Why do you like bad graphics?

So you like rubbery steak and cheap wine while they charge you $100? You think that's acceptable?

you're not being charged $100 for a game, and i almost never pay full price for games anyway

it's not that i like "bad graphics"--it's that i don't buy into the concept of "bad graphics" to begin with

there are just graphics

whether the graphics are pretty or ugly to you is a matter of personal opinion, and that's all it is

just because the majority of people tend to agree on what's "good" and "bad" when it comes to graphics doesn't somehow magically turn that opinion into a fact

You have a bizarre opinion on this but it wouldnt be the first time.

>2017
>Not realizing that graphics takes a back seat to art style

I mean yeah, if the game is trying to make a somewhat realistic world you're going to need a bar to set graphically speaking; but most games that have a specific art style don't need demanding graphics and still look amazing.

this will most certainly be a productive discussion

Specs matter regardless of graphic fidelity. Graphics really only matter if the developer makes a point of how great they are. If a dev claimed "lifelike hyper realistic graphics" today and you got something ala Project IGI, you'd be reasonably pissed off.

Minecraft runs on fucking 16-bit textures as standard, but it doesn't run well on potato computers because it's horribly optimised and requires mods-up-the-arse to make it playable (i.e. smooth 20 fps) on lower end PC's and laptops. ArmA is similar in that it demands more to run well, however it also focuses on realistic graphics and simulation which puts some serious taxing on even high-end systems. And surprise surprise, neither of these are available on consoles in their standard form because of the limitations of consoles and the demands of what the developers consider "standard" are not for those games. ArmA has too many keybinds to run on a controller, let alone the hardware needed to run it on normal settings smoothly, whilst console Minecraft has a limited border with restrictions on available items, environment, etc, and is generally lackluster. I'm not even going to go into Minecraft Pi.

Quote from: Ian on April 26, 2017, 07:13:55 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 26, 2017, 07:03:22 PM

How the hell does Ni No Kuni have bad graphics? Are you drunk?

Again that's these motherfuckers art style thats why I said its not the fucking subject. stupid motherfuckers need to bring random bullshit up and act all smug id crack you in the motherfuckin mouth if we were having this conversation face to face both of you fucking gay ass internet shit

dont chimp out

There are good and bad graphics. Graphics we consider bad now were good at one point. However, if a developer charges me $60 for a game and I get 90's graphics, I'm gonna have a problem with that.

Yeah, that's you. And a lot of other people, sure, but that's still you.

Better specs allow you to play the game with a higher definition.

And?

If you asked me if I'd rather play the original release of a game or its HD remake, I'd pick the original every single time.

All my PS4 games look nice so I'm fine with that

Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 08:35:50 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 26, 2017, 06:17:46 PM

There are good and bad graphics. Graphics we consider bad now were good at one point. However, if a developer charges me $60 for a game and I get 90's graphics, I'm gonna have a problem with that.

Yeah, that's you. And a lot of other people, sure, but that's still you.

Quote

Better specs allow you to play the game with a higher definition.

And?

If you asked me if I'd rather play the original release of a game or its HD remake, I'd pick the original every single time.

Put Skyrim on a console and on a PC on ultra settings. Tell me which one looks better.

Definitely Skyrim on console.

Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 09:17:15 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 26, 2017, 09:15:36 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 08:35:50 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 26, 2017, 06:17:46 PM

There are good and bad graphics. Graphics we consider bad now were good at one point. However, if a developer charges me $60 for a game and I get 90's graphics, I'm gonna have a problem with that.

Yeah, that's you. And a lot of other people, sure, but that's still you.

Quote

Better specs allow you to play the game with a higher definition.

And?

If you asked me if I'd rather play the original release of a game or its HD remake, I'd pick the original every single time.

Put Skyrim on a console and on a PC on ultra settings. Tell me which one looks better.

Definitely Skyrim on console.

You're objectively wrong because it objectively looks better on PC. You're an idiot to think an inferior machine is superior because you want it to be.

This is the kind of behavior that got me so disliked for so many years: pretending my opinions are facts. Something I never do, but I still get accused of it to this day.

Yet here you are, literally claiming that your opinion is a fact for no reason.

It doesn't look objectively better. It just looks better to you. I like Skyrim's graphics on console because it looks more like a video game to me. Realistic graphics don't impress me at all, and if anything, I want to avoid reality when it comes to games anyway.

I'm not gonna pretend as though MY opinion is the objective truth, so I don't understand why someone would be so autistic as to pretend their opinion is the truth.

For a game like Breath of the Wild, I would have really liked better specs on the Switch or Wii U because it launched with blurry textures, huge framerate drops in towns and combat, bad pop-in, and embarrassing draw distances.

For this of all games, so would I, but not everybody cares.