how far back are you willing to go until graphics 'matter' in a game?
Not one inch. Graphics not mattering was always cope. You can make an excellent and snappy game even if you have good graphics. For example SF6 is the best Street Fighter ever and it also has the best graphics.
dumb aquaposter
>>740990207Graphical clarity has always mattered, and aspects like stability/fps can matter. When people say graphics don't matter, they mean that graphical fidelity should not come at the expense of gameplay, be it directly or indirectly via resource allotment during development. A pretty game with shit gameplay is still a shit game, but the opposite can still be a good game
I'd say mid 2000s unless it's sprite based
>>740990449
>aquajeet with another retarded opinion
>>740990291I agree with this post!
>>7409902073d space, 120hz physics tickrate, some kind of artistic style to speak of, HRTF 2-channel audiothat's all that matters
>>740990825>3d space, 120hz physics tickrate, some kind of artistic style to speak of, HRTF 2-channel audio
>>740990874whatever game this is, it absolutely does not have a 120 tick rate or HRTF
>>740990207I regularly play ASCII roguelikes such as Angband.Clarity and readability are the most important thing, over pure graphical complexity.
Brother I play shit like Cogmind, CDDA, Warsim and Approaching Infinity.I do not give a fuck about graphics if the rest of the game is compelling.
>>740990917>he cant run a DOS game at 120hz
i dont think graphics get inherently better over time. modern graphics can look bad, because their visual clarity is low. yeah they have more detail but there are other things to consider. games from the early 2000s are far more legible and the visuals work better in most ways. graphics should support the gameplay not get in the way of it.
>>740990979and the HRTF?
>>740990207when people say "graphics don't matter" i think they mean "fidelity/photorealism doesn't matter"it's all about art style and creative vision. there have always been games that are striking and visually appealing, and games that aren't
>>740990207it doesnt matter at all to me, what matters more is the gameplay of the time to me, i dont want to play atari 2600 games really because they just arent fun, it doesnt have anything to do with the graphics, but if someone made a game in the modern age that looked like a second generation console game, but played like a more reasonable era of gameplay design (like just anything 3rd gen onwards), id be fine with it (of course, as long as the game is fun)
>>7409902071981
Performance is what actually matters. A beautiful game running at ~30 FPS is less enjoyable than an ugly game running at 60+ FPS.
>>740991280This. There are NES games that look good, and modern games that look garbage
>>740990207In 2D? mid 1980sIn 3D? Anything before the year 2000 is pure vomit, sorry. Warcraft 3 is the line. If you can't even reach that level of graphics, you can't handle making a 3D game yet. Stick to isometric or 2.5D or something. The N64 was a mistake, half the PS1 games are pixelated diarrhea, and don't even get me started on the camera. And every game of that era runs at 2 frames per minute as well.The market of that era demanded THREEE DEEE but it came out like shit and the quality of games suffered.Same with crpgs during a certain era, they demanded diablo clones and we got them, well they sucked ass and now everyone plays turn-based crpgs and they're a hundred times better.
>Anything before the year 2000 is pure vomit, sorry.
>>740990207For action games, SNES/GBA is the minimum. NES/GBC is just a fever dream to decipher.For non-action games, I haven't played too many older ones, but SimCity 1 seems just barely tolerable.
>>740991787>NES/GBC is just a fever dream to decipher.the zoomers head explodes when confronted with 8-bitsad!
>>740991787>where do I go I'm so confused
>>740990207don't care if the game's good/thread
>>740990874it injects hrt into you using the audio channels? Fucking woke troon noise.
>>740990207nes is my limit
>>740990207Doesn't matter, in fact I love weird funny old graphics like your pic. Like I can't even really tell what's going on it's sort of just strange abstract things.
>>740991613>playing system shock on switch ( yeah )>go play prey on PS4 ( yeah sorry )>shit fov, shit input lag, shit framerate >instant strong body rejection spasms, as if I ingested poison I hate being a console nigger
>>740991764Posting with an avatar is looked down upon on anonymous image boards
I grew up with Atari 8-bit games, so for me any game that has more than 16 colors on screen looks good to me.
>>740992383And if I didn't make it clear, it's the contrast between SS2 running at a good frame rate and fov + gyro aiming and Prey that makes it impossible to go back to the console port of Prey.The whiplash is intense.
>>740990207GET THIS FRIGGIN DUCK AWAY FROM ME
>>740992461thats a dragon, ackshually
>>740990207If every game after the year 2005 looked like Gen5/Gen6 graphics, I would have zero complaints.
>>740992383stuff like that is why I gave up console gaming some of the settings devs choose are absolutely idiotic and there's nothing the player can do about it
>>740990291SF3 is by far the best Street Fighter visually. You're full of shit.
>>740990207TextI play text games
>>740993524I thought it was Fhqwhgads.
I keep coming back to this shit, so...
>>740990207Hard to say, but I've recentlyish gone back to late 80's.
2D, it doesn't really matter. The games generally are more simple. Some action games can benefit from higher res 2D art but it isn't usually necessary. Good pixel work can do the job on decent enough hardware. I guess "SNES/Genesis" is a good safe spot though.3D, probably Gamecube. Less than that looks pretty awful on modern TV's and most people don't have a CRT to set it up on. Anything before that would benefit from a texture upgrade.
>>740991843There were some later NES games with impressive pixel work, like Mario 3, Kirby, Battletoads and a few others.Rare and Nintendo had a lot of talent though, and usually were able to push the hardware to its limits. Most devs couldn't achieve that without horrendous amounts of lag. SNES is a much safer place and often looks better even by those games standard.
>>740990207I'd rather not play things lower than NES level graphics. But I can stomach a game of Space Invaders or Centipede. That's fun enough to forgive the visuals.
>>740996594Graphics weren't the NES' main stumbling point. Even LJN managed decipherable sprites and visuals. The real problem was lots of NES devs didn't know what was fun. Hundreds of Mario ripoffs but with abysmal controls or stupid, mazelike levels where you're just expected to wander endlessly to drive up the playtime.
>>740995095This is a game? I thought it was a metroid map screen for a moment.
>>740990207Bad graphics ain't the problem it's the gameplayAtari games are so simple gameplay-wise they can't hold my attention for more than a few minutes
>>740990207All the way nigga.
>>740990207You start to lose me a bit when you go deep into the early 80s and 70s. Some games from those times are still fun and worth playing but man can they be hard on the eyes when they're working with so little. I'm definitely most comfortable from the 90s onward.>>740991730A lot of early 3D was genuinely ugly as you say, but plenty still worked quite well.
Graphics obviously matters. I grew up with arcades and Dragon's Lair was staggering compared to other games at the time, but after a honeymoon period, almost no one played it because gameplay-wise it was pretty bad when it asked an increased price per play.Graphics are important as long as it doesn't obstruct the gameplay itself. You could play games with no graphics outside of text rendering and enjoy it or play the shiniest ray-tracing game on the market and enjoy it both.The issue is when the graphical fidelity is prioritized over aspects pertaining to gameplay.You know how you'd go to a cinema to watch some Marvel slop and practically the only good thing you can say is>well it looks visually pleasing that's for sureThe only way it can be excused if it's breaking new ground, like Cameron's Avatar or -if we're circling back to video games- Horizon Zero Dawn (the landscape I mean).What's the point of having super neat graphics if they're going to be splashed with yellow paint or if you can't interact with anything, or if it's just a pretty skybox?Gameplay has to come first, but I don't think anyone would object to a shiny graphical update to their favorite game, provided that the only thing getting changed is the graphics and nothing else.
>>740995095ogey but how do i unlock that top right room
