Can you handle Terrible Graphics?

I love Mega Man 9 and 10. I don't know if that's terrible.

I LOVE Aliens vs. Predator. Really underrated game.

Anything on N64 is a jewel to me.

So yeah, I can handle terrible graphics. It's all about the gameplay baby.

i am quite shocked at some of the posts here..... if you want good graphics/story etc.. watch a film.... have we really lost the plot when it comes to gaming?

i am quite shocked at some of the posts here..... if you want good graphics/story etc.. watch a film.... have we really lost the plot when it comes to gaming?

sydstoner

I played this a month ago, so yeah...i can handle terrible graphics and still have fun playing them.

Chrono Trigger ruined it because of the visuals? Sorry, but I'm laughing my ass when I hear that. Of course, CT isn't for everybody, but really? CT's visuals RUINED IT for you?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I'm sorry, but that's just so freaking hysterical!

As for your main question...depends on what game we're talking about...like CT...no, the graphics were outstanding for its time and still holds up to today's generation...timeless masterpiece, in my opinion.

I can, to an extent, 2d games are fine, but some 3d games are just too ugly, like ff7, but ff8+ looking games are perfectly fine. I dunno what's with 7 though, did Square do that 'cause they sucked, or 'cause they thought it was a good looking art style (the fugly block characters in the cinematics/general wondering around).

I'm willing to bet that most of the people who say that they can't play a game because of ugly graphics never tried or gave up ludicrously fast.

I'm willing to bet that most of the people who say that they can't play a game because of ugly graphics never tried or gave up ludicrously fast.

rastotm

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

I'm willing to bet that most of the people who say that they can't play a game because of ugly graphics never tried or gave up ludicrously fast.

pills4louis

Adding to the fact that the game doesn't have to be necessarily pretty to be playable. As long as the gameplay remains fun and engaging, then why bother thinking about the visuals when the game is that much fun to play?

Yes since I had Super Nintendo when it was brand new. (I still have one today)

I started playing Videogames in 1983. So I know what to expect from older consoles and games. Playstation 1 games are not going to look very good compared to Xbox 360 and Playstation 3.

I still buy Snes and PS1 games today. (when I come across a title at flea market etc) 8-bit 16bit 32 bit graphics are just what they are from the era.

yep. no problem at all.

[QUOTE="morapuler"]

Nope, bad graphics = immersion killer for me.

pills4louis

Actually, I don't see anything wrong with that. Immersion is a key factor in really getting hocked on something.

[QUOTE="pills4louis"]

[QUOTE="morapuler"]

Nope, bad graphics = immersion killer for me.

c_rake

Actually, I don't see anything wrong with that. Immersion is a key factor in really getting hocked on something.

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

[QUOTE="pills4louis"]Good for you. Because immersion really is everything, right?

DavidianMH

Actually, I don't see anything wrong with that. Immersion is a key factor in really getting hocked on something.

Indeed, the way is see it, immersion means to have a rich and detailed evironment.
Games with super graphics can have dull and empty environments and games with horrible graphics can have detailled and alive environments.

You can have immersion and get "hocked :P" on something without good graphics.DavidianMH

Aw darn it -- I didn't notice that error. God I suck at proof-reading.

Nope, bad graphics = immersion killer for me.

Hit the nail on the head.

It's all about IMMERSION.

Although quite honestly, come to think of it, the vast majority of the games I play this generation excel in nearly all aspects, including BOTH visuals AND gameplay.

Grand Theft Auto IV

Uncharted 2

LittleBigPlanet

Metal Gear Solid 4

Final Fantasy XIII

Mass Effect 2

BioShock

Batman: Arkham Asylum

Super Street Fighter IV

God of War III

L.A. Noire

Fallout 3

Ratchet & Clank Future

Dead Space

Ninja Gaiden Sigma

Heavy Rain

Resistance 2

Resident Evil 5

inFAMOUS

Crysis 2

Soulcalibur IV

Devil May Cry 4

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow

Oh look, all of those titles excel in both gameplay AND visuals. And most of them incorporate a fantastic story, mythology, and characters as well. Looks like you can have it all in a video game. And it looks like mainstream, high-budget titles with high production values WIN.

A few of you need to get it through your heads that if you wanna play PURE games with no story and medicore graphics, then that's your thing. But to get defensive and snarky because YOU don't agree with the logic of the majority of gaming consumers out there? Wow. That is beyond laughably immature. Get social skills.

You "hardcore" gamers (with your "philosophies") are the ones in the minority. There's no reason at all why everyone else should feel the way you do about games. None at ALL.

Although quite honestly, come to think of it, the vast majority of the games I play this generation excel in nearly all aspects, including BOTH visuals AND gameplay.

Oh look, all of those titles excel in both gameplay AND visuals. And most of them incorporate a fantastic story, mythology, and characters as well. Looks like you can have it all in a video game. And it looks like mainstream, high-budget titles with high production values WIN.

A few of you need to get it through your heads that if you wanna play PURE games with no story and medicore graphics, then that's your thing. But to get defensive and snarky because YOU don't agree with the logic of the majority of gaming consumers out there? Wow. That is beyond laughably immature. Get social skills.

You "hardcore" gamers (with your "philosophies") are the ones in the minority. There's no reason at all why everyone else should feel the way you do about games. None at ALL.

SummerHillard

No one here has said you can't have both great graphics and great gameplay in a game. What has been said is that you don't need great graphics for a game to be great, that also means that a game dosn't need a huge budget to be good either as long as the gameplay and story are good.

You seem to be the one getting difensive here because so many people have said they don't consider graphics to be as important as gameplay. You don't need to insult people either saying they need to get social skills, you don't know anyone here, which is immature.

How do you know its the minority that feels this way about graphics? Have you seen a servey or something? If you have I'd like to see it, if not then thats just what you think.

How do you know its the minority that feels this way about graphics? Have you seen a servey or something? If you have I'd like to see it, if not then thats just what you thinkknightseason

I know because I recently paid a visit to the Museum of Obvious Things.

There's a very direct, positive correlation between how "pretty" a game looks and how WELL it sells. I don't need to post any kind of "survey" because this is common sense to anyone who knows anything about gaming.

Like I stated before, and will state here again, this is the reason why BlazBlue: CT and CS, two great fighting games with outdated, 2D/2.5D visuals, while critically-acclaimed for their unique gameplay, sold incrediby poorly because the average consumer does not want to buy a game that looks like it could have existed on last generation's consoles (or even earlier).

And yeah, of course most of the posters here will scream about how "gameplay is all that matters." The average video game consumer probably doesn't even know these forums exist, let alone would they spend any time or effort posting about video games.

This thread is not even CLOSE to being an accurate sampling of consumer opinions, and you know it.

EDIT: Actually, come to think of it, you probably don't know it.

[QUOTE="SummerHillard"]

Although quite honestly, come to think of it, the vast majority of the games I play this generation excel in nearly all aspects, including BOTH visuals AND gameplay.

Oh look, all of those titles excel in both gameplay AND visuals. And most of them incorporate a fantastic story, mythology, and characters as well. Looks like you can have it all in a video game. And it looks like mainstream, high-budget titles with high production values WIN.

A few of you need to get it through your heads that if you wanna play PURE games with no story and medicore graphics, then that's your thing. But to get defensive and snarky because YOU don't agree with the logic of the majority of gaming consumers out there? Wow. That is beyond laughably immature. Get social skills.

You "hardcore" gamers (with your "philosophies") are the ones in the minority. There's no reason at all why everyone else should feel the way you do about games. None at ALL.

knightseason

No one here has said you can't have both great graphics and great gameplay in a game. What has been said is that you don't need great graphics for a game to be great, that also means that a game dosn't need a huge budget to be good either as long as the gameplay and story are good.

You seem to be the one getting difensive here because so many people have said they don't consider graphics to be as important as gameplay. You don't need to insult people either saying they need to get social skills, you don't know anyone here, which is immature.

How do you know its the minority that feels this way about graphics? Have you seen a servey or something? If you have I'd like to see it, if not then thats just what you think.

Great post, I'm actually conviced that visuals are by far the most overrated aspect of video game with sound being the great underdog.
Level design and character design are so much more important than graphics on a technical level IMO

[QUOTE="knightseason"]How do you know its the minority that feels this way about graphics? Have you seen a servey or something? If you have I'd like to see it, if not then thats just what you thinkSummerHillard

I know because I recently paid a visit to the Museum of Obvious Things.

There's a very direct, positive correlation between how "pretty" a game looks and how WELL it sells. I don't need to post any kind of "survey" because this is common sense to anyone who knows anything about gaming.

Like I stated before, and will state here again, this is the reason why BlazBlue: CT and CS, two great fighting games with outdated, 2D/2.5D visuals, while critically-acclaimed for their unique gameplay, sold incrediby poorly because the average consumer does not want to buy a game that looks like it could have existed on last generation's consoles (or even earlier).

And yeah, of course most of the posters here will scream about how "gameplay is all that matters." The average video game consumer probably doesn't even know these forums exist, let alone would they spend any time or effort posting about video games.

This thread is not even CLOSE to being an accurate sampling of consumer opinions, and you know it.

EDIT: Actually, come to think of it, you probably don't know it.

Again you don't need to try and insult people or try to start an argument lets be civilised here.

Without any proof and just saying that its "obvious" dosn't mean its true, thats just what you think and thats fine, I'm not saying it isn't true I'm just saying you shouldn't make assumptions:)

There's a very direct, positive correlation between how "pretty" a game looks and how WELL it sells. I don't need to post any kind of "survey" because this is common sense to anyone who knows anything about gaming.SummerHillard

I agree that it is something that clearly influences us -- aesthetically pleasing things always draw our attention more than those that are less aesthetically pleasing. Heck, even I will admit that I've been drawn toward games because of their art styIes (for instance, Okami with its styIe reminiscent of a Japanese watercolor painting, or, to go off the beaten path a little, Space Invaders Infinity Gene with its minimalistic wire-frame aesthetic). I've found some great games through that.

This thread is not even CLOSE to being an accurate sampling of consumer opinions, and you know it.SummerHillard

Perhaps, but that's what you get in a discussion that isn't initially about consumer perception. That isn't exactly something many are immediately thinking about based on the topic's proposal. All everyone is concerned with is the question "can you handle terrible graphics?", not "how does the greater gaming community perceive the importance of good visuals?"

Now, I suggest you stop with your attacks. I've already asked once for things to calm down and remain civil, but you haven't seemed to have heeded that warning, so I'll ask again: keep it civil.

Chrono Trigger looks beautiful to me, with great detailed and colourful 2D visuals. Ageless. Actually, most 2D games are appealing to my eyes, and ageless, especially fighting games since Street Fighter 2 onwards, beat 'em ups and shoot 'em ups.

What i don't like is Delta Force 1&2, its visuals are horrible. Then there's GTAIV, on consoles, which makes me vomit at how bad it looks. (it should have ben a next generation game).

PS1 3D games, though ugly, most get a pass because they entertain me greatly, especially MGS1 which i have recently played and finished and put it in my personal top 10 GOAT games list.

I guess beauty of visuals is in the eye of the beholder. I can play mostly anything from the SNES onwards, except sports games and racing games.

I'll give you a series that didn't have the best visuals in the world, but were actually fun for the time that they were...up until the fifth game in the series.

Breath Of Fire.

I'll give you a series that didn't have the best visuals in the world, but were actually fun for the time that they were...up until the fifth game in the series.

Breath Of Fire.

Metamania

The fifth game was Dragon Quarter, right? What was so bad about it? I've only heard good, interesting things about it.

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

I'll give you a series that didn't have the best visuals in the world, but were actually fun for the time that they were...up until the fifth game in the series.

Breath Of Fire.

c_rake

The fifth game was Dragon Quarter, right? What was so bad about it? I've only heard good, interesting things about it.

Yep, the fifth game was Dragon Quarter. I've heard a lot of good things about DQ, but when I played it, man it got frustrating. I liked the battle system and how unique it was, but I think once you died, I think you lost nearly everything that you obtained, from all the loot you collected to the experience points and I think you had to start over from the beginning. It was such a frustrating experience!

[QUOTE="pills4louis"]

[QUOTE="morapuler"]

Nope, bad graphics = immersion killer for me.

c_rake

Actually, I don't see anything wrong with that. Immersion is a key factor in really getting hooked on something.

Yep, the fifth game was Dragon Quarter. I've heard a lot of good things about DQ, but when I played it, man it got frustrating. I liked the battle system and how unique it was, but I think once you died, I think you lost nearly everything that you obtained, from all the loot you collected to the experience points and I think you had to start over from the beginning. It was such a frustrating experience!Metamania

Ah, yeah, that. Very divisive feature that was, I hear. Always sounded kinda interesting to me, though.

Never played an arcade game?pills4louis

I've played them before. Not often in actual arcades, but I have played them. Why?

[QUOTE="Metamania"]Yep, the fifth game was Dragon Quarter. I've heard a lot of good things about DQ, but when I played it, man it got frustrating. I liked the battle system and how unique it was, but I think once you died, I think you lost nearly everything that you obtained, from all the loot you collected to the experience points and I think you had to start over from the beginning. It was such a frustrating experience!c_rake

Ah, yeah, that. Very divisive feature that was, I hear. Always sounded kinda interesting to me, though.

What I did like about Dragon Quarter was the challenge. It wasn't as easy to go through the game all that much. You really had to be careful on how you did things in the game, so if you are the type of gamer that loves a challenge in his gaming, then I would recommend checking out Dragon Quarter. Just be prepared to die a lot. :lol:

People like you are the reason we get tight as hell graphics wit bad gameplay and a weight of problems.

Having a very powerful gaming rig and being able to play all games on max settings, I do notice alot of difference when going from pc to console, but that's how it'll always be. I actually bought a Nintendo 64 from eBaY not so long ago and LOVE playing Mario 64 and Goldeneye 007 on it, a blast from the past and no matter how much the graphics suck, they will always be two of my favourite games of all time.

To me Chrono Trigger still looks beautiful even today. Graphics is not everything.

It depends on the game, if it has some sort of edge in the gameplay department I don't care what it looks like. Also I wouldn't call Crono Trigger a game with terrible graphics, they are old yes but they are some of the best of its era.

Having a very powerful gaming rig and being able to play all games on max settings, I do notice alot of difference when going from pc to console, but that's how it'll always be. I actually bought a Nintendo 64 from eBaY not so long ago and LOVE playing Mario 64 and Goldeneye 007 on it, a blast from the past and no matter how much the graphics suck, they will always be two of my favourite games of all time.

DrD3V1L

Another good point, my idea of good graphics may be different to somebody who games solely on consoles.

If a game is good I would play it. It does not matter if the graphics are outdated.

I grew up in the era where gameplay matter the most and i still feel the same way

I still have trouble playing Black ops on ps3 witha 720p samsung..... Console games have such low draw distance, textures, and shadows compared to PC. Its hard coming from PC to wanting to play a good quality PS3 game but be kind of disgusted because of the meh graphics.

i don't care much about graphics except that i can't stand sprites for rpgs, hd or not. I can't play previous final fantasy except 3 and 4 because of their ds remake ( i'm against remakes unless they are 3d ) I can easily play some of my old nes games, even play and finished parasite eve less then a year ago

I'm okay with bad graphics as long as i enjoy playing the game.

Sure can. Graphics mean absoulutely nothing too me. Well, they're nice to look at but they don't determine how fun the game is for me.

Graphics don't matter that much to me as long as the gameplay is engaging