Topic: How important are quality graphics to you?

Graphics can be a deciding factor in certain situations.
For example, i would much rather have a nice polishes 2d snes or nes title that an early 3d nintendo 64 title. the graphics on orcarina of time for example bug me. a lot. I like it when things look perfect, so non perfect 3d titles bug me.
And waffles are amazing, even without syrup

@RandomWiiPlayer Waffles taste fine without syrup, but they have to have powdered sugar and bananas.
[and by powdered sugar, I mean a good controls, and by bananas, I mean good gameplay.]
EDIT: I just read my comment, and did that make any sense?

Not much.
I was just disagreeing with the comparison. Graphics aren't that important, but waffles suck without syrup.

@RWP: not all waffles suck without syrup. i've had some waffles that were absolutely to die for, no syrup involved. mmm, strawberry... :3

Quality graphics are nice to have. They are not required.

Depends on the game. If it's going for a realistic look, then it should have better graphics then most games. It helps the mood of the game. Look at Modern Warfare 2. If it was running on a Wii, I wouldn't enjoy the game because the graphics would hold the game down. Besides, a game that doesn't have good graphics according to its system usually shows a lack of polish overall, unless it is doing it purposely for a retro look. Even then, it should still be polished and clean.

Define "quality"

^Looks better than Dark Void on the consoles to me

Crysis graphics.
Uncharted 2 graphics

Good graphics maybe. I don't wanna play a game that looks like crap

Very important, but "quality graphics" is not equivalent to high-resolution, high polygon count, etc.

Wii Sports Resort and Wii Fit 2, to name a couple releases that many would likely dismiss, both have wonderful graphics that could scarcely be improved upon by higher technical specs.

I think a lot of people mistake "good graphics" to mean "ultra-realistic/ ultra-detailed" graphics.

I think good graphics are a requirement to have - it's rarely possible to sit though and still enjoy a game with ugly graphics.

However, it's also possible for a game to have minimal or low key graphics and still be "good." For instance - Polarium or any of the art style games, as far as I'm concerned, are brilliant, graphically. Yes, they're very simple, but the ultra-high degree of polish and minimalistic charm makes them every bit as good, graphically, as an Uncharted 2.

Even older games, like Ocarina of Time, while not being technically advanced, feature very polished visuals, with a distinct (and consistent) style running throughout.

So, I guess the best way to think of it is this - a game doesn't need to look like Uncharted 2, no. BUT, graphically, what it does need is polish and a consistent theme and tone throughout, otherwise it's utterly unplayable, in my opinion. Games that don't follow basic rules of aesthetics (and that's what graphics come down to) are an instant failure.

Edit - see above. Wii Sports is the perfect example of a game that uses highly polished and stylised visuals to create a brilliant graphical style that doesn't need to be as detailed as Uncharted 2 to work.

Ditto to everything said by WaltzElf

They're important to me, yeah. I used to hate Zelda ALttP cuz I thought the graphics were a little bland for the GBA and the game was too hard. I've realized that gameplay is a whole lot more important, but its nice to have great gameplay with great visuals.

Make your own definition man. I asked it that way so it painted a picture in your mind to what it means to you. If i got all specific people would be picking it apart, so you tell me.

I'll 3rd Waltz Elf. Dead Space Extraction and No More Heroes wow me with their facial animation and ability to convey emotion which syncs with dialogue. de Blob stuns me with its brilliant visual design and high-quality cinematics. You will never see me use the words "for a Wii game" in a review -- the system isn't limited as far as I'm concerned, the number of lines really isn't relevant to me as long as it looks good.

The Atari 2600 was capable of some amazing graphics -- games like Atlantis and Keystone Kapers still look amazing to me.

So yes, I think quality graphics are important, but my definition of quality varies according to the system.

Since it's not any different from what I said earlier on page 2 I'll of course 4th Waltz Elf.

Even older games, like Ocarina of Time, while not being technically advanced, feature very polished visuals, with a distinct (and consistent) style running throughout.

But Ocarina of Time with graphics the quality of Twilight Princess would look even better. I find 3D games to date quicker than 2D games. I may have been amazed by 3D games fifteen years ago but those same games look terrible these days. Even the best looking 3D game back then looks bad now.

Whereas 2D games have timeless appeal. Donkey Kong '81 still looks fine today. Sure it may be simple but it doesn't look bad bad.

Considering that my earliest days of video gaming involved playing as a square or dot, or in the case of Zork, HHGttG and the other Infocom text-adventure games, no graphics at all, graphics are not very important to me. Yes, ultra-real HD stuff is cool -- i'm always blown away when watching my friend play Modern Warfare, and i do enjoy my 360 games -- but i'm always more concerned about that intangible "gameplay" aspect of a game. As long as the graphics are "good enough" (read: things generally look like what they're supposed to be, and even if the graphics are poor, they don't negatively impact on the actual game play), i'm fine.

EDIT: @Sean:
Good call on Keystone Kapers. I remember when my friend first got the game, we were amazed at how nice the graphics were.

Graphics like in those games are not needed for a game to be good. Those graphics are overrated in my opinion