As long as I can tell the difference between my character and the scone he's eating, it can be 8-bit for all I care.
Poll: Are Graphics Really That Important?
- Thread starter brunothepig
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I really don't care about graphics so much as gameplay. Now, if they have that down and great graphics than awesome.
I think the only genre that can really benefit from good graphic is horror. Sure, Silent Hill 1 can still be scary.
However, just imagine how much a better visual and graphic design would boost the atmosphere. I think it could. However, horror is not really the biggest blockbuster genre. I just wonder when it will return to its glory.
However, just imagine how much a better visual and graphic design would boost the atmosphere. I think it could. However, horror is not really the biggest blockbuster genre. I just wonder when it will return to its glory.
There are certain genre's that require impressive aesthetics, such as Fighters.
But in my opinion enjoyment of graphics is really a relative situation, since I found Borderlands considerably easier to look at than GOW2 even if in another context it may be perceived as 'cartoony'.
Overall though graphical upgrades in this generation is a pretty asinine concern.
But in my opinion enjoyment of graphics is really a relative situation, since I found Borderlands considerably easier to look at than GOW2 even if in another context it may be perceived as 'cartoony'.
Overall though graphical upgrades in this generation is a pretty asinine concern.
Graphics don't have to be super-realistic to be good, no. I like the graphics to have some artistic inspiration at least.
A good example is Borderlands. Are the graphics super-realistic? Not at all. However, they have such a unique feel to them that it's even better than if they were entirely realistic.
A good example is Borderlands. Are the graphics super-realistic? Not at all. However, they have such a unique feel to them that it's even better than if they were entirely realistic.
I don't think they should be the selling point, IE: Crysis. I'm fine with a games looks for the most part, I still consider CS:S' graphics to be "Good". As long as I can make out what an object/person is from a reasonable distance then the graphics are fine, I shouldn't have to walk up to a character and be 3 feet away before I decide to blow its brains out or ask it how its day was.
I think it's the same with physics today, Crysis has this lovely physics engine where plant leaves move, breezes, water etc but I never thought "That's completely unrealistic" about HL2, and that's not a particularly recent game. nVidia push PhysX like it's going to change the world and it just wont, as long as things break and fall down then I can't see much of a problem.
Graphics are all well and good, I liked Crysis' graphics, I liked HL2's graphics, I even liked the graphics on Fifa10, for what little you can see of things. I want graphics to continue to improve, but not to the point where the game is delayed 3 years because the main character looks like a pile of spanners.
I think it's the same with physics today, Crysis has this lovely physics engine where plant leaves move, breezes, water etc but I never thought "That's completely unrealistic" about HL2, and that's not a particularly recent game. nVidia push PhysX like it's going to change the world and it just wont, as long as things break and fall down then I can't see much of a problem.
Graphics are all well and good, I liked Crysis' graphics, I liked HL2's graphics, I even liked the graphics on Fifa10, for what little you can see of things. I want graphics to continue to improve, but not to the point where the game is delayed 3 years because the main character looks like a pile of spanners.
It really does depend. The visual quality of a game can be accepted as Bad or Good. For instance, I don't expect any argument when I say Call of duty 4 looks better than quake. Graphic design on the other hand plays a big role in how I enjoy a game. Lets take Farcry 2 and Modern Warfare 2 as examples. They are both about guys who can kill anything with a knife who's guns shoot sideways if you don't look down the sights. Farcry 2 has a really gritty filthy look about it while MW2 has a more clean feel. Mw2 has more subtle lighting with several of the level taking place at night. Farcry 2 has bleaching sun overhead at almost all times with the exception if the night where everything still glows and despite the lack of ambient lighting you can still see. I liked the design of MW2 better even though the quality of the visuals could be contested.
As petty as it sounds, I find it difficult to play some PS1/N64 games because of the graphics.
Cel-shading, cartoons etc are all perfectly good. Hell, Dragon Quest VIII is one of the best-looking games I've ever played! I am not a realism freak, I only own a Wii.
My favourite game graphics-wise is Lego Racers... only if you look hard do you notice that it was an N64-era title.
Cel-shading, cartoons etc are all perfectly good. Hell, Dragon Quest VIII is one of the best-looking games I've ever played! I am not a realism freak, I only own a Wii.
My favourite game graphics-wise is Lego Racers... only if you look hard do you notice that it was an N64-era title.
Yes.
A game's look is just as integral a piece to a game as the story, music, controls, characters, etc. etc.
Whilst gameplay takes poll position, certain types of gameplay aren't achievable without the graphics technology.
AC2 in 8-bit wouldn't be so impressive now, would it?
A game's look is just as integral a piece to a game as the story, music, controls, characters, etc. etc.
Whilst gameplay takes poll position, certain types of gameplay aren't achievable without the graphics technology.
AC2 in 8-bit wouldn't be so impressive now, would it?
