> Graphics do not really matter. Do they? > The quality of the graphics seems to be the most important point in a game. > However, let’s not be assertive: the

> Graphics do not really matter. Do they? > The quality of the graphics seems to be the most important point in a game. > However, let’s not be assertive: there are still a lot of players, usually not the casual ones, who also consider playability, the scenario, and how much time you need to finish it, the presence of a multiplayer mode… to evaluate a game completely and fairly. I have a gap of around 10 years in my videogame playing history. After resuming, the difference that struck me the most is how immersive videogames are nowadays (of course, there are many factors, e.g. the genre), which is partly due to graphics advancements. Graphics don't live in the void though. They're part of the art design and they're a mean of expression; overall, they help providing an immersive experience for the player. Beautiful graphics also are not relegated to AAA 3D games (which are a narrow segment of the market) like one would think (since AAA games have the most exposure to casual readers/gamers); many indie games have beautiful (in different ways) graphics. > “Oh, it is so ugly”, “They did not age well” for the more diplomats. I think I've never read this, referring to graphics. In general the aging refers to game mechanics which that considered annoying and obsolete today, e.g. permadeath (where not intended), lack of convenient checkpoints etc.