No. As long as the story is good, then it doesn't matter to me. I feel like even if the graphics are bad as long as a game still has replay value and is actually a good game then I don't think i'd mind. Most of the games I have a lot of nostalgia with don't exactly have the best graphics and that's never stopped me from looking back on them with fond memories. It'd be a different story if it had bad graphics and a bad story. That's the point where i'd think a game isn't worth what I paid for.
-
We're Celebrating Diversity on TBT! Join our new mini-event this month by making a 3D craft that represents what diversity and inclusivity mean to you. For your hard work, you'll receive a newly released villager collectible and the chance to win the latest addition to our plush series! See the Celebrating Diversity 2024 thread to get started.
-
Animal Crossing Hide & Seek sessions from The Bell Tree World Championship are coming back -- check out the new TBT Neighbourly Hide and Seek thread here for details! Look out for an Among Us session here too.
-
- Thread starter Raayzx
- Start date
It depends. For me a good game isn't bound by graphics alone. It has many factors. The only time it will matter is when it affects my ability to play i.e. can't identify things, my gaming experience etc. There are some games I like the immersive experience (like Skyrim), so I tend to be picky with the graphics. But if a game has a great story, great gaming experience even with sucky graphics, I reallg don't mind. It all depends on what game you're playing.
Stackhouse
That train has sailed.
I care.
Bad graphics take away from the game.
It's much more enjoyable when your surroundings aren't an eyesore.
Bad graphics take away from the game.
It's much more enjoyable when your surroundings aren't an eyesore.
Likewise ^-^
Most defnitely. I'm not into realism because I guess I prefer escapism in games with cute animu characters...however I'm extremely picky with them having proper proportions and comfortable humanoid posture if they're 3d models. Otherwise the character models will just distract me from the whole plot.
As long as the plot is not too ridiculous, I can live with it (FE fates and Root Letter are non-existent in my mind).
Bad game mechanics is fine too as long as it isn't game breaking (Tokyo Twilight Ghost Huntersssssss. Interesting story. Painful game play.)
I just instabuy GUST games ; v ;
As long as the plot is not too ridiculous, I can live with it (FE fates and Root Letter are non-existent in my mind).
Bad game mechanics is fine too as long as it isn't game breaking (Tokyo Twilight Ghost Huntersssssss. Interesting story. Painful game play.)
I just instabuy GUST games ; v ;
Graphics are more of a addition to a good game, because if you have a awful game with good graphics, it's like the art part of the game is kind of lost on you just because the game itself is bad and no amount of HQ models are going to fix a bad game.
Pluto-Sama
Junior Member
Depends what type of game it is. A competitive game doesn't require good or at least amazing graphics. A game is more enjoyable when its smoother, but if you can, both graphics and smooth. Depends what type of game it is as well. I would expect a game like Rise of the Tomb Raider to have good graphics.
therandompuppy
Senior Member
Yeah one of the selling points for a lot of the games i have is there graphics!
I feel like to answer this question, you have to define your terms. There's an important distinction between graphics and aesthetics.
With that in mind, I don't care about graphical fidelity one way or the other. Or, at the very least, I don't care if it's not the most cutting edge graphics. What's more important, I think, is that the games keep their graphical limitations in mind when considering the artistic direction of the game. It's why most first party Nintendo games are still nice to look at, even if they're old, and why a lot of games that boasted of cutting edge realism and high fidelity tend to age considerably worse. Think back to the GameCube/PS2/Xbox era, for example, and you'll see a lot of games that oversaturate themselves in ugly colors, uncanny character models, etc. because they were the most graphically advanced you could find at the time, compared to many games that are at the very least not a total eyesore because they look like they were designed with limitations in mind.
Which brings me to the following point that I think aesthetics are very important to the game's experience. It's the visuals, the animation, the sound, all these things, even if you're not aware of it, play a major role in how the gameplay feels. Two games with near identical gameplay are going to feel notably different if their core aesthetics are drastically changed.
To a certain extent, graphics inform gameplay and vice versa. So I think it's fair to keep them in mind when contemplating a game's value, and I think it's fair to dismiss a game based on them. So to that end, I do care about graphics, but only in the sense of how those graphics hinder or help how the game feels to play. Not so much "I don't like this game because it looks old" but "I don't like this game because it accentuates all the negative aspects of older games."
With that in mind, I don't care about graphical fidelity one way or the other. Or, at the very least, I don't care if it's not the most cutting edge graphics. What's more important, I think, is that the games keep their graphical limitations in mind when considering the artistic direction of the game. It's why most first party Nintendo games are still nice to look at, even if they're old, and why a lot of games that boasted of cutting edge realism and high fidelity tend to age considerably worse. Think back to the GameCube/PS2/Xbox era, for example, and you'll see a lot of games that oversaturate themselves in ugly colors, uncanny character models, etc. because they were the most graphically advanced you could find at the time, compared to many games that are at the very least not a total eyesore because they look like they were designed with limitations in mind.
Which brings me to the following point that I think aesthetics are very important to the game's experience. It's the visuals, the animation, the sound, all these things, even if you're not aware of it, play a major role in how the gameplay feels. Two games with near identical gameplay are going to feel notably different if their core aesthetics are drastically changed.
To a certain extent, graphics inform gameplay and vice versa. So I think it's fair to keep them in mind when contemplating a game's value, and I think it's fair to dismiss a game based on them. So to that end, I do care about graphics, but only in the sense of how those graphics hinder or help how the game feels to play. Not so much "I don't like this game because it looks old" but "I don't like this game because it accentuates all the negative aspects of older games."
Tokkidokie
Senior Member
It depends on the game. If it's one that I love I'll still play it, though sometimes it's jarring to see such oldschool designs.
Even though we have the fancy new version, blocky/pointy Cloud still has a dear place in my heart xD
Even though we have the fancy new version, blocky/pointy Cloud still has a dear place in my heart xD
InstantNoodles
Senior Member
Yes! For example, there are some games I would love to try but the graphics haven't aged well like Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate.
I mean depends on how bad but I generally dont really care that much, if the gameplay is fun and the story is good then the graphics is just a bonus. FF7 Is an amazing game but the graphics arent that great. The skies of arcadia is a fun game and all but the graphics arent too good but I enjoy playing it. There are some really good games out there that your missing out on if you only care if it has realistic graphics.
