Video game graphics don't need any more improving

I just watched the Watchdogs trailer and the graphics are great.  Yet again we have obnoxious blowhards complaining about the graphics. So let me get this out straight. Are you ready for it?

Graphics don't ing matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus fucing chris people. THEY DON"T F{UCKIN MATTER!!! VIdeo game graphics don't need any more improvement. We are at the highest point we can get in that technology. Grand theft auto 5 looks phenomelo. We don't ing need it ultra ing realistic. If everyone just stopped ing improve graphics we'd have more amazing games for the ing GAME PLAY 

I make this statement often if a game is fun who cares about the graphics, I would like to see more games with 16 bit style being released to this day. Back to the days were gameplay was what mattered, FFXVI needs to go back to the 16 bit style!

I don't care about graphics

To base a game solely on graphics is like basing a person solely on looks. They might look like the bees knees but really once you get to know them be a piece of dog doodoo

There are so many games out there that are underrated because of their graphics that shouldn't be, and so many that are so overrated and really shouldn't be selling at all, but the younger generation is like "omg th0s3 sp3c1al 3ff3ct5!!!! This game rules!!" (Gosh, it pained me to write like that)

Everyone cares about graphics. They're a crucial component to a game no matter how you spin it. Now that we're starting to see the full spectrum, however, I think it's easier than ever to appreciate different kinds of art direction and graphical designs. There's still plenty of potential in any of these styles. I'm just as down to see an amazing looking HD era game as I am to see what indie developers have up their sleeves with 16bit, isometric, or what have you. 

In any case, it's possible to have 'bad' graphics no matter what technology you're working under. Visuals should serve a purpose, and you can easily tell the difference between a lazily produced game and a well produced one.

Graphics definitely matter in a game like NBA 2K14. The more it looks like the real thing,the better. 

[SIZE=10pt]As long as my character actually looks like it has a face, I'm fine with how far graphics have come. I however don't need them to be realistic for the most part. It all depends on the game, but when it comes to RPG's I'm fine with graphics like in Xillia or Persona 3 & 4.  I will also say that I'm fan of the way games like "Legend of Heroes" are done. [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]Or one of the many other [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Kemco[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt] RPG's that are on the App Stores.  [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]I don't think anyone can say they don't care about graphics but I think they can say they don't actually need life-like graphics in all games. Which even those kind of 'graphics' can be welcome and nice depending on the game. I've always had a big thing for cell-shaded graphics specially in [/SIZE]The Darkness 2[SIZE=10.5pt] or [/SIZE]Dark[SIZE=10.5pt]. [/SIZE]Metal Gear Solid[SIZE=10.5pt] and games like the more recent [/SIZE]Final Fantasy[SIZE=10.5pt] games have great graphics as well. [/SIZE]

Look at that face in all it's glory!

Legend of Heroes

The Darkness 2

Dark

I need mid-gen Xbox 360 graphics minimum. Looking at anything with less than 32 pixels hurts my eyes. Going back to early PS2 games is difficult when I've adjusted to physics dynamics. If I can't tell where a character's arm ends and their weapon begins, I can't play it.

I don't agree that graphics don't matter. Plenty of games are visually ugly, and that's bad, and other games are visually impressive, and that's good. Visually impressive though can mean anything from Uncharted to Fez.

I have noticed an obnoxious trend lately of people acting like anything less than 1080p and 60 fps is unplayable. Recently the devs of Driveclub confirmed that the game would be 30 fps and you get these message board freakouts claiming the game is ruined now and can't possibly be fun. Sure, all else being equal, higher resolution and smoother frame rate are better. But it's not the be-all end-all.

Ryuukishi said:

I don't agree that graphics don't matter. Plenty of games are visually ugly, and that's bad, and other games are visually impressive, and that's good. Visually impressive though can mean anything from Uncharted to Fez.

I have noticed an obnoxious trend lately of people acting like anything less than 1080p and 60 fps is unplayable. Recently the devs of Driveclub

confirmed that the game would be 30 fps and you get these message board freakouts claiming the game is ruined now and can't possibly be fun. Sure, all else being equal, higher resolution and smoother frame rate are better. But it's not the be-all end-all.

Click to expand...

I'd rather have a constant FPS over one that's all over the place. I've seen that argument so many times when it comes to console games, the only one that I ever noticed it happen was in Bioshock 2 for about 10-15 seconds and then fixed itself. Even then, it didn't exactly ruin my experience for the game or any of the games on consoles that pretty much run on 30FPS. I'll never understand why people think 30FPS is generally unplayable, I can see it if it's not exactly consistent but I can't really understand the argument when it's not. I've yet to play a console game that has absolutely horrible frame rate issues that make it impossible to enjoy or play. People seem to like 60FPS over 30FPS albeit it still depends on whether it's consistent or not.

I happen to have an HDTV and all three last gen consoles. Anyways I've always played consoles with the cables that came with the system, and I've yet to switch to HDMI to have an even better 'HD' experience. Which I can't honestly I don't really care I can already see the picture clearly with the cables that came with the system. I guess it's one of those things where people have to the best of the best with no exceptions.

I definitely don't enjoy games as much without the 60 FPS, but I do resent the modern attitudes of major developers and the obnoxious part of their fanbase obsessed with high end game graphics at the expense of other parts of the game.

Examples are such as Square's Final Fantasy series that has taken a dive in variety and openness because they'd rather blow their budget on very linear and streamlined experiences that do look ultra pretty.

Or how about massive RPGs like the Elder Scrolls series that have vastly reduced exposition because of the industry wide shift toward fully voiced games with talented but repetitive voice actors who rack up costs quickly and whose voices grow tiresome when you hear it from 50 different guards throughout the continent.

I liked the days when gamers would read dialogue; it was quicker and more efficient, and often allowed them to share more information. The acclaimed PC RPGs of the 90s are good examples of this. A lot more dialogue and branching paths because each one didn't multiply the price of the game development as much.

I completely agree that graphics don't matter. For example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GkexUNh2Pc

DragonClaw said:

I completely agree that graphics don't matter. For example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GkexUNh2Pc

Click to expand...

Wtf.

Kazaganthi said:

Wtf.

Click to expand...

Skyrim, only for the Nintendo 64!

I grew up with NES so graphics don't matter to me.  I probably would retire from gaming when current generation consoles' graphics become standard on handheld gaming devices.  Portable PS4/XB1/WiiU is good enough for me.

This amuses me as over the years my friends and I always marveled at the graphics of the PS1 then the PS2 as each time we were convinced the graphics were so real looking they couldn't get any better. FFVIII in particular wowed me at that time, good times. With that said though I think they are getting closer to how far they can go with the realistic looking graphics and eventually they'll be at a limit. It's like the animators that did Advent Children said if they had went any further with the design they might as well have casted the thing with real live actors. Games now and of the future will always be limited by the budget that's set but they will plateau at some point in terms of quality.

So we've gone from the idiotic statement that graphics are the most important element all the way to the idiotic statement that graphics don't matter. Nice going.

It's like saying sound doesn't matter. Don't be stupid.

Not sure why people are so intent on being at one extreme or another. They are not the end all be all, but they do matter, whether it's from a design/style standpoint or just in terms of flat out technical prowess.

Style matters. Graphics are just a means to an end.

Journey is a really good-looking game. But it isn't because of the level of graphical fidelity. While it does have some impressive visuals, these visuals are due to the style, as opposed to the hardware driving them.

It is possible to make game that look good, really good, no matter what level of technology you are dealing with. Exceptionally well-made games from the NES era still look good. It's just a matter of utilizing the technology effectively to capture a style that is visually striking and/or appealing.

Graphics matter, but not in the way that most people think. They are a tool, there to provide the developers with utility. With the level of power available to the average developer these days, graphics aren't as big of an issue. We are no longer limited by the hardware. We are limited by the amount of resources we have to use the hardware.

I can get high-end 3D models into Unity right now. What I can't do is spend every waking moment producing a huge number of those high-end resources. The technology is not what's holding me back.

Beatles93 said:

I make this statement often if a game is fun who cares about the graphics, I would like to see more games with 16 bit style being released to this day. Back to the days were gameplay was what mattered, FFXVI needs to go back to the 16 bit style!

Click to expand...

not sure about that, but yeah

Richard Kain said:

Style matters. Graphics are just a means to an end.

Journey is a really good-looking game. But it isn't because of the level of graphical fidelity. While it does have some impressive visuals, these visuals are due to the style, as opposed to the hardware driving them.

It is possible to make game that look good, really good, no matter what level of technology you are dealing with. Exceptionally well-made games from the NES era still look good. It's just a matter of utilizing the technology effectively to capture a style that is visually striking and/or appealing.

Graphics matter, but not in the way that most people think. They are a tool, there to provide the developers with utility. With the level of power available to the average developer these days, graphics aren't as big of an issue. We are no longer limited by the hardware. We are limited by the amount of resources we have to use the hardware.

I can get high-end 3D models into Unity right now. What I can't do is spend every waking moment producing a huge number of those high-end resources. The technology is not what's holding me back.

Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

Some more case points like Borderlands was going to be an ultra-realistic-looking game like Rage. Look how those games/franchises turned out. Remember how FUSE was going to be stylized (like their previous Ratchet and Clank games) and was called Overstrike? That's a shame. Well Insomniac (eventually, bit late) said F-you to EA and is now making Sunset Overdrive. Unfortunately, that game isn't that well setup for success, but I'm sure it'll be a cult hit.

I'd also llike to add the SNES era still holds up (imo) because sprites are now a style, and they look great in action. PS1/N64 era (imo) doesn't hold up. As they are on the beginning of trying to do 3D, and it's quite painful to have those nostalgia goggles stepped on and broken.

It's true that graphics don't always matter. When I look for a game, I'm mostly look for gameplay, story, etc before graphics. I'd say graphics need to look good and such as to not strain the gamers eyes, but they don't need to look like The Last of Us or something like that. 

ludus said:

It's true that graphics don't always matter. When I look for a game, I'm mostly look for gameplay, story, etc before graphics. I'd say graphics need to look good and such as to not strain the gamers eyes, but they don't need to look like The Last of Us or something like that.

Click to expand...

The graphics for last of us were a part of what made it such an amazing game and without them the game would have lost a lot of its impact. The ability to have the great graphics it did allowed the games art style to really shine with all of its detail which helped set the setting, without its graphics all the little touches they did to characters faces and movements would have lessened their impact, the giraffe moment would have been less of an amazing scene and so on. If last of us was on ps2 it would have done well but not nearly as well because the graphics helped convey the characters a lot and it helped their world become more engaging. The capital building scene with tess would have been a hell of a lot less impactful if it were on say the ps1because the look in their eyes, body movements, facial animations and so on that told more than their words would be lost. Im playing the ps4 now and the game is better than when I played it on the ps3 because of the extra horsepower.

Its like the curious case of Benjamin button had a ton of cgi in it and used it very well, meanwhile michael bay uses 10x the amount and his movies are awful and boring. Much like that graphics in games do matter but its how the developer uses them that actually matters.

Games like flower or Tetris used their graphics that was perfect for those games. Last of us had the right amount for it while being 100x more powerful than flower. And games like duke nuke forever had modern graphics in its day but still a piece of shit and tons of indie games dont have good graphics and still suck. Some devs use them to great effect, others dont. But to say they absolutely do or do not matter is terribly short sighted and stupid.

The quality of graphics only matter when it pulls you out of a game. Heck, I used to get immersed in even text-based games.

Sometimes simplistic graphics are better because they leave things to the imagination. Sometimes your imagination is far cooler than anything a concept artist can cook up, only to have his/her vision focus-grouped to death.

Now, games need to be 4K to be playable.

Graphics now are good enough for cartoon/fantasy games. For simulators like NFL and especially WWE/UFC/Football the graphics need maybe one more Gen.

If the devs can cover both gameplay & graphics, let it be . If good gameplay, thats good still in my eyes. If bad gameplay but good graphics. I usually stop buying from that particular developer lol

I can probably survive without my eyeglasses.   Am I going to stop wearing them? No

You know you want a an Oculus Rift on your face with that ultra high definition experience.  A rumble pack vest.  A wireless Crisis Zone machine gun with kickback.  For that ultimate first person shooter experience.