Topic: How important are HD graphics to your enjoyment of a game?

On a scale of zero to ten?

I couldn't play PSone games 'blown up' on my television at home, but they genuinely look superb on the PS Vita. The Crash Bandicoot games still look great on the PS Vita OLED display.

A smaller resolution (320x240 in the case of the majority of PSone games) on a smaller screen makes things look cleaner and clearer than if you were to play them on a 50" television.

Saying that, it all depends on the type of game and what art style it chooses to use.

I find some Xbox 360 games blurry (below 720p), and Quantum Break on the Xbox One gave me a headache due to the sub-par HD resolution and the ridiculous amount of motion blur that is used.

Give me a clean and stable 1080p resolution (on my television) nowadays however, it is not to say that I cannot go back to old(er) games. I also agree with @Ryu_Niiyama in that the phrase 'hasn't aged well' is overused - and often misused - in certain circumstances.

Not at all. I haven't been able to easily notice graphical differences since 6th gen. I can still notice the difference between 6th gen and later gens if it's a side by side comparison, but beyond that the differences don't really pop out at me.

I think visual presentation is important (to me) - but graphics not so much..

For example:

Minecraft - The only reason I've never played it is because I don't really like the aesthetic...there's been plenty of hype and positivity surrounding the game, but I just can't look past the visuals.

Breath of the Wild - Safe to say that it's graphically less impressive than, say, Horizon...but the art style more than compensates for that - and I, like the majority of reviewers, think that BotW is the better of the two games.

...even with older games - I like the visual presentation of, say, Super Mario Bros. 3 - but with other, more modern, more graphically impressive titles - if the visual presentation isn't to my tastes, I find it a big turn off...

One game that really made me realise how relatively unimportant graphics are to me was GTAV - I had both the last gen and current gen versions of the game...after I upgraded, the first improvement I noticed was the graphics - gosh it looked pretty! ..but after, say, half an hour - once I'd been fully immersed - it started to feel more familiar and less different. If a game and its world are good enough to make you feel fully immersed, your brain does the rest for you and makes it feel 'real' - it's the strangest phenomenon. Sure, every once and a while I'd take a step back to appreciate all of the extra detail - but, when in full flow, it didn't really seem to add much to the game - both versions felt 'realistic' because my brain made it feel 'real'. Longer term, it was the other enhancements that I began to appreciate more - the improved frame-rate, the increased draw distances, the faster rendering, the wider gameplay improvements - it was the 'under the hood' stuff that was really 'enhancing' my experience...

I do appreciate pretty graphics - but the foundations of a game are what really matters...unless it's ugly, then I'm too shallow to even give it a try!

@shaneoh 11! Best graphics ever!

I'd say almost zero importance. If it is the same game, or if you play for example NSMB Wii U and right after NSMB Wii it shows and I would prefer the HD, but otherwise, very little significance. Skyward Sword is amazing because of the realistic motion controls, and that's what it ultimately is - if the controller is fun, and the gameplay is good, it's all I need. Only some NES games have unacceptable graphics for me (games like Burger Time, which looks wonderful on the Game Boy).

@shaneoh It would look better in 4k.

@Ryu_Niiyama Most things that "haven't aged well" come down to outdated game design ideas (the controls/systems/level design in the game more than the graphics) and outdated ideas/limitations behind camera placement/control in early 3D games. I dont' think many games have "aged poorly" graphically, they are what they are, but looking at, say, Ocarina, while the graphics of the original look horrible next to even the 3DS remaster, the part that didn't age well are some of the obscure design constructs and the horrible camera that, to be consistent, even the 3DS remaster can't save. It's a product of its time and that time, in general has elements that don't work so well after their own time.

I agree about a lot of the retro indie games though. I'm not sure what it is about them. I excuse Blaster Master since it's a genuine remake of the original by the original producer. And obviously Shovel Knight is special. But something is off about most of them. Maybe they really don't play well. But I'm not sure that's it either.

@NEStalgia I play games in a compartmentalized fashion (blame fighting games) so I don't even look at gameplay and go "hmm this was poorly designed" (otherwise I wouldn't be able to play shinobi games before and after III). ...What was wrong with the camera in OoT? Serious question...never bothered me and up until about two years ago I replayed OoT during my b-day month annually. The only games that make me go WTF were they thinking are rpgs...usually when the inventory or class mechanics are taken out our altered. Or dumbed down a ala TES games.

@Ryu_Niiyama Haha, OoT's camera, like most cameras from that era, was placed too close to the player character, and when getting close to objects would zoom at unnatural perspectives while getting clipped by surrounding objects. It leads to this disorientation of unnatural perspectives and objects flying by your face. The range of motion for cameras back then was also not the way a camera on a dolly or boom would really pan....it was very jerky and tried to automatically aim where it likely should go, and would thus constantly turn as your character turned which is not what you really wanted it to do. Like having your head bolted to your neck so you couldn't turn it to look one way while your body goes another way. It's not a flaw in OoT, it's just the way things were commonly done as they learned how to handle these concepts, so at the end of that progression the early stuff "hasn't aged well." Heck I'd settle for it if it just stopped clipping from background objects.

RPGs usually only suffer from drawn out overcomplicated systems for no reason with too few save points. I still hate the FF4/BD jobs system though so I'm probably a minoriity on a Nintendo board

I also mean the clarity and sharpness of the graphics. For old games, I'm talking about seeing the sprites clearly without them looking overly pixellated or distorted.

For example, I think 1991 arcade Street Fighter II and arcade accurate ports to home consoles (so not SNES) actually looks better than the classic graphics of Ultra Street Fighter II which does look horribly distorted to me, especially in comparison to the modern HD graphics.

@Bender1001
Right? You can make out all the details on the dwarves, dogs and cats, the superior quality of the caravan, the ripples on the (stagnant) water, every blade of grass and the incline of the ramps.

@NEStalgia I never had a problem with Ocarina's camera. And i've beaten that game so many times. I even beat the game with out collecting any heart upgrades, camera was a non issue.

When it comes to Ocarina I actually prefer the N64 Version over the 3DS remaster. Usually I prefer the newer versions because why not. HD Graphics and updated things makes the game look better. But with N64 Ocarina theres just a certain atmosphere the 3DS version doesn't capture. Its one of the few I prefer older to newer.

The choppier frame rate and the style of graphics creates a more dark, sinister, cynical vibe to it. Things look creepier when moving choppier. This is the thing I like most about this game is the atmosphere. From enemy designs, to sound effects, and sounds they make when you hit them, like the stalfos, the vibes this game gives is just awesome. Plus the gameplay controls are very smooth, its one of the better controlling n64 games, even when compared to games on newer systems, its still feels good. I use to play ocarina all the time. Its one of my most repayable zelda game. I think its my most replayed adventure game ever.

To be fair, those things go hand in hand. "I don't have a problem with thing I'm a master at" doesn't mean too much to newbies tbh. I mean, I don't have a problem with most N64 games, and at TIMES I feel people exaggerate their issues but at the same time, I grew up with it and am thus used to it since I was a child.

@kkslider5552000 That basically sums up my feelings Even with the graphics - some people say N64 games haven't aged well - I guess to the younger crowd they probably do look kind of dated - but I don't think they're too bad...I dunno, maybe it's just pure nostalgia on my part - or maybe I just really like polygons - but I'm still more than happy dusting off my ol' 64 for an evenings' gaming

@NEStalgia hmm. ...I think it actually worked for me. Might explain why current cameras disorient me slightly in games...and I feel the are pulled back too far from the character. The sorta choppy auto aim made it easier for me to tell distance as i have trouble doing so from an angle. I was always centering the camera behind Link every six seconds or so. Otherwise I'd misjudge everything. Also might explain why I feel such a sense of resistance with modern cameras ( I hated galaxy for that reason).(hard to explain, but I physically feel like I'm being stopped by the camera physics...and not just because the view point isn't rotating anymore...its weird) LMAO wow I never thought about it like that. So yeah I guess I'll be exiting gaming in a gen or two...sigh.

Yea, as others have said, what I find more important is usually the aspect ratio or upscaling or whatever the heck it's called.

Like, going back to try and play some old Wii games on my Wii U on an HDTV was a bit rough because of the non-HD image trying to fit onto the screen. It just wasn't made for that, you know?

But that's really the only situation I would say is uncomfortable. In general, "HD" gaming means nothing to me. Put an original Gameboy back in my hands and I'd have a ball with those games. Put me back on an N64 on a tube television and I'd be just fine, because that's what it was made for.

Graphics are of course important. In 2017 who wants to be playing ~720p games on large TVs? Also, FPS must be consistent.

As for handhelds, the 3DS is pushing the boundaries of acceptable. Switch looks great. Shame some games, Snake Pass, look awful in handheld. What did they do to it?!

@Ryu_Niiyama Cameras disorient you in current games most likely because the FOV better approximates normal stereoscopic vision....which would feel unfamiliar and disorienting for you. The FOV would feel LESS like the real world looks in your case, while it feels MORE like the real world looks (as best as a 2D approximation would for actual stereoscopy) for most. You're not actually seeing it differently (it's 2D after all) but the way it's trying to approximate its representation of real world things (specifically depth perception in motion) would be less real and familiar in your case. The older cameras had a more flattened angle which would be much more comfortable to you.

@alasdair91 720p looks fine on a large TV if you're sitting an appropriate distance AND your scaler isn't trash (as most cheap TVs are.) 420p looks great on on large TV if you're sitting an appropriate distance and your scaler isn't trash. I think people have come to accept low quality TVs with low quality scaling means "lower res looks bad" when really it's "my bad hardware looks bad" Most video content I watch is niche and sadly is not made in BD, so I have to suffer with SD DVDs. I bought a good DVD player with a serious scaler inside for one setup (a receiver with a serous scaler inside for my other setup) and honestly when I compare it to BD even on my 100" front projector (NOT 4k...I'm not dumping THAT kind of money ), there's barely any practical difference (difference if direct comparing, but no real practical difference if not going all videophile on it.)

And why does everyone keep saying Snake Pass looks awful on handheld? It looks great! Honestly I think it looks better with the high DPI on the handheld than it does on the screen (at admittedly inappropriate distance.)

@NEStalgia Hmm I hadn't thought about it like that. I think I'll do some research into it further. Thank you for the weekend project! Well, at the very least my favorite genre (fighting games) are safe. I don't play FPS games although that does explain why I didn't mind FPS games on the n64 (and lower such as doom) and only play them under duress now, lol.