• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why graphics don't matter

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
you can make a game impressive based on graphics but not fun, engaging, addictive, etc.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you will have a tough time convincing me or any sane person that the graphics in the second screen grab to do not make that game more fun, immersive, or engaging than the graphics in the first screen grab. If you took Project Cars and changed nothing but replacing the graphics with Rad Racer graphics, the game experience would be completely different, and not for the better.

Rad_Racer_-_1987_-_Square_Co.,_Ltd..jpg


ProjectCARS_PC-4-wm.png
 
Pariah said:
Sorry, you will have a tough time convincing me or any sane person that the graphics in the second screen grab to do not make that game more fun, immersive, or engaging than the graphics in the first screen grab. If you took Project Cars and changed nothing but replacing the graphics with Rad Racer graphics, the game experience would be completely different, and not for the better.
Click to expand...
Yet I could think of old 2D racers from the Commodore 64/Amiga era that would be more fun than the graphically superior Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing.

While Project Cars looks beautiful for those who actually have powerful enough hardware for fluid frame rates, I'm still not disappointed with 2006 graphics from GTR2. I'd take 100+ FPS functional over 30 FPS stutter-but-sure-looks-good-in-screenshots any day.
 
eRacer said:
Yet I could think of old 2D racers from the Commodore 64/Amiga era that would be more fun than the graphically superior Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing.

While Project Cars looks beautiful for those who actually have powerful enough hardware for fluid frame rates, I'm still not disappointed with 2006 graphics from GTR2. I'd take 100+ FPS functional over 30 FPS stutter-but-sure-looks-good-in-screenshots any day.
Click to expand...

Why the hell is Big Rigs even in the discussion? That POS code pile is broken both gameplay-wise and visually. With the mass amount of z-fighting in said POS, and extraordinarily bland textures (I've seen much better on the PS1), well done 2d visuals stomp it by miles comparison. As for gameplay, 98% of mobile shovelware does better.

Tl,dr: Comparing probably one of the worst games of all time (if not the worst) to anything halfway well-done on any system is not a fair comparison.
 
thehotsung8701A said:
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.
Click to expand...

The CPU handles the game engine, including the story. And while a CPU does not cost as much as a high end GPU, we still pay for them. Spending 200-300 for a CPU in a gaming box is pretty much the norm. To say we do not pay for them is not correct.
 
With that logic, does anything matter?

Truth is, its up to the user to decide what they want from a game. To some, graphics are everything. To others, graphics are nothing. And many do not buy graphics cards exclusively to play games at the maximum settings... Lots play to ensure optimal performance at all times. For example, as a hardcore Counter Strike player, all my settings are on low to reduce clutter, but a graphics card is still necessary to run games at 200+ FPS to ensure a consistent framerate.

To most, its a combination of both. Nobody wants to suck at playing games due to terrible framerates. Furthermore, nobody wants to play a butt ugly shell of a game just to ensure they stay competitive.

And for the record, some seem to have gotten themselves to believe that a story in a game is told exclusively through audio, and that at the end of the day a graphics card really is not necessary. And that may have been true, 20 years ago, but this is 2015. Graphics are widely used to tell stories in the few games that actually still have stories to tell.
 
Last edited:
Unless you are playing a text game, graphics matter to some degree. They all have graphics, except for those old school text adventures like Zork. The same goes for game play. It isn't a game if there isn't some game play.

What is most important varies to many. For me, game play matters a lot, but if the graphics are good enough, I sometimes venture outside my normal genres to see some eye candy.

I never was much of a FPS gamer, but Far Cry's graphics caught my eye, and it turned out the gameplay was a lot better than any FPS game I had played before. I loved the stealth mechanics and open nature to the battlefields.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top