you know what?...fuck it....graphics ARE important
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I have this attitude with 8 and 16 (maybe even 32) bit games because well, they all have pretty damn good pixel art. I think they may be talking about games such as Deus Ex and MGS1. I found it really hard to get into both even though I knew they had amazing gameplay because well, they were so ugly and outdated. Simple as that. The realistic PS1/N64 era games all suffer from this problem, yet from Gamecube onwards I don't think anyone except for massive graphic bastards wouldn't be able to get into a game because of its graphics.Lunar Templar said:
Anyone who claims that graphics are completely un-important and have no impact on a game, deserves to have all their current-gen technology taken, and be left with a fucking n64 for the rest of their life. Seriously.
However, graphics can become detrimental to a game when that's the only thing dev's have focused on, and gameplay-wise the game is a stack of bull-poo-poo. Graphics ought to be a side-thing, not a must. if your core gameplay is faulty/unintuitive, then graphics won't be your saviour, at least not in my eyes. I enjoy my high-def graphics, when they compliment the game's complexity, but they're most certainly not a vital necessity and will be overlooked if the game itself sucks.
However, graphics can become detrimental to a game when that's the only thing dev's have focused on, and gameplay-wise the game is a stack of bull-poo-poo. Graphics ought to be a side-thing, not a must. if your core gameplay is faulty/unintuitive, then graphics won't be your saviour, at least not in my eyes. I enjoy my high-def graphics, when they compliment the game's complexity, but they're most certainly not a vital necessity and will be overlooked if the game itself sucks.
graphics are important since they have to promote the aeshetics.aeshtetics is the point though it's subjective you love or hate it,its what communicates the whole visual message to you .is graphics important?ofcourse as a tool,but a game with the best graphics won't appeal to me unleash it has substantial art desing
How do you feel about older films in this case? Is a Laurel and Hardy movie a lot less funny purely because its filmed in grainy black and white? The same with Clerks which is stylistically dated too.
Its probably different from person to person but I still think the first Silent Hill is the creepiest game of all time even when I replay it with lousy graphics. Lone Survivor looks like a 16-bit game but absolutely wrecks Dead Space when it comes to immersion. Its defiantly not true of all tho. Playing the first Resident Evil completely drags you from the experience because of its bizarrely colourful world and jerky monsters. Graphics can be important but if a game is well designed enough it can be irrelevant.
Its probably different from person to person but I still think the first Silent Hill is the creepiest game of all time even when I replay it with lousy graphics. Lone Survivor looks like a 16-bit game but absolutely wrecks Dead Space when it comes to immersion. Its defiantly not true of all tho. Playing the first Resident Evil completely drags you from the experience because of its bizarrely colourful world and jerky monsters. Graphics can be important but if a game is well designed enough it can be irrelevant.
Are they important? Yes, I don't think anyone would seriously say that without at least a hint of hyperbole but as important as the games industry and some people make them out to be? No, they most certainly are not. You not being able to play a game due to it having old graphics is a problem of yours and not of the game.
There is a difference between old and bad graphics. FF VII is old and bad to some due to design decision for 3d models in some situations, Half life has old graphics, Blacksite Area 51 has bad graphics with some nice touches like the rain. When you can see the seems of walls and the environment then we have a problem.
I'm here to play a game not look at pretty pictures with bright lights.
There is a difference between old and bad graphics. FF VII is old and bad to some due to design decision for 3d models in some situations, Half life has old graphics, Blacksite Area 51 has bad graphics with some nice touches like the rain. When you can see the seems of walls and the environment then we have a problem.
I'm here to play a game not look at pretty pictures with bright lights.
You're right OP, graphics are important in the exact situation you cited- where you compare a recent game to a very old one. I mean, it's entirely fair to complete ignore
In my opinion, I suppose that the character make up of the individual will decide if he or she can still immerse themselves in a virtual world. I have been stuck with old games and bad computers all my life, just like I've had bad financial luck and had horrible people for bosses in my careers, directly leading me to be unable to 'enjoy' certain things like shiny bells and whistles in my gaming hobby. Often times, I lose the ability to have my hobby at all, and I must be thankful when I can sit down and play an old game from 1997, or an 'old' game from 2004.
Currently, on my computer I can't run anything newer than 2004 or so, but when you've been playing games like StarCraft (the original) and Diablo 2, for like 8 years now, a game from 2004 looks extremely advanced and beautiful to you. I downloaded some demos from steam yesterday not expecting to be able to run them, but I was... and I was blown away by how pretty the games were and how well they ran on my semi-new-but-not-very-good-computer-(because it was affordable)-(it doesn't even have dual cores)
To me, graphics aren't important... no matter the game, I always retain my ability to immerse myself if I am interested enough, which is often MY difficulty with newer games - they have the graphics, but they sacrifice so, so very much of the game in the process.
The bells and whistles you love, oh how little you realize just what they cost you.
In my opinion, I suppose that the character make up of the individual will decide if he or she can still immerse themselves in a virtual world. I have been stuck with old games and bad computers all my life, just like I've had bad financial luck and had horrible people for bosses in my careers, directly leading me to be unable to 'enjoy' certain things like shiny bells and whistles in my gaming hobby. Often times, I lose the ability to have my hobby at all, and I must be thankful when I can sit down and play an old game from 1997, or an 'old' game from 2004.
Currently, on my computer I can't run anything newer than 2004 or so, but when you've been playing games like StarCraft (the original) and Diablo 2, for like 8 years now, a game from 2004 looks extremely advanced and beautiful to you. I downloaded some demos from steam yesterday not expecting to be able to run them, but I was... and I was blown away by how pretty the games were and how well they ran on my semi-new-but-not-very-good-computer-(because it was affordable)-(it doesn't even have dual cores)
To me, graphics aren't important... no matter the game, I always retain my ability to immerse myself if I am interested enough, which is often MY difficulty with newer games - they have the graphics, but they sacrifice so, so very much of the game in the process.
The bells and whistles you love, oh how little you realize just what they cost you.
Bad graphics can detract from an otherwise good game. Good graphics cannot save a bad game but they can make a good game better.Soopy said:
They don't matter to me. I am thankful to get what I can, even if I am 8 years behind in technology, the games still look very nice, and thankfully games from the 2004 era don't sacrifice nearly as much as the 2012 ones do.
You see graphics take a lot more work to provide than they did before. A lot more money as well. Games just aren't as good as they used to be. The ending to ME3 is a good example of how lack of money can ruin a great game. Let's not kid ourselves, there's no way they could have done such a good job on all 3 ME games and then at the very last 10 minutes of the final game forgot how to make a good game. It somehow some way came to money interfering.
You see graphics take a lot more work to provide than they did before. A lot more money as well. Games just aren't as good as they used to be. The ending to ME3 is a good example of how lack of money can ruin a great game. Let's not kid ourselves, there's no way they could have done such a good job on all 3 ME games and then at the very last 10 minutes of the final game forgot how to make a good game. It somehow some way came to money interfering.
Wonderful, so the OP has come to tell us he's joined the gfxwhore crowd.
This is not wrong, but the title of the thread as an objective fact is still stupid and shallow.
Gamers who've been around a bit longer could all play the classics just fine, when they were still new and sometimes we even appreciated the then state-of-the-art gfx. Those classic games have not changed a bit, so the crowd has.
Personally I only expect fancy gfx when they ask full price for a game.
Games that are cheap because indie or old, shouldn't be held to the same graphical standards. I can play them just fine.
This is not wrong, but the title of the thread as an objective fact is still stupid and shallow.
Gamers who've been around a bit longer could all play the classics just fine, when they were still new and sometimes we even appreciated the then state-of-the-art gfx. Those classic games have not changed a bit, so the crowd has.
Personally I only expect fancy gfx when they ask full price for a game.
Games that are cheap because indie or old, shouldn't be held to the same graphical standards. I can play them just fine.
I agree with you, with only one game (or probably series) that is the exception.Dryk said:
Call of Duty: World at War for the Wii.
It is literally the first game to make me ill by just looking at the gameplay. And this wasn't displayed on a crappy TV either. The HUGE downgrade in graphics is not only daunting, but literally sickening to me.
I agree, that graphics are important, but it shouldn't carry the game, especially if it isn't an art game. I swear, people nowadays buy racing exclusive games because of the hyper realism. Where's the weapons? Where are the unique features to this games? Where's the customization?
I mean, that fine for arcade games, with a physical wheel and pedals, where physics is not your friend, but I want more from console/PC racing games. I just personally expect a racing game to be unique and exciting.
Nethack has more immersion with base ascii text than 90% of "modern" games.
Dwarf Fortress conveys so much information on a screen that I have difficulty with the base ascii but simple 16x16 pixel tiles make it perfect.
It isn't the graphics that make a difference, it is the style that does. The number of polygons matters much less than a sense of style.
Dwarf Fortress conveys so much information on a screen that I have difficulty with the base ascii but simple 16x16 pixel tiles make it perfect.
It isn't the graphics that make a difference, it is the style that does. The number of polygons matters much less than a sense of style.
I disagree, personally. Minecraft has bad graphics, but I think Minecraft is beautiful and it gets me very immersed!
There's a definite difference between 'graphical power' and 'graphics'.
Essentially, the way I see it, increased graphical power increases the range of art styles which are possible to pull off well. A game can have terrible 'graphics' in terms of raw power but still look great - it all depends on the style of the game, and what it's trying to do.
I suppose it's similar to movies and special effects. A movie doesn't need amazing special effects to look good if the movie is just about people talking and running around and doing stuff in the real world. But if a movie is about exploding spacecrafts and close-ups of alien bodies and all other kinds of fantasy stuff, it needs good special effects to pull it off, or it's going to look bad.
Essentially, the way I see it, increased graphical power increases the range of art styles which are possible to pull off well. A game can have terrible 'graphics' in terms of raw power but still look great - it all depends on the style of the game, and what it's trying to do.
I suppose it's similar to movies and special effects. A movie doesn't need amazing special effects to look good if the movie is just about people talking and running around and doing stuff in the real world. But if a movie is about exploding spacecrafts and close-ups of alien bodies and all other kinds of fantasy stuff, it needs good special effects to pull it off, or it's going to look bad.
Damn it, I came here hoping to read people screaming bloody murder at the OP (no offense Vault, this is the internet, and its fun to read mindless shouting matches) but I come here to find people being calm and collected and either agreeing or attempting to refute the argument? What the fuck is this shit? What happened to this place?
No but seriously, Escapist, you impressed me. You're growing up.
My opinion, well I almost exclusively play games from this gen and occasionally last gen, so you'd think my opinion is pretty clear cut, but that's mostly because I think the GAMEPLAY is actually a lot better than before (the reason I can't play Deus Ex like you Vault is not because the graphics are shit is because the gameplay is shit, and that is a much more controversial argument to make so be thankful you're just a "graphics whore" and don't subscribe to my line of thinking
)
But although I've only personally ever been turned off by games because of the gameplay, and have never played a game that actually hurt my eyes it was so ugly, I completely agree graphics are important. Technology helps to immerse, it can help to tell the story if used properly, it can amaze us and impress us and draw us further into a game. I appreciate a beautiful game more than anyone, and I'm the type who constantly wants to max out my settings and download graphics mods to make these virtual worlds even more impressive. So no arguments from me.
No but seriously, Escapist, you impressed me. You're growing up.
My opinion, well I almost exclusively play games from this gen and occasionally last gen, so you'd think my opinion is pretty clear cut, but that's mostly because I think the GAMEPLAY is actually a lot better than before (the reason I can't play Deus Ex like you Vault is not because the graphics are shit is because the gameplay is shit, and that is a much more controversial argument to make so be thankful you're just a "graphics whore" and don't subscribe to my line of thinking
)But although I've only personally ever been turned off by games because of the gameplay, and have never played a game that actually hurt my eyes it was so ugly, I completely agree graphics are important. Technology helps to immerse, it can help to tell the story if used properly, it can amaze us and impress us and draw us further into a game. I appreciate a beautiful game more than anyone, and I'm the type who constantly wants to max out my settings and download graphics mods to make these virtual worlds even more impressive. So no arguments from me.