Reading the title, your first immediate answer is "absolutely", but...
...how much of this is hindsight?
Now I'm not referring to the simple fact that this is true. Of course gameplay is the most important factor. But what exactly aids you in your game buying decisions?
What is the measure to this? Any and all tout that gameplay is more important, but how do we know they're truly great games? Graphics help gauge production quality, so its an easier leap to accepting that professionals made the game, therefore there's a greater chance that this involved professional designers. Now understand what this means...not that the better graphics mean the game WILL have substance, only that it was clearly done with some level of professional quality. Its a rare game thats given critical acclaim that had less than stellar graphics but phenominal gameplay.
Its alongside the same concept of price. When you're shopping, and you come across that wall of $10 'software', such as in Best Buy, you know what to expect from them. There is perceived value in a product that costs more. Its marketing 101. Over-pricing a product can and does spur the perception this product is exceptional...I mean how else can they ask so much!?
Poor graphics immediately indicates poor quality. This of course isn't always the case, but there are far more shitty indie or casual games than there are good. These are small affairs, where the developers wear many hats, most of which they aren't even remotely qualified for. Most developers worth anything take up space at a studio, never contributing to an indie product. So what you're left with are the entrepreneurs that have the amibition, the ideas, but less the talent.
So, is this merely an indication that gamers such as ourselves are simply not interested in 'hearing' about the graphics in the bulleted feature list? I think so. We only care about gameplay features and get an idea immediately about the graphics from screens, so why DO we need to also read about it? Well there's a good chance that product doesn't have anything else to say about itself. Fine.
How many times have you passed on an ugly game though, perhaps by chance later to find out it was pretty good or even excellent? What was it that encouraged you to play? Whatever the case, you still judged it initially by its looks, perhaps assuming that if it looks trashy, how could any real attention to quality be paid to the gameplay.
Point is we try too hard to dismiss graphics as being significant, when really this is completely untrue. Great graphics most certainly will attract any and all, but that many times it seems that is all there is to the product. On the flip side, poor graphics actually hurts a product from 'gaining' the attention of any and all gamers to get them to give the game a shot. Its human nature to be attracted to what is appealing and of perceived value. Great if you're one of those that support an indie product and dont use graphics as your litmus test, but there are very few people with THAT open a mind.
Is there a fine line? Is there a balance? Are there graphics that are "good enough" or do they HAVE to be of the two extremes (shitty vs. unbelieveable)?
Cheers
...how much of this is hindsight?
Now I'm not referring to the simple fact that this is true. Of course gameplay is the most important factor. But what exactly aids you in your game buying decisions?
- Are there certain features you look for?
- Are you suspicious of games with incredible graphics?
- Are you leery of the production quality of the gameplay, of a game that has "terrible" graphics?
What is the measure to this? Any and all tout that gameplay is more important, but how do we know they're truly great games? Graphics help gauge production quality, so its an easier leap to accepting that professionals made the game, therefore there's a greater chance that this involved professional designers. Now understand what this means...not that the better graphics mean the game WILL have substance, only that it was clearly done with some level of professional quality. Its a rare game thats given critical acclaim that had less than stellar graphics but phenominal gameplay.
Its alongside the same concept of price. When you're shopping, and you come across that wall of $10 'software', such as in Best Buy, you know what to expect from them. There is perceived value in a product that costs more. Its marketing 101. Over-pricing a product can and does spur the perception this product is exceptional...I mean how else can they ask so much!?
Poor graphics immediately indicates poor quality. This of course isn't always the case, but there are far more shitty indie or casual games than there are good. These are small affairs, where the developers wear many hats, most of which they aren't even remotely qualified for. Most developers worth anything take up space at a studio, never contributing to an indie product. So what you're left with are the entrepreneurs that have the amibition, the ideas, but less the talent.
So, is this merely an indication that gamers such as ourselves are simply not interested in 'hearing' about the graphics in the bulleted feature list? I think so. We only care about gameplay features and get an idea immediately about the graphics from screens, so why DO we need to also read about it? Well there's a good chance that product doesn't have anything else to say about itself. Fine.
How many times have you passed on an ugly game though, perhaps by chance later to find out it was pretty good or even excellent? What was it that encouraged you to play? Whatever the case, you still judged it initially by its looks, perhaps assuming that if it looks trashy, how could any real attention to quality be paid to the gameplay.
Point is we try too hard to dismiss graphics as being significant, when really this is completely untrue. Great graphics most certainly will attract any and all, but that many times it seems that is all there is to the product. On the flip side, poor graphics actually hurts a product from 'gaining' the attention of any and all gamers to get them to give the game a shot. Its human nature to be attracted to what is appealing and of perceived value. Great if you're one of those that support an indie product and dont use graphics as your litmus test, but there are very few people with THAT open a mind.
Is there a fine line? Is there a balance? Are there graphics that are "good enough" or do they HAVE to be of the two extremes (shitty vs. unbelieveable)?
Cheers