Board 8 > Has anyone else changed their opinion re: importance of graphics

(+) Yeah! (+)

Throughout the 90s and 2000s, I was one of those people who made fun of "graphics whores." I didn't really care at all about graphics in games. Give me gameplay, storyline, whatever, but the notion that graphics quality was a deciding factor at all seemed absurd to me. I mean sure, I could distinguish that some games looked better than others, whether 2D or 3D, but I just didn't see it as a thing worth caring about.

But now, uh, I kinda do. It just occurred to me that over the last few years... a lot of games look fucking beautiful now and I find myself more and more often just staring at the screen with my mouth open a bit just in awe. I'll stop and appreciate the beautiful environments. I'll crash my car in a racing game because I was checking out the scenery. It's not necessarily that graphics quality will affect my purchasing decision... but it will affect my overall enjoyment.

Anyone else go through something similar?
---

yes and no.

I think certain things in graphics bother me more now than they used to, like clipping or bad animations. like there are some things that people can't get away with, whereas probably when I was younger I would've been like "who cares if it's fun."

but also it depends on the game. like I know the new Ace Attorney HD sprites are kind of weird looking but I don't care because it's AA.

Not really for graphics in general, but I definitely feel like I've been spoiled by good UI in the last decade or so. It's hard to go back to how ugly menus/HUD used to be.
---

Was never really one of those people who made fun of graphics people but I do think they matter a lot more now though.

But I mean I don't think it's really changing my opinion. At some point graphics crossed a threshold of quality where they can actively help immersion if done well. This generally wasn't possible back when it was various flavors of lego blocks or pixels.
---

With graphics, I think it's more a matter of presentation than whether they're realistic or whatever, but I've always kinda felt that way. I don't have a problem playing older games with "inferior" graphics as long as they're used well.
---

Kenri posted...

Not really for graphics in general, but I definitely feel like I've been spoiled by good UI in the last decade or so. It's hard to go back to how ugly menus/HUD used to be.

This is also true for me. I used to not think much about UI at all, because it was nearly universally shitty. But man, it is hard to go back and play some old games with shitty UI.
---

Yeah, it's gotten to a point where it's really hard to play PS1/N64 era games or NES games. Everything else is mostly ok though

I used to be "graphics don't matter" guy but now it can really help or hurt my opinion of a game
---

Graphics are great but performance should always come first. I don't care how mindblowing the game looks, if it's below 60 fps then the priorities were completely misplaced IMO.
---

Xiahou Shake posted...

Graphics are great but performance should always come first. I don't care how mindblowing the game looks, if it's below 60 fps then the priorities were completely misplaced IMO.

Are you almost exclusively a pc gamer?
---

Aecioo posted...

Are you almost exclusively a pc gamer?

I am! I do have both a PS4 and a Switch to play true blue exclusives that will either never come to PC or won't for years, though.
---

how bizarre

i'm the complete opposite. i used to think a games visual quality was hugely important because there was a big difference in games that were pushing the boundaries and those that weren't.

but now i don't see much of a difference. I'll see someone say that a 3d rendered games graphics are god awful and i'll be like... seems good to me? I don't think giant insane leaps in quality matter any more. It''s all the same to me

Honestly I can't even tell the difference between games made 8 years ago and today sometimes.

Graphical errors are something different though.
---

Not in the slightest. I would gladly go back to PS2/GC level graphics if it meant the time being spent on graphics was spent on content instead.

Xiahou Shake posted...

Aecioo posted...

Are you almost exclusively a pc gamer?

I am! I do have both a PS4 and a Switch to play true blue exclusives that will either never come to PC or won't for years, though.

Good, just wanted to double check with your emphasis on fps!
---

I think I care about them the same (as long as the graphics have a well executed style then I will enjoy them) but I have become way less tolerant of mediocre graphics. There are so many games now that intentionally use simpler but stylized graphics, and look amazing, that it seems like such a waste when a studio tries to over extend and make super realistic graphics that end up being awkward and unpolished. It happens in like every Japanese game.

Also I've grown to dislike the super grossly dense graphics of something like Uncharted 4 or Red Dead Redemption 2. Just thinking about the crazy amount of work put in for something that doesn't add to the emotion of the game at all.
---

It happens in like every Japanese game.

I've pretty much turned on Japanese games entirely. I think the last good one was like... I dunno... FFX? Maybe one of the newer Dynasty Warriors?

I assume they still make decent fighting games, but I've never been into those...
---

foolm0r0n posted...

There are so many games now that intentionally use simpler but stylized graphics, and look amazing, that it seems like such a waste when a studio tries to over extend and make super realistic graphics that end up being awkward and unpolished. It happens in like every Japanese game.

wat
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Also I've grown to dislike the super grossly dense graphics of something like Uncharted 4 or Red Dead Redemption 2. Just thinking about the crazy amount of work put in for something that doesn't add to the emotion of the game at all.

also wat imo
---

I can appreciate good graphics, but it seldom if ever makes the decision for me. I know I was interested in Bayonetta after seeing it at a show, but that's the only time I can remember that being an explicit influencing factor in my purchase of a game.

The much bigger factor is that going back to old games is hard. I grew up on C64, which routinely had blob graphics, awful artifacts all over the screen, and terrible UI. Going back to that is brutal. NES and SNES games were often very carefully designed to maximize what they had to work with, but the generation after that really wasn't and the PC games of the day weren't always much better.

However, I do still laugh at graphic snobs, especially people who insist on high framerate. The average person doesn't see at an effective framerate above 30. What do I need 60 for? That's just taxing the GPU for no reason. Give me a game my machine will play over a game that forces me to upgrade my hardware any day.
---

MZero11 posted...

wat

Solioxrz362 posted...

also wat imo

were my words too difficult?
---

azuarc posted...

The average person doesn't see at an effective framerate above 30

How's this for a wat
---

Where did that 'can't see above 30' thing come from anyway.

Sounds like it came straight out of some marketing firm.
---

Pretty sure it was a joke started on 4chan that people started to repeat and then believe
---

the myth was 60 but it's not true either way, it was just that your monitor couldn't display higher than that

it's absolutely mind boggling to me when I see people complain that 60 fps is dog shit though. i guess their 240 hz sensibilities are too refined for normal gaming.
---

No, I've prettymuch always felt like graphics weren't very important. As long as the art is good enough to let me know what the fuck is what, it's fine. A game having good graphics can be a small point in its favour, but bad graphics don't hurt the experience for me unless they manage to make it hard to see what's going on or something.
---

azuarc posted...

The average person doesn't see at an effective framerate above 30.

Trolling or not some people actually do believe this and it causes me physical pain.

CoolCly posted...

it's absolutely mind boggling to me when I see people complain that 60 fps is dog shit though. i guess their 240 hz sensibilities are too refined for normal gaming.

This is definitely way too extreme. I have a 144hz monitor and 60 still feels great. Obviously 144 feels better but the diminishing returns are wild once you're past 90 or so. 60 is the gold standard for sure and everything on top of that is just sweet, silky whipped cream.
---

Graphics have never been a high priority for me, and in the next generation if Sony and MS use their added power for 4k or (worse) 8k they will not see significant improvements. You need to be 4' and 2' away (respectively) to really see the difference, right? There is so much more they could do to improve games beyond just more refined graphics. But where are the fully destructible environments once promised? If they get more power it shouldn't be about such small refinements that most people can't even see. But it will be, which is sad.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

MZero11 posted...

wat

Solioxrz362 posted...

also wat imo

were my words too difficult?

Difficult to believe as someone's actual thoughts, yes
---

I wasn't trolling with my 30 FPS claim. That's legitimately what I've learned. The movie industry standard is 24, and the class I took that (admittedly briefly) discussed this said that there are some people for whom that's a pinch too slow.

The dude about 2/3 of the way down this article corroborates that claim - https://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/

Chopin looks at the subject very differently. Its clear from the literature that you cannot see anything more than 20 Hz, he tells me....studies have found that the answer is between 7 and 13 Hz. After that, our sensitivity to movement drops significantly.

...

The important thing here is that Chopin is talking about the brain acquiring visual information which it can process and on which it can act. Hes not saying that we cant notice a difference between 20 Hz and 60 Hz footage. Just because you can see the difference, it doesnt mean you can be better in the game, he says. After 24 Hz you wont get better, but you may have some phenomenological experience that is different. Theres a difference, therefore, between effectiveness and experience.

So, okay, sure, it might be prettier to you at a higher frame rate, but so is higher resolution, higher contrast, and all the other bells and whistles of the GPU snob.
---

i dont give a shit as long as they fit the game
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Also I've grown to dislike the super grossly dense graphics of something like Uncharted 4 or Red Dead Redemption 2. Just thinking about the crazy amount of work put in for something that doesn't add to the emotion of the game at all.

Yeah 100% agree. Like when I think of the amount of development time that went into RDR2 and how amazingly dull the environments are compared to a game like San Andreas
---

SmartMuffin posted...

But now, uh, I kinda do. It just occurred to me that over the last few years... a lot of games look fucking beautiful now and I find myself more and more often just staring at the screen with my mouth open a bit just in awe. I'll stop and appreciate the beautiful environments. I'll crash my car in a racing game because I was checking out the scenery. It's not necessarily that graphics quality will affect my purchasing decision... but it will affect my overall enjoyment.

Anyone else go through something similar?

honestly think this is your most relatable post ever. i never gave one shit about graphics ten years ago but my most memorable moments in games i've played the past 5 years have largely been sat in a space going MY LORD THIS IS BEAUTIFUL but maybe that's largely because i'm not getting much from actually playing games anymore also
---

The idea that people can't see above 30 FPS is obviously total nonsense even among non performance snobs. Any PC gamer who has played on a PC that will throttle back performance when it starts to get hot can attest to that.

Even a simple game like League of Legends back in the day I had a significant performance hit with a drop to 30. Took me a long time to realize WHY I would randomly suck. At some point I turned on the FPS counter and it was clear.

I will say that I do think 60 is probably higher than what most people can see. Like 40 FPS vs 60 FPS is a lot harder to distinguish than 30 vs 60 for me.
---

I laugh when people call me a snob because I can tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps
---

Even if you have trouble seeing the difference of 30 and 60 fps you absolutely feel it and your eyesight will adjust to noticing the smaller, quicker details. The big difference isn't visual but your sense of touch and reflexes. You'll realize how much different it is visually when you go back and forth but it's fair to say that's something learned, just like 60 and 90. But how smooth it feels, the extra information you process, that's all there by default.
---

azuarc posted...

I wasn't trolling with my 30 FPS claim. That's legitimately what I've learned. The movie industry standard is 24, and the class I took that (admittedly briefly) discussed this said that there are some people for whom that's a pinch too slow.

Get your money back lol. They use 24 fps specifically because it looks different than 60fps.
---

Steiner posted...

my most memorable moments in games i've played the past 5 years have largely been sat in a space going MY LORD THIS IS BEAUTIFUL

I've had this too but it's always because of really damn good artistic direction. Graphics quality plays a huge part into that, but it's not just sheer detail and animation that does it. Gaur Plains and the Prey airlock moments come to mind.
---

The illusion of motion happens about 16fps but it gets better with higher framerate. 24fps was chosen for synching audio. Higher framerates can fatigue and/or strain your eyes as well. You may not get a lot of benefit moving from 60 to 90, but you will certainly notice it if you are used to 90 and move down to 60.

You can certainly tell the difference in framerate above 60, too. There's a reason the VR industry target is 120hz.

48fps Hobbit movies with the 48fps laser projector were unsettling because they didn't feel like movies, it felt like you were there on set.

It's probably better to think of 24hz as a floor instead of a ceiling.
---

I remember when Billy Lynn was adapted into a movie and it had 120 FPS that made viewers sick.
---

neonreaper posted...

48fps Hobbit movies with the 48fps laser projector were unsettling because they didn't feel like movies, it felt like you were there on set.

To this day I'm super upset that there was a huge pushback against HFR by people who really didn't know anything about the technical side of things.

Movies today are so fond of doing these grand camera pans that are utterly useless because at 24hz all of that visual information turns into a blurry, indecipherable mess. We had the solution to that problem and everyone rejected objective superiority because of their associations with soap operas augh
---

To be honest, I can't much tell the difference in graphics between games now and those from 7 years ago

not something I could've said last decade
---

neonreaper posted...

48fps Hobbit movies with the 48fps laser projector were unsettling because they didn't feel like movies, it felt like you were there on set.

implying the hobbit had a set
---

the only game that poor graphics really gets to me is Pokemon

outside that I have a rather large tolerance for trash fidelity, and even trash framerate (The Last Story being one of the few cases to ever push my nerves on that one)
---

Hobbit had a ton of stages and sets and all that.
---

When it comes to modern games, if it looks like the graphics suck. Then there's a good chance the rest of the game does too, so many companies are focused on either good graphics or artstyles that if they rush that, then they probably rush everything else about the game too.

As far as if they alone can ruin a game? I don't think so, I can still happily play older games.
---

Xiahou Shake posted...

Graphics are great but performance should always come first. I don't care how mindblowing the game looks, if it's below 60 fps then the priorities were completely misplaced IMO.

When it comes to console games, we've seen all too often that developers seem to prioritize resolution over framerate. Many console games were limited to only 30 FPS, unlike PC games that were far more likely to run at 60 FPS or better. Hopefully this changes with the next generation of consoles, especially with Microsoft stating their next Xbox can support up to 120 FPS.

When it comes to resolution, we're at the law of diminishing returns at this point. Even though 8K will be supported for the next Xbox console (but probably not for gaming), the jump from 4K to 8K is far smaller than the jump from 1080p to 4K. So this should hopefully allow developers to shift their focus to getting better performance instead.
---