I think as long as a game doesn't look bad and has good gameplay, graphics really aren't important.

For instance DS games don't have great graphics but they're certainly not bad and they don't ruin the experience which means games are judged by their gameplay, story etc. instead of by graphics first and the other stuff second.

i 100% agree i dont want care about graphics as long as the gameplay is good then im in but most games tend to sell by there looks ie far cry 2 looks great but gameplay is boring

They dont do Ps3 vs 360 comparisons to show you the art styles. Geese Ps3 versions of a game that had 1 little jaggy more have been bashed by the media.. Proof Everywhere!

1 billion games played wasn't achieved because of graphics.

Story > Gameplay > Art Design > Graphics

I'd rather play a good game with solid gameplay & a great story with decent graphics vs. great graphics with mediocre gameplay & story.

Graphics are just the icing. If you dont have the Cake to go with it, then you dont have much.

My opinion is that people want more realism to try to draw in lesser and lesser hardcore gamers.

Since it looks 'real' you're not going to have to bridge that gap where suspenion of disbelief is used.

Kind of the polar opposite to having overly simplified stuff.

What i'd like to see is hyper-detailed, not hyper-realistic.

We've heard this 10000 times.

make a damn downloadable game if it depended on our lives. LOL

BTW: Afro samaurai is awesome.

Graphics are SUPER IMPORTANT!

Not the most important factor, but an important factor nonetheless.

we all know graphics is only part of what makes gaming fun.anyone that says that they don't like graphics is LYING TO THEMSELVES.

but the thing is,gaming is going where we always wanted it to go.

1)how many times have you played a "war" game but there was only limited amount of players in combat?PCs lead in this by having 16vs16,32vs32 and so on.and ps3 is also going in this direction with 20vs20,30vs30 and soon,256 players in a conflict.but you can't tell me a conflict consists of 4vs4 or 5vs5.or in halo3's case 8vs8.

the games still might be fun with less players,but it's telling me the engine can't handle more players or the system can't handle more at that graphics level.

2)how many times have you played a game that was a open world city and there was no one around in it?or,most of the city was blocked off with cars,containers and other crap to keep you from venturing out?

more graphics means more is on the screen.you have the illusion that it IS a bustling city full of people like gta or shenmue.even games like crazy taxi showed that there were people still communting while you were causing mayhem getting people from point A to B.

3)how many times have you shot a wall,shot a tree,shot someone else before we got better graphics and NOTHING happened?i have a flame thrower,but it burns NOTHING.i have a shot gun,but it can't blow a hole in a door.or shoot off the lock.the new graphics and engines we get give us that.

would you go back and play a nascar game and it only had six cars on the track?would you want to go back to smaller areas?would you rather not see shrapnel fly,smoke bloom,fire expand?

DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS,BUT I WELCOME BETTER GRAPHICS.

the better the game engines become,allows us to have better INTERACTION and the illusion of MORE.sure,we are still limited by even the latest games.even killzone2 limits us on freedom.but the thing is,the areas in killzone2 are much BIGGER than what we had in last gen's halo.or killzone1.or black even though that game had some pretty good explosions.

sony leads the way in this quest.

MORE OBJECTS
MORE INTERACTION
BIGGER LEVELS
BETTER LIGHTING
BETTER PHYSICS
BETTER ANIMATION

don't want it,go back and play cutesy mario games all day if you want.they are fun.but i'd rather have more.i've grown beyond limited games.and companies like sony are charging forward.

it's like watching akira or spriggan with all that animation and explosions or watching scooby doo and seeing the the mystery van driving by the same objects over and over.

i know what **I** want.

apocalypse..................

One word sums up this article.

Art Style.

Gamers are looking for better art style, rather than realistic graphics.

Very good read! Everyone should read this article.

*points at Valkyrie Chronicles*

I Love Canvas Art Style.

Graphics become important, only after the gameplay mechanics are mastered enough to a degree.

For example, original half-life did not look as good as quake 3 of its time, however sold more, and critically liked much better. Since it produced much better experience.

If ultra realistic graphics were all that were important we would have never had games like Okami, Valkyria Chronicles and No More Hero's. Art style wins over graphics any day. Look at the Persona games. They don't have very impressive graphics engines however they do perfectly convey the art style and because of that they look great.

until you play the game or you read a review that they played the review. You can't make a game work just on graphics, if that were the case people would love walking around in home, ohhhh sorry, (I know Home isn't a game just making funny discussion) lol.

Graphics need only be so good that they don't bring you out of the game, and into the real world. For example, twice today I was pulled out of the joy of Killzone 2:
1. I hit a save point, and it lagged for 3 secs. Boom, I realized where I was.
2. I noticed that templar's shirt rippled in a really odd way, and it pulled me out.

As gamers, we want immersion, not graphics. It's just that graphics normally play a large part in our immersion.

"What makes a game fun?" Graphics, sound, or gameplay? Graphics is fun for the eyes. Sound is fun for the ears. Gameplay is fun for everything else on our bodies, whether it'd be emotionally, mentally, or physically(in terms of controls). The "fun" factor in gameplay is overwhelming!

It all depends on what the game goes for. If it goes for realism, there's no problem in it looking realistic, Crysis showed that realistic environments can look beautiful.

"what were going for is stylised realism, if all games look 'real' they all start to look the same", in reference to the fact that they wanted a unique art style that was believable but not necessarily like real life, and frankly i can't wait to see what crakin' on tatooine

True points... but in the end "everybody" want the best of everything, especially with gaming is graphics along with the best possible way to make anyone "relate" to every game experience.

Which is why the complaints/arguments/haters amongst gamers' are going to continue unless graphics has reached hyper-realistic proportions...

... the feel of every game is always going to be based on life experience but getting the graphics to match or even outdo "the feel" will be on the computers/developers hands and their ability to quickly advance.

art style, graphics & gameplay , I want it all!!!
I didnt buy a fckn HDTV to be fckn around with bullsh1T halo graphics !

Get a goddam clue, hyper realism in 1080p, yes please!

lair does look really good for a launch game but I just stopped playing it because I lost the incentive to because of its repetitiveness. I hope they make a more fluid, open world lair with hundreds of combat moves.
Oh and it has to be online!

Speaking of a game that needs to be online: colony wars.
if you played it on ps2 then you know!

I think the players are way too demanding these days. they expect a game to be uber realistic and expect it to be done yesterday.

It's true, we are too graphics obsessed, but hey, the graphics are the icing on the cake. A game with realistic graphics will immerse you in the experience more, so they are important.

Style does make a difference too. If Mario looked like a real human, it wouldn't be the same. Speaking of art style, the game with the coolest art style released in the past year or two is definitely Braid.

Graphix should, and always rank # 10 on the list, like the icing, on a cake. When I was growing up, I never complained about them, unless a company toted, their game to look the best. This why I love strategy guides, because, you can be in awe, about the character design, by the artists concept, but the translation a lot of times, is not conveyed correctly. Graphix never showed me a character, performing a cool technique, but it sure can heighten its intensity.

I am by no means a graphics whore, I just like what I like, and like all you guys, no-one can tell you any different.

I feel your plee, that is true, if we are forced to get, these High End devices, to play the games, and sound at optimal quality, make us feel like our $, was well spent on that studio's project.

@Kewl- Luv the K avatar, kudos my friend.

will always be a selling point that works ...

The thing is you can have a game with great graphics and a crappy story line and game play that's why i will always by game based on the story line and the game play graphics do not play a big part for me that's why i still love Final fantasy 7, Aludra and so on.

Confused said the gameplay in Killzone 2 is great... good one! That was sarcastic I hope... the graphics are great but the gameplay is real bad.

and video games is getting smaller by the day. ESP if you have an HDTV.

Is even more important that realistic graphics. Case in point, Street FIghter 4. It takes an awesome direction in art and looks really good graphically, but not at all realistic (except maybe the backgrounds in some cases) since the characters are like hyper sized comic bbook looking but, its hard to find a more beautiful game. Hell, I think the stylized visuals in SF4 are far superior then the "realistic" looking world of KZ2. Why you ask? Well, if I want to see super realistic war, Ill turn on CNN where you can see it every day.

Tell me again how the multiplatform strategy was supposed to fix everything. Look at your results and compare them to Nintendo, which keeps thriving with exclusives. Your loyal fans are gone. And let’s not forget the pile of IPs you purchased only to let them rot.

The worst thing is this is down from last years numbers/expectations which was down from the previous years numbers/expectations. You think about how long “down” has been a consistent part of the communication and you realize those subscriptions are what’s holding that boat together. The price cut of gamespass is still a price raise in a string of price raises. They are trying to use players to offset the missing revenue. Now call of duty is out of gamespass, which is literally WHY they bought the company. To draw people to the subscription. They realized they missed a boatload of money and that wasn’t sustainable. Now you pay for it like you would have if they never bought the company… so why buy the company? Mind you those billions still need to be paid back. Yeah it gives you a chance to say we make the biggest FPS… but the internal conversations must be brutal at high level on topics that really matter. Like revenue. Profitability. And ROI for the shopping spree.

Is this like the 10th quarter in a row they're down 33% on hardware how is that even mathematically possible. You would think their mediocrity would Plateau