Bad graphics are superior to good graphics because it forces game devs to make the actual game design engaging since...

Bad graphics are superior to good graphics because it forces game devs to make the actual game design engaging since they can't use presentation and visual flair to hide how boring the gameplay is.

Attached: 1661298785050068.jpg (1636x1940, 492.96K)

Cringe

Based

Bad Graphics Good Story> Good Graphics Bad Story

not bad graphics exactly but let's say the graphics that doesn't distract you from playing the game, 30% story 30% gameplay 30% graphics would make a decent game

So you should design a fun game with bad graphics and then make the graphics good in a spoilerTEXTKEK> remaster >spoiler

it also means they have to have an actual artstyle instead of just doing shitty photorealism

Yeah
more gameplay = less graphics

dwarf fortress
Minecraft
etc..

Old Resident Evil vs New Resident Evil is the perfect example of this.

There's a world of difference between the quality in level design between RE2 and RE8. Even though REmake2 fucked up a lot about the original the strength of the level design of the original still shines through, meanwhile the level design in Village is shit because it's more about how the environments look and not how they feel to explore.

>So you should design a fun game with bad graphics and then make the graphics good in a spoilerTEXTKEK> remaster >spoiler

Unironically yes. Devs should start by making a prototype with shitty graphics/animations/no voice acting etc. If the game is still fun it means the fundamentals are solid. Subnautica is a good example of this, the devs started out with N64 graphics and made sure the game mechanics were engaging before they started adding detail, you could argue Subnautica is still an ugly game finished, but the game is carried by its design at its core.

it also allowed them to get away with more shit
like the blood spatters in the well in OoT
it's open to interpretation so they were able to slip it past the censors

Better graphics also ruined gameplay because people started obsessing over realism more than fun. Doom Eternal is the perfect example.

>Hurr why are there monkeybars and floating platforms this makes no sense!
Who gives a shit nigger.

no I think people complained about the ammo depletion and chainsaw kills
it's no coincidence that the term 'gameplay loop' got invented after this game released because you have to engage every fight in the same way because of this retarded system

N64 was the last time Nintendo devs were allowed to push their games to be as realistic as hardware allowed. After that you could tell that Nintendo clearly felt that graphics had gotten too good and realism could start to get disturbing.

Attached: 231312312.png (320x240, 81.24K)

>shitty photorealism
Yup. Bad before it had a chance by including this in a game.

Graphics are a prisoners dilemma

>Graphics are a selling point. If you have better graphics than the competitors you will sell more
>This forces competitors to also get better graphics
>This makes games exponentially more expensive
>It would have been cheaper for everyone involved if games didn't bother with graphics

Attached: 1722092242971.gif (900x400, 475.47K)

art style>>>>graphics

>pic
AAAAAAHH MAKE IT STOP

It doesn't logically follow, and it doesn't work that way in practice either. Some of the dullest games also look bad.

Now, an argument that you perhaps COULD make is that low-tech presentation opens up a larger design space as actions taken by actors in the game don't need to be visually represented. You can easily have combat system featuring stuff like dismemberment if it's sufficient to show message "You cut off the orc's left arm!" in the combat log and for inspect monster command to show "the orc is missing his left arm": certainly way way way easier than every model/skeleton having dismembered variations, let alone there being a dynamic system for cuts. Or, it's reasonable for it to take two hours to make a hole in half a meter thick ice using a stone axe, if the game is grid and turn-based and you can just fast-forward 600 six-second turns (interrupting the skip if something interesting happens in the meanwhile) and the outcome is using water tile instead of ice tile for that square in grid: real-time 3D-game isn't nearly as amenable to time skips, so authentic times for making holes in ice are realistically outside the available design space. For that matter, animations and dynamic destruction of the ice themselves would still be problems.

However, there's no reason why developers would have to utilize this design space. Most often they don't.

oh it’s the tendie coping about his 90p 15fps tablet

Switch graphics are still too good.

good take
t. indie dev
before you fags get your panties in a bunch my game has a 90%+ rating and is not woke in any capacity

>YAAAAAAS BAD GRAPIX IS LE BASEDZ!
>AIEEEEEEE IS THAT INDIE PIXELSHIT??? NOOOOOO I HATE IT NOW!!!!

Explain pokemon then

>Bad graphics are superior to good graphics
Bad graphics ruin everything. Imagine trying to read War and Peace if it was written in Webdings. Your take isn't high IQ, or chad, it's low IQ, and virgin.

Good graphics doesn't mean it requires the most powerful GPU, it means you can tell what everything on the screen indicates so you can make informed and tactical decisions. Graphics are the MOST important thing in any medium that requires your eyeballs.

Attached: Ivan_screenshot.jpg (800x600, 94.25K)