Graphics don't mean much to me, they are nice but non essential. If every game looks as good as skyrim thats cool, but if a game is immersive as metal gear solid 1 its wonderful.
How important are graphics to you.
- Thread starter stvncpr236
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Actually, it isn't. Define "graphics" for instance. I really can't answer your question as it is.stvncpr236 said:
I always love good graphics, but if the game is good I will accept really bad graphics for a really good game.
But, I really REALLY LOVE graphics!
But, I really REALLY LOVE graphics!
Gameplay > Aesthetic > Graphics
The game has to be fun to play, hands down. A pleasing or interesting aesthetic (See: TF2 for good example. Graphics aren't really great, but are pleasing to look at) can make up for some gameplay shortcomings. And than graphics comes in last for me.
Also I'll throw this out here: What generation of games has dated the worst? Personally it's a tie between N64/PS1 era, and possibly ATARI 2600 and earlier. mainly because once 3D became the norm technology to make it better increased GREATLY between consoles. However Sprites and the 2D look of NES and SNES games help them remain playable.
Though I do enjoy a few of those games that have aged horribly, graphics wise.
The game has to be fun to play, hands down. A pleasing or interesting aesthetic (See: TF2 for good example. Graphics aren't really great, but are pleasing to look at) can make up for some gameplay shortcomings. And than graphics comes in last for me.
Also I'll throw this out here: What generation of games has dated the worst? Personally it's a tie between N64/PS1 era, and possibly ATARI 2600 and earlier. mainly because once 3D became the norm technology to make it better increased GREATLY between consoles. However Sprites and the 2D look of NES and SNES games help them remain playable.
Though I do enjoy a few of those games that have aged horribly, graphics wise.
I loves me some hardcore high end graphics like Metro 2033 and Battlefield 3.
However, it isn't the "high end"-ness or realistic-ness of the graphics that matter the most. That's more just me being a PC hardware nut. No, what I really want is where the graphics, animations, and overall art style all mesh together. I don't care if I go back and play FF2 or A Link To The Past on ZNES, they have good graphics. On the other hand, a game like Kingoms of Amalur: Reckoning has, IMO, bad graphics. Not just that they are low quality, but there's aspects of it I find jarring.
However, it isn't the "high end"-ness or realistic-ness of the graphics that matter the most. That's more just me being a PC hardware nut. No, what I really want is where the graphics, animations, and overall art style all mesh together. I don't care if I go back and play FF2 or A Link To The Past on ZNES, they have good graphics. On the other hand, a game like Kingoms of Amalur: Reckoning has, IMO, bad graphics. Not just that they are low quality, but there's aspects of it I find jarring.
I don't place too much emphasis on graphical fidelity, but I certainly do place a great deal of value on overall asthetic design. A game with a high polygon count or a super-detailed textures does not automatically make it better looking. Good art design goes much further than this, and quite often helps the game age significantly better than games which are built around a high degree of fidelity. Games which make use of sprites have continued to improve in quality since the 16-bit era (a lot of little touches have been added for the most part), but for the most part they don't have to look much better than they were at that point. They're timeless at this point, they'll never look bad provided the art design is up to snuff; many of the re-release ports from that era are either complete overhauls (Final Fantasy IV) or largely untouched (Chrono Trigger).
---
To look at some of the more modern titles, art design is still superior to raw graphical detail. Here's a few examples of what I feel are the best looking titles in the past decade or so of gaming:
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow
This game is underrated as a whole in my opinion, but few can deny how great this game looks. Yes, it has a very high level of fidelity; it's not uncommon for the game to buckle under the strain of it's own ambition at times (particularly the Xbox 360 version). Nevertheless, it's a very colourful game (except the parts of the game which are supposed to be a wasteland) which makes great use of all the fidelity it's given; while other hack & slash games are also much better looking than your average shooter (argh, so much brown), they actually end up looking somewhat bland besides LoS. Not only that, it's significantly longer than games within the same genre; a bit more than double the normal length for the genre isn't an unreasonable estimate, meaning that many more beautiful vistas to see.
Final Fantasy XIII
Another game which gets more dislike than it deserves (again, in my opinion), though the flaws in this one a bit more pronounced than CV:LoS; both games take much longer than they should to hit their stride, but they're actually quite good once they do. But we're talking about asthetics here, aren't we? Say what you will about the rest of the game, but Square's art design is still one of the best in the business. Again, we have a very high degree of fidelity; again, it's another game which puts it too good use.
Shadow of the Colossus
Previous console generation, copious amounts of brown colours, loves bloom lighting (... I think); despite all that, this game still looks great. I'm not referring to the somewhat recent HD remake either, the original still holds up fine. As I said, it mostly comes down to art design; in the case of SotC, the minimalist approach works fairly well. Detail work didn't play a huge role in this game, but overall shape and scale certainly did. While many are quick to criticize colour palettes which are predominantly brown, this is a game which isn't hindered by it; perhaps proof that a lot of brown isn't necessarily a bad thing for a game's asthetics, even if most have no idea how to use it.
The Metroid Prime Sub-series
The first game in the series impressed me with it's impressive level of detail, much of it shown through the HUD of Samus' helmet: rain droplets on this visor, lens flares, fogging up when going through steam vents, catching a glimpse of Samus' face under the right circumstances, and many other things. The second and third games of the sub-series are no different. The level of fidelity in all the games is superb, especially taking into account the fact Nintendo's consoles aren't known for being the most powerful consoles, which makes the next point all the more impressive: all three games run at a rock solid 60 frames per second. The first two examples above are known to struggle under the weight of their own fidelity, while SotC's minimalist approach means maintaining it's framerate isn't an issue. The Prime games look just as good, if not arguably better, and manage to run like greased lightning; even better, they age very gracefully.
---
Now, the question of whether graphics (or even overall asthetics) are more important than gameplay is a different matter. An amazing level of detail will not make up for a game which is awful to play. The first two examples above may not be the greatest games, but they're certainly not bad games either; the challenge getting the rabid masses to not hop on the bashing bandwagon and be reasonable about their opinions. However, the latter two examples are quite renowned for being outstanding games; the fact they look greate is just the icing on the cake.
I personally don't feel that graphics are the end-all for me, and for the most part I only view them as an additional perk to a good game. I didn't get the PC version of Skyrim because it looks better, I got that version so I could enjoy the mods. Speaking of which, it's a good looking game... but the art design isn't overly impressive in my opinion. Back to the point, a graphics aren't critical to my enjoy of a game; however, they do hold more water than the opinion of those on the bandwagon.
---
To look at some of the more modern titles, art design is still superior to raw graphical detail. Here's a few examples of what I feel are the best looking titles in the past decade or so of gaming:
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow
This game is underrated as a whole in my opinion, but few can deny how great this game looks. Yes, it has a very high level of fidelity; it's not uncommon for the game to buckle under the strain of it's own ambition at times (particularly the Xbox 360 version). Nevertheless, it's a very colourful game (except the parts of the game which are supposed to be a wasteland) which makes great use of all the fidelity it's given; while other hack & slash games are also much better looking than your average shooter (argh, so much brown), they actually end up looking somewhat bland besides LoS. Not only that, it's significantly longer than games within the same genre; a bit more than double the normal length for the genre isn't an unreasonable estimate, meaning that many more beautiful vistas to see.
Final Fantasy XIII
Another game which gets more dislike than it deserves (again, in my opinion), though the flaws in this one a bit more pronounced than CV:LoS; both games take much longer than they should to hit their stride, but they're actually quite good once they do. But we're talking about asthetics here, aren't we? Say what you will about the rest of the game, but Square's art design is still one of the best in the business. Again, we have a very high degree of fidelity; again, it's another game which puts it too good use.
Shadow of the Colossus
Previous console generation, copious amounts of brown colours, loves bloom lighting (... I think); despite all that, this game still looks great. I'm not referring to the somewhat recent HD remake either, the original still holds up fine. As I said, it mostly comes down to art design; in the case of SotC, the minimalist approach works fairly well. Detail work didn't play a huge role in this game, but overall shape and scale certainly did. While many are quick to criticize colour palettes which are predominantly brown, this is a game which isn't hindered by it; perhaps proof that a lot of brown isn't necessarily a bad thing for a game's asthetics, even if most have no idea how to use it.
The Metroid Prime Sub-series
The first game in the series impressed me with it's impressive level of detail, much of it shown through the HUD of Samus' helmet: rain droplets on this visor, lens flares, fogging up when going through steam vents, catching a glimpse of Samus' face under the right circumstances, and many other things. The second and third games of the sub-series are no different. The level of fidelity in all the games is superb, especially taking into account the fact Nintendo's consoles aren't known for being the most powerful consoles, which makes the next point all the more impressive: all three games run at a rock solid 60 frames per second. The first two examples above are known to struggle under the weight of their own fidelity, while SotC's minimalist approach means maintaining it's framerate isn't an issue. The Prime games look just as good, if not arguably better, and manage to run like greased lightning; even better, they age very gracefully.
---
Now, the question of whether graphics (or even overall asthetics) are more important than gameplay is a different matter. An amazing level of detail will not make up for a game which is awful to play. The first two examples above may not be the greatest games, but they're certainly not bad games either; the challenge getting the rabid masses to not hop on the bashing bandwagon and be reasonable about their opinions. However, the latter two examples are quite renowned for being outstanding games; the fact they look greate is just the icing on the cake.
I personally don't feel that graphics are the end-all for me, and for the most part I only view them as an additional perk to a good game. I didn't get the PC version of Skyrim because it looks better, I got that version so I could enjoy the mods. Speaking of which, it's a good looking game... but the art design isn't overly impressive in my opinion. Back to the point, a graphics aren't critical to my enjoy of a game; however, they do hold more water than the opinion of those on the bandwagon.
We disagree. As a fan of the rivethead culture in general I think it looks amazing and fanciful.Casual Shinji said:
And there isn't a single aesthetic failure from XIII as far as I'm concerned. Or XIV for that matter, apart from some recycled areas.
The only place XIII is lacking, is gameplay. No aesthetic changes would fix XIII.
I'm sorry, but you can't chalk up the failures of XIII to anything but gameplay.
Depends on what you mean by "good graphics". If you mean realistic graphics, then I couldn't care less, but if you mean that the graphics are visually appealing, then it is somewhat important. Sure, the story and gameplay are far more important, but if the graphics are so horrendous that it hurts my eyes to look at it, I'm not going to be playing for very long.
Not important. I set my bar low. Early playstation 2 graphics are fine. Late PS2 graphics are perfect.
FFX
FFXII
FFXII
I go by the current standard. I won't buy a game for graphics specifically. Although, if the graphics are poor for the time, it will detract from the general experience.
As someone who has played them both in 1080p on PCSX2, they look amazing in 1080p.MammothBlade said:FFX
FFXII
Assuming graphics here and not aesthetics, then not very important.
For a full-priced game I expect everything top notch, including graphics, but for a cheap game or old classic, I don't care if the graphics are primitive.
I do very much appreciate if the artists make the most of what little room in terms of RAM and computational power is given to them (aesthetics). I like good 8bit pixel art for example.
I reckon a smart indie should aim for primitive (2d) graphics to compete. Hard limits are good here.
For a full-priced game I expect everything top notch, including graphics, but for a cheap game or old classic, I don't care if the graphics are primitive.
I do very much appreciate if the artists make the most of what little room in terms of RAM and computational power is given to them (aesthetics). I like good 8bit pixel art for example.
I reckon a smart indie should aim for primitive (2d) graphics to compete. Hard limits are good here.
Are we talking graphics as in "how good it looks" or are we talking graphics as in "polygon count"?
Because so many people don't seem to be able to make a distinction between the two. Yes, a game has to look good for me to play it. But then again, even 8-bit games can look good if done right.
Because so many people don't seem to be able to make a distinction between the two. Yes, a game has to look good for me to play it. But then again, even 8-bit games can look good if done right.
They are important enough that I'll notice them when they are bad and have an initial reaction of, "Ewww".
But they are unimportant enough that I'll get used to graphics of pretty much any quality and stop thinking about it if the game is good enough. Though a terrible art style will still kill a game for me.
A very recent example: Skyward Sword. Terrific art style, but the anti-aliasing is non-existent. It was very jarring at first. But I got used to it to the point that I pretty much stopped noticing it.
But they are unimportant enough that I'll get used to graphics of pretty much any quality and stop thinking about it if the game is good enough. Though a terrible art style will still kill a game for me.
A very recent example: Skyward Sword. Terrific art style, but the anti-aliasing is non-existent. It was very jarring at first. But I got used to it to the point that I pretty much stopped noticing it.
Even though they weren't exactly designed for HD resolutions? Do you have a video of that or something?LilithSlave said:As someone who has played them both in 1080p on PCSX2, they look amazing in 1080p.MammothBlade said:FFX
FFXII
I'll probably get the PS3 port of FFX eventually, if that adds anything.
I suppose that's fair, I mean graphic's as in the actual way the game is presented. This includes art style, resolution, fluidity, color, sharpness, everything.Cowabungaa said:
There is also the fact that peoples opinions change over time, so even if i did go and read all of the similar threads on this subject the opinions of people who posted before may differ, and I can look at the opinions of people who may not have commented in the past. Hell even you must have some modicum of interest in the topic if you took the time to post on "this thread again." If you were interested in the topic then why did you waste not only your time, but the time of everyone else on this thread.Freechoice said:
It needs to be asked, and I find it strange that it hasn't been, (at least not on the first page) but are you talking about graphics are aesthetics?
Either way, I agree. I think I once read a developer quote along the lines of:
"Once the game is fun with black and white squares and dots, you make it look pretty."
Either way, I agree. I think I once read a developer quote along the lines of:
"Once the game is fun with black and white squares and dots, you make it look pretty."