{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Tartan 118:
4/19/2014 4:31:05 PM
44
Many of you claim graphics don't matter
Yet, would you be happy with Destiny or any new titles looking like PS2 games or worse?
I'm not talking intentionally retro, but still clean and crisp, I'm talking muddy graphics, blurry textures, hideous anti-aliasing and awful draw distances.
-
I think that usually means something more like, "I'm not going to refuse to buy this game just because it's only (30fps/720p)." A game can run at the highest resolution possible on your TV at the fastest frame rate the system can churn out with all kinda of incredible numbers relating to everything from polygons to shaders and still look awful if the artists suck. There's just not much point worrying about the technical specifications of art.
-
I care about graphics.
-
2 RepliesGraphics don't matter as long as they meet a certain standard.
-
Yes. I care about graphics. But it's usually the people who consider themselves as Hardcore Gamers when they really take it into context.
-
Graphics matter a lot, but if something looks good, that's all I need, they don't need to be perfect all the time (I play console and pc), but occasionally it is nice when the game isn't all that good cough* bf4.
-
1 ReplyI still play SWBF2, you think I really care?
-
1 ReplyAesthetics > Graphics As long as the graphics are on a similar level with other games of its time, there isn't a problem.
-
Don't forget 60fps. Not dirty 30.
-
4 Repliesdon't forget skyrim or borderlands 2.
-
Meh, doesn't bother me in the slightest. At least half if my 180+ game backlog on Steam and GOG are old games from years ago. Even some of the new RPGs I've backed on Kickstarter were throwback titles using similar visuals to games 15+ years old
-
Well... it is in my opinion that Okami ids way prettier than most modern games. But that's just one PS2 era title
-
ha. nobody says that. graphix are fer noobs?
-
Of course graphics matter! Just not as much as people think. To put it lightly, games are never going to look like that again. We're never going to have games that are "accidentally" like PS2 or original xbox. A prime example of a game that is bad looking by today's standard is Ride to Hell Retribution( not that the game isn't shitty in the first place.) but by yesteryears standards that game would have looked pretty good. Still wouldn't have made it a good game. Dark Souls 2 on the other hand is another game that graphics sticklers rail on and yet that game is still hailed today as being great. Even the Dark Souls 1 game was considered haunting and atmospheric with its ugly textures and muddy graphics. Basically. If games looked like they did on PS2 no that wouldn't be good. But we don't even do that anymore cause that's not the standard.
-
2 RepliesYes, I would.
-
People who say graphics and aesthetics don't matter are missing out on half of the reason VIDEO games are awesome.
-
2 RepliesEdited by Ukimoi: 4/19/2014 6:13:01 PMGraphics only don't matter to someone when their console of choice is on the short end of the stick.
-
PS2 titles? Yeah sure I think many of them look beautiful. Older than that? Maybe not
-
I don't think people are saying, "Graphics don't matter". I think people (at least recently with the console wars) are saying that the resolution difference doesn't matter. BF4 is 720p on XB1 and 900p on PS4, just yesterday I took my Xbox One to my friends house and we both went into the test range on BF4 on the two different systems on the same size monitors (24"), and literally neither of us could tell a difference. Both of the monitors were the same size and calibrated the same. People make it out to be that the difference in resolutions so far are so huge and really you can barely tell a difference in real world scenarios. And even if thats not what you're talking about OP, graphics don't matter as long as they are fitting of the technology it is being run on. Obviously if a AAA PS4/Xbox One game looks like a PS2/Gamecube game then yeah thats bad. But if its good enough that it looks on par with other games on the same generation of hardware than its fine, even if its not "spectacular".
-
Edited by Braydzz: 4/20/2014 9:44:20 PMWell even games back then they had standards and games like walking dead survival instinct aren't at today's standards.
-
Let's bring up the battlefield franchise where it seems that they're moving away from destruction in the environments but in return they are bringing better graphics. Anybody think it's worth it? Personally I rather have the better destruction
-
Both matter to a degree. I feel that performance is still the more important of the two.
-
1 ReplyEdited by Nul Arc: 4/20/2014 9:20:08 PMHonestly, if it played amazingly I wouldn't care. I would kill for Planetside or VirtualOn to be remade with updated physics and balanced.
-
7 RepliesGraphics matter. To this very day I give Wind Waker a hard time. But tickrate is more important. Let's have Quake graphics and a tickrate of 120!
-
[insert self-righteous comment about why you don't care about graphics and how you're such a hardcore gamer for not caring about something so trivial]
-
I want the game I play to look as close to how the artists imagined it.
-
Edited by antony X1000: 4/20/2014 7:55:59 PMGood graphics are nice to have, but they're hardly the most important thing in a game.
