Poll: Graphics or Fun?

Ok, it seems nowadays that programmers think the point of games nowadays is just to have really good graphics. Well, this is my question: which do you prefer- amazing graphics or really fun?
Personally, i really prefer the fun aspect. I wouldn't mind if the graphics on Pokemon were the same as the original GB, but the game is good.

 

I think It has to be between the two. I can't enjoy a game with snes graphics, when you see a game like crysis before you.
I also think its depends on the time. Parties with lots of friends = fun games, single player racers or shooters = incredible graphics.

 

Fun.
I can play a game with 8-bit graphics (like Cave Story!) but there's also UI and the, uh, flow. So I tend not to.

 

Its kinda in the middle with me. I can play games with retro 2d graphics like Cave Story and such, but if its a 3D game, and the graphics are shit, then I find it hard to play the game. If that makes any sense.

 

Fun and story. And sometimes art style. *Looks at okami, wind waker and kirby's epic yarn*

 

Graphics, I don't play games for fun. I want to shoot someone in the head with [generic FPS assault rifle] on [generic FPS] in high definition.

 

I agree with this. FFVII comes to mind.

 

Like, its hard to take the game seriously/have fun with it when the graphics look like they were really half-assed or something.

 

I agree with this too.

 

Spoiler

FUN

What are you with a good looking but boring game?

 

Fun; I've had loads of fun with games on NES and PSX. Good ol' megaman, crash & spyro...

 

I prefer aesthetic and fun.

People confuse a good aesthetic and good graphics.

 

Inbetween...

Games like the old 8bit megaman should stay 8bit. Anything higher should never be made. Games like COD shouldn't have bad graphics, aiming at someone who looks very very blocky wouldn't be easy.

 

but what are you with a fun game with shit/laggy/buggy graphics?

 

aimed at me or someone else?

 

that's my pc running minecraft....... (don't get me wrong I love minecraft).

 

People confuse good graphics and art style all the time.

 

What difference does it make if the art style is unique but the graphics are still rushed/ugly in comparison to what else there is? Like say... Playing Okami on Wii or PS2 or whatever, but it has N64 graphics.

 

I prefer fun but i like good graphics as well because, if a game is repetetive It becomes less fun even if the graphics are next gen or not.

 

Wat. I don't think you're getting it.

Aesthetic is when something looks pleasing to the eye. Super Mario Bros 3 is not great graphic technically but it's still a good looking game. Just like Okami (honestly Okami's one of the more aesthetically pleasing games). It's not saying if the art style is unique or not, it's if it's good looking. Minecraft is an aesthetically pleasing game, the art style fits and meshes well with the gameplay. While it's not advanced compared to Crysis but it looks good.

A game with good graphics and a not so great aethetic is Killzone or even Crysis 2.

If the game is pleasing to the eye, then it's fine with me. I'll play the shit out of Megaman and think it looks good, even though the graphics ain't all that. That's the point. It can still be N64 graphics but I won't care if it looks good.