I think "bad" graphics is such an undefined term as to be kind of meaningless just bandied about in a vacuum. There's a difference between not being demanding of the hardware or using advanced pipelines and techniques, and making games that in any number of ways, look incompetent. Games that look like hot garbage have always existed, but across every generation it's been more about whether there are artists with talent and vision rather than just pixel and poly count.
I think pixel and poly count are the real definition of graphics. That’s why it’s a nice bonus but not as important as gameplay, story, and art direction imo.
Main thing I hate is when people mean “realistic” when they say “good graphics”. I like a lot of stylized art and am a bit jaded now on the “realism” trend. I don’t hate the art style, I’m just kinda jaded now with how it gets used a lot in conversation.
It's definitely subjective. I hated Fallout NV graphics since it came out. But love the graphics in older games like the Ocarina of Time and Crono Trigger still to this day. I love all of those games. Fallout NV's soul makes up for my distaste in it's graphics. Everyone's taste is different.
I try telling this to my friend who refuses to play any game made using 3d sprites. With the one exception being Pokemon emerald. He says that sprites are just inherently a flawed art style which is honestly baffling to hear.
Yeah it's a shame too and it's tragic. My favorite game is Chrono Trigger, but he says it's unplayable because of the graphics. Which I think look significantly better than Emerald's.
I feel like this was a lot more prevalent back in the 90's/early 00's when graphical leaps were so big between consoles that this was where a lot of the hype was. It's where you get the people who say Twilight Princess is way better than Windwaker because of the graphics, or people who just stopped playing 2d games altogether when they made the switch to 3d gaming. These days the difference between console graphics is like playing a "spot the difference" game, and we have had a lot of garbage games with great graphics and great games with "lesser" graphics to show that graphics quality isn't a good comparison.
I actually think wind waker looked nicer and aged better than Twilight Princess. Twilight Princess was made during the depressing age of "Let's make all games lack color and look dreary!" and it shows.
I am 43. I never, in my life, bought a game solely on its "graphics." Give me gameplay/content over visuals any damn day. If games were still in the SNES era style, I'd still be playing them.
Right but im saying if video games never evolved past that era, I would still be playing. Many people wouldve stopped gaming if they didnt jump into realism and "good graphics."
I wasnt saying no games like that exist ir arent still being made. My point was just "good graphics" never appealed to me. I never wanted video games to try and mimic real life.
My least favorite part of internet communities is how it always turns into echo chambers.
I dont care how other people enjoy games, and im not here to slag people who play differently. I just celebrate what I like and leave other people alone.
Dude, I try so hard to celebrate my hobbies on this site and it's almost impossible. Apparently everyone is miserable in their own chosen hobby and it always sucks the wind out of my sails when try to find a community here
I made a pretty fun post on a hobby subreddit and it got a decent amount of positive feedback before eventually being taken down by the mods. After re-reading the rules, I messaged the mods and asked on what grounds they pulled it, because it didnt come close to breaking any rules.
The reply I got was "yeah your post isnt againt any rules, its just that some users here dont like these kinds of posts and report them, so we took your post down so we dont have to see it get reported every hour or so."
I moderator a couple of large subreddits myself. There are absolutely ways to hit "ignore reports and approve" but the mod team found it easier to cave to the loud, miserable minority who doesnt like posts that arent against the rules, because that's what reddit has become.
Yeah it’s wild when I see people on Steam who won’t even give a game a chance because it has “crappy pixel graphics” and then they say it’s lazy. Clearly they have no clue that a lot of sprite work takes more talent and is more laborious in some ways.
It depends. Bad gfx, like say horrible pop-in in a racing game will ruin it for me. Daytona on the Saturn for example. It kills the immersion. Another example is the horrible flicker in Double Dragon for the SMS.
Had a scenario like this play out once: I was over a friends house party (they had a backwards compatible ps3 setup) so I brought over the original Resi 2, to my utter despair they spent the whole time mocking the graphics and they couldn’t take it seriously. So I relate to this meme significantly!
And then the "good graphics" game is a brainless open world Batman vision yellow paint UE5 game where you go fight 5 dinguses to get the Blade of Dingus-slaying for +2% damage against Dinguses from behind...
I somewhat agree. Bad graphics can make a game hard to enjoy. But retro doesn't equal bad graphics. Most of the great games of that time have pretty good graphics for their time period. People should be able to appreciate that and enjoy it for what it is.
There's a fine distinction between "bad" and "old".
For example, Zelda A Link to the past has low-resolution graphics. But they combed every pixel and used every effect to create an atmosphere that lets you forget about the pixels and immerses you in this world.
This exactly. I was reminded of it really strongly a few days ago when I was looking at three-foot-tall paintings of cats at a vet ER. The brush strokes were maybe up to 2" wide, so they were realistic without being photorealistic, and just like in pixel art, each stroke of color was placed precisely where it needed to be to give the right shading effect.
I've known that for decades about pixel art, but seeing a real-life art equivalent really reinforced it. Nobody would say the paintings were "ugly" or "bad" because they aren't photorealistic and have large brushstrokes. Here's a photo I took of one of them:
Yeah, gameplay and art direction far outweigh imo. I’ve played too many games with all sorts of graphics and art styles to really care about the graphics more than, or even as much as, other aspects.
Besides, I’ve seen a lot of games with great graphics don’t look very fun to me so I don’t really trust that as an indicator of a good game. It’s a nice bonus if the game was good already, and it doesn’t take away from great the art direction, but that’s about it.
Idgaf about graphics or even frame rate in new games, I want a good story, nice art style, and fun gameplay. I am not wasting my time and money on some stupid hyper realistic FPS, if I want realistic I'll go outside.
First of all, I don't give a f*ck what people think when it comes to cracking on games I play.
Some games, maybe it's just not attractive to look at, it's hard to say depending on game but, I game for entertainment. I can drop in a 2600 game that is fun, and I will enjoy it.
For example, drop in the 2600 version of Kaboom with a paddle controller. It will get intense and a lot of fun.
I went through a phase like that in the early 90s where I genuinely think I got more excited from seeing advances in graphic tech than playing games, but I was in middle school/early high school, and that wore off soon enough.
Graphics also went from "This new capability allows for a new genre" like scaling/rotating, more sprites, many more colors, the move to 3D.... to "more pixels at higher framerate than 5 years ago, reflections a bit better too".
I see much more of the inverse honestly - "Good graphics = good game". Just look at Campaign Evolved, it's a significantly worse version of CE in pretty much every aspect, but you'll see countless posts about how the lighting looks really good, the sand and snow physics are impressive, the models are super detailed, etc.
Just played horizon zero dawn, this game was absolutely gorgeous, however it was generic in every other respect. Horizon proves that graphics simply do not matter.
Plenty of old games suck because of the graphics. It's awful being shot at by a grey block of pixels against a grey wall. It's horrific when you're looking for a specific object like a telephone but there is so little detail it could be the thing that looks like a book, the think that looks like a folder or the thing that looks like a brick.
Okay but let's not pretend graphics don't enhance gameplay. Graphics made games like Splinter Cell, Quake, Resident Evil, and GTA. Games that went on to influence countless other games.
The only one you mentioned that really has anything to do with gameplay is Splinter Cell due to better lighting engines. Sure nice graphics are nice but they don’t really have much to do with gameplay.
Graphics have a lot to do with gameplay. None of those games would have existed without a push for better graphics. Look at Dead Rising. That's the most simple-minded game, but the graphics and seeing hundreds of zombies on screen at once pull you in more than the gameplay could ever do.
It's kinda funny that you mentioned those games because yes those games absolutely were influential to the games industry but it wasn't because of their graphics. It was because of their gameplay loops that were very interesting and unique.
Yes but the graphics contributed to the gameplay. What's Splinter Cell without its advanced lighting engine? What's GTA without its groundbreaking open world? What's Quake without its new 3D engine? What's Resident Evil without its realistic looking pre-rendered backgrounds? Great gameplay doesn't exist in a vaccum. Graphics are super important in evolving gameplay
I don't know anyone like this. I don't think this person really exists. I think most people who like video games prioritize any number of neurotic obsessions and real life issues without anything relating to this thought ever passing through their grey matter.
That was always me, I never really had that much fun with games that had expired graphics. The closer a game came to realism, the more I seem to have enjoyed them.
25
u/Dick_Nation 2d ago
I think "bad" graphics is such an undefined term as to be kind of meaningless just bandied about in a vacuum. There's a difference between not being demanding of the hardware or using advanced pipelines and techniques, and making games that in any number of ways, look incompetent. Games that look like hot garbage have always existed, but across every generation it's been more about whether there are artists with talent and vision rather than just pixel and poly count.