Am I the only one who doesn't care about graphics?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Am I the only one who doesn't care about graphics?
Am I the only one who doesn't care about graphics?
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
>despite
This.
Philistines.
No one plays a game BECAUSE it has bad graphics. The best you can say is "with" instead
>No one plays a game BECAUSE it has bad graphics.
I played cruelty squad for this reason
>bad
a lot of PS1 games are also clearly made with lots of artistic skill and look good compared to a lot of indie games nowadays that attempt to emulate their style.
pic not related? I do not mind old graphics but that looks meh
Why are they "bad"?
Some games didn't look good even by the standards of the time. Live A Live came out the year before CT and yet its map sprites were on the level of FF4's and the only battle sprites that had any animation at all were the party's and the final boss.
Demons Souls remake is actual proof that
going for graphics over tone and artstyle is BAD. Actually gutted what made Demons Souls unique.
same for the Bioshock and Arkam remasters, they look awful compared to the originals
Because you can look at what constituted AAA production values for each generation and notice a marked improvement towards realism at each step of the way. Whether realism is something worth aiming for is a different question. Even throwing away realism you can see objective strides towards clarity and resolution, at least.
They have an art style that isn't photorealism.
If your game is fun, idgaf what it looks like. There's some really basic and abstract games out there that don't need anything more than what they're already working with. Good artstyle and direction matters a lot too. FFVII models have aged like fricking milk, OoT/MM models still look great. VII beat them in backgrounds for sure though
>FFVII models have aged like fricking milk
They looked bad even by 1997 standards so it's hard to say they aged badly.
Nope, I've been playing older games. I'm on year 1999 and my list is kinda big so I best get started for today.
go kys with your #notliketheothergirls tier post
A Quake source port with no blurry texture filtering looks better to me than most modern games.
And not just in a "it was good for the time" way, I genuinely prefer these graphics TODAY over RDR2 or something.
Soul vs souless. I never found RDR2 impressive. If I want photorealism, I'll just go outside.
Thing with something like Quake is they knew how to make an atmosphere. The music and sound elevate the graphics and artstyle. It helps that the level design and gameplay is still top fricking notch too.
A good artstyle enhances the vidya experience, the same with good music and some tittis
you play old games because you don't mind the graphics, I play old games because they're easy to pirate and take low storage space, we are not the same
>bad graphics
I hate this dumb shit so much. Especially when it's aimed at late 90s shit with a nice aesthetic, properly upscaled
>upscaled
Frick off. If you're emulating, using mods, or anything else that isn't the original hardware through a CRT, you aren't playing the game correctly.
I don't give a frick.
yeah ok /vr/
shut the frick up you lame-o. I just learned PCSX2 runs 99% of PS2 games flawlessly on my Thinkpad laptop and I downloaded 30 amazing games in the last 2 days, most of which are UNDUBs, my romhacks are more pure than your NA game copies.
>lame-o
he's still more of an adult than you are
Shut the frick up you homosexual poser.
>Am I the only one who doesn't care about graphics?
base
I don't mind shit graphics, I mostly play vidya on a laptop, it's shitty old controls that is filtering me more and more as time goes on.
>somehow never played the original Deus Ex, despite owning it for 10 years
>finally try it a few days ago
>"lmao press F12 to activate your flashlight"
>You want to use your sniper scope? Yeah just press the [ key homie
At least most of it is rebindable. But frick me, why
There was no consensus on PC controls back then, but everyone and their mom had rebindable keys so whatever.
Even today some devs still stupidly bind map to M instead of Tab.
Why the frick would you waste a binding close to WASD on a function you aren't constantly using? You dumb woman minded motherfricker lay off the hormones.
The frick are you using Tab for if not map, you poser?
The only correct binding logic is to order from most to least commonly used radiating outward from WASD. There is no sound reasoning for ever deviating from this.
tab for map
` for inventory
f1-4 character and skill windows
e for confirm
q for cancel
simple as
If it's an MMO, tab targetting.
I always use tab for inventory
What the frick is wrong with M for map?
I did the same with deus ex, the shitty aiming system filtered me ngl
The visuals of the game need to work for the game.
Factorio is less graphically intensive than ARK, but not only does the aesthetic style of factorio work, it works well for the game itself.
Mario Kart and SSBU (really any Nintendo game) do not have cutting edge "graphics" but they have an art style and presentation that looks good for those games.
Some games of course age better than others. For example GTA Vice City looks danm near unplayable, whereas Secret of Mana, StarCraft 1 or Crash Bandicoot are all perfectly fine. Of course this is subjective, like all art is.
i dont like how modern nintendo games look, particularly mario odissey, the cartoony graphics mixed with realistic lighting makes it look like a bunch of toys on screen
>GTA Vice City looks danm near unplayable
Zoomers please frick off
Those aren't bad graphics though, they're soulful.
The game has to look good visually. If it looks ugly, that's a problem.
I think that color palette can set me off a lot more, like especially if a bunch of stuff just blends together and is hard to see. I think that lower poly/textures but with good animation and lighting can be great.
>Am I the only one who doesn't care about graphics?
No, you're not but I imagine is hard for zoomers and gen alpha to get used to graphics before the early 2000.
I can't stand games with bad graphics, but old is not bad.
I love old games and many of them look beautiful.
I'm never going to play some of those recent indie games that look like chinese android games.
you can have the shittiest or lowest advancement in graphics but do excellent in artstyle and design, that is what ultimately sets the atmosphere and immersion
Darkest Dungeon 1, afaik, has no actual animation. It's all drawn sprites that are being shifted from one image to another for their "animations" and the squash and stretch tools are manipulating the sprite to give the illusion of movement when idle. And yet it all looks very nice.
It's not that I don't care about graphics, I would like a game to look nice after all. What I can't understand is Ganker's first instinct to say a game is bad is its graphics and to post screenshots as proof of the game's badness. And ok yes, I'll concede a lot of it is shitposting, but I also think a lot of Ganker are genuinely graphics prostitutes. There is a point where it stops feeling like shitposting and seems like people here actually won't buy a game if they don't like the graphics.
I can tell that coffee tastes bland or is too bitter because of the thin foam. We call that office coffee
It just looks like that for a bit because it was poured from a high point, moron.
nah, the thicker the foam, the richer the taste, that's a good rule of thumb
Bad graphics on modern games look worse than bad graphics on old games. I think it's because the models are made for higher visual fidelity, so if you're playing a game from 2023 with textures that look like they're from the Wii, it just feels way too dissonant to be comfortable to look at or play. I will pretty much concede and not play a game if I have to run it on low graphics settings, or just wait until I get a better graphics card.
I can't agree there at all, lots of games don't look great but have amazing gameplay.
I only play old games.
Two of the most popular games are about blocks. Graphics are a meme
No, but a lot of retro games I don’t like because of the poor controls and large amount of bugs.
I do care about graphics and that's why like old games. They're more creative. Face scanning and mocap ruined graphics.
Depends, PS1 era is pretty shit
I like early PS1 3d models. Yes, they look like shit, but there's also something unique to them in that it's a style no one tries to replicate these days unlike oldschool spritework.
>it's a style no one tries to replicate these days unlike oldschool spritework.
homie, the fps genre has had a glut of games in the last five years that replicate low poly 3D models, wtf are you talking about
They still don't really look like PS1 games, they look more like 90s PC games.
I played an actual arcade version of Battlezone and was pretty blown away by how good it looked for a game nearing 50 years old
People get too hung up on modern graphics when presentation, style and readability are much more important
Hell yeah brother
I just completed Quake 4 and the graphics better than most slop games made today.
>unironically escorting Strauss
the difference is the density and interactibility. Modern games have dramatically reduced all ability to interact with the environment and reduced the amount of items you can even see in the environment to a near all time low. PS1 games have the most objects in the environment on average.
q4 was fun
I only play good looking games
But good looking graphics and detailed/realistic graphics are not the same thing
Hylics cannot comprehend this
If graphics were super important to me I wouldn't prefer Parasite Eve 1 over 2, because 2 just objectively is a much prettier game and I would say is one of the most graphically-impressive PS1 games.
my MAN
pe1 is so much cooler than 2
Graphics are the least of our worries when it comes to playing old games.
What are the greatest of our worries?
they're all extremely bigoted and full of real yikes moments
In terms of PC games, it just constantly crashing or being bugged to shit because it was built for 20-30 year old hardware that doesn't exist anymore and is utterly alien to a modern rig. There's a reason even the most diehard anti-piracy people will pirate some old games instead of buying it on ebay because do YOU want to expose your computer to fricking SecuROM?
A lot of those games were crashing and bugged to shit 20-30 years ago too.
Yeah but how they have entirely new problems thanks to incompatabilities.
women not allowing us have sex with them
uh...does the "piss filter" count as bad graphics?
In Human Revolution? I would argue no because it actually does serve a purpose, it covers the more jagged parts of the models much like how old sprite games relied on inherent dithering from CRTs to blend pixels together.
I can't stand ugly games. No matter how good the gameplay is, if it's ugly, I'm not going to play it.
Don't really care about technical stuff though, it can be a SNES game or something new with ray tracing and shit. As long as it looks nice, I can then consider playing it.
What game is that? Looks familiar but I can't place it.
Alundra
>nobody cares about Parasite Eve
>play Parasite Eve
>suddenly everyone talks about Parasite Eve
>nobody cares about Alundra
>play Alundra
>suddenly everyone talks about Alundra
WTF IS GOING ON???
People were always talking about it, your brain is just now aware that people are talking about it because you've been playing it so your brain actively looks for it now.
The real question is why did you start playing Parasite Eve and Alundra of all games?
>The real question is why did you start playing Parasite Eve and Alundra of all games?
idk. becauseI like to? I played PE because the cover Art looked badass. I loved the game so much I read the novel and watched the movie.
I played Alundra because people claimed it's a very hard game and some morons claimed it's the hardest game on the PSX. turns out it wasn't hard at all. good game anyway.
No idea, but I finished Alundra 2-3 months ago. And had it sitting on my drive for like 2 years.
I played it in a smaller window and it looked fine. Screenshots were saved in a higher resolution, it seems.
Normally I don't even use CRT filters, but somehow I felt it fit Alundra.
CRT filters for retro games are good, but that particular filter is an atrocity. Just get CRT royale or something and configure it properly for frick's sake, make sure that you get one triad per pixel.
It's that Vonnegut book and you're the one person that's real.
confirmation bias (not the right term, but something similar, the name escapes me)
Baader Meinhof phenomenon or frequency illusion. It's full of shit imo, Some Black person kept seeing a terrorist gang in the papers because they were doing terror gang shit and found it odd. You learn about things that are being spread around so it's not odd to see that thing around.
That's one of the worst CRT filters I've ever seen in my life, I don't know how you can even look at that image without throwing up, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Based. Aesthetics matter to the experience. If you create a game but cannot be fricked to put in the effort to properly create a pleasant aesthetic, then you have failed. If your game is ugly, I will not play it.
What the frick happened to this place man.
This isn't even fricking r/gaming tier shit anymore, fricking facebook gaming meme page tier posting.
The past three generations of consoles have only proved how soulless the push for good graphics has been when everyone knows style is more important.
7th gen (at least early 7th gen) had both style and good graphics. Bioshock, Skyrim and Arkam Asylum still look better than most modern games due to proper use of lighting
Midwit take. Every aspect of a game affects the experience.
>Still masterclass pixelart texturework
>Assets remain very readable at a glance, because if they didn't everything would just be a melty blob (modern graphics also degenerate into melty blobs, but apparently that just doesn't matter)
>Actual thought put into asset placement while designing the level, not just farmed out to some unrelated team who doesn't do level design, which means that not everything needs to be covered in yellow paint with constant voiceovers to tell the player where to go
>Capable of graphical tricks like mirrors with uncomplicated tactics like rendering everything twice
>Concept artists needed to figure out what looks good and collaborate with artists who needed to collaborate with developers to make all of their designs look good in-game
>Game can be pushed out in a year and this is coming from people with tools that were harder to use, making custom engines and developing for consoles that didn't have nearly as much documentation as what developers have at their fingertips right now
>Low file size, low RAM requirements
Graphics just do not matter, we reached the point of diminishing returns sometime between 6th and 7th gen.
Graphics can skew the whole thing positively or negatively though, necessity is the mother of invention and all that. Sure it's capable of more, but much like the greater capabilities of CGI in the movie industry, it's just going to get squandered.
Progress for the sake of progress is just stupidity.
It's all about making things look right.
One thing I don't understand is the constant obsession with stupidly high resolutions. At 1080p you already can't see the pixels, especially when in motion, and even if you're pausing and getting super autistic looking at borders, just the most basic form of antialiasing is enough to make all the pixels disappear.
you play them because you think they're cute and retro
I don't play them because I lived through that shit and don't want to go back to the future
I think to some degree it depends on what you started with and certain games. I can go back to N64 games no problem cause I grew up on n64. I didn't play bethesda games until Xbox 360 so I can go back and play oblivion. But morrowind I can't it's too ugly and the fog is disgusting even though it should be at least on par with if not better than n64.
Once upon a time people were playing those old games for the graphics.
Not really, when Doom came out there were way more graphically impressive games on the market. Games that were limits-pushing graphics whoring was always a thing but often didn't stand the test of time.
Like for example, everyone today remembers Crysis. But what do you ACTUALLY remember about Crysis beyond how much of a flex it was back in the day to be able to run it? Crysis is actually like a legit 9/10 game, but no one remembers it for that.
I remember invisible power armor, then some mountain exploded in half and it's suddenly aliens and winter.
That's because there was a demo that let you play up until the point where you find the frozen ship and the ayy lmaos attack.
Since it was so intensive, most people would suffer through the demo just to see how good their PC was. Even I recall playing it at sub-10FPS at times just to experience the game, but I didn't buy it in full until years later when I had a PC to run it. To be frank, the game pretty much goes downhill once the ayylmaos show up. Lots of on-rail sections, not a lot of mystery, and much MUCH more annoying enemies (enemy power armours, ayy drones, etc).
The finale was also pretty mediocre. You just stand on a boat and shoot the giant alien a few times, and then... I think it fades to black? I can't even remember because it was so meh.
WOAH THAT'S SUCH A HECKING WHOLESOME MEME FROM THE HECKING WHOLESOME REDDIT WEBSITE OH MY HECKING HECKERINOS I HECKING LOVE IT MY HECKING FELLOW ZOOMERINOS
Stick a handgun in your mouth and blow your brains out.
rule 40, homosexual
the piss filter aged worse than PS1/N64 graphics
I have no problems playing Spyro but GTA IV hurts my fricking eyes
bad graphics is subjective
one could argue skyrim has bad graphics
or starfield
How do you define bad graphics?
Many games from the 90s still look fine to me thanks to their art style. Maybe a bit outdated but not bad by any means.
>How do you define bad graphics?
At this point I'm convinced it's what
and these people genuinely only want AAA looks.
Honestly guilty, but the other way around. I'm biased against AAA looks. If a game looks like GTA or some other Spiderman, I am immediately less likely to care about it.
One thing older games have is contrast. And I assert better contrast in games is better graphics period.
what game? at first i thought it was Road Rash, but there was a distinct lack of other racers trying to jam pool cues into your wheels.
moto racer, it's on gog for 90 cents
not sure if it's one of the sequels but pretty sure it's the first one
Well that game can certainly use less pop in.
>less pop in.
No more!
Graphical fidelity is a meme, a good art direction is all that matters.
>Quest 64
Way to torpedo your own argument. That game was the 90s equivalent of dumping a bunch of Unity store assets into the engine and calling it a day.
Quest 64 plays like shit with a lame story, but has a great art style and music.
If your argument is "it used stock textures so its on the same level as a unity asset flip" then you're a moron. Every game in that image uses stock textures.
>If your argument is "it used stock textures so its on the same level as a unity asset flip" then you're a moron.
I'm not saying that because it used stock textures, I'm saying that because it ONLY used stock textures.
Proofs?
What's wrong with using assets from my engine software?
Your game has no identity, I could make the exact same shit as you by using your own dev methods.
identity extends beyond the art direction
Correct, however if you're shit enough to lack visual identity there's no hope in you having any identity anywhere else.
It makes you look immensely lazy and after a quick cash grab when it's all the game uses.
As a gamer, it disappoints me when I notice stock assets in games, because it makes me realize the developer truly did not care about the project and likely had no real artistic motivation to make it, and only used the engine because it would allow them to cheaply produce something for a quick buck.
Singular reason right there why I never touched or will touch pal world. Entire game looks like stock UE engine assets.
The only thing newer games have over older ones is the controls.
I mostly play old games, new AAA stuff just doesn't hold any appeal
I still prefer SR2 in terms of look. It's insane how good that game looks for being a launch title PS2 game that came out a year after SR1, it has better animations than some late-era PS2 titles.
I still wonder how that would have looked on Dreamcast, supposedely they had complete parity at some point, eventhough the only screenshots we have use the SR1 model for Raziel (the environments were similar to the PS2 final version).
>!
Low polycount doesn't mean the graphics are bad, it's just different artstyle. Generic looking blurry TAA game, now that is bad graphics. So you like playing modern blurry games? Wow anon you're so based!
Saints row 3 is where graphics could stop at. Or l4d2. Anything extra is great but a waste of effort.
I think early 7th gen was the sweet spot between graphics, artstyle, development time, and budgets.
I can appreciate different aesthetics. Mega Man Legends's graphics are "technically" bad but that doesn't stop it from looking great even to this day.
i truly hate how modern games look
its all 15 gorillion particle effects and 50 layers of ugly foliage on everything
i demand visual clarity
You say this while rendering game in 4x of its original res. Maybe new games wouldn't look so shit if you did the same to them.
no, resolution isn't magically going to fix screen clutter
?t=265
literally what is your point spyro still looks great at native?
As long as a game's visuals/framerate aren't an active hindrance to playing it I don't care how it looks
Reminds me of the time when I got a GeForce 5200 and the first game I launched on it was SoT, which I couldn't run before, because my previous card, GF2, didn't have the required shaders.
When I started playing, I thought "that's it, there's no need for games to look better than this".
I play old games BECAUSE I care about graphics.
Love that game, and that level especially.
Graphics stopped impressing me after the 360/PS3 era, except for the odd super stylistic game like Cuphead
Reminder that every screenshot posted here from a pre-HD era is not how the game is actually supposed to look.
Yea in 20 years they will be posting 8k screenshots of todays game saying how great they look --'
They won't because modern slop has shit art direction that already doesn't hold up.
what the frick do you think people said 25 years ago? were you even there? people would look at early 3d and say it looked shit compared to their 2d 8bit shit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_toA8lErAHg
>what the frick do you think people said 25 years ago? were you even there?
anon you should know by now that most people here weren't even born when 9/11 happened
Okay but everything post 2000 you could definitely play at 1920x1080 or above. Hell I was running the original Unreal at 1280x960 at release
>Okay but everything post 2000 you could definitely play at 1920x1080 or above.
Not if it was a console game because 4:3 was still the standard for a damn long time. FFXII was one of the first big games I remember having a widescreen option because it was accepted that enough people had widescreen tvs by this point.
Many late 6th gen games came with Widescreen support
Yet they still look great on modern displays, despite not being made for them. Really makes you think.
game?
Time Splitters 3
I'm happy with anything on par with PS2, 2D can go earlier of course. Games like FFX, MGS2 and GT3 still look great.
whats her name?
graphics are important, but not worth for the detriment of development time to have cutting edge top of the line visuals where it has to look like the best game ever
indies are a good example of how the games industry should be now; the graphics are serviceable in that they look decent or even stylish, but everything else like the GAMEPLAY is also very fun and not bloated
the games industry will not survive if people keep catering to graphicsprostitutes
I don't get how people play games with terrible graphics. All these indie games that use sprite work are just a regression rather than progression in the artform.
>zoomzoom
My first console was NES and every console that that has been better. My enjoyment of games has always been how much they can push graphical boundaries.
>My first console was NES
And yet your brain is still 14
I love early graphic like Quake 1 and 2 but also like Timesplitters, System Shock, F.E.A.R and the early PS2 games.
I just wish I have the knowledge to make games that look like them.
Vertex lighting, bilinear texture filtering, models around 2k polygons max.
No fancy shit like bloom or ambient occlusion.
thank you for replying
You are welcome. I am working on an N64 inspired game myself currently so I've been learning a lot of graphix stuff as of late.
PS2 thankfully doesn't have any weirdo quirks like the N64/PS1 did, most of the techniques used on it are still used today just with more crap slapped on top.
art direction >>>>>>>>>> more polygons
HELL YEA MY BROTHER
I don't like ps1 wobbliness and low fps / bad scrolling but that's all
Its never the graphics that get me, its the poor control or simplistic gameplay or crummy sound. Some are still ok, most of the games I grew up with aren’t worth going back to.
I care, but it's not the be all end all.
Also, style > purely technical aspects when it comes to visuals.
It's not like there are many games out there with bad graphics and incredible gameplay that nobody has been able to improve upon. Good platformers like Mario 64 are rare exceptions. If you see somebody high up on a ledge in the retro Dooms for example, there is no way to aim up so you ending shooting at the wall underneath then enemy. Wherever there are outdated graphics, there is almost always outdated gameplay only people with nostalgia can overlook.
deus ex is STILL better than 99.9% of games today.
no, it's not, it sucks
overrated garbage
Ladies and gentlemen, we found him. The one guy
If your sense of taste is so underdeveloped that unfiltered textures, chunky models and texture warping do not elicit a sense of satisfaction and intrigue I'm afraid you're not going to make it.
What about trilinear filtered textures?
Only if they're sufficiently low res
Of course.
style >>> graphics
I do not care about 4k realism slop just like I do not care for indie pixel slop
I care a lot about graphics, but late 90's / early 2000's vidya just happen to look the best
This might be the place to ask: How is it a game from 2003 can still look sharp, have physics handle dozen objects with convincing behavior and working mirrors using a mid-range gpu at the time. While Alan Wake 2 is so intense it needs to have upscaling on by default while a lot of shadows and shaders appear blurry and the enviroment is barely interactable. Just change in priority or are they chase the graphics too much?
Mesh shaders
1) Devs no longer know how to optimize
2) Graphical techniques in older games are much simpler.
Mirrors, for example, were actually just a copy of the room (and your character) that got switched on when you get close to them.
that just proves the superiority of "worse" graphics. those mirrors are perfect and "modern" games still can't do mirrors right without absolutely destroying performance.
Modern games hurt my eyes. I haven't played a modern game since RE4 Remake.
If I wanna sounds really self important, I would say that older graphics lend a certain charm games and pixels / visible vertices are part of the visual language of video games. It makes it easier to signpost to the player where they're supposed to go and what they can interact with. Meanwhile, modern games are so cluttered and visually noisy that they have to splatter paint everywhere to show you the way. It's like the CGI in the Lord of the Rings. It looks a little wonky sometimes, but that doesn't ruin your suspension of belief, meanwhile new movies have such clean and well animated CGI that it sometimes looks TOO clean and doesn't fit in with the natural world around it. The new Spiderman movies come to mind.
LOTR looks waaay better than the hobbit films, due to the mix of practical and CGI, while the hobbit just CGIs everything and looks fake.
Playing Morrowind and enjoying it because of how much of the game's existence is dictated by numbers that can be fricked with constantly. homie I can blind people and jump to the moon. Also cool atmosphere. Both are vacant from modern RPGs.
If I can tell what it's supposed to be that's good enough for me. I like 7th gen though, that shit looks pretty good. It's not like I disliked shit like that ps4 werewolf game, Order 1812 or whatever but it seems clear that focusing on hot shit graphics gets in the way of adequate content.
ZAMN
george lucas looks like THAT?!
what do we think of nu games emulating old games?
usually shit
old games looked like that as a result of artists trying their best despite limitations
artists in the modern day intentionally shittifying their assets will never have the same effect. Especially since modern artists typically try to pull the 'retro homage' stick to excuse the fact that they outright can't model/animate/draw worth shit.
Pic related?
>Am I the only one who doesn't care about graphics?
I play both old and new games.
>Re-Volt
Newer games honestly look like shit.
So you don't mind playing games with this video card, right?
?t=119
Bad graphics boost imagination, the more you play, the more you fill in the gaps, like when reading a book there is a massive gap what a character even looks like, since all there is is just words, meanwhile our aaa realism slop games may even degrade your imagination capabilities, you just look at a realistic picture of something, there isn't much to add, there is nothing missing, no mystery, not many reasons to imagine, low graphics are just magical in comparison.
The only thing that really matters if the artistry is good enough to properly convey the intended feeling and appeal to aesthetic sense, the polygon count only matters if it assists in that
Graphic fidelity =/= Graphic quality
This is an important distinction that some morons will never understand.
Persona 5 has mobile-tier graphics, and yet it has better graphics than 99% of games out there. This also applies to old games.
I find the 3D visuals from PS1/N64 games genuinely repugnant and it pisses me off that every indie dev hack nowadays is trying to emulate them. I avoid that garbage like the plague unless the game is fantastic and fun to play like Pseudoregalia and Corn Kidz 64.
Anything 2D, and beyond that generation is fine. If it were up to me most games would look like SH3.
I love old games so much, bros...
Why is there such a push for either extreme of graphics now? It's either photorealism or blobby/intentionally shitty art, usually for indies.
I would fricking KILL for a game like Daggerfall, same perspective, sprite sheets, everything, with today's resources and tech.
I'm not bothered by low polygon counts. Original Sly Cooper still looks great. What matters is the artistic cohesion. For example, right now a lot of games have raytracing and for me these games look ugly because the raytracing doesn't look like it belongs in the game. It genuinely looks like a foreign element to me. Like Sonic in Skyrim. Ten years from now I'm going to view these games worse than the original FF7.
No, I've been saying for like 15 years now graphics don't matter for making a game fun. Super detailed graphics were impressive for all of like two years, then they became commonplace and no longer worth creaming your pants over, much less sacrificing gameplay or storytelling for the sake of pretty colors.
But morons have been brainwashed by Nvidia into thinking that graphics are the primary selling point of games, and that you NEED to have the latest super GPU capable of rendering 4K assets with raytracing and all the other meme shit. How will you ever enjoy your game if the shadows and reflections aren't dynamically rendered!?!?!?
Im about to finish Blood West tonight ... I dont know what I can play after that might be able to compete 🙁
is it good?
best Ive played in a while. You sneak / shoot your way through a cursed land as an undead gunslinger. Looks and sounds fantastic if youre into retro stuff. Im honestly getting a bit sad seeing the end of the game coming my way soon ...
I care about graphics, but not polycount or photorealism. A game should pick an art style that is appropriate for its worldview and then execute on it in a way that doesn't make it miserable to look at. I would say that the old Monster Hunter games have good graphics despite having a low polycount. If they had a brown and bloom color palette like an early 2000s console shooter, blurry antialiasing smeared over the screen like a modern AAA release, and made all of the characters intentionally uglified versions of face scans, it could be awful to play even if the game didn't fundamentally change.
I only care about fluid gameplay if the game is slow and controls bad that's when I drop it.
I don't mind 'bad' graphics but I can't stand low FPS
I care about them, but only in modern games. They did the best that they could in old games and it shows, so they don't bother me that much.
Anything better than mass effect 2/bad company 2 level is just wasted on me. I don't really care about anything that looks better.
whenever i play a game with what would be considered good graphics the whole wow factor wears off in like 10 minutes and im just playing the game, if the gameplay is boring, those pretty graphics arent going to hold my attention
Somehow i feel like photorealism defeats the whole point of what makes a game. Realism is not a game it's just reality. A game is a fiction, some fantastical mini world with it's own rules.
If the game is good, graphics dont matter
But if the game is shit, at least it should look pretty
Many Ganker tards and soidevs try appealing to nostalgia, "muh soul", or "graphics dont matter" because their game is both garbage and looks bad
If the mechanics are good, who gives a shit
theyre not even bad graphics, just dated. some of these games still look very nice, because they had to compensate with cool designs and style. thats what some zoomers dont understand. to add to that,visual clarity in games is underrated these days. just seeing whats going on, especially in an action game, without being bothered by a million particle effects, HUD and other distracting crap is much more valuable in order to have a smooth gaming experience.
Old graphics or lower resolution doesn't necessarily mean graphics are "bad". But some old games have Bad graphics