Graphics Don't Matter - Hypocritical?

For a while now, people have been arguing that graphics do not matter when it comes to video games. I don't think people who say this understand the hypocrisy behind such words. The main reason I find it very hypocritical is because people argue that new games are too flashy while older games are not. They argue that a game doesn't have to look good in order to be enjoyable. This alone does not make sense. Games have always looked great, no matter what gen you grew up with. You will have to admit that the gen you grew up with was once the prime of graphics for their time. This means that you are still playing beautiful looking games. Just because a game does not look up to date does not mean that it is ugly and that each one has some kind of unmeetable gameplay. Games being made today still hold up and feel like older games while still looking fantastic. One game in particular is Stryder on the PSN.

Another reason I think there is hypocrisy behind the new "Graphics don't matter" movement is the people themselves. Arguing about graphics not mattering is actually arguing that graphics do matter. They judge great looking games based on the looks themselves. They somehow assume that a game that looks fantastic will be disappointing while seeing a game that looks like it was made for the SNES (which still looks fantastic) will be a great success. They also encourage people to play games that are not as flashy because the gameplay is somehow 10x better. That is the most false statement I have ever heard. Since when did graphics have to do with gameplay?

Anyway, my opinion on the argument is just my opinion and anyone can feel free to reply and add your thoughts. I won't attack you on your opinion.

My 2 cents.

You can have good game with bad graphics, but great gameplay. You cannot have a good game with great graphics and bad gameplay. That's the crux of the argument right there. Graphics will always yield in weight in comparison to gameplay. They may matter in varying degrees, might actually help improve the gameplay the better the graphics are, but it's always the gameplay itself that's more important. Why do you think the indie scene blew up the way it has? People don't need good graphics to play great games.

You can also have a good game with great graphics and great gameplay. The indie scene does not even have bad graphics. I think the indie scene looks damn good even. I agree that gameplay is really important but graphics don't get the credit it deserves. Most if not all games today look ridiculously good but people complain about it for the sake of complaining. Give me a list of games you think have bad graphics. Chances are, they're going to actually be great looking games.

I'm with you TC ! "Graphics don't matter" is the gaming's most bizarre and irrational cliche ! Ppl say it yet when a game comes out with like low on textures or sth they bitch about it to no fuckin end ! Take "Watch Dogs" as the usual suspect.

Gameplay - Story - Graphics - sound design and stuff should all be at highest possible level to make a game "masterpiece" ! Every perfect game so far was like this , for instance: GTA series , Batman Arkham series, The Last of Us , Bioshock series, Battlefield series etc hell even indie games have good graphics on their own scale !

I'm with you TC ! "Graphics don't matter" is the gaming's most bizarre and irrational cliche ! Ppl say it yet when a game comes out with like low on textures or sth they bitch about it to no fuckin end ! Take "Watch Dogs" as the usual suspect.

Gameplay - Story - Graphics - sound design and stuff should all be at highest possible level to make a game "masterpiece" ! Every perfect game so far was like this , for instance: GTA series , Batman Arkham series, The Last of Us , Bioshock series, Battlefield series etc hell even indie games have good graphics on their own scale !

Graphics always matter.

Graphics don't matter movement.. I think is more of a movement of those that think graphics on a technical level have been good enough for awhile now and that the graphics created by artists still very much matters.

Graphics does matter, but Gameplay matters the most

My brother, you get me.

mi neger

prefer dfo and elsword to many games so yeah....

Oh and people who buy COD or GTA certainly don't care about graphics

Graphics do matter, but if you won't play a game because of how the graphics look... well... I can't even look at you. So many graphics whores missing out on the greatest milestones of gaming becuse they look old.

@Black_Knight_00: Which is ironic because old games still look great. The only games that look rough in comparison to the rest are early 3D games, but that is more of a resolution problem. Emulators have shown early 3D games with modern resolution and they actually look really good still.

everything matters

People misconstrue what good graphics are.

Graphics matter.. only when it compliments the gameplay otherwise looking pretty really doesn't add anything to the game.

Graphics whores won't even play a game from two years earlier, cause it looks bad in their book. It's a sad life.

They can be a detriment as well... better graphics can mean smaller levels and less variety

I think what most of those that say "Graphics don't matter" actually means that for them it is not among the top priority for them to buy and enjoy a game but that's it's nice if there is.

Gameplay will always trumph Graphics at the end of the day because a game can look fantastic but if the rest of the elements such as gameplay is aweful then you have a bad game. And as a illustration on how gameplay matters more then graphics one need only look at Minecraft and it's success.

Utter and complete nonsense.

Graphics doesnt matter to alot of gamers, graphics might matter to you and thats a shame because you are losing out on so many great games.

I've no trouble playing games with poor graphics, but they are always relevant in the sense that it helps make a good game even better. That's what I meant. You're telling me people would rather take poor visuals over good ones for the same game if given the choice?

Exactly.

Of course graphics matter, it's just that people have different views on what good graphics are, and how they prioritize them. For example, I agree with the OP that for the most part, most games look great - including Watch Dogs. I mean, it's just a product of how much graphics have advanced. There aren't a lot of games anymore that honestly look bad. You may not like a certain type of art style, but the quality of graphics today is pretty good.

Now, as far as "graphics don't matter", I'm of the thought that The Order 1886 will not play as well because it seems the dev's only goal is to make the best graphics the hardware will allow. So much so that they letterboxed the game because it won't run properly on a full 16x9 screen. I would rather have the game at 900p, 16x9, and 60 frames per second as opposed what they're doing now. I would prefer the silky smooth movement and animation over the fidelity of the graphics. This is where I say graphics don't matter in relation to what else is being sacrificed.

People haven't been arguing that graphics aren't important, they are not the most important part. A game can be good if it has crappy graphics, but the overall game is good. If it's the other way around it can't be a good game. How does that not make sense? Wouldn't you play any games if it was in 720p? Just because the graphics aren't as crisp as a Crysis game doesn't make it bad... Just because older games once were prime of gaming doesn't mean they were the top of the graphics spectrum. Graphics that have a unique style age way better than just trying to look as realistic as possible.

Graphics don't matter, it's the artstyle that matters if it helps the game.

Ahh ok.

Well, we can agree that graphics can improve a game, but thats not the same as say they matter. The key here is that for me and others who say graphics doesn't matter , is that if a game is good its good, and we dont judge a game just because its not 60fps 1080P or Crysis reborn each time.

Mind if i ask what exactly are those "great games" ?

That's frustrating , but that's not how i define "graphics" you know it's not about how it looks like in like ten years from now , it's about making an experience to be more polished and enjoyable (for its period of release) , those ppl you are talking about are utter idiots and we should rule'em out of "Graphics don't matter" equation ......

After all industry needs to advance in every aspect .....and we shouldn't be obstacles here , and for me as long as it looks good and fits with the atmosphere i'm fine , by "graphics" i don't mean "1080p 60fps" ...

They matter in so far as much that they shape presentation (do the visuals evoke what the developer was going for?) and functionality (can you clearly see/differentiate what you are supposed to?). The problem is that many graphics threads don't look at the visuals of games in this context (the only context that matters) instead looking at raw technical fidelity such as poly counts, shadow resolution and pixel counts.

This is a backwards way of looking at visual fidelity as visual fidelity is there to help achieve good, functional presentation, it's the means to the end, not the point itself. And when people are busy arguing over raw fidelity all the while ignoring why fidelity (and what it allows the developer to express) mattered in the first place it is enough to make one think "Graphics [in the bizarre, decontextualised way many argue over them] don't matter to me".

Graphics matter to a certain degree. I don't want to play a game that looks like a PS1 game because that's all the tech the studio could muster. Once you're at "industry standard" graphics, that's fine for me. I'd rather they focus programming and effort on gameplay rather than trying to spruce up a graphics system that's already good enough.

Graphics do matter and everyone care about good graphics . Only fanboys deny that when they see something good looking on other platform that they don't own . Once something good looking comes on their platform then BOOM ! ... "Yes graphics do matter . Look at that low budget indie garbage on that platform , lol" .

That said , gameplay is still most important element in any "game" . More important than story telling , graphics and social justice .

Not sure if troll question but anyways Risk of Rain, Papers Please, some consider Hotline Miami a good game, Binding of Issac, minecraft (though you can improve the textures)

Thats just a few

Think you took a wrong turn. This is not Systemwars and here most luckily can make arguments that are more then just seem like made up ramblings by a 5year old.

I agree that graphics must get incrementally better, but in the sense that they must serve to facilitate immersion by looking more believable. It's understandable to expect games that look better than the the ones that came before, but without letting that preclude you the enjoyment of those older ones as well. That is, in my opinion, the "healthy" way to view graphics, and this coming from a guy who retrogames daily, even on PS1, which is the console that has the worst-aging games as far as graphics.

Then there are the "1080p 60fps" guys you mentioned, who, let's face it, are the people who play maybe 10 games a year, only new ones at that, and are more interested in video card stats than gaming. And that's sad.

While this was the case for 7th gen i don't think will be a problem in the 8th gen! so we can Amazing graphics without putting the strain on level design.

Graphics do matter but I think people blow it out of proportion HOW MUCH they matter.

A great game will be enhanced with a better level of graphics. Though if you look at this ridiculous 1080p argument that has been going on for ages it just highlights it. I got a PS4 last week. I got Destiny (it was fun while it lasted) and it looks great but what I haven't said at any point is "man this game looks great BECAUSE of the resolution". Destiny looks great on every console, it is just it looks better on next gen and it would look better on PC if it was on the platform. It isn't so much massively better that I could never go back to last gen. Or I could never play a game at sub 1080p again or some crap.

But I think that many developers these days put so much of their effort and resources into making the game look good instead of making the games fun. Hell just look at Crytek games. They all generally look fantastic yet they are some of the dullest games ever created.

Graphics don't fix all wrongs in a game which is why I'd much rather play a console and have reasonable graphics that work and games I want to play and that are fun, than buy a PC and spend ages pushing every frame I can out of it just for the sake of a bit more eye candy. I just want to play some fun games, with the best graphics possible with minimal fuss. Consoles do that for me and always have, so that is where I play, despite PC having the better graphics.

Seems some people here think that good graphics = bad gameplay. Is there a balance scale that I'm missing here? I honestly don't see how having great graphics can remove great gameplay. GTAIV is a game that has great graphics and fun gameplay. So are the Metal Gear series including Metal Gear Rising. There is a huge number of games that have great graphics and great gameplay, so the whole balance scale argument really makes no sense to me.

Yes!

It depends on the person and the game. I am a person who can enjoy a game even the graphics in not that good but great game play. Most of the top games today have a great graphics and great game play.

System Wars or not , it's true .

Totally agree. There are some games that were not only benchmark games when released back then but also had excellent gameplay ; FEAR , Shogun 2 , Crysis , Witcher 2 , Company of Heroes and so on . It's not like a game having good graphics will always suck at gameplay . HOWEVER , it is sad that most of devs these days focus on presentation way more than actual gameplay . There should be balance (as you said) .

I agree with a lot in the video. This guy in the video mentions that graphics matter when they enhance a game but don't matter when the game looks pretty but sucks. My beef is that people who say graphics don't matter assume that games with great graphics are over hyped just based on the graphics. They assume that no one is having fun playing these games because they don't look pixelated or like an 8 or 16bit game. I play both games with those graphics and with modern graphics. Both sides of the fence look great to me. Both sides of the fence are extremely fun for me. Both sides have GOOD graphics. I look at Minecraft and see a great looking game. Games like Super Meat Boy, The Binding Of Isaac and A.R.E.S. which are all indie games look fantastic but people somehow claim that these games have "bad graphics". Since these people also avoid games that look like Crysis and encourage others to do it due to graphics, that is where I find the hypocrisy in it. Avoiding games due to "good" graphics? So, graphics really do matter?

To me, if I see someone avoiding something for its feature while saying that said feature does not matter, then it obviously does matter due to them not wanting the feature in the first place. Black and white in my eyes.

@Cloud_imperium:

Not even close to being the truth.

Then you haven't seen much .

Couldn't agree more.

It wasn't a troll or sth , every game has its own charm in terms of graphics , Minecraft owns its charm to its pixel graphics and so do Papers Please.

@-paranorman-: I understand this completely.

For example: A bad game with good graphics is still a bad game.

When someone states “A good game with bad graphics is a good game because graphics are irrelevant”, it’s actually way more vague then the “ A bad game with good graphics is still a bad game”.

If you talk about what’s good (good graphics/game) then that is clearly in favour of us gamers. Talking about bad however can easily be used against you. It can be interpreted as an extremity. Games of today should have a standard or benchmark and any game that doesn’t come up to that standard (in terms of graphics ) shouldn’t even be released.

What I’m saying is that as long as a game as a whole is acceptable to your taste then it can be considered a good game.

Personal taste affects a lot.

Some people are picky and see good graphics as a necessity.

Others are just trolls.

For me, "graphics don't matter" means that they should not come at the expense of the gameplay and experience. They should also not make it so that game costs so much that they have to sell millions of copies to make a profit.

A lot of time and effort get put into graphics that the player will only glance at. Or in areas that we cannot access. Drive Club is an example of that. They have stated how mountains in the backgrounds have thousands of modeled trees casting real shadows. That's taking horsepower away from what could have been a 60 frame-per-second game. It also took a long time and cost a lot of money to do that. For something that we'll never be able to drive through and experience. That's where, to me, graphics wouldn't have mattered if they decided on low detail, copy/paste trees.

I don't think it is that it doesn't matter at all, but rather that it doesn't matter as much as the gameplay. Cause a game can look great and magnificent but if the gameplay is horrible then people won't enjoy it.

Nobody says that anymore.

The whole is greater than the sum of it parts but game play is weighted more.

I am getting sick of the pixel and poor graphic games coming out.