Do graphics ever stop you from playing a game?

Erana

New member
Feb 28, 2008
8,010
0
0
I'm not the sort who feels that graphics are the make-or-break part of any game. In fact, I prefer the old look of a lot of games, especially the monochromatic, desolate feel of the Nes verison of Metroid games, or the graphical effect of Sierra adventure games.
For some reason, however, I just cannot enjoy 2D MMORPGs. I don't know why. I have trouble with 3D games with a Diablo-type camera, as well. People call me narrow-minded because of it, at times, but if I don't enjoy a game, I won't play it.

Is anyone else bothered by graphics, with or without a reason?
 

kanyatta

New member
Aug 6, 2008
92
0
0
The only time graphics have ever stopped me from playing a game was Crysis, because my computer doesn't meet the minimum specs.

Bad graphics have never stopped me from playing a game though. I still play Missile Command on my Atari 2600 in my basement.
 

S.T.U.D.

New member
Jul 17, 2008
22
0
0
No.

If GTA III played like GTA IV (Hell, even SA), I'd play it without a second thought.
 

Daemon888

New member
Jul 18, 2008
152
0
0
First off, I absolutely love your avatar... gawd that brings back so many happy memories.

To answer your questions... really, no that rarely happens to me, at least as far a certain style of interface turning me off. (meaning 3rd person shooter, vs overhead "diablo" type adventure vs whatever) I generally like games more for their gameplay and will shun a game when that element is faulty. However, I have recently found myself drawn to older games because of nostalgia and the look that these older games is a big part of it... the younger crowd would probably refer to this is "bad graphics". I great friend and I have recently battled our way through Shadow of Colossus and are likely gonna start on MGS2 next. I guess for the same reasons as why I like your avatar.

I strongly second your last statement though... why play a GAME if it is enjoyable... then its not a game! Its a chore, or a job, or who knows what
 

defcon 1

New member
Jan 3, 2008
458
0
0
Actually yes. On my old PC I tried to play Stalker. On low settings, it looked so sloppy and dull, I just couldn't play it anymore. Graphics weren't my only issue but if they were less sloppy I would have played on.

Now that I have a new PC, I can play it just fine:)

My friends at LAN parties LOVE this level in CoD4 called Backlot. If you don't know, It's that one level that's entirely in brownscale. It's by far the most frequently played level and sometimes I just have to say, "you know what, I'll just sit this one out."

EDIT: oh, I got another one. I stoped playing Half-Life 2:E1 for awhile because I got lost in the underground area. I was lost and couldn't figure out what to do, and obviously a strategy guide wouldn't help me in this situation.
 

Anarchemitis

New member
Dec 23, 2007
9,102
0
0
There have been parts in all of the Half-Life 2 games where I either turned on noclip or decreased the time scale because my computer could not run the game at an adequate framerate, if that's what you mean.
 

NezumiiroKitsune

New member
Mar 29, 2008
979
0
0
Graphics can get fanatics of "Gameplay/Story is God!" theory up in arms when you discuss there importance. They almost scream and throw a tantrum at you for any reference to graphics being at an important factor in a game. Well I'm going to say they are, and before you call me up on it and cruicfy me for not being a real gamer I'm going to briefly point out, graphics alone make a movie and a bad one at that, you then need story, now you have a movie thats totally dependant on the quality of the director and the editing, then add gameplay and you have a game. There are other aspects but they're key. Graphics is by far the least important factor BUT its still one of the big 3. This however ONLY applys with new releases. If you buy a game that is 12 years old you are not going to make a thread crying about how terrible the graphics in this game are, because when you bought it for £10 you knew what you were getting, a 12 year old game. So graphically you are more willing to let it slide if the gameplay and story are great. If however its a new release thats been advertised everywhere say for the PS3 (sake of argument), and you pay £40 - £50, your going to be a little pissed off it the graphics look last gen and lazy. Again you may reasonably argue, well if the gameplay and story are great I'll stil enjoy it, but your missing a key point here. If the graphics had been excellent too imagine how much better that first glimpse would have been. Every aspect of the game is subject to the quality of graphics no matter how you look at gameplay and story. If the game has bad graphics taht look lazy and last gen, especially if this is also marred with framerate issues and other bugs, your going to feel a little let down. I know I know MGS2 was amazing, Ico was a stroke of pure genius, Okami, R&C, etc etc the list goes on, are all great games, but all would benefit from that next-gen touch. They are by no means lessened without it, we accept because they are older they will inevitably look less stunning.

Graphics as an element of the game. This is often overlooked. A game; by defination is meant to bring you, essentially, a kind of happiness. We all seek happiness its one of the key reasons to live. We achieve this from the many thousands of aspects in games. Now can anyone tell me they havent been stunned by the natural beauty of the world at some point in there lives? With this gen graphics we can recreate scenes that the natural world unfortuntatly cannot make us or ever bring us, and they can be nigh on photo realistic. The thrill and euphoria at the point of seeing a great city of the future glissening with light from 2 suns in a expanse of golden desert as you ride some kind of mighty steed, an elborate greatsword strapped to you back. This thrill, this explosion of joy can only be brought to you by the factor of games that is often shunned as "idiot pleasing" (because obviously if you appreiciate graphics you cant possibly comprehend good storylines and assess funtional inovative gameplay). So yes, graphics can influence if I buy a game. Past games, the story, reviews, and gameplay all important factors too. If I still play the game will always be down primarily to gameplay and story, but if a game has abysmal graphics, thats I just piad £40 for on my next gen console. Well I feel inclined to be allowed to feel a little let down.

For those who know the lore of The Elder Scrolls, who wouldnt be enthralled by the magnificence of the high elven city of Alinor rendered in stunning 1080p? It would by no means be the defining factor of the game, but if thats the first thing I saw in TESV it would bring me a rush like nothing but the eloquent beauty of the imagination incarnate can.

Post a bit long maybe? :p I just really want the show the nay sayers (obviously alot of you will read this and nod saying yeah I already knew that, or not believe me in which case if your happy with old graphics fair enough, thanks for reading) that graphics arnt just the boon of infantile immature fools who cant go 30 seconds without killing something, that they are indeed as much art as many paintings, and as beautiful as some of natures work, though not yet on par imo. My answer to the question is in there I assure you :p

MGS4 SPOILER (though its well phrased)
Snakes helicopter nap was awesome though, really brought back some memories.
 

ON3 WING3D ANG3L

New member
Aug 7, 2008
2
0
0
i personally dont think graphics have anything to do with the playability of a game personally i prefer the older FF games to the newer ones i thought they just had the better story its all story for me graphics only make the story prettier =] lol
 

thejackyl

New member
Apr 16, 2008
721
0
0
Sometimes yes, Sometimes no.

I have been gaming most of my life, and that was around the Atari/Odyssey/Whatever else era. And can still go back and have fun. At least to the NES days since I no longer have my Odyssey...

The only time graphics have turned me off game are when they don't work on my computer, which is basically 2 years old and starting to show it. I like my draw distance high, and my texture detail to remain close to the same at long distances, or at least close enough that I can't actually see bodies appear when I take a few steps forward, or that I can't tell when a texture changes from its low-res/long range version to it's hi-res/close-up version. (which happens a lot with CoD4, but I'm running it at medium on an older rig, so...)

And even then...

I think the only time I ever turned off a game was when my GPU over-heated when I was playing TF2, and Textures turned black, and Models turned white (Everybody looked like plaster mannequins)

Of course graphical glitches and invisible walls piss me off too...
 

DeadlyYellow

New member
Jun 18, 2008
5,141
0
0
I'm going to have to agree with the requirements. Can't play a game your rig won't support :/

I've also been turned off to Wind Waker and it's sequel. Didn't really care for the direction the art headed in that game. Although being punched in the face while playing Tingle on co-op may have contributed as well >_>

I find new graphics rather annoying too. What with today's "realism" fad and my lo-def television, it gets rather frustrating trying to discern a mass of brown from a mass of slightly more brown.
 

Erana

New member
Feb 28, 2008
8,010
0
0
DeadlyYellow said:
I find new graphics rather annoying too. What with today's "realism" fad and my lo-def television, it gets rather frustrating trying to discern a mass of brown from a mass of slightly more brown.
I kinda agree there. I don't actually have any next-gen systems, so I don't have the hi-def, low-def problems there. I still find that games that try for realism, but wind up as stiff and grim are not nearly as pleasing visually as games that have a stylized look that accomodates to graphical limitations. WOW graphics are kinda on the list, but I'm not going to even try to tempt myself with the World of Warcrack.
 

L.B. Jeffries

New member
Nov 29, 2007
2,175
0
0
I won't do text based games. I'm really sad about that because I understand that there are a lot of creative ones...but never could as a kid, won't now. Need just a little bit more visual representation before I'll agree to a video game.
 

Birras

New member
Jun 19, 2008
1,189
0
0
Well, in one instance, yes and no. I had installed a demo of EVE online on my computer, but once I loaded up the tutorial, the graphics were causing my pathetic computer to lag, making the cursor near uncontrollable. It wasn't the graphics that directly turned me off of the game, in fact, I think I might of enjoyed it if I had a better graphics card.
 

SenseOfTumour

New member
Jul 11, 2008
4,514
0
0
Yeah, I'm not obsessed with technical specs or polygons per second etc, so long as it runs fairly smoothly.

However, I am a big fan of good creative art style, and it can save a game that would otherwise need to have far higher specs, WOW for example, has technically far worse graphics than Guild Wars or most other current MMOs but I think its style sets it apart, and when you're an orc flinging ice bolts, how much realism do you need?

Also, games like Katamari Damacy and Rez, both very basic graphically but still very stylish and outstanding in their own way.
 

N-Sef

New member
Jun 21, 2008
495
0
0
I honestly don't care too much about visuals, as long as they are clean and everything is easily recognizable.
 

Hopkins

New member
Jul 3, 2008
91
0
0
As much as I hate to admit it... yeah. I never played Half-Life 2 until I bought the Orange Box and I never bothered beating it. Now if that is because the graphics are subpar to today's standards or if I just don't like the gameplay, I think it's a combination of the two.