Can you handle Terrible Graphics?

The problem with a lot of gamers is that they see gameplay and graphics as two separate elements when in reality they're qualities that should compliment each other. Typically games with really horrible graphics reflect sub-par gameplay as well. The only period in gaming where your statement is true to an extent is exactly as you stated, the late 70s to the mid 80s.

MadVybz

VVVVVV

Retro Game Challenge

God Hand

The Red Star

Blast Works

...and so many more.

[QUOTE="sydstoner"]

my god, the best games i ever played were on my spectrum, c64, atari and mastersystem......

its all about gameplay and imagination.. not graphics....

MadVybz

That implies that you either A) Support half-made games or B) Play lots of text-based RPGs. Because the purpose of playing a game to explore the world that you're given, not for you to fill in the gaps, unless the game was made with that intention.

The problem with a lot of gamers is that they see gameplay and graphics as two separate elements when in reality they're qualities that should compliment each other. Typically games with really horrible graphics reflect sub-par gameplay as well. The only period in gaming where your statement is true to an extent is exactly as you stated, the late 70s to the mid 80s.

to suggest and i quote 'typically games with really horrible graphics reflect sub-par gameplay as well' is a very naive opinion to write.

I can understand where TC is coming from. Bad and/or old graphics can be kinda annoying and ruin some of the experience. I had that experience when I downloaded FFVII to see what all the fuzz was about. Initially I had a real hard time taking the game (and especially the characters) seriously and I started to think that the game was just too old. But then suddenly it hit, I somehow adapted to the games visuals and suddenly I was hooked.

Long story short: If the game is good and immersive enough you'll have no trouble playing it after a while.

IMX

[QUOTE="MadVybz"]

The problem with a lot of gamers is that they see gameplay and graphics as two separate elements when in reality they're qualities that should compliment each other. Typically games with really horrible graphics reflect sub-par gameplay as well. The only period in gaming where your statement is true to an extent is exactly as you stated, the late 70s to the mid 80s.

pills4louis

VVVVVV

Retro Game Challenge

God Hand

The Red Star

Blast Works

...and so many more.

You're right, I haven't played them, but I have seen a few of those titles in action (VVVVVV,God Hand and Blast Works) and there's a clear distinction between a certain art direction and good graphics for that time period. If a game is made to look blocky, you can't really criticize the game for it, can you? But if your intent is create a really tight, 'blockbuster'-esk experience yet it looks like a mess, that's a situation of bad graphics.

i would prefer to play a great game with bad graphics than a bad game with good graphics...

I can play games from past generations that when I played them then, the graphics were amazing, but games this gen that should look better than they do, but dont, It is hard for me to take them seriously.

i would prefer to play a great game with bad graphics than a bad game with good graphics...

sydstoner

Gameplay > Music / Story (equally) > Graphics.

I'm currently playing Blue Stinger, Martian Gothic, Shadowgate Classic, FarCry and Bulletstorm so yeah... graphics aren't important to me. Not playing games due to their graphics for me it's like cutting off my fingers just because there's dirt on my nails XD.

This is why low-budget crap on PSN, XBLA, etc. are sold are LOWER prices than the major, retail titles.

It's like you have a big-budget retail title on one hand, and a low-budget crap game on the other. The former took years to develop and huge production costs. The other was developed by a couple of college guys.

As far as I'm concerned, I won't even touch the one with the LOW production values. For the same reason that I don't watch cable original TV programming or see limited-release films. Because they are low-budget, second-rate, and just plain CHEAPER.

For me, presentation is a REQUISITE. I'm not even going to consider the gameplay if the game doesn't meet TODAY'S visual standards. Gaming is about the WHOLE package, and the bottomline is simple. Why in the hell should I play a game that took two months and a team of ten to develop, versus a high-budget title that took a few years to develop and is from a major publisher? I don't play cheap crap.

The only exception are titles that I may have played in the past. In other words, I would go back and play 32-bit and 64-bit games that I played as a KID, but that's only because of the NOSTALGIA. Nostalgia aside, no way. That's why I never touch downloadable/arcade games that they keep putting out nowadays, or DS games.

Case-in-point: Final Fantasy VII. Anyone who played the game AT THE TIME will always be BIASED towards it. The nostalgia clouds (no pun intended) your judgment. On the other hand, if you were to get a kid who's used to today's standards in visual presentation, to play that old PlayStation game ... they'd probably be disgusted with the look of the game, which at the time was considered "ground-breaking."

Well, guess what? The KID is the one's who being OBJECTIVE. Everyone else is biased.

Plus, there are more than enough worthwhile, big-budget titles nowadays to warrant never having to play any of that cheap crap. I can barely keep up with the high-production value titles, so unless you live and breathe gaming, I don't see why you would even NEED to play all that other stuff.

[QUOTE="wigan_gamer"]Graphics mean nothing to me, they are just a bonus. Its all about the gameplaySummerHillard

How ironic, because when I read THIS post, I almost fell out of my chair laughing at the stupidity.

Please continue enjoying 64-bit games. Play them until you die for all anyone cares. The rest of the world, aside from you so-called "hardcore" gamers, will appreciate the titles that took countless designers and a number of years to create, as well the continued EVOLUTION of gaming graphics into the future, instead of orgasming over something that a geeky college student concocted with his dork friends one weekend. Puh.

We're talking about VIDEO games here. If you don't care about graphics/visuals, then what you're looking for is something called a BOARD game.

I respect entertainment (TV, films, vidoe games, etc.) that took sweat and blood to produce/develop. THESE are the things that deserve respect and admiration, not just anything that something pulled out their ass.

Gaming is about playing the game, not looking at pretty visuals. Give me nethack, dwarf fortress, dungeon crawl, etc over any good looking shallow game any day. Since when did gaming become about the look rather than the gameplay?

Also you say about wasting money, but really who is wasting their money here, the ones investing in the shallow games that get boring quick (or keep the simple minded occupied for longer), or the ones who play games based on gameplay regardless of graphics filtering out the tripe that is released.

Who said gaming was just about the "look?"

What a hypocrite ...

... you're the one who said "I don't give a flying crap about graphics, only gameplay."

Gaming *should* be about the whole package. Story, characters, graphics, sound, music, controls, battle system, and whatever else I could mention.

You're basically saying, to hell with story or visuals, or any else that isn't *crucial* to the gameplay alone.

By YOUR logic, there's no need for advancements.

We should all just play on ONE console for the rest of time. Gee, you must be right. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo must be gigantic morons to be trying to advance their systems further. They just listen to YOU! High-definition? Well, guess that was stupid. Should just go back to 16-bit games. Hell, I could probably make one right now. We'll just all make our own crap games and never pay to play games anymore.

And forget about "next-gen consoles." Apparently, they're not "necessary." Tell you what, you should send the three big companies a message telling them all this, and I can't wait to hear what their reaction is.

...

stupiditySummerHillard

not just anything that something pulled out their ass.

Some of you are so far disillusioned it's not even funny.

any random crap you can get your hands on. This realization pisses you off (because it disrupts your whole lifestyIe apparently)

Really quite typical and pathetic. Doesn't take a therapist to figure this out.

See there you go again.... saying if its got bad graphics it must be a bad game? Why assume that? The graphics may be simple or outdated but that doesn't affect the gameplay or story at all. That is what I am trying to say, graphics are just how the game is presented, but doesn't alter any gameplay or story aspects.

You are basically saying all indie developers are worthless now which I find quite ignorant, considering the majority of innovation is coming from the indie market. Yet they don't have "next gen" graphics because they cannot afford it !

We should all just play on ONE console for the rest of time. Gee, you must be right. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo must be gigantic morons to be trying to advance their systems further. They just listen to YOU! High-definition? Well, guess that was stupid. Should just go back to 16-bit games. Hell, I could probably make one right now. We'll just all make our own crap games and never pay to play games anymore.

And forget about "next-gen consoles." Apparently, they're not "necessary." Tell you what, you should send the three big companies a message telling them all this, and I can't wait to hear what their reaction is.SummerHillard

I wanted to revisit this in case anyone missed out the first time around.

Secondly, sometimes I forget that 80% of the users around here are considered "hardcore" gamers, and so of course most of you feel a certain way.

Of course you do realize that the VAST majority of video game consumers do NOT feel this way, but they aren't going to be here posting on this discussion, because the VAST majority of gaming consumers do NOT post on internet forums about video games.

However, it is quite clear that MOST feel the same way I do.

Case-in-point: BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger and Continuum Shift.

A fantastic fighting game series, probably the second-best of this entire generation after SSFIV. And yet, both games sold like CRAP.

Hmm, I wonder why that is ...

... oh that's right, must be because the vast majority of gamers care a LOT about graphics and were put-off by the outdated, 2D visuals.

Here's an example of where I DID play a game that wasn't that strong in the graphics department, because I thought it had potential in other areas.

Believe me, most video game consumers are not as easygoing as I am. MOST consumers in general demand QUALITY. That is why major network programming gets an average of 8 million viewers, whereas the vast majority of CABLE programs will never even SEE the1 million mark in viewership. Likewise, this is also why films that have high-production values also are the HIGHEST-GROSSING, whereas limited-release crap get released in only a few theaters ... because they are low-budget crap that NO ONE wants to see, except for maybe a few hundred people in the ENTIRE damn country!

If you wanna be a "hardcore" gamer, go right ahead. But to actually be shocked that the vast majority of consumers do NOT want to waste their time and effort on low-budget garbage speaks volume about your own ignorance.

If the gameplay/story draw me in, I usually forget all about graphics. Like Fallout 3/NV. Questionable graphics, but I forget all about it as soon as I start playing.

"The goal that I had ... was to take all the fun out of making video games."

--Bobby Kotick

[QUOTE="SummerHillard"]We should all just play on ONE console for the rest of time. Gee, you must be right. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo must be gigantic morons to be trying to advance their systems further. They just listen to YOU! High-definition? Well, guess that was stupid. Should just go back to 16-bit games. Hell, I could probably make one right now. We'll just all make our own crap games and never pay to play games anymore.

And forget about "next-gen consoles." Apparently, they're not "necessary." Tell you what, you should send the three big companies a message telling them all this, and I can't wait to hear what their reaction is.SummerHillard

I wanted to revisit this in case anyone missed out the first time around.

Secondly, sometimes I forget that 80% of the users around here are considered "hardcore" gamers, and so of course most of you feel a certain way.

Of course you do realize that the VAST majority of video game consumers do NOT feel this way, but they aren't going to be here posting on this discussion, because the VAST majority of gaming consumers do NOT post on internet forums about video games.

However, it is quite clear that MOST feel the same way I do.

Case-in-point: BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger and Continuum Shift.

A fantastic fighting game series, probably the second-best of this entire generation after SSFIV. And yet, both games sold like CRAP.

Hmm, I wonder why that is ...

... oh that's right, must be because the vast majority of gamers care a LOT about graphics and were put-off by the outdated, 2D visuals.

Here's an example of where I DID play a game that wasn't that strong in the graphics department, because I thought it had

Believe me, most video game consumers are not as easygoing as I am. MOST consumers in general demand QUALITY. That is why major network programming gets an average of 8 million viewers, whereas the vast majority of CABLE programs will never even SEE the1 million mark in viewership. Likewise, this is also why films that have high-production values also are the HIGHEST-GROSSING, whereas limited-release crap get released in only a few theaters ... because they are low-budget crap that NO ONE wants to see, except for maybe a few hundred people in the ENTIRE damn country!

Your comparison to the film/TV industry is irrelevant, its a completely different industry. The film elitist enjoy mainstream films and indie films for the same reason "hardcore" gamers enjoy games with poor graphical standards. They care about the content, not the superficial aspects. Just because something is popular doesn't mean its the best out there, take music as an example. Pop music is ridiculously shallow, and features a lot of trend hopping with very little innovation, yet it is popular because it is the "eye candy" in the music world. You also bash on indie / low budget programmes in your post and say "NO ONE" wants to watch them... The case is often because low budget in TV series usually compromises the story due to bad acting. The same is not in gaming though, so it is irrelevant again.

This is why low-budget crap on PSN, XBLA, etc. are sold are LOWER prices than the major, retail titles.

It's like you have a big-budget retail title on one hand, and a low-budget crap game on the other. The former took years to develop and huge production costs. The other was developed by a couple of college guys.

As far as I'm concerned, I won't even touch the one with the LOW production values. For the same reason that I don't watch cable original TV programming or see limited-release films. Because they are low-budget, second-rate, and just plain CHEAPER.

For me, presentation is a REQUISITE. I'm not even going to consider the gameplay if the game doesn't meet TODAY'S visual standards. Gaming is about the WHOLE package, and the bottomline is simple. Why in the hell should I play a game that took two months and a team of ten to develop, versus a high-budget title that took a few years to develop and is from a major publisher? I don't play cheap crap.

The only exception are titles that I may have played in the past. In other words, I would go back and play 32-bit and 64-bit games that I played as a KID, but that's only because of the NOSTALGIA. Nostalgia aside, no way. That's why I never touch downloadable/arcade games that they keep putting out nowadays, or DS games.

Case-in-point: Final Fantasy VII. Anyone who played the game AT THE TIME will always be BIASED towards it. The nostalgia clouds (no pun intended) your judgment. On the other hand, if you were to get a kid who's used to today's standards in visual presentation, to play that old PlayStation game ... they'd probably be disgusted with the look of the game, which at the time was considered "ground-breaking."

Well, guess what? The KID is the one's who being OBJECTIVE. Everyone else is biased.

Plus, there are more than enough worthwhile, big-budget titles nowadays to warrant never having to play any of that cheap crap. I can barely keep up with the high-production value titles, so unless you live and breathe gaming, I don't see why you would even NEED to play all that other stuff.

SummerHillard

So, you'd rather take Call Of Duty (Not a great example considering it runs at 1024x600 with 2XMSAA on consoles to preserve a more or less stable 60-50 FPS framerate, but it still works), Gears Of War, Crysis 2 or Killzone 3 than a small indie game like Braid, Audiosurf, Machinarium or Amnesia just because of the budget?

He is bashing on indie developers here big time....man you dont even deserve to game. Give your consoles to charity or something... Indie devs are some of the best they do everything themselves off of their on back in some cases.

Well personally, I only play games that have a narrative and developed characters. I like to go through a story and feel like I experienced something from beginning to end. But that's just me.

So I don't even remember the last time I played a game that was "just" gameplay, no story.

However, some people don't seem to realize that not everyone spends 60 hours a week on gaming. I usually spend about 10 hours a week, and I would guess that the vast majority of video game consumers also are not as "obsessed" with video games as anyone who would care enough to post on an internet forum ABOUT them. Obviously, I am doing so and do NOT consider myself a "hardcore" gamer, but that is probably because I am a walking source of contradictions and anomalies.

Regardless, the fact remains that because most people don't have 60 hours a week to spend on gaming, they probably do not want to spend that time on low-budget stuff that they could have played 5 or 10 years ago.

I guess when you spend 60 hours a week playing games, it might get to the point where you stop caring about graphics or how a game looks. That's the difference.

I'm just gonna put this out there: end this squabble of yours now. I don't wanna have to take more action than I've already had to. Let's keep it civil here, okay?

Yes, I'm not shallow like that.Treflis

I don't know that it's up to you to define what is shallow and what isn't.

I'm just gonna put this out there: end this squabble of yours now. I don't wanna have to take more action than I've already had to. Let's keep it civil here, okay?

c_rake

I just didn't think the points he made were valid (popularity, hardcore gamers, TV/Film comparison, or how bad graphics affect the story or gameplay..)

I didn't see it as a squabble... I had to post multiple times because he still didn't understand the point I made several times clearly and politely. That was that graphics do not make gameplay, therefore why should a gaming experience be defined by how good or bad graphics are?

I just didn't think the points he made were valid (popularity, hardcore gamers, TV/Film comparison, or how bad graphics affect the story or gameplay..)

wigan_gamer

Regardless, there was no need to attack him, or him to attack you, for that matter. Just keep things under control and civil.

I can handle bad graphics, if you grew up at the time when 3d graphics were first coming into their own you should be able to lol

A few years ago i had a few months where i enjoyed doom online better then most other FPS games online.
So yes, i can handle terrible graphics

I'm currently playing Blue Stinger, Martian Gothic, Shadowgate Classic, FarCry and Bulletstorm so yeah... graphics aren't important to me. Not playing games due to their graphics for me it's like cutting off my fingers just because there's dirt on my nails XD.

KillerJuan77

[QUOTE="KillerJuan77"]

I'm currently playing Blue Stinger, Martian Gothic, Shadowgate Classic, FarCry and Bulletstorm so yeah... graphics aren't important to me. Not playing games due to their graphics for me it's like cutting off my fingers just because there's dirt on my nails XD.

Elann2008

It's actually pretty good but who hired those voice actors? The voice acting is the worse I've ever heard. Also, who composed the soundtrack? It's one of the best soundtracks I've ever heard.

In the end, the concept of "terrible graphics" is entirely subjective. Art direction is, I believe, much more important than poly-count and realism BS.

I play Mount and Blade. I know bad graphics lol. But it's a damn good game!

I play Mount and Blade. I know bad graphics lol. But it's a damn good game!

PC_Otter

It doesn't looks that bad.

I guess it's impossible to go to these kind of threads without finding a debate sooner or later.

I guess what makes for terrible graphics has changed and I missed the memo. Chrono Trigger has dated graphics, but they are FAR from terrible.

Nope, bad graphics = immersion killer for me.

Nope, bad graphics = immersion killer for me.

morapuler

I can't play a game if the graphics look terrible.