Why graphics don't matter

[thehotsung8701A]

Why do I always hear people say this when it comes to every game? Is it just ignorance or is it something more? Gameplay, story, and other aspects are more important but that doesn't mean that graphic don't matter.

Whether it console or PC gamers or both, we all spend lot of money to get good graphics in our said machines. There no component of a game that we spend more money on then for amazing graphics. Nothing even come close.

There is no story processing unit or SPU, we pay the same amount for story as we do for our games. We pay an much heftier additional cost for our GPU.

You can't even have all of these game "aspects" without a good GPU, so tell me why again, graphics don't matter?

Console and PC gamers all care about graphics. There would be no upgrade to next gen console if graphics wasn't a want. PC gamers wouldn't have amazing machines if we didn't care about graphic.

 

[TemjinGold]

Graphics don't matter.

 

[MongGrel]

What's a console ?

 

[alcoholbob]

Pure cutting edge graphics don't matter, but a well crafted game world does.

 

[Azix]

graphics matter. they just don't make or break a game... unless they do.

 

[futurefields]

of course graphics matter, games are a visual medium

 

[desprado]

Graphic is the backbone of any AAA game.

 

[KingFatty]

It's just people insisting that a game does not include art.

If you hang a picasso on your wall, the graphics matter on that visual art.

Games include a component that is visual art in motion. Good graphics enhance the visual art in motion.

The fact that games also include other components does not mean there is no longer any visual artistic aspect to the game as well.

 

[Silverforce11]

Fallout 1 & 2 >>>>>>> Fallout 3, New Vegas & probably Fallout 4 too.

Graphics matter, but nowhere as much as gameplay (mechanics, story, immersion, characters etc).

 

[xthetenth]

Fallout 1 & 2 >>>>>>> Fallout 3, New Vegas & probably Fallout 4 too.

Graphics matter, but nowhere as much as gameplay (mechanics, story, immersion, characters etc).

Vegas is considerably better than 3, it's actually a great example of how two very ugly games on the same engine can be miles apart because of other things.

 

[bystander36]

Fallout 1 & 2 >>>>>>> Fallout 3, New Vegas & probably Fallout 4 too.

Graphics matter, but nowhere as much as gameplay (mechanics, story, immersion, characters etc).

It is hard to compare those games. Fallout 1 & 2 were turn based strategy RPGs, Fallout 3 and New Vegas were 1st person real time RPG's.

I enjoyed both. Fallout 1 & 2 had more humor, but I have a hard time comparing them to 3+.

 

[RussianSensation]

Graphics don't matter.

In the future, they will. :biggrin:

Watch until the end:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr1nN__-2Po

 

[TemjinGold]

Haha I need one of those!

 

[Piroko]

Art direction matters a lot and graphics are an enabler for this. There were plenty of moments in Tomb Raider and Skyrim where I stopped playing for a moment to just appreciate what I was seeing.

Of course there are games like Payday 2 that are bloody good fun with graphics from 2005, but why not have games from both sides of that line?

 

[myocardia]

What's a console ?

A console is a super, super, super slow computer, that can do only one thing, and doesn't do that one thing well at all.

 

[Smoblikat]

Why do I always hear people say this when it comes to every game? Is it just ignorance or is it something more? Gameplay, story, and other aspects are more important but that doesn't mean that graphic don't matter.

Whether it console or PC gamers or both, we all spend lot of money to get good graphics in our said machines. There no component of a game that we spend more money on then for amazing graphics. Nothing even come close.

There is no story processing unit or SPU, we pay the same amount for story as we do for our games. We pay an much heftier additional cost for our GPU.

You can't even have all of these game "aspects" without a good GPU, so tell me why again, graphics don't matter?

Console and PC gamers all care about graphics. There would be no upgrade to next gen console if graphics wasn't a want. PC gamers wouldn't have amazing machines if we didn't care about graphic.

Elder scrolls 3: Morrowind.

A great game with terrible graphics.

 

[HeXen]

Graphics and gameplay go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other, if you do, then the reactions get mixed. They are in fact, one and the same.

When people say something like "gta or Fallout series is about the gameplay, not the graphics. It's a cliche way to tell themselves....it's ok. So they don't feel bad, it's also a defense against any complainers.
When in reality, every gamer wants games like Fallout 4 to look epic visually, but when they use dated graphics, then they say....it's ok, it's about the gameplay" ...lol They are trying to fool themselves by selling the idea that it's all about the gameplay.
That doesn't mean gamers won't enjoy the heck out of playing it, but they still want the more immersive graphics no matter what they say.

 

[bystander36]

For me, a game has to have "reasonable" graphics, but that can be pretty dated if the game play is good. Even if the game looks spectacular, that won't matter if the game play stinks. I think I'd take good game play over good graphics, but in the end, I do want both.

I've currently playing Pillars of Eternity. It has graphics of a 2000 game, and that is the only game interesting me atm, but I'd be lying if I wish it didn't have more modern graphics.

 

[Gryz]

Elder scrolls 3: Morrowind.
A great game with terrible graphics.

You're nuts.
Morrowind was released May 2002. Do you remember 2002 ?

It looked awesome. There was literally *nothing* else that could compare to it.

 

[bystander36]

^ Yeah, when it was released, it was pretty awe inspiring. That was the first game that had good looking water I'd ever seen.

 

[UaVaj]

in this day and age.

graphics only matter... up to high setting and 30fps.
proof is xbone and ps4...

at high setting and 30fps - graphics clearly does not matter.

 

[Cerb]

Pure cutting edge graphics don't matter, but a well crafted game world does.

:thumbsup:

 

[Zodiark1593]

There's a difference between playable, and ugly-as-sin, the latter being bad enough where you can't immerse yourself. For me, upper end PS2 games are usually quite reasonable (though aliasing can be done without). The graphics in this case are usually good enough to not be distracting, though shader effects like shadows and normal maps are missing. Back in Ratchet and Clank: GC, the distortion effects used for explosions looked fantastic, even though it was a cheap framebuffer fake.

 

[RussianSensation]

Graphics and gameplay go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other, if you do, then the reactions get mixed. They are in fact, one and the same.

Minecraft, every single Blizzard game ever made, every single classic PC/console games (compared to Crysis 3/Ryse Son of Rome/The Order 1886), countless indie games like Braid or Super Meatboy don't agree with your assertion. Great gameplay can ensure that a game is a game of the year contender, but the world's best graphics do not.

The Order 1886 destroys Half Life 1/2, Starcraft 1-2, modern Zelda games, 99.9999% of all single console games made in existence in terms of technical graphics, but no one sane would even suggest to put it into the top 100 games ever made. I'd rather play this or this than The Order 1886.

Gameplay >>>> Graphics, until we can't distinguish bad graphics from good graphics when all graphics will be like real life.

 

[xthetenth]

Graphics are important. However the technical aspects of the graphics are secondary to the design aspects. Games can and do become painful to play because of their visuals, but that's because their interface becomes painful to use. Good design lets things age well and still remain good. Amusingly games that rely on the spectacle of pushing technical limits to cover for weak design age incredibly poorly.