Support NeoGAF

[bomblord1]

Before I start let's not turn this into a thread about graphics vs art or people saying I think games should stop advancing because they are "good enough" even if there is a "good enough" there is also a better and who in their right mind wouldn't take the better when given the choice. There is no universal cutoff as more powerful systems allow for things to be done that just could not be done on weaker ones for examples Assassins Creed couldn't be done on early hardware in any capacity while keeping things like the AI and crowd density. Advancement is good and opens up new opportunities I just want to know what is "good enough" that you can play it without issues.

Now, I'm talking in terms of lighting/effects, textures, geometry, framerate, and resolution. For the cutoff point is somewhere around late PS2 quality. If we get into 3D models before that generation they just looked awful I honestly cannot play early N64 games because of how bad they looked (even at higher resolutions). PS2 games on the other hand still look good today when rendered at higher res's (just look at any PCSX2 shots of decent looking games and you will see my point.)

It was at this point I felt polygon budgets, texture resolutions, and lighting were good enough that the game designer could competently convey what they wanted to show without heavy compromises. In terms of resolution/fps 540p @ 30 fps is my extreme lower limit games don't look great at this resolution but I feel that resolution scales well enough to modern TV's that you can at least make out what the artist intended (480p on a modern TV looks awful it's playable but it looks awful).

So gaf what is your "cutoff" point.

 

[Flappy]

The Sega Master System was enough for me. The rest is just bonus.

Bold bright colours that are pleasant to look at.

 

[SturokBGD]

I don't care at all what it "looks" like so long as the framerate is respectable and the controls aren't antiquated and awkward. Both of which are unfortunately an issue with many console games between the mid 90s to the mid 2000s.

 

[Dominic_Shade]

When I can distinguish all visual aspects of a game from each other without extra scrutiny. For instance, when I can easily tell apart my player character from enemies, pick-ups from the environment, hiding spots from non-hiding spots, etc.

 

[Sinatar]

As long as the aesthetic is appealing, I couldn't care less about the technology behind it.

 

[Snapshot King]

Honestly I would have been happy with ps2 games forever, just provided they had higher IQ. Downsampled from 4k at at least 1080/60. IQ and framerate are a lot more important to be than textures and poly counts.

 

[LastOne2100]

SNES graphics are good enough for me.

In fact I'd prefer them over the bland brown and grey games we see so often now.

 

[taku]

Technically speaking, they will never be good enough.

That said, if you make the right choices in terms of art direction, a game can be timeless (be it 2D or 3D).

 

[Skyzard]

If it's a new and quite a big game, the cut-off is how I remember recently played games looking. Like the previous established standard. I'm not keen on going downhill at all.
Unless there is a damn good reason/excuse for it like suitable art style for the mechanics etc.

PS2 is a bit generous after seeing effects like in Infamous, Evolve. Lighting like in Far Cry 4 and AC:U.

Every new game doesn't now have to beat those, but make the effort.

 

[jblank83]

Sometime around 1992.

 

[Afrocious]

As long as it looks good.

Then there's uncanny valley stuff which I don't like normally.

 

[Yoshichan]

SNES and upwards

 

[Skilletor]

Good graphics make games more enjoyable, but there's really no point for me where graphics are a deterrent from fun gameplay. I'd say going back to before NES where the gameplay was so raw would be hard for me, though.

There have been instances on PC where I'll avoid a port (like Dark Souls before Durante fixed it) because there'd be no reason for me to purchase it when I get none of the benefits of the platform.

 

[RM8]

I don't think I even have a "cutoff" point. I can play ancient cyan and magenta MS-DOS games, green Game Boy games and even some Atari 2600 games (I say some because IMO most 2600 games had sucky gameplay). I'm more than okay with early 3D stuff as well, I love discovering PS1 / N64 games I missed back in the day.

 

[BashNasty]

Great graphics are great, but as long as the gameplay is good looks don't really matter to me.

 

[oni-link]

PS2 graphics are good enough for me, if the framerate and resolution are good then PS2 looks great, Kingdom Hearts HD looks beautiful to me, and that's only 720

Anything else is a bonus, graphics are nice, but art design is king

Though really, gameplay > everything else

 

[SoundsOfScience]

Eh, as long as the game is fun and controls well I don't really care. A strong art-style/aesthetic is more important to me.

 

[tapedeck]

"Good enough" has already happened for me, there's some stuff this gen that really impressed me.

That said there is so much potential for better visuals/immersion that I will never stop wanting devs to push the limits of whatever the current system can do.

 

[mktrOOp]

NES and upwards and 60fps are a MUST.

 

[Gsnap]

For 2D games, basically SNES and up. For 3D games, basically PS2 and up.

For the record, I can play and enjoy NES era 2D games and N64 era 3D games. But for the most part, those graphics wouldn't fall under "good enough" because there's still some issues. Like, "what exactly is this thing I'm looking at?" issues.

 

[Sylver]

Since HD remastered -exceptions like Silent Hill HD make the norm-

 

[gelf]

I've been happy enough with graphics since the best of the Dreamcast really. It's all been a bonus since the likes of Shenmue and Soul Calibur.

In terms of 2D Mega Drive and up is great. And I'll play almost anything anyway if its fun.

 

[mazpratim]

For 2D games, basically SNES and up. For 3D games, basically PS2 and up.

.

 

[Otakumegane]

Without increasing polygons or high res textures, 6th gen plus is good enough for me.

As long as the resolution goes up so I don't see jaggies or anything.

 

[lazygecko]

I'm not sure if they're ever going to be for the foreseeable future. One thing that has always bothered me for several generations are textures that look blatantly stretched out across the geometry and blurry. Sadly this is something we still have to deal with, even on PC exclusives.

 

[hydruxo]

For me, there's no cutoff date. I think certain SNES games look great artstyle wise, and I think plenty of PS4 games look great. Same goes for most consoles in between. Really just depends on the game.

 

[ClaptoVaughn]

Edit: sorry nevermind

 

[Nanashrew]

For 3D models, N64 3D graphics still appeal to me and today we can make low poly shine much better than we could back then.

2D, NES and above.

Art style and gameplay matter more for me.

 

[Bondo]

I played gamecube the other night for the first time in years. Was surprised at how good everything still looked for the most part.
So i guess u could says PS2/GCN/Xbx is about as far as i prefer to go.


Dunno, alot of games on snes/genesis/n64 are still pretty fine for me.
PS1(PSX) is probably the hardest

 

[mr_chun]

Gameplay is king, but I'm not going to pretend that I'd play a game that looked like dog shit just because it was fun. There are too many games that get both right for me to spend time on a game that gets one wrong.

I will say that I put way more emphasis on art direction that I do resolution, framerate, poly count,etc. As long as it's aesthetically pleasing, I really don't care how they got there.

 

[Stilton Disco]

For 2D we've been there since the 4th gen, 3D since the 6th, but I'm never going to not appreciate graphical improvements.

Even real life could look better!

 

[KingJ2002]

as far as 3D... I thought Dreamcast graphics were "too real" at the time... so everything else is icing.

for 2D... Neo Geo AES is my bar.

 

[JordanN]

When every game uses Path Tracing.

So 5-6 years from now.

 

[shandy706]

I'm not fussy about the hardware. I still play games from the early '80s Console/PC to current console/PC games.

SNES graphics are good enough for me.

In fact I'd prefer them over the bland brown and grey games we see so often now.

The last few major releases I've bought don't fit that description. Sunset Overdrive, Forza Horizon 2, Grand Theft Auto V, Halo MCC. They all are pretty lively, even Halo has colorful enemies (purple, yellow, etc.).

 

[Jamix012]

in terms of 2D graphics, I really think progress has been pretty slow since the SNES, and it was fine there anyway. Neo Geo was a nice improvement but definitely not a "nessecary" jump in my eyes.

3D Graphics? Give me 480p Gamecube content. I'll play 20FPS 3DO games at 480i, but I admittedly won't appreciate the graphics.

 

[Dennis]

nevah!

 

[Dimmle]

It kinda happened with Resident Evil 4. That game encapsulates the use of art direction to foster realism.

Although I've never really "hungered" for visual parity with the real world.

 

[fluffydelusions]

SNES and upwards

I remember first seeing Donkey Kong Country on SNES and thinking how can graphics get better lol

 

[michaelius]

I'm ok with TLoU HD level

 

[IceDoesntHelp]

During the ps360 era, fallout new vegas was good enough for me.

 

[Damaniel]

I'm honestly fine with where they are right now. The game industry should strive to make things even better, of course, but not at the expense of gameplay. I don't want to play a game with graphics that managed to jump right over the uncanny valley and into true realism if the experience itself is shallow and linear.

 

[emb]

DC/PS2/GCN/XB for 3D, SNES/Genesis for 2D.

But I won't turn down newer, advanced graphics. And I love getting new consoles, because it splits the libraries into discrete chunks. So I'm not even complaining.

 

[Pizza]

Captain Toad and Mario kart 8 set a new standard for what I really am impressed with graphically. I mean, they were "good enough" for me back during the GameCube (melee was insane) but they just keep getting better


I'm sick of the trend of realism in games, especially when it's trying so hard but not quite there, idk, I feel like the games age a ton faster

 

[QuickSilverD]

When we get realistic hair in real-time.


In in all seriousness though, I noticed that the better graphics get the harder it is for me to enjoy older games, playing Infamous: First Light, I couldn't help but notice how hair is not that good in that game, to the point of it being distracting (for me)

 

[Sword Familiar]

Growing up with the NES, I can appreciate graphics of all kinds and resolutions, at least from that generation and up. 3D PS1 games, for example, are charming to me. I like seeing the pixelated textures and I don't mind non-aa edges as long as the game's fun. Basically, I don't consider the graphics shitty on the basis of being "old" alone, because I only compare it to other games released on said system.

 

[Wyndstryker]

PS2 has bee the good enough bar for me.

Anytime I see great graphics now, I don't get blown away anymore. I'm just going that looks nice. There's no surprises for me in graphics tech, it just gets better and I expect it.

 

[Dimmle]

Interesting question: how many of our answers are based on the games that we played as adolescents?

 

[Molemitts]

I see Half Life 2 as the point where 3D graphics became acceptable. I mean, if someone released a game that looks like HL2 today, I would laugh at it, but at least then character models looked convincing.

 

[M1ch04c4n0]

Tetris. Heck, even some Atari 2600 where "good enough".

I really can't stand when people disregard a good game just because it doesn't spot the latest bell and whistles, or just silly stuff ("I can't like this game, it doesn't have real shadows!" or "Look at texture of tree number 5120, it looks awful, ruins my immersion!")

 

[daxgame]

SNES and upwards

yep, exactly what I was about to post.