Poll: Your "cup of tea" in terms of Graphics
- Thread starter northeast rower
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If we're talking pure raw graphical power, Gamecube level 3D is my happy level, but I am up for playing anything with less power (thief series, the original deus ex, etc)
If' we're talking aesthetics....I like games that feel fresh and "believable". NOT REALISTIC. Believable.
Like...take a look at Bloody Roar: primal fury (gamecube). the graphics aren't that amazing...but the stylized look, and the fluid animations, and the vaguely real environments made it feel totally believable that these normal looking fighters could turn into animals and fight. Also, every freakin hit looks PAINFUL!
Other examples of my kind of aesthetic cup of tea are Borderlands, Okami, Sonic colors, Phantasy Star Online, etc. Each one has a visual style in which whatever happens feels like it kinda belongs.
If' we're talking aesthetics....I like games that feel fresh and "believable". NOT REALISTIC. Believable.
Like...take a look at Bloody Roar: primal fury (gamecube). the graphics aren't that amazing...but the stylized look, and the fluid animations, and the vaguely real environments made it feel totally believable that these normal looking fighters could turn into animals and fight. Also, every freakin hit looks PAINFUL!
Other examples of my kind of aesthetic cup of tea are Borderlands, Okami, Sonic colors, Phantasy Star Online, etc. Each one has a visual style in which whatever happens feels like it kinda belongs.
For me it's Gameplay > Aesthetics > Graphics
A game can be fun to play even without amazing graphics. (Lugaru, Mount and Blade)
I chose Aesthetics over Graphics due to one main reason. Aesthetics age better.
Take WoW, for example. It's over 6 years old and still looks pretty damn good. The texture resolution may not be great, but the overall style is quite wonderful. I still really didn't enjoy it as a game though.
A game can be fun to play even without amazing graphics. (Lugaru, Mount and Blade)
I chose Aesthetics over Graphics due to one main reason. Aesthetics age better.
Take WoW, for example. It's over 6 years old and still looks pretty damn good. The texture resolution may not be great, but the overall style is quite wonderful. I still really didn't enjoy it as a game though.
I love it when devs try something different with colours, ie The Saboteur (just a beautiful-looking game), or vibrant colours (Just Cause 2). Devs using an old engine innovatively (L4D2, Portal), gritty, brown/grey FPSs done right (Killzone, Medal of Honor - so over the relic engine that powers COD), and oh, racing games with such EXCESSIVE detail to the point where your eyes water at its sheer beauty (Forza 3, and most recently Shift 2).
Something that is bearable to look at.
Also, as Borderlands taught us, don't brag about stylized graphics when every damn location in your game looks bland and uninteresting.
Also, as Borderlands taught us, don't brag about stylized graphics when every damn location in your game looks bland and uninteresting.
I dont mind if graphics arnt cutting edge, but I liek it when they look nice, like darksiders looked gorgeious, which was an example of art style over graphics
however unfortunatley for that game, aside form the graphics it was all rather dull..which is a shame because that could could have been ALOT better
however unfortunatley for that game, aside form the graphics it was all rather dull..which is a shame because that could could have been ALOT better
God that game has such a good art design. It's pure eye candy. I just love that game period.northeast rower said:
I rarely like the look of games that go for the realistic approach. The only ones I do like are decidedly unrealistic in concept (Twilight Princess, Mass Effect).
I HATE the look of games like Gears of War and Batman: Arkham Asylum. Endless grey and lumpy, bloated character models look hideous.
Well, I can cope just fine with well-done Snes era graphics.
Secret of Mana 3 really shows off what that can mean.
Which means the Snes kind of represents the peak of 2d graphics. That's not to say later 2d games haven't been able to do better, just that it's no longer really all that impressive beyond that point.
I think that's actually something about graphics that's worth considering; There's a degree of diminishing returns in it.
A game with bad art direction will always look a lot worse than one with good art direction, but beyond that, there's also the 'good enough' graphics thing.
I think for 2d graphics we hit 'good' enough with the SNES and unsurprisingly, the next major console generation was about 3d.
3d hasn't yet reached 'good enough', because even something like Crysis on it's highest detail level can still be picked out on a huge number of flaws and irritations.
Even so, I agree with the OP that it has a good graphical design, which counts for a lot. And, in fact, may well count for more than actual technical graphical ability. (Which crysis also covered, what with being the benchmark standard even several years after it's release for graphics.)
Mirror's edge does indeed have amazing aesthetics. And the 'art' games do really well in that regard too, despite obviously not being based on cutting edge technology and having really limited budgets compared to mainstream titles. (By 'art' games, I mean things like The path & The void... And quite a number of 'indy' titles, though that's a little trickier since many are 2d, while those two have 3d graphics which are a simpler like for like comparison to modern games.)
Actually, having brought up the subject of 'art' games, which sometimes don't make very good games in terms of gameplay, it did suddenly strike me how consistent and striking their visual design tends to be.
Even though you can see the elements that stand out as being dated graphics technology, they somehow still manage to pull off a degree of visual charm that makes them memorable and nice to look at.
I guess that kind of proves the point that coherent and well done art direction is far more effective than technically impressive stuff at the end of the day.
Secret of Mana 3 really shows off what that can mean.
Which means the Snes kind of represents the peak of 2d graphics. That's not to say later 2d games haven't been able to do better, just that it's no longer really all that impressive beyond that point.
I think that's actually something about graphics that's worth considering; There's a degree of diminishing returns in it.
A game with bad art direction will always look a lot worse than one with good art direction, but beyond that, there's also the 'good enough' graphics thing.
I think for 2d graphics we hit 'good' enough with the SNES and unsurprisingly, the next major console generation was about 3d.
3d hasn't yet reached 'good enough', because even something like Crysis on it's highest detail level can still be picked out on a huge number of flaws and irritations.
Even so, I agree with the OP that it has a good graphical design, which counts for a lot. And, in fact, may well count for more than actual technical graphical ability. (Which crysis also covered, what with being the benchmark standard even several years after it's release for graphics.)
Mirror's edge does indeed have amazing aesthetics. And the 'art' games do really well in that regard too, despite obviously not being based on cutting edge technology and having really limited budgets compared to mainstream titles. (By 'art' games, I mean things like The path & The void... And quite a number of 'indy' titles, though that's a little trickier since many are 2d, while those two have 3d graphics which are a simpler like for like comparison to modern games.)
Actually, having brought up the subject of 'art' games, which sometimes don't make very good games in terms of gameplay, it did suddenly strike me how consistent and striking their visual design tends to be.
Even though you can see the elements that stand out as being dated graphics technology, they somehow still manage to pull off a degree of visual charm that makes them memorable and nice to look at.
I guess that kind of proves the point that coherent and well done art direction is far more effective than technically impressive stuff at the end of the day.
I don't care about graphics. By that, I mean technical aspects. I don't care how many polygons there are. I still play PS1 games on my computer and I don't let those graphics get in the way. Currently I am playing Jade Empire and the lower resolution textures don't bother me one bit. The only thing that concerns me is the art direction (color pallets and such). Also, I don't care if the art style is gritty brown because it works if you want that atmosphere. Sure it does get old, but it has to make sense, I mean a game where you run around in the Middle East or a war torn environment isn't expected to have bright, pretty colors except for maybe the sky.
Watch this:northeast rower said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3201-Graphics-vs-Aesthetics
So no, I don't care about graphics. I care about aesthetics. If an 8-bit or even pre 8-bit graphics design fits the game then it works.
ASCII art tends to limit the ability of the game to differentiate enemies, it's why I play stuff like Nethack with tilesets most of the time. It's very easy to forget what colour D is a massive dragon who can rip you to shreds and which colour is your pet dog. I'm not saying ASCII games are bad, when there's no other option like in ADOM I don't mind playing them at all, just that there's a reason games grew out of it.lunncal said:
Personally I like graphics to be as modern as possible but I'm not willing to sacrifice quality for that. If I have to pick between a really good text based adventure game or a modern game that totally sucks I'd go with the text game which isn't so much bad graphics as not having any graphics.
As long as it isn't crap and matches the atmosphere and mood of the game, it doesn't matter. Graphics are the last thing on my mind when I'm buying a game.
Cave Story has old school graphics, and it was released way after it's time. That doesn't change the fact that it had great game with even better music and a good story. Oh, and that it's free to download on your computer. And it was the work of a single person.
Cave Story has old school graphics, and it was released way after it's time. That doesn't change the fact that it had great game with even better music and a good story. Oh, and that it's free to download on your computer. And it was the work of a single person.
Colour palate and models don't have anything to do with graphics, they're aesthetics and art style.
If I could rip something crap out of a game nowadays, I would get rid of the lighting fuck-ups. The use of bloom where it doesn't make sense, and using it to the point where a portion of the screen is chinese white, like staring at the sun. I wonder at what point the developers go "well, it looks like a dogs breakfast, but I think we can make it even worse. Let's make it even brighter." Some Devs even screw up the lighting on HDR textures. >_>
If I could rip something crap out of a game nowadays, I would get rid of the lighting fuck-ups. The use of bloom where it doesn't make sense, and using it to the point where a portion of the screen is chinese white, like staring at the sun. I wonder at what point the developers go "well, it looks like a dogs breakfast, but I think we can make it even worse. Let's make it even brighter." Some Devs even screw up the lighting on HDR textures. >_>
[quote="northeast rower" post="9.289406.11471413"
Don't give me any of that "I don't care about graphics" bullshit. Everyone takes them into account at some point or another. There's a reason we don't still live in the 8-bit era.[/quote]
I have logged 43 hours in Terraria, well over 300 into Minecraft, and I don't even want to think about League of Legends. None of these games have "outstanding" graphics. But I don't think that's what you've been talking about. What it seems to me that you're talking about is aesthetics more than graphics. In your first post, you talk about Call of Cthulhu: DCotE and how the graphics weren't the best, but how the effective colors and lighting made up for it. That's aesthetics, where the graphical fidelity, color and lighting all serve to enhance the atmosphere and immersion of the game.
OT/short version: I like graphics that fit well with the aesthetics of the game to help "complete" it and really increase immersion.
Don't give me any of that "I don't care about graphics" bullshit. Everyone takes them into account at some point or another. There's a reason we don't still live in the 8-bit era.[/quote]
I have logged 43 hours in Terraria, well over 300 into Minecraft, and I don't even want to think about League of Legends. None of these games have "outstanding" graphics. But I don't think that's what you've been talking about. What it seems to me that you're talking about is aesthetics more than graphics. In your first post, you talk about Call of Cthulhu: DCotE and how the graphics weren't the best, but how the effective colors and lighting made up for it. That's aesthetics, where the graphical fidelity, color and lighting all serve to enhance the atmosphere and immersion of the game.
OT/short version: I like graphics that fit well with the aesthetics of the game to help "complete" it and really increase immersion.
It shouldn't look like ass, but I'm not obsessed with them. They increase the price of development and so the indies get squeezed out. The only game I let get away with absolute shit graphics is Minecraft.
I really love cell-shaded graphics. Something about them... I just LOVE a cell shaded game. Rogue Galaxy, Champions Online, Borderlands, and the upcoming Firefall... I just love it. :3