minecraft... nahh seriously though I'm kinda an elitist/snob so anything below my 1600/1200 uberness pains me to watch
What Do you consider "Bad Graphics?"
- Thread starter TheFloBros
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Good-Realistic- Crysis Good-Artistic- Borderlands
Bad-Realistic- Homefront (The gameplay is soooo goood though) Bad-Artistic- Lost in Shadow or Shadow's Tale.
Bad-Realistic- Homefront (The gameplay is soooo goood though) Bad-Artistic- Lost in Shadow or Shadow's Tale.
I'm not picky on graphics. I still play games from the 80s and 90s regularly. I did try to play Morrowind a while back and was sort of turned off by its looks (and very turned of by its gameplay mechanics).
But I'm generally very forgiving on graphics. ART STYLE is a completely different matter, however. I hate the look of most Epic and Unreal Engine games I see (not all though. Mass Effect, Alpha Protocol, and Enslaved are all on the Unreal Engine and I like those games). Gears of War was just too colorless. The greyness of Fallout 3 was a huge reason I hated that game. It might sound petty, but a dull and monotonous color palette can easily kill a game for me.
Everything in the Duke Nukem Forever screenshots and videos I've seen (not much since I'm really not interested in the game) looks sweaty and gross. I feel like I can smell it.
But I'm generally very forgiving on graphics. ART STYLE is a completely different matter, however. I hate the look of most Epic and Unreal Engine games I see (not all though. Mass Effect, Alpha Protocol, and Enslaved are all on the Unreal Engine and I like those games). Gears of War was just too colorless. The greyness of Fallout 3 was a huge reason I hated that game. It might sound petty, but a dull and monotonous color palette can easily kill a game for me.
Everything in the Duke Nukem Forever screenshots and videos I've seen (not much since I'm really not interested in the game) looks sweaty and gross. I feel like I can smell it.
My (flawed, midnight) definition of bad graphics;
Graphics are there to give you visual information; ennemies, objects, yourself, the environment, interface, ect.
When it fails to do so in any way you cant play the game properly. You cant see, interact and identify whatever visual cues you need to progress. And thats frustrating. Wich is bad.
Graphics are there to give you visual information; ennemies, objects, yourself, the environment, interface, ect.
When it fails to do so in any way you cant play the game properly. You cant see, interact and identify whatever visual cues you need to progress. And thats frustrating. Wich is bad.
Well... I consider anything that makes it difficult to play the game because things are unrecognizable from each other as separate (people blend into the trees unintentionally). Graphics to me arent a huge deal, as long as the game is fun. Sometimes its even an art style.
And I do separate BAD graphics from OLD graphics.
And I do separate BAD graphics from OLD graphics.
I've been playing 80's and even 70's arcades on MAME lately. I surely know when does a game has bad graphics or not. Thanks to Minecraft and Super Meat Boy, my appreciation for old school graphics grew considerably and I'm currently playing lots and lots of retro goodness.
Just as Shamus said, I think that 90% of the games that came from 2004 and onwards hardly have "bad" graphics, I mean, I just played Doom 3 today for a bit and it still has some amazing light and shadow effects.
Just as Shamus said, I think that 90% of the games that came from 2004 and onwards hardly have "bad" graphics, I mean, I just played Doom 3 today for a bit and it still has some amazing light and shadow effects.
I think the quality of the graphics depends on the genre, and how the game is shown.
Borderlands, even though it doesn't look realistic, I still think it looks quite nice for the way the art style went.
Minecraft, has bad graphics in terms of most First-Person games, but in this way makes it what it is, with better graphics the game play would be diminished.
EndWar has good graphics for a RTS game, however in most other games they might not be percived as such.
It is hard for me to find a game with bad graphics, because it depends, as I said on the genre, the art style, and also when it was made. Even 8-bit games can have 'good graphics' depending on what they are trying to do.
Not sure and answer to OT was anywhere in there, but I've typed to much to not post now.
EDIT: I suppose a game with 'bad' graphics would be one that has badly melded textures, or colors and textures that insult the eye.(Not Many)
Borderlands, even though it doesn't look realistic, I still think it looks quite nice for the way the art style went.
Minecraft, has bad graphics in terms of most First-Person games, but in this way makes it what it is, with better graphics the game play would be diminished.
EndWar has good graphics for a RTS game, however in most other games they might not be percived as such.
It is hard for me to find a game with bad graphics, because it depends, as I said on the genre, the art style, and also when it was made. Even 8-bit games can have 'good graphics' depending on what they are trying to do.
Not sure and answer to OT was anywhere in there, but I've typed to much to not post now.
EDIT: I suppose a game with 'bad' graphics would be one that has badly melded textures, or colors and textures that insult the eye.(Not Many)
To me, a game has bad graphics if it's too pixelly, textures are really wrong, or if I can't even identify what I literally have my nose pressed to ingame. To give examples: Mass Effect 2 would be at the top, Minecraft is middling. I can't really think of anything off the top of my head that would be 'bad'.
*Edit* Aha! Jurassic Park: Trespasser! How's that for an obscure reference? That game was shit graphically.
*Edit* Aha! Jurassic Park: Trespasser! How's that for an obscure reference? That game was shit graphically.
Graphics have to look like the developer actually tried to make it look real-ish. We are at a stage now when screen-shots from in-game are near photo-realistic, and I know not every developer has the budget to buy the rights to unreal engine 3 or cryengine 3 or develop their own groundbreaking engine, but games like homefront, black ops, mass effect 2 and even older games like prototype have not had the effort put in by developers to make the game look presentable. Homefront is all round shit looking, black ops has the biggest budget you've ever seen but looks only average, and mass effect 2 doesn't even have the OPTION for anti-aliasing, that's just lazy, but also a bit odd considering it's engine is a modified unreal engine 3. Did they remove anti-aliasing when they modified it?
I feel that many people place too much on graphics these days.
IMO graphics should be one of the last things to focus on, gameplay means so much more to me.
IMO graphics should be one of the last things to focus on, gameplay means so much more to me.
For myself, I particularly am unable to perceive any difference between graphics that are better than Resident Evil 4 for the GameCube. That means that I see absolutely no difference between the graphics of any game that came out this generation.
Then again, I play ASCII roguelikes, and I don't think those graphics are bad. Get a grip on, peoples.
Then again, I play ASCII roguelikes, and I don't think those graphics are bad. Get a grip on, peoples.
As others have said as long as it is clear what is going on, the graphics are fine. Dwarf fortress has fine graphics, you can tell what each character means. The only visual aspect I consider vital is draw distance, I absolutely cannot abide enemies and terrain popping out of nowhere 10 feet in front of me, I'd rather play a game with just wireframe models if it means I can see further then I can shoot.