Remember when graphics didn't matter?

To be fair, it used to be something worth of comparison.

Back then when you put a SNES game vs Sega Genesis, either of these vs. Neo Geo, Neo Geo vs Sega CD, any of those against a 3DO, PS1 or Sega Saturn vs N64, PS2 vs Gamecube, any of these vs. XBox, the discrepancy was so great that no one had to even mention any technical aspect, what rendering techniques each game used, resolution, etc. Just the pic comparison and you're done, one is clearly superior to the other, and it showed. There was always a console that was clearly superior hardware-wise, and PC games were almost always that much far ahead from anything else...

But I don't remember people being this fanatic about it. Of course everyone cared about graphics, but not near as much as now, when it's not such a big issue as before. Everyone gets gorgeous games on their platforms, and if you disagree, you almost certainly are just being spoiled. Now we have radically comparing even pics from a multiplat game (like that absurd Wolfenstein: The New Order comparison), just to see which has the slight advantage over the other to claim ownage... going down to which AA is being used, how light is being rendered, resolution... it's almost like now the result is not what matters, but if the game is "technically" superior. I don't know, I think this became nonsense.

GREAT THREAD! :D

I remember the jump from Wing Commander Academy to Privateer, Wolfenstein 3D to Doom, and Simcity to Simcity 2000. Good times.

If anything, graphics matter to me less now and it's funny when people argue that nice looking games look like crap.

This. Everyone is quick to say graphics always mattered, but at the end of the day many gamers have always been way more focused on what was fun to play.

Beyond that, the way that graphics are discussed now is completely different. No one cared about frame rates and resolutions. Art styles mattered so much more back then. So I remember when graphics mattered in a different way. It wasn't numbers and gpu power, but it was genuinely what was more pleasant to the eye.

The jump between generations has really made the graphics argument more irrelevant because of the law of diminishing returns. So where graphical arguments may have held more weight back then, it's a stupid argument now.

Graphics were once about "how close to the arcade version does this look?"

SNES won every time. Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat on Genesis were so ugly. But MK on Genesis had blood.

It's 2014 it a'int the 90's anymore.

Graphics always mattered for me as soon as I was able to do comparisons. My first games were all in 2d but then when I got a gamecube I was fucking obsessed with looking at stuff and slowly panning the camera around the character and stuff like that lol. Especially in Wind Waker when that came out.

No way man... Genesis does what Nintendont... I was always more of a SEGA fan back in the day. :P

@jhonMalcovich said:

So true console peasants always try to exclude pc we been doing 2k for years and are making the jump to 4k while the peasants bicker about 1080p in upcoming games for 2015.

Consoles are for exclusives not graphics.

@no-scope-AK47 said:

@jhonMalcovich said:

So true console peasants always try to exclude pc we been doing 2k for years and are making the jump to 4k while the peasants bicker about 1080p in upcoming games for 2015.

Consoles are for exclusives not graphics.

PC players are called hermits for a reason...

now we have pc filling-in that spot.

Doesn't matter nearly as much as gameplay though. Going by System Wars however, you'd think graphics were all that mattered.

Remember when everything went 3D and polygons and we said "HOW COULD WE SETTLE FOR 2D AND SPRITES TROLOLOLOL TEH KIDDIEZ PRIMARY COLORS"? Notice now how most 16 bit games' graphics aged inifinitely better than A LOT of PS1 and many N64 games?

Yeah, graphics matter, but having some perspective and actually understanding what works, what actually looks good for what it is instead of counting pixels and polygons is just as important.

IT always did.

But now it's even funnier watch the "1080p or not" war between cows and lems

There's only one gamer that graphics don't matter to and they are on iPads and Android tablets.

@SambaLele said:

@no-scope-AK47 said:

@jhonMalcovich said:

So true console peasants always try to exclude pc we been doing 2k for years and are making the jump to 4k while the peasants bicker about 1080p in upcoming games for 2015.

Consoles are for exclusives not graphics.

PC players are called hermits for a reason...

I heard pc players were the master race not hermits. Like I said I have consoles for exclusives not graphics.

They always mattered to an extent. That said, I'm not going to avoid playing a game just because its ugly, jaggy etc the game itself is fun.

Graphics are too important not to be talked about. This is also the first and the only thing we can judge before seeing gameplay footage.

Nope. They have always mattered as long as I remember. Been gaming since 1990 and in those days in my country we were still using stuff from the 80's like Atari 2600 and such.

Books have better stories but sometimes one is in the mood for the kind of stories video games tell.

SystemWars has always been obsessed with graphics; it's always been a ping-pong effect as well between the hermits, cows, and lemmings.

Graphics have always mattered. I remember playing on my Snes and comparing it to the genesis and realizing just how great Mode 7 was at the time with Fzero.

Or when the n64 came out and graphically completely blew the psx to bits in 3d titles due to the extra bits.

This is nothing new.

@GreySeal9

A story is a story no matter what medium its on.....

People don'r actually care how the story is told.... Yes they do care if its told well but they don't actually care how..... If they did... We wouldn't have cutscenes.

So in the end... Books have Great Stories ! :)

Didn't matter much withTetris or any of the Atari 2600 games. Oh wait, you weren't even born around that time. lol!! It doesn't matter as much as gameplay, fun and replay value.

lol classic.

I think the issue is not graphics mattering, but when did the line get crossed from graphics being one element along with music, gameplay, design that contributed to a whole, and became all that mattered to some and is pushed until the other elements of game design suffer or are neglected. Sure the new COD looks hell a good but I bet the actual game mechanics are simpler than most platform games from twenty years ago.

Don't just give me something nice to look at, give me good reasons to play so looking at the pretty pictures is worth it.

They always mattered:

Well Ive been playing since the late 1970s and graphics have their place of appreciation of course. But the other day I'm reading a thread with pics from KZSF and Crysis 3. And the hair splitting, nitpicking BS was hilarious. We're at a point where not many games have bad graphics. And the arguments are absurd. Like Louis CK said: Everything is Amazing, and Nobody's Happy

If he's butthurt then so were cows last gen because those are things they said, he's stating. Really is a flip flop war for fanboys of all color.

Holy crap that's old school.

Graphics have mattered ever since non-text based games were created. However, the pissing contest that SW makes it out to be is stupid. If a game looks great but plays like shit, what's the point.

Preferences aside, multiplats did look better on the SNES.

People who say graphics don't matter need to be backhanded for their ignorant and unresearched claims.

Some people need to realize that if graphics didn't matter we would still be playing pong and games that relied strictly on text like Zork.

There has always been a need to strive for richer visuals.

they always mattered,but now its at the point where people look at a game and go " is that it? nothing groundbreaking..will buy used"

Graphics matters thats why i play on Ps4. yeh hermits can only dream of a game like Uncharted 4 :D

You weren't here during the XBox/PS2 days. SW was loaded with cows then, too - and they standard argument from cows back then was "the graphics on PS2 are good enough. It's all about then number of games." The same was true when the PS3 first launched with slightly inferior multiplats (graphically).

And yes, I was on SW back then, with my old account "dabear"

Really... so you had an Xbox instead of a PS2?

Me neither. Best graphic war was: Megadrive vs Snes vs Neo Geo vs Turbografx 16 vs Amiga 500 vs Atari ST vs PC. These forums would be epic in late 80s and early 90s lol

Hah, yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking.

Gamers have been fighting about graphics since it was the Atari 2600 vs. Intellivision.

Never was a time. If anything the time would be now but were still seeing outcries by those that cant adapt to change. Eventually graphics will plateau and it really wont matter.

I don't remember it being interesting at all. It was all "number of bits!" and "blast processing". At least people today know what resolution, AA and framerate mean.

Not that it is any better today. Just saying, it's always been silly graphics arguments.

So can cows..... Unles you have a copy you can share with us all?

and that is where you fail old man. I was there for Tetris, try again.

Nope, I was a full blown hermit during the PS2 era. LOL @ Xflop

There are ridiculously addictive games where graphics really don't matter, and are actually in the way of gameplay. Football Manager for example.

Graphics have always mattered, but for some reason I don't remember it being as big a deal as it is nowadays.

Sure in the near future, only on ps4 greatness awaits

All this talk about cows made me want a cheeseburger...