What makes bad graphic bad?
I have several reasons.
Cuz its outdated
cuz it looks like it was from the NES
cuz the creators tried to much to make it look good
AnimeGalleries [dot] Net | AnimeWallpapers [dot] Com | AnimeLyrics [dot] Com | AnimePedia [dot] Com | AnimeGlobe [dot] Com |
What makes bad graphic bad?
I have several reasons.
Cuz its outdated
cuz it looks like it was from the NES
cuz the creators tried to much to make it look good
Or the creators were probably just smoking something they shouldn't have been while designing a game that should have been better.
Like Zelda: Windwaker
Ignorance isn't bliss, blissful people are just incredibly ignorant.
STOP IGNORING ME!!!!!!!
"The phrase 'dead meat' is so redundant. Once something gets
classified as 'meat,' it's chances of recovery are pretty slim."
"There's a porkchop in the freezer I'm optimistic about. He's a fighter."
lol, so right.Originally Posted by Starkwynd
I think the makers of Halo 2 were trying to hard. They arent bad graphics but its over done. they are too good, they make the game glitch and you see wierd things....
Graphics don't make the game.If the game was any good to begin with, it would'nt need flashy effects to get people to play it ; Like 90% of most of the games on the current market.
yeah i think NES has bad graphics
Sometimes The Minute You Give Up On Everything Somebody Shows Up And Cheers You Up Right Before Your Very Eyes It Happened To Me And He Knows Who He Is I Hope.
19th is exactly right. sure, its nice to look at a game and really like what you see. but still regardless, graphics are not the game. you could buy a game and be like "oh yeah, this game LOOKS good" but you pop it in and you're like "WTF???..this game sucks" and you just wasted 50 bucks right there. i could care less about the graphics in a game, as long as it's fun. like Final Fantasy 7, Wind Waker, and even some of the old SNES games.Originally Posted by 19th
i agree with 9th ever word of it
Last edited by -Shizu-; 08-18-2005 at 05:02 PM.
pretty much yeah, i would hate to waste 50$ on a sucky video gameOriginally Posted by UltimaChaos
Last edited by -Shizu-; 08-18-2005 at 05:03 PM.
Graphics really don't matter in a game, it's all about if the game is fun, I mean FF7 is an awsome game and pratically everybody loves it, even though it doesn't have great graphics...Ya know what I mean?
If you're gonna give me rep, give me bad rep.Thanks.
point taken, yet it was like an old game and i think one of the first FF game on PS. So yea the graphics would be sort of junk, yet still good. But the story-line and game plot should determine the game. Yet I do like a game with good graphics...maybe thats the reson why I luve to play RPGs. Especially the anime stlye RPGs.Originally Posted by Amix
it may not b a game for a home console, but Runescape has horrible graphics
KRAD IS MY OTHER SELF, BUT WE'RE DIFFERENT IN MANY WAYS
I used to love runescape, i played it all the time. For years I would play it. thats what an MMORPG is meant to do to you.... -_-
No offense, well maybe a little, but you are an imbecile.Originally Posted by Sinnaku
Graphics do not make the game. Gameplay does.
Storyline and Gameplay are the most important aspects of a game.
Now, some games need good graphics. Games like the newer Resident Evil games. youcould not have a Survival Horror game done on the NES for example.
However, over 90% of all games could survive with SNES graphics.
Do not get me wrong, I love glorious graphics, like those of Resident Evil 4 and Zelda: Twilight Princess. However, they are not the most important aspect.
Mankind's greatest achievment? Dragonball Z. Bar none.
Wrong like everyone else.
We are entering an age where graphics play one of the biggest parts in the video game industry.
If people dont keep the game's graphics up to date that just means they are a lazy bunch of game makers.
All the top games are the also the best looking
Halo 2
GTA
Half Life 2
Doon 3
Metal Gear Solid 3
and so on
So yes, graphics do make a great game. Just look at all the award shows that had to give two games the same award for best graphics because they were just too close. And then both the games sold over 2 million copies in thier first month.
The two were Half Life 2 and Doom 3.
Resident Evil is hardly the perfect example of survival horror games since it came on the next generation system. It did nothing but bring CREDIT to the genre that people outside of Japan have ignored. (We did'nt get some of the BEST horror games in existance and one of the best ones was butchered to the point sucky.)Originally Posted by Saint Mana
The first true survival horror game was on the NES, Sweet Home 1989.
If you can't find it on ebay or a secondhand store try downloading it, it's one of the more.. Disturbing games I've played.
Also, there is project in the works of re-making Grand Theft Auto 3 on the NES rom function.
http://grandtheftendo.com/
It really depends on who's programming the games, you could really do alot on those NES carts if you put some time into it.
You're worse. It's like this, they focus ONLY on graphics in recent games. Why? Because they hope that game with BRILLIANT and MINDBLOWING graphics will distract players away from the more, obivous flaws. Crappy story, no replay value, weak storyline and poor controls.Originally Posted by Sinnaku
The reason why flashy games sell? Because that's exactly why, they are flashy. People are attracted to flashy things the same way certin birds are attracted to shiny objects.
Why bother working on all the aspects of the game when only one will attract the most attention?
People don't want a game with poor graphics but a totally compelling and thought provoking storyline, they rather have something where things go BOOM and look COOL while it happens.
"Give the people exactly what they want." Sort of like those Monkey Paw stories.
If the game sucks, the company ALREADY got their money if you paid 50 dollars for a game. You can take it back but you're not going to get crap for it. So , the company wins in the long run and you lose.
Dudes we are entering an age in video games where bad graphics only mean its a poor or a lazy game company.
Now that you dont have any games with those NES style artwork, except Shining Tears but thats not too new, there should be no one saying that graphics dont make a game when they most certainl make a good portion of it.
Just look at things like Ninja Gaiden or Devil May Cry, those are huge hits and they have wonderful graphics. How about Bloodrayne? Excelent shine effects on rayne's clothes (Rayne wears clothes!?) how about you look at Midnight Club, those were stunnung reflection details and it was one of the top games of its time. They were all some of the world's best and irreplacable games. They were stunning visually and perfectly done gameplay wise.
Now lets look at games with those poor graphical effects:
Dynasty Warriors. This game has over 18 clones of the first one it still sucks crap. There are no good points ot this game. Shining Tears, all hand drawn, no voice acting, bad animations, and a horrid storyline. What more is there to say? Look at the FMA game, there were too many BAD animations and it was too bright, not to mention only 2 footstep sounds.
Not one of those are good games or even come close to being good. Sometimes I wonder why they even try.
Last edited by The Awakening; 08-22-2005 at 11:24 AM.
First: You are only noting the 'rage' games. Sure, they sell well, but that is only because of the media hype around them. It has nothing to do with the graphics whatsoever.Originally Posted by Sinnaku
I point your atention to the sims. The old one.
At the time of release, the sims was a fun game with reasonable graphics for its time. However, as time progressed, the graphics became horribly outdated, yet every single ad-onn was still bought by the paying customer.
The game no longer had shiney graphics, yet it still sold. Scratch one reason.
Popular games do not necissarily mean they are good. The mass buys what the mass buys, it has always been that and has little to do with whether a game is good or not.
RPG bios (click for more info):
I agree popular games are not always the best to buy. Its really like a movie you could have all the top stars in one movie and the special effects could be great but the storyline could really suck. Yes you get the initial high from THESE GRAPHICS ARE GREAT!! but after awhile you could be like hmmm, for some reason i dont feel like playing anymore.
Resident Evil 4 has some really awesome graphics, and it was an awesome game as well
(Bumped)
Really old thread. I guess.
Wow i have seen some of the dumbest posts i have ever seen in this thread, keep up the great work! You NEED to take graphics on a case by case basis, it depends on what system it is on and how old the game is. Sonic 3-d blast and virtua racing plus vectroman look dated now but given the genesis hardware they are running on they look astounding. But as great as sonic 3-d blast looks it doesn't play well so it is a bad game. Good graphics lousy game play, sound like any of todays games? It's great that non classic gamers who were raised on grand theft auto and final fantasy can judge games they haven't played based just on graphics. Most of you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about take it from me. I own around 30 systems and hundreds of games from all eras i know what makes a game fun, most of you only have a ps2 or some other current gen system. And truly don't have enough knowledge about games to make a good opinion. For those who get it bravo.
Graphics make up a lot of a game today, since most of the good game idea's have already been used, everthings kinda redundant by now. If you don't put in good graphics, noones going to want the game. True graphics arent the only factor, but unless you've just come up with a revolutionary new game that has the other aspects kicking some serious ***, then you better be running the hardware it plays on to it's breaking point on those graphics.
Ignorance isn't bliss, blissful people are just incredibly ignorant.
STOP IGNORING ME!!!!!!!
"The phrase 'dead meat' is so redundant. Once something gets
classified as 'meat,' it's chances of recovery are pretty slim."
"There's a porkchop in the freezer I'm optimistic about. He's a fighter."
We have all seen games with brilliant graphics, we have also seen games with brilliant graphics which failed misserably. If a game has no story, lousy controls or just plain crappy action then a game will automatically fail if it does not have propper media backup (commercials, ads, bribing magazines)
It all comes down to this: Are graphics important? Yes, these days graphics are important. Are graphics essential? No, a game can still have sup-par graphics and be a good game.
RPG bios (click for more info):
There is nothing wrong with NES...and games arent based on graphics alone its the elements i would much rather play a good game like 007 Golden Eye Fallout 1 & 2 Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 and games like that than alot of new games due to just a crappy storyline.Originally Posted by Sinnaku
Now if its a new game with bad graphics...there is new excuse for that at all unless its a third party company that cannot afford to buy a good graphics engine.
In a show room it does make the game but if u go because everbody goes to the games that look the best and all there fancy cinmatics which half the time arent even the auctual game graphics....
There are currnet game that have both a good stroyline and graphics Half-Life 2 is just 1
Last edited by Karamas; 09-14-2005 at 08:02 AM.
Not just these days they were always important. Back when the genesis was new no one dared say they had a nes because it was considered out dated and ugly. Fast forward five years, new systems coming out 16 bit all of a sudden bad, and the 8 bit era had no bad games, thanks to nostalgia. Really very little has changed.Are graphics important? Yes, these days graphics are important.
Last edited by Darth Tyranus; 09-14-2005 at 03:18 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks