Support NeoGAF

[Kai Dracon]

For me, when the art isn't terribly hobbled by issues like resolution, anti-aliasing, etc Because of that, there is no one "best" level of graphics. A game like Rayman Legends looks as good as it's going to get on an Xbox 360.

 

[Bodacious]

I'm pretty much down with everyone else who said SNES/Genesis level. I remember playing RC Pro Am back in the 80's and one of my friends suggesting that one day we'd have graphics in video games so good it would be like really driving a car. Well, now we do, and I still prefer RC Pro Am.

 

[tesqui]

When you can zoom into a texture with a sniper rifle and it still looks high quality.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

I've personally found that when it comes to 2D, my cut off is the 16-bit era. Something about the 8-bit era's graphics (and gameplay to some extent) I just can't go back to. 3D gets a little more complicated. PS2 is where I'm about 100%, but I can still work with PS1 era stuff depending. The weird thing is that I can not stand N64 looking graphics despite being in the middle of that. I think mostly because of the way they blurred textures. Makes it a muddy mess.

 

[ozfunghi]

When a game has a pleasing aesthetic for its purpose.

Super Mario World is "good enough" for me.
Walking Dead Survival Instinct is not.

 

[Huggers]

For 2d games the Nes is fine for me although obviously I enjoy the bigger sprites on 16bit consoles. For 3D games generally I prefer things to look a little better so PS3 is more than good enough

 

[TI82]

2d graphics hit the good enough mark for me during the psx/Saturn. But then something like Wario land shake it comes along and super impresses me so I dunno. Never good enough I guess.

 

[typist]

I would gladly cut the graphics of all modern games to MGS3/RE4 quality in exchange for the same calibre of fun and storytelling that those games delivered

 

[Rizific]

Graphics don't mean much to me personally. I hold game play higher than graphics. And 60+ fps is a big part of game play. I loved some hotline Miami,meat boy, and FTL. Will also always dump eye candy in favor of more frames per second.

 

[DriftedPlanet]

If the gameplay is good enough the only graphic complaints I have are those that muddy the environment (excessive depth of field, bloom, or motion blur) or are constantly a distraction (aliasing combined with a low frame rate).

I've been playing through inFAMOUS recently and Cole's electric powers are the only thing keeping me going. Every surface has awful aliasing and the game seems to run between 17 and 25 fps unless you move to a corner of the map overlooking the empty ocean. The number of civilians per area is excessive anyway, with 15+ people crowding me on the streets; I'd much prefer less NPCs for a smoother framerate and some AA.

 

[Bl@de]

Of course I always welcome nicer graphics. But PS2/3 was the point where it's good enough to portray everything you need for a story. For example the quality of Silent Hill 3 is good enough for me. But I'm talking about assets. Image quality is never enough.

But AI, gameplay, game size, ... Still along way to go

 

[Not Spaceghost]

I'm honestly very fine with PS2 era graphics. Anything superior is icing on the cake for me.

As long as things are clear and defined enough to be recognizable in the action then we good.

 

[SpinningBirdKick]

Resident Evil 4.

 

[TI82]

If the gameplay is good enough the only graphic complaints I have are those that muddy the environment (excessive depth of field, bloom, or motion blur) or are constantly a distraction (aliasing combined with a low frame rate).

I've been playing through inFAMOUS recently and Cole's electric powers are the only thing keeping me going. Every surface has awful aliasing and the game seems to run between 17 and 25 fps unless you move to a corner of the map overlooking the empty ocean. The number of civilians per area is excessive anyway, with 15+ people crowding me on the streets; I'd much prefer less NPCs for a smoother framerate and some AA.

Yeah... I tried to play infamous recently again and it hasn't aged well. A re-release of that game, the second, and festival of blood on the second son engine would be sweet. And change the VA for Cole to match the other two games.

 

[jem0208]

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!")

Graphics are a pretty massive part of a game. Not wanting to play a game because it looks awful is perfectly fine imo.

 

[finalflame]

Wow, some of the responses in here. Good thing most of the people in this thread are not in charge of innovation anywhere important.

Graphics will never be good enough. I think last gen was the first time graphics became truly pleasant and enjoyable in 3D environments. This gen is an improvement over last, smoothening out some of the rough edges.

But, I think graphics improvements will never be "good enough". It can always be better, and commensurate with current technological capabilities. Let's keep going.

 

[Rockondevil]

I've always been happy with graphics assuming the gameplay is good.
If I'm enjoying the game I rarely notice the graphics, but if the game plays crap, then graphics won't save it.
I do like looking at games with amazing graphics, although that's generally whilst not playing properly.

 

[Five]

For me, when the art isn't terribly hobbled by issues like resolution, anti-aliasing, etc Because of that, there is no one "best" level of graphics. A game like Rayman Legends looks as good as it's going to get on an Xbox 360.

This is a really good way to put it. Some art directions are better suited to low-poly models with fewer or lesser shaders and lighting employed, but most games fuck up their concept art and that's just simply not "good enough".

 

[Dictator93]

For me? Pretty much never.

 

[balohna]

I can play anything, but I've never felt compelled to go back and explore the Atari 2600's library because everything is super ugly.

 

[CarbonFire]

When every game uses Path Tracing.

So 5-6 years from now.

This.


While I would prefer photo-realism, we're so far off from that last little bit of fidelity that proper realistic lighting is good enough for me. And even proper realistic lighting feels so far off

 

[Chastten]

For 3D games, GameCube/Xbox level graphics still look pretty decent to me, at least on a CRT. With the right artstyle, those games don't age much. In fact, even something like Super Mario 64 still looks great to me (unlike OoT or N64 Rare games to name a few).

For 2D games, any decent late NES or beyond game. Super Mario Bros 3 and Kirby's Adventure still look awesome.

 

[AmethystEnd]

Somewhere around Chrono Trigger and Seiken Densetsu 3.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

When developers can focus on framerate, A.I and physics.

 

[Interceptor]

Dreamcast. Gameplay has basically been the same since then. Graphics are fine.

 

[MikeyB]

It depends on what the game is trying to do.

If it is pure gameplay mechanics, then I don't need anything better than good art direction with much older tech. Note that sometimes graphics impact gameplay mechanics in important ways (finding hidden objects or using icons). For example, because of the interface, which was determined by the graphics, I couldn't play Warcraft 1 these days, and Warcraft 2 would be a stretch, but Starcraft 1 is perfectly acceptable.

If it is trying to impart a sense of place, or atmosphere, or immerse me in some way in the game world, then it has to have either very very strong art direction or great graphics. Repetitive or bland textures in open world games knock me out of the immersion. I consider the opening of Megaman 2 to be great art direction that provides atmosphere, the field setting of Muramasa to be a nice combination of medium graphics and art direction, and Killzone: Shadow Fall to have fantastic art and graphics.

The problem with realism as an approach to immersion is that once you know that it can look better, it's hard to go back. San Andreas looks so much worse now, for example, because GTA V accomplished a bigger scope much more beautifully.

Strangely, I still find Far Cry 2 to be great, though it's graphics have been surpassed years ago. Probably because of the uniqueness of the setting.

 

[Jagsrock]

This gen is looking like a pretty good cutoff. I feel like the main places for improvement are in lighting and AA. Other than that grahpically I don't think we need much more, however I do think great strides can and should be made in animation and that it will be the key too for achieving truly realistic looking games.

 

[John Kowalski]

If the game runs without graphical glitches, i'm fine. Stuff like tearing, aliasing and low framerates i can bear in small quantities, but texture and geometry glitches are very uncomfortable.

 

[cyberheater]

I think our expectations of what looks "good enough" will change once devices like Oculus Rift become mainstream.

I have a feeling that folks will favour high stable frame rates and very high quality AA over texture quality and high poly scenes.

 

[Funyarinpa]

2D? GBA and SNES were perfect IMO. In a modern perspective, the minimalist games look the best: Thomas Was Alone, Limbo...

3D? A highher standard. Usually a point at which it adds to the immersion and does not remind me it's a game I'm playing. It doesn't always rely on full graphical fidelity: HL2 still holds up while the first Bioshock hasn't aged as well.

 

[Synless]

2D- SNES
3D- Playstation 2

 

[petran79]

this is good enough. Though it was developed in 1982, I used to admire the graphics and animation whenever we shopped in that department store....in 1988

 

[copelandmaster]

When every game uses Path Tracing.

So 5-6 years from now.

This + proper hair/fur rendering at 60fps.

 

[Chozolore]

2D- SNES
3D- Playstation 2

Wrong!

2D - c64
3D - N64

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

My big problems are the N64's marbled textures and textures not loading for a while.

Loading? I'm fairly confident the textures don't load on a cartridge based game.

 

[RK9039]

I think when the graphics are so shiny that you can see your own face when playing the game is when you know the graphics are good enough.

 

[zoozilla]

I've thought for a long while that Half-Life 2 is about the level I consider "good enough" - that is, if games never looked much better than HL2, I would be okay with that.

It's a good-looking game.

 

[thewhitehawk]

Snes/Genesis was the sweet spot for 2D games, and the PS2 was the sweet spot for 3D games. Weirdly enough, I think the generation that holds the most fond memories for both 2D and 3D games is the Playstation 1 era.

I think that era was as good as games got for a while, and it made a very large ripple that carried the PS2 across very easily. But I think we lost a bit of it with the PS2, and quite a bit more with the PS3, but with this new console generation, I have the feeling that thanks to new talent having feasible access to the consoles, development tools and publishing, we are getting a lot of really creative and polished games made by small and/or independent developers.

If you told me a couple of years ago that the guys who made Joe Danger would steal most of the attention from the next game conventions I'd probably say "get out of here", but then again they did and they aren't alone in the group of small developers who are making games that not only compete with ones whose budget is hundreds of times higher, but sometimes exceed them in terms of general enjoyment.

 

[Dr. Kaos]

When they are absolutely indistinguishable from real life, and not a nanosecond before.

And anybody who says different should turn in their Homo Sapiens membership card immediately! We are a species that thrives on exploring frontiers. We do not sit and say "eh, 4 continents is good enough".

The quest for perfection must never end!

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

My cut-off point is changing like it always has. It's also a hard question to answer because the things you mention simply don’t exist in a vacuum; physics especially affect the overall "pleasing to the eye" concept for me. There are tons of games out there with crisp IQ and excellent lighting that are marred by horrible physics and animations. The best I can say is that jaggies hurt my eyes more than most things.

 

[Garibaldi]

When I first saw Crysis running on my hardware I said this is enough for me...but then again I also said the same thing when I first fired up Doom 2 on my PC.

 

[maxcriden]

On the retro 2D front, SNES looks great to me. For modern consoles, PS2/GCN is okay but Wii looks good to me. Wii U looks amazing to me and I don't care about significant graphical improvements beyond this point.

 

[Coen]

I played and enjoyed Tempest last Saturday.

 

[system11]

For modern gaming, the Metro Redux release on PS4 is perfect in my opinion. It looks nice even if it may not be layered with 20,000 effects, it runs flawlessly. Seriously I don't need any more than this.

 

[Mulgrok]

The level of tech involved in graphics doesn't matter to me as long as actors, setting, and actions are clearly displayed easily identified. Too much visual clutter that obscures what is happening or available options detracts from my enjoyment.

 

[GeordieMark]

Totally depends on the game. As long as I can tell what is going on, and the frame rate is stable and at least 30fps, I'm happy.

 

[ElectricKaibutsu]

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.

This is how I feel too. I'm happy with Resident Evil 4 with perfect IQ.

 

[Disgraced]

Two words: functionality and direction.

 

[SebastianM]

PS2 over component on an early 00's Trinitron for me is enough.

 

[BPoole]

1440p, 60fps, and little to no aliasing.

Shadows, textures, volumetric lighting, lens flare, ambiernt occlusion, etc don't matter to me as much.

I still think games like Half Life 2 and FEAR look great considering how old they are