Omotesando
Member
Graphics, art style, animation, fidelity and fps play a large role in gameplay.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"Gamers demand constantly improving graphics". I think that's a myth.
- Thread starter Sad Affleck
- Start date
Graphics, art style, animation, fidelity and fps play a large role in gameplay.
Even if so, PUBG is a Minecraft/LoL/CSGO phenomenon of 0.0001% outliers that transcend the challenges of average publishers.
CSGO and LoL are not going to stop Sony/MS from releasing next generation consoles with higher capabilities, or CDPR from making Cyberpunk 2077 more visually stunning.
WTF! Sad Affleck explain thyself!
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
The vast majority of GAF care more about graphics than gameplay.
As a matter of fact, the vast majority of gamers in general do whether they know it or not.
Many games are generally fawned over or dismissed based on that first impression.
As a matter of fact, the vast majority of gamers in general do whether they know it or not.
Many games are generally fawned over or dismissed based on that first impression.
The Spoony Hou
Member
Of course it's a myth. Gamers want some innovation, it's just that the easiest way of doing it is through graphics.
Sad Affleck
Member
I already did, three times. I'll do it once more. In my original post I separated the gaming audience to three different categories.
1.
This first group is big and has the power to influence the market but I don't believe that it cares about high-end visuals that much.
2.
This second group cares about stuff like graphics and framerate and demands improvement but isn't big enough to influence the industry's direction. As we've been told many times, core gamers are a vocal minority.
3.
Again, the PC gamer masses play non graphically demanding games. High-end PC gamers are a minority, just like hardcore console gamers.
So after the above my question was this:
If a) core gamers like myself and other NeoGAF posters are a vocal minority that do demand better graphics but have no power to influence things and b) the masses don't care about graphics and are perfectly happy playing games like LOL, Counter-Strike, Minecraft and such, then where is this enormous pressure to push the graphics envelope coming from?
After that, Crossing Eden went into post history detective mode and reposted some posts of my own in which I do demand graphical improvements, I guess to show that I'm a hypocrite? But in my original and unedited post I very clearly put the whole of NeoGAF, including myself of course, in the category of people who do want and demand improved graphics, the core gamer vocal minority. I have no idea how any of this is supposed to embarrass or expose me, I really don't understand it.
Now, to his credit, as soon as I explained my position Crossing Eden didn't follow up on his original post and proceeded to participate in the discussion normally. However, that idiot on Twitter saw the original post, thought it was funny and tweeted it because he wanted to appear clever and funny to his followers. Whatever.
Ryouji Gunblade
Member
Art style matters a lot to me. Resolution and "realism" not so much.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Why are you separating arti direction and realism as if they're two different concepts?
I simply don't care about graphics. Perfomance is important, but not graphics as far as I'm concerned - I've never had problems playing games with bad graphics, and I go from playing new games on my gaming PC to playing Game Boy games with no issues. I realize graphics are important for other people, but I can say it's not my case and I'll reward developers who prioritize other factors.
crazy monkey
Banned
It is other way around.
Sad Affleck
Member
Good example. Core gamers gave Bethesda shit for using an outdated engine, the game still went on to sell many millions of copies. Gamers who do demand high-end graphics are a minority, the rest just bought the game and made it a success anyway. So where is the pressure for high-end graphics coming from?
This is why I believe that sequels that are in actual demand will sell well regardless of graphics. Iterative sequels with very few changes have to sell on their graphics to get people to buy them.
shouamabane
Member
Graphics and framerate directly effect gameplay. It's not an either/or situation.
I dont agree. I really often see gaf people complaining about gfx. Yet those arent pc players, but mostly xbox or ps4 players. Ironic. Demanding gfx will have a cost. Games are already too expensive to create. Developers were not happy with the ps4 pro, because they had to create multiple versions.
StrategyFan
Member
people like all the nice stuff that comes with high production values
very few devs who spend $50 million making a game are going to have it look like crap (unless it's designed to run on toasters)
maybe there aren't that many people demanding better graphics specifically, but the perception is that it's a huge indicator of whether money was spent developing other parts of the game as well
when you are choosing which unreleased game to give your limited attention to, doesn't graphical quality play a part?
very few devs who spend $50 million making a game are going to have it look like crap (unless it's designed to run on toasters)
maybe there aren't that many people demanding better graphics specifically, but the perception is that it's a huge indicator of whether money was spent developing other parts of the game as well
when you are choosing which unreleased game to give your limited attention to, doesn't graphical quality play a part?
Boy Wander
Member
Pretty much every thread on a new game there's a bunch of people coming in saying the game looks like ass.
petran79
Banned
This comes from within the gaming industry. I mean I did not ask myself Sega for Sega Model 3 arcade boards. Which was a quite expensive and risky endeavour that did cost Sega in the long run. But they greatly helped 3D games reach the state of today.
I think "gamers" go to certain games for certain things.
Some games are all about spectacle, i want pretty cars and great lighting effects in my racing games, less copy paste assets, more character animation in my open world games and I want characters to look like people.
I want less abstraction which generally equates to more fidelity.
Does this matter in most cases, no, not really, but it is important sometimes
Some games are all about spectacle, i want pretty cars and great lighting effects in my racing games, less copy paste assets, more character animation in my open world games and I want characters to look like people.
I want less abstraction which generally equates to more fidelity.
Does this matter in most cases, no, not really, but it is important sometimes
Yeah, as much as I prefer gameplay, graphics are still important and required.
My favourite game from last gen was dishwasher dead samurai, and that had an amazing artstyle, but we wouldn't get to that artstyle without having some hella clever folks doing amazing work building graphics engines.
My favourite game from last gen was dishwasher dead samurai, and that had an amazing artstyle, but we wouldn't get to that artstyle without having some hella clever folks doing amazing work building graphics engines.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
There doesn't have to be a frothing demand for graphics to favor the graphically advanced games. All it takes is a small preference, and then natural selection takes over.
If the gameplay and polish between a set of AAA titles is similar (and they probably are, because, lets face it, they're AAA titles), then the one with the better graphics is the better value. That's part of the reason why the mid-tier got crowded out.
If the gameplay and polish between a set of AAA titles is similar (and they probably are, because, lets face it, they're AAA titles), then the one with the better graphics is the better value. That's part of the reason why the mid-tier got crowded out.
What is this logic?
Also graphics aren't everything. Dwarf Fortress comes to mind.
I play everything if it is fun from "pixelated" to realistic games.
My non-gamer friend dismisses "pixelated" games and says what year is this.
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
Considering how big digital foundry threads get and how quickly GAF loves to spin up downgrade controversy, even if it's unwarranted, I think this forum cares more about graphics than people here are ready to admit.
Overall though, good graphics will only get a game so far and it's not an instant ticket to success by any means.
Gravy Boat
Member
If you care about graphics why don't you just watch Avatar?
Cop out answer maybe, but personally I care about both. Graphics/Animation/Art can definitely significantly improve my gameplay experience, (see Persona 3/4/5, ND Games, etc).. It's why I have everything from a Switch to a Gaming PC.
However, bad graphics won't make me stop playing a game, where bad gameplay will.
However, bad graphics won't make me stop playing a game, where bad gameplay will.
FlutterPuffs
Member
How is this a myth? That's nonsense.
Yes, they also demand great gameplay, artstyle etc but graphics is a strong pull to get someone to take notice of a game.
Yes, they also demand great gameplay, artstyle etc but graphics is a strong pull to get someone to take notice of a game.
Duchess O'Death
Member
"Art style" with bad textures and resolution looks bad though. Look at BOTW. Resolution and art style accommodate each other.
And what do you mean by realism? When was the last time a game went for the "realism" look? Every game has an art style now.
Because it has no gameplay?
I think gameplay is very important, obviously, that's what makes it a game.
But graphics are just as important -- and depending on the game, sometimes even more so.
What do you think of Super Mario Kart? Star Fox (the original)? Final Fantasy 7?
These games have solid gameplay, but the graphics are so bad it often times detracts from it, and IMO, renders them all virtually unplayable.
Captain Europe
Member
On GAF it's graphics > gameplay, generally, What with everyone tripping when Nintendo releases a new console, and it's mostly talk about the graphics card.
In real life it's gameplay > graphics.
And I don't mean that people pay attention to 60fps, or that they care more about Zelda than Fifa. People will buy what they want to play, whether that's a Mario game, or a football game, regardless of how it looks. We're at a point where most games look good enough to the majority.
In real life it's gameplay > graphics.
And I don't mean that people pay attention to 60fps, or that they care more about Zelda than Fifa. People will buy what they want to play, whether that's a Mario game, or a football game, regardless of how it looks. We're at a point where most games look good enough to the majority.
Gravy Boat
Member
Exactly, just like boardgames don't have the 'video' part that video games have. It was a dumb comment.
It can be a bit jarring but I can deal with it if I like the gameplay. I actually just replayed FF9 few weeks ago, for example and I replay FF8 on a regular basis.
I don't think so at all. At their core, board games and video games are pretty similar. The difference is primarily graphical and to an extent, immersive. Early turn-based strategy games were basically just strategy board games put in a digital realm; RPGs started off as digital versions of pen and paper D&D. This is why you have a lot of overlap between hardcore video game players and hardcore board game players.
Of course, there are many video game genres that do not map to board games, and it's principally because of the graphical component.
Gravy Boat
Member
You're talking nonsense, no offence. Games like Rocket League could have the graphical style of an early PS1 or N64 game and would still be just as much fun as they are now, despite never being translatable to a board game.
_Some_ games are comparable to board games but the vast majority are not. You're talking about a very specific type of video game. Again, I could say go watch a movie if you want graphics since video games are like movies if we only look at games like Heavy Rain.
I have NEVER stopped playing a game bc of graphics. I stopped playing games bc of gameplay many times. But that's just me. I know many gamers find graphics very important.
Always-honest
Banned
That's not a myth.
odhiex
Member
It is not a myth, OP. Graphical fidelity in games is "mostly" easier to sell, through trailers and videos.
Selling a game through Gameplay is hard, since most people would like to have more time to investigate if the gameplay mechanic clicks them. It would be harder to demonstrates it with gameplay videos only. Example: VR games, 3D mechanic in 3DS, etc.
Selling a game through Gameplay is hard, since most people would like to have more time to investigate if the gameplay mechanic clicks them. It would be harder to demonstrates it with gameplay videos only. Example: VR games, 3D mechanic in 3DS, etc.
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
If graphics are of no importantance, there'd be no PS4 Pro or Xbox One X and PC gamers would never upgrade their video card. Console generations would be a thing of the past. There would be no GAF discussions about graphical downgrades when comparing E3 demos and the final product of games like Watchdogs and The Witcher 3. There'd be no complaints about lores textures in games or games without PS4 Pro patches. The guys at Digital Foundry would be out of a job because noone would watch their videos. There'd be no discussions about 60fps vs 30fps. Nobody would call devs lazy because they forgot to turn on anisotropic filtering in a PS4 port.
Etc etc etc.
Etc etc etc.
Aesthetics contribute to the perceived quality of a user's experience with a product
Aesthetics are the major factor in consumer decision-making at point of sale
Graphics make a game a little more fun, but make you a lot more likely to buy it. Once you realise that it's a polished turd they have your money. It's Design 101 stuff.
But it's also worth remembering that developers are people too. They want to push boundaries, and if they convince people to fund that endeavour then they're going to go for it.
Aesthetics are the major factor in consumer decision-making at point of sale
Graphics make a game a little more fun, but make you a lot more likely to buy it. Once you realise that it's a polished turd they have your money. It's Design 101 stuff.
But it's also worth remembering that developers are people too. They want to push boundaries, and if they convince people to fund that endeavour then they're going to go for it.
Red Liquorice
Member
People always want progress sure, but it's the publishers who push it for marketing and dick-waving.
Captain Europe
Member
That doesn't really make any sense, the most successful consoles were the weakest in their generation, PS2/Wii/Nintendo DS/3DS etc.
The Wii U was just a marketing nightmare, with a mostly useless gimmick.
BanjoLayleeYookaKazooie
Banned
I mean the only problem here is that Breath of the Wild looks fantastic, and most definitely not bad.
If BoTW is now a bad looking game then we really have gone off the deep end so to speak and no wonder we have ballooned budgets for most big games with diminishing returns as far as graphics are concerned.
Similar threads
- Locked