TheUndeadGamer
Member
As others have mentioned, for quite a few people graphics are important. It is nice to see graphics evolve and get better over time, but I am in the camp of aesthetics/art style trump graphics.
-
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
bort
Member
I love resolution above all other graphical effects
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-74mhiC2N18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-74mhiC2N18
Just want to requote this again because its funny.
Abinash117
Member
I personally don't care too much about graphics, but it is wrong to say it is a myth by itself. In a way it both can be true. Almost EVERYONE would appreciate really good looking graphics. Graphics or the presentation is almost the easiest way to market a game. You can't show off how awesomely complex the AI is in short demonstrations. When you have people fighting over resolutions a few years, major companies pushing 4k, people moving to stronger hardware, new consoles that are shackled by the older versions and are designed to primary push the fidelity of the game itself and many people buying them, heavy critic of how the game looks, etc
Many do prioritize graphics or the high end presentation of the game; saying other wise is simply false. However, most of the biggest games around aren't lookers what-so-ever so why is that? I think while many really appreciate the high end looks of the game, but it is not something people would stick around if the gameplay is bad. I think it heavily depends on the type of game, what the game is trying to accomplish, and the expectations of the type of game. I would imagine many BF fans would not be happy if the overall visual technical presentation decreased because the expectations of the fans would assume an increase for every new iteration. However, it would not be an issue if Minecraft looked the same for years.
Still gamers, especially casuals still expect a certain quality no matter what and sometimes will be put off if the game does not each that quality. Maybe developers/publishers are overcompensating though.
Thinking about it more I think some of it has to do with the expectations of having powerful machines. Since we have high end hardware the technical side of the game should be impressive, really impressive in some cases. That could be better physics, mechanics with a lot of depth, realistic simulations, complex ai, etc, but the easiest way to market and see the advancements in the technical side is through graphics.
Many do prioritize graphics or the high end presentation of the game; saying other wise is simply false. However, most of the biggest games around aren't lookers what-so-ever so why is that? I think while many really appreciate the high end looks of the game, but it is not something people would stick around if the gameplay is bad. I think it heavily depends on the type of game, what the game is trying to accomplish, and the expectations of the type of game. I would imagine many BF fans would not be happy if the overall visual technical presentation decreased because the expectations of the fans would assume an increase for every new iteration. However, it would not be an issue if Minecraft looked the same for years.
Still gamers, especially casuals still expect a certain quality no matter what and sometimes will be put off if the game does not each that quality. Maybe developers/publishers are overcompensating though.
Thinking about it more I think some of it has to do with the expectations of having powerful machines. Since we have high end hardware the technical side of the game should be impressive, really impressive in some cases. That could be better physics, mechanics with a lot of depth, realistic simulations, complex ai, etc, but the easiest way to market and see the advancements in the technical side is through graphics.
👍👍👍
Bronetta
Ask me about the moon landing or the temperature at which jet fuel burns. You may be surprised at what you learn.
Zippedpinhead
Member
Gameplay>graphics.
But there is something to be said about a consistent frame rate. Tear all you want and I don't care what it looks like.
But I care about dropping frames, not that 60-55 frames. I'm talking going from 40-10
Edit: that twitter call out!!!!
But there is something to be said about a consistent frame rate. Tear all you want and I don't care what it looks like.
But I care about dropping frames, not that 60-55 frames. I'm talking going from 40-10
Edit: that twitter call out!!!!
From my experience, even that crowd doesn't care as much about cutting-edge graphics as they claim they do. I've seen the following happen plenty of times - enthusiasts start hyping the latest graphical showcase, the game comes out, they quickly beat it and go back to something that doesn't prioritize graphics like DOTA/CoD/Overwatch/PUBG/etc until the next graphically impressive release, rinse and repeat. They may buy into games that differentiate themselves through amazing graphics but are much more engaged with those that differentiate themselves through gameplay.
Doctoglethorpe
Member
Of course its a myth. Only publishers demand it because it the only way they know how to market them.
TemplaerDude
Member
You don't check that box on your yearly "Gamer" census?
Really? All I seem to read on GAF is about how people don't want to play games with "shitty" graphics regardless of how good the game plays. (That is after you get past the 60fps arguments) There are plenty here that prefer gameplay over graphics, but I believe the bigger sentiment is graphics is more important.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
The higher resolution is what makes those effects stand out so much more, still, if they were absent it wouldn't be as impressive even with a 4K resolution.
polyh3dron
Banned
Graphics are fine.. I just want better frame rates while still running at 1080p. Now with the advent of really inefficient middleware we are even getting 2D games with awful frame rates on modern consoles. They'll blame it on the PS4 and Xbox One having shit CPUs, but it's stuff that the last gen consoles could run without breaking a sweat most times.
For the average GAF user, sure.
For the mouth-breather who is shopping at Walmart for fishing bait and diapers and has no idea what frame rate means... it is easier to sell that person a game with "Purdy graffiks" on the screen.
Digital Savior
Member
Sadly, graphics do sell games. I know people that will only play the best looking games.
Callibretto
Member
I think it's not that gamers demands high end visual. But in today's highly competitive overcrowded market, having high end graphics is just one of the more sure fire way to grab attention, which could lead to big sales.
So, yeah. Publishers and developers are the one who pushed for this graphics arms race. But, it is also true that graphics sells. So it's not wrong to say that publishers are being pressured to make high end graphics in their attempt to sell the game.
So, yeah. Publishers and developers are the one who pushed for this graphics arms race. But, it is also true that graphics sells. So it's not wrong to say that publishers are being pressured to make high end graphics in their attempt to sell the game.
I think it's the other way round.
GAF cares about graphics, hence the huge number of technical threads and spec wars.
Average Joe not so much, partly why mobile games are massive.
Gully State
Member
Pretty much this. Good gameplay is a harder sell whereas beautiful whiz bang makes for prettier marketing.
Graphics are what you see first, so of course, initial draw normally is graphical. I love games that push the boundaries of what's possible, and use every ounce of the hardware they possibly can. It's exciting to see the impossible become possible.
Does it outweigh gameplay? Of course not. Gameplay is king,
I want games to continue to push graphical boundaries and make strides towards photo-realism and pushed art styles.
Does it outweigh gameplay? Of course not. Gameplay is king,
I want games to continue to push graphical boundaries and make strides towards photo-realism and pushed art styles.
Valkerionseven
Member
I'm down for pretty games, but gimmie a pretty game with style or its own personality visually. I don't need or really want photojournalist myself.
Does not need to be the most amazing thing ever visually as long as its appealing.
Does not need to be the most amazing thing ever visually as long as its appealing.
Alex_Mexico
Member
Considering how the best selling games nowadays include Minecraft and PUBG I think OP may be up to something.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
Probably been said a thousand times, but Art Direction is king in this department.
Froxenblade
Neo Member
Yup. Just like how no one I talk to likes Transformers movies, but they always make a shit ton of money. People are easily pleased when something is nice to look at. Same is true for mainstream gaming.
texhnolyze
Banned
What draws people to play is graphics, and what keeps them playing is gameplay.
Each has their own purpose.
Each has their own purpose.
I dun remember asking for better graphics. They're nice ta have I guess? An I pretty much get new systems when new game releases on old ones dry up which is more of where the games are reason than a graphics one. Haven't used my PS4 which I got in April in 2 months now. Been happily replaying PS2/SNES games!
I'm not so sure about that.
Bronetta
Ask me about the moon landing or the temperature at which jet fuel burns. You may be surprised at what you learn.
Check the tweet I quoted lol.
Xist2inspire
Member
While reality has constantly proven that graphics and technical prowess aren't the end-all, be-all, saying that gamers don't want/expect/demand those things at all just doesn't hold up. The "core" audience that most companies target certainly do value those things, as evidenced by the numerous threads and posts about performance and visuals. Heck, there was even a recent thread asking us to "pick our poison" between DLC/microtransactions, higher prices, and less-impressive graphics/performance, as if the latter is a mark of shame that no gamer would accept in their game unless it was absolutely necessary. Oh, and the "core" isn't purely hardcore or casual, but a healthy mix of the two, so yes, a GAF member and Joe CoD can easily be lumped into the same "core" group.
Minecraft, Nintendo games, and mobile games keep getting brought up as a counter to the "gamers don't really care about graphics" argument, but a huge part of those games' success comes from their ability to pull fans from outside the typical gaming audience. Thus, the major thing to take from those things isn't quite that there's money to to be made in not pursing graphics, but that there's money to be made in appealing to other kinds of gamers, even those who aren't usually considered "gamers" or don't self-identify with the term. And in Nintendo's case, what's the common criticism (especially amongst the enthusiasts) that's plagued them since the Wii days? Underpowered hardware, which as far as gamers are concerned, means less power to fuel the graphically intensive, technically impressive third-party showcases which are very popular amongst the core crowd.
So yeah, graphics and technical prowess are absolutely desired by a large number of gamers. Now if you want to argue that it was the publishers that made us this way, then you have a good point. Still, at some point the swindled are as much to blame as the swindler. Given how long the push towards "bigger, badder, and better" has been going on in gaming, and how the core have primarily fallen in line at just about every turn, we're way past the point where we can lay all the blame at the feet of the publishers.
Minecraft, Nintendo games, and mobile games keep getting brought up as a counter to the "gamers don't really care about graphics" argument, but a huge part of those games' success comes from their ability to pull fans from outside the typical gaming audience. Thus, the major thing to take from those things isn't quite that there's money to to be made in not pursing graphics, but that there's money to be made in appealing to other kinds of gamers, even those who aren't usually considered "gamers" or don't self-identify with the term. And in Nintendo's case, what's the common criticism (especially amongst the enthusiasts) that's plagued them since the Wii days? Underpowered hardware, which as far as gamers are concerned, means less power to fuel the graphically intensive, technically impressive third-party showcases which are very popular amongst the core crowd.
So yeah, graphics and technical prowess are absolutely desired by a large number of gamers. Now if you want to argue that it was the publishers that made us this way, then you have a good point. Still, at some point the swindled are as much to blame as the swindler. Given how long the push towards "bigger, badder, and better" has been going on in gaming, and how the core have primarily fallen in line at just about every turn, we're way past the point where we can lay all the blame at the feet of the publishers.
almostjuliuscaesar
Member
graphics sell games, that's why e3 showcases use PC versions or versions of the game that will certainly be downgraded. it is "enthusiasts" like us on this site that claim we always favor gameplay the most, but the people who ads are designed for are clearly clamoring for graphics above all else. sad truths
bitbydeath
Member
Cuphead is a great example of graphics over gameplay.
Graphics matter, if Cuphead looked like a Telltale game it would get nowhere near the attention it got.
Graphics matter, if Cuphead looked like a Telltale game it would get nowhere near the attention it got.
Rhomega Beta
Member
At this point, I don't care about graphics anymore. Games from 10-15 years ago still look good.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
With so much competition, the biggest difficulty in selling a game is to get somebody to pay attention to it in the first place. Having state-of-the-art graphics is one way to do that.
Callibretto
Member
as long as Horizon 2 add new location that look distinctly different from Horizon 1, I don't think people will complain much. people won't be angry if the graphics didn't improve much as long as they get to see new things. although they will complaint if the graphic got worse.
PuppetMaster
Member
Hickbilly Deluxe
Banned
The game I play the most right now was made in 96, and even then had mediocre graphics. Its all about how many times I can replay it, and if I can make it more challenging without flat out having to cheat the game. I played through countless games once and dropped them, despite amazing graphics and whatnot. But a 20 year old RTS game? GIMME GIMME GIMME!
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Another example of a best selling game before this fall tho:
and a new IP that sold millions in weeks:
I remember being hyped for that because they kept advertising the AI. T-T
Do note that GTAV is a graphically impressive remaster.
Also PUBG actually isn't graphically poor just that people turn down settings due to uneven optimization or streaming.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Yea people really need to stop sleeping on PUBG's visuals ITT:
In response to post about why people not necessarily care about graphics, the counterargument is they like the game so much they lowered down the graphic settings.
Not all of us do, but its silly to pretend a lot of them dont. I mean, we are in the middle of PUBG blowing the roof off the industry and the #1 complaint from people that don't play it is the graphics.
Like, its in every thread right here on GAF on the subject of the game.
And don't even get me started on the attitudes towards handheld gaming because of the graphical difference. The only way to even try and convince many of these graphics focused gamers to consider handhelds was to make the handhelds similar in power to consoles of the day. That was like 30% of the marketing for the PSP/PSV was how close to console graphics quality it would give you.
For a shitload of people who consider themselves gamers; they are primarily tech enthusiasts seemingly with merely a coincidental interest in the gaming industry because of their frequent overlaps.
Like, its in every thread right here on GAF on the subject of the game.
And don't even get me started on the attitudes towards handheld gaming because of the graphical difference. The only way to even try and convince many of these graphics focused gamers to consider handhelds was to make the handhelds similar in power to consoles of the day. That was like 30% of the marketing for the PSP/PSV was how close to console graphics quality it would give you.
For a shitload of people who consider themselves gamers; they are primarily tech enthusiasts seemingly with merely a coincidental interest in the gaming industry because of their frequent overlaps.
LMAAAAOOOOOO
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
If the game wasn't a WIP people would likely play it with higher settings but due to performance issues they kinda can't. That's a different issue entirely.