Your stance on graphics.

Recommended Videos

BRex21

New member
Sep 24, 2010
582
0
0
Graphics are good, they help you get immersed, but they dont make the game. Deus Ex, in my opinoion, was better than the sequel simply because it was more engaging, yet peoples faces often showed how they were made out of polygons, holograms especially often showed there entire teeth through their face, the game was still compelling and immersive, I liked the character etc. However I would find it hard to get into say, the origional Nova Strike when there are modern space/dogfight game to play.
On an aside, am I showing my age by mentioning games that came packaged on a single diskette... in order to fill the space left over when they stuck the other game on there.
 

cryogeist

New member
Apr 16, 2010
7,782
0
0
i don't care about graphics...if i did then i would have never played final fantasy tactics and spend 100+ hours on it
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
I played Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup for 4 hours yesterday. I don't really think I care too much about graphics.
 

Keepeas

New member
Jul 10, 2011
256
0
0
Aesthetics are important, graphics not so much.
I will love Super Mario Bros. 3 forever and it doesn't have amazing graphics,
it does have great game play and aesthetics though.
Others that I love that have okay graphics:
Cavestory
Minecraft
Terraria
Metroid(NES)
And all the great NES titles..

sure good graphics are nice but the heart of the game is its gameplay.
 

Tea_bird

New member
Jul 12, 2011
22
0
0
To me aesthetic value is more important than how "advanced" the graphics are. Anyone can add polygons and high textures (by anyone, I mean skilled 3D artists) but it takes a special eye to create something that looks good.
 

ks1234

New member
Mar 12, 2011
228
0
0
Idk, I need -some- graphics to be able to get into a game (i've tried and TRIED to play the first STALKER game but I just CAN NOT get into it bc it's a game from '06 or '07 and the game just doesn't look good anymore and even tho it's a good game, I just cant bring myself to get into it) but at the same time I cant play a game like Two Worlds: II and the graphics are quite pretty but the gameplay and atmosphere just aren't there. Idk, it's hard to say which is more important... I think both are equally as important bc it doesn't work if you have one but not the other.
 

the spud

New member
May 2, 2011
1,408
0
0
To me, its all about how colorful and pleasing to the eye it is. I think Okami and Zelda: Skyward Sword look a million times better than, say, killzone.
 

violent_quiche

New member
May 12, 2011
122
0
0
If there are two great games, graphics and sound (sometimes under appreciated) will split them, but in general a great game with poor graphics beats a poor game with great graphics every time. I only played HL1 through for the first time six months ago and would still rank it ahead of a lot of current gen shooters.
 

King Toasty

New member
Oct 2, 2010
1,527
0
0
Graphics are extremely important, especially today. But the trick is finding the right aesthetic to go with it.
 

starslasher

New member
May 21, 2011
67
0
0
omega_peaches said:
So, I'm pretty sure most people here prefer gameplay to graphics, and I agree.
But, there is a point where I care about graphics.
For instance, I won't praise a game for it's graphics, (save Crysis, GoW, and Killzone,) but I will criticize a game for BAD graphics.
What are your stances on graphics?
Although I sympathize with that sentiment, I'm trying to think about a game when the graphics passed the threshold point of awfulness, so that I stopped caring to play it. Honestly, I can't think of an example. I'm trying to think of a game that had bad graphics, but what I'm coming upon was Liero. The graphics were 8-bit, but fantastic to play, especially with a friend. So I'd have to say that I haven't come upon such a game where the graphics were so bad that it made me want to quit it.
 

synobal

New member
Jun 8, 2011
2,189
0
0
Graphics can make a great game better, but graphics cannot make a great game.
 

mikespoff

New member
Oct 29, 2009
758
0
0
The graphics have to be good enough to immerse you into the story, but that's more about have a good art design than needing a $2000 graphics card to render it. Case in point, I recently replayed Half-life, and the graphics definitely look over a decade old. But that doesn't actually detract from the immersion - they're showing a coherent and well-designed world, so that's enough. KotOR is another one which still hits this mark just fine.

There is a limit, though - something like Doom or Wolfenstein 3D is just too retro to give the same kind of immersion. It can still be plenty of fun, but it feels arcade-y rather than immersive.

On the other hand, I don't care how much bloom lighting and texture you stick into Brink or Kane and Lynch 2 or CoD:BlOps, it's not going to be enough to make me like the game.
 

mikespoff

New member
Oct 29, 2009
758
0
0
synobal said:
Graphics can make a great game better, but graphics cannot make a great game.
Pretty much, yeah.

Better graphics (which is generally better design rather than higher polygon count) will draw you into a game more, but whether the game is something that you enjoy being drawn into is usually a separate issue from the graphics...
 

Zer_

Rocket Scientist
Feb 7, 2008
2,682
0
0
Kahunaburger said:
Midnight Crossroads said:
I think the expense added by trying to create a game which lives up to the graphical standards expected of gamers today ultimately cheapens the overall experience. Instead of getting dozens of hours out of a game with a healthy medium of graphics, we're bombarded with five hour games because so much money is going in to making sure every blade of grass independently and realistically interacts with the light and wind. It feels like this leaves games bankrupt of ideas because of how much money goes into the presentation of the content rather than the actual content. The only people able to deliver are large companies who dominate the landscape and only release products with the highest probability of returns. It's not the entire cause of the problem, but it's a definite major contributing factor.


It can be done.

They made that game on 1/3 the budget of Dragon Age 2. There was a 4 year dev cycle, though. But still, it shows that graphically intensive games that don't skimp on content are absolutely a possibility. I would prefer that games aimed more at content than graphics as a general rule, though.
When it comes to RPGs and games that have rather large environments that involve a lot of exploration, I feel that aesthetics and also graphics are more important. The Witcher 2 is such a stunningly gorgeous game. I've beaten the game twice and I still find myself in awe at some of the scenery that is in the title.
 

Spencer Petersen

New member
Apr 3, 2010
598
0
0
Graphics should have an art style that reinforces the overall theme of the game, even if that is photo-realism. Games about serious matters should have something in the art style to convey that seriousness with dark areas or realistic settings. Lighter games should convey it through exaggerated models or cartoony styles. The themes and visuals should match, not clash.

However, any game should make it abundantly clear what you are looking at by properly making unit models unique and environmental effects non-intrusive. The Modern Warfare series and Battlefield series may pride themselves on graphics but its all for naught when playing feels more like a shitty eye exam with brown against darker brown and clouds of dust everywhere than a test of any relevant skill. Or in RPGs where the people you are fighting are indistinguishable but one has to be a priority target. The only exception being horror games where the deprivation of senses is a tool for creating atmosphere.
 

Dylan Hentchel

New member
Apr 22, 2011
41
0
0
I can't say I give two shits about graphics, honestly. Every time I try to come up with a reason for putting preference on graphics, I find that it get lost in the gameplay and simply don't care about the scenery, so long as the graphics support the gameplay (you can see what you need to) then I frankly don't care if it looks like it's from 1st generation consuls. I also find that the texture re-use is the most offsetting thing for me in a game, and probably the best way to confuse new players.
 

justnotcricket

Echappe, retire, sous sus PANIC!
Apr 24, 2008
1,205
0
0
I think it depends on how the game is trying to sell itself. Indie games often have eye-watering graphics (when strictly compared to, I dunno, Assassin's Creed or Crysis or whatever your personal benchmark is), but they aren't criticised for it because those are the resources they have to hand.

For myself, I really appreciate good graphics (or, failing that, a gorgeous aesthetic), but I won't criticise a game for having sub-par graphics if it's clear they've done the best with what they have, and have made a quality game in other respects.
 

Caligulust

New member
Apr 3, 2010
222
0
0
I'm not very concerned with bad graphics. I was also surprised by how many people said Duke Nukem Forever looked terrible, though. It looked fine to me.