Remember when graphics didn't matter?

Graphics has always mattered, but not as much as it does today. For all the previous generations, never has the most powerful console ever won a console war...

• Gen 1: N/A
• Gen 2: Atari 2600 beat Intellivision & ColecoVision
• Gen 3: NES beat Sega Master System & Atari 7800
• Gen 4: SNES & Sega Mega Drive beat Neo Geo
• Gen 5: PS1 beat Saturn & N64
• Gen 6: PS2 beat Xbox & GameCube
• Gen 7: Wii beat PS3 & 360

...Up until now, with the PS4 possibly being the first time that the most powerful console might actually win a console war.

You forgot Dreamcast for Gen 6.

Dude, I was here and that's not accurate.

Sure, there were some people that would talk like that about their system of choice (Gamecube/Xbox/PS2), but I saw many graphics wars threads back then.

Final Fantasy X vs. Half Life 2 vs. Halo 1/2 vs. MGS2 vs. Metroid Prime vs. Ninja Gaiden vs. ICO vs. God of War vs. REmake vs. Brute Force vs. Psychonauts Xbox vs. Gran Turismo 3/4 vs. Metal Gear Solid 3 vs. Final Fantasy XII vs. Otogi 1/2 vs. Kingdom Hearts 1/2 vs. Ace Combat vs. Star Fox Adventures vs. Mario Sunshine vs. Ratchet & Clank 2/3 vs. Splinter Cell 1-3 Xbox vs. Jak 2/3 vs. Chronicles of Riddick vs. Sly Cooper 1-2 vs. The Legend of Zelda: TP/WW vs.Dead or Alive 3 vs. Shadow of the Colossus vs. Twisted Metal Black vs. Oddworld Stranger's Wrath vs. Silent Hill 3 vs. Tekken 5 vs. Tekken Tag Tourney vs. Zone of the Enders 2 vs. Onimusha 2/3 vs. Star Wars Rogue Squadron vs. Beyond Good and Evil vs. Resident Evil 4 Gamecube vs. Devil May Cry 3 vs. Ninja Gaiden Black, et cetera.

"The graphics were good enough" didn't happen with the majority of fans. These graphics wars raged on back then. I posted in many of those threads.

It always mattered on the internet.

Graphics matter until someone mentions PC.

Then gfx no longer matter.

LOL consolites.

Except cows, since UC4 is the best looking game ever.

Yeah, but that wasn't more powerful than the PS2, so it's not really relevant to my point.

...Which is more or less what arcade gamers used to say about both consoles & PC back in the 80's and 90's.

Mmmm.. Crusader Kings 2 and FTL.. You had to ruin it with FBM, hazy. : (

Ya man. It's like....weird. I started playing since 1990. Its really something strange to look at that time period. We actually played games with or without good graphics!

Graphics were always disputed. It's just as kids, we didn't care but there were definitely debates. And it's normal. Companies want to sell their products, ya know.

@outworld222: but we thought they were good for the time. It's not just the internet. Before that people just argued at school or at a friends house. System wars is nothing new.

Graphics have always mattered in gaming. I grew up playing the (very) early 8bit home computers before consoles came along and although the graphics were extremely basic the fans of each computer fought like wild dogs defending their choice of machine even during the 70s/early 80s.

It does make me laugh these days though listening to my kids and kids in general arguing about things that are all but invisible unless you really looking for them in todays games, when i was a kid if you'd have told me the games we play today would look and play the way they do i'd have thought you were insane.

I wont even get into the 10minute loading times....

Graphics have always been a factor, especially in the 8 bit days when there was a large disparity between home and arcade versions, and we all could but only dream of ‘arcade quality’ graphics at home (that and the underpowered machines really couldn’t manage to recreate arcade experiences as hard as they tried).

These days comparisons between virtually identical versions on competing systems are just downright ridiculous/pointless, partially fuelled by those gaming websites who run comparison videos which highlight a missing shadow/tree/whatever on one version. Things that really don’t detract from the gaming experience at all.

id have to think back to the 80's for those times

Remember when people didn't complain about games having less than 60 fps, ah those were the good times.

I miss those times, my brother. To be honest, I can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps so, I don't pay attention to those arguments.

Yeah, when I just played Excite Truck on the Wii for the first time.

Yes it did. PS2 consistently got beat by the XBox and GameCube.

Graphics have always had their place of appreciation. But I haven't bought a new game because it has teh awesome graphics since I was 13. As I grew up I was more interested in the substance not just the shiny coat.

nope, but I remember when games were released as complete packages.

Both MGS1 and Goldeneye are outdated in gameplay.

Goldeneye is very outdated especially with how bad the controls are.

The neogeo price was brutal so were its games as well,but it was an earth to moon difference Neogeo kicked the living crap out of the Snes and Genesis it was basically an arcade board under a console case,the Snes and genesis could barely handle SF2...

The only time I recall graphics not mattering was back in the mid to late 80's, playing text only games from Infocom, like The Lurking Horror, Zork, and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. At least, I think all of those were Infocom games.

Graphics always mattered but i don't think it played as much as big role as it does today. I rather talk about graphics than the 60/30 FPS and resolution debate, that i feel this current gen has started. I really don't remember people going on and on about resolution and fps last gen. Now that is something i personally don't care about, even though they are many people who do.

@finalstar2007: to bad most people don't think this way.

If you were living in PAL territories, then 50 fps was as good as it gets.

True, the Neo Geo was like a mid-range arcade machine, and was clearly targeted towards the "arcade master race" of that era. But yeah, it was very expensive, which was obviously why it couldn't compete with the SNES or Mega Drive.

Honestly as a PC gamer with a pretty beefy machine I don't really care much about graphics. It's just something to show off to friends and piss people off on forums with to be honest.

@cainetao11: So you'd be happy to pay full price for and play, say, Need for Speed with the graphics from 1994, here and now, as long as the gameplay was good? Knowing that there are games as good with better graphics?

And don't cop out by saying "I don't like Need for Speed". Use your imagination and choose a series you do like.

But the folly in that argument is, full price for a game with 1994 visuals may only be $20. You pay full $60 for a game only for a while after it comes out. Or do you buy everything at that price? I haven't paid $60 for COD since 4. If the game is as good, yes I would get the better visually. But I believe I began my post with "graphics have always had their place of appreciation". All other things being equal, I take them into consideration. Doesn't mean they are the most important or I am going to fight over the difference between Crysis 3 and KZSF. They both look great, unless you're trying to win some imaginary competition for a company that doesn't care about you.

Graphics are the most important thing in gaming. Without graphics we would be playing blank TV screens.

Graphics always mattered . Every benchmark game back in the day made people excited about the possibilities in the future . Different versions of the game were also compared by people just like now .

However back then internet and gaming wasn't as big as it is today , so one may think that it didn't matter but it did .

Comparisons weren't stupid like they are today though ("900p vs 792p" or "30fps is more cinematic" etc)

Differences in graphics used to actually be apparent, now they're just comparing the most nitpicky details to try and prove one game looks better than another. It turns me off a lot.