If graphics mattered to me I wouldn't still play everything from Arcade to PS2/Xbox

Well said! Couldn't agree more. :foodndrink:

I like good graphics, but even the best graphics in the world can't make up for bad gameplay or a crappy story. So those two things should be priority.

Yes they matter, but they′re just the tip of the iceberg of a game

Its fairly simple.. up to a certain point graphics matter.. Being able to have a nice sky.. an engaging sunset or sunrise... have snow that looks like snow and not dandruff or static.... have water that looks watery and not like a painting of water...

A woman walking by that looks like a woman and a nice woman at that and not a deformed mutant with leprosy...

Fighting a troll.. not a beanie baby of death...

Boobies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trees that look like trees and not sticks with sticks on sticks covered in green paint and taped on plastic leaves...

grass that doesnt look like astroturf mated with a hedgehog...

ground that looks like ground and not cat barf mixed with graqe nuts...

Graphics matter, in my opinion. These are called "videogames" for a reason. To me, however, they simply matter the least out of all the factors I'm concerned about. But they do matter to the extent that I'm choosing to play videogames rather than text-based games or a PnP RPG.

graphics are absolutely not important to me, unless they are either A: years ahead of their time (crysis) or B: impede the gameplay itself
If a game has super advanced graphics and every view is a terrific vista, I will play it (actually, I'll most likely just look at game play videos, because clearly the main point of the game is how good it looks, and I can get that without actually buying the game) and appreciate the effort and intricacy the devs put into it. Now, if graphics are so BAD that things are hard to discern from one another, then that's when I have a problem with them (the difference between "bad" and "minimalist" needs to be kept in mind, as I am an avid Dwarf Fortress player and don't get bothered at all by the vanilla graphics, especially when matrix vision kicks in), however, you will never see a game come out these days that has graphics that impede the game play, so, frankly, if they aren't fantastic, I wont note or denounce them at all. If a game shows obvious cuts in the graphics department for the sole purpose of saving money, then I have a problem with them unless it's a very deep and great game. I simply won't care for graphics if it's a great game, they would just be a plus if they are there.

I think a lot of immersion has to do with standards. It isn't the quality of the graphics that is so important, but rather the quality of graphics in relation to what we have seen before. It is the improvement that gives us a sense of immediate immersion into the world. This is why I look at Oblivion now through a totally different lens than I did the first time I played the game. The first time I played Oblivion, I was in awe of the graphics, and I think a lot of us were. It never crossed my mind that some of the textures were low res and that grass popped up etc. If I inspected these aspects, I noticed them, but my overall impression was of beauty. Coming back to Oblivion years later, I now notice all the things that never occurred to me before. Oblivion hasn't changed, I have. So graphics do matter! However, it is not the absolute graphical capabilities that influence immersion, but rather their novelty and improvement. I bet a lot of people were just as immersed into Morrowind when it was new. At the time, however, those specific graphical capabilities had a very different effect on the player.

conclusion: Bethesda should try to make the game look substantially better than Oblivion because this improvement is one of the components that lead to immersion.

I do agree with you (mostly) here, along with everyone else toting that game play mechanics and story should receive more refining. Absolutely. But, in light of that, I also believe the graphics should receive just as much attention, in accordance to the current standards of the time. If that means graphics don't get as much attention as the story or game mechanic, so be it, but at least ensure the team is working in a well-rounded manner.

Even though I voted yes, I am perfectly fine with a game that runs on the assets of Morrowind with an updated storyline and setting.

Right in line with what I have been trying to say. Nicely put

Very much so, the thing I love most about Oblivion is without doubt the stunning environment and graphical awesomeness.
Especially when boosted with Mods.

I've grown to expect Skyrim to be better, hopefully a lot better, with less generic and repated environments.
I honestly can't hold back my wish for the most awesome graphical experience any game has yet to offer.
^_^

if the game literaly isnt photo realistic i wont buy it.


/sarcasm



no. gameplay and graphics are developed seperatly

I like physics if the graphics don't have to be awe-inspiring (although I have a feeling they will be!) as long as the physics are nice and solid and we see some Havok destruction, even if it's in small amounts. I'd like to see Havok cloth, and screen effects, like when the rain falls you get droplets forming on the screen. And most important is blood. I want dark fluid decals which stay.

Graphics matters to me, yes. I don't like to choose between graphics and gameplay. There are still plenty of games that have good graphics and poor gameplay or the other way around, but they don't appeal to me any more (in the 90's I played a lot of fantastic games that looked bad, but that was a time when the race for photorealism wasn't even in my dreams, so I had no term of comparison). In other words, there was a time when graphics didn't matter for me, but it's not the case any more.

Other. There's a minimum level of graphics quality that I'm willing to accept for a new game. That was already surpassed with Oblivion. For Skyrim I'm more concerned about having a consistent framerate with as little stuttering and hiccups as possible. Extra points for looking good at the same time. I can't help but roll my eyes every time I hear someone complain about the lack of DX 10/11 support.

Yes, but not as much as most people seem to think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDUcy2IkyQM

@Radiohead: I also think you put it right. Immersion is one of the factors that come from graphics.
Also, how we compare graphics has significant importance. Sometimes I wish that Crysis just never happened. It put too high standards on graphics and make other games look bad =/

In any case, for us to think the graphics look good in Skyrim, there has to be a significant improvement. It may just be my, but I think that especially the lighting and shadows can be tweaked and improved a bit further. The graphics do look good, but not amazing. Oblivion was amazing graphics for its time, for me. And perhaps that's why I'm a little disappointed and expect a bit more.

STILL, there has to be a balance of graphics & gameplay. There are plenty of games out there with outstanding graphics but rather poor gameplay.
Balance... there has to be a balance.

Oblivion DID NOT win any awards for the extremely deep story or flawless gameplay mechanics. It did for the whole package. And what made the package good was extremely beautiful graphics packaging a mediocre storyline and flawed mechanics.

So I agree with the OP that all parts matter, and it is the whole package that contributes to the experience. So I want it all :thumbsup:

PS: I started TES with Oblivion. After playing with it for a while, I heard how MW was so much better, so I picked it up. I installed MGE to try to improve the graphics substantially, but it was still a graphically-lower experience. The combat was painful, and the NPCs were really mannequins. I couldn't play it once I was spoiled by Oblivion (and QTP3 etc.), so yes, a good story will only take you so far.

Yes.

For me, the graphics don't have to be advanced with all the latest shaders and AA and tech. I like graphics that are smooth, polished, and consistent. They can be hand-painted, cell-shaded, sprites, etc as long as they have an artistic beauty, I'm happy.

Things that put me off:
- repetitive textures (that look repetitive and tiled, as opposed to clever seamless textures)
- blotchy/blocky/pixellated textures
- inconsistent texture quality
- poor detail for important objects/actors

I'm sure there are other things that are turn-offs for me, but I can't think of them off the top of my head at the moment.

I also consider the graphical limitations of the platform - for instance, a hand-held console may have less graphical power than a spiffy new high-tech PC desktop. Likewise, I also consider other aspects of the game: budget is limited, so if the devs made other parts of the game super awesome (animations, weapon/armor variety, dialog, dungeons), then I can overlook a few less-than-ideally-detailed textures here and there.

Very good point- now this time around let's let the graphics fall by the wayside and fix all the mistakes Oblivion made by focusing on eye-candy. :thumbsup:

They don't really matter to me, persay.... but it would be odd if they hadn't improved since Oblivion.

That said, it could be Arena graphics for all I care, as long as the gameplay/story is good.

That is not what anyone who is pro-graphics are saying in the least.

I, along with a majority of other people, are simply stating that if the technology exists to heighten the visual standard of a game experience, why not implement it along with the refined game play and great story? All elements within a game matter, be it from sound design, graphics, story, mechanic, UI, animation, voice acting.. it all matters equally and should be addressed as a whole. And quite simply, the visuals we are seeing from Skyrim so far are not all that impressive. Sure, they look great, it will do, but the level of improvement they could implement (that IS available, especially within games of this scope) far surpasses what is being utilized.

Ofcourse graphics matter. They help immersion. But even bad graphics can be overcome with good gameplay/story.

But there's another angle too IMO. If a company wants to make good gameplay/story, they'll also make good graphics. Not necessarily awe inspiring, but good. People forget that most of the classics they still play today did have good graphics when they were out. It's all about attention to details. If I saw a game coming out today with Morrowind's graphics, unless it was from some very small indy company that simply couldn't be expected to do better (like mount and blade), I wouldn't even bother to check it. Because it says something about how much they have taken care of the game. When a company (again this doesn't apply to indys) makes a game with lousy graphics, the I see no reason to believe they'd be any good or any more detailed in other aspects of the game. That said, having played a few generations of games by now, I have no problem enjoying my old favorites, even if they no longer have good graphics.

This was a general comment. Skyrim's graphics look fine to me from the little I've seen. Not crysis level, but a very good level. I'm still used to a time when RPG's were expected to have worse graphics than shooters.

Yes, graphics matter. They don't need to be photo-realistic or cutting-edge, but they are important to immersion.