Nainstalovat Steam
přihlásit se
|
jazyk
简体中文 (Zjednodušená čínština)
繁體中文 (Tradiční čínština)
日本語 (Japonština)
한국어 (Korejština)
ไทย (Thajština)
български (Bulharština)
Dansk (Dánština)
Deutsch (Němčina)
English (Angličtina)
Español-España (Evropská španělština)
Español-Latinoamérica (Latin. španělština)
Ελληνικά (Řečtina)
Français (Francouzština)
Italiano (Italština)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonéština)
Magyar (Maďarština)
Nederlands (Nizozemština)
Norsk (Norština)
Polski (Polština)
Português (Evropská portugalština)
Português-Brasil (Brazilská portugalština)
Română (Rumunština)
Русский (Ruština)
Suomi (Finština)
Svenska (Švédština)
Türkçe (Turečtina)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamština)
Українська (Ukrajinština)
Nahlásit problém s překladem
I would say since 2008.
You can see that if a game has several parts.
In regards to: Does it matter?
Conversely, the graphics (but generally NOT the music) CAN break a game. Music can be turned off if its bad.
But Graphics only OBJECTIVELY break the game if they are bad in a technical sense. Extremely poorly optimized, janky animations or serious texture issues.
Graphic STYLE does not matter in general because it is a subjective matter and even if it doesn't appeal to an individual will still find its intended niche as long as the rest of the game is good.
Simple fact, none of the bestselling games of all time had "good graphics" as defined by most people who use the "these graphics suck therefore this game sucks" argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_games
As witnessed by PUBG, Terraria and Minecraft being in the top 3. None of these pushes the bar on graphics at all, hell pubg is objectively subpar from a technical standpoint even, and the other two are literally "pixel" graphics. But none of them have BAD graphics, their art style is consistent, they are technically adequate, and suits the level of intended immersion.
The next 3 are Diablo 3, which WAS technically bad and kind of embarassing to see on this list, Garry's mod which DOES have bad graphics, and Rust, which no one would ever mistake for "good" graphics.
The simple synopsis is that as much as a minority of people want all the latest bells and whistles in their visual experience, they are just that. A Minority. When it comes to the success of a game, the truth is, graphics do not matter, with the caveat being that if they are so bad (performance wise/functionally) they start to matter.
Outlandish examples are only proof if you can cite an actual released product that does it. For that matter, the burden of proving that graphics matter in games, falls entirely to you. And you'll already fail given how popular text-only games were (for an absolute extreme) and the rest of the 8-bit library for broader example -- had graphics truly mattered, gaming likely would not be a thing now, as the "poor" graphics would have kept sales so slow, that the crash would have killed the industry permanently. Instead, there's over 40 years of gaming history with examples to prove you wrong.
The most important thing in a remaster for those returning from the original is the gameplay. Does it live up to the original experience? Has it been tweaked to make better use of today's conventions (i.e., offering an alternative to tank controls). This flows into the second most important: accessibility -- such as improved fonts (which might not be important in some languages, but is a major bonus for CJK, for example).
After that comes story, has it been altered? Was it toned down to conform to today's expected moral standards? (if a yes, the game generally becomes a hard pass for purists / fans of the original).
At the bottom will be graphics and sound. People aren't buying remasters in most cases for "improved" graphics. That's something often cited in marketing blurb to appeal to an audience that didn't have access to the original.
It's not about having different opinion, it's about lying to oneself. Imagine a guy telling himself that he is "a game purist" who completely doesn't care about graphics(well, Crazy Tiger apparently is one so he's excluded from that), it sounds to me like "personality purist syndrome", the guys who say that only personality matters and then become infatuated with a girl who looks attractive, despite presence of with "better" personalities who don't look as attractive.
What about game called V.A Proxy?
I have never stated that I dislike any kind of graphics, I just said it matters, or like I said later, it is one of the factors.
"Mount and Blade Warband" is one of the best examples that says otherwise.
But I'm not surprised seeing people go ape-crazy over pre-rendered trailers like GTA 6 one.. crazy world
I can tell you that I lose interest in it when reading this:
And as such make my initial judgement based on its core game play mechanic and not on anything else.
There's a demo though, so that immediately gets it a chance to prove itself to me. But I won't be judging on the graphics but on how unforgiving the parry mechanic is. And as such, "graphics don't matter to me" in the case of determining whether I would buy this game. The gameplay is of first importance. It's not released yet, so the next deciding factor would be price. If it's over 6,000 JPY, it's a hard pass. I don't buy ANYTHING priced over that anymore.
It's like RGG8 (Like a Dragon Infinite Wealth). My decision to pass on that is purely on two points:
- Base game price (at almost 10,000 JPY it's far too expensive and I won't support that price point when previous entries were only 7,000 JPY (or less) at release.
- They want to charge an additional 2,000 JPY for New Game Plus. I won't support making game modes paid DLC ever.
As you can see, I didn't once judge on graphics. I've played all other RGG games since the first release on PS2 (including the hard to find Wii U remake and the PSP spin offs).
Yep, its usually implied because a game can't exist without some form of graphics. Like i mentioned earlier its the same when people say money doesn't matter, it doesnt mean you don't ever have money, just that other things are more important then money.
Graphics are nice to impress visually but good graphics don't matter that much. I don't need a big HD game if 2D does well to entertain me and give me what I need. Even text games can be nice too if the story or narration is fun. So yeah. It's a thing.
Yes but even text games have graphics to display the text.
Well, what about FMV games? They don't have any graphics, right?
In this instance however, the difference is how we interact with it. Just so we're clear, I was talking about MUDs, to name one example. You can be pretty minimalist for a game and still enjoy it while some people require the next 8k graphics or they will not.
Well graphics is just anything that could be displayed to the user, even text based games can have graphical issues with blurry text, bad font, etc. A MUD with a bad font choice, bad background color, etc can be detrimental to your enjoyment.
Thats not to say they aren't enjoyable, just that really anything that displays visually is graphics, a MUD is just the most simplistic form available.
You've never played "Thomas was Alone". SPlendid little platformer with a an interesting story, surprisingly endearing characters and whose graphics are entirely squares and rectangles.
No one says that good graphics aren't a good thing. But realistioc isn';t the measuire of 'good' m8. I mean lets be real. You show me a realistic looking game now and I'll show you a game that you'll likely call ugly in 3-5 years.