Did we really cared about graphics ?

[dr grim]

I had a little though today, seeing one of those many post on the internet ( " how we saw AAA game back then " " back then it was top notch graphics " " back then we though it was so real " )

and i really though about it, did i really cared ? did we really cared ?

as far as i can remember i never though as a kid " wow this looks so real ! " or " wow the graphics are so great ! " during my era at least ( 4th and 5th gen - megadrive / snes through ps1 / n64 and more )

i though games were fun, were super cool and have so much power and action ! ( it was the 90's sorry xD ) but never really cared about graphics, as long as the game was fun, it was all that mattered, and i could play ugly ass game as long as it was fun.

What do you think about this ?

 

[PrismRed]

Personally, nope, never cared at all.
I don't need fancy graphics, I want proper art direction in games.

 

[qw90700]

I did care about graphics only in terms of how visually appealing it looks like that realistic looking graphics was never a graphic type that made the game "visually appealing" per se. Until Sega Genesis era all I cared about if visual of the game looks so bad it sucks my soul due to bad usage of colors that doesn't go well with each other or if I can actually see things properly and be sure what I see lol.

When we came to Sega Genesis era it was when graphics got realistic. The usage of very detailed pixel art + CRT screen make colors look better in the way they blend and offering great differences between darkness and lightness that "kinda" what good old Italian painters tried to do to make their paintings realistic looking. That's why once the game you played on CRT looked better because it was designed for CRT screen so playing them on non-CRT screen make them look so flat and bad because colors are not blended and you can see the pixels and notice how colors doesn't make sense to represents the objects and ideas they try to be. In that regard until PS3 era graphics required CRT screen to look good on console games so even PS2 games looks so bad on non-CRT screen. This is why people said "I thought the game looked so good before but playing it now on my 4k screen it look so bad" lol. Another reason is due to PS2 games that the damn emulator cannot emulate graphics properly so some games that really rely on hardware to produce graphics look so bad on emulator and therefore people play these games on emulator with failed mess of graphics emulator cannot emulate and they say "damn man this game actually looked so bad" lol. And then people expect to get decent graphics even with CRT filter like it can ever become useful on non-CRT screens lol.

However "realistic looking" has a different meaning here. For example Demolotion Man and Resident Evil 3 looks realistic in visually appealing way and therefore it's a good thing, but new Resident Evil games look realistically dull. Video games should be a decent art to satisfy gamers with the sounds they hear, musics they listen to and visuals they see. Why games are necessarily an artwork is just because it's about your sensory organs and therefore they have to satisfy your sensory organs, not because they have to be like a movie and novel like stories lol. However now they go so lazy graphics are dull and boring as much as real life is, soundtrack is generic noise and nothing in the game satisfy your sensory organs. Even menus looks like generic program anymore lol. Perhaps the latest artistic game ever released is Persona 5 because they cared a lot about art of visuals and music, not to mention deep story and character stuff and thus well usage of Carl Jung's ideas in artistic way too. I call this a 100% art form lol.

 

[Waffles's iconWaffles]

That's hard to answer because I never knew anyone who was all that impressed by any given console's graphics, but the media made it sound like it was everything we ever cared about it. It was following a mirage and companies bought the whole damn desert thinking that that would immediately translate to record profits and universal praise for them... the results were interesting to say the least.

The Jaguar was rushed through development in order to deliver its "64-Bit gospel", Ion Storm ditched a game almost a year into development to remake it on a new engine with shiny lights; Nintendo and SEGA exchanged punches with add-ons and chips just to squeeze a few more effects out of their aging systems... But us? We just played whatever we could afford and were damn happy about it. Hell, I still think that International Super Star Soccer Deluxe on Genesis is better than its N64's big brother, that Banjo-Kazooie looks a million times more appealing than most platformers out there, and that Need For Speed III remains the most solid arcade racer I have ever played.

Moreso, Grim Fandango is a game born out of bold stylistic choices and Half-Life barely looks any better than anything made on either Quake engine, despite being made on a direct refinement of it.

Graphics didn't bother me in the slightest and were always seen as a plus rather than the whole selling point.

 

[Morgana Veil]

Graphics to me are not that big of a deal. I still love the OG DOOM, and we all know what it looks like. But I would be just as happy playing a text-based adventure and using my imagination. Or even like Death Road to Canada or Oregon Trail. No, I don't care.

You can have the most photorealistic game ever, but if it's not interesting, who cares? So myself, no, I don't.

 

[dropsmegamega]

Yeah, I am not going to pretend not, I did get impressed by the technical achievements and increased power and polycount that each generation brought. It doesn't mean that I was obsessed by realism or whatever, but it was kind of a big deal to see what was possible and the best way to show it was through graphics, so that was a fairly natural reaction. I think with the Wii and since nintendo was really behind, people got more divisive, sometimes even attacking necessary and interesting advancements as some pointless pursuit of boring realism as if every PS3 game was CoD. Not that things didn't get out of hand in the pursuit of realism, but things are more complex than just that. As indies started to get more popular and tech advancements less noticeable people started to care less about these things though.

 

[qw90700]

Yeah, I am not going to pretend not, I did get impressed by the technical achievements and increased power and polycount that each generation brought. It doesn't mean that I was obsessed by realism or whatever, but it was kind of a big deal to see what was possible and the best way to show it was through graphics, so that was a fairly natural reaction. I think with the Wii and since nintendo was really behind, people got more divisive, sometimes even attacking necessary and interesting advancements as some pointless pursuit of boring realism as if every PS3 game was CoD. Not that things didn't get out of hand in the pursuit of realism, but things are more complex than just that. As indies started to get more popular and tech advancements less noticeable people started to care less about these things though.

Nintendo deserves the hate due to Microsoft Paint graphics that prevent you from comprehending what you even looking at. Now at most they use the worst way to use cartoonish cel-shading that whole screen is blended that only attract people who doesn't care what they look at, they enjoy colors changing like some cat lol.

As for realism specifically, those who did not have a gaming culture of enjoying pixel art games naturally demands realistic graphics because their whole reality based on real life that to be able to be immersive of video games their brain require realistic graphics, otherwise their brain rejects the reality of the video game. This happens to many people who are "more in tune to real life" than some people more "in their heads" so realistic graphics for some people are necessity and not about "quality" topic at all. In that way when the game is less about dream like reality the more you gotta use realistic graphics especially if it gets into a negative game like an horror. In that regard I admire Capcom that gets Resident Evil games have to get realistic graphics for "immersion" to befit the genre, however it doesn't mean it has to be dull realism. For example Outbreak series and original RE4 had the artistic realistic graphics gone well with these games but for example any RE game since RE6 has dull graphics that just make you say "ugh" looking at it, I kinda felt the same playing Crysis lol.

 

[Bonkers225]

First it were the megabytes, than graphics in early-mid 90's. Sub mediocre games like Battle Arena Toshinden sold very well just because of the decent early PSX 3-D graphics. Gamers soon realized alot of these games that touted break-through 3-D graphics sucked balls. Graphics once again became a selling point with Dreamcast for a short time. PS2 had the DVD player, and Nintendo had their popular IPs to carry them.

 

[beefbowl]

Nintendo deserves the hate due to Microsoft Paint graphics that prevent you from comprehending what you even looking at. Now at most they use the worst way to use cartoonish cel-shading that whole screen is blended that only attract people who doesn't care what they look at, they enjoy colors changing like some cat lol.

That's a lot of words to say i have no creative vision but pop off king.

Obssession with graphics is a real thing, i have seen so many people judge games on their visual fidelity and realism in my country. Just like that guy.

Not so many people care on the internet tho.

 

[NoctemDead]

Yes. I remember the jump from PS1 to PS2 and how much better the graphics were, then Xbox/PS3 (much later in my childhood).

I remember fantasizing about Pokemon games where you could actually walk around in 3D and maybe even see your Pokemon too! And you could see them make moves!

Then Gale of Darkness came out and it was a glimpse, but I couldn't wait on the power in a handheld console!

(Ironically I do not play Pokemon today and have not since about Omega Ruby)

When Call of Duty 4 came out it was hard to believe that graphics were ever going to be better. All the game mags called it "photorealistic"

 

[DunkeyKong]

I have 2 sides:
1: "What graphics?"
2:

 

[Numubunde]

I never really cared about how good a game looked, but rather by how much I liked the artistic style. The only time I remember being super impressed by a game graphics was when my big brother got the Xbox 360 and started playing GTA IV. I remember him driving through some fence, and I couldn't believe how the broken fence floated in the water and how the car got dented depending on how it crashed into things.

 

[Dyne]

I remember even back in the 90s, I had some friends that seemed obsessed with graphics. I used to tell them that to me good graphics is icing on the cake.
The cake itself is gameplay though. Nobody wants to just eat icing.

 

[moonbits]

Of course, it was an incredible time for technological advancement in computer graphics.

From 2D pixels, to pseudo 3D, to pre-rendered backgrounds, to full motion video being blended into the actual 3D scene, fully 3D rendered scenes, lighting, shadows, physics simulation, shaders.

To have lived through the 90s and 2000s was a spectacle, every new game pushed the bar even higher. Immersion and realism was ever so close, dynamic lighting, reflections, more advanced animation systems, facial animation, root motion. Everything about the evolution of graphics was a gateway to more incredible gaming experiences.

 

[qw90700]

First it were the megabytes, than graphics in early-mid 90's. Sub mediocre games like Battle Arena Toshinden sold very well just because of the decent early PSX 3-D graphics. Gamers soon realized alot of these games that touted break-through 3-D graphics sucked balls. Graphics once again became a selling point with Dreamcast for a short time. PS2 had the DVD player, and Nintendo had their popular IPs to carry them.

Back then they used "bits" to sell hardware, now they use cores and RTX BS lol. People wanna get and own and they don't care what they actually get and this is how mobile games works, especially gacha BS lol. Imagine buying a CPU without caring about its features and especially single-core performance and IPC wow but GHZ treated like top speed of a car when in cars what matters more is HP and torque lol. My guy believe his slow 30 core CPU can outmatch a faster 4 core CPU lol.

The other day I used Reshade with fake RTX on my old computer for lolz and you know what? It worked so good despite the GPU is Nvidia 9400 GT, so no need for RTX hardware at all lol. Now I can enjoy Harry Potter OFTP like I'm playing a movie!!! lol

 

[Questless Knight]

Graphics is a debate im sick and tired off honestly. People have different taste and have different things whats important to them.

For me personally it´s always game play and story first then music and graphics. To me a good looking game is the cherry on top but not the end all be all.

Take link to the past to be such a gorgeous game even 33 years later the game looks gorgeous and still a better game in all aspects than breath of the wild which still is a good game.

Then Ocarina of time to be looks like crap but still such a damn awesome game.

Minecraft such a good and fun game that I don´t mind it does not look like Cyberpunk 2077.

Heroes of might and magic 2 still my nr1 favorite strategy game and looks better than HOMM 3. Still HOMM 3 is a damn epic game even if it´s fancy graphics is kind of meh.

 

[Bonkers225]

I would of been completely fine with graphics stop advancing at PS3. Look at Switch, not the best of graphics, or horsepower, and sold and still sells like hotcakes. Most gamers don't give a shit if we could see all the pores on a character, or that all the leaves on a tree moves in a different way, we just want good games.

 

[moonbits]

I would of been completely fine with graphics stop advancing at PS3. Look at Switch, not the best of graphics, or horsepower, and sold and still sells like hotcakes. Most gamers don't give a shit if we could see all the pores on a character, or that all the leaves on a tree moves in a different way, we just want good games.

graphics are more than just pores on a skin....

 

[MasterYoraeRasante]

There is one thing people mix together but mean different things.

Graphics and Visuals.

Graphics are what we don't care about. Pixel art with limited colors can be beautiful. Old N64 or PS1-style 3d models. They can all be considered beautiful even nowadays, in a rustic way.
Look at Symphony of the Night, with pixel art during the "everyone wants 3D" era. Undertale, with Earthbound-like graphics. So many beautiful games emulating 8-bit ones. And then there is VVVVV with its Atari-like artstyle.

Visuals, on the other hand?
You can have something with much more advanced graphics, but with vosuals that are eye-bleeding. Lots of brown and low saturation together with a lot of bloom to be "realistic" like in the later PS2early and early ps3/xbox 360, for example..

AAA games are investing so much into mind-bending and photorealistic graphics, they ignore the visuals.

Which is funny, because we are now at a point we barely notice the graphic advancements in the game itself unless we just stop midgame and watch everything just for the sake of it, only usually noticing how detailed they can make the 3d models everywhere without massive slowdowns. And even that had many ways to trick - compare Pokémon Scarlet&Violed to any Xenoblade game on the Switch, and keep in mind that graphics-wise Pokémon is the better one, but visually it certainly does not seem so.

 

[iamthemilkman]

I find most UE5 games to be hideous -- especially with all of the upscaling methods used today. The artifacts ruin image quality too much. I don't care that much about hyper realism, I just want a nice, clean image.

 

[Lena CE]

As a kid I remember really not caring that much, but I think thats in part due to playing handhelds. I'd be playing PS1 games on my PS2 and then on a car ride to the store play my Gameboy Advance. It meant that I wasn't solely looking at the latest and greatest visuals, so rly I just got to care more about how much fun I was having. Crash Team Racing never stopped being a game I played because no kart racer could fill the void. Even after I got Nitro Kart on PS2, I'd go back to CTR far more often.

People our age also grew up in the age of flash games and the endless barrage of F2P downloadable or browser games like Maplestory or Runescape. Graphics ranged wildly from some dinky flash game to your consple Final Fantasy titles so it was a lot harder for people to grow up being snobs.

I also feel like while "good graphics" still had presence in marketing, it wasn't nearly as ubiquitous of a selling point as it became for the PS3/360 generation. Thats also the era when games would run like total shit just cause devs were trying to squeeze our every ounce of visual fidelity that they could, it was so sad.

The people I see care the most about graphics are casual players who only play a couple AAA games a year and will throw a fit if the grass physics aren't up to snuff.

 

[pingugaming]

i never really cared about "graphics" and how much detail and realism there is to it and honestly i still don't.
i like to focus my attention on other stuff like art direction, which can be strong even with lesser "graphical fidelity", audio, gameplay, story elements, characters.