pretending graphics don't matter is and always has been some edgy contrarian opinion.
video games an an audio-visual medium. let me repeat - audio-VISUAL. the graphics inform you entirely of what is happening within the game. the way that games chooses to present this is fundamentally important.
i've been playing RDR2 lately and half of what makes it such a technical marvel is the outstanding visuals. i'm sure i'd still enjoy RDR2 even if it had worse graphics, but my enjoyment of it would be deminished.
so shut the frick up you contrarian little zoomer. graphics matter and always have - in fact the drive to improve technology, and thus evolve to later console generations, has almost entirely been driven by the desire to produce better looking games.
so shut the frick up.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
tl;dr
dorf fort exists
merry christmas
99% of players install some sort of graphics overhaul to it
>troon fortress
RDR2 is beautiful sure, but it's a fricking borefest
I regret getting it
i think it's fun, you're just too ADHD brained
Me too I refunded it. The tipping point for me was when I was chopping wood for the camp and realized I could just go outside and do the same thing and get some fresh air and excercise while Im at it.
>Games are so realistic they cease to be games and are just regular fricking chores that are more fun in real life
Gabe Newell was right about realisim.
The end point of realism.
repeat after me, you pathetic little GOY
>GRAPHICS DONT MATTER
>BEAUTY IS UNIMPORTANT
>UGLINESS IS TO BE WORSHIPPED
>SHUN ALL THAT IS BEAUTIFUL
>EMBRACE DECAY
graphics have nothing to do with beauty or presenting information, nes games did both. graphicsgayging is the worship of big numbers for the sake of big numbers, it's not even visual, as long as his fps counter isn't dipping a graphics prostitute is happy regardless of whats shown on screen, and would be amused by a blank white screen with an fps counter and a readout of his resolution (999999999x999999999 of course, what is this a game for ants). btw videogames are not audiovisual they are interactive, play ZORK which has neither audio nor visuals little zoom zoom
bad gameplay will never be compensated for by having good graphics. good gameplay can also be dressed up in whatever visual style you want, it doesn't have to have 60 squintilion vertexes on a model to enhance that good gameplay experience. not only that but it seems as though we've hit a wall in terms of graphical fidelity and processing power; so what's left, you graphics prostitute? ray tracing?
good gameplay is enhanced to new heights by good visuals
but bad gameplay is inexcusable, regardless of how good your game looks.
also, good gameplay doesn't rely solely on graphical fidelity alone; a unique visual style is more important than raw rendering ability.
the nuance here is: graphics matter to an extent, but are not a fundamental element that makes or breaks a game, and can't make a bad game good.
Nah not really
>bad gameplay will never be compensated for by having good graphics
Counterpoint: crysis
I've never played crysis so I don't know how to respond to this. are you telling me that the graphical fidelity of this game is what makes it a compelling experience, even though it has subpar or even dogshit gameplay? I somehow don't believe you, but even if what you say is true, that still doesn't make it a good game. It's a glorified wallpaper/screenshot engine. is that what you want? a game that you just look at, rather than play and enjoy?
counter-counterpoint: the visual style of most super nintendo games has made them timeless classics, there are plenty of examples but here's 5: LTTP, DKC2, yoshi's island, chrono trigger, super metroid. also there are games with phenomenal pixel art, like the metal slug games, that endure the test of time as well. by today's standards they're as primitive as they come, but the artstyle is what saves it.
>pixel art gay
Vs
>4k realism gay
You are both the extremes of the horseshoe that is bad graphics.
Crisis had good story and absolute garbage gameplay.
>here's a bunch of super powers you can use
>gets 3 shotted by starter npcs
>everyone throws 1 shot grenade
>stealth is the only viable mechanic effectively making it a stealth shooter
>gameplay doesn't even allow you to do sight seeing to enjoy graphics
If you want to emphasize the graphics make possible to look at.
Crysis was fun
>not only that but it seems as though we've hit a wall in terms of graphical fidelity and processing power
lol no, realtime rendering doesn't look half as good as offline rendering
New games come out looking like shit because they target such puny resolutions. Game devs say graphics don't matter, gamers say graphics don't matter. Everyone is in agreement besides you that graphics don't matter.
Art style matters, graphical realism does not. RDR2 looks incredible today, but in twenty years it will be viewed the same way we see San Andreas today; a clunky and failed attempt at realism. Heavy Rain released after Wind Waker, yet one of those games could be played today without knowing how old it is. Chasing realism will always be a failed dream and graphics literally do not matter if the game itself is bad.
>pretending graphics don't matter is and always has been some edgy contrarian opinion.
This is just picrel that you fabricated for the sake of making your rant feel warranted. Everyone says that they don't need photorealistic graphics that take a team of 650 devs to create, not that "they don't need graphics." Even if someone had said that, MUDs have been around since before you were even a twinkle in your daddy's eye. Have a Happy New Year.
Posting GOTY (graphics of the year)
>cut off 1/3 of the visuals for cinematic effect
>slash the framerate to a buttery smooth 25 max
>hamstring the gameplay into cover shooter + QTE
>all around 4 hours, not all of which is real gameplay
>it's still trivial to find places and objects that graphically look worse than Half Life 2
>that'll be $59.99 plus tip
That's not what what Ganker is saying. If you look past the constant brainrotting shitposting on this board you will see that most of the complaints are about how much emphasis is given to fidelity over engaging gameplay or game mechanics which are integral to the game yet are given very little focus. It doesn't help that the amount of money money needed to achieve even a decent looking game is completely unjustified
There's a minimum standard and a point of clear diminishing returns. I don't need every pore on someone's face modeled, but incoherent blobs hurt the game more than any corner-cutting can help. Text-based games are the obvious exception, but even then, chickenscratch text and ramble writing hurt those games as well.
That said, most of the best games of their era had at least good graphics and pushed their hardware in multiple ways.
Visuals matter a lot
Putting more and more strain on hardware for the sake of realistic graphics is cancerous
FF VII was released 25 years ago. It’s objectively a better video game than the modern Spider-Man and God of War and arguably has more graphical beauty. You don’t have to like it, you just have to get over it
FFVII had and stimm has amazing graphics, better than the competition at the time, amazing pre renders and cutscenes
FFs were THE graphic prostitute games
And it still holds up. Where we today games that rely on graphical fidelity always book down to
>wow look how real it looks
Which really means
>wow look how boring this is in all aspects
They don’t really matter. I 100’ed Hogwarts on my Deck. The PS5/PC version looked 100 times better, yes… but I don’t care. The visuals on my LCD Deck looked just fine.
Although, if they do eventually come out with a 4k handheld, I’d buy it.
Graphics don't matter. Design matters. All fields.
Oh I get it. The reason why you hate good graphics is because your trans. You venerate the hideously ugly and despite the beautiful, much like you venerate your fellow transmonsters and their rotting axe-wounds, all the while reviling true beauty that's found in actual women.
Graphicsgays are incapable of perceiving beauty, they think new game looks great when it releases, and in 5 years they think the same game, which didn't change at all, looks bad. They are overly-suggestible golems with no inner sense of aesthetic and only believe things look good when they're told so.
For the price of an nShitia card you could get a Steam Deck and a Switch OLED and a ton of games for both.
Gwafixgays don’t care about games.
Stevie, please. Let me enjoy the big mac
>game dev
>join a few indie teams and jams
>there is a very loud minority that is fixated on 4k realistic graphics
>they insist that a game cannot be anywhere good if not realistic
>Even stylized is not good enough
This is you and the majority of boomers in charge of game companies that don't understand that a game is first and foremost gameplay, not graphics.
No hyper realistic iteration of rock paper scissors was a best seller as opposed to something as poorly drawn as mario
>muh visuals
>picks an ugly shitty reposted jpg for his thread
(You)
Hey disingenuous homosexual there's a certain way they don't matter which is what people mean when they say that.
>certain way
No I mean it in all ways
No one would give a shit if the best game of all time had the graphical fidelity of Pong or Tetris. Pretty Graphics are ancillary, a cherry on top, but wholly unnecessary
Tetris looks good and has drastically improved graphically over the years
Try shitting out the same game in pure black and white and see how people retch and recoil
Is that black & white? I'm going insaaaane
this is also correct, I was thinking about this the other day, shitty 2 color systems like game and watch, or OLD games like what the minigames in fallout 4/76 are copying are timeless in comparison to new games and you could pick them up and play them at any time.
im not surprised though since people don't even know what ludology (game design, as in cards chess backgammon, shoji, the weird ones from Ass creed that are so old no one knows what they are anymore, actual sports, etcetera) is and definitely didn't study it before becoming a dev in modern era but they studied how to cause addiction like behavior loops in their "customers" if they're a gacha dev.
dumb frogposter
By this logic the lack of proper sound design is a worse flaw than compromising visual clarity
I don't think anyone has ever said graphics and audio don't matter.
What day do say, and I completely agree with, is that gameplay matters in games more than anything else.
If the gameplay is bad, the graphics and sounds are pointless. The game fails. How many times have you seen this?
Game = gameplay. Why is this so confusing to you idiots?
SH and persona have awful gameplay and those games are popular on Ganker.
SH looks like shit and Persona is highly stylized
People like them for the atmosphere, story, self-inserting to make up for their pathetic high school years and music, mostly.
Awful according to you, you fricking pleb
>8
that's the wrongest statement ever. so many games are carried by their packaging, likle 95% of them. games that relyu only on gameplay are rare, and game that have good gameplay also have better animations texture and art direction than you give it credit
No one, ever, has continued to play a terrible game just because it looks and sounds good.
Why do you think 95% of AAAs bomb?
Haha "packaging" may have hyped it, but has never carried it. They still bomb.
most ppl played warcraft 3 and diablo 2 for the next cutscenes, people played all FF1 on palystation for the environement pre renders and cutscenes, almost all games have meh gameplay the good ones included, same for metal gear solid, people playe dit for the story music etc but not much the gameplay, same for God of war on PS2/ PS3, almost all good games are not gameplay focused or have serviceable gameplay at best.
how many games do you know that have deep and meaningful systems that are really enjoyable to play? these games are very fricking rare it almost never happens, 95% of games are barely serviceable in that regard
>how many games do you know that have deep and meaningful systems that are really enjoyable to play?
Um, bro.. what do you think people are saying when they call something "classic"?
It means an old game, obviously aged, even considered ugly by today yet it's exactly what you THINK you're winning an argument against.
you think MGS on ps1 has a stellar gameplay? FF7 ? CRPGs? Most of them are basically an advanced form of watching dominos with minimal participation. there were definitely gameplay games but they re usually enchanced by the visuals/audio. even counter strike had nice weapons animations and sound and felt good to play. even tetris had good music. i dare you to find games that are renowned with bad visuals and bad music /all around packaging. if you re trying to imply that old games have bad graphics you gotta be some kid, pixel art was pretty advanced and no indie studios can even reproduce it
>most ppl played warcraft 3 and diablo 2 for the next cutscenes,
You kids really do have a cargo cult thing going on here. Reconstructing what experiencing these games must have been like for us. This is laughable. The movies were just nice extras that we enjoyed. Nobody played these games for the fricking cut scenes. Ridiculous.
>Game = gameplay. Why is this so confusing to you idiots?
They're actually called videogames. VIDEOgames. See how easy is to make the opposite argument by using the same logic. I actually agree with you that gameplay is the most important thing but arguing from names is the lowest form of moronation.
>If the gameplay is bad, the graphics and sounds are pointless
No, they aren't?
VNs are a thing, call of duty is a thing,
When people say graphics don't matter, what they're saying is graphical fidelity doesn't matter. Aka, artstyle>realism.
You're just autistic as shit and can't read between the lines
Frog post with da homosexualry
Yes.
if this, why is morrowind more interesting to look at than the following games?
why do people "eh" when looking at vistas in RDR2, other "photoreal" settings compared to idk cutscenes from legend of the dragoon on ps1.
the problem is spending most of your development on graphics means you're not spending it in gameplay or the details behind the graphics, its just there to look pretty. if this is your goal, make a fricking movie and sell it to netflix.
The argument is not that graphics don't matter, is that achieving graphical realism shouldn't trump every other aspect of game design. Obviously, a game needs to be at least appealing to look at whether it does this with graphical fidelity or a unique style since that's the first thing you're exposed to when you see any game, the problem arises when that's really the only good thing you can say about the game because, in their search of graphical enlightenment they forgo something just as important if not more, the gameplay. A game with a bad story, music or graphics but with good gameplay can still strive and succeed. A beautiful game with shit gameplay will always bite the dust. RDR2 is debatable since the gameplay also tries to be realistic and it gets in the way of the fun but if you want an example of games that look pretty and do nothing take a look at shit like The order 1886 as the prime example. Most game these days look great but are forgotten instantly because that's all they do, look great.
Design >>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphics
game is fun and interesting, looks kinda shitty and dated, but sometimes you get nice views
kenshi is a perfect example of "shitty graphics" being better than anything AAA could make in current year.
you keep playing your snorefest rdr2 for 3 more hours
meanwhile I clocked 1300 into factorio
get fricked
factorio has really nice pixel graphics and animations though
>playing pixelshit
opinion discarded
>playing AAAslop
opinion discarded
Graphics can be the difference between SOUL and soulless. The game mechanics can be exactly the same but the finish ruins it.
this comment made me think of the crash bandicoot remakes
im not even saying they're bad its just not the same, despite the meshmaps being exactly the same down to particular platforms having rounded edges that you slide off of, and speedrun strats like running along the rope of the bridge.
It's because the soul of the game is the sum of all its different parts, not the algorithmic logic and programmatic mechanics.
Webm related. The function is exactly the same, the logic is functionally the same, but you can clearly see where the human soul is seeping out of one and not the other.
The ps3 release being capped at 30fps is gay
its a weak console
i play video games that have barely any graphics
text adventures? even those have to take into consideration how readable the text is and how its presented.
that image is 100% graphics. "graphics" doesnt mean "realistic" or high fidelity.
SS13 is a great example of how to do shit graphics right, actually.
I can tell what's going on in that image just by looking at it. I know what everyone's equipped with and how that impacts the gameplay. Everything's visually distinct and it doesn't physically hurt me to look at. That's all you need for a game, graphics-wise.
some MUDs have a blind mode.
It's less that graphics aren't important at all, and more that good graphics don't make up for shit gameplay.
Ass Creed games look great but are boring as shit, because their formula hasn't changed significantly in years. FTL looks meh at best but is endlessly replayable and widely considered one of the best games ever made. That's the difference.
Graphics don't matter.
Visual style does.
Every AAA game nowadays looks the same because they all go for as realistic of graphics as possible. Dev times are ballooning because they're making 4k textures for everything to please homosexuals like you instead of making good games. Switch games look terrible too because everything looks like low res plastic when it's supposed to be at least as powerful as the xbox360.
>video
>games
Graphics do matter but not in photorealism-slop department, clarity and style do matter, proper visual feedback too.
Graphical capacity is the vehicle, but if it has no engine (gameplay), it's useless.
point and click games?
What of it? They are dead aren't they?
>Disco Elysium has constant gameplay elements that make you think and choose accordingly, depending on your skill allocations.
Gameplay is still there and also the biggest draw of the game, because it engages your decision making a the time.
sure, but its not really breaking any new ground. its the same gameplay that makes Ganker call other games walking simulators.
It literally breaks new ground, that's why it's so acclaimed. You didn't play the game since you are comparing it to walking simulators.
>It literally breaks new ground
What ground?
Gameplay >>>>> art style >>>> graphics.
art style and graphics are almost the same thing. cant have one without the other.
>cant have one without the other.
You should look at Sony games, having an art style doesn't mean it's a good one, it might be the most generic shit ever.
>i've been playing RDR2
Ooof, instant downvote.
Develop some taste, dumbfrick frogposter (moron)
Good games don’t require good graphics.
Look at lethal company as a recent example, a quick fun little game with friends.
Graphics obsessions just lead to an exponential increase of dev time that isn’t worth it.
When people say "graphics don't matter" they're not talking about the visuals, they're taking about technical detail as in hardware related. RE5 is 15 years old and still mogs most modern games in the visual department.
people who think ps3 games are still peak haven't seen peak modern graphics, which for my example I will use the intro of the show Foundation in 4k which if they didnt use nanite probably took 8 years to render. wheel of time is another good example.
You didn't understand a thing he said.
ok, if you think ps3 graphics are peak you don't have a good card with ray tracing and a bunch of other very specific hardware level shit I don't know about because im not a graphics card manufacturer.
>ok, if you think ps3 graphics are peak you don't have a good card with ray tracing and a bunch of other very specific hardware level shit I don't know about because im not a graphics card manufacturer.
This is like judging the quality of a painting based on how expensive the oil the painter used is. Actual brainwashed Black personcattle mentality
Everyone loves graphics and good-looking visuals. Everyone always say how "woah/damn this looks so good" without fail whenever a good-looking game is revealed now. The "graphics/visuals don't matter" cope is majority only pulled now by Nintendo fans and Nintendo-excusers to cope with their games looking 2 gens behind basically everyone and Nintendo's hardware being dogshit. They do start caring though when it comes time to shit on Pokemon though. That being because Pokemon isn't necessarily Nintendo so they can shit on it without guilt and committing blasphemy against their God.
I think Nintendo games are for fricking b***h baby manchildren and I don't give a shit how games look. I play roguelikes.
I hate Nintendo for killing arcades
Graphics are about communicating the game, and being pleasant/cool/interesting to look at. They aren't about "muh ultra 8k ultra realistism"
Also most switch games look like dog shit because their art styles are badly made and poorly optimized, just look at Metroid prime remaster. Genuinely the only good looking switch game.
>When they see a game that looks good they say "damn this looks good"
Are they sitting there after 40 hours of boring chores still cumming whenever they see grass in the same game? Graphics are something you get used to after playing a game for a while. Unless it's incredible visually, or just unbearable to look at, it looks how it looks once you play it for a dozen hours or so.
>play good graphic
>computer are become a bomb
Lot of recent games seem like they don't bother making decent assets and just try to cheese their way to making their games look decent with annoying lightslop
Whether or not graphics matter is directly proportional to how powerful Nintendo's latest console is.
Everyone likes good grafix.
Fricking ass-ugly pixelshit vomit on your screen is displeasurable and indies claiming it's "retro" is cope for them being poor artists with bad aesthetics. But also obsessively modeling pores, blackheads, peachfuzz is displeasurable and a TREMENDOUS waste of resources. Graphics have gone too far up their own ass due to lack of good artistic sensibilities.
Graphic’s don’t matter, stop spending 6 gorrillion on game budgets for graphics, israelite
art direction does matter just not everyone need to make a military simulation game
Ray tracing was a scam to make consumers pay for development of hardware that's only really useful for enterprise applications
Best game I played last year looked like a PS2 game. Best game I played this year was drawn in MS paint.
Graphics are for homosexuals.
games can have good graphics/art direction even if they have low graphical fidelity
Graphics and art style matter. Fidelity doesn’t.
I hate the dishonest homosexuals who use as a counterargument an old game that in its time was TOP in graphics.
>Graphics doesn't matter, Look Crash Bandicootrinoo!
>Look CS 1.6roo!!
>Look The san Andreasrinooo!!
key word was, homosexual. they're not top edge graphics anymore yet still look great, therefore having top edge graphics isn't important, it's proven qed
AAA game fans be like "YOOOOOOOOOOO this level of detail is INSANE"
The term "graphics" is too ambiguous so it always starts fights between people who think you are arguing about fidelity/performance or just style. They are both important but I always side with style.
it's less about good graphics and more about good style
modern AAAslop has neither although
Graphics are literally the icing on the cake that is gameplay. If you have amazing icing on a piece of shit, it's still just gonna be a piece of shit.
>No guys you really need to update your consoles and PCs to pay into our subscription services
>No no no stop having fun with retro games buy more consume more reeee
Reminds me of the "caseless" threads that began popping up on Ganker when smartphone companies revealed people weren't buying new phones
A big part of spending money (for some) is when others notice, are otherwise impressed and/or envious.
This means rich people and people bad with money are very distraut when others are just as satisfied with what they percieve to be inferior or less.
My favorite is
>You didn't buy every single new release this year? You played games that you actually liked? Nooooo reeeee kys poorgay third worlder you must buy either a $500 console or a 5000$ PC (plus a dozen $70 games on release)!!! consoom!
>dude Crysis is the best game ever
said none ever
It was pretty mind blowing in 2010
>It was mind blowing
Honestly seeing gameplay online was more impressive than actually playing it
tl;dr.
kys graphic prostitute.
all i care is game being easily readable and having good UI, it can be 2d and look like this
Thanks for your essay and good luck on your SRS
>reddit frog
>moronic post
Everytime
Art style matter, graphics don't, this is why RDR2 is an inferior game to the previous one despite two generations difference in fidelity.
'Graphics' being stated as a be-all end-all term is what ruined the gaming industry for most people.
you want games to look prettier, but scream 'GRAPHICS', you know what that lead to? graphical intensity being increased, increasing costs of production and rising the necessities of stronger and stronger machines to play the games that push realism with diminishing returns. Graphics aren't as important as visual aesthetics, the right aesthetic, artstyle and direction can make a game look timeless, there are Gamecube and Wii games that still look better than fricking PS5 and XSX games, and probably cost a fricking fraction of the cost to make.
Graphics gays are not to be listened to, graphics should not be the cornerstone of the goddamn industry, actually know what you're asking for, and frick off.
presentation != graphics
the most beautiful games i've played are all on the lower end of graphics tech with the exception of CP 2077 and AC Unity
Which lower end games have you played that you consider beautiful?
Journey
Rayman Origins
Souls games
TWEWY and its sequel
Max Payne
Ghost Trick
Anything Vanillaware related
Transistor
ICO
Killer 7
Bioshock
Grim Fandango
The Witcher 1
Baten Kaitos
completely off the top of my head. i'm not anti-tech or anything there are games that are technically impressive that i would like to play based on their graphical fidelity like Alan Wake 2 and Death Stranding, which look amazing and blend cutting edge graphics with appealing art style but they look way too fricking boring to me to justify spending money and time on them
This, even when normalgays say "good graphics" what they're actually saying is "this game has good presentation"
OP literally uses RDR2 as an example which is technically a 5 year old game running on 2009 PC tier specs. Hardware hasn't mattered for graphics for well over a decade, it's almost completely an artistic thing now
OP, YOURE GETTING COMPLETELY BTFO IN YOUR OWN THREAD
CARE TO COMMENT??
Artstyle > Graphics, kid
Nine times out of ten, twenty times out of ten you like the art direction more than the dirty pores on the protag's skin.
artstyle is a part of graphics. what you mean is graphical fidelity.
idk who you are quoting
more pixels doesn't necessarily mean "prettier pixels"
just look at the recent retro revival wave where people suddenly woke up to the people doing low poly psx/goldsrc/quake/ps2/whatever style graphics
zoom zoom
It’s not even that they don’t matter, because they need to hit a bare minimum of not looking too messy or unreadable. But they’re the least important aspect in terms of making a game more enjoyable. Most people will remember the exploration, the battles, the controls, the enemies, the levels, the story, the characters, or the music. A game looking good is nice, but most people don’t really derive the same enjoyment from a game looking good compared to other aspects of a game.
Graphics don't and will never matter, only artstyle does.