Your stance on graphics.
- Thread starter omega_peaches
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In my opinion a good art style and just good overall design can trump technology 90% of the time. Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Prince of Persia 2008 and Symphony of the Night still look great, for example. Therefore I find it inexcusable when budget cuts take the blame for a game that looks terrible, as simply putting more effort into the art style would improve things. I'll still be impressed by raw technological power in Crysis or Killzone, but not by much if the art style is bland. The majority of games have very satisfactory graphics in my opinion and dumping endless amounts of cash to make the graphics "DA BESTEST EVAR" isn't really worth it in the long-haul.
they need to have graphics that mirror the system they're on. they need to be "good", but no less than that i think. nintendo ds, it doesnt matter to me, neither does wii, but xbox and ps3 need to do it good. PC i dont give a crap because it varies from comp. to comp.
Graphics are very important, but only for what they add to gameplay and atmosphere. For example, Okami would not have the same tone without cel shading, LA Noire would be very difficult to play without the facial thingy they do, and Katamari would not work at all in 2D. The hole people get into is whether `better' graphics make a better game. Yes, better graphics do make a better game, if by `better graphics' you mean graphics that fit the style and mechanic of the game better. But most people, when they say `better graphics', simply mean `more realistic graphics', which is a whole different story. Realistic graphics are better in some cases, I've already said LA Noire was an example of that, but you can't just throw realistic graphics on any game and have it stick. You have to pick a graphics system that fits the game, and if realism is that system go for it, and if not, do something else. And that's pretty much what it comes down to. Graphics are important, but that means that art direction is important, not graphical capability.
I think what I meant to say was "underwealming" maybe, maybe not "bad," as I said.starslasher said:
An example for me was Duke Nukem Forever, but that was just mediocre in general.
They aren't needed but if a game has bad graphics I'll be a bit upset. And if a game has good ones I'll be happy.
I don't care too much about the graphics, unless they're really good or really bad. I might praise a game if it's graphics are really good or suprising (for example, Brawl's graphics looked really cool, seeing an extra detailed Lucario or Mario)
Most people here would say they're not about the graphics, but I've seen many of those same peoples statement fall over when they say how excited they are about the new Zelda remake...then buy it. (as well as other remakes). And regardless of what's said, that's wanting better graphics, the master quest was released on the Gamecube with the original OOT, and that version is cheaper.Adding some bits and doodads don't make the game extra new, it's the same game with new coat of paint.
OT: I like my games to move well, if it's jerky or weird I get put off by it. That sounds really confusing I'm sure but it's hard to explain. If I can get a better looking version I will but it's not like a lust for it.
OT: I like my games to move well, if it's jerky or weird I get put off by it. That sounds really confusing I'm sure but it's hard to explain. If I can get a better looking version I will but it's not like a lust for it.
I don't care for graphics unless its so terribly bad its not possible.
I play games like Populous, which is age old, with the worst graphics of the games I play because its old, and its still fun because of the gameplay.
However, if a NEW game is made, it should have graphics that aren't shit.
I don't mind if the graphics are like WoW or WC3, as long as its not worse.
I mainly care for gameplay.
I play games like Populous, which is age old, with the worst graphics of the games I play because its old, and its still fun because of the gameplay.
However, if a NEW game is made, it should have graphics that aren't shit.
I don't mind if the graphics are like WoW or WC3, as long as its not worse.
I mainly care for gameplay.
Here's the thing, graphics should never be the reason why you don't play a game. If you find youself not enjoying a game as much as you think you should because of some fault on the side of the graphics/artstyle then that's perfectly valid. Art IS a part of the gaming experience and is as open to critism as any other part of the game, but like I said before it should not be the reason why you don't play a game. Since a game that isn't eye candy can still play like a classic.
Art style is important, graphics isn't so much, so long as it's not really bad graphics. I do, of course, love to see my newest games really show off all their graphical glory (I had to change my pants after I first played The Witcher 2), but plot, characterisation and gameplay are all more important. Of course, most modern games fall down badly on at least two and often all three of these, so they're left to rely on graphics as a draw card.
If a game has really nice, Crysis level graphics, I will notice it at first and say "Oh, that's nice." Goog graphics don't really add anything for me. But when a game has terrible graphics so that I can't tell what I'm looking at or just find it ugly, it can really detract from my enjoyment of a game. Ocarina of Time has this problem. A nice game, but god, everything just looks...meh.
I'd say it entirely depends on the game. If they do something cool with the graphics, that might make up for mediocre gameplay, but not by much.
But if the gameplay is great, the graphics aren't that important, though the lack of good graphics might make one skip over that title for a polished but mediocre turd.
But if the gameplay is great, the graphics aren't that important, though the lack of good graphics might make one skip over that title for a polished but mediocre turd.
If the aesthetics are great, I have no issue playing a game at low resolution. I'd say the point where I say is inexcusable are basic things like, dodgy low resolution textures, maybe a lack bump mapping or lighting, or no AA/multisampling support.
I play this without the graphical tiles, and the MMO I've invested most of my time with the past year is MAngband, so I guess that sums it up for me too.AC10 said:I played Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup for 4 hours yesterday. I don't really think I care too much about graphics.
That said, I can really appreciate when things are pretty...It's just nowhere near #1 on my list.
Okami I think is one of the most beautiful games I've ever played, and Crysis has nice bushes and trees but I think I like World of Goo and Geometry Wars more than how Crysis looks. xD
Graphics are just part of the experience a game can have jaw dropping graphics but that?s just part of the game.
Graphics can also be highly stylized (e.g. killer7,Comic jumper) and add to the game
It's all about finding the balance between style and substance
Graphics can also be highly stylized (e.g. killer7,Comic jumper) and add to the game
It's all about finding the balance between style and substance