Hard to say really =/ I guess anything that isn't appealing to look at would be bad graphics in my eyes, Kane and Lynch 2 being a near perfect example.
Oh and Minecrafts graphics rule
Oh and Minecrafts graphics rule
what are bad graphics?
- Thread starter Circusfreak
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Generally when I think of bad graphics it's usually in the sense of:Circusfreak said:
a)poorly designed models that don't move well in terms of mesh manipulation and skeleton flow
or
b)colour clashes and generally poor thematic harmony that jar one out of the immersion.
Older games, while not as realistic or visual detailed as more modern ones, make up for it with usually varied and vibrant colour schemes that gave life and character to the game's world. That still makes good in my books.
I think it's really about how well you see the game. If you can make out relatively small objects from 5 feet, (varying on the TV size) the graphics quality is good enough.
But being humans, we'll never settle for good enough. ;D
Then, once we've seen better quality, we get used to that and any less resolution isn't satisfactory. That's why after playing MW2, Spongebob Squarepants: The Movie Game isn't good enough for me.
But being humans, we'll never settle for good enough. ;D
Then, once we've seen better quality, we get used to that and any less resolution isn't satisfactory. That's why after playing MW2, Spongebob Squarepants: The Movie Game isn't good enough for me.
I think a good measure of graphics is whether or not you can tell what in the hell is going on (Gears of War fails this test).
Bad graphics should just be when you can't play the game because of visual problems on the screen. Other than that, anything should go.
Does Tetris have bad graphics? As long as you can tell the shapes apart, does it matter?
Graphics are an excuse for whatever developers spend money on. It's easy to say "this has more pixels per inch and is therefore better" and prove it. It's a lot hard to say "This game is better written" and prove it. Sadly, graphics are killing gaming.
Too many gamers look to graphics as a sign of if a game is good. It's what most 360 vs. PS3 arguments boil down to. It's what that whole stupid scandal with Alan Wake was about. It's why MW2 is "better" than the original. It's why Halo ODST "wasn't any different" than Halo 3. It's why people are already bitching about Batman: Arkham City, because they're going to use the same engine and only have minor graphics improvements. It's why people today refuse to play Deus Ex, despite it being one of the best games ever made.
In short, it's why we have games that take up 2 DVDs, but lack decent voice acting and aren't really fun to play, but boy do they look pretty.
Does Tetris have bad graphics? As long as you can tell the shapes apart, does it matter?
Graphics are an excuse for whatever developers spend money on. It's easy to say "this has more pixels per inch and is therefore better" and prove it. It's a lot hard to say "This game is better written" and prove it. Sadly, graphics are killing gaming.
Too many gamers look to graphics as a sign of if a game is good. It's what most 360 vs. PS3 arguments boil down to. It's what that whole stupid scandal with Alan Wake was about. It's why MW2 is "better" than the original. It's why Halo ODST "wasn't any different" than Halo 3. It's why people are already bitching about Batman: Arkham City, because they're going to use the same engine and only have minor graphics improvements. It's why people today refuse to play Deus Ex, despite it being one of the best games ever made.
In short, it's why we have games that take up 2 DVDs, but lack decent voice acting and aren't really fun to play, but boy do they look pretty.
Minecraft's graphics are more of an art style nowadays rather than the result of a technological limitation (not that a 3D Java game isn't limited...)
What if Minecraft was ported to the Unreal 3 Engine and had AA, anisotropic filtering, a better lighting engine, etc. while retaining the same style of textures (blocky shapes) and the same low-poly cube models. Would your friends still say the graphics are "bad" in reference to the retained art style? What if Minecraft was a gritty, realistic game? Since when is realism good versus non-realism? Does not pushing a graphics engine to its absolute limit make a game bad?
Basically, graphics are "bad" only when they try to look like something and fail, like having model of a human with a decent polycount, but a blurry, low res texture. Graphics are "good" when the artists working on a game manage to achieve in the final product the look and feel they initially planned. At least IMO.
It's all relative anyways. 10 years from now the same people will say games of today have bad graphics.
edit:
Team Fortress 2 is another good example of the art style vs graphics argument. TF2 has it's own little universe when everything looks and acts cartoon-ish. The different themes of maps and their design helps carve out a TF2 world. 10 years from now, when game engines have better lighting, can render higher-res textures and models, better animation, that universe of Team Fortress 2 will still be intact. The graphics won't look "bad" because they don't try as hard as other games to emulate the real world. In a sense, only "realistic" games will begin to look dated, but as I said earlier, it's all a matter of perspective.
What if Minecraft was ported to the Unreal 3 Engine and had AA, anisotropic filtering, a better lighting engine, etc. while retaining the same style of textures (blocky shapes) and the same low-poly cube models. Would your friends still say the graphics are "bad" in reference to the retained art style? What if Minecraft was a gritty, realistic game? Since when is realism good versus non-realism? Does not pushing a graphics engine to its absolute limit make a game bad?
Basically, graphics are "bad" only when they try to look like something and fail, like having model of a human with a decent polycount, but a blurry, low res texture. Graphics are "good" when the artists working on a game manage to achieve in the final product the look and feel they initially planned. At least IMO.
It's all relative anyways. 10 years from now the same people will say games of today have bad graphics.
edit:
Team Fortress 2 is another good example of the art style vs graphics argument. TF2 has it's own little universe when everything looks and acts cartoon-ish. The different themes of maps and their design helps carve out a TF2 world. 10 years from now, when game engines have better lighting, can render higher-res textures and models, better animation, that universe of Team Fortress 2 will still be intact. The graphics won't look "bad" because they don't try as hard as other games to emulate the real world. In a sense, only "realistic" games will begin to look dated, but as I said earlier, it's all a matter of perspective.
Bad graphics can be listed into the two categories of the Uncanny valley where the beginning of the crap spectrum could be basicly anything from 1 pixel shooting at another 2 pixels trying to represent something or aren't representing a feature of a character/class/spell effect so that you might know that the heck is going on, were the other extreme is after going for photo realistic graphics the more things that are wrong with the "realistic" characters the more disturbing it is, like the characters mouths don't move, they don't blink or their facial structure is angled in such a way that the monstrosity appears to be starring into your soul like a woman possessed by the spirit of murderous Molotov cocktail.
anyone whom see's that something that serves its purpose is not absolute photo-realistic and dosen't like it because of that is just what we call a 'graphics junkie'.
anyone whom see's that something that serves its purpose is not absolute photo-realistic and dosen't like it because of that is just what we call a 'graphics junkie'.
In my mind bad graphics are when the graphics:
a) inhibit the game play by stopping you being able to see what's going on (like fogging in a racing game... unhelpful, or not being able to tell the difference between a ledge and part of a flat wall).
b) look needlessly ugly regardless of resolution (i.e. garish colours, blocky backgrounds, poor charecter animation, that sort of thing).
If games are art, and you can have bad art, then yeah, you can have bad graphics but only from an artistic stand point. I think there's a differnece between things being artistically good and things being realistic.
a) inhibit the game play by stopping you being able to see what's going on (like fogging in a racing game... unhelpful, or not being able to tell the difference between a ledge and part of a flat wall).
b) look needlessly ugly regardless of resolution (i.e. garish colours, blocky backgrounds, poor charecter animation, that sort of thing).
If games are art, and you can have bad art, then yeah, you can have bad graphics but only from an artistic stand point. I think there's a differnece between things being artistically good and things being realistic.
First thing that comes to my mind is Sniper:Ghost Warrior. Mediocrily(spelled wrong?) rendered foliage+No bullets in magazine in reloading animation+the pistol's slide doesn't even move back when shooting=Bad Graphics. I think it is a mix of bad rendering, bad textures, and bad animations.
Besides the example (not played Madworld) this is my response. Thanks for typing it out for me!AjimboB said:
I think for me it's when they actually stop and make you go "And what the FUCK happend here"
That doesn't mean it's just old, retro, whatever... when they actually stop you getting into the game and you really notice.
Monster Hunter Tri, by alot of standards people measure to, looks shit, If you hold to say Metro 2033 running on a high end PC (Fucking love my PC that game does look good)... But I personally found it to look really damn good.
Same to be said for Legend Of Zelda : TP, held next to I dunno... MW2 for argument sake, doesn't look as technically great, but, unless you're a bit of a cock, you can't cant say it looks bad and it doesn't detract from the game.
That doesn't mean it's just old, retro, whatever... when they actually stop you getting into the game and you really notice.
Monster Hunter Tri, by alot of standards people measure to, looks shit, If you hold to say Metro 2033 running on a high end PC (Fucking love my PC that game does look good)... But I personally found it to look really damn good.
Same to be said for Legend Of Zelda : TP, held next to I dunno... MW2 for argument sake, doesn't look as technically great, but, unless you're a bit of a cock, you can't cant say it looks bad and it doesn't detract from the game.
Well unfortunately, my eyes tend to easily pick out low or even medium textures or low anisotropic filtering, Anti Aliasing "jaggies" and all sorts of bad graphics. Some or most games I can handle this, but some just get right on my tits. It's annoying being able to pick out the most arbitrary and small things, because it means that I have to have to hardware available to run a game at full settings.
When it comes to console games however I'm not that bothered, since I know there is nothing you can do to make it look better, it's the way it is and that is that.
When it comes to console games however I'm not that bothered, since I know there is nothing you can do to make it look better, it's the way it is and that is that.
However, the image on the right is clearly very heavily modified Morrowind, the original model for that character looked very different, nor could put her hands on her hips.icyneesan said:At times like these, we turn to google for the answer.
Ironicly one of the images (this one) points back to The Escapist and a thread about remaking the elder scrolls games
For the most part, if a game suspends disbelief and convinces it will have good graphics. Before 3D, if a game was done right it suggested enough for your mind to fill in the gaps so to speak. It's why something like Limbo can be very effective.
I thought it was oblivion :VBashful Reaper said:However, the image on the right is clearly very heavily modified Morrowind, the original model for that character looked very different, nor could put her hands on her hips.icyneesan said:At times like these, we turn to google for the answer.
Ironicly one of the images (this one) points back to The Escapist and a thread about remaking the elder scrolls games
For the most part, if a game suspends disbelief and convinces it will have good graphics. Before 3D, if a game was done right it suggested enough for your mind to fill in the gaps so to speak. It's why something like Limbo can be very effective.
Bad graphics to me is when the graphics hurt my eyes, or I simply can't tell what's what. I actually sometimes really like games with old graphics, like Quake, Duke 3D, or Return to Castle Wolfenstein. I'm not too sure why I like old graphics, but the blurrier textures and the blockier models just look great to me.
nope, the character model's been upgraded via modding, but the setting is no where NEAR the resolution that Oblivion runs at.icyneesan said:I thought it was oblivion :VBashful Reaper said:However, the image on the right is clearly very heavily modified Morrowind, the original model for that character looked very different, nor could put her hands on her hips.icyneesan said:At times like these, we turn to google for the answer.
Ironicly one of the images (this one) points back to The Escapist and a thread about remaking the elder scrolls games
For the most part, if a game suspends disbelief and convinces it will have good graphics. Before 3D, if a game was done right it suggested enough for your mind to fill in the gaps so to speak. It's why something like Limbo can be very effective.
edit: for the record, the left image does NOT have bad graphics in the slightest. They're actually decent sprites, maybe a little low res for the presentation they're in, but they're not bad. Bad graphics detract from the gameplay even in their own generation. Look at the 3d rendered Atari Jaguar games, or the early Playstation stuff such as Shadow Madness, and even worse, 3d rendering (apart from VERY few games) in the eras BEFORE the playstation or Jaguar. That's some bad mojo.
Bad graphics are anything that detracts from immersion. Clipping, badly done animations, characters mouth moving wrong. These things remind you you're playing a game. Now graphic styles are varied, things are either stylised or realistic, somewhere inbewteen, maybe retro. All of these can be done extremely well. For example, Megaman X, Okami, Shadow Of The Colossus, and Halo 3, all are extremely different, but have good graphics, not once during any of these games, did a graphical flaw pop out to me.