Hello!

Edit: thanks for the replies! ♥

I personally subscribe to the theory that a game should be more about just graphics. I'm very forgiving when it comes to this subject, but I draw the line when graphics actually affects the game itself. What are some examples where graphics either enhance or hinder your performance in a game?

Mortal Kombat (Gameboy) - fighting a mirror match with sub-zero or scorpion? Better keep track of which character belongs to you. The black and white limitation of the Gameboy port makes this high-larious.

Doom (SNES) - Anything beyond a few meters ahead of you is almost indistinguishable from the environment. Looking at this port makes me feel like I'm going blind. Maybe I just need to get used to it?

Counter-Strike - I heard that some players lower the graphics all the way to increase frame-rate as much as possible. The theory behind this is the bonus frames gives you an extra split second to get a headshot. I don't have the skill to try this out myself, so it's not like I can test it.

Final Fantasy 7:
* It's hard to tell where you can and can't go. In particular, sometimes it's not easy to tell where you are, and where the exits are (to the point where they added an "assist" mode that points out those positions).
* During battle, sometimes it's hard or impossible to see the damage numbers due to how the camera works, and from a gameplay perspective, damage numbers are far more important than graphical effects.
* There's also the issue of overly long cutscenes and summon animations, none of which can be skipped, and which detract from the gameplay which is effectively paused during them. (You can't even select targets during summon animations!)

Note that other PS1 Square RPGs have these issues; the inability to clearly see where you can go is particularly problematic in the SaGa Frontier games due to the fact that, outside of combat, enemies move in real time, which can lead to getting into encounters that one is trying to avoid.

Dr. Mario (not Game Boy) and Bomberman: Panic Bomber (not Virtual Boy), and Disgaea 1 (PS2), among others: There's things that look identical except for the color, and you have to match things by color, which is a problem for those with colorblindness. (If you're confused about the inclusion of Disgaea on this list, let me remind you about Geo Panels and Symbols.)

Cyberpunk 2077 (on initial release): There were mandatory parts of the game with a flashing light pattern that was seizure-inducing. At least one pre-release reviewer actually had seizures as a result of this. (I believe CDPR toned down this effect in a patch.)

See this Superman 64 speedrun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvDv_dLav68

The video description is this:
The screen is small because it's fastest to play on the smallest display setting in the game (20%) due to lag reduction.

I actually think that graphics matter tremendously. I know it's an unpopular thought among some gamers, that it may sound shallow, but I don't think it is shallow at all. Games are a visual medium. The visual side of things is of utmost importance. Now, that does not mean I think all games need to have cutting age, melt-your-CPU graphics. Sometimes those can be great, and downright necessary, but other times style is much more important than technical achievement.

I consider great graphics in something like Uncharted 4 or Witcher 3 crucial to the impact those games had on me - giving the world a sense of scale and beauty, visiting these places and being awed by some vistas, wanting to slow down and take them in was what turned "events" into an "adventure" for me.

But equally as important were relatively simplistic but absolutely perfect graphics in Apotheon, or the colorful 2D "medieval tapestry come to life" art style of the first Heroes of Might and Magic.

As for games where the graphics impact my ability to play them, there's a lot of those pixelated indie games, not very well made pixel games, where just by looking at pics or videos I just see that I literally would not be able to play them. They are just a mess of pixels all bleeding into one. Pixel art can be great, but all to often indies use it with no rhyme or reason, no sense of gameplay care or artistic intent.

Celeste also does a good job with this, though unlike the game you mention, Celeste make s good use of colors. (In particular, Madeline's hair color, which changes when you dash, indicates whether you still have your dash.)

When graphics hinder = "Depth of Field" and the game refuses to let me see what I'm looking at. Literally the first thing I turn off in every game..

I actually used to prefer having this on, as it put more emphasis on the object I'm focusing on. I threw it out the window almost overnight.

In the former, the monochromatic stile and 3D still shots are very deliberate and make a sort of a macabre element, like a certain post mortem photography to experience up close.

Can you give a few examples where pixel art is implemented poorly? I'm not challenging what you said, I'm just curious.

Edit: rephrased for clarity.

I think Celeste does have a few parts that go monochromatic for effect, but much of the game is quite colorful, with a different effect.

I just thought of another case where graphics hinder gameplay: In Bloodstained Classic Mode, I can think of one optional just in the first stage that's easy to miss because what might look solid is part of the background, causing some players to die there. With that said, I've seen some Mario Maker 2 troll levels do that deliberately, to great effect.

Also, I find it disorienting when the camera doesn't follow the player (like Cave Story's secret boss), or when the camera zooms in or out (like in Bloodstained's first boss, which IMO is too hard for a first boss, especially on Hard/Nightmare).

Just look at Butcher. I mean... what am I even looking at? I honestly have no idea what's even on those screenshots. It literally looks to me like a picture of someone's puke with a pixelated filter. Just a mass of brown, brown-red and brown-grey.

There's quite a few like this, I just don't remember the titles. I know there's one western-themed here but I can't find it now (it's not Westerado).

The problem isn't the use of pixel art, but rather the poor use of color. In particular, the contrast is too low for it to be easy ti see where the ground is and where you can actually go.

(At least judging from the screenshots.)

On systems with fewer colors, like the NES, it was less likely that this sort of issue would come up (though SMB1 still has the issue that red and green koopas are hard to tell apart visually).

Graphics can go either way...

Graphics, to me, took Ghost of Tsushima from being an average/mediocre game to a pretty good game. Pausing to enter camera mode mid-combat to look around, even with blood splatter still mid-air, the way wind is used as a compass replacement, and birds lead you to things. It all works together with the genre and setting.

Graphics are preventing me from even trying Loop Hero, even though it otherwise seems to be my jam... even though my husband seems to be enjoying it. It totally looks like shades of literal shit on stone with unreadable text and indiscernable icons. (And I say this as someone who played plenty of CGA, EGA, and paletted VGA games without an issue...)

But I can't recall any games where graphics MADE the game entirely. They can subtract, even entirely (especially when UI/UX gets blocked), and they can add... but I can't think of an example where they add enough to make a crap game fine.

Edited addendum: Low-variation in environmental graphics can kill a game. This is one of the reasons I tend to hate "grid based RPGs" (Lands of Lore, etc)... There isn't enough going on there NOT to get lost immediately/there's not enough distinct details to use for wayfinding. Some other games (1st person, 3rd person... I can't recall any overhead games right now, but I'm sure there's been one) run into this when they don't spend enough time in texture work (a couple stages of Nioh have this, though in one case it's intentional). This is one of the places I disagree with dtgreene: extra disk space for extra texture work can be important to improve the game and its accessibility. (Probably not to the tens of gigabytes we see though, but certainly over the hundreds of MB that often is listed as her preferred limit.)

When devs focus on graphics, gameplay suffers. It's the axiom I go by as a general rule.
Often turns out to be true.

I don't care about graphics, or "bad" graphics I should say, at all.
The only time it becomes a bother is when it actively gets in the way of playing the game.
Like in Environmental Station Alpha:

https://i.imgur.com/2UYq5Fa.png

Yes, your playable character is in that pic. As well as an enemy. And a Metroidvania hidden passage.
Good luck knowing which is which.