Do graphics ever stop you from playing a game?
- Thread starter Erana
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Never, the graphics are the last thing I look for in a game ecpesaly scince (I cant spell it) my computer's graphic system is the most basic on Vista, I had to turn down the resolution for HL2 Episode 1&2 so the stupit thing could keep up.
They can, but only if ive played a game thats similar (and betteR) with much better graphics.
i.e. Oblivion > Two Worlds
i.e. Oblivion > Two Worlds
I'm gonna get shot right here, but I thought at least the settings of Two Worlds looked better, not the monsters or characters, though.undyingdh777 said:
I haven't travelled to shivering isles yet, but I also think the armor and weapons are cooler in Two Worlds.
I treat Two Worlds as an RPG parody and got it for $10 for the PC. No Regrets. "Ah, Rain... FORSOOTH! BANDITS!" *get's attacked by boars*
lol
No.
Graphics enhance the experience they don't make it for example look at ocarina of time im on like my twelfth play through and i love that game its timeless and now that you can download it right to your wii it really is, but people who want to remake ff7 and oot are crazy thats why the games are still so good nostalgia and i know if they just made the graphics better it just wouldn't feel the same.
Graphics enhance the experience they don't make it for example look at ocarina of time im on like my twelfth play through and i love that game its timeless and now that you can download it right to your wii it really is, but people who want to remake ff7 and oot are crazy thats why the games are still so good nostalgia and i know if they just made the graphics better it just wouldn't feel the same.
I always think graphical style is more important than sheer graphical power. An example is how 8-bit or 16-bit graphics are still eye-pleasing, partly because of old memories but also because they seem interesting as an alternative to main stream game graphics. Another example is that I'm always impressed by breath taking vistas, especially when it is of an area you have (or could) explore, as it makes it more interesting and real.
While the graphics of Oblivion are slowly becoming dated, watching the sun rise over the Imperial City is still impressive.
While the graphics of Oblivion are slowly becoming dated, watching the sun rise over the Imperial City is still impressive.
Depends on the game. I recently bought the Fallout collection in anticipation of Fallout 3 (which, ironically, I don't particularly fancy any more,) and just couldn't get into it because the presentation was so sparse and ugly.
I know it's supposed to be set in a wasteland but surely there's something someone could have done to make it look a little prettier? It's not like I can't play games with bad graphics, but there's just something about Fallout's style that I can't handle.
I know it's supposed to be set in a wasteland but surely there's something someone could have done to make it look a little prettier? It's not like I can't play games with bad graphics, but there's just something about Fallout's style that I can't handle.
well it is sad that so many people didn't play windwaker just for how it looked thats like the second best zelda ever
No, graphics havn't prevented me from buying a game.
HOWEVER, If I play a game that looks like shit (both literally and figuratively) then it's really going to decrease how much I enjoy the game. That's not because I think graphics are the most important, it's just that I want to be sucked into the game wether the graphics are purposely made cartoony and childish or if it was meant to make me feel like i'm actually there.
Gameplay is 1/3, Graphics are 1/3, and Sound is 1/3. If one of those peices is missing (or just plain bad) it can ruin the whole game. The person on page 1 (his name escapes me at the moment) posted a very good rant about how anything less than the standard for, let's say a PS3, would be unacceptable because the developers could and should have done better than that.
If I buy a PS3 game, I expect atleast passable graphics for a piece of machinery like the PS3 unless the art style is purposesly made like that (Like Fat Princess).
HOWEVER, If I play a game that looks like shit (both literally and figuratively) then it's really going to decrease how much I enjoy the game. That's not because I think graphics are the most important, it's just that I want to be sucked into the game wether the graphics are purposely made cartoony and childish or if it was meant to make me feel like i'm actually there.
Gameplay is 1/3, Graphics are 1/3, and Sound is 1/3. If one of those peices is missing (or just plain bad) it can ruin the whole game. The person on page 1 (his name escapes me at the moment) posted a very good rant about how anything less than the standard for, let's say a PS3, would be unacceptable because the developers could and should have done better than that.
If I buy a PS3 game, I expect atleast passable graphics for a piece of machinery like the PS3 unless the art style is purposesly made like that (Like Fat Princess).
i dont care about graphics enlse they afect my game play..... just last week i was playen half- life 1 for the pc and i didnt care it was still fun.
Graphics can have an effect on overall gameplay. For example. Shadow of Colossus. Great graphics for the platform it was on, however, if you were to take the same game and update it to current gen graphics, I think it would enhance the gaming experience. But that game may be a little unique in that aspect. I think graphics can play an effect for the emersion factor. If a level designer has put good effort into the background it can add to the "suck you in" factor. Espicially with current gen graphics. However, I will agree with many of you that some current developers will sacrifice gameplay or story for graphics. That being said, I can't think of a game off hand that I have not played because of graphics alone.
I can't believe I'm going to admit this here... I can't get through Fallout. I've tried a few times too.
Before I get flogged though, I've played through Grim Fandango about 2,000 times, about 50 of those being in the last year.
I'm totally gonna get banned for dissing Fallout... But for some reason I find that game just a tad too ugly. So yes, I guess it can make a difference.
Before I get flogged though, I've played through Grim Fandango about 2,000 times, about 50 of those being in the last year.
I'm totally gonna get banned for dissing Fallout... But for some reason I find that game just a tad too ugly. So yes, I guess it can make a difference.
I'm probably oddly hypocritical on this one. On the one hand I?m not a hard core gamer so I?m generally not playing the latest OMG the graphics are incredible games. On the other hand I stopped playing some older games because they just looked bad. The detail and rendering in WoW and CoV are not the dog?s bullocks, but on the other hand I just can?t bring myself to play KotOR anymore because the characters just don?t have enough polygons to keep from distracting me. But I?ll play a stupid 2D game for hours? go figure. I guess sub consciously I judge a game by its graphics if the game was designed to feature its graphics. KtoOR clearly intends to achieve emersion through graphical realism, but it just doesn?t cut it anymore. Neither will WoW or CoV in a few years.
Really? I always liked the Fallout graphics, even in the context of today's standards.sunami88 said:
Graphics alone? Almost never. If the game is otherwise great, I'll play it. I've got the original X-COM in my laptop drive right now and Might and Magic VI next to it. I prefer for a game to look good for its era, but that's all I expect.
I'm actually less forgiving of bad graphics, especially poor camera position (part of the graphics IMHO) the more recent a game is. There's just no excuse anymore. As an example, the developer's deliberate, malicious choice of the worst camera angles imaginable did a lot to turn me away from the first Resident Evil, and that infernal over-the-shoulder camera didn't help me any in RE4. If it's too dark to see properly or if the creature has cloaking, okay, I'll deal, because it's part of the game. But you do not, repeat do *NOT* include the camera as an enemy if you want me to like your games or your company.
I'm actually less forgiving of bad graphics, especially poor camera position (part of the graphics IMHO) the more recent a game is. There's just no excuse anymore. As an example, the developer's deliberate, malicious choice of the worst camera angles imaginable did a lot to turn me away from the first Resident Evil, and that infernal over-the-shoulder camera didn't help me any in RE4. If it's too dark to see properly or if the creature has cloaking, okay, I'll deal, because it's part of the game. But you do not, repeat do *NOT* include the camera as an enemy if you want me to like your games or your company.
I cant stand games with graphics from the era where games were going between Doom-esque 3D to Half-Life looking 3D. (I'm looking at you Descent and Jedi Knight) Please don't lynch me!
I tried to like them, I really did! But... they made me feel nauseous.
Besides that I'll play anything. Unless its text based.
I tried to like them, I really did! But... they made me feel nauseous.
Besides that I'll play anything. Unless its text based.