Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1

    Does anyone else like/miss bad graphics?

    Maybe its just me, but am I the only one who doesnt like realistic graphics? Like with starcraft 2... I always liked playing on the lowest settings just cause I enjoyed it when it looked simple and non-realistic. Just looking at the thumbnail for upcoming MMOs (EQ:N most recently) and seeing really good graphics kinda turns me away from it.. Id rather play something with very simple graphics but maybe thats just because of nostalgia... Ive always loved the art/graphics of Mario.. its simple and doesnt try to make it feel like real life.

    On topic for WoW... I cant say that I "miss" it having worse graphics, since i started at the end of wrath, but vanilla/bc just looks more fun purely based on it...

    hopefully its not just me that feels this way :/

  2. #2
    Not really. I miss the good old challenging games that just happen to have older(not bad) graphics. This is why I enjoy playing indie games.

  3. #3
    There's a difference between "bad" graphics and "stylized" graphics, you know?

    I like stylized graphics, like World of Warcraft, StarCraft and now WildStar. Bad graphics (like so many games that have only brown and grey in its palette) I can do without.
    Trying to argue anything with any sort of nuance over Twitter is the intellectual equivalent of trying to trying to squeeze a cow through a keyhole. Sure, you might even be able to do it with enough brute force, and whatever comes out the other side might even still be considered to be "cow" in the technical sense, but it will be so mangled as to be completely unrecognizable.

  4. #4
    It all depends on the game.

    I really like realistic graphics in Skyrim or BF3 for example but I wouldnt want to play MMO's with those graphics.
    WoW's graphics are fine, the only improvement that should be made is higher texture quality on the old gear/models/environment etc.

    This is why Wildstar will most likely going to be a huge hit on the MMO market because it has similar graphics style so any PC can run the game on reasonable settings = more players.

  5. #5
    The oldschool (which in this case is a euphemism for crap) graphics have their charm, but I prefer new and better graphics. Graphics aren't that important though, I think that the original WoW character models are perfectly servicable for instance. Obsession with graphics tend to reduce gameplay quality. I have never played a game for its graphics alone.

  6. #6
    I'd rather have great aesthetics and shitty graphics than amazing graphics and shitty aesthetics.

    I think one of the reasons WoW was so popular at release was because of the amazing aesthetics the game had, and definitely still has.
    Luckily, WoW is getting better and better graphics while maintaining the aesthetics we all know and love.

    So, I don't care about graphics as long as it looks and feels like WoW.

  7. #7
    Kind of depends, gameplay is most important by far for me, but after that it depends on the genre.

    If it's an MMO type game, or any game I'm playing with other people really, then I don't care so much. Like I personally think LoL looks horrible, but if I'm playing with friends I don't really care much.

    A game like Dishonored, or a any single player game I want to look good. Because I'm actually focusing on the gameplay, I'm focusing on what I see. I want it to look nice. If I'm playing with friends I'm probably not too focused on the game itself.

    But gameplay is far more important than fancy graphics.

  8. #8
    As stated, WoW has a style that doesn't get outdated as quickly as the "latest super-realistic graphics" that other companies use.

    The animations are also important, because an excessive number of frames for character movement makes the controls feel sluggish (old platform/fightin games barely had any animation, which made them feel responsive), WoW has complex animations, but are immediately interrupted when the player wants it, giving that arcade feel to the controls.

    Being an online game, the connection has an impact on how players and NPCs move (ping), and WoW uses a trick to avoid input-lag by only checking player position and speed every few seconds, allowing the client to handle most of the movement. The NPCs movement is also calculated client-side.

    There are multiple factors that make the game look, sound and feel good despite being a decade old. Wether you like where Blizzard is taking the game or not, you have to admit they are pretty good at creating attractive games.
    English is not my first language, feel free to correct any mistake I may make.

  9. #9
    Scarab Lord Arkenaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    4,410
    You miss things like this?



    I like WoW's aesthetic a lot. But the graphics are terrible.

  10. #10
    Mechagnome Time Sage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Behind you! Turn around!
    Posts
    702
    Screw you people and your 3D graphics. Viva Sprites!

  11. #11
    I noticed this interesting distinction between "aesthetics" and "graphics" a few times now. That's not really correct. Graphics are graphics - the visual component of the game and the technical realisation of it. Basically, it's that what you see. The characters, the environment, effects, the interface.

    Aesthetical appeal or artistic design is one aspect of it. The technical quality and complexity is another, but it's incorrect to label them as "aesthetics" and "graphics". Aesthetics are an aspect of the game's graphics, just as the technical quality is.

    It's incorrect to say "I prefer great aesthetics to shitty graphics" - or vice versa, for that matter. What you're trying to say is "I prefer good aesthetic design over impressive technical performance". Saying that a game has good graphics, despite of not having an impressive and complex engine, is not a contradiction. Hairsplitting, yes, but still.
    Last edited by Pull My Finger; 2013-08-07 at 08:53 AM.

  12. #12
    The older games were the best to be honest... But i love the realisitic shit in bf3....
    "Prepare for the unknown by studying how others in the past have coped with the unforeseeable and the unpredictable."
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."

    General George S Patton

  13. #13
    i'm agree with what several otehrs ahve already said: there's a difference between 'bad' graphics and 'old' graphics.

    But I love the NES and especially the SNES era of gaming. i't amazing what sprite-work went into so many of those games. I actually have a tattoo of a pixelated dragon that i drew up myself simply because the games of that era meant so much to me and had a huge influence on my childhood (i was a sickly kid).

    but 'bad' graphics? the best example i can think of would be old NES games where the sprites got TOO big, and looked like they just tried too hard. cheetahmen comes to mind. I can't think of any games that fall into this category that i enjoyed.

  14. #14
    I dont miss old graphics a bit. What I miss is the depth and the effort in the gameplay that made up for the terrible graphics. Today the amount of 2 hour graphics demo games is to high.
    Developers and Publishers state again and again that the costs to create games increased dramatically with the constantly evolving graphics engines. I would rather have them freeze graphics development at the current state and catch up on gameplay.

  15. #15
    Bloodsail Admiral Rhywolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,118
    There are a lot of retro-style flash games out there. Perhaps you should try out Minecraft?
    Sing like no one ist listening - Love like you've never been hurt
    Dance like no one is watching - Masturbate like no one else is on the bus

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmyHellfire View Post
    I noticed this interesting distinction between "aesthetics" and "graphics" a few times now. That's not really correct. Graphics are graphics - the visual component of the game and the technical realisation of it. Basically, it's that what you see. The characters, the environment, effects, the interface.

    Aesthetical appeal or artistic design is one aspect of it. The technical quality and complexity is another, but it's incorrect to label them as "aesthetics" and "graphics". Aesthetics are an aspect of the game's graphics, just as the technical quality is.

    It's incorrect to say "I prefer great aesthetics to shitty graphics" - or vice versa, for that matter. What you're trying to say is "I prefer good aesthetic design over impressive technical performance". Saying that a game has good graphics, despite of not having an impressive and complex engine, is not a contradiction. Hairsplitting, yes, but still.
    Personally, I think the reverse is true: graphics, the technical aspect of your visuals, are part of the aesthetics. I see it this way, graphics are your paint, and aesthetics is your painting. A great artist can use shit paint to still make a beautiful painting, but if you can't paint, your painting is going to be crap, even if you used the best paint in the world.

  17. #17
    Uh no, better graphics = better, but it shouldnt fuck with the gameplay. Like loads of good looking games just dont play well..

  18. #18
    Personally, I wish more games started using a wider arange of colours. The amount of shades of brown and grey they can find is impressive, but I'd love a dash of green in there every now and again.

  19. #19
    when you spend more money on a graphic card than most of you spend on your whole computer i must admit im getting kinda pissed off when new games do not deliver on the graphical front.

    I dont run with titan in sli for CoD to release a brand new game with 9 year old graphic engine (not saying that i play CoD, it was an example)

    when a aaa game is released in 2013 the shitty excuse "gameplay is more important than visual" just doesnt hold water. A visual pleasing game is just as important as gameplay. You need both. Not one of them. A lot of games have delivered both. The games who fail to. Well. failed

  20. #20
    I wouldn't call graphics in older games as "bad" graphics, though some games apparently featured bad graphics. Currently there is too much emphasis on graphical aspect over gameplay and performance/optimization. And for as long as graphics have some neat style behind them, and support something more than CGA (graphics card of 1980s), gameplay >> graphics for me.

    Slightly off-topic, but sometimes I wonder.. In example, Shining in the Darkness, one of classic dungeon crawlers, is only 1 MB. How much more there would be content if graphics would be the same, but game's size would be limited by 1 GB instead. So far games tend to have more and more "advanced" graphics, take more and more space on HDD and same time have less and less of actual game content.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •