CountAntonius
Member
A large part absolutely do.
I laughed heartily.Also, OP got called out by Daniel Ahmad hard on Twitter. Talk about backfire.
https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/920671105362341888
.
Also, OP got called out by Daniel Ahmad hard on Twitter. Talk about backfire.
https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/920671105362341888
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 personally care more about aesthetic rather than actual GRAPHICS.
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.
ThisThe ๖ۜBronx;252394449 said: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.
of course it's a myth, look at some of the most popular games. gta v
Doesn't explain Minecraft, Pokémon or counterstrike though. I'd be careful mixing up being more popular with having the loudest fans.This
To the average person (and the average consumer is the majority here), graphics are what defines what games are the biggest and best. Ive 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
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.
The audiences for LoL and Counterstrike are only a small fraction of the entire gaming audience. Theyre not representative of the average person or the majorityDoesn'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.
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?
The audiences for LoL and Counterstrike are only a small fraction of the entire gaming audience. Theyre not representative of the average person or the majority
And Minecraft is an outlier, not the norm
It's freeAs 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
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 its still a fraction of the total video game audience. Maybe not a small fraction, but not representative of the majorityAs 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.
On gaf its gameplay > graphics. But in reality its graphics > gameplay.
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.
For WWE fans it's neither.
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
GAF is graphics > gameplay.On gaf its gameplay > graphics. But in reality its graphics > gameplay.
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 its still a fraction of the total video game audience. Maybe not a small fraction, but not representative of the majority
Unfortunately the masses absolutely do. Gaming enthusiasts don't, but comparatively, we're a minority.
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.Good graphics are better marketable than good gameplay. That's the main reason.