-
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
You should check how much better it looks on CEMU then what you get on the Switch. The switch version isn't bad by any measure but seeing it in 4k is when it's truly fantastic.
BuddyTheBestPuppy
Member
I don't care about graphics anymore. Devs at this point should focus on getting rid of pop ups, increasing shadow distance and general blemishes that take you out of the experience
ISee
Member
I am now gaming for ~28 years and I can't remember one single time when visuals were irrelevant during gaming conversations. Some people make bold claims that such talk only occurs on 'elitist' gaming forums when in fact we already had conversations about visuals in games on school yards around the globe way before the internet was there or wildly available. Even this industrys marketing and PR focuses on graphics since forever, the stuff you are seeing now isn't something new. Nintendon't and blast processing are the most remembered examples for that. It's the same old story, generation after generation.
Visuals were always important and that's okay. Gaming is an audio/visual medium after all and it's natural that people are expecting visuals to improve over time. Just look at where we started and at where we are now, I remember those changes and early 8 bit gaming. I played c64 long enough and I have great memories about them, but that's a long time ago and I don't want my AAA have to look that way. In the end gameplay is as important as graphics and performance to the general audience.
You don't care about graphics, you just want better visuals.
You do understand that you demand better graphics in your second sentence, while you denie the fact in your first.
Visuals were always important and that's okay. Gaming is an audio/visual medium after all and it's natural that people are expecting visuals to improve over time. Just look at where we started and at where we are now, I remember those changes and early 8 bit gaming. I played c64 long enough and I have great memories about them, but that's a long time ago and I don't want my AAA have to look that way. In the end gameplay is as important as graphics and performance to the general audience.
You don't care about graphics, you just want better visuals.
You do understand that you demand better graphics in your second sentence, while you denie the fact in your first.
For what its worth
I think that "Gamers" do care about graphics but mainly because most AAA games are so safe that its the major selling point. If you are buying Forza 7 over Forza 5 for instance, the gameplay won't evolve all that much to the average player* so it leans on the marketing team to find some other way to sell the game. Graphics is the easiest and most convenient change to show off as a selling point. Especially with Digital Foundry pointing everything out.
I think if asked to choose between graphics and gameplay more people would choose gameplay.
* I'm sure that there are changes under the hood that justify all the time spent on the game and i am in no way trying to discredit the hard work that goes into these products.
probably not that much
I think that "Gamers" do care about graphics but mainly because most AAA games are so safe that its the major selling point. If you are buying Forza 7 over Forza 5 for instance, the gameplay won't evolve all that much to the average player* so it leans on the marketing team to find some other way to sell the game. Graphics is the easiest and most convenient change to show off as a selling point. Especially with Digital Foundry pointing everything out.
I think if asked to choose between graphics and gameplay more people would choose gameplay.
* I'm sure that there are changes under the hood that justify all the time spent on the game and i am in no way trying to discredit the hard work that goes into these products.
Soul of the Beast
Member
Bloodborne still has better visual than most AAA games with much better graphics, so yeah....art wins.
Without art, graphics ain't shit.
Without art, graphics ain't shit.
megametaman
Member
IM so sick of this gameplay > graphics thing. Graphics get you interested. If you see two games with similar gameplay but one looks great and the other one shit, youll gravitate towards nice looking game.
Its the same reason why fruit in grocery stores arent weird shaped or aesthetically displeasing. Same taste but no one will buy odd looking fruit. Do you buy the odd shapes fruit at grocery store or the perfect looking apple?
Its the same reason why fruit in grocery stores arent weird shaped or aesthetically displeasing. Same taste but no one will buy odd looking fruit. Do you buy the odd shapes fruit at grocery store or the perfect looking apple?
Here's my uneducated opinion - the importance of graphics is a myth perpetrated by large video game companies because graphics (technical) improvements are easier to achieve than gameplay (artistic) improvements.
Bonus - required resolution for enjoyment is dictated only by screen size i.e. it's hard to fully enjoy an N64 game on a large TV because the jaggies are distracting, 1080/60 is great and anyone that thinks they need more is a muppet
Bonus - required resolution for enjoyment is dictated only by screen size i.e. it's hard to fully enjoy an N64 game on a large TV because the jaggies are distracting, 1080/60 is great and anyone that thinks they need more is a muppet
Yep Graphics matter, its not a myth.
People bang on about having a 60hz refresh minimum.
People get all hot and bothered when one console can push out higher resolution, fps.
When Rage was released it got absolutely trashed because the graphical fidelity was bollox over anything but a 1080 resolution. this was on the PC but I think the fallout affected the console versions pretty badly.
4k is getting pushed harder and harder.
People generally don't play on PC unless they want better graphics than what is available on consoles.So it certainly matters to them.
And to be honest if graphics didn't matter then the Atari 2600 would probably be remembered as a decent console. maybe......... probably not.......... it was pretty shit.
People bang on about having a 60hz refresh minimum.
People get all hot and bothered when one console can push out higher resolution, fps.
When Rage was released it got absolutely trashed because the graphical fidelity was bollox over anything but a 1080 resolution. this was on the PC but I think the fallout affected the console versions pretty badly.
4k is getting pushed harder and harder.
People generally don't play on PC unless they want better graphics than what is available on consoles.So it certainly matters to them.
And to be honest if graphics didn't matter then the Atari 2600 would probably be remembered as a decent console. maybe......... probably not.......... it was pretty shit.
Its the other way around. Gaffers whine too much over graphics. Common people dont even notice the minor differences.
People demand the best graphics, which is why last year's hot toy was a mini NES.
Having spent time with the (sold out due to massive popular demand) SNES Classic Mini these past weeks has shown that these old games are perfectly playable despite their aged graphics. In the case of Star Fox, it's the performance that hinders it. With Mario Kart, I've gone from playing it in 50Hz to 60Hz, and that boost in performance has really improved the experience.
Having spent time with the (sold out due to massive popular demand) SNES Classic Mini these past weeks has shown that these old games are perfectly playable despite their aged graphics. In the case of Star Fox, it's the performance that hinders it. With Mario Kart, I've gone from playing it in 50Hz to 60Hz, and that boost in performance has really improved the experience.
No, that is called "nostalgia" and "marketing"
Azelover
Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
Gameplay is king. It's become a little weird at this juncture but it used to be that horsepower was pushed because of gameplay, not visuals.
Back in the days of the NES computers were more capable, but the NES could do sidescrolling much better, and that allowed for gamers to actually explore new worlds. Which Miyamoto went to town with.
The SNES had more colors and the visuals were better when compared to the Genesis. But because the Genesis CPU was faster they could make Sonic, and again it was about gameplay. Sometimes people do gravitate towards better visuals, that's our nature as human beings. But most of the time it's about gameplay.
Back in the days of the NES computers were more capable, but the NES could do sidescrolling much better, and that allowed for gamers to actually explore new worlds. Which Miyamoto went to town with.
The SNES had more colors and the visuals were better when compared to the Genesis. But because the Genesis CPU was faster they could make Sonic, and again it was about gameplay. Sometimes people do gravitate towards better visuals, that's our nature as human beings. But most of the time it's about gameplay.
General Lee
Member
Beauty attracts people, so it's a natural selling point. A more realistic game world also opens up new avenues to game design that weren't previously possible. Take for example L.A. Noire's facial animations.
Why has this been brought up multiple times lmao
People demanding better framerates are actually asking devs to dial back on graphical fidelity in favor of performance and gameplay concerns. AAA console games don't typically hit 60FPS because devs/pubs favor graphics over gameplay. Their belief is that the benefits of graphical fidelity outweigh the gameplay benefits of 60FPS
The "hardcore gameplay > graphics" AAA console based demographic of NeoGAF.com generally proves their numbers right btw
Fbh
Member
I don't know. I think a lot of people do care about graphics, specially when the asking price is $60.
You can argue that games like LOL and battle Royale don't have cutting edge graphics and are still big. But one of them is free and the other is $30.
I think those $60 make people put AAA games in a sort of parallel tier. Sort of like when paying your $10 (or whatever) to watch avengers in IMAX people kinda expect cutting edge special effects which they don't expect when watching Daredevil on Netflix.
But I think Dice would get a considerable backlash if the next Battlefield looked considerably worse than BF1. Or ND if the last of us releases with graphics on the level of Nier Automata instead of Uncharted 4.
Look at the early sales of the current console generation , both consoles were selling like crazy yet the vast majority of the catalog was third party games that just looked nicer . I doubt millions of people where buying Ps4's for Knack and Killzone.
With that said. Yeah I think pushing graphics to the point the game is so expensive to make that it's no longer sustainable is silly. I think people want games to look nice but don't really care about getting the best graphics ever in every game.
Because it was a collectors item fueled by nostalgia. And Nintendo made like 10 so it was hard to get.
Try selling an 8 bit style game for $60. Even if it had amazing gameplay and a lot of content I don't think it's going to be very popular.
You can argue that games like LOL and battle Royale don't have cutting edge graphics and are still big. But one of them is free and the other is $30.
I think those $60 make people put AAA games in a sort of parallel tier. Sort of like when paying your $10 (or whatever) to watch avengers in IMAX people kinda expect cutting edge special effects which they don't expect when watching Daredevil on Netflix.
But I think Dice would get a considerable backlash if the next Battlefield looked considerably worse than BF1. Or ND if the last of us releases with graphics on the level of Nier Automata instead of Uncharted 4.
Look at the early sales of the current console generation , both consoles were selling like crazy yet the vast majority of the catalog was third party games that just looked nicer . I doubt millions of people where buying Ps4's for Knack and Killzone.
With that said. Yeah I think pushing graphics to the point the game is so expensive to make that it's no longer sustainable is silly. I think people want games to look nice but don't really care about getting the best graphics ever in every game.
Because it was a collectors item fueled by nostalgia. And Nintendo made like 10 so it was hard to get.
Try selling an 8 bit style game for $60. Even if it had amazing gameplay and a lot of content I don't think it's going to be very popular.
Sad Affleck
Member
I agree. So who is pushing publishers into this graphical arms race that makes games so expensive that we have to have lootboxes everywhere? Gaffers are an irrelevant minority, the public doesn't care. That's why I believe that it's the publishers themselves that are pushing for bigger, prettier and more expensive games.
DevilSnake
Member
It's not a myth, just look back at any early PS4/X1 threads & there's hundreds of people on GAF alone complaining about the lack of a graphical jump. Same goes for the majority of the internet too.
Gamegeneral
Member
There's a fun effect that happens when a feature (Graphics, new tech, physics, etc) is touted by developers/publishers etc. We look at it and want it because we've gotten a whiff of it. When it fails to deliver, (Dark souls 2, watch_dogs, what have you) we are unhappy because what was promised isn't delivered.
It's very easy to misinterpret this as "Gamers want these features in their games." And not "Gamers are angry when things promised aren't present.".
That's where I think this publisher mindset is coming from.
It's not that we need better graphics or powerful tech in our games. We do like these things, and having them is a good selling point. But they are simply aspects of a larger picture.
It's very easy to misinterpret this as "Gamers want these features in their games." And not "Gamers are angry when things promised aren't present.".
That's where I think this publisher mindset is coming from.
It's not that we need better graphics or powerful tech in our games. We do like these things, and having them is a good selling point. But they are simply aspects of a larger picture.
I don't exactly disagree, but I think that part of what makes this discussion feel pointless in this context is that what makes a game "look great" is often times a lot more subjective and outside of what is normally perceived as "graphics" than most people seem to think.
For example, a not so uncommon sentiment echoed in Nier Automata threads even here on GAF is that the game looks like a PS3 game, some even say "Early PS3", that it looks bad.
Personally, one of the things I appreciate the most in video game visuals is high quality animation, and Automata has that in spades. I also love its art direction and use of color tones that is typical to Yoko Taro's games (and reminiscent of Fumito Ueda's games), not to mention the brilliant character design by Akihiko Yoshida. Nier Automata, to me, because of mainly these reasons among others, looks great. And yet, some people will look at me like I'm crazy when I say that, because it doesn't meet some other specific technical criteria.
At the end of the day, subjective artistic quality will matter more than just raw technical achievements in how good something looks to a particular person. So it doesn't quite fit into "constantly chasing graphical improvements to please consumers".
Give War A Chance
Member
Huge difference between "it could look better in 4K" and "it doesn't look good."
Gameplay was great in U4 though
Lashley
Why does he wear the mask!?
It was fun but hardly GOTY worthy
Okay, I'll bite. Is that gameplay good enough for it to be voted the literal best game of the year by this forum even if the game wasn't the highest level of graphical fidelity on the PS4 at the time? I'm pretty doubtful.
Also, at the same time, the largest criticism for the UC series as a whole has been the fact that it will let gameplay suffer in favor of stretching it's narrative and set pieces. It's a 30FPS console shooting game with light puzzle elements where the main draw is its presentation.
I don't think people get to say that GAF is a place where gameplay is king if that series is really considered the apex here. I don't think you also get to question who is helping push devs to focus on presentation when the goty award here was won on the back of presentation.
Edit: You can like the UC series as much as you want to, but stating that its merits aren't heavily based in fidelity and presentation seems pretty disingenuous to me.
Sad Affleck
Member
It has been pointed out that the industry doesn't care what GAF thinks. If it did, lootboxes would not exist. I don't believe that GAF or other core gamer communities can influence the decisions of big publishers. I wish we could, then every publisher would be making singleplayer 60 fps story-driven games. Since that is not the case it is clear that GAF can't impose its will on publishers and certainly can't be held accountable for ballooning game budgets due to increased graphical fidelity.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
To the OP, I'd argue that the last few decades of generational updates to console hardwaredriven primarily by a demand for graphical upgrades predominantlyreally fly in the face of your argument in the OP.
Even to those making arguments about a distinction between enthusiast, casual and forum-dwelling hardcore gamers; I'd argue its almost impossible to argue that graphics aren't one of the most fundamental features of a game in either of these three groups.
To every gamer of every shape and mindset, graphics are the first thing said gamers see and/or appreciate about a game.
If the argument in the OP was framed around a position that graphics don't need to always be on the absolute cutting edge to be appreciated by gamers at large, then I'd agree, but then this is so obvious when we look at the most successful games as your data-points so as to be a truism.
The argument in the OP, however, is framed around the proverbial graphical "arms-race" as it pertains to publishers. Which is an untenable position to argue like the OP does without presenting any factual data at all. It's pretty clear that publishers are confident in the knowledge that their customer's demand a certain level of visual fidelity as a baseline each generation, for their games to overcome being seen as "dated" graphically.
On the other hand, the OP's focus on graphics, in relation to the problem of development budgets is a slight myopic. The bigger issue is the increase in gamer's demand for more gameplay value with each passing generation. This isn't just about visual fidelity (e.g. even at launch, Destiny wasn't the best looking game, despite being one of the most expensive), but the demand for higher visual fidelity in addition to a bigger scope only compounds the issue.
It's a fact that gamers want more game content for their money, with gaming tastes being geared more towards games with more open-ended and less linear structure. This is apparent even here on NeoGaf. This means more content, as well as "above-the-baseline" visual fidelity; which compounds the problem as it pertains to the costs of asset creation.
E.g. If the cost:
(i) to produce each individual piece of game art increases - with pieces needing to be more complex and created with a higher fidelity
(ii) to produce all game art assets increases - due to a demand for more open-ended structure implying more game content, i.e. a larger scope
(iii) to make all game art more interactive - through higher fidelity animation, more interactivity mechanics and more time needed for things like collision detection setup.
...game budgets will invariably increase, and will do so super-linearly.
Regardless of your feelings on the subject, OP, the expectations of gamers for marked improvements in game scope and fidelity for their newly purchased new-gen consoles, invariably increase with each generation. The PR declarations of publishers you're arguing against are based on an observation of real market dynamics that go beyond the feelings of an individual based on what he/she has subjectively seen on an internet message board.
Even to those making arguments about a distinction between enthusiast, casual and forum-dwelling hardcore gamers; I'd argue its almost impossible to argue that graphics aren't one of the most fundamental features of a game in either of these three groups.
To every gamer of every shape and mindset, graphics are the first thing said gamers see and/or appreciate about a game.
If the argument in the OP was framed around a position that graphics don't need to always be on the absolute cutting edge to be appreciated by gamers at large, then I'd agree, but then this is so obvious when we look at the most successful games as your data-points so as to be a truism.
The argument in the OP, however, is framed around the proverbial graphical "arms-race" as it pertains to publishers. Which is an untenable position to argue like the OP does without presenting any factual data at all. It's pretty clear that publishers are confident in the knowledge that their customer's demand a certain level of visual fidelity as a baseline each generation, for their games to overcome being seen as "dated" graphically.
On the other hand, the OP's focus on graphics, in relation to the problem of development budgets is a slight myopic. The bigger issue is the increase in gamer's demand for more gameplay value with each passing generation. This isn't just about visual fidelity (e.g. even at launch, Destiny wasn't the best looking game, despite being one of the most expensive), but the demand for higher visual fidelity in addition to a bigger scope only compounds the issue.
It's a fact that gamers want more game content for their money, with gaming tastes being geared more towards games with more open-ended and less linear structure. This is apparent even here on NeoGaf. This means more content, as well as "above-the-baseline" visual fidelity; which compounds the problem as it pertains to the costs of asset creation.
E.g. If the cost:
(i) to produce each individual piece of game art increases - with pieces needing to be more complex and created with a higher fidelity
(ii) to produce all game art assets increases - due to a demand for more open-ended structure implying more game content, i.e. a larger scope
(iii) to make all game art more interactive - through higher fidelity animation, more interactivity mechanics and more time needed for things like collision detection setup.
...game budgets will invariably increase, and will do so super-linearly.
Regardless of your feelings on the subject, OP, the expectations of gamers for marked improvements in game scope and fidelity for their newly purchased new-gen consoles, invariably increase with each generation. The PR declarations of publishers you're arguing against are based on an observation of real market dynamics that go beyond the feelings of an individual based on what he/she has subjectively seen on an internet message board.
The most enthuisist forum on the internet surrounding video games regularly handing out goty awards to the prettiest thing on the shelf has nothing to do with this? GAF is pretty fucking silly when it comes to some things, but this isn't really one of them. Enthusiasts want games to look better than previous ones or else we wouldn't have an entire cottage industry of people counting pixels. General audiences and other critics also heavily lean into games like UC4 based on the presentation.
The only real counterargument is that it matters a lot less in multiplayer games when you start digging through critical success. That's probably true to an extent. That still doesn't change the fact that the top multiplayer games tend to look better than their counterparts when you start comparing them directly. You literally see this happen in every thread PUBG is in when people start posting screens (like a mod did in here) for the sake of it.
Graphics hardly impress me anymore, not because they haven't improved a lot, it's because they've been "good enough" for a while that I don't really get that moment of awe. Although, Witcher 3 gave me many of those moments but that was due to sheer beauty of the world's (art design) more than anything.
I've played many of the AAA games this year and just as many or more games from 2012-2014. I more amazed by how good and clear old games look at higher resolutions and 144 FPS. Also, art design goes a long way towards making a game beautiful. So often technically impressive games have bland looking worlds and characters.
I alos find a lot of newer AAA games aren't sharp enough with all of the effects, post processing, excessive blur, and poor AA options going on.
Note to devs, high framerates and resolution are free. It's a matter of hardware. Maybe stop focusing on cramming as much as possible into 30 FPS and focus more on performance and image clarity.
I've played many of the AAA games this year and just as many or more games from 2012-2014. I more amazed by how good and clear old games look at higher resolutions and 144 FPS. Also, art design goes a long way towards making a game beautiful. So often technically impressive games have bland looking worlds and characters.
I alos find a lot of newer AAA games aren't sharp enough with all of the effects, post processing, excessive blur, and poor AA options going on.
Note to devs, high framerates and resolution are free. It's a matter of hardware. Maybe stop focusing on cramming as much as possible into 30 FPS and focus more on performance and image clarity.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
This posts sounds extremely elitist and fails to consider that people enjoy different gameplay mechanics.
Just because you don't consider the gameplay in Uncharted games to be of any value, doesn't mean that others do.
The merely fact that the series has seen four increasingly successful entries, shows that more and more people enjoy the total package. If the presentation alone was the series' only redeeming quality, it would have died after maybe the second game.
Birgitte2004
Member
Not noticing minor differences is not at all the same statement as "don't care about graphics". If the next Madden returned to the graphical level of Madden from 10 years ago it would be ridiculed by "common people", no matter how good the gameplay may be.
I'm not saying the game is bad like that. What I am saying is that the game makes loads of compromises with the gameplay in order to deliver that total package. If gameplay is really king, as so many on GAF point out, then they would be asking for the gameplay to be less compromised or look towards more gameplay focused games as the top of the medium. They aren't. They are voting for Uncharted.
Call me an elitist or whatever the fuck you want, but I don't think there's really an argument to be had around the primary draw of the Uncharted series when you compare it to what else is out there.
"The experience is king" is more of what GAF's motto probably should be. That experience tends to factor graphics into the equation pretty frequently going off what I've seen.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
I am a self admitted graphics whore, though at this point the quality of graphics is getting good enough that I would much rather see higher frame rates, quality filtering (16x AF), HDR, fov options, and good antialiasing than pushing more polys or high quality textures (at least with consoles). The graphic quality in older games is not an issue for me, but I do get annoyed with things like frame rate caps, locked aspect ratios and fovs, limited resolutions, and lack of AA options.
Uno Venova
Banned
Bringing up what GAF thinks is like the worst argument to the OP, since that has nothing to do with what gamers want as a whole. And yes, the graphics arms race is overstated, blaming publishers ballooning budgets and unrealistic expectations on what forums think is hilarious.
UserNotFound
Member
The share and stakeholders and investors of most big publishing and development houses want the tech to be bleeding edge because they believe it's what drives sales. Others, such as Blizzard, believe in crafting gameplay loops and Skinner boxes as an ideal experience for users.
I don't think the graphics vs gameplay arguments will ever really stop, but I'd argue that finding the balance between both and having a great marketing push will be what drives both the casual gamer and the NeoGAFer.
I don't think the graphics vs gameplay arguments will ever really stop, but I'd argue that finding the balance between both and having a great marketing push will be what drives both the casual gamer and the NeoGAFer.
Sad Affleck
Member
Yes, it has nothing to do with this. Even if every single forum member was buying games at $60 they would still be a miniscule amount of sales for the average AAA game.
Kentuchi
Neo Member
I don't think it's a myth just because we feel like it's one, markets are very diverse and can be tricky to understand. It's a question that can be answered by market research, I'm not aware of any research to back up either claims.
The success of games like PUBG as well as the indie Renaissance we're currently experiencing doesn't mean that people (a segment of the market however big) still don't want top tier graphical experiences, they're not mutually exclusive.
I don't know of any research but publishers do conduct market research, that's why Ubisoft could have the confidence to fully embraced the GaaS model, if publishers like them still want to crank out high graphics it would be safe to assume that the graphics matter too.
Don't underestimate the ability of some market research to unearth trends. If the data says a sizeable portion of the market wants top notch graphics then it is what it is.
The success of games like PUBG as well as the indie Renaissance we're currently experiencing doesn't mean that people (a segment of the market however big) still don't want top tier graphical experiences, they're not mutually exclusive.
I don't know of any research but publishers do conduct market research, that's why Ubisoft could have the confidence to fully embraced the GaaS model, if publishers like them still want to crank out high graphics it would be safe to assume that the graphics matter too.
Don't underestimate the ability of some market research to unearth trends. If the data says a sizeable portion of the market wants top notch graphics then it is what it is.
I'm just saying that despite GAF being a loony bin, the opinions I read on here when it comes to $60 singleplayer console games are not far from mainstream conversations, reviews, and sales. GAF just tends to take things to extremes.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
What compromises? You seem to be pushing an nebulous argument...
Ask 100 gamers for a list of the top-ten 3rd person shooters in terms of gameplay and I'm confident that U4 will be in that list.
In the grand scheme of things, U4's shooter gameplay is in no way substandard. It's even considered good by the millions who consistently return to the series. The games aren't perfect, but then a game doesn't need to be perfect to top a NeoGaf GOTY poll (see MGSIV).
To me, your problems are two-fold:
(i) you seem to consider your subjective opinion on the value of a game's gameplay to be objective fact... and
(ii) you seem to care too much about some other internet poster's perception of the NeoGaf community as one which values "gameplay first" protip: it isn't... it's merely a collection of a bunch of people with different tastes and preferences as they pertain to videogames.
ZombieNapoleon
Member
For me personally, a great gameplay and story always lead me to finishing a game out before the next shiny thing comes along. Graphics won't necessarily, you can look at the Order 1886 for a great example.
But overall, I think you just have to look at the marketing and what many consider "console sellers". These aren't typically low-res or back of mind graphics. If done well, these games sell a ton and are profitable (Uncharted, Zelda, Horizon, etc.). I just don't buy the spin that high-budget games can't be profitable without GaaS or loot-boxes tacked on. We all know there will be duds along the way and typically that's what killed the AA or 3rd party marked a few years ago when companies strove to increase the graphics rather than concentrate on the type of gameplay/story they were pushing.
But overall, I think you just have to look at the marketing and what many consider "console sellers". These aren't typically low-res or back of mind graphics. If done well, these games sell a ton and are profitable (Uncharted, Zelda, Horizon, etc.). I just don't buy the spin that high-budget games can't be profitable without GaaS or loot-boxes tacked on. We all know there will be duds along the way and typically that's what killed the AA or 3rd party marked a few years ago when companies strove to increase the graphics rather than concentrate on the type of gameplay/story they were pushing.
It is simple. Most people are happy with 30fps and prefer eyecandy even today. And in terms of fifa, even a midrange PC pumps out >200fps. That is a really bad title for a comparison.
Of course there are some 60fps games and the gamers are happy with them but if the situation wasn't simple, the big publishers wouldn't pump out 30fps AAA eyecandy titles.
And to be honest - if you REALLY REALLY care about framerate a console is the worst system to play with.
Chozo_Lord
Member
I think sequels are the main problem causing the chase for better graphics. Sequels are much easier to make and have way less risk associated with them. Let's say someone makes a new IP that has really good gameplay, but the graphics are mediocre. That new IP sells a lot of copies and is critically appraised. Because that new IP is successful they want to make a sequel for the obvious reasons. Gameplay can be harder to innovate and you risk changing what made your new IP successful in the first place. Gamers complain a lot when you release a sequel with the same gameplay or graphics as the first one. They would say things IP 2 the sequel is just IP 1.5 and it could've been dlc instead. New gameplay is hard, so you try to make the graphics better to appease the gamers and prove your game is IP 2 instead of 1.5. Successful IP's and sequels breed even more sequels, which demand even better graphics. It's easier to rely on hardware power increases to increase graphics than invent new gameplay.
I think you have it the other way around... on GAF everyone was whining about the Wii not being HD while the mainstream was lapping it up like heroin. Minecraft, League of Legends, and Player Unknown look pretty poor but there's no doubt they're massive mainstream hits. It's only on GAF where you have people argue obsessively over slight resolution drops or do pixel counts or drop hundreds of dollars on keeping their PC rig up to date.
Though there are certainly some games that have gotten more mainstream success due to their impressive graphics - Witcher 3 is a huge leap in graphics and sales over the first 2, and the Uncharted series always manages to sell well (though that can be because it's more prudent for Sony to throw advertising budgets behind more graphically impressive games).
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
Graphics plateaued for me when the PS3 came out or it might have been the Arcade Version of Virtua Fighter 3. Either way, I'm long past graphics and more about art.
Huge Succeeded
Banned
oh my gooooooood *rolls eyes*