• 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.

Does your innermost self care about graphics as much as you post about them?

Come clean my sons and daughters and non-binary individuals., what do you think about THESE POSTS?

  • Bless me Tschumi for I have sinned, at this point gameplay means little and I love only FPS/RT/etc.

    Votes: 6 11.8%
  • I try to resist, sometimes, by generally I come here to wrangle over graphical minutia, first.

    Votes: 2 3.9%
  • I can't believe it, but I've been deep down the rabbit hole ever since this gen was announced.

    Votes: 2 3.9%
  • Neutral 1: Other

    Votes: 4 7.8%
  • Neutral 2: I never look at the threads you're talking about, there's plenty else to talk about here.

    Votes: 3 5.9%
  • I fight it, but sometimes it seems like there's nothing else to talk about. Graphics are overrated.

    Votes: 4 7.8%
  • I try to withhold judgement on any game until I've played it - graphics mean little to me.

    Votes: 12 23.5%
  • I'm old school. Graphics whores are shallow. Games are about gameplay, enough of the graphics crap!

    Votes: 18 35.3%

  • Total voters
    51

Tschumi

Member
The thread is Anti-War, it's talking about the scope of our discussion, I don't want it to spawn any of the discussions it's complaining about.

Yelling Comedy Central GIF by Drunk History
Comedy Central No GIF by Drunk History


I love games, that's why I'm on NeoGAF in the first place. So why is it I've barely said a thing on the Gaming forum in months now? Why am I putting all my effort into magnificent Off-Topic posts?

Because, as the bans list would suggest, it's all [when I say "all" I'm of course saying "regularly but not entirely"] console warring, hardware/graphics comparisons, breaking news alerts about pixel counts, frame rates, magnitude of cross-gen upgrades, or the lack thereof.

I have very little to contribute to any of that stuff. Time was the 'graphics whore' was a pretty widespread (if distasteful) epithet aimed at people who cared too much about these things, and I still generally think we should all STFU until there's a post-release consensus on gameplay and artstyle, rather than squeeing over technical features.

I'm here to ask you to examine your soul, your innermost self, and try to face up to just how much you ACTUALLY CARE about FPS, 4K vs Upscaling, RT, visual upgrades between generations, etc.
 
Last edited:

Kuranghi

Gold Member
I care about things I can control, if I can't then I don't.

While I do think a lot of people are just caught up in what they see others saying, big woolly jumpers that they are, some people just have different priorities of what they care about.

There are people who don't give a shit about image quality or graphics and sound is there jam, they are on boards complaining about how not-perfect the sound is in so-and-so game, I guess you just don't hear from them as much because its impossible to explain the difference in the way you can just by posting pictures.
 
Last edited:

cormack12

Gold Member
Im happy generally. Dont get too bogged down in those threads. I prefer image quality overall but low poly stuff makes me sick in my mouth.
 

Kuranghi

Gold Member
I think it pays to be flexible in almost all aspects of your life, sometimes I want to go out and drink illuminous green jugs of liquid that do more to give me a sugar rush than make me drunk (fixed by buying shots and pouring them in ofc) while talking to drunken tarts with their bits hanging out and sometimes I want to sip a rum or whisky in a quiet bar, just listening to a guy play a piano or talking to the barman.

I'm scottish so all analogies must be based on alcohol consumption.

I like to compare things visually for comparison’s/conversation sake, but game performance and artstyle are more important to me. If that makes any sense.

Exactly, what I think some people miss about people obsessing over graphics, like myself, is that its always second fiddle to a locked & well-paced framerate and preferably 60fps or higher.
 

killatopak

Gold Member
There are some games I buy for the visuals and some for the gameplay. It’s nice to have both though.

Usually, if the spectacle is good enough, I’ll tolerate the shortcomings in other places.
 
Honestly, graphics just needs to be good enough. I realised this recently while jumping between playing Cyberpunk and Yakuza 5. Technically the two titles are generations apart. But I had no trouble switching from one to the other. The graphics should be there to serve the gameplay.
 

M1chl

Currently Gif and Meme Champion
Nah I can happily play games from my childhood without an issue

Granted at reasonable res and with reasonable FPS. So PC only mostly or through XSX FPS boost.
 

Zathalus

Member
I like graphics, but they are not anywhere near as important as gameplay and other factors to me. I can still easily play games from decades ago and enjoy them just as much, such as Morrowind. That being said, I am not one of those that cry that graphics don't matter. Better graphics are always welcome, even in highly stylised games. Compare Psychonauts vs Psychonauts 2, both highly stylised, but the second one looks much better, and is better off for it, despite the stylised look.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
I care when it's appropriate. If a brand new game releases then I have an expectation that the graphics and gameplay are going to be appropriate for modern hardware, but I'd like a solid gameplay loop and good performance over graphics if I had to choose. When I boot up Jedi Outcast or Crazy Taxi I see it as a product of its generation and I don't care too much about the graphics.
 

NahaNago

Member
yes and no. I like amazing graphics but I don't care about all of the fps and resolution and all of the minor details folks talk about when discussing the graphics of a game. As long as the game looks interesting to me then I'm in, whether it be the most mind blowing top of the line graphics or a unique indie style graphics. I only care about the graphics discussion videos to keep myself informed like with those df videos but I'll still buy the game on playstation either way.
 

Arcadialane

Member
Why wouldn't you always want the tech to be pushed, while understanding it's not the biggest deal overall?. If red dead redemption 2 looked like red dead redemption 1 it would still be an awesome game, but it's really really nice that it looks like red dead redemtion 2
 
Last edited:

Zannegan

Member
I rarely talk about "graphics," but I like a pretty game. I'm always hoping for the hardware baseline to be pushed up as far as is economically feasible.

That said, I don't mind older games or a super simple artstyle if the gamefeel is there. For me, how the character moves through the environment is #1, then how interactive the environment is/how much meaningful choice is afforded to players.

A game's look is not unimportant, but it's far from the most important thing for me.
 
Last edited:
Why wouldn't you always want the tech to be pushed, while understanding it's not the biggest deal overall?. If red dead redemption 2 looked like red dead redemption 1 it would still be an awesome game, but it's really really nice that it looks like red dead redemtion 2

Tech does not equal graphics. The more graphically demanding a game is, the less interactivity there often is.
 

twilo99

Member
I care about motion blur more than graphics. Getting both is a win.

Doom eternal and Ori are good examples from my experience.
 

martino

Member
Like anything context matter...you making it a general thing is a huge problem about how i judge it
It will matter and i will be more critical with more expectation from a AAA than a AA or indie game.
For them (AA and indies) even polish become more secondary but it's because i can find other "meat" and "originality" and the good is not mostly coming from polish and graphics in them.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
Currently playing Resident Evil Code Veronica on Dreamcast for the first time (on my glorious CRT), and I am finding the game absolutely gorgeous.

Art direction and technical decisions are what matters. I want to play games that look clean, smooth and smart. As long as I get this, I don't care much. Sonic Unleashed on 360 is the last time I was impressed, and I don't find that games ever became much better than this, nor that it was worth the efforts.
 

DelireMan7

Member
Graphics/FPS/RT/... mean literally nothing to me.

If the game's atmosphere is good, with enjoyable gameplay and story, it's enough for me.

I just replayed the whole Metal Gear Solid franchise and I just enjoyed them a lot without thinking a second "This one looks much better than this one".

I am now replaying FFX on PS2 and in my eyes it's the same than any current gen game. This happen each time I played an old game actually.

I see the appeal for nice graphics but it just doesn't matter at all for me. If I enjoy a game, I will find it pleasing to my eyes no matter the actual graphics.
 

Lethal01

Member
Graphics are as important as gameplay, sound or artstyle. Lacking one aspect isn't the end of the world and you can still be the best game of the generation by lacking in one aspect.
 

Amiga

Member
You can care about graphics and enjoy pixel art games.

we play games games for fun. but at the same time the technology used in games is still advancing and we like to talk about new horizons and benchmark setters.
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
For me I mostly care about aesthetics more than high tech graphics. The game can have top of the line tech and engine but if I’m not liking the artstyle then all that tech would be meaningless.

I would say graphic whoring is becoming very obnoxious here, there is way less topic about actual game but instead we topics get about graphic engine resolution arguments.
 

Knightime_X

Member
Performance and image quality is more important than graphics.
Image quality being resolution, anti aliasing, general clear and sharp appearance etc.

Gameplay is always ace but it never hurts to wait for a pc version or remaster.
 

rodrigolfp

Member
No. IMO if the gameplay is bad up to mediocre (like 30fps shooters on dual sticks with/without aim assist) doesn't matter if the game has the best graphics ever. It will be ignored...
 
Last edited:

ZywyPL

Banned
A good game is a whole package - graphics, art direction, animations, sound, music, gameplay, AI, world, universe, characters, plot. Looking at just the visuals and performance means you already fail to enjoy video games as an entertainment medium.
 

WizeVibez

Banned
Realistic graphics have their place. Not every game should shoot for realism visually, but a game like Kingdom Come: Deliverance would be a worse experience if it didn't look so good. Not a worse game, just not quite as memorable.
 

Star-Lord

Gold Member
I genuinely care more about performance than I do about graphics. Give me a solid 1080p60 and I’m happy. 4K30 can go suck it as far as I’m concerned.
 

Rest

All these years later I still chuckle at what a fucking moron that guy is.
Games look really good right now, from a technical standpoint I haven't seen a game that had "bad" graphics in a while. I don't care about pixel counts, frame rates, or any kind of tech nonsense that doesn't affect the actual image. Art style, especially character design, is important to me. I prefer more realistic looking games, and the more cartoony or outlandish the art is, the less likely I am to enjoy it. Also, games that are supposed to have realistic looking faces that are badly done are very offputting and can take me out of a game.
 

YukiOnna

Member
Games have looked good enough since PS4/XONE/WiiU/Switch era. I only care about good art direction and if the game doesn't tank in performance if we're bringing up technical things.

Otherwise, the primary thing that matters about the game is its content and execution. That's what actually defines if it's good or not.
 

Jigsaah

Gold Member
Careful, Neutral 2 is a trap guys.

I'm old school. I like pretty graphics but they don't matter as much as gameplay.
 

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
Nobody ever answers my question when I say "Why not both?" lol
Because game development is not that simple. Some games are too "niche" to get that type of budget for high tech graphics and same reason most AAA games are too safe in order to have mass appeal so they can sell big numbers.
 
Last edited:
I like a good art style. I've spent the majority of the last few months playing games like Axiom Verge, Monster Boy, Blasphemous, Enter the Gungeon and Nuclear Thone. Come to think of it, I prefer retro style graphics with great art to sweeping worlds with high pixel counts.

Honestly though, I don't care about graphics anymore. Especially when it's not the games focus.
 
What I care about in a game first and foremost is gameplay. Everything else is secondary to me in some degree. The game could have "bad graphics" or somewhat bad performance but I could still have a blast if the underlying gameplay keeps me engaged. I don't care if it is a pixel art game, or the latest and greatest photorealistic game. To me graphics are irrelevant for the most part unless the art direction is absolutely appalling to look at, makes the game unplayable (eg. Red Alarm on Virtual Boy) or creeps me out in some way (eg. I hate the Absolver art style with faceless characters models, its uncanny valley material for me). Graphics can contribute in making me more interested in a game, or catch my attention if they look unique, but in the end I'm more interested in whether it will be fun to play (eg. Microsoft Flight Simulator looks unbelievable but it looks so boring to me that I will probably never play it). I actually find performance to be way more important, since that can for sure ruin the experience (constant dips and jittery framerate can be quite frustrating and actually affect gameplay (eg. you die because the game froze for a second or two). However, I find people that obsess about FPS are just as bad as "graphic whores". "I cAN't pLaY EVer aGAIn 30 FpS". STFU. I've played Overwatch on Switch for over 350 hours at 30 FPS, and also played a ton of hours of it on PC with 60-144 FPS over the years. Yes, there is a difference, but to me as long as the FPS is stable I DON'T CARE if its 30 FPS or 1000000 FPS. Both are perfectly playable. I do agree though that 30 FPS should be the minimum target for any game. When it comes to performance, just give me a stable framerate and keep it locked, and I'll be fine. I feel this problem will be less important as VRR displays become more ubiquitous and developers can keep the framerate unlocked without it being a jarring jittery mess.
 

Star-Lord

Gold Member
I'm old school. I like pretty graphics but they don't matter as much as gameplay.
Capcom had the right idea when they released Devil May Cry 5: Soecial Edition on PS5. Sacrifice all the fancy bells and whistles and have the game run at an eye-watering 120FPS. I’ll take that over ray-tracing any day.
 

voidenberg

Member
Gameplay is king.

I'm not saying every game should look like minecraft. But I look at some old games and think they look good enough. I'd rather see improvements in other stuff like AI than shinier graphics.
 
Last edited:

bender

What time is it?
I've been fine with graphical fidelity for a few generations now. Hell, there are PS2 games that look great at higher resolutions and stable frame rates. The push for better graphics and presentation have made production cycles longer and development teams larger which in turn, makes games much more expensive and risk adverse. Great graphics are fleeting after the initial awe wears off and there is always something technically better around the corner. More often than not, mechanics are what will define a great game and keep players coming back for years.
 
Top Bottom