Graphics don't matter to me, All I care about is the gameplay and how smooth the game runs.

If you've got a good game with bad graphics, it's still a good game. If you've got a bad game with good graphics, well, it's a bad game. While I think graphics are important for better immersion in a game, gameplay and content is where it's at. I voted yes because graphics are part of what makes a game good, just definitely not all of it.

Yes I expect the graphic of the game to be up to date with currnet technology,It does not need to be mind blowingly good like some games.

Thanks Tannin

Also, great post as well. It's a shame not everyone realizes that I'm all for gameplay and strong story telling, while still appreciating and understanding the benefits that come from incorporating the visual capabilities of the time. Progress never halts, and to even tread against the current in this day and age is fairly close-minded. The next generation of gamers in the near future whose first console may well be a PS4 or what have you, will not understand why we even played games like Daggerfall or Zelda or Pong, and will rely on equally impressive story telling methods and incredibly advanced visuals, audio, etc. in order to stay immersed within the given atmosphere. It is the inevitable progress of technology, and I am absolutely all for it.

graphics = video

gameplay = game

graphics + gameplay = video game

Yes, from an objective view, they are important to video games. I don't think they're the number one priority, but it's pretty high up there. The situation doesn't have to be about one thing or the other and more advanced graphics generally signal more advanced engine capabilities, hence more advanced gameplay, anyway. They're separate things, of course, but where's there's good graphics, the potential for better gameplay is greater.

I agree completely, no one likes playing a monotonous, boring game! Anyone who is in favour of cutting edge graphics agree who've posted here. But if it is reasonably below the current status of visual capability, will it be received as well as it could have been if the developers also took the time to make it just as visually immersive?

That is my point.

crysis 2 and consoles don't really mix, 90% of the game was look at me look at the graphics their so shiny and pretty.
From what i've seen crysis 2 will not look much better than crysis and on consoles will look worse than the first one, just look at the draw distances, as-well as the distant terrain.
Hopefully the pc wont be held back by console graphics, ui and mainly age.
The ps3 and 360 are four of five generations out of date.

Why is everything i'm writing sound flameish lately, it must be the heat it's 36c here at 80% humidity.

Yes and no

To be successful in today's gaming world where you are competing with other companies that do place a focus on graphics as well as storyline and gameplay then yes graphics are a key component in making a successful video game. It is in that sense that yes graphics do matter.

I also feel that graphics shouldn't just be scenery and we shouldn't be necessarily be bickering about whether or not they added dynamic shadows. Another key component to creating a realistic world is realistic people and so far I haven't seen a Bethesda game that has done this. Thus far the dialogue that NPC's have are fairly monotone and feel as though you're having independent clauses with NPC's rather than a conversation. This to me is far more immersion breaking than if the game had text dialogue and bad graphics. I don't just want 3D people I want 3D personalities as well.

Graphics to me are nice to have and if I can get a game with the whole package (graphics, story, gameplay, interesting characters) then that would be great.

Unfortunately you don't always get the whole package and sometimes you get a great storyline with terrible graphics and sometimes you get an amazing looking game with a terrible story. It's all about what you can and can't tolerate a game to have as a strength. I personally prefer a strong storyline with interesting characters instead of graphics and tend to gravitate towards that side of the argument.

sometimes they do. It really depends on the game.

Thank you! Couldn't have said it better! I can't believe all the people that say "I don't care at all about graphics", or "geez, just use your imagination". If you want to use your imagination so much, why even play a game that someone ELSE designed? Why not just pretend to play out the whole thing in your head? The video part plays a pretty big role in video games, and that is where the graphics come in. When I am exploring a game's environment, I am much more immersed and pulled in when I the surroundings are beautiful and feel real. It is easier for me to identify with a character when they have a realistic face and show emotion, as opposed to the character being a white block with scrolling text. Same thing goes for sound.

Although graphics do take a back seat to gameplay, to say they don't matter at all is ridiculous. I am currently playing through Two Worlds 2, and that game is a train wreck. I will probably force myself to play through it, but damn if it isn't ugly with some terrible sound. The gameplay itself isn't terrible, but the visuals and sound and so bad that it is ruining the experience for me. It just makes me look forward to Skyrim that much more....

Graphics are actually a big part of my gaming. They make me feel in the game, or "immersed". I don't think Skyrim would be as enjoyable as it could be if it had Oblivion graphics, regardless, it'd still be a good game, and i'd still be dissapointed, though a bit dissapointed.

But, if they haven't improved graphics in 5 years with a new engine, then I don't know what's going on over there. Too many office parties?

But the graphics already look great from what we've seen. I have hope.

I voted 'other' because there was no I don't care option. In other words, if the game svcks, but has good graphics, it isn't a good game.Vice Versa is true too. An example of the first was Crackdown (the first one as I haven't and have no notion to play the second.). Sure, it had pretty cel-shaded graphics, but does that make it any less repetitive? No. It would still be boring no matter what graphics style they chose. An example of the latter is Minecraft. For any that don't know what Minecraft is, it is a game about construction among other things and it has very blocky, unrendered blocks, (Aren't all blocks blocky?) yet it is still very addicting and fun. I view graphics as the cherry on top of the ice cream, not the ice cream itself.

Oh Snap!

Minecraft > Crysis 2,or 3 or 5.

Graphics, to me, matter to a point. If a game had awesome gameplay and just mediocre graphics, I'd be okay with that.

But I think the biggest issue is that PC players want what their machines are capable of, because the technology is out there to provide awesome graphics and graphic effects that just get you immersed that much more in the game world. So, yeah, they do matter, but they certainly don't make the game. Though if you're capable of doing better, you should. Laziness is pretty hard to pull off in the entertainment business.

Luckily good graphics and good gameplay aren't mutually exclusive.

Of course graphics matter, meshes, textures, and decals are an important part of the game. If rain falls through rooftops that are so bright due to everblooming, while the textures look like a single color, then it ruins much of the "awe" experience of the moment. The real question i think is, soul graphical proficiency come above other maters? Then my answer would be no, i think storytelling, animations, bug fixes, item count, and NPC involvement all mater just as much-if not more than graphics. Morrowind is still a very beautiful game when it comes to atmospheric and landscaping screenshots, sun rises still make me look on it in awe. Oblivion is still an extremely beautiful game, and i'm always blown away by the attention to detail and quality of the graphics. However graphics do not generally age gracefully, while bug fixes and personal involvement are timeless aspects of the game that do not diminish with age.

On the long list of things people should care about concerning what makes a game great, I think graphics should be at the very bottom or close to it.

I'm not going to read through this whole thread, but I voted yes.

Also, in life it's best to remember that an answer can be one, or a combination of these, when faced with a choice or question: Sometimes, both, neither. It's amazing to think of how many problems could be solved peacefully if people were to remember those three words as being possible responses, alternatives to what they are presented with.

Again, I'm not going to read this whole thread but I did read most of the OP, and I agree with his point about there being nothing wrong with wanting both good gameplay and graphics.

Graphics do indeed matter. But are they required to make a good game? No, I don't think so. Morrowinds graphics aren't stellar by any means, but it's my favorite game of all time.
I think that graphics add a level of immersion to a game, and that in itself is important. But it's not required to make the game worth buying.

They were stellar upon release, however...

I'm having a hard time to enjoy Morrowind on PC, partly because I hate mouse and keyboard combination, but mostly due to the crazy bad/dark graphics.

And it is now 2011, not 2002.

I do think that having good graphics is important to an extent (I voted yes) as the level of detail that can be created in backgrounds and characters will only add depth to the game. That being said graphics are not the be all and end all of a game, I will be happy as long as the game play is good and that graphics do not take away from important immersion, and playability.
To be honest I am looking forward to seeing what Beth has done, I loved MW graphics and yes even oblivions. Scenery has always been something I have loved to marvel over.

I've said it before, and I've said it again, so I may as well say it all over.

Video Games are an (almost) entirely visual medium. Graphics are incredibly important, gameplay boils down to decoding what the graphics are telling you and pressing buttons in order to see the graphical result. Graphics matter, a lot.
Good graphics, that is - nobody's saying that throwing shaders at the game until it falls over makes for good graphics, nor is anybody saying that graphical quality is relative to how much processing power you throw at it (Of course, having more to work with helps)

I liked Crysis. That had good graphics. I liked Oblivion, that had impressive (not good) graphics. I liked nethack, that barely has graphics. Elite? Fantastic. The X series? One of my favourite series' of all time - it's like elite except you can see where you're going.

Oblivion's graphics weren't great. The textures were low resolution (And yes, that matters - more detail in the scene gives you more to work with), the models and animations were a joke, shadows looked nice when they were there, which wasn't often.
Yes, they were impressive. Looking out onto distant lands looked great - getting to where you were looking? Less so, especially given that middle ground where LOD went away but the object didn't yet appear. I'm sure skyrim will be fun regardless of what it ships with - but better graphics let you get more out of the scene, and the game.

I think graphics are important for a game but it doesn't MAKE a game. You can have the best animation, model, shaders and effects and still just an average game when other aspects are of minor quality or missing completely. Far Cry 2 is a good example how NOT to develop a game. Looking beautiful, but with an awful storyline and boring gameplay.