People that criticize games purely on graphics

[satanslawer123]

theres nothing wrong with if someone picks a game purley on graphics but they have to be careful, as the saying goes never judge a book by its cover, its the same in games never judge one purley on graphics. i.e minecraft may have rubish graphics but it adds to the feel of the game.

 

[getoffmycloud]

If the developers try to make a game have good graphics and fail then i can sort of understand it because it gives a bad first impression of the game. However games that go for a particular style like Minecraft or Borderlands then it shouldn't be something that you should judge the game on even if the graphics are in general not of the high quality level of something like Crysis or Skyrim.

 

[Mavinchious Maximus]

Playing a game simply for game-play is like watching a porno for the story-line.

graphics do matter but not as much as casual gamers like to believe.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well you will find the people who criticize games solely on graphics don't know much about games, discussing games with them is entertaining but quite meaningless.

It's like my dad raging on and on about computers and the internets, even tho he has not yet used either

 

[Piorn]

Ever noticed how people regularly confuse "simple" and "ugly" graphics?
Minecraft has neither the highest texture resolution, nor any complex models, yet it doesn't look "ugly".
Many modern games have tons of graphical detail, yet are a mess of post-apocalyptic green and brown, which isn't that pretty.

 

[aashell13]

Minecraft's default art style is terrible, however no one really cares because the core mechanic is so much fun, and there are plenty of texture packs to make things easier on the eyes for those who're really bugged by 16bit visuals.

In general though, a game should have a coherent art style that's well executed. This does NOT necessarily attempt photorealism. If the theme of a game is appropriate to a cartoon style, i would much rather see good cartoon style visuals than a crappy, poorly-textured waste of a photorealistic style.

Conversely, MW3 and Battlefield 3 are going to have the latest and greatest DX 11 engines and i'm still not going to buy them because they've essentially become gun-based MMO's and i'm a strictly single-player guy.

 

[Xanadu84]

Theres a few things going on here.

First, a good precursor to this discussion is (and this seems to happen a lot) watching an episode of Extra Credits. Namely, Graphics versus Aesthetics. Criticizing a game for its Aesthetics is fine. Poor Graphics can reflect poorly on Aestetics in some instances, and under some tastes. Criticizing a blank, lifeless game based on appearances is fine, and its reasonable to not like a game with poor Graphics simply because your no longer able to appreciate the Aestetics when rendered so primitively (Though this comes down more to taste then a proper critique). What I'm interpreting this question as is those individuals who judge an entire game based on the polygon count, texture quality, and other technical merits.

This approach is not something I'm willing to dismiss. If it's something people feel about how they enjoy a game, who are any of us to say that they are just wrong? For people who value graphics above all else, video games are toys. They are funny electronic gadgets full of bright colors and mindless distractions. They just don't appreciate the depth games have to offer. Sure, it's tempting to lament this as a huge loss on there part, but then again, though I like Jazz, I rarely listen to anything beyond some occasional Miles Davis. I can appreciate a true connisuer of the art, but I'm just not going to dive that deeply into it.

Of course, this leaves the game enthusiast in an odd place. You can't agree with the people who don't like Minecraft because it lacks polygons, but you also can't bash them for being uncultured philistines when they are still having a good deal of fun in a medium where fun is an excellent goal. You have to strike just the right balance of live-and-let-live versus deeper-then-though. Make a tongue in cheek argument against something they are particularly interested in. Point out that there is a lot more to games then polygons, an entire world that they simply fail to appreciate, but they don't necessarily have to appreciate. Sure, they fail to appreciate the power of games, but no one ever said that you HAVE to appreciate the power of games.

 

[Xanadu84]

No, graphics are the tool. Aesthetics define what the game looks like, if it sucks you in.

No, graphics are what you see. Aesthetics is the art direction. I'm sorry to say it but I really think that the EC lot were wrong here, especially when you consider that a graphics card is called a graphics card rather than a visual card or something.

Graphics are anything shown on your monitor, the aesthetic is the overarching visual style chosen.

Thats...pretty much exactly what EC was saying.

 

[newfoundsky]

This probably comes up on the forums a lot but I am sick and tired of people who judge games by the aesthetic side.

For example, I stayed over a friend's house where he was having a group party. He started to play Minecraft and then two people blurted out "Eurgh those graphics look sh*t" I replied back that graphics don't make the game it's all about the enjoyment but they ignored my sentence completely.

Mind you, these people are casuals and claim that the best game is the latest CoD/ Fifa/ Madden on the market.

So if you can post your experiences of hatred by other people.

EDIT: Dont get me wrong, graphics heighten the setting and can sometimes make or break a game but criticising the quality of graphics only and nothing else is a bit unfair.

I agree with your statement, however dismissing their opinion because they are "casuals" and like games that we as a group seem to disdain (Hey listen, I like CoD. . .) is a more than a little elitist. It is that attitude that we need to get rid of.

Graphics aren't as important as setting, story, and atmosphere, but they do help lend to all three of them, and can even lend themselves to gameplay. It's not exactly a matter of opinion when I say that a game like Uncharted would have been impossible without next-gen graphics without being a completely different game all together. The enemies would have been more blocky (and more colorful to make up for it) which would have given the game a childish feel. Couple that with Drake's personality throughout the game and you might as well have been playing Crash Bandicoot. An improvement if you ask me, actually. . .

 

[JWAN]

You shouldn't judge a book by its cover OR a game by its graphics.

 

[jopomeister]

I don't criticize quality, I only criticize the graphics themselves.
Like for example: Duke Nukem is unplayable for me because there's a lot of pointless darkness.
But I'm not like "ARGH ARGH IT'S NOT HD THIS GAME IS SH*T"

 

[Madman123456]

i liked Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and i liked Call of Duty 1. And some parts of the second game but that's it. Games must have the Potential to be good whenever i choose to play them; i wont shell out 60 $ to not be bored for one playthrough. I will remember storming the Reichstag in Call of duty. I will remember the one Nuke in MW. I knew that when i went into those Places; "this is a Scenario so good, i will remember this for years and years!" i said to myself and so i did.

I will remember Minecraft for the simplicity. Learn what small amount there is to learn, set yourself a goal and build until the Stars grow cold.

As for the Graphics: Sure, they aren't all that pretty but all you can do about that is to download a texturepack. Making the blocks smaller and therefore the world smoother would take away from the simplicity.

 

[speakeasysyn]

The only time I judge a game based on graphics is the art style [For JRPGs only] otherwise its ridiculous to say a game sucks based on its graphics....

Final Fantasy games may look pretty, but that doesn't mean it has the capacity to tell a deep story.

 

[Xanadu84]

Thats...pretty much exactly what EC was saying.

But...but that's what I meant in the first place. I'm confused now...

I was using 'graphics' as a catch-all for both the art style and the rendering software used. You can have two games with a similar art style and different software behind them and they'll look different. Compare AVP 2 and Far Cry for instance, or GT 4 and Demolition Racer.

Then why did you say "I'm sorry to say it but I really think that the EC lot were wrong here" if you thought that they were right?