Omotesando
Member
Gameplay > Graphics every single time.
A lot of people do judge games' quality by their graphics though.
Graphics, art style, animation, fidelity and fps play a large role in gameplay.
Gameplay > Graphics every single time.
A lot of people do judge games' quality by their graphics though.
Even if so, PUBG is a Minecraft/LoL/CSGO phenomenon of 0.0001% outliers that transcend the challenges of average publishers.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.
WTF! Sad Affleck explain thyself!Also, OP got called out by Daniel Ahmad hard on Twitter. Talk about backfire.
https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/920671105362341888
WTF! Sad Affleck explain thyself!
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?
Why are you separating arti direction and realism as if they're two different concepts?Art style matters a lot to me. Resolution and "realism" not so much.
On gaf its gameplay > graphics. But in reality its graphics > gameplay.
I have flashbacks of the fallout 4 reveal trailer and the reactions here
I dont agree. I really often see gaf people complaining about gfx. Yet those arent pc players, but mostly xbox or ps4 players. Ironic. Demanding gfx will have a cost. Games are already too expensive to create. Developers were not happy with the ps4 pro, because they had to create multiple versions.
If a) core gamers like myself and other NeoGAF posters are a vocal minority that do demand better graphics but have no power to influence things and b) the masses don't care about graphics and are perfectly happy playing games like LOL, Counter-Strike, Minecraft and such, then where is this enormous pressure to push the graphics envelope coming from?
If you don't care about graphics, why don't you just play board games?
I don't know if that's fair to say. I don't think graphics mean much if your game isn't at least just as appealing. The Order: 1886 is a good example of that.
If you don't care about graphics, why don't you just play board games?
Art style matters a lot to me. Resolution and "realism" not so much.
If you care about graphics why don't you just watch Avatar?
However, bad graphics won't make me stop playing a game, where bad gameplay will.
Because it has no gameplay?
I think gameplay is very important, obviously, that's what makes it a game.
But graphics are just as important -- and depending on the game, sometimes even more so.
What do you think of Super Mario Kart? Star Fox (the original)? Final Fantasy 7?
These games have solid gameplay, but the graphics are so bad it often times detracts from it, and IMO, renders them all virtually unplayable.
Exactly, just like boardgames don't have the 'video' part that video games have. It was a dumb comment.
I don't think so at all. At their core, board games and video games are pretty similar. The difference is primarily graphical and to an extent, immersive. Early turn-based strategy games were basically just strategy board games put in a digital realm; RPGs started off as digital versions of pen and paper D&D. This is why you have a lot of overlap between hardcore video game players and hardcore board game players.
Of course, there are many video game genres that do not map to board games, and it's principally because of the graphical component.
Because it has no gameplay?
I think gameplay is very important, obviously, that's what makes it a game.
But graphics are just as important -- and depending on the game, sometimes even more so.
What do you think of Super Mario Kart? Star Fox (the original)? Final Fantasy 7?
These games have solid gameplay, but the graphics are so bad it often times detracts from it, and IMO, renders them all virtually unplayable.
I think the fact that the games industry for Sony and MS has grown over the years and Nintendo almost died shows they do want better graphics and more POWA. There's room for innovation (Switch) but try and make a normal console that's weak and you pay the price.
"Art style" with bad textures and resolution looks bad though. Look at BOTW. Resolution and art style accommodate each other.