Why is everyone so concerned with graphics?

[alt.slack]

I don't understand why so many people are overconcerned with how good a game looks now a days. Often time when a game looks amazing the gameplay suffers a lot due to the developer spending to much time and resources on the trivial parts of the game. Yet you ask if people want to play an old game and the first 5 responses are that game looks nasty, or it's not worth my time if it looks that bad.

I feel sorry for anyone that feels that way because you are going to miss out on a ton of great games. It's a game afterall isn't it? So shouldn't what really makes you want to play or not play it be the GAMEPLAY?

I just have a really hard time comprehending how people can consider themselves gamers but yet be so quick to judge a game on it's most trivial aspects.

[DarkeSword]

They're called video games for a reason.

Bad graphics can ruin the experience and peripherally affect gameplay. If something looks really generic and dull, I know I'm less likely to play it for a long time. It gets boring, and bad art direction can really kill the experience. Nobody likes looking at brown blobs all day.

[The Vagrance]

I don't think anyone here necessarily cares about the graphics, per se, but rather the artistic style of a game. For example, Jet Set Radio Future may not have as good as graphics as, say, GTA4, however I prefer the art style of the former over the latter. The style matters just as much as the gameplay as it is a part of the presentation of the game and leads to immersion.

[Brycepops]

You saying "original and far superior TF games" didn't exactly help your cause, either. If you really wanted to play the older TF games, you should've just said so and left your opinion at the door. Also, nobody said you HAD to reply to every negative thing people were saying. You could've ignored them and been on your merry way ;o

[The Vagrance]

You saying "original and far superior TF games" didn't exactly help your cause, either. If you really wanted to play the older TF games, you should've just said so and left your opinion at the door. Also, nobody said you HAD to reply to every negative thing people were saying. You could've ignored them and been on your merry way ;o

Never acknowledge the elephant...

[alt.slack]

They're called video games for a reason.

Bad graphics can ruin the experience and peripherally affect gameplay. If something looks really generic and dull, I know I'm less likely to play it for a long time. It gets boring, and bad art direction can really kill the experience. Nobody likes looking at brown blobs all day.

They are called video games because you visually look at them in order to interact. That is where the video comes in, nowhere does it say it has to look amazing to be a fun experience.

If the brown blobs still create a fun gameplay experience I really don't mind what they look like. I'm sorry you'll miss out on a lot of good gameplay experiences due to your highly jaded attitude towards games.

I don't think anyone here necessarily cares about the graphics, per se, but rather the artistic style of a game. For example, Jet Set Radio Future may not have as good as graphics as, say, GTA4, however I prefer the art style of the former over the latter. The style matters just as much as the gameplay as it is a part of the presentation of the game and leads to immersion.

Then why were people so quick to judge an olf FPS game for having terrible graphics by todays standards, yet when it first came out it was called a beutiful game.

[The Xyco]

Art design draws me to a game. Graphics do not.

[Dhsu]

If the brown blobs still create a fun gameplay experience I really don't mind what they look like. I'm sorry you'll miss out on a lot of good gameplay experiences due to your highly jaded attitude towards games.

I honestly think there's enough "good gameplay experiences" that come with tolerable graphics that I won't lose any sleep over not playing the ones that are a chore to look at. I don't have enough time to play the pretty ones as it is...

That said, I'd be up for trying out Fortress Forever with other OCR peeps.

[Schwaltzvald]

How about not wanting to play around with tools or douche bags..? I know I wouldn't join a server if it had nothing by myg0t players (those were hilarious days) all the time; or even pretentious, myopic, ignoramuses who can comprehend the point that, "HEY WE ENJOYED ALL GAMES, BUT SOME OF US LIKE TO SEE NEWER/SOFTER-ON-THE-EYES GAMES!".

Although I do go back to megaman 4, favorite of the series

As stated before, if you wanted people to play with ya just set up a server/game and send invites. No need to flaunt your opinions just because they differ greatly with others.

[VCR Channel]

I do know some people that consider graphics to be of utmost importance, and they won't even play a fun game if it has bad graphics.

I think most people, myself included, would prefer to play a game that looks good, but would not dismiss a game entirely just on the basis of graphical quality. I mean, honestly, if you could play two different versions of the same game, one that looks great and one that looks average-to-bad, which would you rather play?

[DarkeSword]

They are called video games because you visually look at them in order to interact. That is where the video comes in, nowhere does it say it has to look amazing to be a fun experience.

If the brown blobs still create a fun gameplay experience I really don't mind what they look like. I'm sorry you'll miss out on a lot of good gameplay experiences due to your highly jaded attitude towards games.

How is that highly jaded? I play a lot of games that have ok graphics. I just prefer them to look good enough to play.

For the record, I'm not talking about TFC. I've never played that game; I don't know what it looks like. I'm just talking about stuff in general.

EDIT: Also, stop double posting. Don't use threaded mode.

[Overflow]

One thing that really bugs me is how people's perception of good graphics is always changing. I agree that art style is probably the most important aspect, as I can barely stand to watch let alone play a game that consists of no more than two colors: Brown and red. But for some reason people seem to think that only the absolute newest and greatest game can have "Good graphics" and anything else that came before it, regardless of how it was received at the time, has "Bad graphics". For example: I recently found Majora's Mask and started playing it for the first time, and I'm constantly impressed with the graphics. It's got very sharp textures, tremendous draw distances, nicely detailed character models and realistic character animations. And again, the art style is so strange and dark that I'm even more intrigued to see where it goes next!

Majora's Mask has good graphics, especially for the N64, but even apart from it, the graphics are very good. Just because it doesn't stand up to gears of war doesn't mean the graphics are bad!

[Brycepops]

I mean, honestly, if you could play two different versions of the same game, one that looks great and one that looks average-to-bad, which would you rather play?

If gameplay mechanics were EXACTLY the same, probably the better-looking one. But I'd still check out the other one just to see how it is. Some people like the nostalgic feel of the older versions of games, so they prefer those over the new ones.

[Zombie]

Graphics don't make a good game. However, they can make a good game even better.

[The Derrit]

If the brown blobs still create a fun gameplay experience I really don't mind what they look like. I'm sorry you'll miss out on a lot of good gameplay experiences due to your highly jaded attitude towards games.

Why on earth are you personally attacking people for disagreeing with your generalized opinion of people here? That's just obnoxious, not to mention it makes you sound retarded.

[Blue123]

The graphics need to be functional and not tiring in a game. They aren't the most important thing, but a lot of people think so. A lot of my friends won't touch good games because of the graphics. Super street fighter II turbo HD is my case in point, they all said it looks old. Which it really isn't.

[VCR Channel]

If gameplay mechanics were EXACTLY the same, probably the better-looking one. But I'd still check out the other one just to see how it is. Some people like the nostalgic feel of the older versions of games, so they prefer those over the new ones.

Yeah, I'm saying that basically everything aside from the graphics is exactly the same as either game.

I understand the nostalgia point as well. In a lot of circumstances, I can't really relate to it so well; personally, I'd usually rather play a visually / aurally updated version of the game, but I do understand how one might prefer the older version of a game.

[sephfire]

Graphics can not make a bad video game good. But they can make a good video game great.

Most of us here are happy to put up with lame graphics if the gameplay is top notch. We're all about classic gaming here. But I don't think the relationship between graphics and gameplay is nearly so "Either/Or" as you make it to be. There are plenty of games out there with both in ample supply.

edit: Darn it, Zombie, you beat me to my opening line.

[NNY]

I believe video games should aim to be more stylized instead of focusing on being realistic. You take the most realistic game today, and in a scant few years, it looks like ass compared to whatever is the best they're making then.

However, you can take Wind Waker twenty years from now and compare it to the whatever the cream of the crop will be then and Wind Waker will still hold up.

You think Looney Toons became outdated once Scooby Doo Where Are You hit the television?

[alt.slack]

I just prefer them to look good enough to play.

Saying that it needs to look good enough to play is being jaded. By that reasoning if a game looke like a 2600 title but had amazing gameplay you probably wouldn't want to give it a chance. Video games are simply a way of interacting with a visual cue, usually on a screen. Sure we can make those visuals look incredible now a days, but more often than not that seems to be the main focus of a games design in modern day. Look at games like Crysis and COD4 as prime examples. Crysis looks incredible yes, but it's gameplay is terrible. The wow factor of bullet wholes in leaves only lasts a few minutes after that you realize theres no AI, all the weapons are the same, and the game offers no replay value. \

I just wish developers wouldn't focus on how good a game needs to look so much and focus more on the gameplay. I don't see that happening very much now a days.

Graphics can not make a bad video game good. But they can make a good video game great.

Most of us here are happy to put up with lame graphics if the gameplay is top notch. We're all about classic gaming here. But I don't think the relationship between graphics and gameplay is nearly so "Either/Or" as you make it to be. There are plenty of games out there with both in ample supply.

edit: Darn it, Zombie, you beat me to my opening line.

I, never tried to say it's either or. But the fact remains if a game looks incredible the average gamer now a days is imediately attracted to it more than even a very good looking but not realistic stylized game. So in turn developers seem to be working on how good a game looks first and how good it plays second. I wish it would remain the other way around.

[Dhsu]

To be perfectly honest it IS possible for bad graphics to ruin a game because it DOES physically hurt for me to look at games like TFC and HL because they LITERALLY make me nauseous and I have to stop after 15 minutes or so. Which is a shame because I really want to play through HL at least once, but it just doesn't seem like that will be possible when I literally feel like throwing up by the time I get to the end of "Unforeseen Consequences."

[DarkeSword]

Saying that it needs to look good enough to play is being jaded. By that reasoning if a game looke like a 2600 title but had amazing gameplay you probably wouldn't want to give it a chance.

Why not? I love retro looking games.

Also: stop double-posting. Don't use threaded mode.

[VCR Channel]

Saying that it needs to look good enough to play is being jaded. By that reasoning if a game looke like a 2600 title but had amazing gameplay you probably wouldn't want to give it a chance.

He'd play it if it looked good enough to play.

The point isn't whether or not a game has cutting-edge graphics that beat last week's selection of games. The point is that if a game is trying to present its gameplay in a way that makes it not very presentable, it's not going to be an enjoyable experience.

[alt.slack]

One thing that really bugs me is how people's perception of good graphics is always changing. I agree that art style is probably the most important aspect, as I can barely stand to watch let alone play a game that consists of no more than two colors: Brown and red. But for some reason people seem to think that only the absolute newest and greatest game can have "Good graphics" and anything else that came before it, regardless of how it was received at the time, has "Bad graphics". For example: I recently found Majora's Mask and started playing it for the first time, and I'm constantly impressed with the graphics. It's got very sharp textures, tremendous draw distances, nicely detailed character models and realistic character animations. And again, the art style is so strange and dark that I'm even more intrigued to see where it goes next!

Majora's Mask has good graphics, especially for the N64, but even apart from it, the graphics are very good. Just because it doesn't stand up to gears of war doesn't mean the graphics are bad!

Thank you, good graphics don't need to be super pretty. I totally agree with that. But games shouldn't be knocked for having bad graphics if the gameplay is still good. I agree with most of your statement here except that art style is the most important aspect. Gameplay is still the most important aspect. Even if the art style feels totally foreign to the how the game plays and feels it can still be a very enjoyable game.

Why does how the game looks at all whether it be realisitc or just a good art direction is so important to gamers is beyond me. It didn't used to be, but since technology has given game developers the ability to make a game look however they want it seems to have become the first thing a gamer looks for and judges the game on. Very very sad IMO.

[Jam Stunna]

Improved graphics heighten enjoyment and emotional impact of gaming. Which character do you connect with more visually, this one:

or this one: