Support NeoGAF

[Cute Dragon Here]

I'm actually fine with settings toned down to almost nothing, but the one single thing that I'll never crank down if I can is the texture quality and character draw distance. I don't like looking at blurry smudges and seeing nothing...

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Depends on the target platform. For new games on consoles, anything at or above PS2 levels is fine with me. Toleration is a different matter. I'm sure if the game is enjoyable, I can tolerate just about anything.

 

[SolsticeZero]

I don't like turning down anything, but I'll be damned if I turn textures down or lower the resolution. Anything other than native res or super sampling, and I'm out. Hence why I don't play any multiplat game on consoles. But it also needs to run smooth. I don't see how some people can play things at max but only get 20fps and be happy.

Graphics don't bother me, at all. Though if the game is screen tearing, I'm out, and will return it.

This, too. Nothing makes me lose immersion like screen tearing.

 

[GMM]

It can be as ugly as it want, as long as it doesn't interfere with the gameplay (Draw distance, object spawning).

 

[RPGCrazied]

Graphics don't bother me, at all. Though if the game is screen tearing, I'm out, and will return it.

 

[tkscz]

As long as the characters don't blend in with the wall and I can see everything, I'm fine.

 

[Sowee]

If the game's playable but the graphics are bad, i don't care. But when the framerate drops constantly it makes the game unbearable.

 

[RamzaIsCool]

The only time I remember being truly disgusted was when I played the PS3 port of FEAR.

 

[nubbe]

I'm happy with 8bit visuals.
But it depends on the price and what it offers for gameplay.

 

[archnemesis]

I'm usually not that bothered about poor graphics unless it's screen tearing, really poor framrate or awful art. Simple or just plain old graphics is fine.

 

[Majukun]

i have played no more heroes on a HD tv.

I can play ANYTHING

 

[shinobi602]

I can't go back to Xbox/PS2/GC visuals. Almost can't stomach it.

For some weird reason, my mindset looks at indie games and 2D games differently and I can tolerate them.

 

[Marcel]

 

[mclem]

I can tolerate anything - I've been gaming too long with too much vested interest in the history of gaming to have any other attitude - but I *do* have a very strong dislike for CGA; it's not the four-colour aspect of CGA I dislike, but the fact that the colour palettes that it has are *hideous*:

 

[Deadpandas]

PS1 games

 

[Midou]

I'm usually not that bothered about poor graphics unless it's screen tearing, really poor framrate or awful art. Simple or just plain old graphics is fine.

This is me as well. It really takes me out of it when there is screen tearing or poor framerate, and awful art is a bit more rare, but even some higher quality games have bad art sometimes like Fire Emblem 11 (FE1 remake): http://serenesforest.net/fe11/char_1.html Though not quite so awful enough to skip it, ugly enough that it bothers me. I am sure there are much worse examples, but this one is close to my heart.

 

[Tymerend]

If the gameplay is good, I can tolerate anything. There could be screen torn blurry wireframes at 5 FPS and if the game is stupidly fun, I won't care.

Same attitude lets me go back and enjoy PS1 games.

 

[Massa]

Technical aspects don't stop me at all, I can play anything. That said, art matters. I stopped playing Warhammer 40k: Space Marine because its ugliness was hurting my eyes.

 

[Chance Hale]

Heavy screentearing is the only thing that really prevents me from really enjoying a game, such a nauseating thing. Otherwise as long as game isn't unbearably aliased I'm good. Even Deadly Premonition's graphics didn't stop me from playing (it was the ohmygod controls for aiming) 60 FPS while desirable isn't really something I feel I need outside of games like Ninja Gaiden and DMC(m). I chose to play to replay The Witcher 2 recently with Ubersampling on at 30 FPS instead of 60 with it off to get rid of most of the jagglies and dithering.

 

[yn-neko hates a cat]

The most distracting thing for me with graphics are hitches in frame rate. I don't mean a drop in frame rate from like 60 down to 15 occasionally or low frame rates for an extended period of time. I mean like short pauses that are just long enough to break continuity of motion. I've stopped playing games for this reason.

 

[AEREC]

I can't stand most early 3D...so I probably wouldn't be able to replay anything from the N64/PS1 era. Most 3D does not age as well as 2D does.

 

[dark10x]

Once you reach ZX Spectrum or IBM PC CGA levels complete with crappy framerate I have a hard time enjoying the experience.

Older console games are easier to enjoy simply because most of them targeted 60 fps so they feel smooth and responsive even with very simplistic visuals.

 

[Fezzan]

Don't really mind as long as it doesn't somehow stop the game from being fun, I prefer good graphics though.

 

[smr00]

Graphics mean nothing to me.

Performance is what hinders the ability for me to play a game, if the game has such poor framerate it taking the fun out of the gameplay i will never play it again.

 

[Ice 9]

Coincidentally I stopped playing Minecraft when 1.0 was released.

I tolerate any level of graphics as long as the game is playable. I had to make my source games look terrible for years to keep the FPS going.

 

[Fox Mulder]

I can play anything, but early 3d games in the horribly dated n64/ps1 era make it pretty hard now.

 

[Recall]

Gameplay > Graphics. If it plays well then the graphics really don't matter for I.

 

[Orayn]

I'm fine with any visuals that are functional and facilitate the game's mechanics. Games with simple graphics are often better about this than modern ones that make liberal use of color "correction," bloom, vignette effects, and strawberry jelly.

 

[Forkball]

I have to have a texture pack for Minecraft. The blurriness just hurts my eyes.

 

[PKrockin]

The most distracting thing for me with graphics are hitches in frame rate. I don't mean a drop in frame rate from like 60 down to 15 occasionally or low frame rates for an extended period of time. I mean like short pauses that are just long enough to break continuity of motion. I've stopped playing games for this reason.

Micro-stuttering? Those freezes for a fraction of a second? Those ruin PC games for me. Luckily console and handheld games haven't fallen victim to this.

 

[Ice 9]

The most distracting thing for me with graphics are hitches in frame rate. I don't mean a drop in frame rate from like 60 down to 15 occasionally or low frame rates for an extended period of time. I mean like short pauses that are just long enough to break continuity of motion. I've stopped playing games for this reason.

Don't play Telltale's The Walking Dead.

 

[Chairman Yang]

I can play roguelikes.

The most distracting thing for me with graphics are hitches in frame rate. I don't mean a drop in frame rate from like 60 down to 15 occasionally or low frame rates for an extended period of time. I mean like short pauses that are just long enough to break continuity of motion. I've stopped playing games for this reason.

Framerate is a gameplay thing as much as a graphical thing, so I agree with you.

 

[Into]

I still play PS1, NES and SNES games alot, i really do not mind

The only problem i have is if a game has very bad animations, like Morrowind, that really grates on my nerves. I can excuse the early 3d games on the PS1 and N64 just because of the era and how most developers did not know how to properly make games in 3d.

But newer games just don't get that much rope from me, Skyrim i liked by Oblivion and Morrowind were unplayable for me

 

[Jinko]

Framerate issues kill a games enjoyment for me, that being said visuals aren't that important to me especially if the game play is top notch.

 

[Fezzan]

I have to have a texture pack for Minecraft. The blurriness just hurts my eyes.

How much better does it look?

 

[OrbitingCow]

I have a hard time getting into anything without tons of AA, 60fps, and 1080p. Seriously, I can barely play games anymore on my PS3. I spent over 2k hours in Warhawk somehow though. That game my god the screen tearing and judder is like some fucking nightmare. Luckily that game was amazing.

 

[VariantX]

As long as the framerate is stable, its not a big deal to me. I'm more than willing to drop quality settings if I can get a rock-sold framerate. When games fluctuate wildly in the framerate department, it feels like my brain is skipping like scratched vinyl.

 

[chiablo]

PS1 era 3D graphics. Yuk,

 

[DaBoss]

I can tolerate graphics of pretty much any level. I don't like graphical glitches like screen tearing and frame rate drops, but I can look past that stuff if the game is really good.

 

[mrklaw]

Once you reach ZX Spectrum or IBM PC CGA levels complete with crappy framerate I have a hard time enjoying the experience.

Older console games are easier to enjoy simply because most of them targeted 60 fps so they feel smooth and responsive even with very simplistic visuals.

and colour clash. Ugh.

 

[Nemesis_]

The last I played was Silent Hill.

It seemed fine, yeah it was gross but it was still fine.

So yeah, nothing I really won't play.

 

[fvng]

I find that 2D PS1 games hold up better than 3D PS1 games. I guess 2D just holds up better in general. FF6 is a prettier game than FF7 for this reason and holds up better graphically.

 

[Doctor Decimate]

draw distance might be the most important thing, as far as settings for PC games go.

regarding old console games, it's generally a problem with the art that would actually make for a detrimental experience rather than it being technologically shit

 

[owasog]

I still play games from the late 90's sometimes and they're fine, but Outcast is just unplayable for me. Don't know why. There's something..... wrong with the graphics in motion. Probably the voxel-engine.

Every non-hardware-accelerated 3d-engine (before 1998) is just too pixelated for me to play. Too many large square pixels. Sorry. 2d games are fine.

 

[zroid]

i don't think i have a threshold for this. i can still play ps1 and n64 games without issue.

it's a cliche, but gameplay first. of course, games from those eras often have a variety of technical issues aside from visuals that can turn me off nowadays.

 

[PetrCobra]

For me, it's more about controls and functional design. I think I can tolerate graphics that are very primitive (and I mean primitive as in lines and dots or text-mode graphics) if there's fun to be had with moving those graphics around.

However, in 3D games, issues like bad draw distance can sometimes destroy the functional design I mentioned earlier and make even a very pretty game unplayable for me.

 

[Septimius]

It's important to remember that putting all the graphics sliders to low and playing a game that's not high fidelity is two different things. I can play a game with "bad graphics" any day, but I have a harder time having to turn all the sliders down, mostly because it makes the game look significantly worse than any game that was made with poor graphics.

 

[Dyni Crippler]

It can be as ugly as it want, as long as it doesn't interfere with the gameplay (Draw distance, object spawning).

Pretty much this.

 

[mclem]

Once you reach ZX Spectrum or IBM PC CGA levels

C'mon, how can you not love a system which has the colour "Bright Black"?

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Graphics don't bother me, at all. Though if the game is screen tearing, I'm out, and will return it.

I think that falls under graphics.

To me, graphics just refers to he visual output of the game, which includes art, IQ and performance.