Do graphics matter to you? What constitutes good graphics...

Do graphics matter to you? What constitutes good graphics? I was thinking about this and came to a conclusion that to me Gothic and Morrowind have better graphics than Witchu 3. I know it sounds hilarious, but to me technically unimpressive or dated graphics are usually better than modern ones, since they inspire my imagination. Older games look better for me because my imagination upgrades them, it also helps immersion, as the need to use imagination = more immersive experience. I actually like to set graphics to lowest possible quality (the only thing I always keep max if possible is field of view, because I like to see far away), and I'm considering experimenting with configuration files to downgrade graphics beyond the settings given by the devs.

Not related to graphics, but I also came up lately with an idea of turning the music off, leaving only the effects and speech (figured it would be comfy to listen to my footsteps and birds singing and whatnot instead of some pompous orchestra in the background).

How about you? Do you like the atmosphere and appeal of older graphics over the technically advanced ones, or enjoy downgrading in general, or do the graphics matter a lot to you?

Anyone?

I just wish games had more view distance options.

I'd happily accept shit textures and models if I never saw a single object/shadow pop-in

>Do graphics matter to you?
It only mattered up to "good enough" tier, i don't care about super HD texture, ultra-realistic visual, in fact i liked it when game tries to use stylized graphic especially when it done the right way.
Graphic doesn't mean shit when you lift your controller and start playing, but the game isn't feel fun to play and just pleasant to the eyes.

>Do you like the atmosphere and appeal of older graphics over the technically advanced ones
Again, i don't care about graphics but atmosphere means a lot more than just graphic, right area design, sound design and art usage combined.

The only time i nag about "graphic" is when they decide to use shitty artstyle or character design, eg. character with tumblr nose.

You sound like a fag but I've been caring less and less about graphics recently because all the good games coming out with good graphics are shit that I don't think look fun to play at all. Maybe if something came out that I'd enjoy that had good graphics I would care more.

Also I'd prefer more consistent graphics with little pop in compared to ultra detailed graphics with shit popping in left and right because you can't keep that level of detail over everything at the same time.

Though even ignoring graphics, older games are more likely to be clunky and have stiff animations. Older looking graphics could still look nice if they had the smoothness of modern animations and movement design. This doesn't apply to all older games but take something like SWAT 3, which I think looks fine, but its animations aren't very good and are pretty robotic. If you had some good quality motion capture animations though it would look a lot better in motion even with the same graphics.

If the game goes for realistic artstyle, then yes they matter

Artstyle > Graphics
Try and argue with me. Paper Mario will always look good.

Depends on the artstyle, you can also go for artstyle and look like shit like millions of pixelart games

A well implemented art style always trumps over raw graphics, realistic graphics only show how far we are from achieving actual photorealism.

That's his point, he's saying good artstyle is better than good graphics, not that games having an artstyle are better, that'd be stupid because all games have an artstyle, realistic is an artstyle too.

witcher 3 looks fuckin good and i often pause just to look at shit
but idgaf about graphics
the games you chose look like ABSOLUTE SHIT without mods though
quake 2 has good graphics, delta force has good graphics, anything that looks, for lack of a better word, 'crunchy', is my shit
fuckin psx graphics yeah boi lovin it always emulate in software mode never uprez that shit hardware is for bitchbois

>fps
matters
>resolution
matters
>atmosphere
matters
>aesthetics
matters

any thing else is shit.

If by graphics you mean texture resolution and polygon counts I really don't care, games can look great without those.

I'm playing Xenoblade Chronicles. It's funny seeing really elegantly designed robots but its textures and things like gears are low res as fuck.

Quack.

this
the lower the resolution the better

I am lost. I actually played Morrowind a bit ago and felt like weeping due to how graphically impressive it was. Are you guys that picky that slightly sharpened graphics are that important to you?

For your example, you're mixing up graphics and aesthetics where graphics are the power or the technical side that powers everything while aesthetics are the art design and style used for the game. So to clarify your example, Witcher 3 has better graphics, but Gothic and Morrowind have better aesthetics. Sometimes, lowering the graphics will only reduce the power the game outputs to what is shown on screen, but may leave the aesthetics and artstyle untempered with.

Sometimes, you'll see people say that they can easily play a game if it was nothing but squares and other shapes, but when they say that to put down the desire of graphics, they are actually putting down the desire of aesthetics and artstyle without realizing it. That's not what they are going for, but that's how it comes off as. That's not to say a game designed that way can't be interesting, but that example is used as an extreme against the idea of graphics.

For the most part, yes, artstyle is more important than graphics, but it is also important for the graphics to be able to keep up with the artstyle in mind, even if the artstyle is realistic. Poor utilization of graphics can hinder aesthetics. An example of this can be seen in the indie game, Yandere Simulator. It's not in a fully playable state yet, but the way the game is currently being handled and developed will hinder how the game's final artstyle will appear since it has a lot of problems with the placeholder artstyle to begin with.

So to answer your question directly, aesthetics matter more to me that graphics, but the graphics should be competent enough to deliver the aesthetics as intended.

graphics are good but they should not be put in front of gameplay like AAA companies seem to forget, if a game has great gameplay but bad graphics I won't care, for things like classic doom. They don't have fancy lens flare or particle effects but the gameplay is great enough for it to be a fun game. New doom has pretty good graphics but awful gameplay, at least I didn't have to pay to play it.

That's a cute duck.

Wow, a real thread?
There is a reason many people want the "ps2 graphics" to make a return. It's good enough to still inspire imagination while looking great and running smoothly. Just increasing view distance, animations, reflections, volumetric clouds, etc, is what I think an old franchise needs if it seeks a modern day sequel.

...

playing games with ps2-tier models, textures, and shaders at modern resolutions will probably change people's minds

Graphical fidelity isn't high on my list.

Art style is.

Megaman Legends and Metal Gear Solid 2 are beautiful games.

thats true. everything used to be blurred to shit to hide how bad it was, its really obvious when going back to it being blurry or seeing it without the blur

I care more about resolution than graphics.

A gamecube game in 1080p look a million times better than a 2017 game at native 720p

AHAHAHAHAHAHA XD

This. Old games look good... until you run them at 1080p, and then you see how crude they are with painful clarity. This is why I never upscale games with emulators - raising resolution only makes games look better if the art assets are high-quality enough to support it, and for console games they generally aren't.

>A gamecube game in 1080p look a million times better than a 2017 game at native 720p
This is the worst opinion I've ever heard.

it was the first correct result from google, kys

Graphics really don't matter as much to me. If I can distinguish what is actually going on then I am happy enough.

Something like the Velocity games have some very bare and flash game like graphics but it isn't too busy and I can distinguish everything and they are great games, and I can forgive any pseudo-8/16 bit games as well even if they don't adhere to the limitations of the consoles they were aiming for.