How bad graphics needs to be before you can't tolerate it?

I can tolerate anything if the game is good enough. Sprites are cool. PS2 on an emulator looks ok. PS1 looks hideous even on an emulator but I can still tolerate it if the games are good enough.

I would prefer if they remade some PS1 games with better gfx since that and n64 were very crude polygonal 3d environments but I wont hold my breath.
 
In any kind of action game, where my abilities are impacted by low framerates or dropped frames or tearing. I can't really put up with bad framerate for more than a few minutes. I will always try to exhaust 60fps gaming options before settling on 30fps as well. This is far more important than volumetric fog or whatever.

The cost of getting a superior framerate is relatively cheap compared to the price of modern games.

Also, bad input lag is intolerable.
 
McBradders said:
'tis neither here nor there, graphics are incredibly important at communicating gameplay, get that wrong and you can muddy and obscure even the loveliest of mechanics.
Click to expand...

It's not that my point. This generation most of the games point to spectacularize more the action than to the game mechanics, there are a lot of example; I can't imagine how much would be appreciate COD or Uncharted with a ps2 graphic. Where past games not needs of this.
 
32 bit era ugly ass 3D makes me want to cry, especially when it's coupled with terrible frame rate and bad draw distance.

Everything else I'm fine with.
 
Yeah, I'll pretty much take anything. Even if it's offensively bad, I tend to stop noticing 5 minutes in.
Like that new Grasshopper game... I think it's too glossy too, but I also know it's not going to bother me at all, once I get into it.
 
I don't have a problem with "bad" graphics so long as the game properly communicates gameplay objective/mechanics cleanly through its visuals. Stuff like obtuse, nonsensical UI, bad or confusing representation of objectives/mechanics, etc...are things I don't tolerate.
 
I would guess somewhere around Atari 2600 graphics is too low.

Though even some games for that I enjoy. Atari Circus is still a fun game no matter the graphical drawbacks.

Atari Pac-Man on the other hand I would rather refuse.
 
I still play games as early as NES and PS1, so graphics really don't have an effect on me. It's when the graphics hamper controls or the way a game feels that it becomes an issue.

Something like that first Extreeme Games title on PS1 and fighting games with stiff animations give me problems. It's the same reason I could never get into Doom, Wolfenstien or 2D Madden even back then.
 
Anything at NES level or above is fine by me. Below that, I have a hard time playing it. Like when it comes to those old Gameboy games or Atari games, I have a hard time getting into those.
 
ultima7-murder.jpg


More due to the bizarre perspective than the art-style, mind. Makes my brain hurt - why is everything is upside down?!
 
I think there's a certain charm in older graphics. In other words, early 3D is sexy.

The only generation I have trouble with is the Atari (2600) gen, but I can tolerate it if the game itself is fun and has nice controls.
 
BigTnaples said:
Depends on the game. Finally bought FF7 when it launched for Vita, but I'm not very far into it due to two reasons.


One being the lack of analogue control. And two being the graphics are appalling.


FF8 however still looks graphically playable to me. As does most any 2D game. Just certain 3D games have aged really really bad.
Click to expand...

For FF7 you can map the d-pad to the analog as well. A recent firmware update for Vita made this possible. Makes playing stuff like FF7 and Xenogears much easier on the thumb.
 
As long as the graphics are relatively clean and easy on the eyes, they can be as simple as they possibly can for my part. I can easily enjoy a game of Jumpman Jr. on the C64.

I also love pixel graphics, and Amiga games.

Early 3D graphics are much harder to enjoy, but if they're not stuttering, clipping, and they're not horrible blurry textures I can play those too. I never felt that graphics age particularly badly. It's the gameplay that sometimes can suffer, with growing demands to responsiveness and whatnot. If a game looked great back in the day, it will look great today.
 
Unless the graphics take away from the gameplay, graphics dont matter that much too me. I can tolerate really ugly stuff as long as there is game behind it all.
 
For me, it comes down to when the graphics impair the gameplay, or prevent the game design from working. An example would be when the draw distance is so bad I can't shoot guys I should be able to shoot (or are already shooting at me). Or if the textures are so bad so as to break any immersion I have in the world. Z-fighting is also along those lines. So long as the visuals are able to support the gameplay without detracting from it. The visual fidelity I hope for varies by game, of course, but that's the general principle.
vocab said:
Unless the graphics take away from the gameplay, graphics dont matter that much too me. I can tolerate really ugly stuff as long as there is game behind it all.
Click to expand...

Yup, pretty much this.
 
mr_square said:
ultima7-murder.jpg


More due to the bizarre perspective than the art-style, mind. Makes my brain hurt - why is everything is upside down?!
Click to expand...

But... it's one of the greatest role-playing experiences ever.

I don't get the problems with the perspective in Ultima VII.

Like the recent Flashback Remake shows, to me it isn't about graphics from a technical standpoint, it is more related to the art and visual design of the game.
 
I mainly care about frame rate. I don't mind setting the graphics to low settings as long as everything runs smooth. There is no point in having fancy visuals if it's barely playable.
 
One of my favorite games for the PS2 is Wild Arms 3, and it looks like this:


or I recently bought and played through Blast Corps, which looks like this:

and I really had fun with this game.

So yes, Graphics don't really matter to me. The only thing that they should do is not hindering the gaming experience. They also can improve the gaming experience a bit, especially when it comes to stuff like facial expressions, but ultimately they are not the key for enjoying games. Otherwise, Final Fantasy XIII would be one of the best RPGs ever created and games like Chrono Trigger and FFVI would be complete crap since they can't reach the graphical detail of FFXIII.
 
GTAIV comes to mind on consoles

The IQ is so terrible, combined with shoddy framerate, pop up, and some crazy contrast issues makes the game unplayable for me.
 
I've yet to play a game that had graphics that bug me, even going back to some of the games I enjoyed in the early PS1/N64 era. And of course 2D always holds up in my eyes so I'm cool with NES or the games of my childhood on the SNES/Genesis.
 
I don't care about graphics so much as I do about performance issues. If a game has a bad frame rate then I'm out.
 
As long as the game is engaging, graphical fidelity doesn't matter too much to me. Unless it affects my gameplay experience in a negative way. I have my limits. The atrocious framerate in Far Cry 3 put me off from that game, no matter how awesome the other characters were. I also found Dishonored's resolution was pretty off-putting, despite it being a new IP.

Bottom line: as long as it doesn't interfere with my gameplay experience and as long as it's reasonable for the budget of the game company, I won't mind.
 
not so much 'bad' but it bothers me when certain companies that rake in crazy bucks are inexplicably lazy with their visuals on systems that could handle so much more

New-Super-Mario-Bros-2-008.jpg


Pokemon-XY-1.png


I can handle games that are visually bad most of the time but I can't stand a framerate that drops below 30
 
ascii42 said:
Play Driver 1 and 2 on the Playstation, and then try to tell me that the game wouldn't be better if buildings didn't pop in like 10 feet in front of you.
Click to expand...
I love both games.

As for popping in, what does that have to do with pretty graphics?
 
What if the graphics do not interfere with the mechanics of the game, but interfere with the psychology of the user, or are abrasive? Like a game where every wall texture is made of pictures of the programmers genitalia.
 
ASCII
Ok this "G" character is a goblin i think l... dammit it was a Gryphon, well GG. When I see ascii i make a face like I'm smelling something awful and then close the page. At least give me a 1 pixel green blob.
 
smr00 said:
I love both games.

As for popping in, what does that have to do with pretty graphics?
Click to expand...

Well, draw distance is an aspect of graphics. A more powerful system would have been able to render farther draw distance while offering a higher frame rate. Both of which would improve the gameplay in my opinion.

Prettiness is an aspect of graphics that doesn't affect gameplay though, you are right there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
PC or Console, you can't be on both!
2 3 4
182
4K
tr1p1ex replied
  • Poll
Do you still need better graphics than we have now?
2
96
2K
Grildon Tundy replied
Dad, how was Call of Duty before? (Crowbcat)
2 3 4
159
8K
DaciaJC replied
How many teraflops do we need for excellent graphics?
Opinion Hardware  2 3
136
6K
HeWhoWalks replied
How graphic/gory should the next Lords of the Fallen be?
Social 
10
446
Danjin44 replied
Top Bottom