when I first looked at wow I was like no way I could ever play that the graphics suck! but when I gave it a shot I was hooked due to the depth of the game.  I played never winter nights II because I wanted to try a rpg and it was rated so highly on the internet, at the time I played it, it was several years old and seemed like something my 8 year old would be playing but that game was excellent despite very dated graphics.  It was so immersive that after a very short time I didn't even notice the visual deficiencies.

So the long and short of it is that the good game play is what matters, visuals really are the icing on the cake.

To me graphic, art etc is as important as gameplay if either one sucks I will move on. Now the thing is we all have different ideas of what "sucks" means.

I want  both gameplay  and something great to look at so I'm not constantly in the back of my head saying meh feels like I'm playing something on my old NES.

I don't play a game If gameplay is bad.

I don't play a game If graphics are bad.

So graphics matter, of course, as much as gameplay in my case.

Spot on Pokket.

I enjoyed playing "City of Steam" beta this week more than i have enjoyed almost all the games I have played this year and it is a Browser game.

the graphics matter to me as long as the gameplay is even better. With that said, if the gameplay is awesome but the graphics are bad, i wont touch that game. If the graphics are awesome but the gameplay is bad, i wouldnt bother either.

Devs have to start making good games in all departments, gameplay, graphics, progression, endgame, story, all of it. I would gladly download a good chunk of gigabytes of a game very well made and full of good stuff rather than a small and fast download from an incomplete mess.

I noticed that when somebody complains about subscriptions they are told by subscribers to get a job... well if thats the case then, ill say if your PC cant run X game then get a job and upgrade too

Im all for great graphics, like i said, as long as the gameplay is as good as the graphics.

I dont mind playing UO with the 2D client, so that is my answer on if graphics mean everything.

Most of these pretty mmos have shallow systems in them, such as harvesting/crafting...I find them boring.

"Does it look good? Yes? Sell it. Look at Call of Duty, look at the Halo games (past the 2^nd one). Even the latest GTA mainly has a lot people commenting on how good the game looks. Therefore their marketing ploy is working. I am just going to throw out there that the story will probably be predictable, not that exciting, and the gameplay will not blow very many people out of the water. "

Jesus Christ, the staff here are ridiculously bad. On topic? Of course graphics matter, but more than gameplay? Of course not., but it still matters a hell of a lot this day and age. In regards to MMORPGs, if all I'm going to be doing is click mobs and wait for them to die, you need something pretty to look at.

And in regards to traditional games, writing is becoming stronger and more cinematic (Halo 4 had a great story and if Red Dead and Max Payne 3 can be used to benchmark GTAV, hold onto your butts. Rockstar's writing is stellar). You need brilliant visuals to sell the believability of a world the player immerses themselves in and for players to grow attachment to a well-written protagonist. Of course, if the game itself is just going to blow as a result, then forget it. But graphics DO matter. The staff writer's stupidity in what I quoted is almost unfathomable.

I don't think that graphics come at the expense of gameplay or content. Sure, the developers could theoretically divert money towards gameplay and content, but if they really were inspired in that departement they'd do that anyway. If you took away the graphics, you'd just be left with a game that's bland in all ways.

The more expensive the game, the more important for marketing the game, the graphics must be. As mmorpgs tend to be expensive, they therefore tend to "need" good graphics and then as they are competing against each other, that raises the acceptable bar even more.

Do good games need great graphics? No. Eg

Elite:

Minecraft:

Dwarf Fortress:

==

All these games players spend HOURS and HOURS playing/played. So I believe graphics is purely for attractive value which is very non-lasting but seemingly very profitable.

That said, a game's style of graphics has an affect and if it's the icing on the cake instead of what most mmorpgs are, the cake on the icing (!) then it definitely contributes.

Eg Some artists work on an IP for so long their work becomes the STANDARD of that IP eg Star Wars, Games Workshop and more. For comparison of a style that may suit a culture, the anime style makes me barf in most mmorpgs compared to like it in actual anime films *some styles more than others!*.

Originally posted by Vyeth

This is what happens when an age old formula of good gameplay meets traditional but updated graphics. (done right imo)

MMOs already exemplify that well enough, considering they developed from games that did not have graphics at all.

The end result of MMOs existing as an enormous genre demonstrates the power of graphics, as a market-builder.

The nearly complete degradation of communities over the same period demonstrates graphic's inherent weaknesses.

50/50

50% graphics

50% game play

If I own a 2K system? Make my system work at 70% best settings.

If I payed 2k for a system, give me my moneys worth.

If I pay you 15 d a month, give me my moneys worth.

If you are selling a F2P, make it work on those Walmart & Best Buy systems.

Graphics matter in modern games because they make up for a lack of good story, interesting and unique mechanics, and diverse challenges that were the hallmark of games before plug-in-play engines, design patterns and various object oriented methodologies began to streamline releases targeted at the broadest video gaming demographic  without concern for appealing to any sub-division therein.

If it's pretty, it's looked at. I believe that also applies to many other entertainment industries.