Support NeoGAF

[User 479360]

I've always said that gameplay is more important than visuals, but that's a pretty obvious statement unless you're wanting to show off tech. However, I've noticed that good graphics do make a game more enjoyable at times. At least, a great art style, which is better in my books.

Last-gen got to the point where they were good enough for me. I wouldn't have cared if that gen lasted longer.

 

[Solid SOAP]

For 3D I'd say GCN and onward.

2D, SNES and up. Well, SMB3 looks fine to me. I can't think of many other "pretty" NES games tho.

 

[kogasu]

Depends on the game. I don't have much of a cutoff unless the graphics are just so bad that I can't tell what's happening or something. I mean, as long as I like the game and it's playable, I'm all good with it no matter the system.

I'd imagine I'd have a cut off for something like the Street Fighter 2 port for ZX Spectrum though. Very detailed graphics displayed in two colors. That seems like kind of an eye sore to me. I'm not sure if that's a normal thing for the ZX Spectrum but I feel like that's something I couldn't play for very long. I wouldn't anyway, it's a horrible port.

 

[tebunker]

I think I was at good Enough with PS3 and 360. Now I just want to see the game worlds populated with more stuff, and for the worlds to be more malleable, and break able and more real in those regards.

Slightly higher resolution and more stable framerates would be good, but I am still not satisfied with the breadth and depth of the worlds. It looks like the GTA V next gen versions are what I want all games now to aspire to be, in that the world is large, populated and there is a lot going on.

 

[Blackquill]

I'm fine with a Gamecube with a good enough resolution for HDTV.

But obviously, there are games that wouldn't even exist like Mirror's Edge which is one of my favorite game in terms of graphics.

 

[Yoda]

Depends on the art style. If the game is going for a realism look, then the bar will obviously be much higher than a game going for a cartoony look.

 

[ElTopo]

Honestly, Dark Souls 2 looks fine for me. Same with Alien Isolation.

The only thing they have to get right are human faces.

 

[Brashnir]

I play games, not graphics.

I like a pleasing aesthetic as much as the next guy, but any level of fidelity is "good enough" as long as the game has its priorities in order. What I really chafe at is games where visuals and presentation come at the expense of the core game. Things like over-long animations (especially in menus), borderline unplayable framerates, graphical effects that obscure important gameplay elements (limiting the player's vision is a valid obstacle to put in a game, but often this happens unintentionally due to careless design) and the like drive me absolutely nuts.

 

[fvng]

ps2 hit the 'good enough' for me a long time ago, anything beyond that is just icing on the cake, but If i were stuck with ps2 era library, i'd be totally fine with it and wouldn't complain about the graphics

 

[SneakyStephan]

In order of importance:
-when I can get consistent frametimes to never drop below my monitor's refresh rate, a consistent framerate has the biggest impact on my ability to enjoy a game out of all graphical aspects.

-when the image quality is good enough to see what's going on effortlessly (1440p with some good real AA is already good enough for me to make a game functional )

-when there is no more pop in of any kind to distract from the action

cs 1.6 is already good enough for me as it hits all 3 points

I guess you may think I don't expect much, but almost no recent (past 5-6 years) games are able to provide any of these 3...

 

[ebullientprism]

Far Cry, the first one on the PC.

When you exit out of the sewers (closest screenshot I could find) and come out into the open. My jaw dropped.

Nicer graphics are always better but that was my "good enough" point. Like, even if it stays like that then I'm alright with it.

 

[reKon]

I loved the clean IQ of The Last of Us along with the art style. It all worked well with the fucking awesome gameplay. I've said this earlier, but I wouldn't care if Uncharted 4 looked just as good as TLoU:R running at 60 FPS if all the gameplay enhancements are in. When it comes down to it, that's what matters the most.

But the topic is on graphics, so I think think it's all about art style and extremely clean IQ. I can't wait to play SMG with clean IQ when I build my rig.

 

[roknin]

I mean I can still apply play OG Gameboy games soooooooo...

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).

This.

There really is no arbitrary line-in-the-sand to be drawn.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

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

Yup that would be perfect GRAPHICS for me too

 

[direct_quote]

PS2 and GCN era were good enough for me. Out of the hellish storm that was n64 fuzzy graphics and sub-par fps (can't believe I used to tolerate 10-15 fps games).

 

[Pachinko]

For 2D gaming ? the NES , when used properly looks "good enough". For 3D gaming though, dreamcast is kind of the bottom quality level. Anything prior to that and you suffer quite a few consequences - no z buffering or filtering in some cases, slow framerates and crap draw distance in others.

I do really appreciate modern graphics as well of course but I can tolerate a game looking a bit "2000 era".

 

[Duxxy3]

After a year of playing a PS4 and XB1, I'll be honest... I would be happy PS3/360 graphics. Not a big enough leap.

 

[PKrockin]

Almost anything is good enough when the game is designed with those restraints in mind and competent art design. I play Nethack with ASCII graphics, it's fine. I just don't know if getting to where we are now visuals-wise was worth the death of mid budget games (though they're not solely to blame).

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

I think the PS3 already passed the point of diminishing returns for me. I know that games will continue to have more and more resolutions and frames and YO THAT WEATHER THO I just stopped caring all that much.

 

[IsntChrisL]

I'm often satisfied with graphical achievements near the end of a console's life. For example: Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube. Likewise, The Last of Us looked fantastic on the PS3.

However, that line's become pretty blurred now that PC tech is so far ahead of what console makers are putting out.

Ultimately, I can enjoy most aesthetics. I think the toughest shit to go back to is the 3D of the N64/PSX era.

 

[Phat Michael]

For RPGs - i love the SNES look.
For 2D games - i love the NEO GEO AES style of sprites.

3D Games - i hated the N64/PS1 graphics..so around X360 was fine with me, but i do like the higher resolutions of the current consoles.

 

[nib95]

I can play anything tbh, even old school 8bit stuff, so there is no cut off point per se. But in a modern next gen console, I can't say I don't prefer higher resolutions with some half decent AA, purely because I game on big screens now where lesser resolutions can look quite a bit blurrier. That's still a personal but minor quibble, and ultimately won't stop me from playing even 480p games if they're good.

That said, I say keep pushing the boundaries until we have complete photo realism, and then when we have photo realistic, push for worlds, physics, structures, characters etc that push the limits of our imagination within the sphere of photo realism. I'm not saying everything needs to be photo realistic, art direction and design will always play a massive role, and some games will naturally opt for less realistic, more artistically creative visuals, but I'd certainly like some developers to keep pushing for it.

 

[Floridian]

Gamecube Graphics are fine with me

 

[kyser73]

Never. Keep pushing and pushing.

Or Dropzone on the C64. Either/or.

 

[Dunkley]

HDTV era, since the increased res certainly helped visibility and self-shadowing has to be still one of the coolest things I've seen a game have even if it is complete standard by now. Beyond the games that were suffering from lowres shadowmaps and other things, I think most games looked and still look really good, so last gen was where it was good enough for me.

And thus I would be okay if current gen made no major leaps beyond just higher resolution, as long as it meant we get a lot of games that run (and thus, play) really well in return.

 

[Dictator93]

I can play anything tbh, even old school 8bit stuff, so there is no cut off point per se. But in a modern next gen console, I can't say I don't prefer higher resolutions with some half decent AA, purely because I game on big screens now where lesser resolutions can look quite a bit blurrier. That's still a personal but minor quibble, and ultimately won't stop me from playing even 480p games if they're good.

That said, I say keep pushing the boundaries until we have complete photo realism, and then when we have photo realistic, push for worlds, physics, structures, characters etc that push the limits of our imagination within the sphere of photo realism. I'm not saying everything needs to be photo realistic, art direction and design will always play a massive role, and some games will naturally opt for less realistic, more artistically creative visuals, but I'd certainly like some developers to keep pushing for it.

PBR + Object motionblur + Frosbite animations and physicalization sounds like a LOT of fun.

 

[Garrus Vakarian]

Funny thing is, we acclimate to the graphical status quo very quickly. If I play games that are just four years old now (which blew me away at the time), I find myself quite underwhelmed by their visuals. My expectations changed. Therefore "good enough" is also a moving bar.

This is a good way to put it. Crysis 3 maxed may look weak in 7 years but it is good enough for me now. Greater graphical complexity, especially physics, can also have a positive impact on gameplay; the grass in crysis 3 being an example (people who've played it will know what I mean).

 

[DSix]

NES and upward. It's fine as long as the graphical style has a coherence to it. Though PS2/GC level graphics is the one sweet spot for me. Anything prettier is nice of course, but not a requirement.

 

[Plywood]

1280x720

 

[MaverickHunterAsh]

Honestly, the NES was the cutoff point for me. As long as a game looks good in the context of the era it was made in and complements/serves the title's gameplay and music sufficiently, it's all gravy to me.

I can go back and play something like Mega Man 5 or Zelda: A Link to the Past and feel just as satisfied with the graphics as I am when I play a current-gen beauty like Mario Kart 8 or The Last of Us Remastered. It's all about context and time period.

So yeah, there has never been a point at which I felt graphics in general are not good enough. Graphics have always been more than good enough to me in the context of the era they were produced in, but of course there will always be individual games in those eras that I feel didn't look good enough in that context. For example, Super Mario 64's graphics have obviously aged by today's standards, but they were amazing for 1996 and thus I can still appreciate them now when I replay that game. On the other hand, Superman 64 was ugly as sin by N64/late-'90s standards just as it is by today's standards. That's what I'm getting at.

EDIT: If we're solely talking about 3D games produced and released today, then PS2/3DS/PSP-level graphics are more than good enough for me. Of course I appreciate when games look better than that (and they often do), but I wouldn't really complain about a 2014/2015 game's graphics unless they seriously approached PS1/N64-era visuals, and that's not likely to happen.

 

[texhnolyze]

Fo nowadays gaming?
Playstation 2 and 3DS level graphics.

 

[JimmyRustler]

The 360/PS3 generation of consoles was the first one where I actually thought that it looks good enough. Prettier graphics are always nice I mean but the change will just never be as impressive again I think.

 

[Three]

They will never be good enough. The absolute key to good graphics are graphics you don't notice. If you achieve that then it's mission accomplished as far as I'm concerned. The problem comes from the fact that graphics improve slowly and with every improvement you notice the flaws more when you go back to play older games. The older the game the more jarring those graphics become because you begin to notice the graphics rather than the graphics being a means to an end. Ofcourse there are artsyles where a game can age very well. For example, I don't think anybody would notice the graphics when playing Hohokum 10 years from now.

 

[Arkam]

Unreal Engine 3

Yea you can get away with less and you can make things look better with more. This however provides Enough to do anything you want (more or less) and looks damn good without much work.

 

[Tigress]

I guess I'm picky. I'd say about the PS3 level (basically most games on the PS3 I've played. Well except Infamous 1. I mean granted I tried playing it just a year or two back but it looked really dated to me and at the time PS3 was still new to me cause I got it late).

 

[daniels]

For me this is the wrong question, i'm not at all in favour of EVER stopping to try and improve things.

 

[Cilla]

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.

This. Happy with those. Everything else is a bonus.

 

[Gully State]

Aesthetically pleasing art style.
Communicates game mechanics well.

That's about it...

 

[baterism]

2D - SNES
3D - PS2

And uh... I really like 60fps.

 

[Quasar]

When they can be indistinguishable from reality.

 

[Relativ9]

For me the bar of what "good enough" is, is constantly being raised. This goes back to how I feel about most things in life, if things aren't constantly being improved upon and I see a constant sign of progression I tend to loose interest in it once the initial novelty has worn off. It's the same with games. Right now I'm really liking the lighting engine in Driveclub, so in the future anything less then that will be seen as sub-par in my eyes. I can still enjoy different games for different reasons, but I'll never regard anything as good enough. Things can always and therefore should always improve.

 

[Dr.Acula]

If the dev can achieve the level of visual fidelity they want with zero compromise, then it's good enough. You take something like Fez, and I wonder if Phil Fish had to drop the resolution, number of on screen objects, or anything else to get the game where he wanted visually. I doubt it. Something like Shadow of Mordor, while it looks great, I bet they had self-imposed limits on geometry, texture resolution, etc.

So it depends on the game.

 

[DOWN]

When I can see individual snowflakes melting on my armor. When the world is as detailed as Lord of the Rings CGI and twice as large.

 

[Kasumin]

For me it's about aesthetics and the art style more than raw graphical power. I go back to 16-bit games like Chrono Trigger and still find them gorgeous. Probably also has to do with what I grew up with.

 

[KKRT00]

I can play anything tbh, even old school 8bit stuff, so there is no cut off point per se. But in a modern next gen console, I can't say I don't prefer higher resolutions with some half decent AA, purely because I game on big screens now where lesser resolutions can look quite a bit blurrier. That's still a personal but minor quibble, and ultimately won't stop me from playing even 480p games if they're good.

That said, I say keep pushing the boundaries until we have complete photo realism, and then when we have photo realistic, push for worlds, physics, structures, characters etc that push the limits of our imagination within the sphere of photo realism. I'm not saying everything needs to be photo realistic, art direction and design will always play a massive role, and some games will naturally opt for less realistic, more artistically creative visuals, but I'd certainly like some developers to keep pushing for it.

Cant wait for E3 demo, it should be glorious.

PBR + Object motionblur + Frosbite animations and physicalization sounds like a LOT of fun.

And Area Lights!

 

[Nyoro SF]

I feel like my cutoff is when fuzzies start appearing in 3D games. I just can't handle lack of aliasing and overuse of blur on 3D models.

It doesn't really matter to me how "complex" art is as long as it fits the look of the overall game. It doesn't need to blow my socks off, just have solid presentation and consistency.

I feel like SEGA did this well in the past, which is why I would like to revisit a few of their older 3D games with proper AA this time around.

 

[-Cwalat-]

I want digital visuals to exceed reality. I want to be able to experience something that we can't yet conceive.

This unknown mystery that lies beyond us, i think is what motivates developers.

Hopefully, we won't "settle" for graphics... ever.

 

[Eusis]

Really depends on the visual style going for it, the right style and you get many 3D PS1/N64/SS games that still look plenty nice to me. For more realistic stuff though it's gotta be somewhere around the mid to late PS2/Xbox/GC stuff.

2D's similar in that mid-NES onwards is generally preferable, but done right and much of it's nice period.

 

[Nozem]

I'm happy with current gen graphics, but that is right now. In about five years I'll have become tired of them, and I'll be looking forward to next gen.

This cycle will repeat until I can't tell the difference between real world video and in game graphics.

Only then are we done.

 

[Hahs]

At what point do graphics become "good enough" for you?

When immersion remains consistent - when senses and technology merge..nearly there.