Are game graphics important if you have a good game?

Empire Earth for example; if you zoomed right in then the graphics were crap but it was a good game, quite popular, and I'm still playing it.

What does everyone think?

Are game graphics important if you have a good game?

Ask Notch, the creator of minecraft or take a look at dwarf fortress. Even with, well, decent graphic you could still have a good, successful game. But be aware, if you have a simple game (i.e. mobile game), it is likely that someone copies it with better visuals and steals the show.

Yes. No. Maybe. Depends.

I mean, there are so many successful stories for both ways and so many failure stories for both ways it's impossible to make one theory out of it. It's worth to have awesome graphics. There are game that were good but failed because of bad graphics. There are games with terrible graphics but it does not affect them. No matter what anyone in this topic would say it would be easy to find a counter example...

I think these factors should be taken into account when deciding if the graphics is critical to our game:
- target audience (hardcore players and older players are more likely to care less about graphics)
- niche vs mass market (the more niche the game is the less important graphics is)
- competition (the fewer games of the genre are the less important graphics is - but it might not apply to all genres)
- genre (for example in strategies bad graphics is least likely to affect the overall gameplay experience)
- theme (that might be a speculation, but I think SF themed games are more OK with ugly graphics than fantasy themed games)
- complexity of the game (the more complex the game the less important graphics is)
- learning curve (the harder to learn the game is the less important graphics is) [that one is almost always related to complexity and target audience]
- replayability (I observed that games that have high replayability are frequently ugly, dunno why, but it might be related somehow)

You can get away with bad graphics as long as it's not an attempt to try to have good graphics. You need an art style that makes it obvious you were not trying to have something good looking. Minecraft uses the cube style with everything being blocky. Everything is consistent with the art style, so it looks nice. If you look at the objects out of context, they would not be considered good looking at all, but it's consistent in game.

You can get away with bad graphics as long as it's not an attempt to try to have good graphics. You need an art style that makes it obvious you were not trying to have something good looking. Minecraft uses the cube style with everything being blocky. Everything is consistent with the art style, so it looks nice. If you look at the objects out of context, they would not be considered good looking at all, but it's consistent in game.

Good point.
In one game I made ugly sticky figures, but these were consistent (the same thickness of lines, the same style everywhere, the same colours). When I changed the gfx to real one I got not so small number "you are destroying the mood of the game" hate mails Also, there were people inventing conspiration theories that I made these sticky figures on purpose to achieve some artistic vision/effect and to promote certain way of thinking/mood (I haven't fully understood what they were talking about, it was rather deep psychology beyond my level ), anyway basicly no one gave the true reason behind all this which was me being lazy to make something better and too cheap to buy better art assets...
I also noticed some comments on various game portals that a certain game has "nice consistent gfx".

It seems that consistency of gfx is a currency on its own. And at least to some extend or in some cases can be used instead of good looking gfx.

Would you consider graphics like those in Braid, bad?

Does good mean photorealistic?

I prefer nicely done graphics to photorealistic ones myself.

So it seems that good graphics are not really that important as long as they are consistent.

So it seems that good graphics are not really that important as long as they are consistent.

consistent graphics are good graphics.

Thanks everyone. You have been very helpful.

Good graphics = functional (conveys information in an easy way, readable fonts, etc) + consistent + appealing.

In a perfect world, we would have all 3 components, but it seems not all are absolutely needed or at least not in all cases. I can imagine a functional and consitent yet unappealing graphics that beat up appealing one that is inconsistent (photorealistic + cartoony and all done by various artist in various styles) and unfunctional (can't really see what's going on on the screen. I would also say these go in that order (the player needs a functional gfx, without this nothing matters, then consistency, and then only if all previous 2 are sufficient the appealingness of gorgeous pictures is taken into account). Sort of like Maslov's pyramid of needs But the trick is, everyone expects gfx to be decently functional and consistent, therefore only appealing part is taken into account in usual cases (unless the devs messed up a big time with their choice of gfx). Also, the appealing part is the only one that is really expensive (making simple consistent and functional gfx is cheap and easy). Also, sometimes devs make a mistake and put too much on the appealing part which turns the gfx into unfunctional (that's the case when we see a "good graphics" game yet we find it unpleasant/inferior to simplier gfx games).