How much of your gaming enjoyment comes from graphical fidelity?

[Jacky60]

I find a huge amount of my enjoyment comes from graphical fidelity. Gameplay is most important but wandering around a beautifully rendered world is almost as good. I was initially disappointed in Fallout 4's graphics which seem flat an dated for 2015 (especially the interiors) but star wars Battlefront looks amazing so far.
When I first visited Rio de Janeiro I looked outside the hotel in the morning and exclaimed to myself in wonder that it 'looked like Crysis'!
It's a bit like beautiful women, when you've been with one or two you realise that they're fun to have around just to look at. A lot of my friends however don't care what women look like as long as they can make out that they're female.
I also think being able to afford a high end rig makes a difference, you can't appreciate what you've never had or experienced and you certainly can't miss it.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Both

Though I will say I find graphics technology fascinating, so I do put alot of focus on learning about it. There are some good examples of great games with poor graphics and art like Mount & Blade. However, if the market was all of a sudden flooded with M&B clones, graphics would end up being a deciding factor for gamers, and chances are the team with the budget to make pretty pictures probably has the budget to develop better gameplay too. It must also be noted that PC gamers can make better graphics a reality via mods which can fix visual issues or even improve visuals to beyond expectations.

 

[boozzer]

I find a huge amount of my enjoyment comes from graphical fidelity. Gameplay is most important but wandering around a beautifully rendered world is almost as good. I was initially disappointed in Fallout 4's graphics which seem flat an dated for 2015 (especially the interiors) but star wars Battlefront looks amazing so far.
When I first visited Rio de Janeiro I looked outside the hotel in the morning and exclaimed to myself in wonder that it 'looked like Crysis'!
It's a bit like beautiful women, when you've been with one or two you realise that they're fun to have around just to look at. A lot of my friends however don't care what women look like as long as they can make out that they're female.
I also think being able to afford a high end rig makes a difference, you can't appreciate what you've never had or experienced and you certainly can't miss it.

I know a guy who bought skyrim just to explore in. his gameplay is 90% just him walking or riding a horse around. For people like him, graphics would be 100% in that type of games.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Big time DOTA 2 player here so gameplay is very very important for me

...but also big time Project Cars player here so visuals are also very important

 

[4K_shmoorK]

I'd say it's gameplay, but every year, going back and playing my old favorites is a little more painful. So I guess I'm a sucker for eye candy.

Same here. Tried to go back and play New Vegas a couple months back.

Could. Not. Do it.

Though older strategy games (Galactic Civ II, SW: Galactic BG, AoE: II) I can play no problem.

However, the Crysis games are a series I could NEVER get into. I just can't do it. Their is so little to keep you interested in these games besides the obvious graphics. Story is terrible and gameplay is ok but everyone had played at least 5 campaign based shooters by the time Crysis 1 came out. The concept of single-player shooters is so bland to me.

 

[Dribble]

Gameplay is always much more important. Graphics wise I much prefer high fps over fancy details too.

 

[railven]

As someone who's been enjoying consoles for ages, I'd rate graphics pretty low on the totem pole.

I still play tons of Handheld games and they aren't pretty by any means of the imagination. I personally feel it takes a good script/character development to create immersion. At no point regardless how beautiful a game is do I sit there and say "wow, this looks almost real." Perhaps when VR is the standard and we are actually immersed by sound and video.

Right now, if a character is developed well and the story is engaging, a character's polygon-death is more jarring that the blur effects lathered on today's "OMG GRAPHICS!"

For example: Ryse was terrible. Repetitive gameplay, boring combo system (boring by comparative to faster brawlers such as DMC/Bayonetta), and one hell of a godawful story. But it sure was pretty both on XBone and PC (yes I double dipped). Actually, I'd say the same about Crysis 1 through 3. Bland shooters with a sci-fi script pulled out of Cameron/Ridley's ass but at least it was pretty.




Using the controversial topic of Fallout 4. So far the game feels meh, but the fact that I'm traversing a destroyed down Boston/Massachusetts is freaking awesome. I'm engaged by landmarks and similar appearing streets I know. That to me trumps graphics and the so-so story line thus far.



TL;DR:
Story >= Gameplay > Soundtrack >= Graphics

 

[Charlie98]

I'm not necessarily a big gamer, but the titles I play, which are primarily FPS and flight sims... I want the best graphics available.

 

[Goatsecks]

For me pretty graphics do not increase a game's replay value.

If I want to be visually stunned I will eat some magic mushrooms and go look at stuff, IRL.

 

[mohit9206]

Not much.My only priorities are story and gameplay.I don't mind playing AAA games on medium or even low settings if my PC cannot handle higher settings.In fact i can hardly notice the difference between Medium vs High vs Very High vs Ultra in most games.

 

[railven]

Not much.My only priorities are story and gameplay.I don't mind playing AAA games on medium or even low settings if my PC cannot handle higher settings.In fact i can hardly notice the difference between Medium vs High vs Very High vs Ultra in most games.

Why I said in the FO4 thread, Ultra seems to just be the e-peen setting. Often I turn down shadows from "Ultra" to Very High because the difference isn't sometimes as noticeable.

Two recent examples:
FFXIII/FXIII-2 - it has an option for 8K shadows, outside of tanking my performance, they didn't look that much better than 4K.

I just started re-playing SW:TOR and I notice it now has support for 3K shadows, same deal, tanked my performance. I see a minimal difference in cutscenes versus 2K shadows, but frankly not enough in actual gameplay to warrant the performance hit.
EDIT: And at least for SW:TOR it seems the shadows option is applied selectively. I had a few cutscenes where the shadows were awesome (you can see crevices in the character's faces), and then another cutscenes where the shadows were basically 8bit cut outs.

 

[Teizo]

Game play is definitely important, but without graphics it won't captivate me enough to keep my interest.

 

[Teizo]

Not much.My only priorities are story and gameplay.I don't mind playing AAA games on medium or even low settings if my PC cannot handle higher settings.In fact i can hardly notice the difference between Medium vs High vs Very High vs Ultra in most games.

Here is the caveat though. The settings don't matter as much per se as long as the image quality is good. Most games these days look OK even on low settings. I'm not sure what low settings are equal to, but I imagine they are the equivalent of DX 9 shaders which still looks decent though you don't have the tessellation of DX11 and some of the higher soft shadows, but the shading in DX 9 was still decent enough to give good IQ.

 

[tential]

Why I said in the FO4 thread, Ultra seems to just be the e-peen setting. Often I turn down shadows from "Ultra" to Very High because the difference isn't sometimes as noticeable.

Two recent examples:
FFXIII/FXIII-2 - it has an option for 8K shadows, outside of tanking my performance, they didn't look that much better than 4K.

I just started re-playing SW:TOR and I notice it now has support for 3K shadows, same deal, tanked my performance. I see a minimal difference in cutscenes versus 2K shadows, but frankly not enough in actual gameplay to warrant the performance hit.
EDIT: And at least for SW:TOR it seems the shadows option is applied selectively. I had a few cutscenes where the shadows were awesome (you can see crevices in the character's faces), and then another cutscenes where the shadows were basically 8bit cut outs.

Shadows is one setting though. Sure, you shouldn't just turn up every setting to max without thinking.
If a setting yields no iq boost then no reason to enable.
My issue is when the maximum quality of the game is poor. Even unoptimized games pretty you can play through later and enable more settings if you have a faster gpu later.
You can't fix a game with poor textures and there is just no reason to have poor textures in 2015 in a triple a game.

I turn down shadows in most games because I don't see the difference between ultra and the setting below.
But there is no time I'll actively seek out a game with fallout 4 texture quality in 2015-2016. I expect better textures though. I'm not sure whether it was nvidia who decided that now might be a good time to use a slider rather than off/on settings for gameworks, but at least the lighting does well if you leave it on low.

For me the most important portion of graphics that most big games keep messing up is texture quality is usually too low. You see a lot of texture projects to fix the textures o games and make them "hi def".

I guess those of us with vram to use high res texture packs don't matter enough for triple a studios. I hope Witcher 3 gets a high res update and fallout 4. Both are games I want to play, I just prefer the high res texture packs, especially for fallout 4. Witcher 3 I'll probably play sometime next year in hopefully 4k pegged at 60 fps.

 

[Zanovar]

For me pretty graphics do not increase a game's replay value.

If I want to be visually stunned I will eat some magic mushrooms and go look at stuff, IRL.

Hahah.100+.lovely sights*winks*

 

[Concillian]

Whereas a game like The Witcher III relies on those detailed 3D world assets to immerse the player and often picking out small details in those environments (blood pools, scratches, footprints, interactables, etc) is critical to gameplay. If it looked like 3D renders from 2001 it would reasonably affect gameplay in a negative way.

I'd argue that's because the actual gameplay (combat system, etc...) is not very good. I played Witcher 1 & 2 and by the end of 2 I just came to the realization I was only playing in order to finish out the story, that none of the "action" was particularly difficult or fun.

I think this is the point. A game with excellent gameplay doesn't need excellent graphics, only graphics good enough to not distract you from the game.

I usually keep one modern "show-off" game to demo capabilities to friends who aren't into PCs in my library, but the vast majority of my playtime is with less demanding games (in the last two years, mostly Civ, Xcom, Hearthstone, League of Legends, Diablo III, and even some old games like Jagged Alliance 2 and Fallout Tactics). Things like Skyrim with mods is really cool from a technical capability standpoint, but you do not need that level of graphical capability to have a game worth playing, and realistically if I didn't make the money I do to easily afford a good card, I would likely be able to have significant enjoyment from a cheap GPU or possibly even integrated graphics.

 

[railven]

Shadows is one setting though. Sure, you shouldn't just turn up every setting to max without thinking.
If a setting yields no iq boost then no reason to enable.
My issue is when the maximum quality of the game is poor. Even unoptimized games pretty you can play through later and enable more settings if you have a faster gpu later.
You can't fix a game with poor textures and there is just no reason to have poor textures in 2015 in a triple a game.

I turn down shadows in most games because I don't see the difference between ultra and the setting below.
But there is no time I'll actively seek out a game with fallout 4 texture quality in 2015-2016. I expect better textures though. I'm not sure whether it was nvidia who decided that now might be a good time to use a slider rather than off/on settings for gameworks, but at least the lighting does well if you leave it on low.

For me the most important portion of graphics that most big games keep messing up is texture quality is usually too low. You see a lot of texture projects to fix the textures o games and make them "hi def".

I guess those of us with vram to use high res texture packs don't matter enough for triple a studios. I hope Witcher 3 gets a high res update and fallout 4. Both are games I want to play, I just prefer the high res texture packs, especially for fallout 4. Witcher 3 I'll probably play sometime next year in hopefully 4k pegged at 60 fps.

This being my first Fallout game play through, I can't explain why the devs used such lower quality textures, but one thing I know Shadows of Modor was like 40+ GBs while Fallout4 was something like 22+GBs. They clearly went with lower rez textures. That's on them to explain. (The texture quality also isn't THAT bad, most likely because I play a lot of MMOs haha).

There are tons of games that use horrific texture quality, and again - that's on them. I don't know their budget, their art system, or why they chose the texture quality (even for "Ultra") that they did, all I know is for me that is the last thing I sit and stare at. I actually find it if the story and gameplay is not engaging my attention I start to criticize graphics.

I'm pretty sure Fallout4 falls into that category of highly modded game. My play through of Skyrim was years after it came out and I had so many mods to pick from. I don't even know what the base game looks like to be honest haha.

The performance hit from Ultra for Godrays is definitely high. You can run the game on High and not really notice an IQ difference but you will notice better performance. I just trumped that up to the e-peen phenomenon. Sometimes "Ultra" is just there as a "because we can."

 

[Innokentij]

I want it all.

DX11+
Highest possible textures
Superior sounds
Amazing artwork
Tight controlls
No ports but made for PC only like star citizen and crysis 1
Amazing story
Fun!
18+

 

[jihe]

Up to a point graphics matters. After that game play takes over. Civilization 4 is the only game I still play.

 

[Good_fella]

"How much of your gaming enjoyment comes from graphical fidelity?"

Let's say this.

I take Lords of the Fallen over Dark Souls any day.

No man's Sky, Everspace looks better than Star Citizen. (Haven't tried any of them)

Modern looking Trine, Bastion, Ori Minecraft Story Mode gave me more joy than Broforce, Terraria, Minecraft.

 

[TypoFairy©]

Graphics certainly doesn't hurt any but most of the time its more about gameplay/ story line. Lots of older games still kind of blow my mind.
I get serious nostalgia playing old snes/gba games like breath of fire II, chrono trigger , secret of mana 3 good amount of the megaman zero games (yes even .exe)
But even games like "The world Ends with You" are pretty awesome by todays standards.
I'd be happy for a 3ds rerelease of the world ends with you if only for the hope of getting better audio quality since the music is pretty good in that game.
(P.s some pretty good taste in this thread Lunar:ssc was pretty epic you made me want to go and replay this since its been a long time xD)

 

[moonbogg]

Graphics and art style are an important part of my gaming experience. It probably accounts for about 25% of what makes the game good. That might not sound like a high percentage, but if an otherwise good game has crappy graphics, the best it can score in my book is a 75%.

 

[atticus14]

amazing graphics aren't necessary for me to enjoy a game (mount and blade warband) but I do love them and hope everything is beautiful, if not now, than in the sequel. It really adds to my immersion and enjoyment though, I'll start up GTA V sometimes intending to play and end up driving around and just enjoying the view.

 

[tential]

amazing graphics aren't necessary for me to enjoy a game (mount and blade warband) but I do love them and hope everything is beautiful, if not now, than in the sequel. It really adds to my immersion and enjoyment though, I'll start up GTA V sometimes intending to play and end up driving around and just enjoying the view.

I have just been looking over a mountain Ridge or something in the Witcher 2 with the flora mod and it's amazing to just watch sometimes. That's the immersion level I'm talking about. Where you just actually enjoy the world. Without good graphics I usually can't do that. There are exceptions.

It's a balance of graphics and world, but for me in 2015 moving into 2016 I'm not getting excited for subpar graphics. Doesn't mean I won't play the game or enjoy it, but I'll be upset, probably won't purchase at full value (like literally 10 or below) and will look desperately for mods fix the graphics.

Wc3 is the perfect example of a game I love no matter what.

 

[dogen1]

Same here. Tried to go back and play New Vegas a couple months back.

Could. Not. Do it.

Wow, that's surprising.

Even stuff like the original jedi knight from 97 doesn't bother me. As long as the game isn't legitimately ugly, and to me that's usually down to the art, I'm fine with it.