Topic: How Graphically impressive do you want your videogames to be?

I do enjoy pretty graphics, but it's no substitute for good art direction.

I will say that graphics do make a difference. Quality graphics are an important part of making a game a more immersive experience. I'm not talking realistic graphics, less realistic graphics can be downright beautiful, if effort is actually put into them. Like Link's Awakening HD is a really beautiful game visually (although for me, I prefer 3D games over 2D games).

And yes, I am talking graphical fidelity here, not just style. Just look at the difference between LAHD and the Pokemon Diamond/Pearl remakes and that's what I'm talking about. The Pokemon D/P remakes have poor graphics and while I'm sure the game is still great, do I really want to spend $60 for one? What makes it different from Diamond that I already own? Gosh, at least make it look good. But alas, they couldn't even do that.

Wii U was good enough for me.

For console, at least Gamecube graphic level.
For handheld, at least 3DS graphic level.

Eh, I can play just about anything, It doesn't need to be the next gen thing, even tho I do think it has spoiled me a bit.

At least Wii U level of graphics. Almost everybody has a 4K TV now, and anything below 720p looks blurry and bad. Switch looks great on my 4k TV.

Honestly, to me Switch graphics are more than good enough. I'm not even curious what Mario Kart 8 would look like on PS5.
Hence to me the prospect of a Switch Pro isn't very interesting, as long as we get enough Developers like Panic Button who put effort into porting modern 3rd party games.

My main love is Pokemon, I don't think I would be qualified to talk about game graphics.

Regardless, personally I find the Switch to look wonderful when it's not trying to be realistic and gritty (you really feel the pixelisation and awkwardness of the system on games like that, you know?), games like Odyssey, BOTW, Kirby and a bunch of others accomplish this very well.

I want them to look like they were made in the current generation.

It's a strange question, because obviously not every company can produce "graphically impressive" games, nor does every piece of hardware allows for it. Does that mean that by definition I would completely ignore that company or hardware because it will never be able to match my lofty graphical expectations? That's just too narrow minded for me to even comprehend.

I definitely cared more about graphics back when I was a young'un, these days, I couldn't care less.

Depends on the type of game.

For example some of the stuff Naughty Dog puts out blows my mind, but wouldn't be as powerful without the amazing graphics.

Some Nintendo games would be much better if they had at least somewhat current graphics.

IMO

I do care about good graphics. I love modern games for PS5/XSX/PC and how great they look.

But I have no issue with Switch games either, as long as they don't have severe performance issues (some games have technical analysis that shows drops, yet when I play it feels fine, while others feel stuttery, so I can't go just based off of "it has drops", because half the time I notice and half the time I don't, just depends on the game, severity, frequency and things like frame timing and motion blur thar make it less noticeable).

I tend to draw the line at the Wolfenstein 2/Outer Worlds on Switch. Those games were a bit much with blurriness for my liking. Doom Eternal is probably the lowest I'm comfortable with. It's not ideal but you move so fast you don't notice much.

But that's resolution. In terms of graphics, I'm OK with Trails of Cold Steel games and those are pretty basic. I LOVE Triangle Strategy and that's HD-2D. But I tend to not like retro pixel games much. Just doesn't do it for me. Ya, I grew up on them but, times have changed, and I've changed too. I just don't want to play games like that anymore. There are exceptions of course, like Super Mario Bros 3, Mega Man, Super Mario World, Super Metroid, etc. But as a general rule, 8 bit NES and 32 bit PS are no-gos in my book. 16-bit SNES and GBA are title dependent.

If a game is good, I can get into it. And while I do obviously prefer AAA graphics (even AAA Switch graphics like most Nintendo 1st party games offer) I'm not too picky as long as it isn't too blurry and doesn't noticeably stutter.

I want games to be able to blow me away with their visuals. Whatever graphical fidelity is necessary for that, I want it.

That said? Xenoblade Chronicles on Wii managed that. Octopath Traveler managed it. Hollow Knight managed it. Graphical power is less important than how you use it.

If anything, I care about graphics more for playability. I want my games to run well without hitching, and more powerful systems allow for more types of games to manage that.

I don't know if it's graphics or just art direction, but I love it when a world is visually stunning or imaginative. Games like Hollowknight, which might not be graphically impressive, still ends up blowing me away with the atmosphere in which it creates for itself. Elden Ring, from what I've seen, manages to do a world that is artistically stunning without having massive leaps in graphical fidelity. Xenoblade 3, from the one trailer we have of the game, already seems to be really interesting world-design wise and art-style wise, so I feel like it's atmosphere will probably end up blowing me away, given the first two games did especially.

Art style and Art Direction matters more than graphics in my eyes. A game could be using an old engine, or could end up looking a bit crusty, but as long as I can feel it's atmosphere through excellent design and art direction, then the graphics themselves don't really matter to me.

Well ori And the will of the wisps is one of the best looking games I have ever played. So art style over graphics.

I want my games to look like the generation the developers aimed for.

If the devs aim for a N64 looking game it should look like that. Same with NES style pixel art or modern realistic games.

I have no problem with any graphics as long as I like the narrative and the gameplay.

Framerate > gameplay > story > art style > graphics.

I grew up with the Atari 2600. When games looked like butt and most didn't have a story. Back then your only objective was to beat your own high score. Pretty graphics are nice to have. But it isn't the be-all-end-all. Then you have visual novels where there's no gameplay to speak of, just walls of text, but the art style can make or break those experiences.