Support NeoGAF

[Shivvy_NTL]

Uncharted 2 for me, anything better is a bonus.

For cartoonish games it's ratchet and clank a crack in time.

 

[Goldfishking]

Happened to me during the middle of the 360's life cycle. Sure i appreciate it when games look better but only for a few minutes and anything after 2006/2007 still looks good enough to me to play.

Also to people saying 1440p, anti-aliasing etc, im afraid that wont be good enough for you. And you will never be content with how video games look

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The graphics in Driveclub and The Order help draw you into those worlds. They would be less believable with "PS2 graphics." Gameplay isn't the ONLY aspect of games that matter.

But we were drawn into worlds 10-15 years ago. And that's ignoring cool little visual tricks games would use or be forced into a certain art style because it translated better in lower resolution. You don't need the best graphics ever to create a world that players can be totally immersed in (Morrowind for example).

I find a lot of the best graphics and technical achievements in gaming were done trying to overcome technical limits. I think without those limits, a part of the design of games suffers.

 

[evilromero]

As far as 3D? The Dreamcast was good enough for me. It took what the N64 started and polished the hell out of it. I'd be fine playing GTA and MGS on that thing.

 

[MagnaderAlpha]

For me, graphics are already good enough. I really don't crave photo-realistic graphics. I'd much rather have game development(and progression) focus on making games run smoother, iron out the bugs and find a way to speed up loading times. If they could focus on all that MORE and graphics remain the same, it could be for the rest of time, I could care less as long as they give a good, solid gaming experience(basically, focus on the gameplay and technical side of programming, and ease up off the graphics race).

 

[BigTnaples]

When the NPCs in a game don't know they're in a game. I want full on simulation.

 

[Buddha Beam]

As long as they can do justice to the art style, they're good enough for me. Art style has always been more important than graphics, IMO.

 

[J2 Cool]

Now-ish. All you need to do is play GTAV on PS3 and PS4 to see the difference.

Games with solid framerates, less jaggies to appreciate the art, good animation and scope. Mario 3d World, DK Tropical Freeze, Wind Waker HD, GTAV.. its a really good time for graphic whores and theyre dramatically important to me as its all so interrelated. I enjoy Shadow of the Collossus more when I dont deal with slowdown.

 

[Puru]

360/PS3 era was good enough.
I'm only impressed by handhelds (will come to a stop) and good looking 2D games now.

 

[Micken]

Like some others, SNES and afterwards is good enough for me. Graphical power isn't near so important as aesthetic. Good graphics is just a bonus. Of course, I wouldn't want to live in a world without 3D. 3D games benefit a lot from better graphics, so I'll always be looking forward to what they can do next.

 

[Tidus_Great]

i was honestly fine with FF12 , god of war 2 level graphics.

I appreciate better graphics but after that i think we got diminishing returns. Also graphicsl ike that are cheap to make and companies can make better games unlike alot of the bad games we have nowdays that are all flash no substance. Look at the ps2 era where we had tons more games with better stories.

 

[Wolf Akela]

60fps, native res, at least DECENT art style.

I don't care about the rest.

 

[hiex_]

I think a game's graphics quality can be almost anything as long as it's art style is interesting.
PS1 games are notorious for looking pretty goofy, but I think stuff like Vagrant Story look fantastic.

Likewise, there are plenty of technically impressive games that I don't like the look of. Crysis and most FPS games come to mind.

It's all about art.

 

[lingpanda]

Genesis and SNES are good enough for consoles. Some NES and SMS games are adequate as well.

 

[Lindsay]

They were good enough for me in the DC/GC/PS2/XBOX gen. Nothing on PS3 blew me away or made me think like yeah this is much better then last gen.

 

[AstroNut325]

No such thing for me. I always want progress. Better visuals really help immerse me in worlds, so I appreciate them a lot.

That doesn't mean I don't still enjoy less graphically intense games though.

This is my opinion as well.

 

[MrxDemix]

Source engine games.

 

[chemicals]

I am happy with xb360 graphics. It will be a long time before I buy an xbone.

 

[magnumpy]

the holodeck from star trek is "good enough." so basically nothing within our lifetimes will be "good enough."

 

[Final Verdict]

Dunno, you get used to controls. Played Turok 2 with a friend back in the day as well and we both though the controls were ok.

Yeah, that is true, it got better after an 30 mins or so, but it sure does make me grateful for the improved controls and controllers we have today.

 

[The Sarcastic Dude]

A decent amount of sixth gen games still look good. But seventh was when it became good enough for me.

 

[Dalthien]

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!")

Yep. It depends on the game, but yeah, there are games all the way back to the 2600 that are plenty good enough graphically to allow the game to function exactly as intended.

 

[hurricanes]

I think the standard will depends on the style of the game. In general, I would say min to no jaggies(to human eye that is) is "good enough".

 

[Poodlestrike]

I have a tough time defining it, but I feel like the only system still on the market that has graphics bad enough (on a technical level) to really bug me is the 3DS. And even then, it's not universal.

So... better than the average 3DS game, and I'm happy.

 

[zeroroute]

last gen (ps3/360)

 

[Hyperzephyrian]

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory came out for the original Xbox in 2005. It was one of the best-looking games of its time, and it's still good enough for me. I don't mind having shinier graphics, but, warts and all, I don't need anything better.

 

[exmachina64]

It's not that the level of technical advancement isn't "good enough" on old platforms like the PS2, it's that games that aimed to be "photorealistic" aren't good enough after something better was released.

Basically, it comes down to aesthetics. Games with a more stylized art style are fine, sometimes great. Games that aimed to be realism simulators don't hold up as well.

As long as there are platforms on which I can play these games (and at acceptable resolutions) decades later, I'm fine.

 

[SubtleTea]

For 3d? The psp is my minimum. For 2d? The snes/gba.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

2 more generations should do it.

 

[akachan ningen]

They've been good enough since PS2 for me

 

[Almighty]

Depends on the genre, but in general if games stayed how they look now I would be fine with that. Assuming the trade off was that we would then use the extra hardware power of the future to put more stuff on the screen, develop better AI, and so on.

 

[espher]

2D for me was SNES-on.

3D for me was PS2 on, with a "close enough" grade for N64 because of nostalgia goggles (DKR, SBK, original SSB still hold a soft spot for me).

With 360-on, we started to dip more into 'trying to be realistic' territory, and it's going to be probably well into this gen (or the high end PC space now) before I say that is nearing "good enough" for me.

I'll take impressive, vivid, timeless stylized stuff over "totes real" any day.

 

[orborborb]

I can usually appreciate old graphics provided they are presented at their original screen resolution on an even grid of crisp pixels. Actually, most games tended to be released at slighter higher resolutions than was artistically optimal. Unreal Tournament for example looks freaking amazing at 400x300, but somewhat cheesy at 640x480.

 

[Converse]

I like retro games -- sprite-based stuff is typically easy on the eyes, though 3D mileage may vary.

That said, a clean image is paramount for me. If you can get an N64, PS2, Wii or what-have-you game running at a high resolution (preferably with bells and whistles like anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing), the graphics look great to me.

 

[autoduelist]

I'm fine with ASCII Nethack.

 

[Infernal Monkey]

2D - SNES
3D - PS2

 

[Mass Effect]

I'm not really a stickler when it comes to graphics. Don't get me wrong, I love great graphics no doubt, but I'm more concerned with frame rate and resolution.

Like if I had PS2 or GameCube level graphics in 1080p60, I would be okay with that.

 

[Theognosis]

Daytona USA graphics is good enough. It made 60 FPS the absolute standard. Anything less is a joke.

 

[red720]

There is a point, perhaps around 1987 where 2d arcade games started to look pretty good. Stuff older than that seems ancient to me. I think around then the number of colours increased quite a bit. Stuff like Double Dragon and Robocop seemed so amazing compared to what I was playing at home (Exile on the BBC Master).

 

[Bacon_Boss]

I just need things to be well defined. blurry textures are the worst. Blurry faces are unspeakable. I couldn't play goldeneye today, and i really want to know if that wall is ice or just light rock. Anything past that point is ok.

Newest Nastume Harvest moon is an exception though. Game urks the shit out of me.

 

[Huge Succeeded]

i judge graphics on a case by case basis. anything else makes no sense to me. i can love the style of a game with bad or dated graphics if it uses what is there well to cultivate atmosphere or otherwise add to my experience of the game, and vise-versa

 

[Laconic]

NES Contra.

 

[Ingueferroque]

Just because I think some 8, 16, 32bit and up games are gorgeous and visually perfect, does not mean I don't want this side of gaming to stop evolving. I need that benchmark to be pushed further and further, it is just part of the industry and we are not nearly 'there' yet.

 

[GamerJM]

3D-I'm gonna say like.....around the better looking PS2 stuff. I don't really want to say DreamCast or early era PS2 but Gamecube/Xbox/late-era PS2 is good enough.

2D-About as good as Super Mario Bros. is good enough I guess. I mean there's some pretty fugly stuff on the NES but as long as it has good art design then I'm fine with 8-bit graphics, 16-bit and on I'm fine with a much higher percentage of titles.

Also, by "fine with," I don't mean that anything less is unplayable, I'll play just about anything. I mean that I wouldn't care if graphical fidelity never improved beyond that point.

 

[Sub_Level]

Anything from PS1 onwards.

1 as in "one".

For 2D, I can play pong just fine so pretty much anything.

 

[BouncyFrag]

When I got back into gaming with the Xbox 360 since being off it since the 16-bit era, I've been happy with most games and even more so since I've gotten a ps4.

 

[Astral Dog]

Im not sure what this thread is about,but i will try.

I always expect graphical advances, but depends on the platform, type of game, art direction and other things, like, a 3DS,Wii,PS2,Xbox game can be "good enough" except there is not a point were something is ever good enough to me, imagine a new game on a next gen/current gen system? :O

I say type of game, because graphics are not the most important thing to me. but a part of the puzzle that makes a great videogame, i can see games like Killzone shadowfall for PS4 and admire them for what they can achieve, but if its not a game i want to play, then i dont give a shit about it,

its all about expectations, the jump from DS to 3DS, for example, had me hyped, games like OoT, 3D Land, RER,KH 3D, PW 5,that have high production values and can be played on a portable system was mind blowing, and thats what is most important, to see my favorite franchises and games, looking better than ever on a new platform.

What i mean is, i would like to see the games i love taking advantage of the latest game development techniques and technology, i would like to see my favorite games coming with bigger budgets, bigger worlds, better production values, everything.
But at the end of the day, its the gameplay , characters and worlds i value most, some get to advance, others die, others are released on less powerful systems, tech is advancing to create wonderful things, but to me that is nothing without the proper videogame to show it off.

 

[Anura]

My cut-off point doesn't have anything to do with graphics. Graphics are a bonus but gameplay is what I really enjoy about games. I'd rather replay Metroid Fusion, LOZ:ALTTP or Super Mario 64 yet again than play a vast majority of the AAA games out currently.

 

[NavyPharaoh]

Wow some of you guys are easy to please, which is a good thing. I would say now for me, as there's some early PS3/360 stuff that looks bad but everything now is ultra crisp. I can see diminishing returns being a major problem after this gen as it is. Maybe last gen will be more accurate for me but I haven't seen a 4k TV yet, so I don't know what new standard I will become accustomed to.

 

[Later Alligator]

some of my favorite games have terrible but charming graphics, i still play nes/gameboy games

that being said i dont need anything better then your average ps2 game. resolution and a stable frame rate help things a lot

i want 16:9, 1080p and 60 fps