Your stance on graphics.
- Thread starter omega_peaches
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Aesthetics are important, graphics not so much.
I will love Super Mario Bros. 3 forever and it doesn't have amazing graphics,
it does have great game play and aesthetics though.
Others that I love that have okay graphics:
Cavestory
Minecraft
Terraria
Metroid(NES)
And all the great NES titles..
sure good graphics are nice but the heart of the game is its gameplay.
I will love Super Mario Bros. 3 forever and it doesn't have amazing graphics,
it does have great game play and aesthetics though.
Others that I love that have okay graphics:
Cavestory
Minecraft
Terraria
Metroid(NES)
And all the great NES titles..
sure good graphics are nice but the heart of the game is its gameplay.
Idk, I need -some- graphics to be able to get into a game (i've tried and TRIED to play the first STALKER game but I just CAN NOT get into it bc it's a game from '06 or '07 and the game just doesn't look good anymore and even tho it's a good game, I just cant bring myself to get into it) but at the same time I cant play a game like Two Worlds: II and the graphics are quite pretty but the gameplay and atmosphere just aren't there. Idk, it's hard to say which is more important... I think both are equally as important bc it doesn't work if you have one but not the other.
If there are two great games, graphics and sound (sometimes under appreciated) will split them, but in general a great game with poor graphics beats a poor game with great graphics every time. I only played HL1 through for the first time six months ago and would still rank it ahead of a lot of current gen shooters.
Graphics are extremely important, especially today. But the trick is finding the right aesthetic to go with it.
Although I sympathize with that sentiment, I'm trying to think about a game when the graphics passed the threshold point of awfulness, so that I stopped caring to play it. Honestly, I can't think of an example. I'm trying to think of a game that had bad graphics, but what I'm coming upon was Liero. The graphics were 8-bit, but fantastic to play, especially with a friend. So I'd have to say that I haven't come upon such a game where the graphics were so bad that it made me want to quit it.omega_peaches said:
The graphics have to be good enough to immerse you into the story, but that's more about have a good art design than needing a $2000 graphics card to render it. Case in point, I recently replayed Half-life, and the graphics definitely look over a decade old. But that doesn't actually detract from the immersion - they're showing a coherent and well-designed world, so that's enough. KotOR is another one which still hits this mark just fine.
There is a limit, though - something like Doom or Wolfenstein 3D is just too retro to give the same kind of immersion. It can still be plenty of fun, but it feels arcade-y rather than immersive.
On the other hand, I don't care how much bloom lighting and texture you stick into Brink or Kane and Lynch 2 or CoD:BlOps, it's not going to be enough to make me like the game.
There is a limit, though - something like Doom or Wolfenstein 3D is just too retro to give the same kind of immersion. It can still be plenty of fun, but it feels arcade-y rather than immersive.
On the other hand, I don't care how much bloom lighting and texture you stick into Brink or Kane and Lynch 2 or CoD:BlOps, it's not going to be enough to make me like the game.
Pretty much, yeah.synobal said:
Better graphics (which is generally better design rather than higher polygon count) will draw you into a game more, but whether the game is something that you enjoy being drawn into is usually a separate issue from the graphics...
When it comes to RPGs and games that have rather large environments that involve a lot of exploration, I feel that aesthetics and also graphics are more important. The Witcher 2 is such a stunningly gorgeous game. I've beaten the game twice and I still find myself in awe at some of the scenery that is in the title.Kahunaburger said:Midnight Crossroads said:
It can be done.
They made that game on 1/3 the budget of Dragon Age 2. There was a 4 year dev cycle, though. But still, it shows that graphically intensive games that don't skimp on content are absolutely a possibility. I would prefer that games aimed more at content than graphics as a general rule, though.
Graphics should have an art style that reinforces the overall theme of the game, even if that is photo-realism. Games about serious matters should have something in the art style to convey that seriousness with dark areas or realistic settings. Lighter games should convey it through exaggerated models or cartoony styles. The themes and visuals should match, not clash.
However, any game should make it abundantly clear what you are looking at by properly making unit models unique and environmental effects non-intrusive. The Modern Warfare series and Battlefield series may pride themselves on graphics but its all for naught when playing feels more like a shitty eye exam with brown against darker brown and clouds of dust everywhere than a test of any relevant skill. Or in RPGs where the people you are fighting are indistinguishable but one has to be a priority target. The only exception being horror games where the deprivation of senses is a tool for creating atmosphere.
However, any game should make it abundantly clear what you are looking at by properly making unit models unique and environmental effects non-intrusive. The Modern Warfare series and Battlefield series may pride themselves on graphics but its all for naught when playing feels more like a shitty eye exam with brown against darker brown and clouds of dust everywhere than a test of any relevant skill. Or in RPGs where the people you are fighting are indistinguishable but one has to be a priority target. The only exception being horror games where the deprivation of senses is a tool for creating atmosphere.
I can't say I give two shits about graphics, honestly. Every time I try to come up with a reason for putting preference on graphics, I find that it get lost in the gameplay and simply don't care about the scenery, so long as the graphics support the gameplay (you can see what you need to) then I frankly don't care if it looks like it's from 1st generation consuls. I also find that the texture re-use is the most offsetting thing for me in a game, and probably the best way to confuse new players.
I think it depends on how the game is trying to sell itself. Indie games often have eye-watering graphics (when strictly compared to, I dunno, Assassin's Creed or Crysis or whatever your personal benchmark is), but they aren't criticised for it because those are the resources they have to hand.
For myself, I really appreciate good graphics (or, failing that, a gorgeous aesthetic), but I won't criticise a game for having sub-par graphics if it's clear they've done the best with what they have, and have made a quality game in other respects.
For myself, I really appreciate good graphics (or, failing that, a gorgeous aesthetic), but I won't criticise a game for having sub-par graphics if it's clear they've done the best with what they have, and have made a quality game in other respects.
I'm not very concerned with bad graphics. I was also surprised by how many people said Duke Nukem Forever looked terrible, though. It looked fine to me.
In my opinion a good art style and just good overall design can trump technology 90% of the time. Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Prince of Persia 2008 and Symphony of the Night still look great, for example. Therefore I find it inexcusable when budget cuts take the blame for a game that looks terrible, as simply putting more effort into the art style would improve things. I'll still be impressed by raw technological power in Crysis or Killzone, but not by much if the art style is bland. The majority of games have very satisfactory graphics in my opinion and dumping endless amounts of cash to make the graphics "DA BESTEST EVAR" isn't really worth it in the long-haul.
they need to have graphics that mirror the system they're on. they need to be "good", but no less than that i think. nintendo ds, it doesnt matter to me, neither does wii, but xbox and ps3 need to do it good. PC i dont give a crap because it varies from comp. to comp.