Are High-End Graphics Worth the Trouble?

Tom Mc Shea and Chris Watters debate the merits of pursuing realistic visuals at increasingly high costs.

by

As we stand on the brink of the next console generation, many developers continue to strive toward more complex, more realistic, and more detailed graphics. This enduring quest has fueled game development for years, but in today's marketplace, the big budgets required to create such visual wonders can make studios very vulnerable. We've already seen many developers shut down because their games could not meet the astronomical sales goals required to recoup their investments. Meanwhile, games that don't push the limits of technology are thriving in great numbers, consistently selling well, and gaining enthusiastic critical acclaim. So is it worth continuing to strive for better and better visuals?


Environmental Immersion

Chris: One of the most powerful things that high-end graphics can do in games is aid in the creation of immersive worlds. The interactivity of the medium naturally draws you in, but lifelike environments can captivate you in a way that transforms your gameplay experience. Subtle details, rich lighting, realistic textures, and long draw distances may be resource-intensive to create, but the results can be truly stunning.

When I stepped into John Marston's boots in Red Dead Redemption, I enjoyed the broad array of objectives designed to let me live his life (people to see, criminals to hunt down, flowers to pick). One evening, riding along a ridgeline en route to a bandit outpost, I found myself slowing down, then stopping to gaze upon the dry landscape awash in the glow of sunset. The sky was a blaze of color interrupted only by a few dark clouds, and the air seemed to vibrate with the quiet liveliness of dusk. As I looked past the sentinel saguaro to the river beyond, I realized that this is something I would do in real life. I would pause in my travels to watch the sunset; I would wade into an icy creek just to splash around (Skyrim); and I would look at a dilapidated building and see the beauty in its ruin (Gears of War 3).

The stunning worlds that these games put on display inspire me to deviate from mere objectives and quests and in doing so, they create a level of immersion that less lifelike games simply cannot match. Isn't that kind of experience reason enough to justify the pursuit of visual fidelity?

Tom: It's true that high-end visuals are a core ingredient for replicating realistic-looking worlds, but if you crave a more imaginative setting, there are a host of inventive locales that won't tax your central processor. Monochromatic aesthetics in Limbo and Closure serve to envelop you in a claustrophobia-inducing nightmare. Death comes swiftly in these downloadable adventures, and the moody artistic design and eerie sound effects further the feeling of despair. That dangerous atmosphere exists in part because these games create situations foreign to our own world, so there's no need for the photorealism made possible in polygon-pushing showcase games.

Dark prisons aren't the only places brought to life by small-scale offerings. A childlike joy of discovery permeates every inch of The Unfinished Swan. The fantastical setting you uncover lures you in as you trek further into the blinding white mystery. Botanicula elevates this feeling of unbridled happiness even further. Controlling charismatic creatures in their arboreal home is an utter delight. Expelling the parasitic evil that has infected this peaceful tree is a cause worth fighting for namely because the cheery visual design makes this a world you want to exist in.

There's no doubt that cutting-edge graphics can create impressive depictions of realistic locations. But that processing might is necessary only if you want to mirror that which you already know. When games focus on imagination and artistic splendor, they can create places filled with just as many awe-inspiring moments.


Emotional Connection

Tom: Panic struck me when shadows emerged from the ground. Swinging my meager sword with frantic anger, I drove the demons away from Yorda. I needed to protect her at all costs. My emotional connection to Ico was unquestioned, and it came from the forced relationship between my horned protagonist and his foreign-tongued charge.

Smart design can captivate me in ways that raw technical wizardry so often fails…

Interactivity is the biggest advantage video games have over other media. Choosing to betray one of my fellow captives in Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward was agonizing, and that anguish came from the strong writing that made me empathize with the disparate individuals. Journey ensnared me with other methods. Trudging through dusty ruins, with the orchestral score and desolate sights tempering my mood, invested me in this unnamed survivor's yearning for something more. And my connection only intensified when another adventurer tagged along beside me.

Tears trickled down my cheeks in both To the Moon and Persona 4 Golden, though the former came from helpless sadness, while the latter's were from the joy of familial bonding. Smart design can captivate me in ways that raw technical wizardry so often fails, and it's through modest-looking adventures that I have found the most lasting emotional connection.

Chris: Great writing certainly has the power to create moving stories, Tom, but as the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. The human body is the most powerful communicator of human emotions, and that's why realistic human faces and animations are so important to emotional storytelling in video games. It's a rare artistic team that can craft an experience like Journey; lifelike human faces are a valuable shortcut to making characters more believable.

Take the relationship between Elena Fisher and Nathan Drake in the Uncharted series. Their witty banter makes them instantly likable, while tense gameplay moments when each cries out for the other make you feel protective of your AI companion. The writing is great and the gameplay design is great, but the thing that gives this partnership that extra sparkle, that extra charisma is their lifelike animations. Expressive subtleties flash across their faces, revealing the troubled history simmering beneath an uneasy reunion or sharpening an emotional plea with an extra edge of desperation. This visual fidelity to real human expression makes these characters all the more real and the adventure all the more engaging. I get excited to keep playing just to see their next interaction.

The power of facial expressions can also help transform a series not known for its emotional weight into one that tugs at your heartstrings. For all the times I confronted annihilation in Master Chief's history, it wasn't until I saw self-doubt and trepidation written across Cortana's face in Halo 4 that the series made me face the prospect of loss. The range of emotions rendered in rich detail across Cortana's holographic visage made me feel her anguish, and infused my fight against the Prometheans with a sense of desperate energy. Without her expressive body language, I wouldn't have had that extra zeal to push onward.


Reality Simulation

Chris: We can't talk about high-end graphics without talking about simulations. Even though the medium has been striving for more-realistic visuals since 8-bit games crawled their way out of the primordial ooze, convincing replications of our world still elude us. The goal of truly lifelike visuals is an important one for the industry, and not just because it's fun to look at pretty things.

…the more realistic the games look, the more immediate the experience is.

One of the great powers games have is to let us live vicariously through them. I'll never be able to race a Bugatti Veyron around the Nurburgring, play in a professional basketball game, or BASE jump off a mountain while wearing a wingsuit. Games like Forza Motorsport 4, NBA 2K12, and Far Cry 3 merely let me simulate these actions, but the excitement I feel when playing them is real. It allows me to imagine myself performing these exhilarating acts, and the more realistic the games look, the more immediate the experience is.

The less mental energy I have to spend imagining realistic crowds, overlooking clunky animations, or filling in verdant foliage, the more engaged I can be in my living room adventures. Surely you can understand this reason to strive for realism!

Tom: I freely admit that if you want a video game to look like real life, you need the fanciest technology available. But simulations go much deeper than replicating what you can see. Maxis has been dabbling in simulations for decades, even though you'd be hard pressed to discern its intentions at a glance. The Sims places first-world problems on center stage, letting you pick out the perfect couch for your digital doppelganger in a cartoony world populated by all manner of gibberish-speaking yuppies. If you eye a bigger prize, you can design a peaceful hamlet in SimCity that can withstand an attack from a giant arachnid. And don't forget the insect-farming SimAnt, which transports you to a pint-size monarchy.

Stripping away top-end visuals often leads to a more cerebral simulation. Our choice for the best sports game of 2012 was a game that most closely resembles a spreadsheet. Football Manager may not have articulated joints such as those found in FIFA, but the number crunching that wins championships away from the pitch is replicated here in all of its Microsoft Office glory. And although simulations usually attempt to mimic reality, there are those that veer slightly off the rails to give a more enjoyable experience than duties the real professionals work so hard accomplishing. Phoenix Wright embodies the best aspect of practicing law (being right) while eliminating the crushing busywork. Plus, no doctor alive knows what it's like to hunt for a sentient infection quite like Trauma Center veterans.

Simulations are one area where high-end visuals have a slight advantage, but imagination once again pulls those with modest aesthetics ahead.


Sheer Intensity

Tom: Simplicity is at the forefront of many of the most intense experiences. The relentless speed of Pac-Man CE DX demands inhuman reflexes as you navigate treacherous mazes with a trail of ghosts haunting your backside. Super Meat Boy transports that ferocity to the platforming realm. Sprinting with reckless abandon, you glide past razor-sharp blades through sheer will and minute midair adjustments. It's a dizzying blur where life and death mingle like clashing roommates, and success is snatched from your clutches by your creeping hubris.

Arcade-style experiences excel when complexity is stripped away. But that white-knuckle action can still surface even when reflexes aren't paramount. In Lone Survivor, unnerving sound effects make your spine tingle and your breath expel in sharp bursts. Unimaginable horrors hide within that pixelated world, and it takes all your digital courage to traverse deeper into the unknown darkness. I Am Alive makes you wary of the stragglers who litter the road, forcing you to guess whether they're truly in need or secretly plotting your demise.

The kinetic thrill inherent to video games taps into our most basic emotions. By focusing on visual simplicity, games can emphasize the core excitement that strengthens our investment in these experiences.

Chris: The quest to overcome the clear-cut challenges of an arcade game has resulted in countless sweaty palms, elevated heart rates, and even a few movies. But it's when games go the extra mile to create realistic places and then break them down spectacularly that I think we see what real video game intensity is.

Virtual battlefields may still be a far cry from the real thing, but when true-to-life sound effects combine with environmental destructibility in Battlefield 3 multiplayer matches, explosions and barrages of enemy fire can turn the world upside down in an instant. That concrete wall that I was using for cover a moment ago is gone, my ears are ringing, tracers are flying all around me, and I have to decide to dig in and fight, cut and run, or just go prone and pray. The intensity of these battles is real, fueled by audiovisual stimuli that make everything seem larger than life.

Similarly high-end production values create the oh-so-convincing spaceship environments of Dead Space, and it's the faithful replication of iconic imagery from classic films that makes these places so believable. The cold steel textures on the walls, the dust motes hanging in the all-too-still air, the weak shafts of light, and the deep shadows all set the stage for gruesome abominations to bring my nightmares to terrifyingly vivid life. These are the gifts of high-end visuals, places I can comfortably transport myself to in order to experience a dangerous and exciting new reality. And then flee it.


The Final Word

Tom: The push toward high-end visuals has come at the expense of imagination. Big-budget games so often strive to replicate scenes present in real life that they can sap the escapism that makes smaller-scale games so enjoyable. Emotion and immediacy sacrificed in favor of spectacular-looking, though interactivity-lacking, set pieces is a troubling trend, and I fear that as new consoles arrive, developers will only be more keen on showcasing the unprecedented horsepower under the hood.

Toe-to-toe, modest-looking games hold their own admirably against their expensive peers, and often come out ahead, and the outcome slants even more toward cheaper games when you look at the fiscal impact. Jaw-dropping visuals require a jaw-dropping budget, and big investments kill creativity. When you have to produce a hit, the industry becomes swamped with homogeneous efforts that blend together.

I enjoy great graphics as much as anyone. But we have to question whether the cost of that technology is worth it.

Chris: The drive to create ever-more-realistic graphics has spurred the video game industry onward for decades, and it's a motivating force that should continue into the future. The more believable an environment is, the more we can lose ourselves in that world. The more detailed a character's face is, the more emotional our attachment to that character can become. The more convincing the illusion of reality, the more vividly we can channel the experience.

The profusion of creativity that we see when developers venture off the path towards high-end graphics is a wonderful thing for the industry, a true sign of the health and maturation of the medium. But the technical wizardy and artistic acumen displayed by developers who pursue increasingly complex visuals are vital forces that propel the industry forward, drive hardware and software sales, and entrance players of all ages.

The costs may be high and the rewards not always commensurate with the expenditures, but pushing the visual ceiling even higher is an important investment for the video game industry.

Discussion

537 comments
Goddammitj
Goddammitj

I think were around the level where most people arent TOO bothered about progress in graphics. I remember the days of "omg teh graphics" and they seem to have past now, although maybe its just that Im older...Its always awesome to see it improve, but what I think is more important is optimizing the games to run the best they can on the lowest hardware they can. I dont want to see graphical progress stop, even though story and gameplay are obviously where the deal is made, good graphics make it SO much more immersive and enjoyable. Its like taking the scenic route in the most luxurious car of your dreams vs the family next doors van. 

platinumkat
platinumkat

I have to agree with Chris on this one, realistic looking worlds even in a fantasy environment essentially add to the believability of what you are doing. Tom on the other hand seems to have not played a game since 1994 or only uses a Gameboy, all of his arguments are weak. His examples only stemming from ancient platformers he tries to vindicate the irrelevance of making things look real. 

jhonel83
jhonel83

What kind of a discussion is this? How can you ever say "enough"? Gaming has always been a competitive market -the one who can achieve the best graphics, best story, best music wins. The rest can eat the dust. There is never "too much". What we see above is an excuse for the lack of talent, dedication and overall quality in the videogame making industry. Ever immagined what happened if developers and studios said "enough" in 2000? Back then there was also a huge leap in hardware and people reached a peak in technology. But I guess those wer other times, when the grass was greener and the devs less lazy and money hungry

swyg
swyg

Pre-rendered backgrounds are more than enough to invoke strong emotional attachment to a game.  They give off this unique stunning quality that defines each set piece in the game; and more than that the places look like they were imagined perfectly as opposed to being built with compromise.

cpa131
cpa131

I don't think high-end graphics are worth the trouble. The story and the gameplay are the most important factors in a videogame (my opinion anyway). Although I will say some of the games today look scary real. But I think you only pay attention to the graphics in the first 5 minutes, then you get absorbed into the story provided it's good. And the strive towards high-end graphics has really hurt the economics of the gaming industry. It's amazing to me that the games cost 60$ now, and I can't even imagine what the future games will cost along with the next gen consoles.

Total_mischief
Total_mischief

There shouldn't be a debate. Visuals make everything better, but the best games aren't the most visually stunning ones, they're the games that provide both on artistic and visual quality and on the story and characters. I'll take a visual masterpiece and an emotionally involving game over a game that only has one of the above.

Mugzippit
Mugzippit

I find myself leaning more towards Tom. While graphics are important and can ruin a decent game if poorly made, are they being made to important by Microsoft and Sony? Nintendo needed the Wii U as the Wii was lacking a lot of the stuff that the 360 and PS3 had made so essential to fully enjoy console gaming (imagine if Smash bros brawl had full multi-player support!) but the PS4 and 720 are just going to push up the strain on developers to deliver games that use all the potential. Granted the Wii U is now technologically superior to the 360 & PS3 but that doesn't mean MS and Sony are going to loose all market share and game development. The current generation of consoles still has plenty of life in it, making it harder to justify spending a wad of cash getting new hardware, especially when some (most?) the big name launch titles for the PS4 are also on the PS3 (including destiny which is what I had assumed was going to be the PS4 flagship launch title.

JamDev
JamDev

We are definitely starting to reach the point of diminishing returns when it comes to high-end graphics. State of the art PC's are many times more powerful than current gen consoles, but to the layman the difference is just that the games look a little sharper and smoother. For the enthusiast on the other hand the difference is night and day, and spending an extra $500 or so to run a game on ultra settings rather than high is money well spent. For most of us the difference between high and ultra is negligible and a $250 graphics card is more than enough to play current games at an acceptable level. These big spending PC hobbyists are equivalent to the old  Hi-Fi enthusiasts that would spend thousands on music systems for upgrades in sound quality that most people couldn't even hear. 

 Ultimately if you are playing on a 7 year old console or you're running a couple of GTX 690's you are still playing the same games with the same geometry, character models and animations, it just isn't a radically different experience given the massive disparity in the hardware. 

There will be a slight bump in overall quality with the release of the next gen consoles. The lowest common denominator for big budget multi-plats will be raised so the extra graphical effects and fidelity of high-end hardware will be polishing slightly less stinky turds, but the kind of obvious generational leaps in graphics we used to see are a thing of the past. The real limits going forward will be in the amount of time and money developers can throw at projects rather than the hardware that's running the games.

Fahad_Mohd
Fahad_Mohd

Here's what I think. The current generation consoles are performing outstandingly great with amazing graphics. Seriously, I don't know what more you gamers want from the gaming industry to make. Just look at the graphics of crysis, mgs 4, battle field etc. I have lived enough to play SEGA Genesis, NES, PS1, Dreamcast, PS2. But Xbox 360 and PS3 have made it possible for us gamers to experience the ultra visual and gameplay satisfaction. PS4 & Xbox 720 will be just a waste of everything, waste of money, earth resources etc. I doubt that the 2 consoles will make that huge difference as previous consoles did. I mean if developers can make games graphics like crysis & MGS4, Then that's more than enough. Speaking of myself I wouldn't mind staying with PS3 & Xbox 360 for 10 more years or even the rest of my life. There isn't a good reason to develop a new console, except for handheld video games. They are still not perfect for me. I know I'm the only one who thinks this way.

Wormkid_64
Wormkid_64

How many games with gorgeous graphics have tried to cruise by on that alone and simply floundered in this past generation? Yet an 8 bit side scroller can be released in 2012,and if engaging enough,receive critical acclaim. Obviously this is an issue one has to take a balanced middle stance on. A terrible game with gorgeous graphics is a waste not only of my time and money,but also of that of the studio. However a great game can be reduced to mediocrity if its graphics are horrid and ugly,or if they're simple for any reason other than a careful design choice. While I personally lean more toward simplicity, there must be a balance. Bleeding edge graphics do not make a bad game great,and woeful graphics can definitely knock one down several pegs.

Ratpoison_m
Ratpoison_m

After about 10 years of not improving graphics in games is more than enough, its about time. 

Wolflink001
Wolflink001

Oh and uh, looking forward to your review on Punch-Out U! LOL.

Wolflink001
Wolflink001

Ace Attourney has been scarred forever...

Kyrylo
Kyrylo

I don't want new console so I can play Crysis 4,5,6 and CoD 99. All I want are cool fun game that I can enjoy. And mindless games based only on visuals are time waste for me.  

PSR8000
PSR8000

I have an Xbox 360.  I played crysis 2, not long before purchasing Dishonored.  When I started playing Dishonored, I immediately began to doubt it because it didn't give me that visual satisfaction Crysis 2 gave me.  After a little while of playing, the graphics didn't matter anymore, and in actual fact, the game became a lot more engrossing than Crysis 2, and my eyes began to adjust to the style of graphics in Dishonored, which in actual fact, are good, if not as realistic as Crysis 2.  I'd bet if some of the textures were sharper, like I'd image on the PC version, the game would have been even better. 

ClusterBlaster
ClusterBlaster

I've said this before & will say it again. The current generation console still has some steam left & we need better games than having a next gen console with crappy ones. Pursuing for better visuals & gameplay with the hardware at hand is how a developer can be best judged. 

LukeWesty
LukeWesty

Just me or is the build up to the new consoles making this year crambed of game releases,  maybe game makers are wanting to release what they have been working on so they can set there sights on the next gen consoles.

Not that I'm complaining or anything.

Jato_81
Jato_81

I think the level that the visuals are at now (PC) is enough. Consoles would need to be beefed up to allow the visual levels of PC's . We're reaching the affordable limits of what a computer can do in the way of CPU & GPU power. So they should just concentrate on game play and tweek the graphic engines they have. 

ChromeBallz
ChromeBallz

This entire debate is kinda superfluous. You should always aim for the best possible result in all areas of your game when developing it - Graphics, gameplay, story, etc. The complete package is what it's ultimately about.

puukusa
puukusa

Wierd thing: while AC Revelations or Arkham City on my newly upgraded PC look simply incredible compared to PS3 versions, lower graphics versions on PS3 feel more realistic and engaging. Why?

Gamer_4_Fun
Gamer_4_Fun

I am not buying any new console if I don't get enough graphical leap, this is my opinion.

max-hit
max-hit

As a long time gamer I would say that visuals do play a substantial role in every game and they are just as important as other factors. 

Slade968
Slade968

I think most people on this website agree that good graphics do not take priority over gameplay/storylilne/characters etc. I also think that the majority of games purchased are by people who go by word of mouth/advertising or box covers. Most of my friends are not all that invested in gaming but still buy big titles like COD, Fifa or Madden. I'm not saying that is better or worse. Some people are passionate about gaming and those people are probably the ones on this website but as far as marketing to the largest consumer base possible, graphics and movie like cut-scenes carry a lot of weight.

Arbalon
Arbalon

I think both points of view are valid.. and because they're both valid.. there are games like Red Dead Redemption, and Lone Survivor, different scenery depending on your mood, for two completely different types of gameplay. I think there should be your games like "MineCraft" and "Monkey Island" and such.. and then there should be games like Far Cry 3 and The Last of Us..

invictuslemming
invictuslemming

I fail to see why we have to choose between great graphics and great game play... Why can't we have both?

Graphics need to be pushed, if only to ensure the technology moves forward, as far as I'm concerned graphics have stagnated far too long.  The hardware in current consoles is well out of date, and its getting pretty blatantly obvious...

Immersion is a big thing, with good graphics comes good immersion, if the animations are smooth, and lifelike it draws you in, when you see jagged movement, odd geometry, it takes away from the immersion level and you don't get drawn into the world as you should.

Far cry 3 is a good example of a game with decent graphics but also with good game play, the graphics aren't ground breaking but they're good enough to keep you in the world, the cut scenes run right in with the game play, no breaks, no loading bars, and that keeps the pace moving, and keeps you "trapped" in the game world, games like this just wouldn't exist if graphics weren't important.


Keep pushing the envelope, I want to see real VR in my lifetime!

Ferrets_one
Ferrets_one

If u make a AAA game or make a game without the graphics, it just needs to be good.  If you make a game with great graphics and it plays very good then good for u, but if u make a great game without the graphics, well that makes u even better.

beavisj
beavisj

LA Noire for instance. Great looking game, especially prior to release, it looked promising. However the gameplay fell short, repetitive. 

morgan_gibson87
morgan_gibson87

"Jaw-dropping visuals require a jaw-dropping budget, and big investments kill creativity. When you have to produce a hit, the industry becomes swamped with homogeneous efforts that blend together."

Perfectly sums up the issue. The experience of gaming, the story-telling behind the greatest games, get lost in the pursuit of money. Rather, games have to appeal to the lowest common denominator and have to look as good as possible to satiate a mass audience. In and of itself, I have no issue with bringing gaming - or any other art form - to a mass audience. But when money-making itself becomes the object, and producers try and make art appeal to as many people as is possible (thus, lowering it to a point where all will want it), art typically loses its essence.

kamikazeespleen
kamikazeespleen

I'm a PC gamer so as with the rest of PC gamers, I want the best graphics possible just so I can stare at the pretty water ripples but at no expense of gameplay. I still play GTA San Andreas and Vice City and they are far from graphically impressive by todays standards but the gameplay is just so fantastic that it keeps me engrossed.


GTA IV was a game that showed that pushing the graphics and technical abilities can sometimes come at the expense of gameplay and make it less enjoyable. It was still a great game because of the fantastic ragdoll physics and environment but it was no-way near as fun as San Andreas (in my opinion obviously).

As long as gameplay comes first and a decent effort is made with the graphics, then I believe that is what makes a good game. High-end Graphics not only make a game look shiny but can also help the experience feel more believable and engrossing.

bigtruckseries
bigtruckseries

I still have my Genesis, turbo Graphyx 16, NES and Super NES among other systems in my closet. I was explaining to a 14 year old kid how today, all the games are First Person Shooters, but "in my day"  (I'm 31 - and feel old saying that) ninjas and fighting was what it was all about.  The games years ago were built on GAMEPLAY rather than graphics and cutscenes. All of those games offered more replay value than just about anything we have on the market today.  Even worse, the developers know this so they release DLC to squeeze more money out of us to get the amount of gameplay we should have gotten in the first place. 

kilroyrichard
kilroyrichard

I can see why there isn't that huge excitement for a next gen console like there was with the last ones, graphics have now simply reached a point that they don't determine how the game will function around their capabilities.

That said, I would be happy to see gta4 or gta5 for example on a next gen, at 60fps, with no signs of draw distance or rendering ever again, and no shitty cardboard trees. An immersive world like theirs always at some level has me acknowledging and thinking about how my console is processing all of this, that cars are being drawn 100m down the road and building details are processed and appearing as I near. So long as I do not have to think about things like this, then that's all that matters, realism or not. Of course I am aware plenty of games do not have that issue already, I'm just using one of the best examples of a game that strives for a fully immersive world.

keichimorisato9
keichimorisato9

@Wormkid_64 though you have a very valid point, i will sooner buy a shitty game with great graphics (FFXIII) over a great 2D game (FFIV complete collection psp) because i can't seem to get as emotionally invested in the characters without facial expressions.

LukeWesty
LukeWesty

@Jato_81 Well there are only slight differences between pc and console, I have Farcry 3 for pc and ps3 and its being played on full graphics on the PC and I can't see the diff maybe slight colouration, the next console will allow a big diff not tiny, it wont be up to date with the PC it will be strides infront.

petez34
petez34

@ChromeBallz Very true! This article reads as if one(developer) needs to make or is making a choice between better visuals or better plotline. I'm not so sure designers are so single minded in their approach to creating games. 

ChromeBallz
ChromeBallz

@puukusa Uncanny valley :)


The lower resolution and framerate of the PS3 give the graphics a little 'rough edge' which hides all the imperfections that are so very clear on a 1080p+ resolution on the PC on higher framerates.

LukeWesty
LukeWesty

@Gamer_4_Fun Yeah but it wont just be a matter of graphics it will be games, the best games will only release after a while on the new consoles so if we wanna play the new release GTA'z or what ever in the future we will all be shelling out for the new console, it has its pro's and cons and if you cant afford hundred on a new console it will be painfull... lol

LukeWesty
LukeWesty

@Gamer_4_FunYeah but it wont just be a matter of graphics it will be games, the best games will only release after a while on the new consoles so if we wanna play the new release GTA'z or what ever in the future we will all be shelling out for the new console, it has its pro's and cons and if you cant afford hundred on a new console it will be painfull... lol

LukeWesty
LukeWesty

@Gamer_4_Fun Yes but after a while the best games will only release for the new console so it wont be a diff in graphics it will be the fact u wont be able to play the better games.

dreamerdonkey
dreamerdonkey

@Slade968 Totally agree with you. When I play old games like Diablo or Counter Strike 1.6 I still feel the thrill. But today most of the game is polished like Diamond but at the end they leave really few amount of replay value.   

cryfreedom66
cryfreedom66

@LukeWesty @Jato_81  

The only difference you can see between fc3 maxed on pc in full hd vs consoles is a slight coloration difference? I'm sorry but this is either a blatant lie or you need to get your eyes checked...

petez34
petez34

@LukeWesty So you think next generation consoles will outshine PC's??? We shall see.

LukeWesty
LukeWesty

@ChromeBallz @puukusa Nah they are very clear on PS3 and Xbox pal, there very clear on none hd aswell... AC is poo and bored of reading pc player making out the pc is like a next gen console, my dads is high spec and looks no diff, annoys me some people on this.

petez34
petez34

@cryfreedom66 @LukeWesty @Jato_81haha... I was being polite. Luke is obviously quite ignorant! And to say there is little difference in FC3 from pc to console is incorrect(to say the least). It's your opinion though, but open your fanboy eyes geez! My little gtx 460 card still blows most games away(not on max settings but still good enough) than console and can achieve 60+fps.

blitzinD
blitzinD

@petez34 Ya, I wouldn`t put any money on that. High-end gaming PCs have always outperformed the `of the moment`consoles. I don`t think that will change next gen.