effects, it is something of a turn-off. (I'm looking at you, AC and Vanguard.)
Of course, if they ARE that bad, then one could argue that the graphics ARE interfering with gameplay. Visual cues are extremely important during a battle, and if I can't figure out what's going on without reading the chat box, you have failed in your mission as an effects designer.
Graphics have always been important to me, not necessarily in the terms of technicality, but the artistic/aesthetic part. If it doesn't look appealing to me, personally, I won't be playing it. I just can't immerse myself in something that will constantly haunt me because of its, at least in my opinion, bad looks. Simplicity goes a long way and World of Warcraft is a good example of just that. I prefer 2D pixel graphics rather than "photorealistic" 3D graphics that just end up looking like plastic anyways. Gameplay is important, but I'm sure that graphics are at least more important than most would like to admit - if they're even aware of it.
In a way they're important because they catch the eye but they're also not that important because they are only one aspect of the game.
Some games with good graphics are rubbish.
?
I have to agree with those that say it is part of the equation when evaluating a game. If a game looks utterly horrible, I might not even get to the "good gameplay." A great example for me is Anarchy Online. When I first tried it in 2003, I thought it was horrible mostly because the graphics were so dated, the UI cumbersome, and the learning curve steep. Later I retried it in late 2004 and got beyond all that and enjoyed the game immensely for some time afterward. I found it was quite fun.
In the end, I would say it is important now days to get new players into a game. By the time everything is said and done though, graphics do not keep a player.
I agree, graphics are the appetizers, however the main course is the gameplay.
I play StarQuest Online, most people hate it because all they do is look at the graphics. However I looked past them, and found its a great game.
Graphics are anything but unimportant, but in the long run they are LESS important than gameplay.
For sure it is an important aspect, as gameplay, comunity. Thats my opinion, some ppl dnt care much but i do, i like a good looking game if possible rather than spend hours looking for some trash on my screen.
I think developers fall into a quagmire trying to make great graphics, but end up with a unplayable game.
Look at the successes and the failures. Blizzard with Wow put out a game with decent graphics, yet nothing to write home about, but their client ran on most computers and hence had great success becuase of fun gameplay.
Now lets take some SOE games, like Vanguard and EQ2. Both had higher graphics requirements than the average computer could handle. They both initially did a nose dive. Niether are bad games, but both got the reputation of being very hard to run even on good systems. That caused a lot of players to stay away or leave the game.
I still don't run either of those games on my system, even though I do like EQ2, just don't like the poor performance I get from them.
It is pretty evident that graphics are a secondary trait, when it comes to playing a MMO. I have concerns that AoC is going to have similar problems.
for me, YES! its one of the 5 major factors i look at before thinking about playing an mmo
Played almost everything...
Currently playing nothing...
Waiting for: Darkfall, WAR, Guild Wars 2.
Graphics are very important to the majority of gamers. Otherwise we would all still be playing on old PCs, or NES, etc.
Graphics may not be the MOST important aspect to customers but it is pretty high on the list. Graphics doesn't necessarily mean photo-realistic either. Otherwise the Wii wouldn't be selling very well.
What it does mean is that either the ART style or the Technical aspect of the graphics have to be grade A (or possibly both). i.e. WoW (ART is Grade A, Technical is pretty poor), EQ2 (ART is ok, Technical is Grade A) etc.
Developers have to be able to find a decent balance between Graphics and gameplay in order to get the customers they want.
War Beta Tester
Nope but most games made now have decent graphics, as long as the graphics are decent then the gameplay is very good people will play it.
If they tried releasing a UO or AC now then it would fail miserably because the standard people go by now are at least decent graphics mixed with outstanding to very good gameplay. Call them spoiled if you will.
My take on graphics is that a game with good graphics means the developers take great pains in having a great presentation of their game. A game can be fun with crappy graphics and still remain fun while a crappy game with great graphics will result in still a crappy game. I think a better analogy would be like food... if you see a food which is well presented it would enhance the food's decliciousness factor while a food that doesn't look too appealing would reduce a food's satisfaction level.