Why are people on here so worried about graphics?

It seems that in a lot of threads the feeling is one console or system is better because of the graphics.

As someone who doesn't care about 1080p or 4k it does intrigue me.

Surely gameplay and AI is of far more importance, especially as games on the previous generation were pretty enough. I can just about understand framerates when it negatively impacts a game but even 30 fps runs smooth enough for these old eyes.

Aren't we in danger of becoming too superficial and worshipping style over substance.

In England we have the appropriate saying - "All fur coat and no knickers" and that is what the debates over resolution seem to be to me.

It's System Wars where gamer factions rally behind their banners, seeking domination of the competition - the "enemy" as they see it. And graphics as the most easily identifiable feature, makes for bragging rights to declare their "victory". Same goes for sales.

You'll get used to it ;)

I'm more in favor of fantastic art and design then bleeding edge tech. Games like Shovel Knight or Rayman look truely amazing because of their art and design, while a game like Gears 4 looks boring and dull to me even though it's technically superior.

Because the cows have spoken. Graphics > Gameplay. As a manticore, I prefer gameplay over graphics.

The most important aspect is always the one that benefits your system the most. SW in a nutshell.

As a verified hardcore PC gamer and manticre extraordinaire and voice of reason in SW's, graphics have always been the benchmark of the next generation. Bu tin the end gameplay is what matters after you get by the extra assets.

Because good/bad gameplay is an opinion while good/bad visuals are a fact and easy to judge from pictures.

Agree.

System Wars, mate. Fans of one system will use any advantage they can get their mitts on to beat over the heads of other systems' fans.

ahhhh-hahahahahaha...

wait... you were being serious?? :P

I think it's because the systems are just so similar. Graphics are about even, most of the big games are multi-platform, first-party output has been pretty slow so there's not real defining characteristics between the game librarys. But people still need to fight about something, so they had to resort to nitpicking about slight discrepencys in resolution because that's the best they could come up with. It's not a terribly noticeable difference, but it's one that is easy to quantify,

"Your system outputs this game in 900p, but my system can do it in 1080p. That's 180 more Ps!!! Too bad no one will sleep with you because your game system doesn't have all the Ps".

Well I have been around since 2004, preaching the TRUTH and FACTS brah!

awww yeahhhh

Literally the only sensible thing you've said so far.

@Heil68: More like trolling

Why thank you!!!

Thank you very much.

You added too much shit. Its ruined.

Ahhhww yeah sgonne be a wild ride on the upscaled train!

Manticore :P right

OT: If it's between consoles: the cows made that rule here. Besides that... herms cares about graphics and framerates combined.

@Heil68: Voice of reason??? LMAO. You probably honestly believe it too...

Anyway, yeah the focus on graphics (or more specifically, resolution and framerate) is ridiculous.

Seriously... quite while you have your rep somewhat intact >_>

Sorry :(

It would be more accurate to say that graphics, which is the technical composition of resolution, frame rate, textures, shadows, polygonal framework, character models, lighting effects, particle effects, draw distance and so forth, is still objectively quantifiable. It's the art style which is subjective and interpretive to opinion.

@jcafcwbb: As an old gamer I agree. Been on 360 a bit lately playing Mass Effect again. This game is near 10 years old and still looks fine. I don't get the c*nt hair splitting about graphics or resolution either.

Funny how from 2013 to a week ago upscaling was lol/bad/weakassX1. But a Sony exec flat out says they will call upscaled to 4k "4k gaming" like an Xbox exec did with 1080p and its okey dokey.

Dude this place is absurd. What goes around almost always comes around. Just enjoy the comedy of non sense.

For some gamers, graphics are all they have.

It matters to people who will be stuck with the same hardware for years.

When you are a lapdog to a console corporation you don't want to have to go that long with the competition dick waving at you the whole time.

On PC it doesn't matter because anyone can make a minor spending adjustment to move to the next component.

As a pc gamer, having a powerful system sort of makes me feel above other people.

It's pretty great.

Consider this scenario:

You're checking 2 restaurants websites, where one has a great food presentation - the photos of the dishes look great - whereas the other restaurant's photos of the dishes don't look professional, they're a bit blurry and don't really look appealing.

Both places have a smiliar menu and charge about the same price for the dishes.

Provided that those are new restaurants, that you've never been to either and that both have no reviews, you're most likely gonna pick the one with the better food presentation, in gaming terms, graphics.

So eye-candy is a factor whose purpose is to capture your interest, but the deciding factor will come soon after that, that is when you're seated at the table and are ready to discover the taste of that good looking dish. Your palate will be the judge and have the final word on the food you're going to eat. Will it live up to its presentation?

That'd be the gameplay in the gaming world.

So, both graphics and gameplay play a role in the whole package, and even though the gameplay is ultimately the substance and taste of that dish, "graphics" are those that lead you to choosing one restaurant over the other and sure enhance the experience when they complement a tasty dish.

I fixed it for you.

Graphics sell.

It helps advertise a game.

Publishers care more about graphics and scripted scenes than AI, level design, and overall gameplay. Eventually games with good graphics will have a have negative connotation to its name, like CGI films are today.

Gamers worried about graphics? That's a lie!

If people in general didn't care about graphics we'd all still be playing PONG or 8 bit games. Graphics aren't everything, but they are one of the main things that evolve in time.

There are whole genres of games where graphics alone pretty much make prior gens obsolete IMO (racing games and sports game especially). Now classic games stand the test of time no matter what based on their gameplay and depth, but even then graphics are a problem to overcome (i.e. most people would want a graphic overhaul but keep the gameplay untouched). 2D games tend to hold up better, but the early 3D games (SNES and PS1 especially) don't hold up well at all.

Because when they reveal "gameplay" footage in E3 or whatever source it may be, you expect to see what they showed you, in the final product. It's rarely ever what they promise/promote.

There is nothing preventing people from creating games with lesser graphics on a high powered system and so I don't want a crippled system that can't handle both.

lol...

Its SW some people just do it to troll. :P

Great visuals does not and will not detract from great mechanics.

Graphics helps the game to be more immersive. It's not the sole factor but it certainly helps. Whatever the **** cdprojektred does, its the bible of gaming

Ignorance...haha, I just ordered a game for my SNES and I'm finishing up a PS2 game so I'll be enjoying older graphics for a while ;).

Games look good enough these days. I want devs to use hardware power to improve other areas like AI for example which haven't seen any big improvements in 11 years. Unfortunately most people game casually and buy shinniest turd available. So devs give them what they want.

@joebones5000: People cared more about performance than graphics. A lot of games back then ran really poorly from system to system and having a version of a popular game that ran well on yours was a good feeling. Good examples are the people unfortunate enough to have bought Double Dragon or Rolling Thunder on the Amstrad CPC and Barbarian 2 on anything but the Amiga.

Having the best graphics was just for bragging the same as it is today but back then the good graphics often came with borderline unplayable performance on some systems.

Nowadays its different as the best performing version of a game is usually the better looking version too and although graphics still don't trump gameplay or playability/performance, its better to have all three than settle for one over the others.

PC master race and all that.

@flyincloud1116: #youaredoingitwrong

i care about 1080p but thats about as far as i care when it comes to graphics. Smoother 60 fps or more. These consoles keep failing since this is what i want. I don't want choppy 4k gameplay.

Even the new xbox scorpio looks like it won't be able to do anything near that, it'll have a low end cpu and a good gpu, so 4k yes, but with bad framerates unless developers decide to forget 4k and decide to make their games well instead of just a slideshow framerate. But it comes down to the cheap ass cpu they put in these things, even if they bumped down the res, games would struggle to keep 60 fps.

They need to aim a gpu at 1080p and put in a better cpu and give solid 60 fps, who the **** cares about 4k if you get a headache while playing it with the chug framerate.

Anyways consoles are going nowhere interesting, and in roughly two years from now there will be PC gpus selling that can do 4k 60fps for below 500 dollars. Currently the Titan XP can do 60 fps 4k in most games but its over 1000 dollars.

Because without dem "Graphics" the PS4 and Xbox One are essentially a PS3 and Xbox 360. So it's really important. :-P

To answer your question OP it is because people on here on the surface are shallow and it is a talking point that one system runs said game at 900p while the runs it at 1080p. A feather in that persons cap if you will. Now my opinion is while graphics do matter to help with immersion, they are not the end all be all for the measurement of greatness for a game or system. To give an example: If people loved graphics more than other game aspects like, story, sound, level design, AI, etc... then the Vita would have far outsold the 3DS. That did not happen so I would say at least in that case graphics were not that important and people buying them did not see that as a major factor to buying one or the other.

Ahh, but it pretty much does when a big chunk of the budget goes towards that as opposed to deeper mechanics and such.

Listen from like the 39th minute to the 41st

http://bloodgodpod.libsyn.com/divinity-original-sin-2s-chris-avellone-swen-vincke-08262016

With multi plats ppl want their console to have the better version it's pretty self explanatory.

It's especially a bigger deal for those who perhaps can't afford both consoles or their significant other won't let them have both. I prefer a smoother framerate and would choose 900p 60fps over 1080p 30 fps. Now that I'm PCMR I get 1080p 120fps or better, Next upgrade is going to be 1440p or 4k monitor but I'm pretty happy so far with my 34" curved 1080p monitor and ultra HD is still pretty new