• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Graphics

Raven

Former Hylian Knight
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Location
Halifax
I suppose that would depend on a few things, mainly the genre of the game and the system it was being played on. If it was an RPG i would say no, in fact the more old school the graphics the better, that would leave more space for loot, enemies, spells and other rpg things. However New Gen RPG's kind of change that. And if it was a first person shooter I would say that the graphics would be very very important.

If it was a side scroller I would say the graphics could anywhere in between retro and new gen.
If the platform is your computer I think the games should be graphically impressive. Same goes for PS3
XBOX 360 Arcade, Wii, DS and PSP do retro well.

I find more often than not, the gameplay matters more than the graphics, as long as the game is fun as heck I'll play it more than a better looking game. So for me looks aren't really a concern, but I know that in games like Call of Duty graphics matter. Which basically means, some games need good graphics to be good games, others don't. Or at least that's how I see it.
 

butterbiscuit

- Do Not Eat -
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
In my opinion, no. Most of my favorite games have old, pixelated graphics. Although good graphics are a good thing, I don't think they're required to make a game fun.
There are some games that could have used some better graphics such as Pilotwings to make things easier to see, but I suppose, as Raven said, it depends on what game it is.
 

Turo602

Vocare Ad Pugnam
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Location
Gotham City
Graphics do matter. They matter just as much as the story and gameplay. In this generation there is no excuse to have poor graphics. You can't say that they don't matter just because you still enjoy games like Super Mario Bros and Ocarina of Time. Yes those games are fun, but for it's time it was amazing. The Nintendo pulled off what it could just as any other system did FOR IT'S TIME. Now we have very powerful systems we are getting so advance that we now have powerful hand helds. The reason games get outdated isn't because of it's graphics but it's gameplay. You can't just stop liking a game because it has worse graphics compared to what we can get today. But graphics need to flow with game play and story to make a masterpiece. Yes graphics shouldn't be the reason for buying a game. In fact, it should be the last thing you look for in a game but that doesn't mean it's not as important.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Well, that's what some companies think. But why did we, the gamers, spend all of our quarters on Street Fighter and Double Dragon? Why did we spend hours and hours with our buddies playing Goldeneye007 and/or Perfect Dark. Why did we play The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess until our fingers bled. Because it was fun! Nobody gives a crap about graphics, at least they shouldn't *Cough* Wind Waker haters *Cough*. Gameplay is the only thing that maters, and I think that in the future, gamereviewing sites like GT and IGN should only judge a game on gameplay alone.
 

Turo602

Vocare Ad Pugnam
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Location
Gotham City
Actually, back then people thought the graphics of those games were top-notch, and a lot of people played and loved them because of this. Graphics have actually mattered for a long time, it's just that it's getting out of hand these days with these graphic hounds.

Exactly. Graphics don't make a game horrible. Only the game play, presentation, and story. Even with games of the past. For it's time it was amazing. Graphics don't make a game stale either, the game play just gets outdated. Just like with GoldenEye. Once I played Halo COMBAT EVOLVED, GoldenEye didn't feel the same anymore. Reason being, that the game play formula has evolved for first person shooters.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Yes, but did you play those games for the graphics? NO!!! You don't play a game just to say "Ooh, pretty colors,"!
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Graphics do matter in a sense, for example, the games of today are much better (discounting nostalgia) then the 8 bit games from the days of the NES. In this Generation. Many people have been putting down the wii for having such 'terrible' graphics. But I'm under the impression that many of these people are confusing graphical style with graphical power, and graphic style is what matters (though different people will like different graphical styles).

For example, many people were in very excited about the graphics featured in the game "Monster Hunter Tri", however, if you removed the textures from those models, you would probably see rather unimpressive, low poly models, and there are probably other Wii games with much higher quality models but with a less realistic look, and people will probably say these games have 'bad graphics'.

This has become very apparent in the new legend of Zelda game: 'Skyward Sword'. I'm sure everyone on this site has seen at least one comment saying "These graphics are terrible", or "This is a downgrade from Twilight Princess", despite the fact that the models have a much higher poly count and look better overall.

Basically, I believe that people are mistaking "realistic" style graphics with overall better graphics. I personally believe that a realistic style is not always the way to go. I think that the graphical style of the game should reflect the atmosphere of the game.
 
Last edited:

Kybyrian

Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Location
Amherst, MA
Gender
Didn't I already answer this one?
Yes, but did you play those games for the graphics? NO!!! You don't play a game just to say "Ooh, pretty colors,"!

People actually did buy a lot of games back then for top-notch graphics. When The Legend of Zelda was first released for the NES they released a commercial (Zelda rap, you can find it on Youtube) that even said, "Whoa, nice graphics!" in the commercial.
 

Stallord

Twilit Fossil
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Location
Arbiter's Grounds
Graphics, in my mind, do make part of the game, especially with today's standards. But, like everyone's been saying already, gameplay is more important than graphics. I hate it when games are considered the best games ever just because of the graphics. People need to consider ALL of the components that make a game, besides just the graphics.
 

SuperSilly

Horizon Walker
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Location
Somewhere
Whether or not graphics are important is, I think, mostly a matter of opinion. Graphics have never really mattered that much to me. I’ve played games with nothing but text as graphics and still had fun. I’ve also played games with good, modern graphics and had fun. However I think that good graphics can and usually do add to a gaming experience. I’m not strictly talking about photorealistic graphics. These matter, and are important, but I’m really talking about graphics that suit the game.

Each game has its own style and atmosphere that it aims to impress upon the player. Fitting graphics are important. Whether that means blocky, pixelated graphics, almost no graphics, cartoony graphics, or photorealistic graphics, depends on the game, and what atmosphere the developers intend to communicate. I believe this is also true from a business perspective. You might want to design the graphics around the preferences of your target audience. (Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to this, and I’m no expert, but it’s a general observation.)

Are they going for a retro nostalgic feel? Perhaps those blocky graphics would be a good choice. How about the latest Halo game? Realistic graphics are probably fitting. Making a text-based game? Why bother with too much in the way of graphics at all? Perhaps you want an artsy, unique feel to go with your equally artsy, unique game? This could be any graphics style, really.

As I said before, I feel it’s mostly a matter of opinion. My opinion is that if the graphics add to the experience, then they’re ‘good’ in my book. This includes what some people may consider ‘ugly’ graphics. But what I really look forward to in most games is gameplay and storyline/character development. Graphics are important, but not nearly as important to me as these, and for me, graphics do not always need to be at a level of ultra-realism.
 

Turo602

Vocare Ad Pugnam
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Location
Gotham City
Yes, but did you play those games for the graphics? NO!!! You don't play a game just to say "Ooh, pretty colors,"!

Um, read my first post. And when did I say anything about that? I said graphics don't make a game horrible. But they are still very important and have been important since the very first game. It's just not something that takes away from the game itself. Especially when we have powerful systems now. People say graphics don't matter but it really does and is part of the reason why some games are fine pieces of art. Just look at Mario Galaxy 2. It wouldn't be what it is today if it looked like Mario 64. Reason is because the Wii is so much more graphically powerful then the N64. Graphics don't make a game awesome but it doesn't mean it's not a key factor in games. It's like having a nice washed red apple instead of a bruised brown one. Do you see the point yet? Games on the NES didn't have horrible graphics. People just say that because they compare it to graphics that they see now. There's a big time difference. No one back then said "ill look at those horrible graphics", because it was the best they had at the time. So graphics do matter very much but shouldn't be the first thing you look for in a game.
 

Mute

一員
Joined
Dec 1, 2009
Location
That place where things are.
I believe graphics do matter, but shouldn't be what people judge a game by. However, when I say they matter, I mean the style, not if they've got thousands of polygons and overly HD textures. The style of the graphics matter just as much as the music of a game does, it helps set the mood and make the game a lot more involving.

For example, take cartoons. They usually have characters and even objects that look over-exaggerated or look nothing like its real world counterpart would, but no one would call it "ugly" art, since it all fits into the style that the cartoon set for its self. Something else you'll notice is that the ones that look the most realistic have the more serious mood and story to them, while the ones that are more cartoony and bright have a lighter story and are probably more on a comedic side. If you mix the two up, though, they're not going to work unless you happen to have a miracle or find the perfect combination. Games are no exception to this.

But, other than that, polygon count and texture quality shouldn't matter. Don't get me wrong, if someone makes a game on one of the more recent consoles that looks like it came straight from the 64 (Without actually coming straight from it) then it's probably enough to cause some fuss about since it would show an obvious lack of quality/care in this day and age, but it shouldn't stop someone from enjoying or playing the game, just because it's got a little more primitive graphics doesn't mean it should detract you from the experience.

To sum it up, to me, the style matters more than the polygon count. I enjoy games for the game play first and foremost, even before story, so graphics are not something I think about very often, and when I do, sometimes I prefer older games' graphics over the newer ones because I much prefer the style over how not-blocky something is.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Originally posted by Turo206
Um, read my first post. And when did I say anything about that? I said graphics don't make a game horrible. But they are still very important and have been important since the very first game. It's just not something that takes away from the game itself. Especially when we have powerful systems now. People say graphics don't matter but it really does and is part of the reason why some games are fine pieces of art. Just look at Mario Galaxy 2. It wouldn't be what it is today if it looked like Mario 64. Reason is because the Wii is so much more graphically powerful then the N64. Graphics don't make a game awesome but it doesn't mean it's not a key factor in games. It's like having a nice washed red apple instead of a bruised brown one. Do you see the point yet? Games on the NES didn't have horrible graphics. People just say that because they compare it to graphics that they see now. There's a big time difference. No one back then said "ill look at those horrible graphics", because it was the best they had at the time. So graphics do matter very much but shouldn't be the first thing you look for in a game.

Um, that question wasn't directed at you. But let me rephrase my question, do you still play games that are outdated and have crudy graphics? ID you do why?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom