People that criticize games purely on graphics

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
Ordinaryundone said:
Xanadu84 said:
Ordinaryundone said:
Xanadu84 said:
Appeal to popularity does not count when "Is enjoyed by a lot of people" is an excellent, complete goal in and of itself. In much the same way that you can't cry foul of Godwins Law when your talking about Germany in the early 40's. Games can do a lot of things, and one of those things, and a perfectly reasonable goal for a game, is that it is enjoyed. If a lot of people enjoy the aesthetic of Minecraft, and their play experience is significantly better because of that aesthetic, then the only argument you could possibly be making is that games should NOT be enjoyed. Should games abandon the goal of being enjoyed in favor of matching your personal tastes? If you're not arguing that, then you really don't have an argument to make. There Aestetic choices have been a resounding success, and one naysayer on the internet can go and find a texture pack.
It does count, because by the same logic I could round up a whole host of people like the TC's friend who do not like Minecraft's graphics. What makes their opinion not count?
So your saying that it is subjective, and by extension, arguing that it is a bad Aestetic doesn't make any sense.

A game does not need to please everyone. It just has to please a bunch. What game ever has appealed every last gamer in the world? The game was made with it's Aesthetic in mind as a conscious decision, and that decision was a resounding success with most of the people who play it. That is a success, a purposeful one, and the enjoyment of those people who like the aesthetic makes it a good aesthetic. For the minority who dislike it, there's texture packs to render dislike of the aesthetic irrelevant. And from the most objective standpoint you can take on something as subjective as game design, the Aestetic re-enforces the mechanics and dynamics of the game itself.
First of all, we aren't talking about Aesthetics. We are talking about graphics. They are two different things, and as far as I'm concerned Minecraft looks like something you should have to open with a DOS prompt. Aesthetic design decisions do not factor into my opinion in this regard. Second of all, we aren't talking about texture packs. We are talking about the game. If anything, that argument is tantamount to saying Notch is lazy, and his fans are doing better work than he is on his game. Also, where the heck do you get the idea that a "minority" dislike it? Have you polled every person who didn't buy Minecraft? Because I'm sure its a much larger number than those who did.

Second, once again, saying a lot of people like something doesn't make it good. Call of Duty is currently the highest grossing and highest played game in existence, possibly behind WoW. Does that mean they are the two best games ever made?
However, the aspect of the graphics that influences the Aestetic, the level of detail, is what we are discussing. Graphics alone are not bad, they are simply tools, so calling the graphics bad just doesn't make sense. If we are talking about quality, the only thing we can reasonably discuss is the Aestetic they produce. The graphics are primitive, and they cut off certain options , but they are not bad in and of themselves. We have to talk about the aesthetic those graphical limitations produce, because the Aestetic is what ends up being good or bad. And in Minecrafts case, the Graphics influence the Aestetic in exactly the way they should: To influence gameplay in a way most find enjoyable.

Texture packs need to be brought up, because within Minecraft, there are accommodations for even those who dislike the Aestetic. It provides an optional choice to improve play. That is a good thing no matter how you slice it, and complaining about an Aestetic when you could play the game with a different one is just silly.

I have talked with a lot of people who enjoy the Aestetic. Most people here like the aestetic. The game has sold over 3 million copies, and the Aestetic did not stop them from buying it. Saying that the majority of people like the Aestetic is looking to be the much safer assumption then that people are buying and playing a game they can't stand to look at.

And no, being the most bought, highest played game ever doesn't make it the best game ever. But It does make it a damn good game, and it doesn't matter how cool someone is when they say that they are too cultured to play a game for the lowly proletariat. People aren't playing CoD because there being held at gunpoint, they are playing it because they choose to. They like it. And that is a noble goal for any game, it was the intent of the developers, and they succeeded. What metric of measurement that isn't insufferably pretentious could discredit that?
 

somonels

New member
Oct 12, 2010
1,209
0
0
You can't expect casuals to know better. Just take the opportunity and call them ignorant or retarded - if you wish to be more insulting than correct - while you can.

I do not enjoy current high-end graphics. I like Minecraft's, and adored Mirror Edge's. I generally run games on lowest graphical settings because most of it is unnecessary visual garbage. The rule does not apply to RPGs, or other rare games, that I wish to be immersed in, as opposed to games I play to entertain or challenge myself with.
 

Ordinaryundone

New member
Oct 23, 2010
1,568
0
0
Xanadu84 said:
However, the aspect of the graphics that influences the Aestetic, the level of detail, is what we are discussing. Graphics alone are not bad, they are simply tools, so calling the graphics bad just doesn't make sense. If we are talking about quality, the only thing we can reasonably discuss is the Aestetic they produce. The graphics are primitive, and they cut off certain options , but they are not bad in and of themselves. We have to talk about the aesthetic those graphical limitations produce, because the Aestetic is what ends up being good or bad. And in Minecrafts case, the Graphics influence the Aestetic in exactly the way they should: To influence gameplay in a way most find enjoyable.

Texture packs need to be brought up, because within Minecraft, there are accommodations for even those who dislike the Aestetic. It provides an optional choice to improve play. That is a good thing no matter how you slice it, and complaining about an Aestetic when you could play the game with a different one is just silly.

I have talked with a lot of people who enjoy the Aestetic. Most people here like the aestetic. The game has sold over 3 million copies, and the Aestetic did not stop them from buying it. Saying that the majority of people like the Aestetic is looking to be the much safer assumption then that people are buying and playing a game they can't stand to look at.

And no, being the most bought, highest played game ever doesn't make it the best game ever. But It does make it a damn good game, and it doesn't matter how cool someone is when they say that they are too cultured to play a game for the lowly proletariat. People aren't playing CoD because there being held at gunpoint, they are playing it because they choose to. They like it. And that is a noble goal for any game, it was the intent of the developers, and they succeeded. What metric of measurement that isn't insufferably pretentious could discredit that?
Well, its nice to know that someone else on this board likes Call of Duty. I certainly do. But nonetheless, its still an example that quantity doesn't equal quality.

Aesthetics (it has an h in it, by the way) are simply the game's art style. They aren't the graphics. The graphics are the polygon count, the textures, things like that. All areas where Minecraft, deliberately or not, underperformed. Aesthetic is not part of the discussion, because honestly, its fine. Minecraft looks the way it looks and clearly people like that. But that doesn't change the fact that the graphics are low-end and simply....well, elementary. Developers are capable of stuff like Crysis these days. I expect better, even from indie developers. Taking refuge in nostalgia or simplicity is, in my opinion, laziness.

And doesn't the presence of texture packs reinforce the idea that people weren't content with the quality of the game's graphics? Anyway, I'm not entire sure both of us are on the same page in regards to what we consider "graphics" so I think this argument is for naught. Besides, I'm not trying to convince anyone that the game is bad, just that I don't like the graphics.

Guess I should have saved this one for one of those "Unpopular Opinions" threads.
 

I.N.producer

New member
May 26, 2011
170
0
0
Azaraxzealot said:
SpaceArcader said:
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.
I'm praying, probably delusionally, that they're a vocal minority. I'm one PC gamer who doesn't care about specs. I really don't see the point in obsessing over specs. I've seen complaints that Crysis 2 doesn't look as good as Crysis because of the texture sizes.

However, I thought Crysis 2 was a step forward because it was actually playable with pretty graphics on a mid-range gaming PC. I also thought the aesthetics of Crysis 2 were better because the scenery had a point other than "look at me." Pretty much all of the beauty of Crysis 2 was put into showing just how serious the situation was. Crysis just went, "Oh look, it's an island and it's pretty."

In my opinion, lower specs mean better performance with high quality.
Graphics are like a car, you can look under the hood and like it, but if you drive it around and find out the brakes are worthless, it's useless. Or something close to that metaphor.
 

NerfedFalcon

Level i Flare!
Mar 23, 2011
7,065
779
118
Gender
Male
My sister is of the opinion that as long as a game does the best it can with the resources it has, then it's a good-looking game. Mind you, I play a whole bunch of old and retro games, all of which she deems 'bad-looking' without even telling me which ones she thinks looks good, and even some newer games too. And the only game she plays is The Sims 2 with about half the expansion packs. Anal-retentively.

And for people who think HD graphics automatically make a game look good, and that the Wii is incapable of such things, I'll hear you guys out as soon as there's a Move-compatible, 1080p, without-slowdown version of Okami on the market.
 

Fishyash

Elite Member
Dec 27, 2010
1,154
0
41
sindremaster said:
Fishyash said:
IMO, graphics objectively make a game better. However, grahpics don't objectively make a game GOOD.

And you can have good grahpics but terrible art design. And that sucks.
I would just like to point out that "IMO" and "objectively" shouldn't be in the same sentence.
How the hell did I let myself post such stupidity? That was a stupid choice to use the word 'objectively'. I'm now thinking of a word to replace objectively, but I might as well have not put anything there...

I'm so tempted to edit it but I posted it yesterday :<
 

Manji187

New member
Jan 29, 2009
1,444
0
0
Never in the history of gaming has a bad game (story/ gameplay wise) been saved by virtue of its pretty graphics.

People =/= magpies. Overfocus to the point of obsession = serious flaw in character.
 

Shuswah_Noir

New member
Nov 20, 2009
288
0
0
Shallow anti-intellectualism
Minecraft is a brilliant example. It's not pretty. But it's been used to do some amazing things.