Is a game's graphical quality important to you?

[AusWolf]

The question is simple.

We're seeing an increasing number of game remakes and franchise iterations and a decreasing number of original creations - from the big AAA studios, at least.

The latest controversial releases are Portal RTX the The Witcher 3 Next-Gen Update (what is "next" gen, anyway? If it was released last month, then isn't it current gen already?).

These remakes beg the question: are computer graphics really that important? Or is it an agenda that Intel/AMD/Nvidia are trying to force on us to buy their hardware? Have big game studios reached their creative limits? The discussion is open. Fire away!

 

[Ruru]

Nope. I got a 4K monitor and my 6700 XT doesn't run everything maxed out so med-high settings are fine for me if I need to lower the settings.

Also I play a lot NES & PS2, they have hella good games and graphics don't make a game.

 

[64K]

I'm in a very, very small percentage of gamers. I'm playing games that I missed playing from the 1990's through the mid 2000s for now.

It's not about graphics with me and it never has been. It's about fun.

 

[Sithaer]

Yes but only to a point, I do like eye candy in games and see how graphics and related tech advances over time but its not a deciding factor if I'm playing a game or not unless the art style of the game rubs me the wrong way.
I'm playing Cyberpunk currently with some RT enabled and it looks great to me but its not why I picked up the game and I mainly enabled it cause at my resolution I have some headroom for it. In newer games where I won't be able to use RT at playable frames I will simply turn it off.
Same with Plague Tale Requiem, that game had my jaw drop at some places how good it looked but its not the main reason why I liked the game in overall and is my personal game of the year.
In general I'm okay with ~mix of medium/high settings, Low is when its starting to bother me/upgrade and I prefer maxed or almost maxed out Textures. 'even modded ones with HD mods'

And just a few weeks ago I've finished FEAR 1 and the graphics did not bother me at all, had a blast playing that game.

I think I draw the line at those really old school pixel art games even if they are brand new, I just can't get into that art style/design at all.

 

[siluro818]

Graphics are important to me, but RT isn't, so I couldn't care less about stuff like Portal RTX. Hardware just isn't "there" yet and it's gonna take a while to even approach some meaningful use in games.
That being said having the option to use RT when you have the headroom is always welcome. But the truth is the discernible differences are so minor in most current games it just ain't worth throwing money at it.
You can look at side by side comparisons in titles like Spider-Man and think it's a big deal, but you don't see any of that while playing. I specifically played half the game with RT on and the 2nd half with RT off. The only thing I noticed was the better framerate during the latter lol

 

[BSim500]

These remakes beg the question: are computer graphics really that important?

For me, not really. I have zero problem playing older games as long as the gameplay / story is engaging. Most visually memorable games played over the past 10-15 years were stylised than realistic (eg, Bioshock's "Art-Deco" style, Dishonored's water-colour painting style that 'fit' the bleak Dunwall atmosphere far more than 'Crysis 4 trees' would have done, The Talos Principle's "post-apocalyptic robots meets Greek Mythology" stuff that's memorable precisely because its different / interesting / unusual. The Darkside Detective's "coarse pixelation" is way more pixelated (and 'uglier looking') than actual 90's LucasArts VGA games were, yet it was the game's humour that was engaging. Conversely Crysis 3 still remains the only game in 30 years of PC gaming I actually fell asleep playing one night, never did that in LAN parties. Gameplay is everything.

 

[the54thvoid]

I voted 'No, up to a point'.

Games are meant to be played for fun (that's why they are games). Immersion can be a part of that fun, but it is very dependant upon the game and the person. I loved playing the Steam game Super Hot, and the graphics are both simplistic and hyper-effective. That game, I think, would not benefit from shiny graphics - the entire point of the game is the gameplay.

When I want hyper-real graphics, I go for a walk outside.

 

[mb194dc]

Yes, though there are some image quality settings I don't see much or any benefit in. 4k 60 raster is good for my purposes.

RT is obviously just an angle to try and boost GPU sales and always has been... Nvidia realised they were going to hit a point with raster performance where sales of new cards would slow dramatically. So they came up with something that would still need new hardware to run well...

 

[Ruru]

Graphics are important to me, but RT isn't,

Totally agree, that's why I got a 6700 XT instead of a 3060 Ti/3070..

I voted 'No, up to a point'.

Games are meant to be played for fun (that's why they are games). Immersion can be a part of that fun, but it is very dependant upon the game and the person. I loved playing the Steam game Super Hot, and the graphics are both simplistic and hyper-effective. That game, I think, would not benefit from shiny graphics - the entire point of the game is the gameplay.

When I want hyper-real graphics, I go for a walk outside.

Some older games have hyperrealistic graphics, take Mirror's Edge Catalyst as an example. And it looks hella good with maxed out at 4K

 

[Lei]

Good graphics is priority to me. Even if story is not awesome.
I see games as a painting. Work of art. I like details and realism.
Although good story makes the game engaging and entertaining.

For example Forza has a big map, but most of the roads are empty long routes with repetitive vegetation. It's boring to drive, because there's not enough variety of assets on the way. Dirt 5 is more fun, because there's more interaction with the road, splashes, pebbles and mud whoosh up from back of your wheels, the road style keeps changing every 200m you drive. The day cycle changes within 5 minutes. You see more variation and graphic details. But in Forza you're driving in a loop.

Dirt is like a bag of chips, it's small, but tasty. Forza took the same bag and stretched it up to a big town but with same amount of chips.

Dirt is like planet earth, Forza is as big as the Milky Way Galaxy, but most of the galaxy is empty space, only distance you should drive.

The story of these 2 games is same, but Dirt is more fun Because it puts more beautiful stuff on the screen. Dirt is like Asphalt Legends. Forza is long intestines, nothing but big map was on the agenda.

 

[eidairaman1]

Considering Game Devs Focus on consoles more than PC, I say they have become very Lazy.

 

[GamerGuy]

While graphics is quite important to me, the more important factor is how immersive the story ism and how good gameplay is. Just look at Half Life 2, sure graphics is dated byt today's standard, but man, is the game so much fun still. I'm on my laptop playing it for the umpteenth time, I'm at Ravenholm, and it's still a hoot to play!

 

[LifeOnMars]

I like my games to be like my women - Short, pretty and willing to go that extra mile to keep me interested.

Trouble is, the women all end up like Starcraft II and demand WAY too much micro management.

 

[AusWolf]

I like my games to be like my women - Short, pretty and willing to go that extra mile to keep me interested.

Trouble is, the women all end up like Starcraft II and demand WAY too much micro management.

Or like the latest Assassin's Creed games - they keep you occupied with way too much detail that isn't important for the main quest.

 

[ExcuseMeWtf]

Ugly/unreadable graphics can certainly limit enjoyment from the game, but gorgeous graphics won't make up for overall poor/boring gameplay. Games don't have to be absolutely gorgeous to be enjoyable, but there is at least certain standard to be met visually.
Overall that'd clearly be "yes" still.

 

[Blaeza]

I still play Street Fighter 2 and Super Turbo so all that's important is gameplay.

 

[Bomby569]

of course it is. If that's the question the answer can only be YES.
How can anyone answer anything else but YES, do you guys prefer you games to look like shit?

a better question should be "is the most important thing?", then NO.

 

[KrazyT]

Voted No.
I've started my adventure in gaming with The Legend of Zelda, and when a game is good, i tend for forget about graphics.
The only exeption are the 32 bits graphics era, if i could, i prefer play theses games with an emulator.

 

[AusWolf]

of course it is. If that's the question the answer can only be YES.
How can anyone answer anything else but YES, do you guys prefer you games to look like shit?

It can be NO if one plays old games that are considered terrible-looking by today's standards. Or if one honestly doesn't care. See post #18.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Yes but that does not include RT features that just eat performance up.

 

[Dan.G]

No, up to a point: I think graphics could provide a better immersion, overall.
I know a lot of people like old games, but I just can't picture myself enjoying Doom (1993) that much.
Good graphics only make up a portion of a good game: enjoyed Dungeon Siege 1 (2002) a lot more than Dungeon Siege 3 (2011)

 

[kilo]

If a game is good, it doesn't need graphics. There's a inverse correlation between graphics and fun/story, e.g. Far Cry 2, which was very pretty with so many game play flaws. Even Far Cry 5 didnt have destructible vegetation or moving vegatation as you were sneaking. On rare occasions, you have both good graphics and fun, and those titles are very special, e.g. Witcher 3 or FF7.

The problem is that good graphics is highly subjective and dependant on which year/decade the game came out. My biggest issue with games isn't graphics, but controls. Look how good 320x200 DOS games that had good graphics and poor controls aged differently than bad graphics and fun game play such as Ultima 6 vs Ultima 7. Or for a newer example, look at how much better Half Life 1 is than Hexen 2. Controls matter significantly more than graphics on how well a title ages, imo.

 

[eidairaman1]

If a game is good, it doesn't need graphics. There's a inverse correlation between graphics and fun/story, e.g. Far Cry 2, which was very pretty with so many game play flaws. Even Far Cry 5 didnt have destructible vegetation or moving vegatation as you were sneaking. On rare occasions, you have both good graphics and fun, and those titles are very special, e.g. Witcher 3 or FF7.

The problem is that good graphics is highly subjective and dependant on which year/decade the game came out. My biggest issue with games isn't graphics, but controls. Look how good 320x200 DOS games that had good graphics and poor controls aged differently than bad graphics and fun game play such as Ultima 6 vs Ultima 7. Or for a newer example, look at how much better Half Life 1 is than Hexen 2. Controls matter significantly more than graphics on how well a title ages, imo.

Depends on the Game, but First Controls, physics must be there. Example Need For Speed Underground 1 and 2, controlled pretty well and with an ATi 9700 Pro you could crank graphics to the max and it would look Superior to the XBox or Playstation 2 which practically had FX5200 graphics...

Gran Turismo on the other hand felt stiff and clunky to me, not the way true Vehicles Handled.

 

[ARF]

Yes and I have a preference for presentation - as photo-realistic as natural as possible as were the Far Cry back in 2004 and Crysis between 2007 and 2013.
Since then, everything is very bad and Minecraft (2011) for example is the most stupid presentation ever.

Insult to the human intelligence!

 

[Dristun]

I'd say the overall presentation matters: if a game has all the bells and whistles but animation is crap and there's no style then no amount of RT is going to save it visually.
I might ruffle some feathers but out of the upcoming AAA games to me Starfield looks like the biggest offender in this regard - textures and lighting are there but characters talk and move like they always did in Bethesda games (crap), shooting looks like it's from a bargain bin PS2 shooter and it's just bland sci-fi all around. It might still be extremely fun to play though!
At the end of the day I guess it doesn't really matter (I'm still playing Doom 2 multiplayer every week) but it's cool if the developer can afford to make it stunning both on artistic and technical level.