Do good graphics really matter?
- Thread starter Isla
- Start date
Recommended Videos
They do, but nearly as much as core gameplay elements. Without these, the graphics are just pretty window dressing for an empty stage.
The better I can see what's going on, the easier it is to enjoy a game.
I mean, I could probably get by on NES graphics for certain types of games, but regardless, improved graphics mean improved detail. That's generally a big deal.
Do I need bleeding edge graphics? Nah. Do they matter to me THAT much? no. But they do sort of matter. And again, how much is kind of genre specific.
I mean, I could probably get by on NES graphics for certain types of games, but regardless, improved graphics mean improved detail. That's generally a big deal.
Do I need bleeding edge graphics? Nah. Do they matter to me THAT much? no. But they do sort of matter. And again, how much is kind of genre specific.
Graphics are important, not the most important thing, but that does not make them unimportant, i mean if the graphics are poor in quality or design then the game is less immersive. A game were you don't remember/realise you are playing a game because its so immersive is very good game, and that is hard to achieve with bad graphics.
They're necessary for some games, where they would be totally unremarkable or unenjoyable otherwise. If the game is of a common setting or genre (FPS, RPG etc.) then normally looks and aesthetic mark it out from the millions of others.
In a RTS though, it is less important.
In a RTS though, it is less important.
Graphics matter. But it's not good graphics, it's coherent, clear graphics that matter. If you can easily understand what's going on on the screen, then it's mostly OK. With higher resolutions and more refined UI we generally expect a lot more clarity of information nowadays, and when older games can't provide that, their graphics become obstructive. But look back at sonic 1 on the megadrive. Sure the graphics are simplistic, but they're hardly bad. They build up their own world, they're iconic - but they convey all the info you need, so it doesn't really get in the way.
Yes and no, in a way. If "bad graphics" are graphics from 1999, then no. If "bad graphics" means graphics of any age, but with a horrible color palette and just overall ugly or unfunctional design, then yes.
I take you mean the former, so...
personally: No. Homeworld is beautiful. Source Engine is all I want. HL2 looks great and I get >100 fps with it. Physics updates etc are another matter.
public opinion: I don't want to generalize, but... well, look at World of Warcraft.
I take you mean the former, so...
personally: No. Homeworld is beautiful. Source Engine is all I want. HL2 looks great and I get >100 fps with it. Physics updates etc are another matter.
public opinion: I don't want to generalize, but... well, look at World of Warcraft.
They matter just as much as story and gameplay. If you gave me the story and gameplay of say, Alan Wake but it was just single pixel characters, I couldn't play it.
On the other hand if you gave me the graphics of Final Fantasy XIII and the story and gameplay of Final Fantasy XIII, I couldn't play that either.
But seriously, they help.
On the other hand if you gave me the graphics of Final Fantasy XIII and the story and gameplay of Final Fantasy XIII, I couldn't play that either.
But seriously, they help.
I don't really care for graphics at all. Crash Bandicoot (the first one) is more than enough, and it's definitely possible to overdo the graphics. Look at Crysis where it's damn near impossible to run, or UT3 where you can't see stuff for shit, or Shadow of the Colossus even where the glare turns the entire screen white every now and then.
Graphics are but a tool, in which the importance of it is situational.
A game such as Kirbys Epic Yarn or Minecraft has no need for super-good graphics. However, for games such as COD or something from the horror genre it can be important, as its the realism that dictates the immersion.
A game such as Kirbys Epic Yarn or Minecraft has no need for super-good graphics. However, for games such as COD or something from the horror genre it can be important, as its the realism that dictates the immersion.
I am surprised that people are still making the 2002 assumption that good graphics automatically equal hyper-realistic graphics.
Good graphics are graphics that complement the game.
Minecraft has good graphics.
Super Metroid has good graphics.
Crysis has good graphics.
Good graphics really do matter.
Do you guys see what I'm saying?
Good graphics are graphics that complement the game.
Minecraft has good graphics.
Super Metroid has good graphics.
Crysis has good graphics.
Good graphics really do matter.
Do you guys see what I'm saying?
As long as they're not bad enough to interfere with play
High deff graphics just make development more expensive so the design has to be safer so the game has to be worse by definition.
If you look at something like an XBLA game with okay graphics they're usually more fun and less expensive than the design by committee triple A games
High deff graphics just make development more expensive so the design has to be safer so the game has to be worse by definition.
If you look at something like an XBLA game with okay graphics they're usually more fun and less expensive than the design by committee triple A games
Because they set up a good atmosphere also, I'll give you that Dead Space looks nice but isn't scary but thing of it like thiswarcraft4life said:
Dead Space your in a space ship you know was destroyed by monsters while RE1 (if your in my messed up mindset) you feel safe in your mansion...
Situational.
Good graphics is great, but not necessary if a really good game doesn't need it to be a really good game. I look for innovation, smooth good game design, immersive play (and you don't need 'realer than real' graphics to achieve this), and some semblance of a learning curve and depth.
Anything else is a bonus - be it really awesome cutscenes, a fantastically pretty game world, etc.
What I worry about is that too much focus, work, effort and time goes into graphics and not nearly enough into the gameplay itself. In which case- I usually say that they should just make an entire movie because the gameplay is so tedious and bland that we could just play the game for the cutscenes and graphics and forget that it was actually a game in the first place.
Good graphics is great, but not necessary if a really good game doesn't need it to be a really good game. I look for innovation, smooth good game design, immersive play (and you don't need 'realer than real' graphics to achieve this), and some semblance of a learning curve and depth.
Anything else is a bonus - be it really awesome cutscenes, a fantastically pretty game world, etc.
What I worry about is that too much focus, work, effort and time goes into graphics and not nearly enough into the gameplay itself. In which case- I usually say that they should just make an entire movie because the gameplay is so tedious and bland that we could just play the game for the cutscenes and graphics and forget that it was actually a game in the first place.