@RandomWiiPlayer Waffles taste fine without syrup, but they have to have powdered sugar and bananas. [and by powdered sugar, I mean a good controls, and by bananas, I mean good gameplay.] EDIT: I just read my comment, and did that make any sense?
Not much. I was just disagreeing with the comparison. Graphics aren't that important, but waffles suck without syrup.
Graphics are not a huge selling point for me like they are for a lot of people. As long as super poor visuals do not hinder the experience of a game I'm fine with them not being super high quality. As long as the game play is fun or if the game has a great story to offer I will play it. Below-average graphics will not stop me from playing games. I pity those that it does stop for they are missing out on some great fun.
"Leave all that can be spared behind. We travel light. Let's hunt some Orc."
Even older games, like Ocarina of Time, while not being technically advanced, feature very polished visuals, with a distinct (and consistent) style running throughout.
But Ocarina of Time with graphics the quality of Twilight Princess would look even better. I find 3D games to date quicker than 2D games. I may have been amazed by 3D games fifteen years ago but those same games look terrible these days. Even the best looking 3D game back then looks bad now.
Whereas 2D games have timeless appeal. Donkey Kong '81 still looks fine today. Sure it may be simple but it doesn't look bad bad.
I disagree. 2D games age just as quickly. Look at the Final Fantasy Series. Final Fantasy 4,5 and 6 were amazing examples of 2D spriting.
Look at the remakes of Final Fantasy 1 and 2. The difference is the same as the difference between Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess.
Besides that, your argument is irrelevant. Any game can still "look better" - that's not the point. Twilight Princess could "look better". A game must be considered "good" graphically if it conforms to the simple rules of aesthetics - as long as colours work properly together, as long as glitching is kept to a minimum, etc etc, a game will cannot reasonably be said to look bad. When a game does look bad, then it becomes very, very difficult to play - and again, I'm talking about breaking aesthetic rules, not merely looking primitive.
For instance - The most primitive-looking 3D game that still gets airtime, as far as I'm concerned, is Final Fantasy VII. The 3D engine is as simple as they come. But, it follows the laws of aesthetics, so it's still a (very) playable game.
On the other hand, a game like Valhalla Knights 2 on the Wii, while using a far more detailed graphics engine than Final Fantasy VII, is also a broken graphics engine, and the visuals greatly contribute to the utter failure of that game.
Sometimes I'll be flipping through a game magazine and I'll basically be making snap decisions about games based on how they look in the magazine. I'll stop and read about the ones that catch my eye and seem like they might be interesting, and I'll skip right past the ones that don't look interesting. Of course, despite how that sounds my tastes often run against the "graphics are everything" trend. A lot of those big fancy bundles of eye candy just look bland and boring to me as I look through the magazines.
A lot of the people in this topic already have made some good points though. There's got to be some basic standard that is "good enough", some point where the game works the way it's supposed to and demonstrates some reasonable degree of competency from the game's designers. Anything beyond that is a nice bonus, but I'm certainly not going to complain that not every game is a technical marvel. And it usually helps if the game has a unique look to it. Whether it's the art style, the setting, the characters, something about the gameplay, or whatever... Something about the game just has to stick out at you, appeal to your tastes in games somehow, and make you curious to know more about it.
Forums
Topic: How important are quality graphics to you?
Posts 61 to 64 of 64
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.