Depends on what you mean by "good graphics". If you mean realistic graphics, then I couldn't care less, but if you mean that the graphics are visually appealing, then it is somewhat important. Sure, the story and gameplay are far more important, but if the graphics are so horrendous that it hurts my eyes to look at it, I'm not going to be playing for very long.
How important are graphics to you.
- Thread starter stvncpr236
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not important. I set my bar low. Early playstation 2 graphics are fine. Late PS2 graphics are perfect.
FFX
FFXII
FFXII
I go by the current standard. I won't buy a game for graphics specifically. Although, if the graphics are poor for the time, it will detract from the general experience.
As someone who has played them both in 1080p on PCSX2, they look amazing in 1080p.MammothBlade said:FFX
FFXII
Assuming graphics here and not aesthetics, then not very important.
For a full-priced game I expect everything top notch, including graphics, but for a cheap game or old classic, I don't care if the graphics are primitive.
I do very much appreciate if the artists make the most of what little room in terms of RAM and computational power is given to them (aesthetics). I like good 8bit pixel art for example.
I reckon a smart indie should aim for primitive (2d) graphics to compete. Hard limits are good here.
For a full-priced game I expect everything top notch, including graphics, but for a cheap game or old classic, I don't care if the graphics are primitive.
I do very much appreciate if the artists make the most of what little room in terms of RAM and computational power is given to them (aesthetics). I like good 8bit pixel art for example.
I reckon a smart indie should aim for primitive (2d) graphics to compete. Hard limits are good here.
Are we talking graphics as in "how good it looks" or are we talking graphics as in "polygon count"?
Because so many people don't seem to be able to make a distinction between the two. Yes, a game has to look good for me to play it. But then again, even 8-bit games can look good if done right.
Because so many people don't seem to be able to make a distinction between the two. Yes, a game has to look good for me to play it. But then again, even 8-bit games can look good if done right.
They are important enough that I'll notice them when they are bad and have an initial reaction of, "Ewww".
But they are unimportant enough that I'll get used to graphics of pretty much any quality and stop thinking about it if the game is good enough. Though a terrible art style will still kill a game for me.
A very recent example: Skyward Sword. Terrific art style, but the anti-aliasing is non-existent. It was very jarring at first. But I got used to it to the point that I pretty much stopped noticing it.
But they are unimportant enough that I'll get used to graphics of pretty much any quality and stop thinking about it if the game is good enough. Though a terrible art style will still kill a game for me.
A very recent example: Skyward Sword. Terrific art style, but the anti-aliasing is non-existent. It was very jarring at first. But I got used to it to the point that I pretty much stopped noticing it.
Even though they weren't exactly designed for HD resolutions? Do you have a video of that or something?LilithSlave said:As someone who has played them both in 1080p on PCSX2, they look amazing in 1080p.MammothBlade said:FFX
FFXII
I'll probably get the PS3 port of FFX eventually, if that adds anything.
I suppose that's fair, I mean graphic's as in the actual way the game is presented. This includes art style, resolution, fluidity, color, sharpness, everything.Cowabungaa said:
There is also the fact that peoples opinions change over time, so even if i did go and read all of the similar threads on this subject the opinions of people who posted before may differ, and I can look at the opinions of people who may not have commented in the past. Hell even you must have some modicum of interest in the topic if you took the time to post on "this thread again." If you were interested in the topic then why did you waste not only your time, but the time of everyone else on this thread.Freechoice said:
It needs to be asked, and I find it strange that it hasn't been, (at least not on the first page) but are you talking about graphics are aesthetics?
Either way, I agree. I think I once read a developer quote along the lines of:
"Once the game is fun with black and white squares and dots, you make it look pretty."
Either way, I agree. I think I once read a developer quote along the lines of:
"Once the game is fun with black and white squares and dots, you make it look pretty."
To a certain degree. But still very minimum.
I am a fan of shadows in games, but you don't need 4096x4096 textures on ANYTHING.
I hate games that could've been in traditional 2D, but is in 3D because it's modern. I look at a game like Knights of Honor and compare it to Total War. Despite Knights of Honor being more of a budget title, with 2D graphics. Detailed 2D graphics, but 2D nonetheless.
Knights of Honour has ten time the pacing and is far easier for newcomers.
In short, 3D pathfinding sucks.
I am a fan of shadows in games, but you don't need 4096x4096 textures on ANYTHING.
I hate games that could've been in traditional 2D, but is in 3D because it's modern. I look at a game like Knights of Honor and compare it to Total War. Despite Knights of Honor being more of a budget title, with 2D graphics. Detailed 2D graphics, but 2D nonetheless.
Knights of Honour has ten time the pacing and is far easier for newcomers.
In short, 3D pathfinding sucks.
That's a very general description, like, incredibly. A useless one even. It's impossible to not find graphics described like that that important, if only to use the game. The eyes are one of our most important sensory organs afterall.stvncpr236 said:
But does it matter more whose opinion it is rather than what the opinion is? It'd be one thing if this was a forum of game programmers whose jobs were to come up with novel graphic-based mechanics or discussing the feasibility of high end graphics within a budget or current technologies, but it isn't. This a forum of gamers, largely without formal training or experience in the field and as such, will not have opinions beyond "Gameplay>Graphics, except when".stvncpr236 said:
The broadness of the topic also leaves much to the imagination. What do you define as graphics? Is it the aesthetic? Is it the polygon count or the texture quality or model animations? Specificity helps remove the "oh hey, it's this thread again" mentality. Having posted this without regard to the myriad number of clones that preceded it is showing disrespect to the community and fostering a cynical outlook on the character of the forums as a whole.
To me graphics are not a major factor. If you get too carried away with them, you might forget a few things like: The Story. Case in point, Battlefield 3.
Graphics need to be able to communicate what they represent. Dwarf Fortress, I cannot play because the graphics suck. I don't want to have to have a map key for what things are in a game in a time when photo-realism is being practiced. Make trees look like a green triangle or something. I should be able to look at a screenshot of a game and see what everything is there for or at least have a good guess.
Otherwise, I don't mind about graphics. If I can tell what you are trying to represent, I am good. However, I will say that I WANT to like a game with better graphics when I see it. graphics can influence my purchasing habits in hopes that there is a good game in there. However, they never completely sell me.
As well, whenever I see an actual good solid fresh topic with thought behind it, it dies before reaching page 2 (sometimes it strecthes 1.5 pages.) on these forums as if all the users are standing around picking their butts. Unless of course someone is boldly wrong in the OP and then EVERYONE must shout how they are wrong and it could stretch into the teens.
"You are never the only one" is seen as "witty" on these forums, when it is actually just pedantic. This community is a bit too pedantic in general for my tastes. Many people on this board would correct a seven-year-old for saying Harvest Moon is the "greatest game ever" with counter-points as to how to structure that phrase more correctly and proceed to point out why the kid is wrong. I would think people who play games as a main hobby would know how to lighten up as well as be able to recognize patterns.
Otherwise, I don't mind about graphics. If I can tell what you are trying to represent, I am good. However, I will say that I WANT to like a game with better graphics when I see it. graphics can influence my purchasing habits in hopes that there is a good game in there. However, they never completely sell me.
I gotta agree with the OP. Why do you care? What is the difference between this thread and the ones that equate to "What was the last video game you played and a random type of sandwich"? The fact that this thread is so vague offers an opportunity for deeper discussion to come up accidentally, although is tough without focus.Freechoice said:
As well, whenever I see an actual good solid fresh topic with thought behind it, it dies before reaching page 2 (sometimes it strecthes 1.5 pages.) on these forums as if all the users are standing around picking their butts. Unless of course someone is boldly wrong in the OP and then EVERYONE must shout how they are wrong and it could stretch into the teens.
"You are never the only one" is seen as "witty" on these forums, when it is actually just pedantic. This community is a bit too pedantic in general for my tastes. Many people on this board would correct a seven-year-old for saying Harvest Moon is the "greatest game ever" with counter-points as to how to structure that phrase more correctly and proceed to point out why the kid is wrong. I would think people who play games as a main hobby would know how to lighten up as well as be able to recognize patterns.
Graphics and Looking Nice are 2 Completely different Topics in my book.
Anyone who has modded textures for the Fallout 3/Vegas can tell you "It doesn't have to look detailed, It just has to look Cool!"
So yes, give me a beautiful cliff and I won't give it two looks unless I can either jump it or dangle a man off it.
Anyone who has modded textures for the Fallout 3/Vegas can tell you "It doesn't have to look detailed, It just has to look Cool!"
So yes, give me a beautiful cliff and I won't give it two looks unless I can either jump it or dangle a man off it.
I haved mixed feelings.
I love Morrowind- great game. The graphics are awful at best, but that's because it was made in the mid-late 90s. It was pretty phenominal for its time. I can dig the crappy grahpics because it's an old game.
But when I pick up a triple A game this year, it damn well better be the most flawless and cutting edge graphics, otherwise, the game lacks a certain essence that is necessary for my experience.
I love Morrowind- great game. The graphics are awful at best, but that's because it was made in the mid-late 90s. It was pretty phenominal for its time. I can dig the crappy grahpics because it's an old game.
But when I pick up a triple A game this year, it damn well better be the most flawless and cutting edge graphics, otherwise, the game lacks a certain essence that is necessary for my experience.
Well the other people who have replied seemed to have no problem figuring out what "graphics" means. I'm sorry that you seem to have difficulty with that. And exactly how am I showing disrespect to the community, I have said anything to disrespect them as a whole. Whats showing disrespect to the community is people like you who go to threads they don't like simply to complain about them. All I was trying to accomplish was ask the communities opinion on a subject, you did not have to take part in the discussion at all, but you chose to. And what was it that you had to contribute? You talk about me fostering a cynical attitude in the forums, when that is exactly what you are doing by taking part in discussions solely to complain about them and making this a very hostile environment for those of us who wish to actually contribute. Sure my first thread may not have been completely original or groundbreaking, but at least I was able to spark discussion with out being hostile. So please if you have nothing to actually contribute please go be a miserable cynic somewhere else.Freechoice said: