Poll: Would you sacrifice graphics in a game for something else?

Recommended Videos

krazykidd

New member
Mar 22, 2008
6,099
0
0
I blew off the dust of my NES, played some old games and came up with this question. Would you sacrifice the graphics from our current generation games , for something else. Meaning if a developper decided to NOT polish a game graphically ( not necessaraly going back to 8-bit era ) but instead use the time and money to enhance another aspect of a game would that be a fair trade for you ? and if so what would you sacrifice graphics for ?
 

Julianking93

New member
May 16, 2009
14,715
0
0
Seeing as I don't give a fuck about graphics unless they're game-breakingly horrible, absolutely.
Some of my favourite games are those that have been considered poor in terms of graphics for their time.
I don't really care so long as the game is fun.
 

Mr. Omega

ANTI-LIFE JUSTIFIES MY HATE!
Jul 1, 2010
3,902
0
0
Everyone here who says 'no' will be lying through their teeth.

Biggest reason everyone is looking forward to Vita? "OMG Look! The graphics are so much better than the 3DS!"

Biggest reason people were looking forward to the WiiU? "OMG Now Nintendo is gonna have an HD system!"

And people complain about outdated graphics.

Although might be more 'hype' than 'preference'.
 

DEAD34345

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,929
0
0
Hell yes, this has been something I have wanted developers to do for a LONG time. Besides which they kind of have done it. Dwarf Fortress is made by 2 people, and yet it's a hundred times more intricate, complex, and all-round good than most AAA games just because all of the effort is put into game-play.
 

Veylon

New member
Aug 15, 2008
1,626
0
0
I'd sacrifice graphics for almost anything, but most especially game play. Having solid controls and challenge that is difficult but fair is what makes the gems of the 8-bit and 16-bit console era just that.

What we're seeing in Minecraft and suchlike indie games is what we could've had ten years ago if the obsession with polygon count hadn't had such a deathgrip on the industry.
 

DEAD34345

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,929
0
0
Mr. Omega said:
Everyone here who says will be lying through their teeth.

Biggest reason everyone is looking forward to Vita? "OMG Look! The graphics are so much better than the 3DS!"

Biggest reason people were looking forward to the WiiU? "OMG Now Nintendo is gonna have an HD system!"
I'm not looking forward to the WiiU, and I don't even know what a "Vita" is. (Seriously, I haven't even heard of it before... ???).

The game I have spent the most time on this year is either Liberal Crime Squad or Dwarf Fortress. These games are better than others precisely because the effort was spent on game-play rather than graphics.


Exciting fight scene in Liberal Crime Squad (this actually has more graphics than most of the rest of the game).


Entrance to a Dwarven Fortress.
 
Sep 14, 2009
9,073
0
0
well as long as its 3 dimensions, (i hate being limited to 2 dimensions, what is the point?)


i could mostly not give a fuck, most of my favorite games were never ever known for being "graphically impressive"
 

Wolfram23

New member
Mar 23, 2004
4,095
0
0
Here's the thing. Graphic artists take care of graphics, meanwhile other team members take care of story, others do coding, etc.

So by taking away graphic artists, you're not necessarily going to be making anything else better. Yeah I guess you could argue that 1 less artists means 1 more person in another roll, but I think that especially with something like story you can really only have so many people working on it before it becomes out of touch with itself, and broken.

So... No. I would not do with worse graphics. I like my shinies, but I would love for more games to grip me from start to finish. Lately Witcher 2 has had that honour, it is both beautiful and well written. I know people complain about the voice acting, but I don't mind it one bit. It's at the least acceptable and at times very compelling.

On the other hand, Dragon Age 2 was pretty but they definitely, IMO, screwed up the graphics too by reusing all the same dwellings and all the same caves. It's funny too because that's a major complaint a lot of people had, and yet guess what? That's what happens when you don't have enough artists to design unique caves.

So basically... in this case we really should be able to have our cake and eat it too ;)
 

Cyberjester

New member
Oct 10, 2009
496
0
0
Well I do like actually being able to play my games, although I'm a fan of style. Not necessarily graphics, but graphics done nicely. So Kane and Lynch 2, Wet, Alice. That type of out there stylistic representation of the games 'verse. Like a Tarantino movie although I only recently found out he existed and I liked his movies. 'shrugs'

So I like graphical quality more than most, but only in a certain way. If a game is complex, creative and fun then I can sacrifice some quality, although I'd rather fire up a simulator than Minecraft
 

franconbean

New member
Apr 30, 2011
251
0
0
Graphics are a means and not an end.
If i can see what is going on and make sense of it, the graphics are good enough.
I'd rather developers spent more time on other things than graphics.

That said, it is very nice and can help (in some cases) me to enjoy the game more if the visuals are high quality and sumptuous.

But then again, my favorite game of all time is one that most of my friends and contemporaries would almost certainly snub based on the way it looks...
 

Blunderboy

New member
Apr 26, 2011
2,224
0
0
Yes, a good story and great characters are more important. Good graphics are a huge bonus, and mostly help to make immersion much easier. But if the world and characters are not worth immersing yourself into, what is the point?
 

Neverhoodian

New member
Apr 2, 2008
3,832
0
0
Gladly. Gameplay trumps graphics any day. Some of my favorite games of all time look like this, after all:


I would like to see modern graphics sacrificed for larger environments. Hell, even some old-school games had huge worlds. Take The Elder Scrolls 2: Daggerfall for instance. It had a world TWICE the size of Great Britain, but due to technological limitations it was a rather empty one. Now imagine if they could make an Elder Scrolls world that large nowadays, but make it more detailed and interesting to explore with Morrowind-esque graphics.

...

Oh man, I got drool on my keyboard.
 

Nudu

New member
Jun 1, 2011
318
0
0
How much graphics for what? Would I take Skyrim with 1980's graphics for horse armor? No. Would I take a sligthly reduced texture quality for another faction? Yes.
 

Fiad

New member
Apr 3, 2010
572
0
0
Graphics is actually one of the lower factors in a game for me.
 

DazZ.

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2009
5,542
0
41
I would happily play anything with just 2 pixels if it had the most fun in a game I've played.

Gameplay > Graphics every time.
 

AceAngel

New member
May 12, 2010
775
0
0
OK, let me cut it down to you.

NO!

Why? Because Graphics, contrary to belief, doesn't affect the budget that could spent in other areas as much as people like to believe. It has to do with planning what the developers and team leads had in mind from the beginning. Believe it or not, many times a studio will cut corners in a graphical department, not the programming...what a surprise many people didn't know.

I mean how many games do you know that look like utter crap and don't stand two sticks in plywood in gameplay or story? How many games do you know that experimented with new ideas and had either good graphics or were, in terms of design pleasing?

In the world, in a year we have between 500-800 games being released, which aren't simply flash games, but actual budget games, and surprise, surprise, I mostly see game with great idea, crappy graphics, and even worse execution of mechanics.

People tout this flag of graphics, citing it as the reason games blew goats and money being spent there. Most animations are mo-capped and cleaned up in a studio, and more and more studios use small scale software which bridges this problem but automatically cleaning as much crap as possible, only giving what the animator can use under 30 frames per second.

Shaders? A few years ago, having skin like effects for you characters was coded by hand and a notepad with math formulas, now we have visual editor which are like networks which allows even dummies like me to create human skin in a matter of hours, and if I want to get more complicated, in matter of days with immediate feedback as opposed to weeks of testing.

Modeling characters and environments (things such as damage and tear wear effects) are done dynamically through pre-created computation, such as the software reading the hard edges of a gun and apply a 'dirt' map to those area instead of having the artist manually go in and do it by hand and achieving a fake look since it's not random and 'correct' enough.

So yeah, in anything, graphics aren't having any money invested them on ANY scale people like to think. You should watch Extra Credits video about Graphics vs. Aesthetics for that is a more correct debate.
 

Seieko Pherdo

New member
May 7, 2011
179
0
0
Most of my favorite games are on the playastion 2. To me decent graphic are acceptable and while I'm wowed by amazing HD graphics if the game isn't good then I really don't care. With the exception of Bioshock all my favorite PS3 games didn't have amazing graphics, Aesthetic on the other hand they had a lot of. And there's an Extra Credits episode that will tell you all about that.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Well, here's a hint for you:

Shadow Madness is an awesome and original RPG game. Its graphics are so-so for a 3D game, but it's fun and entertaining.

There you go. Graphics? Not all that important to me.