People that criticize games purely on graphics

[AndrewC]

You can have a pixelated art style that doesn't look bad. Super Meat Boy looks great, and its all done in pixels. As do most 16-bit platformers. Minecraft, on the other hand, looks terrible.

Terrible is a relative term.

You say Minecraft looks terrible. Someone else says it looks nice. What makes you right?

*shrug* Nothing really. But all reviews are subjective, so really nothing makes the other person right either. Its a completely circular argument. That said, Minecraft's textures aren't very detailed and it's only shapes are blocks. I understand that the company making it is small, but that doesn't mean I have to say it looks good. Because, objectively, there are lots of other games under similar limitations that look better.

Size of the company is irrelevant, only shapes are blocks? It's a building game/adventure game, designed with blocks. The textures aren't meant to be detailed, all part of the style. If you don't like it then go pick a SUPER MEGA HYPER REALISM texture pack.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Size of the company is irrelevant, only shapes are blocks? It's a building game/adventure game, designed with blocks. The textures aren't meant to be detailed, all part of the style. If you don't like it then go pick a SUPER MEGA HYPER REALISM texture pack.

When did I say I wanted it to look realistic? I said it lacked detail, which it does. The character models have next to no movement and look cheap. The blocks are nearly all uniform sizes with little variation. Simply put, there is no variety. Strip away the (bad) textures, and its all just legos. You can say its "all part of the style", but its just making up excuses. I'd like to think the size of the company IS relevant to the game's graphical quality. Because if it isn't, then its just implying Notch is either lazy or a bad artist.

 

[Stalydan]

People who believe that graphics are the only thing that matters are stealing precious oxygen and thus deserve to die.

OT: It's wrong but most of them are casual gamers who don't actually represent the medium as a whole. Fortunately, the people who make games that gamers will enjoy are the people who know that graphics aren't everything and will pump money into gameplay, story, music, scripting, aesthetics etc.

So good for us, we can leave the casuals to their own yearly releases of doing the same thing over and over again, it's probably a good thing because they don't touch the games that are actually worth playing.

 

[DarthFennec]

Is there something wrong with liking good graphics? And to be fair, Minecrafts graphics do look like crap. That is completely right.

Well yeah but they're supposed to. Even if you do get an hd texture pack, everything still comes in blocks, and I've heard lots of people complain about that. But it wouldn't be possible to make Minecraft function at all, without the blocks, so the Minecraft graphics are absolutely perfect in that case because they match the gameplay. And that's all that matters.

OT: You need to judge games on the graphics to an extent. If the graphical capabilities aren't good enough to support the game, then the whole experience is fucked. I've seen horror games that are written in Flash, and none of them carry any kind of atmosphere or are scary at all because you just can't do that with Flash's graphical limitations. It's like making Katamari for the Atari 2600, that kind of thing just doesn't work. And it goes the other way too. Make a Mario game with `realistic graphics' and you'll get a bunch of angry fanboys. Make Minecraft with `realistic graphics' and it becomes downright impossible to play the game at all.

What I'm saying is, graphics are important. Graphical capability, however, is not. You don't need super high res, super realistic graphics with super realistic humans for every single game. What you need is for the graphical capability to be at least good enough for the art direction, and you need the art direction to match the gameplay. And that is very important.

So, so sum up: saying Zelda: Twilight Princess is better than Zelda: Ocarina of Time because is has more polys is absolute bullshit. But saying L.A. Noire would have been a lot worse if they didn't use that face capture stuff is perfectly justified. Because the face capture in L.A. Noire was a huge part of the gameplay. Sometimes, you need really high graphical capabilities. But most of the time, you just need art direction that will set the proper atmosphere and match the gameplay.

 

[AndrewC]

Size of the company is irrelevant, only shapes are blocks? It's a building game/adventure game, designed with blocks. The textures aren't meant to be detailed, all part of the style. If you don't like it then go pick a SUPER MEGA HYPER REALISM texture pack.

When did I say I wanted it to look realistic? I said it lacked detail, which it does. The character models have next to no movement and look cheap. The blocks are nearly all uniform sizes with little variation. Simply put, there is no variety. Strip away the (bad) textures, and its all just legos. You can say its "all part of the style", but its just making up excuses. I'd like to think the size of the company IS relevant to the game's graphical quality. Because if it isn't, then its just implying Notch is either lazy or a bad artist.

You're a colossal moron, so I won't even bother anymore.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Size of the company is irrelevant, only shapes are blocks? It's a building game/adventure game, designed with blocks. The textures aren't meant to be detailed, all part of the style. If you don't like it then go pick a SUPER MEGA HYPER REALISM texture pack.

When did I say I wanted it to look realistic? I said it lacked detail, which it does. The character models have next to no movement and look cheap. The blocks are nearly all uniform sizes with little variation. Simply put, there is no variety. Strip away the (bad) textures, and its all just legos. You can say its "all part of the style", but its just making up excuses. I'd like to think the size of the company IS relevant to the game's graphical quality. Because if it isn't, then its just implying Notch is either lazy or a bad artist.

You're a colossal moron, so I won't even bother anymore.

Ah ha ha, you mad I don't like Minecraft, aka the game that a first year computer design student could have made? Get off your high horse.

 

[AndrewC]

Size of the company is irrelevant, only shapes are blocks? It's a building game/adventure game, designed with blocks. The textures aren't meant to be detailed, all part of the style. If you don't like it then go pick a SUPER MEGA HYPER REALISM texture pack.

When did I say I wanted it to look realistic? I said it lacked detail, which it does. The character models have next to no movement and look cheap. The blocks are nearly all uniform sizes with little variation. Simply put, there is no variety. Strip away the (bad) textures, and its all just legos. You can say its "all part of the style", but its just making up excuses. I'd like to think the size of the company IS relevant to the game's graphical quality. Because if it isn't, then its just implying Notch is either lazy or a bad artist.

You're a colossal moron, so I won't even bother anymore.

Ah ha ha, you mad I don't like Minecraft, aka the game that a first year computer design student could have made? Get off your high horse.

Mm yes clearly on a high horse here. You can dislike whatever you want doesn't bother me, I dislike things you probably like but I won't be a tool about it. But I've seen multiple people quote you all saying pretty much the same thing.

 

[Xanadu84]

Size of the company is irrelevant, only shapes are blocks? It's a building game/adventure game, designed with blocks. The textures aren't meant to be detailed, all part of the style. If you don't like it then go pick a SUPER MEGA HYPER REALISM texture pack.

When did I say I wanted it to look realistic? I said it lacked detail, which it does. The character models have next to no movement and look cheap. The blocks are nearly all uniform sizes with little variation. Simply put, there is no variety. Strip away the (bad) textures, and its all just legos. You can say its "all part of the style", but its just making up excuses. I'd like to think the size of the company IS relevant to the game's graphical quality. Because if it isn't, then its just implying Notch is either lazy or a bad artist.

Just because something lacks detail doesn't mean it is worse. Are black and white movies ugly because they can't show the details of color? Are Cartoons generally more ugly because they arn't as detailed as a photograph? Is Limbo an ugly game? Is a room in a house more beautiful when every last square inch is covered with random paraphernalia? No, the lack of detail is purposeful, because it forces the mind to fill in the gaps with something personally meaningful, and allows for more clever uses of negative space. Minecraft is purposefully low on detail, because it forces the individual to add meaning and interpretation. If it were more detailed, a number of creative options would disappear.

 

[nuba km]

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

Oh god... just kill... it's kinder that way

I was speaking to a friend recently about video games, and he claimed that COD: Black Ops was the height of what humans can achieve in regards to video games (with wording that made barely any sense).

A little part of me died.

see what you do to some one who says that is *censored* razor sharp *censored* urethra * censored* choke him with a * censored* and then you can just eat any evidence of that ever happening.

OT: minecraft has crap graphic but the aesthetics are nice, but painterly makes the aesthetics much nicer. As far as judging a game on graphics is like judging a book by its cover, you shouldn't do it but everyone does it by some decree.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Mm yes clearly on a high horse here. You can dislike whatever you want doesn't bother me, I dislike things you probably like but I won't be a tool about it. But I've seen multiple people quote you all saying pretty much the same thing.

Its just the Escapist groupthink, not much more. Everyone on this site just loves Minecraft so damn much that they are willing to overlook its quite obvious flaws. Now, let me say, there is nothing wrong with Minecraft. Its a fun game. But its not a pretty one. Not by a long shot. And I don't feel that it has a flattering art style like everyone keeps claiming. Besides, you called me a colossal moron. Its not very nice to call people names, is it?

 

[Crazycat690]

Well, to be fair if a game looks horrible it can turn people off, it's like trying to eat the most tasty pudding ever but if it looks like vomit you're not gonna be too quick either. I don't think graphics makes the game, but some graphics just makes me wanna throw the game away, not bad graphics mind you, I like games like Fallout 1&2, Diablo 2 and MGS, none of them have great graphics, but they still look good, get my point? I dunno how to explain it, really, but graphics always matter in some way. It's like when people say beauty is in the inside, but none of them still would never be together with someone they find unattractive.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Size of the company is irrelevant, only shapes are blocks? It's a building game/adventure game, designed with blocks. The textures aren't meant to be detailed, all part of the style. If you don't like it then go pick a SUPER MEGA HYPER REALISM texture pack.

When did I say I wanted it to look realistic? I said it lacked detail, which it does. The character models have next to no movement and look cheap. The blocks are nearly all uniform sizes with little variation. Simply put, there is no variety. Strip away the (bad) textures, and its all just legos. You can say its "all part of the style", but its just making up excuses. I'd like to think the size of the company IS relevant to the game's graphical quality. Because if it isn't, then its just implying Notch is either lazy or a bad artist.

Just because something lacks detail doesn't mean it is worse. Are black and white movies ugly because they can't show the details of color? Are Cartoons generally more ugly because they arn't as detailed as a photograph? Is Limbo an ugly game? Is a room in a house more beautiful when every last square inch is covered with random paraphernalia? No, the lack of detail is purposeful, because it forces the mind to fill in the gaps with something personally meaningful, and allows for more clever uses of negative space. Minecraft is purposefully low on detail, because it forces the individual to add meaning and interpretation. If it were more detailed, a number of creative options would disappear.

Oh please, you are comparing apples and oranges. Black and White movies do show color, by having different shades. Cartoons can have downright excessive amounts of detail if an artist is willing to put the time in. Limbo falls under the black and white movie clause. Minecraft's lack of detail is only "purposeful" in that its easy. The minecraft worlds are very large, so lots of detail would bog the game down. I understand that. However, that doesn't excuse the graphics for being poor.

 

[masher]

It pisses me off when someone dismisses a game on a first glance just because it isn't "realistic" enough for them. I mean, it -really- pisses me off. I don't care -how- great a game looks-- it can be virtual reality, letting me literally jump right into the game, where I can smell and taste the air and the NPC's have full length conversations with me-- but if the plot sucks, the characters suck, the gameplay sucks, I -can't- like it. Graphics are great, but they do -not- make a game.

 

[queek]

we me i play alot of bloody gory games and i really cant stand people that say stuff like that game is gross or omg you out to be ashame

 

[Jibblejab]

The blocks are nearly all uniform sizes with little variation.

That line caught my eye, thats like complaining about lego because all the blocks are the same and neatly fit together. Do the walls on my house offend you because they are all the same shape?

Back on topic, aside from games (like Minecraft) where the art style is an integral part of the game where it cant be changed graphics are reasonably important. Today its not difficult to have a good looking game and if you could play an RPG where everything looks realistic or an RPG where everything looks like arse then you would chose the good one, unless you're visually challenged prehaps.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

The blocks are nearly all uniform sizes with little variation.

That line caught my eye, thats like complaining about lego because all the blocks are the same and neatly fit together. Do the walls on my house offend you because they are all the same shape?

Back on topic, aside from games (like Minecraft) where the art style is an integral part of the game where it cant be changed graphics are reasonably important. Today its not difficult to have a good looking game and if you could play an RPG where everything looks realistic or an RPG where everything looks like arse then you would chose the good one, unless you're visually challenged prehaps.

Its fine if you are making bricks or whatever, but rocks, trees, the ground, etc. They aren't made of uniform pieces that fit together nicely (unless you want to get down to the atomic level). The game doesn't even bother to have parallelograms and such to even try and emulate this fact. Everything is just the same size square. It works, but to me its lazy.

 

[synulia]

Good graphics =/=Good art style. Art style should always come first. The old Age of Empires games, what with their 256 colors and 2D isometric viewpoint, today look like tapestries with all their details. Meanwhile, Starcraft 2, with all its fancy bells and whistles and shiny graphics, looks like crap because it can't choose on an art style. It doesn't know if it wants to be cartoony or realistic, so it just strikes this godawful balance in between. Art style should always come first, if pulled off well, a game can be ageless.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

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.

actually, most people who criticize graphics are PC gamers.

ever seen one who DIDN'T get pissed whenever a new game didn't include "Direct X 9000" compatibility or have you SEEN the stupid comments about the PC version of DNF because its specs were low?

seriously. every time a big name game comes out for consoles and PC and the PC version looks the same as it does on consoles, the PC gamers grab their torches and pitchforks.

 

[sagejosh]

well I know quite a few people that if the game dosnt have a high end story and graphics they think its complete shit, for example all my friends think GTA4 is good where as saints row 2 is shit.Why do they think this? becuase GTA4 has better graphics and a better story line.

I personally do get put off by last generation graphics but if its an exceptionally good game like kotor or a zelda game then ill play it because thos games are not based on graphics.