Do you care about graphics?
- Thread starter pulse2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
One of my favorite games for console was Dragon Age Origins.....funny enough this game had, shall we say, less than stellar graphics. Personally graphics are #2 or #3 for me take Battlefield Bad Company 2 for example...yes many modern FPS games show more detail etc...but the game is friggen fun as hell even without being able to see every wrinkle in the enemies uniform.
Good graphics matter to me but usually it comes down to art style. The original Ratchet and Clank still is visually intriguing because the developers knew how to construct an art style that would stand the test of time.
I belong to a rare species who doesn't care about graphics if the premise is interesting (for me at least). Don't mind looking at stunning visuals but it's not the thing that sparks my interest.
I've been investing in PS2/PS1 and Xbox games lately because I got painfully bored of what's been gracing the current-gen systems in the past months. Got myself 'Vagrant Story', 'Echo Night','Yakuza' and 'Yakuza 2' - and am more involved in these than in anything I've played in 2010.
There's a common habit to linking good graphics with a good game - which is wrong.
I've been investing in PS2/PS1 and Xbox games lately because I got painfully bored of what's been gracing the current-gen systems in the past months. Got myself 'Vagrant Story', 'Echo Night','Yakuza' and 'Yakuza 2' - and am more involved in these than in anything I've played in 2010.
There's a common habit to linking good graphics with a good game - which is wrong.
I care about graphics, but they aren't the be-all and end-all when it comes to my gaming. Gameplay and narrative are what I truly care about, pretty looks are just a nice bonus really.
You don't want to know if I care, you want me to confirm gameplay and story trump graphics, and I don't want to have do that again, because I have simply lost count of the number of times I have.
So I'm going to answer your question, and only your question, do I care about graphics?
Yes.
So I'm going to answer your question, and only your question, do I care about graphics?
Yes.
Oh no, no I wasn't stating that those games mentioned by any means had bad graphics, but when you compare the amount of detail put into say Gears of War compared to Locoroco, you can tell the obvious difference between graphical achievements, but that still seperates gameplay fun, the question you might ask is that if all gamers hypothetically thought the same way and believed Locoroco and Gears were in the same league of fun as each other, would Epic bother spending so much time and dedication on polygons and textures etc, facial expressions and lighting?Mike Laserbeam said:Well Halo: Combat Evolved came out before TimeSplitters 2 (After TS1 though) but if it was after Halo 2 you played it at least in 2004, which wasn't too long after I played it first (2003 probably). But are you saying that Halo 2 looks much better than TS2 does? I would say that if it did at all it wasn't by much, so I'm not entirely sure of your point there...pulse2 said:
Also, are you saying that Locoroco and Angry Birds have bad graphics? I would disagree there too, obviously their graphical content isn't on the same level as GT5 or something, but it's not like they're bad looking games. Although I see how you could be saying that they're not graphically focused like some recent games (Despite most of the charm of Locoroco being in the way it looks)
I understand your argument entirely, game content is much more important than the way it looks, but I also think that it is important for a new game to be able to hold up to the standards of its time.
I by all means thought Halo and Halo 2 looked better than TS2 and 3, but I think that was more so because of the level design and atmosphere than character models, nitty gritty details like textures, lighting, immersivness, etc. That's not to say that TS2 and 3 didn't look pretty in thier own right, but it was a more cartoony level of beauty. Still, I appreciated both for what they were and loved them all the same.
When I talk, I'm mostly referring to gameplay elements I enjoy rather than the graphical quality.
I do care about graphics, but NOT for judging a game, but just because I like it when my games look pretty. This actually only applies to computer games (meaning, can my computer handle the graphics). Other than that, no graphics aren't all that important to me. They help, but rarely do they effect gameplay. That's not saying that more powerful graphics don't equal more options FOR gameplay. Do you honestly think all of these cinematic moments in video games would be possible a few years ago? Maybe, but with no where near the impact.
I care about the style that it delivers more than mere graphical strength or prowess. Never caught on to Final Fantasy after VI since the art just annoyed me, I tried playing FF XIII but they cranked that shit up to 11 on that game when it came to overall annoying art and character design.
Plus, I've logged god knows how many hours on Minecraft. Which speaks for itself.
Plus, I've logged god knows how many hours on Minecraft. Which speaks for itself.
As long as it isn't an eyesore (and therefore completely destroying immersion) I'm good. Story and gameplay can compensate.
Graphics don't matter if the game sucks, that's how I see it, if I can tell what I'm looking at is what its supposed to look like, then its all good.
It depends on how good the rest of the game is; for me, the need for excellent graphics decreases proportionally to how good the story, characters and overall gameplay are. Of course, I prefer beautiful graphics, but if the other main pillars are solid enough to carry the game then graphics become less important.
Can we please define what "bad graphics" mean? Imo Minecraft has EXCELLENT graphics. why? It may be blockish, and low res, but A) It is crystal clear and not at all murky and B)It fits perfectly for the theme and tone of the game.
Contrast that with GTA4, say for example. Muddy browns and grays that make it hard to distinguish features; every road looks the same so you just stare at a mini-map all the time while driving. and most importantly the style barely ever portrays Liberty City as the vibrant energetic metropolis that it claims to be. In short, it had BAD graphics.
So yeah, i don't like bad graphics, because it kills immersion. Only when i say bad graphics I don't mean particle effects and frame-rates. I mean graphics that is not appropriate for the game.
Contrast that with GTA4, say for example. Muddy browns and grays that make it hard to distinguish features; every road looks the same so you just stare at a mini-map all the time while driving. and most importantly the style barely ever portrays Liberty City as the vibrant energetic metropolis that it claims to be. In short, it had BAD graphics.
So yeah, i don't like bad graphics, because it kills immersion. Only when i say bad graphics I don't mean particle effects and frame-rates. I mean graphics that is not appropriate for the game.
I don't care about resolutions or how detailed it is. But I do care about art style. I think Crysis just looks mediocer, but I love de style of red death redemption and super mario galaxy 2. And it only bothers me if bad grapihcs have a bad effect on de gameplay, for example if I can't identify something.
Graphics are important...but not in the way most people imagine them to be. The important thing about graphics isn't how preety they are or how many effects they have. It is whether or not they are functional for that specific game. By that, I mean if they are potraying all the visual information the player needs in a clear manner and are not detrimental to the gameplay or the player's enjoyment in general.
Of course, the catch is that graphics do not need to be top-of-the-line in order to fulfill such a task...heck, even games on very old systems like the Famicom/NES or Commodore 64 were quite capable of having sufficiently functional graphics. Yet, very often, developers become so infatuated with technology that they end up focusing too much on that aspect, which results in the gamer being overserved in that aspect and underserved in others.
This isn't to say that it hurts if developers dedicate at least a bit of time to making the graphics pleasant to look at. However, nowadays, developers invest way more time, money and manpower into that aspect than it is truly necessary.
If I was a head of a game company, I would do what Iwata did to the developers of Brain Age and give them at least one project which would have to be ready for demonstration in 90 days (well, more or less; it would depend on what kind of game). Not only would they not have the time to argue with me, it would force them to strip down graphics to the most essential components and focus on other elements in order to have it ready.
...That example makes me sound really mean, doesn't it? But then again, being able to work under limitations is what seperates a good developer from a great developer. And afterall, Brain Age would go on to sell millions.
Of course, the catch is that graphics do not need to be top-of-the-line in order to fulfill such a task...heck, even games on very old systems like the Famicom/NES or Commodore 64 were quite capable of having sufficiently functional graphics. Yet, very often, developers become so infatuated with technology that they end up focusing too much on that aspect, which results in the gamer being overserved in that aspect and underserved in others.
This isn't to say that it hurts if developers dedicate at least a bit of time to making the graphics pleasant to look at. However, nowadays, developers invest way more time, money and manpower into that aspect than it is truly necessary.
If I was a head of a game company, I would do what Iwata did to the developers of Brain Age and give them at least one project which would have to be ready for demonstration in 90 days (well, more or less; it would depend on what kind of game). Not only would they not have the time to argue with me, it would force them to strip down graphics to the most essential components and focus on other elements in order to have it ready.
...That example makes me sound really mean, doesn't it?
But then again, being able to work under limitations is what seperates a good developer from a great developer. And afterall, Brain Age would go on to sell millions.