What Do you consider "Bad Graphics?"

[TheFloBros]

I always see people saying that games have horrible graphics, such as "Duke Nukem Forever," and I think it has great graphics, but that's just me. Do you think people are being too hard on games these days for not having graphics up to their standards? What do you guys consider "Bad Graphics?"

 

[MAUSZX]

Yeah people is hard on graphics, I think Duke Nukem Forever it looks great, but maybe people complains because maybe it doesn't look realistic, it looks more plastic, but I really don't think that.

I think bad graphics depends on what kind of graphics developers are trying to show, like borderlands they have graphics like comics or something, personally I don't like those graphics but that doesn't mean they're bad, I think Iron Man 2 is a great example of Bad graphics

 

[Johnnyallstar]

Bad graphics are a sign of when developers really don't care. I love seeing stylized graphics, cutting edge graphics, but what I consider "bad graphics" is when there is no real direction to it, or lacks any desire to convey anything outside of "this is what is happening."

I want graphics for a purpose beyond just telling you what is happening right now.

 

[Qizx]

Honestly, and this is coming from someone who loved wind waker, I think that graphics are pretty important to a game. Now this doesn't mean I find them crucial to the game, but I certainly will judge a game on it's graphics (Not JUST the graphics, not by a long shot, but I will). That said, however, I will take a great game with a good story and fun play with poor graphics over a game with great graphics and shitty game play.

 

[SergeantAnt]

MAUSZX^^ your avatar rocks i loved that frog .

and i dont really care about graphics at all, never have never will. Most of my favorite games have piss graphics but i get use to it...
but all because i dont care about them doesnt mean they still suck... so i guess all older console games... OH OH warcraft 1... yeah.. those are bad

 

[gideonkain]

Games have "bad graphics" when they fail to convey what they are supposed to be.

Doom is 20 years old and I think it has "good graphics" because it's a clean and well defined art style.

Quake uses really blocky models, but they were cutting edge for their day.

But, there's modern games that just look "clunky, blocky" and they are "bad" only because they don't represent the quality standards of today.

 

[Kagim]

Bad graphics are..

Tearing.

Excessive clipping.

Obvious and constant distortions, legs hyper extending giant limbs, body stretching in silly obviously glitched ways. While once in a while it makes me smile or laugh when it happens more then once every five or ten minutes i question whether the programmers gave a shit.

If a game has fluent and functioning graphics they are good. That's all i need to enjoy visual based video games.

People can bicker over the little stuff all they want. I want functional easy on the eyes graphics. I want it to be fluid and work well. I want to enjoy the images i am seeing and not get a headache after playing for twenty minutes because of tearing. That's all i ever ask for in games, and luckily these days. I always get it.

 

[Wing Dairu]

"Bad Graphics", in my opinion, are graphics that are unclear or confusing. If you can't tell the difference between an enemy and an ally at thirty paces, that's bad graphics. Super Mario Bros. had good graphics; everything was clearly identifiable at a glance.

 

[MetroidNut]

I consider bad graphics to be "graphics that detract from the experience". Other than that, I mean, shiny high-poly graphics are nice, but unless those graphics are enhancing the experience (BioShock's water effects, for instance, add to the immersion) I'd rather the developer spend that time and money making the game itself play better.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Likely they're measuring everything against the high modern standards today's videogame industry has set. Of course Duke Nukem 3D looks like crap, compared to something that came out last week.

Personally, as long as I can perceive what is going on then I don't mind the graphics. Hell, a lot of times the simpler graphics just allow me to play longer. I don't know what it is about 'realistic' looking games, but after half an hour or so I have a terrible headache.

 

[Valdsator]

The only time I think a game has bad graphics is if I can't tell what's what, and if it hurts my eyes.

 

[Gladiateher]

To me bad graphics are when what's happening on screen doesn't actually represent what's happening. Like when i'm playing league of legends and a spell affect clearly misses me but I still take the hit.

 

[Irridium]

To be honest, any game past 2004 has fantastic graphics to me.

To be honest, I care more about a strong art-style than graphics.

 

[Varitel]

The way I look at it, bad graphics, though not something that really makes a game bad, are graphics that completely fail to take advantage of the graphics technology of the time. Dragon Age: Origins is a good example. The graphics were definitely not up to par by 2009 standards. The game was very good don't get me wrong, but the graphics looked like those of a cutting edge game from 2004.

 

[Xanadu84]

Bad Graphics are if, for it's time, the game lacks the technical specs that can be expected for the period while at the same time not adding anything to the art style. A Shooter that is supposed to be realistic but has huge pixels and fuzzy textures has bad graphics. Minecraft benefits from specifically having very little detail, so I can't say it has bad Graphics. And a game that was gorgeous in 2001, but no longer stands up to the competition, doesn't have Bad graphics because it just reflects the time. Graphics are a fine and dandy thing to have, and good graphics are laudable, but they also are not as important as, and easilly forgotten in the face of, good art direction.

 

[Saxm13]

Screen tearing can almost instantly ruin a game's visuals for me.

It's the ANTI-immersion factor in video games IMO

 

[Blank Kold]

The fucking particle effects in homefront are horrible, a graphical travesty.

Generally, its whatever.

 

[Wayneguard]

This game has godly graphics. I've yet to see a game top it (and it came out last generation).

 

[jawakiller]

America's Army... What the fuck? They're the mutha fuckin army! If they can afford an F-15 they can make a half decent game.

But graphics aren't everything. The game still sucks. But mount and blade has terrible graphics and it was actually pretty good. And what about minecraft? Need I say more?