Do good graphics really matter?

Recommended Videos

BlueSinbad

New member
Oct 18, 2010
319
0
0
Mechsoap said:
They are a nice bonus.
Completely agree with this, sure it would have been nice to have such things as Final Fantasy 7,8 and 9 with the PS3 tech demo graphics, but honest to God I don't think all in all I would have loved those games as much if they were all nice and shiny, the stories took a hold of me so well that graphics, well, I just couldn't care less actually come to think of it.
I just love the Golden Age years of games where they actually had a meaning.

Golden Age years were mid-90s to about 2003/4 :)
 

gl1koz3

New member
May 24, 2010
931
0
0
A nice bonus, but one should not be sacrificed for the other. If gameplay is crap, then the game is... well... crap. Graphics can't really compensate for that other than turn it into implied dick-waving game. I'm not saying gameplay doesn't do the same, but with the graphics it kinda automatically is.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
e2density said:
No, they do not matter...
Or all of the games in the past 10 years would have been "failures" except for Crysis, which really wasn't all that interesting.
Just because graphics are worse than Crysis' doesn't make them bad.

And I beg to differ: smacking a soldier in the face with a shovel and then beating him to death with his cap is highly interesting!

Phoenixlight said:
They do to a certain point but when some PC gamers say that PS3 games look awful then it's just ridicoulous.
Well, surely it depends on what games they're talking about? inFamous, for example, is ugly as sin for the most part.

OT: Yes, they do, but they don't have to be the best, and they don't have to attempt hyper-realism. I'm just as likely to cream over great art direction as I am over great textures.
 

Kroxile

New member
Oct 14, 2010
543
0
0
I still play games like pong, asteroids, and missile command so I don't think graphics need to be any better than a clearly defined here's you, and here's them, have fun!

This is not to say I don't like having super awesome realistic graphics, I'm just saying they aren't necessary for a game to be good nor have they ever been. Just look at the virtual console sales for Super Mario Bros 3 on the Wii if you need any proof of how awesome (older) games hold up in comparison to all the newer stuff today.
 

GothmogII

Possessor Of Hats
Apr 6, 2008
2,215
0
0
Be clear: Make the distinction between -graphics- and aesthetics.

Minecraft is a graphically poor game in terms of the visual technology used, but is also aesthetically rich. It has a style in mind from the start and fleshes it out magnificently.

Even if a game is good visually on a technical level, this does not necessarily make it good on an aesthetic level, a common complaint being that many FPSes tend to look very similar. This actually has little to do with the technology, but rather because the developers did not strive to create something that visually belonged to their game alone, often seemingly content to work purely on several smaller portions of game art that they want to associate with the game, i.e. character, vehicle or weapon models or specific buildings or locations within the game.

IMO, of course.
 

Toaster Hunter

New member
Jun 10, 2009
1,851
0
0
Good graphics are a great bonus and make a game more enjoyable, but I won't avoid a game or buy one for that reason alone. Good graphics help, but as long as I can identify what is going on its not to much of a problem
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
Games are a visual media. I used to think they don't, but when you switch between a PC or next gen console, to a Wii, it really devalues gameplay
 

Clockwork-Fox

New member
Dec 6, 2010
6
0
0
Personally I think being spoiled by good graphics is a problem in modern games. There are a lot of games people will simply dismiss as being cheap or bad just because they aren't rendered to death. Personally I don't care if I can see every blade of grass or drop of sweat, as long as I can see where I'm going and what to kill.
And if there are lots of things to do.
 

Mechsoap

New member
Apr 4, 2010
2,129
0
0
Goody said:
Mechsoap said:
They are a nice bonus.
I think the first reply is a perfect response, they are in fact simply a nice bonus, a game can be good without good graphics, take [PROTOTYPE] for example: really fun game, ps2 quality graphics, and Crysis 1: Excellent graphics, OK game. But it nice when a game is fun to play and has good graphics.
Or a even better example, dwarf fortress, it is a extremely fun game but you can hardly see the difference between a fish and a tree.
 

jopomeister

New member
Apr 7, 2010
203
0
0
Not necessary, but can make the experience be more like you are IN the game. I mean, I recently played Assassins Creed II, and that game represents the Renaissance with great beauty. Loved it.
 

Sakurazaki1023

New member
Feb 15, 2010
681
0
0
It depends on the game. For games like Just Cause 2 where exploration was a necessity, then having gorgeous graphics and scenery made the game far more enjoyable. By comparison, Crackdown had fairly minimalist graphics that were excused because of the cell shading. It compensated for a lack of graphical prowess by creating a gorgeous world using non-realistic graphics and I think that the game was better for it.

That being said, I generally prefer stylized graphics over realistic. Borderlands managed to be more interesting and original than every other RPG or FPS on the market because it stood out by using heavily stylized art.

Good gameplay can excuse bad graphics, an original aesthetic can excuse bad graphics, but good graphics cannot excuse a bland aesthetic or bad gameplay.
 

thatman

New member
Feb 16, 2011
54
0
0
Never really had an obsession over graphics, most of my favourite games are on older generation consoles anyway. So while i can admire some really good graphics (here's looking at you FF13)i don't think they make a game at all. In fact, some games with great graphics can kinda suck (here's looking at you FF13!)
 

tahrey

New member
Sep 18, 2009
1,124
0
0
Good enough graphics are important. Enough to make the game immersive, or at least not eye-stingingly ugly, and in keeping with the machine's tech level (or attempting to go beyond it, even).

However they are not the be-all and end-all. As awesome as a top-notch graphics demo may be, you can't really get much enjoyment out of "playing" it. If you have to drop the quality a bit - and do so gracefully so it doesn't just look like a cack handed attempt at something better - in order to improve the gameplay, then by all means so so.

(uber case in point: Minecraft ... I think I played some things on my old 486 or even atari that looked superficially better, but they didn't have the sheer weight of stuff that was going on behind the scenes - to do even half of it they'd have had to drop down to low-animation 2D, such as in Civilisation)

tl;dr so long as it "looks good" in its own context, but not everything has to be a DX11 miracle. And design can be as important as the actual technical power.
(Would I be forgiven for preferring FF6's style and graphics over FF7, or even FF10?)
 

Ailia

New member
Nov 11, 2010
261
0
0
They're a nice bonus, but not necessary. They need to be good enough that I can distinguish enemies from NPCs, and characters in general from the background (I couldn't play FF7 for this exact reason, even with the pointers over their heads I still couldn't tell what was a wall and what was a person).
My computer's a pile of crap when it comes to playing games, so I play DA on the lowest graphic quality and it doesn't bother me. As long as the game's good I can forgive a lot of little things, graphics included.
 

Eumersian

Posting in the wrong thread.
Sep 3, 2009
18,754
0
0
Graphics actually do matter.

I'm not saying that I can't play SMB3 without vomiting at its primitive graphics. I love games for their gameplay. However, the thing is, we live in an age where big-money developers have the moolah to hire some good artists and other stuff. So a big-time, mainstream title with mediocre graphics is going to perhaps not make the game worse, but make the company look bad. Indie and artsy games I can understand, but if the level of detail in Skyrim does not meet my expectations, I will kill myselfloljk.

Just sayin'?