Do you care about graphics?
- Thread starter pulse2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
if good graphics = realistic graphics, then no, i dont give a shit.
but if a game has a distinctive style, like zelda the wind waker, okami or shadow of the colossus, then it is another story, i think.
also, i am a sucker for highly complex 2d-sprite animation, like many later neo-geo games or odin sphere
but if a game has a distinctive style, like zelda the wind waker, okami or shadow of the colossus, then it is another story, i think.
also, i am a sucker for highly complex 2d-sprite animation, like many later neo-geo games or odin sphere
Didn't mean to sound like I was harping on you in particular. I get where you're coming from, and I agree.pulse2 said:This actually made me laugh because it's so true, the relationship between how we depict games and how we depict our partners is almost similar.Jason Danger Keyes said:
One might say that they prefer a stunning partner, but would they be happy with that partner simply for being good looking or because that partner just clicks with them in everything they love and enjoy, the same could be said for gaming, much of the reason why I keep on returning to old games I loved as a kid is because while they may not hold a torchlight to the beauty that is Uncharted for example, they are fun.
Take one of my favourites for example, Abe's Oddysee still looks beautiful to me, it was my first PS1 game and I'll still be enjoying it when PS5 comes out, will I still enjoy Crysis which was a graphical masterpiece? No, but that's probably because of my own personal preference, I just feel like certain games clicked with me, stayed in my mind and will forever be timeless classics, otherwise Tetris, Pacman and Alien Invaders are concepts that would have died out years ago.
I'm not directly comparing the graphical quality of Pacman to Gears because that would be an unfair advantage to Gears obviously, but I'm comparing the appreciation you, I, we had for a classic like pacman which can be played over and over and graphical marvels released today that are only sometimes worth 1 playthrough before they are sold off and never really thought of again.
This is what I mean by gameplay vs graphics, I'm not exactly pointing towards games with bad graphics as I don't expect anyone to like games with bad graphics because it makes gameplay annoying as well, there are several forms of good graphics in gaming, they don't all have to be about 3D photorealism, but the question I was getting at is to put it more precisely 'Would you be able to appreciate something that doesn't focus on polygon count and 3D immersion and would you be able to play and old game and not only enjoy it, but appreciate it as much as you would a new game'.
Don't simply see it as me saying for example, hot people are for one night stands, people with amazing personalities are forever.
I'm a huge Disgaea nut, and all those games have 2D sprite characters and very rudimentary 3D for backgrounds, despite being on Graphical powerhouse systems like the PS3 and PSP. I'm there for the gameplay, but I do find a lot of charm in the simple, attractive 2D sprites. Would I like it less if it looked better? Would it be less charming with higher-res 2D sprites with more animations and better 3D textures? Hell no. I'm excited that the upcoming Disgaea 4 will be higher-res. Since I'm going to undoubtably be spending as much time in that game as I have in all the others (a couple hundred hours to say the least) I would like it to look sharp and slick.
Yeah, same here go 70's and 80's, your games won't be forgoten!Grouchy Imp said:Here's a screenshot from one of my favourite games; you tell me if I think graphics are important!
Gameplay beats graphics for me, every time.
(I still play the orginal tetris, space invaders, pac man, asteroids and more shit like that. Also, games for my old SNES.)
When it comes down to it it will always be Gameplay>Graphics.
There will always be the occasion (becoming more and more common) where a game has supurb graphics AND gameplay and that is always welcome, but if sacrifices have to be made, it should always be in the graphics department.
There will always be the occasion (becoming more and more common) where a game has supurb graphics AND gameplay and that is always welcome, but if sacrifices have to be made, it should always be in the graphics department.
No... actually yes, everyone does. People who say they don't are lying.
Let me explain. When the PS2 came out, it drew a line in the sand in terms of graphics. It was now relatively easy to have a console game with full 3D which didn't look all boxy and junk. You could get that before on the PC but it brought a higher standard of graphics to the biggest possible audience. Now if you're playing what was a serious or a scary game like Silent Hill, you think to yourself "this game looks silly" and that ruins immersion and things.
Games like those were limited by what the machines could do and the graphics now show their age. You could still relive the experience I had playing Silent Hill 3 when I got so scared, I turned off the console, switched the light on and called up a friend. You couldn't do that with Silent Hill. I've been drinking by the way, but you get the point.
Read some posts and people don't get the point. Noone plays a game because of the graphics, that's ridiculous. But people can be put off a game by poor graphics, it can break the experience particularly in first person games or third person games with chase cameras. Games where you're meant to feel like you are the character.
Let me explain. When the PS2 came out, it drew a line in the sand in terms of graphics. It was now relatively easy to have a console game with full 3D which didn't look all boxy and junk. You could get that before on the PC but it brought a higher standard of graphics to the biggest possible audience. Now if you're playing what was a serious or a scary game like Silent Hill, you think to yourself "this game looks silly" and that ruins immersion and things.
Games like those were limited by what the machines could do and the graphics now show their age. You could still relive the experience I had playing Silent Hill 3 when I got so scared, I turned off the console, switched the light on and called up a friend. You couldn't do that with Silent Hill. I've been drinking by the way, but you get the point.
Read some posts and people don't get the point. Noone plays a game because of the graphics, that's ridiculous. But people can be put off a game by poor graphics, it can break the experience particularly in first person games or third person games with chase cameras. Games where you're meant to feel like you are the character.
At this point I think graphics are becoming less important because as they are already very impressive/detailed enough in most games, however a games visual aesthetic is very very important and can literally make or break a game. I the games visual aesthetic works then the graphics become a lot less important... this is doubly true if the story and game mechanics themselves are good too.
In most cases, I am a GFX whore..as it were. I can't deny that I love a game that looks visually stunning, however..I only care about GFX where it matters. First thing I look at is Gameplay. A lot can be forgiven if the Gameplay is fun and solid (Case in point..LoZ:OoT) You also have to take into consideration what art style is being used. If a game is intended to use Realism or something similar, then yes..GFX matters (good gameplay providing). but if its taking a more casual road..it may not matter as much.
let me put it this way. If someone is wanting to make a game that uses realism (just as an example) before you do ANYTHING with complex GFX polishing...make sure the game is good first. THEN worry about it looking better. I HATE IT when they do the reverse, where they make it look all pretty..then do a half-ass effort on Gameplay and call it finished. GFX matters to me when the important stuff (Gameplay mechanics and story(if the game has one)) is looked at and finished first and is GOOD.
There are clearly MANY games that were plenty successful while looking simplistic and not jazzed up. Like all those games made on Flash or similar. So yea...Graphics are nice, I enjoy it when its done well, but Gameplay is most important and should take priority.
let me put it this way. If someone is wanting to make a game that uses realism (just as an example) before you do ANYTHING with complex GFX polishing...make sure the game is good first. THEN worry about it looking better. I HATE IT when they do the reverse, where they make it look all pretty..then do a half-ass effort on Gameplay and call it finished. GFX matters to me when the important stuff (Gameplay mechanics and story(if the game has one)) is looked at and finished first and is GOOD.
There are clearly MANY games that were plenty successful while looking simplistic and not jazzed up. Like all those games made on Flash or similar. So yea...Graphics are nice, I enjoy it when its done well, but Gameplay is most important and should take priority.
Well this is how I'd look at it: if the same game was released twice, once with PS2 grade graphics and once with stunning 1080p Crysis-level visuals, wouldn't the natural choice be the second? Given that the content is exactly the same.pulse2 said:
I'd say graphics do certainly matter given that situation.
However the reverse could also be said, with two games with the same graphical content but one being absolute crap, the choice then would obviously be in favour of the poor graphics.
That's why I think if you are simply talking about whether better graphics means a better game, then I would clearly say "Yes"
However when you start taking every other element into account the question isn't quite so simple!
By the way I think you make some very good points, and I'd imagine that not only did the team behind Locoroco spend less time on its graphics than Epic did on Gears, but they also probably spent a whole lot less time on their whole project! And I far prefer the TimeSplitters style to Halo, I've never seen the attraction of Bungie's visual style.
TL;DR? It's impossible for people to make two games that are just as fun as each other! And there's no real way to measure the entertainment quality of any game! But when you're trying to make a game as good an experience as possible one thing you can definitely see when comparing yours to others' is the quality of graphics. So to make a great game rise above the rest, I think it's necessary to make it shine!
One word. Shallow.Sean.Devlin said:
OT: Gameplay is everything, and yes I mean everything, I don't care if its text graphics like the original rogue game or dwarven fortress, I don't care if its tile graphics like Exile 3, I don't care if its still screens like eye of the beholder, or if its pseudo 3d with sprites like lands of lore or dark forces, i don't care... etc etc you get the idea. A good game is a good game. That said, graphics are nice, though subordinate to gameplay.
I don't mind them. If they look good I'll take time to notice and marvel, but I'm fine with bad ones. As long as I'm having fun.
1. I care about graphics. But I care about graphics in the context of what the game is trying to do and what is available to that game.
1a. What is available: So Pac-Man had great graphics for its time period. So I appreciated that and can still play it. There were games from the Atari age that had bad graphics in comparison. Those I didn't like so much.
1b. What the game is trying to do. Text based adventure games are clearly not interested in great graphics, so it seems unfair to judge them on that criteria. So I don't. Also, some people didn't like KotOR 2 because they wanted an updated graphics engine from KotOR1. That never bothered me. KotOR2 was not primarily about graphics and the graphics were good. They weren't blow you out of the water, but they were good.
1c. Note: I don't need revolutionary graphics, but I need good graphics for the game in context.
2. I care about gameplay. I care that the gameplay does not hamper my enjoyment of the game and within the context of what the game is trying to do.
2a. Hampering enjoyment. If the camera control makes it so that I keep dying, I'm not going to be happy with the game.
2b. What the game is trying to do. I have different gameplay standards for a point-and-click adventure than I do for a FPS. I care that the game does what it is trying to do well.
2c. Note: I don't need revolutionary gameplay, but I need good gameplay for the game in context.
3. Story. I care a lot about story, this is one of the make-or-break elements for me...of course within the context of what the game is trying to do. I really enjoyed Need For Speed 2: Hot Pursuit, and that had no story what-so-ever, but it had great graphics, great gameplay, great art design, and a great soundtrack.
4. Voice Acting. I care a lot about voice acting, another make-or-break element for me...of course within the context of what the game is trying to do.
5. Score. I love a good video game score and sound design. That can really help make the game.
6. Art Direction. I also love good art direction in a video game. Another really big bonus.
I think I go Story > Voice Acting > Gameplay = Graphics
with Score/Sound Design and Art Direction and Novelty of Concept as big bonuses.
1a. What is available: So Pac-Man had great graphics for its time period. So I appreciated that and can still play it. There were games from the Atari age that had bad graphics in comparison. Those I didn't like so much.
1b. What the game is trying to do. Text based adventure games are clearly not interested in great graphics, so it seems unfair to judge them on that criteria. So I don't. Also, some people didn't like KotOR 2 because they wanted an updated graphics engine from KotOR1. That never bothered me. KotOR2 was not primarily about graphics and the graphics were good. They weren't blow you out of the water, but they were good.
1c. Note: I don't need revolutionary graphics, but I need good graphics for the game in context.
2. I care about gameplay. I care that the gameplay does not hamper my enjoyment of the game and within the context of what the game is trying to do.
2a. Hampering enjoyment. If the camera control makes it so that I keep dying, I'm not going to be happy with the game.
2b. What the game is trying to do. I have different gameplay standards for a point-and-click adventure than I do for a FPS. I care that the game does what it is trying to do well.
2c. Note: I don't need revolutionary gameplay, but I need good gameplay for the game in context.
3. Story. I care a lot about story, this is one of the make-or-break elements for me...of course within the context of what the game is trying to do. I really enjoyed Need For Speed 2: Hot Pursuit, and that had no story what-so-ever, but it had great graphics, great gameplay, great art design, and a great soundtrack.
4. Voice Acting. I care a lot about voice acting, another make-or-break element for me...of course within the context of what the game is trying to do.
5. Score. I love a good video game score and sound design. That can really help make the game.
6. Art Direction. I also love good art direction in a video game. Another really big bonus.
I think I go Story > Voice Acting > Gameplay = Graphics
with Score/Sound Design and Art Direction and Novelty of Concept as big bonuses.
Oh, I'll add another datapoint. If the graphics offend me, I'm probably not going to stick with the game very long regardless of the polygon count. DOA: Volleyball offends me so that is out. I was enjoying Ninja Gaiden until I saw that crazy blonde who was objectified like crazy with an completely impractical fetish outfit. It rubbed me the wrong way...too much...and I couldn't enjoy the game and eventually quit playing it. I think that is one of the only games I have finished all the way through--bummer because I did enjoy fighting with the nunchucks.
Nope. Don't care. Gameplay is all that matters to me.
Besides, I can't tell good graphics from bad.
Besides, I can't tell good graphics from bad.
I'm finding that characters from the last generation or two are easier to relate and empathise with, probably because they're not so far down the Uncanny Valley, and because they're more stylised.
For graphics as a whole, I think it's more important that they are profound in the feeling they instill in the player to look at as opposed to how spoogy they look, or how much shading up the arse is being used. If the graphics fit the narrative and are profound in what they convey, then it's certainly better than just filling a screen with bloom and calling it a day.
For graphics as a whole, I think it's more important that they are profound in the feeling they instill in the player to look at as opposed to how spoogy they look, or how much shading up the arse is being used. If the graphics fit the narrative and are profound in what they convey, then it's certainly better than just filling a screen with bloom and calling it a day.