Bad graphics are superior to good graphics because it forces game devs to make the actual game design engaging since they can't use presentation and visual flair to hide how boring the gameplay is.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Cringe
Bad Graphics Good Story> Good Graphics Bad Story
Bad graphics No story Great gameplay>>>>>>>>>>>>
StoryBlack folk are vermin. Go read a book, homosexual
All video games have shit writing, video game writers are just failed movie makers.
not bad graphics exactly but let's say the graphics that doesn't distract you from playing the game, 30% story 30% gameplay 30% graphics would make a decent game
So you should design a fun game with bad graphics and then make the graphics good in a <><><>spoilerTEXTKEK><><><> remaster <><<><><>
>So you should design a fun game with bad graphics and then make the graphics good in a <><><>spoilerTEXTKEK><><><> remaster <><<><><>
Unironically yes. Devs should start by making a prototype with shitty graphics/animations/no voice acting etc. If the game is still fun it means the fundamentals are solid. Subnautica is a good example of this, the devs started out with N64 graphics and made sure the game mechanics were engaging before they started adding detail, you could argue Subnautica is still an ugly game finished, but the game is carried by its design at its core.
it also means they have to have an actual artstyle instead of just doing shitty photorealism
>shitty photorealism
Yup. Bad before it had a chance by including this in a game.
Yeah
more gameplay = less graphics
dwarf fortress
Minecraft
etc..
>procedurally generated shit
>more gameplay
lol
Old Resident Evil vs New Resident Evil is the perfect example of this.
There's a world of difference between the quality in level design between RE2 and RE8. Even though REmake2 fricked up a lot about the original the strength of the level design of the original still shines through, meanwhile the level design in Village is shit because it's more about how the environments look and not how they feel to explore.
it also allowed them to get away with more shit
like the blood spatters in the well in OoT
it's open to interpretation so they were able to slip it past the censors
N64 was the last time Nintendo devs were allowed to push their games to be as realistic as hardware allowed. After that you could tell that Nintendo clearly felt that graphics had gotten too good and realism could start to get disturbing.
That's not true, OoT uses a "cartoony" artstyle, just look at the various NPCs. Twilight Princess is the most "realistic" Zelda and it still has stylized characters. Nintendo never went for realism outside of maybe Zelda 2 on the NES.
Better graphics also ruined gameplay because people started obsessing over realism more than fun. Doom Eternal is the perfect example.
>Hurr why are there monkeybars and floating platforms this makes no sense!
Who gives a shit Black person.
no I think people complained about the ammo depletion and chainsaw kills
it's no coincidence that the term 'gameplay loop' got invented after this game released because you have to engage every fight in the same way because of this moronic system
Graphics are a prisoners dilemma
>Graphics are a selling point. If you have better graphics than the competitors you will sell more
>This forces competitors to also get better graphics
>This makes games exponentially more expensive
>It would have been cheaper for everyone involved if games didn't bother with graphics
>pic
AAAAAAHH MAKE IT STOP
Realistic graphics are far, FAR less important than you think.
Did I say realistic graphics? I just said graphics.
Better graphics just means better art design, which isn't notably more expensive. The only thing that makes art expensive is making it more realistic.
art style>
It doesn't logically follow, and it doesn't work that way in practice either. Some of the dullest games also look bad.
Now, an argument that you perhaps COULD make is that low-tech presentation opens up a larger design space as actions taken by actors in the game don't need to be visually represented. You can easily have combat system featuring stuff like dismemberment if it's sufficient to show message "You cut off the orc's left arm!" in the combat log and for inspect monster command to show "the orc is missing his left arm": certainly way way way easier than every model/skeleton having dismembered variations, let alone there being a dynamic system for cuts. Or, it's reasonable for it to take two hours to make a hole in half a meter thick ice using a stone axe, if the game is grid and turn-based and you can just fast-forward 600 six-second turns (interrupting the skip if something interesting happens in the meanwhile) and the outcome is using water tile instead of ice tile for that square in grid: real-time 3D-game isn't nearly as amenable to time skips, so authentic times for making holes in ice are realistically outside the available design space. For that matter, animations and dynamic destruction of the ice themselves would still be problems.
However, there's no reason why developers would have to utilize this design space. Most often they don't.
oh it’s the tendie coping about his 90p 15fps tablet
Switch graphics are still too good.
good take
t. indie dev
before you gays get your panties in a bunch my game has a 90%+ rating and is not woke in any capacity
>YAAAAAAS BAD GRAPIX IS LE BASEDZ!
>AIEEEEEEE IS THAT INDIE PIXELSHIT??? NOOOOOO I HATE IT NOW!!!!
Explain pokemon then
It's a bad, boring, stagnant game
But i want to frick Sylveon
>Bad graphics are superior to good graphics
Bad graphics ruin everything. Imagine trying to read War and Peace if it was written in Webdings. Your take isn't high IQ, or chad, it's low IQ, and virgin.
Good graphics doesn't mean it requires the most powerful GPU, it means you can tell what everything on the screen indicates so you can make informed and tactical decisions. Graphics are the MOST important thing in any medium that requires your eyeballs.
By bad graphics OP means old PS2 graphics, not actually horrible graphics like Dwarf Fortress or Rimworld where it is so bad that you cent even tell what is going on. THis includes also 90% of Dwarf fortress texture packs.
Example of bad graphics by OP standards are probably Minecraft or first HalfLife. They are not pleasant to look at, but you can look at them for hour without feeling your head hurt and they are just realistic enough to give you idea of what ig going on.
Example of truly awful graphics Cruelty Squad where the dev intentionally made the game as confusing as possible and sold it as revolutionary idea. War and peace written in Webdings is the equivalent of playing Cruelty Squad, or some other meme indie game.
I agree, but you're not the Photoshop man
>you can't post gigachad without people thinking you're the f3/dmc2 guy
Truth
The amount of games with shit gameplay but cool visuals getting praised are too many
SotC is the best example but there are many
I wouldn't say "bad" perse, but there is something to say for simplistic graphics. Look at Deep Rock Galactic. The low poly models and cheap textures mean the game was quick to develop, even for a small team. Plus it still looks pretty good thanks to the great lighting, while maintaining a good framerate despite tons of action going on at any given time.
Name 5 games
Ultrakill is like that and you might be right that game is so fun
Most PS360 games has aged like shit for this reason. First generation that focused extremely hard on cinematic presentation in favor of fun gameplay. So many generic cover based TPS games and weak CoD clones.
I like to imagine that the PS2 was the last console that ever existed and all developers were forced to use ever improving techniques of optimisation if they were ever to achieve high framerates, graphical effects and gameplay complexity
yet pokemon looks like shit and plays like boring shit
realistic graphics will eventually look dated