Support NeoGAF

[CountAntonius]

A large part absolutely do.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Also, OP got called out by Daniel Ahmad hard on Twitter. Talk about backfire.

https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/920671105362341888
.

I laughed heartily.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Better graphics = better trailers. It's all about how marketable a game is. I think this is also why we see so few games go for 60 fps, even in cases when it would clearly improve gameplay.

By the way, I also think aesthetics (not necessarily graphics, but closely tied to it) has an odd habit of improving what we think of as "gameplay" whether or not we realize it. We instinctively like things that look good.

 

[Days like these...]

Dreamcast level graphics are good enough for me.

 

[MTC100]

We need to realize that the people that buy games because of multi million dollar ad campaigns care a lot about graphics and without them buying the games because of the better graphics there probably wouldn't be any AAA games out there. On the other hand, there would also be no need to advertise the games like mad, using up to 50% of the whole budget of a game for ads...

 

[zeb]

Also, OP got called out by Daniel Ahmad hard on Twitter. Talk about backfire.

https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/920671105362341888

Beautiful. Illustrates that gamers totally care about graphics. Gameplay moves more copies anyway. PUBG isn't a looker and Minecraft is well... Minecraft.

 

[TheListOfToddicho]

I know some want the best graphics possible, but I also think we've seen enough games were the graphics were good and the gameplay was terrible that we've weened off of that fully.

 

[King Gilga]

OP is right graphics don't matter.

Look at the most popular games out right now. LoL, Ugly, Dota 2, Ugly, PuBG UGLY, CS:GO Ugly, WoW Ugly, Minecraft UGLY. Monster Hunter Ugly, Mobile Games UGLY.

Graphics obviously do not matter.

 

[Danjin44]

I personally care more about aesthetic rather than actual GRAPHICS.

 

[tbm24]

I don’t demand every single and push the graphical envelope, but then I do? I just got a X900E and it’s a beautiful thing, some games take advantage of it and blow my mind, I want more. It’s the primary reason I’m getting an Xbox One X at launch. I need more 4K/HDR on my tv than anything else. Doesn’t meant I won’t boot up my snes mini before I go to sleep for some fun.

 

[phanphare]

of course it's a myth, look at some of the most popular games. gta v, minecraft, dota 2, pubg, etc.

though upping the graphics and spectacle is a way to differentiate yourself from the crowd and there is a smaller audience of gamers who absolutely demand constantly improving graphics

on the whole though if your game is good it doesn't really matter

 

[Daingurse]

I don't demand better graphics, but it is something that I expect to see progress over time. It's why I get excited for new gaming hardware.

 

[EDarkness]

Look at Marvel Vs. Capcom: Infinite.

Capcom decided to do the sequel on a budget, and it's obvious the visuals suffered as a result. Despite the superb gameplay, the game has been universally panned for its dated visuals and presentation. The talk of the graphics has overshadowed every other aspect of the game. The sales were pretty bad in the end.

I don't think gamers expect top of the line graphics with every game. However, when it comes to most sequels, gamers do expect bigger and better with everything and that includes the graphics.

I think the biggest issue with MvC:I doesn't have to do with the graphics specifically, but the art direction. There is no fraggin' reason for Chun Li to look that terrible. Or for Thor to look as bad as he does. It's not about the graphics, specifically as it is the art direction. This is a huge important thing that gets glossed over a lot. It's not how many polys or that kind of stuff that sells games, in my opinion. I personally put a lot of stock on aesthetics, but not the graphics tech. I didn't buy Horizon Zero Dawn because I hate how the main character looks. That's a drawback for me. That said, I don't care if the game is 720p or not, but I do want good framerates because we're at a time where we should be able to get that and it should be a major point when developing the game. This isn't the PS1 or N64 era anymore.

Nailing a great look can get people hyped, even if the tech isn't all that good. Of course, that's just the initial "buy in" to the game. What keeps people is the gameplay.

 

[Seiniyta]

I'm nowadays not really interested in having super cutting edge graphics. But rather just what's pleasing to the eye. I generally dislike it when games have a bit of a fuzzier look (either through post-processing or lower resolution). I prefer when the image has a clear crisp look to it.

Besides that I'm also more interested in more dynamic looking scenes. Battlefront is actually is a pretty good example here. The first Battlefront might look better in some ways, but the second game has a lot more dynamic elements which makes the scene feel more alive (fauna, the wind blowing the leaves etc.)

 

[Stormblessed]

I personally care more about aesthetic rather than actual GRAPHICS.

Good art direction or stylisation will trump having the best looking water or whatever. Overwatch should have taught the industry this by now. And nothing ages worse than a game aiming for photorealism.

I'm personally fine with new games not being on the bleeding edge and a bit closer to, say, a PS2 title - a lot of my favourite titles come from smaller developers like Gust - but it's definitely a minority position.

 

[ronaldthump]

Whenever a discussion about the rising costs of games development comes up, one of the most frequent arguments is that gamers put pressure on publishers and developers for cutting-edge graphics and ever-expanding scope. It's been said so many times that most people probably assume it to be true but I disagree. I believe it's a total myth.

First, I don't really understand who these 'gamers that demand top graphics' are. Are we talking about mainstream console gamers? Because I highly doubt that the average joe gives a crap about 4K, high-quality assets and solid framerates. Is it the hardcore console gamers then, the people who might frequent sites such as NeoGAF? But we've been told many times and in no uncertain terms that these people are only a quite vocal but very small minority that is not able to influence the industry's direction. PC gamers maybe? The most popular gamers on that platform can be played on a toaster.

What is then that mysterious gamer group that demands awesome graphics and pushes so hard that the entire industry has to bend to its will to the point that it makes the current games development model unsustainable without lootboxes? What is the make up of that group? Who are they? I believe they don't exist. I believe that the myth about gamers pushing publishers towards bigger, more impressive and more expensive games needs to be dispelled.

In my opinion the only ones constantly pushing for bigger sequels with better graphics and increased scope are the publishers themselves. Their business model is so reliant on creating and milking big franchises through GaaS or constant sequels that they have to find something to show the average gamer and say "this is why you should buy this. It has better graphics! It is open world! It has celebrity voice overs!".

I don't think gamers demand any of that. Publishers are choosing to go down that road because they don't want to be constantly creating new IP, they prefer the safety of a sequel to an already established series. So when they can't come up with compelling reasons for creating an otherwise unnecessary sequel, "better graphics" is the easiest selling point.

TL;DR The problem of ballooning AAA budgets due to the constant chase for better graphics and increased scope if self inflicted. Publishers aren't forced into that model, they chose it because many times it's the only way of enticing you to pay yet another $60 for an unnecessary sequel.

graphics sell games and is the thing you see right away when you're looking at a game.

 

[More_Badass]

I disagree. I think the majority of casual gamers put a lot of stock in how a game looks. Certainly moreso than framerate. Perhaps not to the extent that we've seen sometimes (hair strands having physics) but certainly if we're talking about a preference between medium and ultra graphics. Ask what people like about Horizon: Zero Dawn and I think the majority of answers would start with the visual fidelity.

This

To the average person (and the average consumer is the majority here), graphics are what defines what games are the biggest and best. I’ve seen and heard that sentiment time and time again from people, younger and older, parents and kids, etc. The visuals of stuff like CoD, Uncharted, sports games, and so on are what they think of first when asked what the best games are

 

[eXistor]

Unfortunately the masses absolutely do. Gaming enthusiasts don't, but comparatively, we're a minority.

 

[kc44135]

For me, graphics don't matter that much (although I certainly appreciate a beautiful game like Horizon, and do believe visuals of that quality can add to the experience). However, I do think that resolution is very important. I can back to a game with PS2 era graphics just fine, for instance, but a game with PS2 era resolution (480i/p) on a modern TV? That's pretty hard to stomach, Imo. I'm already starting to feel the same about last-gen games running at 720p (or less in many cases) and might very well feel the same about current gen games at 1080p once I switch to a 4K TV. So yeah, graphics matter, but resolution matters even more for me, personally.

 

[ksamedi]

Better graphics is an expectation that is created with new hardware generations. Its technology moving forward so its normal people want better graphics from a new console they buy. On the other hand, something like the Switch is hugely succesfull not because of graphics but because it is convenient. Different hardware creates different expectations and there are different ways to success. You can cerrainly assume that people will want bigger better everything from a PS5 tv box, yet if Sony would release a Switch like device people would be happy with PS4 level graphics.

 

[Trace]

of course it's a myth, look at some of the most popular games. gta v

wat? You're using a massive AAA game with some of the best graphics of last gen as proof it's a myth?

Of course graphics sell games. Do you think Cuphead would have sold 1/10th as many copies if it looked like shit? Hell no.

 

[fabricated backlash]

This

To the average person (and the average consumer is the majority here), graphics are what defines what games are the biggest and best. I’ve seen and heard that sentiment time and time again from people, younger and older, parents and kids, etc. The visuals of stuff like CoD, Uncharted, sports games, and so on are what they think of first when asked what the best games are

Doesn't explain Minecraft, Pokémon or counterstrike though. I'd be careful mixing up being more popular with having the loudest fans.

Seeing how LOL basically dwarfing every other game at expos like Gamescom in sheer numbers really opened my eyes to what real lasting popularity is. And it's not the fickle disposable audience that surrounds those yearly releases.

 

[Necron]

I have a friend who constantly comments on the graphics. There are many out there who obsess over them.

 

[KrawlMan]

I expect improvements if I'm buying new hardware, but I'm finding that it matters less and less for games I'm interested in.

Wii level visuals were horrendous, and I remember being appalled when I read something about how Nintendo felt that the visuals of the previous gen (GCN) were sufficient. Clearly they made a good decision as a business, but many like myself weren't so pleased.

Now, even with the relatively weak Switch, I'm finding myself pretty satisfied. Maybe it's the fact that we're finally seeing 900-1080p visuals consistently. I will say that Horizon's visuals were something I wouldn't want compromised on weaker hardware, but I don't feel that way about most games.

 

[kc44135]

I expect improvements if I'm buying new hardware, but I'm finding that it matters less and less for games I'm interested in.

Wii level visuals were horrendous, and I remember being appalled when I read something about how Nintendo felt that the visuals of the previous gen (GCN) were sufficient. Clearly they made a good decision as a business, but many like myself weren't so pleased.

Now, even with the relatively weak Switch, I'm finding myself pretty satisfied. Maybe it's the fact that we're finally seeing 900-1080p visuals consistently. I will say that Horizon's visuals were something I wouldn't want compromised on weaker hardware, but I don't feel that way about most games.

Yep, that's how I feel as well. I'm fine with the level of visual fidelity most games have now, and while I can certainly appreciate top-tier graphics like Horizon, I actually think resolution is more important. I too am very satisfied with 900-1080p, although maybe I'll change my mind once I see proper 2160p in action, Idk.

 

[bratpack]

Gameplay is most important but I do think graphics are aswell

like Resi7 made with resi4 graphics would make it feel the same but with a new view

the new engine brings the games horrifying backdrops and enemies to life in a way that the old engines just cant even begin to imagine

 

[More_Badass]

Doesn't explain Minecraft, Pokémon or counterstrike though. I'd be careful mixing up being more popular with having the loudest fans.

Seeing how LOL basically dwarfing every other game at expos like Gamescom in sheer numbers really opened my eyes to what real lasting popularity is. And it's not the fickle disposable audience that surrounds those yearly releases.

The audiences for LoL and Counterstrike are only a small fraction of the entire gaming audience. They’re not representative of the average person or the majority

And Minecraft is an outlier, not the norm

 

[RoseBell69]

I mean, I can and will never say no to having better graphics. Especially if the game's context/genre/setting is either Sci-Fi or Medieval-like. For modernistic games, I won't bother with the concern of graphics because anyway, I am ultimately living within the time period of it, so I already know what to expect in games with that kind of world.

 

[Bishop89]

I want better graphics op

 

[120v]

i think a factor is devs simply get bored of working with constraints. especially when a gen is wrapping up and engines are held together with duct tape and guerrilla glue

but i don't think you can say gamers aren't demanding new experiences. granted graphics are only partially contingent on that but "hitting a ceiling" won't fly in the gist of things

 

[Megatron]

you mean:

Own a Switch: Gameplay > Graphics
Own a Xbox One: Gameplay > Graphics
Own a PS4: Graphics > Gameplay
Planning on buying a Xbox One X: Graphics > Gameplay
Own a PC: Why not both?

Lol. Sure. All those people who pay $2,000 for their rigs for the play control.... lol.

 

[Snakeyes]

A quick look at the best sellers since the 6th gen and the most popular games on social media is all you need to realize that the demand for cutting-edge graphics isn't nearly as pronounced as the big publishers want it to be. The EAs of the world would love for graphics to be the main selling point as it would allow them to easily push smaller competitors out of the market by simply throwing more resources at a game's development. Unfortunately for them, the games that light up the charts are almost always those with serviceable graphics that compliment the really appealing gameplay.

 

[sonicmj1]

The audiences for LoL and Counterstrike are only a small fraction of the entire gaming audience. They’re not representative of the average person or the majority

And Minecraft is an outlier, not the norm

As of a year ago, LoL had 100 million monthly active users, which is about the same as the total number of PS4 and Xbox One consoles sold.

 

[TheTylerRob]

As of a year ago, LoL had 100 million monthly active users, which is about the same as the total number of PS4 and Xbox One consoles sold.

It's free

 

[sonicmj1]

It's free

If we talk about the "gaming audience" are we talking about the number of people who play, or the number of dollars spent?

 

[Snakeyes]

It's free

It also makes close to 2 billion dollars in yearly revenue.

 

[More_Badass]

As of a year ago, LoL had 100 million monthly active users, which is about the same as the total number of PS4 and Xbox One consoles sold.

Based on stats from 2016, almost 2 billion people play video games of some kind (the numbers was around 1.2 billion in 2013). So it’s still a fraction of the total video game audience. Maybe not a small fraction, but not representative of the majority

 

[Wamb0wneD]

Good graphics are better marketable than good gameplay. That's the main reason.

 

[li bur]

OP your flawed premises is that the casual gamers wants nerdy things like 4k or (insert any graphics jargon here). Sure they don't understand about those kind of things, but they would always buy game that have shiny visual to their eyes. They are looking for spectacle, similar to going to cinema to watch Transformer.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

On gaf it’s gameplay > graphics. But in reality it’s graphics > gameplay.

This isn't really consistently true on GAF. GAF isn't a monolith. MvCI is a recent example where we've seen people constantly shitting on the graphics and not acknowledging the gameplay.

 

[phanphare]

wat? You're using a massive AAA game with some of the best graphics of last gen as proof it's a myth?

Of course graphics sell games. Do you think Cuphead would have sold 1/10th as many copies if it looked like shit? Hell no.

I'm talking about now and how gta v, a game from 2014 (the current gen version), continues to sell well and is one of the biggest games out right now still 3 years later

 

[Mastermind Vade]

For WWE fans it's neither.

LOL

but imo, what's important is how well the game's art style and aesthetic fits the engine(eg. Marvel 3).

 

[Snakeyes]

Based on stats from 2016, almost 2 billion people play video games of some kind (the numbers was around 1.2 billion in 2013). So it's still a fraction of the total video game audience. Maybe not a small fraction, but not representative of the majority

The majority of that 2 billion plays mobile games with even less of a focus on graphics.

 

[Renekton]

On gaf it’s gameplay > graphics. But in reality it’s graphics > gameplay.

GAF is graphics > gameplay.

We have huge arguments about models, art style and animations. Look at the recent threads about DS2 crowbcat downgrade, SFV Bengus art, Injustice animation, racing screenshots, Bloodborne framepacing, PC performance for individual games, MEA facial animation, etc.

We are graphics whores.

 

[Vlade]

I more think of it as a barrier to entry to the industry. If the cutting edge keeps moving, established creators will retain that market. Like the way chip makers and os makers move forward in lock step, so will any tech industry that has a platform and software.

Left foot, right foot. New capability, new great app for it. Keep running and no one can catch up.

 

[Zafir]

I think aesthetics certainly help. However, I think there's something to be said that good game play can totally make a game, where as I don't think only having good graphics would carry a game. The Order 1886 for example looked amazing, but didn't make it a success...

I think there's something to be said that something doesn't have to be the cutting edge of technology to be nice looking either. Nintendo proves that fantastically. Their games look absolutely amazing, despite often being on consoles that are technically "behind".

 

[sonicmj1]

Based on stats from 2016, almost 2 billion people play video games of some kind (the numbers was around 1.2 billion in 2013). So it’s still a fraction of the total video game audience. Maybe not a small fraction, but not representative of the majority

By this same token, the audience of people who play games on cutting-edge current-gen consoles (~100 million) are also not representative of the majority of people who play video games. Most people are happy playing games on their mobile phones.

At this point, mobile games are the largest revenue sector in the gaming market (though console and PC combined is bigger).

I probably shouldn't belabor this tangent any more, because it's not really the subject of the thread. When we talk about what "gamers" want, we're referring to expectations in the AAA console/PC space. That section of the gaming market probably is more interested in fancy graphics. The global population of people that play video games don't care all that much about playing the most graphically advanced titles, which is why they tend not to spend money on specialized gaming hardware.

 

[Jumeira]

Unfortunately the masses absolutely do. Gaming enthusiasts don't, but comparatively, we're a minority.

Disagree, gaming enthusiasts do expect better visuals and techniques, we wouldn't be upgrading if what you said was true. Look at the amount of replies spec threads on consoles get, or excitement drawn from upgraded visuals for our favourite games. Its absolutely a fundamental requirement for hardcore gamers.

 

[Clear]

If there wasn't a market for AAA blockbusters, they'd have died out already. Its amazingly self-evident given the sheer volume of gaming product out there that doesn't fit into that category.

If you have an issue with the "AAA Industry", just ignore it. Literally and metaphorically,
Its not the only game in town!

There's an incredible breadth of titles coming out every week, you could safely ignore the output of the big publishers and still be spoilt for choice.

 

[Sweet Bellic]

Good graphics are better marketable than good gameplay. That's the main reason.

This. Graphics are easier to market to the masses than gameplay, considering even your Xmas shopping grandma can tell when a game looks purty. Games with impressive graphical presentations typically move a lot of units this way, but solid gameplay is needed for these games to have any legs.

That said, I identify as a gaming enthusiast and agree with the masses that improving graphics is a priority over improving gameplay. Shocking, I know, but I think there are already plenty of games that offer flawless gameplay experiences. Graphics, on the other hand, can always improve... at least until photorealistic graphics are achieved with reasonable performance (i.e., 60 fps min.) on consumer hardware.

So, it's not that I value graphics over gameplay, so much as I think graphics have much more room for improvement and that there is a clearer end goal.