Did we really cared about graphics ?

[J.B’s rabbit den]

Ehhh..for me it was always more of the visuals

 

[magodelamugre]

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

You use "lol" way too much.

 

[Rocket2049]

the only time graphics bother me is when it can't keep a constant 60fps (or more)
super mario bros NES, 60fps
super mario 64 30 fps

sonic 1 2 3 and knuckles, 60fps
various 3d sonic games couldn't hit 60, that includes Frontiers, remasters not included
Final fantasy 1,2,3,4,5,6, 60fps,

Final fantasy 7,8 and 9, 20 FPS, TWENTY, what the F? even the official remasters don't fix this, unless you mod or fast forward. i can't believe i tolerated it before, it makes them unplayable to me now.

i just hate really really low FPS, if it has to be 30 fine but it better be a damn good reason.
racing games should NEVER be below 60, i don't care the reason, the FPS actually matters there.
fighting games usually aim for 60 because the frames always matter (in high level gameplay 1 frame can change everything in a match)

FPS isn't just the visual in some cases it brings input lag, harder to react to things, harder to do precise movements.

one of my favorite recent games, Celeste, i mean look at it extremely retro, but i love it so much and it definitely matters to be running at 60fps with how precise and fast your movements need to be, i mean the game has a "crouch+dash" button for a reason lol.

if i see a game in this this day and age NOT 60fps it's just stupid.

 

[Sfjeov]

idk personally I like good graphics on lesser and cheaper hardware like those old flight simulators

 

[Yousef]

Historically yes. They were a marketing tool since the Genesis and SNES days.
Anecdotally, no. None of us where I live cared for them until the HD consoles arrived.

 

[χKai]

I care about graphics like I care about  demographics;

Minimally.

 

[qw90700]

You use "lol" way too much.

Because life's genre is comedy lol.

 

[secreto7]

View attachment 88511

no, it's definitely about graphics.

and yes, you all cared about them. you all have eyes. erm, well, most of you have eyes. when we went from 8 bit to 16 bit, it was awesome. when we went from playstation polygons to ps2 polygons, it was rad. people talk about art direction and story like it's totally divorced from graphical capability. the art direction of shadow of the colossus can't exist on n64. You can't have a cool dutch angle if your game is 8-bit.

understandably, nobody really gives a fuck about any kind of graphics arms race at the moment because games have more or less looked the same for a really long time, and the current standard for visuals has contributed to game production taking roughly 1000000000000 years to make any one final fantasy.

I agree with what you say too.

If the graphics weren't pretty enough or appealing to someone's taste were important too.
And in the past with all the limitations and rapid progress in technology, games were competing too, and people cared.
I didn't mean that isn't important but it depends on various things.

Post automatically merged: Wednesday at 12:29 PM

You use "lol" way too much.

 

[qw90700]

If the graphics weren't pretty enough or appealing to someone's taste were important too.
And in the past with all the limitations and rapid progress in technology, games were competing too, and people cared.
I didn't mean that isn't important but it depends on various things.

Yep no denying visuals should be an art and graphics must be in the way it doesn't prevent players from able to play the game, but people twist the idea of "not only graphics are important" in an unnecessary way. I mean sure but then it's a personal preference thing too. Quality over content and then if the game is empty at least make visuals great, and when 2D is wrong choice for the game at least make the game 3D. In a way visuals and graphics get seperated and each become either a necessary element of the game depending on the theme and genre they have, and then how they will be depends on what the game is about.

In that context no need for higher graphics for RPGs. Final Fantasy 6 does a better job at being an RPG than newest Final Fantasy games because RPG is about what you learn, what you read and how the characters are bundled with a great sense of adventure. But when it comes to horror genre graphics had to be realistic otherwise how some pixelated mess of a color can scare you for trying to be a monster? Then all they will have to use is simple jumpscare method lol. Gotta trick the brain so monster will seem like it can get out of dat screen yo lol..

And then we have the racing genre. IMO racing genre gotta be realistic so we can enjoy how cars looks like in the most proper way. You need speed and so need for polygons and high quality shaders and texture yo lol.

When things get 3D you need more resolution and therefore things need to be higher quality so objects in distance can look good too. It's harder to do if you had used pixel graphics, or weird 2D usage in 3D games. Visually can be artistic but it will make you feel like you going blind, so to see better realistic graphics become a necessity in FPS genre and it turns into an accessibility topic. In that regard it was hard to develop "easy to see" games on PS1 so they had to evolve visual arts to produce "visible enough" assets despite the technological limitation and thus they came up with visually appealing graphics. This mentality lasted until PS3 and had the peak moment in PS2. For example Radiata Stories, Rogue Galaxy and Final Fantasy XII on PS2 looks so damn good especially on CRT TV.

Then graphics quality technically increased while visual quality as in visual arts dropped to minus level these days. Especially after 2016 graphics got way more lazy now games looks realistic but dull. For example I liked the way Assassin's Creed Syndicate looked (IMO peak graphics in the series especially in terms of visual style) but not the games after that, especially AC Shadows and Star Wars Outlaws looks so dull, realistic but bad lol. They kinda look like non-pixelated higher quality PS1 graphics with bland colors lol.

 

[secreto7]

Yep no denying visuals should be an art and graphics must be in the way it doesn't prevent players from able to play the game, but people twist the idea of "not only graphics are important" in an unnecessary way. I mean sure but then it's a personal preference thing too. Quality over content and then if the game is empty at least make visuals great, and when 2D is wrong choice for the game at least make the game 3D. In a way visuals and graphics get seperated and each become either a necessary element of the game depending on the theme and genre they have, and then how they will be depends on what the game is about.

In that context no need for higher graphics for RPGs. Final Fantasy 6 does a better job at being an RPG than newest Final Fantasy games because RPG is about what you learn, what you read and how the characters are bundled with a great sense of adventure. But when it comes to horror genre graphics had to be realistic otherwise how some pixelated mess of a color can scare you for trying to be a monster? Then all they will have to use is simple jumpscare method lol. Gotta trick the brain so monster will seem like it can get out of dat screen yo lol..

And then we have the racing genre. IMO racing genre gotta be realistic so we can enjoy how cars looks like in the most proper way. You need speed and so need for polygons and high quality shaders and texture yo lol.

When things get 3D you need more resolution and therefore things need to be higher quality so objects in distance can look good too. It's harder to do if you had used pixel graphics, or weird 2D usage in 3D games. Visually can be artistic but it will make you feel like you going blind, so to see better realistic graphics become a necessity in FPS genre and it turns into an accessibility topic. In that regard it was hard to develop "easy to see" games on PS1 so they had to evolve visual arts to produce "visible enough" assets despite the technological limitation and thus they came up with visually appealing graphics. This mentality lasted until PS3 and had the peak moment in PS2. For example Radiata Stories, Rogue Galaxy and Final Fantasy XII on PS2 looks so damn good especially on CRT TV.

Then graphics quality technically increased while visual quality as in visual arts dropped to minus level these days. Especially after 2016 graphics got way more lazy now games looks realistic but dull. For example I liked the way Assassin's Creed Syndicate looked (IMO peak graphics in the series especially in terms of visual style) but not the games after that, especially AC Shadows and Star Wars Outlaws looks so dull, realistic but bad lol. They kinda look like non-pixelated higher quality PS1 graphics with bland colors lol.

I partially agree with you but yes.

 

[Boularingos29]

No, i ended up that don't care about graphics, i have ps4, i love ps2 graphics and gameplay:)

 

[happymasksalesman happymasksalesman]

No!i care about story,how much I like game and so many other parameters.
I played ds 1 remaster with lowest graphic because my system dont run orginal!
Seriously I dont have NASA system for hight graphic and who need see a gaint monster in HD?

 

[carb0n0x]

I find "graphix care" to be inversely proportional to "gameplay density" usually.
i.e. in Wipeout HD, which does look incredibly good even on the PS3, I noticed I did not care about graphics after the first 10 minutes or so due to how much fun I was having with the game.

 

[MasterYoraeRasante]

I would like to bring back the difference between graphics and visuals.
With the newcomer art direction.

Graphics is not Visuals. Art Direction is not Visuals.
But Art Direction uses Graphics to give us Visuals.

So... With good Art Direction to use them well, better Graphics give us better Visuals.
But great Art Direction can make better Visuals with lesser Graphics.
Conversely, bad Art Direction can make even the best Graphics have poor Visuals. And this is where most recent games are falling into.

The thing about older games is that, to be able to deal with the poorer hardware and Graphics, many of them had great Art Direction to compensate. Look at how much Mario could do with three colors and some proper planning. And then there are those like Monolith, the ones that made the Xenoblade games and helped with a lot of other Switch ones, who give us great Visuals with enough power remaining to use for the Gameplay.

On the other hand, games recently have great Graphics, but with that no one invests in Art Directions, resulting in lesser Visuals.

Oh, and don't forget, Visuals affect Gameplay.
As someone mentioned, there is the FPS. But there is also the UI and UX. Both are Visual and Gameplay, in a way.

 

[FosforosCopihue]

I stopped noticing any type of graphical improvement around the time after GTA V came out. apparently there's still a lot of hype around ray tracing and stuff but i'm not really sure. I believe both graphic card manufacturers and developers should focus more on optimization now

 

[Graves Ruinwalker]

For me , i like to have clean graphics that doesnt blind me with too much graphical Fidelity. But i never needed high end graphics to enjoy a game . Ps1 and N64 graphics have something that just clicks that can archive something what modern graphics cant even succeed nowadays .

Those older graphics can capture and depict Grit and atmossphere much better and make Horror Games truly scary or make Action Games so energetic AMD exciting while modern graphics kicks out the immersion because its either expected or creates a cognitive dissonance that tries to simulate reality but with acts and Moments that isnt realistic at all .

Maybe its a phenomena like with comics and Cartoons . You can create stylish and grandious scenes out of it but the more it looks realistic the less cooler and interesting it becomes.

 

[MasterYoraeRasante]

Ps1 and N64 graphics have something that just clicks that can archive something what modern graphics cant even succeed nowadays .

Those older graphics can capture and depict Grit and atmossphere much better and make Horror Games truly scary or make Action Games so energetic AMD exciting

The two sides of liminar space graphics?
People forget, but without the bright colors and music Mario 64 could be REALLY scary. Just look at that piano.
Really, the whole genre of colectathon so popular at those times was a way to take advantage of the limitations. Instead of many expansive levels a wide open single-themed level for the player to explore saved a lot on resources. Few NPCs, most of them enemies, but most danger was enviromental.

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

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.

I'm sorry but games like Mario Galaxy still look good without having the whole screen blended.

And to be honest I prefer colourful over gritty grey/brown that would ultimately show its age after several years.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 9:20 PM

no, it's definitely about graphics.

and yes, you all cared about them. you all have eyes. erm, well, most of you have eyes. when we went from 8 bit to 16 bit, it was awesome. when we went from playstation polygons to ps2 polygons, it was rad. people talk about art direction and story like it's totally divorced from graphical capability. the art direction of shadow of the colossus can't exist on n64. You can't have a cool dutch angle if your game is 8-bit.

And yet I still think that Ocarina of Time looks better than Shadow of the Colossus mostly because of the colours used.

Dutch angles are cool but not necessary to make a game good. I'd take pre rendered 3D RE background than full 3D ones.

But when it comes to horror genre graphics had to be realistic otherwise how some pixelated mess of a color can scare you for trying to be a monster?

That's where I disagree. Low poly horror works better because what you cannot see makes your brain work.

And to be honest the jittery 3D adds to the uncanny vibe of horror games of the 32-bits era whereas a clearly understandable monster isn't that impressive because you understand what you're looking at.

Hell, BloodBorne is a magnificent PS4 game (which could easily pass as an early PS5 one) yet I find that the PSX style demake wins in term of ambience

Similarly there's Surface 2 in Goldeneye 64 that still felt creepy even compared to the equivalent in the Wii remake.

so to see better realistic graphics become a necessity in FPS genre and it turns into an accessibility topic

Eh... For Counter Strike maybe but Doom and Quake are still great FPS that can still be accessible.

In fact TF2, despite not looking realistic, managed to have quickly recognisable class silhouettes (unlike Overwatch sadly).

 

[moonbits]

I stopped noticing any type of graphical improvement around the time after GTA V came out. apparently there's still a lot of hype around ray tracing and stuff but i'm not really sure. I believe both graphic card manufacturers and developers should focus more on optimization now

That's what they've been doing, that's what Nvidia and AMD focus their entire front. DLSS, FSR, Dynamic resolution scaling research, frame generation, Adaptive Vsync, Gsync, etc (Hell even hardware like HDMI is helping in this front with VRR.)

These are all techniques to push higher fidelity graphics without the intense performance cost. Because going from 1080p to 4k isn't a fucking easy switch, specially when everyone screams "OMG OPTIMIZE UR GAME DXXX" but then you want them to magically compress and decompress 4K textures at blazing fasts speeds.

 

[Bluewyne]

I cared about graphics when I was younger. Back then generational leaps were actually mind blowing, going from 2D graphics of the SNES to the 3D polygons of the PS1, then witnessing the PS2, and then the HD of the PS3 era.

I haven't really cared about graphics since after the PS3 though; we've only gone from HD to HD with more powerful hardware with the PS4, and then only a slight improvement with the PS4 to PS5. I kinda feel like game design has stagnated or at least its very subtle, things like larger draw distance, less fog, better particle effects.

I think the last time I was impressed by graphics was with the Nintendo Switch Lite, but not because its graphics are cutting edge or anything, it was just a massive leap compared to the 3DS.

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

I think the last time I was impressed by graphics was with the Nintendo Switch Lite, but not because its graphics are cutting edge or anything, it was just a massive leap compared to the 3DS.

I personally found that Wii U's first party games stood quite the test of time visually.

But I agree that the PS360 were the last time I got impressed by the graphical leap.

 

[qw90700]

I'm sorry but games like Mario Galaxy still look good without having the whole screen blended.

And to be honest I prefer colourful over gritty grey/brown that would ultimately show its age after several years.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 9:20 PM

And yet I still think that Ocarina of Time looks better than Shadow of the Colossus mostly because of the colours used.

Dutch angles are cool but not necessary to make a game good. I'd take pre rendered 3D RE background than full 3D ones.


That's where I disagree. Low poly horror works better because what you cannot see makes your brain work.

And to be honest the jittery 3D adds to the uncanny vibe of horror games of the 32-bits era whereas a clearly understandable monster isn't that impressive because you understand what you're looking at.

Hell, BloodBorne is a magnificent PS4 game (which could easily pass as an early PS5 one) yet I find that the PSX style demake wins in term of ambience
View attachment 89301

Similarly there's Surface 2 in Goldeneye 64 that still felt creepy even compared to the equivalent in the Wii remake.


Eh... For Counter Strike maybe but Doom and Quake are still great FPS that can still be accessible.

In fact TF2, despite not looking realistic, managed to have quickly recognisable class silhouettes (unlike Overwatch sadly).

I understand your taste but I wanna mention the horror types that only can effect you because of phobias. For example when you have phobia for spider to feel it you have to see something enough to understand it's spider. However in deep down deepest horrors are because of what you see and they scare you despite they are not a monster than can hurt you, but they are scary because they are not normal. This is the way a game can have more complex horror elements. Otherwise I'm not a person who would be scared of what I cannot see, or something I can only hear because I kinda got used to play Silent Hill games lol.

For example, this is a horror element that's more effective as you can see it better but don't underestimate it so don't open the spoiler as you eat or drink. Get ready!!!:

Spoiler: press to see clearly visible horror lol

Well after writing about so much warning it may don't scare you much, but imagine in this game you open so many doors and see ordinary empty doors and then you see it, it can give heart attack lol.

So, visible horror that causes phobia-effect that can only happen because you can clearly see it is the way for complex horror. In that regard Silent Hill games are great. So this is not the only one visible horror elements in the series.

 

[Cantarella]

And yet I still think that Ocarina of Time looks better than Shadow of the Colossus mostly because of the colours used.

Dutch angles are cool but not necessary to make a game good. I'd take pre rendered 3D RE background than full 3D ones.

I don't know why you quoted my post because it sounds like you're responding to someone else. Can you point out where I said SOTC was the most aesthetically pleasing game in every human's mind? Where did I say that any kind of cinematography was necessary? IDK if those last two statements are supposed to be connected but the existence of pre-rendered backgrounds has literally nothing to do with the location of a camera.