• You're viewing the Team9000 Archives. These old threads are closed to new comments, but if something interests you or you have a question, feel free to open a new thread in the main forums.

Game Addictions: Shitty Graphics

IncognitoLens

IncognitoLens

Well-Known Member
Hola party people, Incog here. I'm gonna be starting a blog about why we can't put down the videogames we all know and love, so let's get started. :D

In recent years there has been a big commotion in the gaming community about graphics v. gameplay. As many of us have seen, from YouTube and our own game experiences, that graphics is such a minor part of why we love a game. In fact, some of us have preference to bad graphics. One exemple, obviously, is Minecraft. This is a clear example that people will choose gameplay over graphics 90% of the time. And of course, In the case of MineZ (The Minecraft version of DayZ) people play it for the sole reason that it's Minecraft, and has a graphics downgrade.

One game that we have had for years is Megaman. The developers have stayed true to the 2D pixelated games on purpose, and people love it. That nostalgic feeling that comes from playing is enough to keep gamers coming back. Megaman has enough gameplay value that it doesn't need an update.

As a personal favorite I have to mention Cave Story. This Indy 8 bit masterpiece has a big fanbase, for the most part centered around the amazing gameplay. As for the graphics the comparison comes with Cave Story 3D. With lazy animations and loosing it's Indy prowess, this game did poorly on the market. People actually preferred the 8 bit version because of the graphics. In fact in the 3D version there is an option to have the character be the original 8 bit version.

As we have seen the graphics downgrade is something that can draw a croud and even create a community.

Well, that's it for now. If you want to see more feel free to leave some feedback. Adios
 
all those games you mentioned have good graphics though. Minecraft is mean't to reference the graphical style of the 16 bit era but in a 3d world. Graphics does not mean realism it means style and quality. For example Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 (in my opinion) had poor sprite design compared to the cartoon aesthetic Chris Sawyer wanted. The style of any video game is important and helps us immerse yourself in the world the creator has made. As a person who enjoys drawing in a manga like style I have to look to other artist styles to develop my own. I have looked towards One Piece and Pokemon's style (which are campy and not realistic) to create a fun character that I want to draw. However if a game creator makes a game that does not have a good aesthetic (say Gears of War) because it tried to hard to look realistic that it forgot to make itself look good. Graphics have to be used correctly with a game to create the aesthetic that the creator and the buyer wants. This can be done with a nostalgic aesthetic like minecraft, megaman 9 and megaman 10 or with a fun campy style like super meat boy along with many more seemingly unlimited options. So yes graphics have to do with the game just as much as game play because without good graphics the game isn't fun to look at, and without good gameplay the game isn't fun to play. So Graphics do matter but not more or less than gameplay just as much.
-Nightmarbeast89/babybacon
 
To add on to babybacon's point that graphics matter, one of the main reason that I feel the Final Fantasy games starting from 10 and above do well is mainly because the graphics are top notch. Its just a personal opinion though and I bought FF 13 because the graphics were awesome.
 
Did anyone else come here because they thought there was an indie game called "Shitty Graphics"?

In all seriousness though, I do agree that graphics are overhyped in game marketing. For so many new titles, if you strip the graphics, you'd see that they bring nothing novel to the gaming experience or, even worse, are just repackages of previous games or other games.

But with recent indie game successes, I think the industry as a whole is starting to take notice and lean towards more experimentation. In all honesty, I'm more impressed with a lackluster (in sales), but innovative indie game than a typical FPS, RTS, RPG, etc. that brings nothing new to the table besides hyper-realistic textures.


Well I think I said nothing that hasn't been said before. I just didn't want my post to be my first line. I might as well put in my thoughts.
 
I agree with you. Everyone's flipping out about graphic enhancing mods for Skyrim like ENB's, texture mods, and ahem... nude mods, that they're forgetting about what was great about the Oblivion modding community... the dedicated modders that spent hours upon hours of making amazing new stories and quests. Oblivion had huge quest mods and most were very interesting and quite frankly stunning. With Skyrim on the other hand I'm seeing a butt-load of ENB presets to make the game "pretty" and 2k Res texture mods and there missing the point on why the developers released the Construction Kit, to make mods to make GAMEPLAY better, not spending hours getting there settings perfect in there ENB.ini. I'm not gonna lie, i do use IMAGINATOR in Skyrim, along with the 2k textures, and some armor mods but i really don't care about those things, they're just eye candy. Dawngaurd is a total trainwreck and now the modding community needs to take the resources from that and make something cool, and not loaded with random bugs instead of making a Dawngaurd compatible 2k Res texture mod. (I know it will happen just watch). Anyways enough with my rant, people here who don't play Skyrim on PC or at all have no idea what i'm talking about anyway. Thanks for the blog incog.
 
I don't always have a choice when it comes to high-end graphics, as my computers aren't the greatest. While I put a graphics card in my PC, it is still outdated and was never designed for gaming. The laptop is better, but still, it's a laptop. However, they run what I want them to, and while graphics are appealing when buying a game, if the game lacks in decent gameplay, it gets boring quit quickly.

I remember back to when I was first introduced to Minecraft. Some guys were talking about a mod that "also adds larger trees..." in the Simtropolis chat when I took notice of one of the screenshots and asked what game it was. At first, I was shocked by how bad the graphics were, but intrigued by how interesting the game looked. I asked if there was a free version and started playing the classic version. I stopped after about a half hour, but not before building a simple brick house. The next day, I think I played for about 8 hours. Never did I take a notice to the graphics.

Another, not as great of an example of this is SimCity 4 as opposed to the Cities XL series. While Cities XL has great graphics and is not confined to a grid, it wasn't quite as in-depth as SimCity was. It also only runs well on single-core or high-end systems, as it is only able to use one core. In other words, about 10 FPS on the laptop. On the other hand, SimCity runs great on nearly every system, has a huge community of players, modelers, and modders, and is still going strong. From my experience, SimCity is actually much more in-depth than Cities XL, but on a very subtle level.

However, if I had the system to run it better than about 5 FPS, I would most likely install the shaders mod onto Minecraft. While a game needs good gameplay for me to buy it, better graphics are always welcome.

EDIT:
However, I prefer gameplay enhancing mods over graphical enhancing mods, any day. One word: Tekkit.
 
It seems that the two opposing communities will never be satiated in the argument of the times.
I, however, believe there is a fundamental mistake the two arguing sides made even before starting the bitter fight.
Gameplay in itself has hundreds of different factors such as music, dialogue, plot line, community, multiplayer, controls, etc. Because they throw these two terms out into the fray without more thought, it leads to a never ending argument where the two sides will always pull something out of their armpits to counter the other.
The ‘graphics’ side also made a mistake of using adjectives. “I won’t play a game if it looks shitty.” ‘Shitty’ is subjective. ‘Good’ is also subjective. Throw these at people, opinions get mixed into the fight, and surely this will never end.
The word they are looking for is ‘art style’. Why do people play both the original StarCraft and the sequel StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, when one is widely considered superior in terms of visual fidelity?
The gameplay fanatics will say that, in this case, gameplay wins over art style, but what of the many who enjoy both games in tandem, like me? I enjoy both games’ art styles and gameplay. What then?
Simply too many factors. Too many. I used to be on the ‘gameplay’ side [Golden Sun on the GBA, baby!] but I stopped and thought, ‘wow I’m stupid’.


Many different variables will pull a person into a game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top