- There is world of difference between good graphics and new graphics, also between bad bad graphics and old graphics. Do note that "old" doesn't exactly mean when it was made.
- This is one of the rare cases where wisdom would actually be the applicable stat, not willpower.
That said, there are kinds of graphics that are positively grating and it includes some low-budget indie graphics (especially when screen scrolls a lot but there is no smooth scrolling - which I think is the case with at least earlier Jeff Vogel's games), awful visually inconsistent indie graphics (KoTC - with smooth transparent lensflares plastered on top of low-res, low color pixelated sprite- and tile-work, with, again low res, low colour, pixelated, black-outlined, non-transparent light source sprites pasted on top of the lensflares - is the kind of game I woldn't touch with a ten foot pole even if it combined its allegedly good combat mechanics with PS:T's writing and FO C&C all at once because just looking at it simply makes me physically, violently ill) and, of course all the modern (at the time) AAA titles that insists on maximizing visual gimmick density per screen area at the expense of everything else (Oblivion was the poster child of that and also made me feel violently ill although visuals were the least of its sins).
Of course, old graphics, when done well, don't lose potential to impress - Fallout, Lands of Lore, etc.
Incidentally, vanilla Skyrim looks like it's made of poor quality chinese plastic
Actually, aside from that particular complaint (which holds for pretty much every multiplatform game with bumpampping courtesy of limited texture memory) Skyrim's visuals are remarkably good.
It has definite art direction (whether you like it or not is another matter), environments are quite lovingly crafted, effects are smartly and tastefully used (Skyrim is the only game I know that resists the temptation of using DoF to make shit blurry all the time, pretty much limiting its use to menus, underwater and inclement weather), locations are unique enough to be instantly recognizable despite their number, character faces are a backtrack to Morrowind's superior art direction rather than parametric potatoes of OB and so on.
It's also an example of graphics that looked good despite being dated on release - being multiplatform Skyrim was made to run on half a decade old hardware that was new when Oblivion came out and the difference between two is startling. Of course Skyrim does cut a lot of corners in terms of visuals - model geometry, light sources, etc. but by using its assets in smart manner and applying its bells and whistles conservatively it manages hold really well.
Games like Exile, you shouldn't even look at the graphics. They're just there to show you what is actually going on as you're supposed to have the actual Graphics in your mind.
Well, it would help if they didn't try to look like actual graphics, then.
They could gain a lot of clarity and style this way.
Besides, I've seen quite successful attempts at actual graphics even on c64 so not an excuse.
Look at dwarf fortress and tell me the graphics are even a factor.
Well, they kind of are, mostly because of clarity. ASCII graphics is really bad in this regard.
Incidentally, if you put the exhausted Medieval graphical styles of The Witcher or Dragon Age above the lovingly crafted ones in the Infinity Engine games, the earrly Fallout games or even Morrowind, you just have no taste in art.
Don't you shit on The Witcher.
The 1st one is pretty much the posterchild for both art direction (well, most of the time) and doing wonders with shit and dated engine.
It and Morrowind are also in quite different categories due to the setting alone. I would also put Witcher far above at least the first BG.
And yeah,
Cant into teh gfx:
SS2 : unplayable and not suspenseful without mods
Anachronox
The fuck is wrong with you, son?
(Ok, SS2 has always looked kinda shit, but not nearly shit enough for it to matter.)