Do you really like when games have great graphics or do you not care?

[dunno001]

nitekrawler1285 said:

dunno001 said:

Funny; many would call the graphics of a game like Breakout appalling, or even almost non-existant. It's a series of squares and rectangles. But it's still a damn fun game to me; rounding off the ball on a newer system isn't going to make it a better game. What makes it better is stuff like improved physics. Make me a Breakout game with a damn near perfect physics engine, and I'll think it's a blast, whether it looks shiny or just like the Atari version.

Yes, they are VIDEO games, as you said. But nowhere does said "video" suddenly have to be this ultra-graphical thing. What 'video' is, is a series of moving pictures. The picture could be as simple as a square bouncing around, but a video it remains. So no, I don't need pretty graphics, and no, I'm not kidding myself. What I care about is the underlying game. Sure, Halo 3 looks a hell of a lot better than Pac Man. But I don't care for FPS games, so despite the better graphics of Halo, I'm going to pick the "worse" game, and play Pac Man. Why would I do that, if graphics mattered so much? Part of it is preferences, and part of it is that I just don't care about graphics.

No where did I say video means it has to be ultra-graphical.  That was just your assumption about what I meant. If you can't discern what going on from the graphics it's not going to be easy to experience the gameplay that everyone is hyping and that is simply the way VIDEO Games work.  Yes I happen to love when games have great graphics.  I didn't say that makes the other aspects of it unimportant.  Nor did I say graphics should be the focus.  I said if the graphics are unappealing(ugly or without aesthetic value) or muddy(read as unclear in what is being perceived) it hampers your ability to play the game.  If you don't concur with that statement then I do believe you are kidding yourself. 

Just because games like Breakout and Pac Man are simple in appearance doesn't mean they unappealing or muddy. Their visuals are clear, concise and give you great ability to perceive what is going on. The color of the various squares in Breakout are appealing.  As well as the flashing ghosts and big yellow pie against  a black background with borders. If you couldn't see those things so easily I don't think you would have a good time with those games.     

Hell Okami is a bunch of low-res textures and really jaggy models that didn't stop it from being one of my favorite games ever with one of the most appealing style of visuals.  I would never make someone play Halo 3 instead of any game.  FPS suck and thus Pac Man is clearly the superior game.  

I wasn't intending to mean that you had to perceive it as "ultra-graphical", but the fact remains that there are some people on these very forums who would interpret it as such. I know there's at least one user here who has written off games as new as the PS1 generation just because of graphics. And I don't mean a game or 2 that's not fared well, I mean the entire generation of games. I personally think that's a load of shit, but it's someone else's interpretation of graphics making a game.

I've been gaming since before the days of the NES. I remember seeing games that looked like shit on the Atari. But I could still play them. (The problem was that the underlying game itself was also shit, a product of a rushed game for the season.) I guess what this means is that my threshold for a game's graphics actually starting to be an impediment is at the point where a game from the mid-80s onward would never make it out of the production house. (Truthfully, I question if ANY game has ever been released that would fail my said criteria to me.)

Now, at the bold part. Unappealing graphics is the first part. I'll use E.T. as an example. That game was hideous. I would say there are no aesthetic values in it. But I was still able to beat it, and the graphics were not a problem in my doing so. As for what is being perceived, I'll look at another 2600 game, Journey Escape. What I see are fences, good (blue) guys, and Mr. Happy Man, among others. Turns out these were stage barriers, roadies, and your Manager, respectively. Knowing what these were supposed to be, instead of what I called them, didn't change what I thought of the game, nor did it impact my ability to clear all the band members to their getaway vehicle. (That was a vehicle?)

So I guess what it really comes down to is where everyone's threshold is for problems. Some people I feel are absurdly high, but others, like myself, are low enough that graphics are not important to them. And with how games have been marketed for, oh, about 20 years or so now, I don't have to worry about graphics ever being that bad, following in my never been hampered by graphics view. What I do think that graphics hamper, is the willingness of some to make a bigger, deeper game. These graphics have eaten up part of the budget that used to go toward more game. Now that, I see as a detriment, but that might be for another thread...