How important are graphics in your opinion?

[SilverMiner]

Depends on how the graphics make eyes hurt and how aesthetically it looks

 

[Scuba Steve]

They're the bees knees.

[LudicrousFPS]

I've always had a potato PC, so pixelated games have grown on me.

[Taw Tu'lki]

I don't care about graphics. For me, playability is more important.

[MrFlibble]

5 hours ago, Taw Tu'lki said:

I don't care about graphics. For me, playability is more important.

That would be true in many cases, but personally, I can't help appreciating good art if it is there. It won't make a good game alone but it can add a lot to a good game.

 

But of course good art may be created with a wide variety of tools and does not necessarily imply top-notch graphics as measured by video card performance.

[Chezza]

Prefer good graphics, but I am prepared to play any simple looking games if the gameplay is solid.

 

Doom is a good example (granted I use modern source ports and mods), and when Minecraft came out, that awful but intriguing looking game took the gaming world by storm for its gameplay and even aesthetics (and accessibility).

 

To be honest, great graphics become dull pretty quickly for most games, making it a more valuable marketing tool than a fun game.

[Eric Claus]

Honestly graphics have evolved so much that I think it comes down to what styles you prefer moreso than "quality"  I still think Quake looks good with modern source ports and it's old as dirt graphically.  I assess more on does it make my eyes bleed, does it have a consistent style, and the longevity of that style.  The more "realistic" games got aged out badly because the graphics aged horribly, whereas games with a good consistent style have done fine because they didn't get "aged" too much.  Weird example but I found the classic WoW graphics to be fine because it didn't have a realistic style and it was a consistent one so nothing looked out of place.