Can you handle Terrible Graphics?

I can if the game is fun and the game play is worth it. Graphics come second in my book.

To me graphics only make a noticeable difference when u go from the higher version of a game to a lower version (read: PC --> down to a console version of a multiplat game). If anyone plays a game like fallout 3 on 360/ps3 at a friends house, then u come back to ur house and play on ur pc, u feel...fortunate.

Gameplay is the most important aspect for me to gaming, so yes.

i like good graphics on my shooters, but that's about it. Most of my favorite games are from SNES, and other systems of that era. Plus, I own a Wii, if graphics mattered to me, I would've gotten a PS3 instead.

Kids complain about older games graphics. But yet they play on consoles, which look like crap compared to what PCs can do. Oh the irony.

morrowindnic

Some of the best games have below average graphics, so no, I don't care about graphics, it's all about gameplay and story.

[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.

I think something like that would vary from person to person.

I'm planning to get Minecraft soon, so definitely.

The vast majority of PC games don't suffer from bad graphics. I only notice it when I switch from PC to console.

The vast majority of PC games don't suffer from bad graphics. I only notice it when I switch from PC to console.

topsemag55

ever play pac man or pong?

I sure as hell cannot.

I never played Chrono Trigger to its full extent, b/c it looked so bad on my DS.
I couldnt get into it, b/c it didnt look good.

If a game has a certain god look or unique feelt o it, i can get into it if the gameplay is as good as it looks.

but for Chrono Trigger, ppl say it plays well, but the graphics ruin the feel for me.

You?

Kocelot

i can play games with ps2 graphics but not nes graphics. thats what I meant, guys..

Kocelot

Yeah, I can.

Other than graphics interfering with actual gameplay ( like if the graphics are so bad you are falling through the floor and can't make it passed the level or you can't see something obvious because of the bad graphics ) then i'd say graphics matter. But otherwise no.

Some of my favorite games have horrible graphics according to the newer aged gamers.

Yes I can tolerate bad graphics. Just thinking about it makes me wonder that I would probably have never gotten some of my favorites games for example: Pokemon blue when I fist saw the sprites for the game they looked funky and unappealing but I tried it on a wim and it turn out it became one of my favorite game's.

Chrono Trigger still looks great. Actually, it looks a hell of alot better than some of the ugly crap that comes out these days.

For example, Chrono Trigger looks way better than this:

My point is: while the game I just showed has more advanced technology and is 3D and has newer graphics, they have fugly art design and thus look worse, whereas Chrono Trigger has charming art design that still holds up.

I can't stand terrible graphics. However I can play games with old graphics. Two different things.

howlrunner13

Yes. This distinction is very important.

As long as the gameplay is rich and satisfying, and the game is generally enjoyable, then graphics mean little to me. GTA4 is a prime example of beautiful graphics, but a very boring game, while Saint's Row 2 was regarded as terrible for not having GTABore's graphics, but ended up being much more fun to play.

Graphics are only one part of a larger whole, if the rest of that whole isn't any good then fancy graphics won't make it a good game. It will just make it a pretty boring waste of money and time.

Graphics don't mean anything. The two most important aspects of any game are plot and gameplay. If those two are solid, the graphics don't matter so much. One problem I have with games now is they seem to be relying on cutting-edge graphics as a substitute for quality. Take for example Halo.

Halo 1 was , at the time , pretty to look at. It arguably saved the Xbox. Imagine, however, that it was a sixteen bit game released on , for the sake of argument, the super nintendo. Would Halo still have sold as many copies? I highly doubt it.

Currently playing FFIII ( SNES version ) and loving every minute of it.

Graphics don't mean anything. The two most important aspects of any game are plot and gameplay. If those two are solid, the graphics don't matter so much. One problem I have with games now is they seem to be relying on cutting-edge graphics as a substitute for quality. Take for example Halo.

Halo 1 was , at the time , pretty to look at. It arguably saved the Xbox. Imagine, however, that it was a sixteen bit game released on , for the sake of argument, the super nintendo. Would Halo still have sold as many copies? I highly doubt it.

Currently playing FFIII ( SNES version ) and loving every minute of it.

Gnosis13

How does this even make sense? Tons of games don't even have plots, so how can it be one of the most important aspects of any game?

Also, that hypothetical doesn't really make sense either as the fact is that Halo was not a sixteen bit game. What is the point of speculating in that fashion? We have no way of knowing what Halo would be like had it been released in the sixteen bit era.

[QUOTE="Gnosis13"]

Graphics don't mean anything. The two most important aspects of any game are plot and gameplay. If those two are solid, the graphics don't matter so much. One problem I have with games now is they seem to be relying on cutting-edge graphics as a substitute for quality. Take for example Halo.

Halo 1 was , at the time , pretty to look at. It arguably saved the Xbox. Imagine, however, that it was a sixteen bit game released on , for the sake of argument, the super nintendo. Would Halo still have sold as many copies? I highly doubt it.

Currently playing FFIII ( SNES version ) and loving every minute of it.

GreySeal9

How does this even make sense? Tons of games don't even have plots, so how can it be one of the most important aspects of any game?

Also, that hypothetical doesn't really make sense either as the fact is that Halo was not a sixteen bit game. What is the point of speculating in that matter? We have no way of knowing what Halo would be like had it been released in the sixteen bit era.

Man, its like you didn't even try to read a single word.

I don't get this obsession with graphics. In this day and age every game looks at least acceptable. It comes down to GAMEPLAY. Have you ever enjoyed playing a good looking, but boring as hell game? I sure haven't. A game can look out of this world, but if it's not fun to play there is no point.

The other way around though, a fun but bad looking game. No problem! If you grew up with the NES then you would have known that even with pixel graphics you can have a fantastic game experience.