how much do pc gamers care about graphics?

it seems to me that other than having crysis as bragging right for best graphics there really isnt as much care for graphics on pc as on consoles.

has anyone else notices this. especially with all the praise stalker gets even tho it doesnt hav good graphics.

i play almost every modern game i have even if I don't have to with stuff turned down just to get extra performance

I can deal with bad graphics but still prefer it to look somewhat nice

i play almost every modern game i have even if I don't have to with stuff turned down just to get extra performance

I can deal with bad graphics

OilySuperWillie

That's because stalker is good game so it gets alot of praise. And i never understood the complaints about stalkers graphics. Shadow of Chernobyl looked fantastic especially at night and underground when all the dynamic lights come into effect. Now it does have it weakness since it uses an older engine but the visual design is superb.

My best looking game installed is Oblivion even though I can run Crysis maxed, looks don't matter at all.

especially with all the praise stalker gets even tho it doesnt hav good graphics.

tmgwarrior72

As long as I can run at my monitor's native resolution, whatever it is, I'm happy. Graphics are great and all but I'd rather have a clear picture and not an upscaled one. PC does have the best graphics, and I'm fine paying extra for a better experience.

Graphics matter to me, but not nearly as much as a game just being fun. I'm not satisfied with my PC unless I can play all the games I want or own at 90% detail or higher. Obviously those games at those settings on PC look far better than console games. I just don't see a reason to sacrifice graphics when it's not that expensive to build a PC capable of running most games on high settings for a couple of years. To the OP- there are TONs of great-looking PC games. Far Cry 2 is gorgeous on PC with the settings cranked. Bad Company 2 looks much better on PC, World in Conflict has really great graphics (and that's from 2007).. Mass Effect 2 looks amazing on PC at max settings. Metro 2033 has incredible graphics. The list goes on and on. Nvidia and AMD wouldn't keep cranking out new graphics cards that sometimes cost in excess of $400 if PC gamers weren't interested in graphics.

On the other hand, I still play old games with dated graphics too, just because they're great games. Jedi Outcast and Academy, Bridge Commander, Elite Force 2.. A great game is a great game.

I care, about graphics, i really do.

But modern games graphically dont look good, they just look shiny, and i hate that.

So i actually prefer some older graphics than all the g*y stuff coming out these days.

I care, about graphics, i really do.

But modern games graphically dont look good, they just look shiny, and i hate that.

So i actually prefer some older graphics than all the g*y stuff coming out these days.

Bjorkfund

Graphics do matter to me. It's good to have a system that can enable all the graphics options and run 1080p in order to get the full effect of the vision of the developers. As far as just being eye candy goes, I do like it, I will admit that, though gameplay of course goes a longer way. Still everything needs to coincide with everything else to create a good product. Graphics, gameplay, controls, interface, etc. Graphics are still somewhat subjective though as you can have different art styles, and sometimes it really just depends on just having good art. Take BF2 for instance. It's not jarring to the eyes because DICE at the time made good use of the hardware graphics techniques available, giving the game a nice clean look that still looks relatively good even these days. They also did a wonderful job modeling and texturing the game and that goes a long way to keep a game graphically good looking in comparison to everything else. Another good example would be Metal Gear Solid 3. Kojima and Co. sure did push the PS2 to it's limits, but made the game around those limitations, modeling everything quite excellently. Textures were good too (for a PS2 game) and the team made sure to include the "little things" to keep the environment interesting and on a low resolution TV set, it maintains the stance of looking realistic. Good graphics just can't be done with bad artists. Crytek has excellent artists, and whether you like Crysis or not, the sheer amount of detail that goes into rendering the environment is amazing. Subsurface scattering and transparencies on plant leaves make the vegetation in Crysis the best looking, the way plants/grass/trees quiver in the wind looks amazing and makes them the best "acting" in any game IMO. Graphics are a big part of the immersion, so it's imperative that a game looks good from the artistic standpoint. You look at another title like Zenoclash, and you can very much appreciate the freakish realistic + fantasy look to it because the artists took the time to make it blend together nicely.

I think many of the people who play up the "graphics don't matter bit" are kidding themselves. Yes, it's not everything, but it sure is damn important, and not just for making realistic looking games.

I prefer strong art direction to shiny graphics. A good art director can do far more for the believablity of the game world then any amount of HD graphics can ever hope to do.

HD graphics seem to do more for increasing production costs and the complexity of the game engine (a.k.a.more ways to break)then to improve the player experience. I am willing to bet most games with HD graphics would have been better gaming experiences without it because the game probably would have run better.

I don't mind sacrificing a few FPS (as long as it's about 35 FPS minimum) for better textures and model. My graphics priority is usually Textures > Model > Field of vision > FPS > AA > AF. My processor sucks though, so I can't max many games.

I don't mind sacrificing a few FPS (as long as it's about 35 FPS minimum) for better textures and model. My graphics priority is usually Textures > Model > Field of vision > FPS > AA > AF. My processor sucks though, so I can't max many games.

XXI_World

Hmm, for me its Textures=Models>AF>AA...i dont have to worry about fps though xD

there really isnt as much care for graphics on pc as on consoles.

tmgwarrior72

That's because if you goto places like system wars PC gamers know the PC has the best graphics.. they don't exactly need to try and prove it with side by side comparisonslooking for infinitesimal differences like the 360 and PS3 crowd do.

There's no point arguing over something that's not in dispute.

it seems to me that other than having crysis as bragging right for best graphics there really isnt as much care for graphics on pc as on consoles.

has anyone else notices this. especially with all the praise stalker gets even tho it doesnt hav good graphics.

tmgwarrior72

i don't thats true, pc graphics are waaaaaay better than consoles if you have the right pc, the example you are using is from a game that was released too late due to pushbacks and technical problems so the engine looked outdated when it came out, still the game was great and still is great, it's just some games are great for their gameplay and the graphics side can be good or bad, but usually pc > console in graphics, just check dragon age or mass effect, they look better on pc

it seems to me that other than having crysis as bragging right for best graphics there really isnt as much care for graphics on pc as on consoles.

has anyone else notices this. especially with all the praise stalker gets even tho it doesnt hav good graphics.

tmgwarrior72

Good graphics is by no means needed to make a great game,,,,but having good graphics improves the game.

Not enough to have upgraded since 2007 tbh.skrat_01

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Not enough to have upgraded since 2007 tbh.Daytona_178

I dont really care about the graphics, but its nice having the best out there.Iantheone

As a whole, I think PC gamers cares less about graphics because graphics are not used to measure the power of our PCs, Everyone knows that the PC are far the best in the graphics department, IF one wants it to, those who did not opt for that kind og graphics, we´re the ones that chose not to.

So we do not have the obvious insecurity that the console graphics group has, since we chose and pick our platform, they have a set piece, and to pour fuel to the fire, there are two nearly identical consoles, so they always compete. (hence the console graphics king thing)

I do think TC is right tho, most PC gamers I know do not really care a whole lot about graphics, more about the gameplay, sound and flexibility of a game or game engine. (I still play UFO: Defence on a weekly basis ;) )

it seems to me that other than having crysis as bragging right for best graphics there really isnt as much care for graphics on pc as on consoles.

has anyone else notices this. especially with all the praise stalker gets even tho it doesnt hav good graphics.

tmgwarrior72

Im more for good story than graphics.

I still play Baldurs Gate just because of the story.

Even though I heard Planescape: Tornment have the ultimate story, I couldnt play it cause a mod for BG, actually have worse graphics and gameplay than the orignal game.

I mostly play role-playing games so graphics have never really been a big priority for me. Heck, I still play and enjoy many older RPGs (Fallout, Arcanum, Wizardry, Might and Magic, etc.) that, at least by modern standards, look absolutely primitive.

I care for the graphics a lot, but it's not the most important. It's in the top 5 though.

Grew up with pong an atari..What do i care about graphics..Best space game ive ever played till this day is still defender..Was simple fun an still holds its own..Shame some one wont do it justice an bring it to todays graphics..Dont get me wrong i love good graphics games..How ever with out game-play graphics are nothing..What i hate even more are those games that are 10 hours only..That bothers me more than any thing..Just finished played fable 3 was a good game but wow short as hell..So i brought it back an got my full moneys worth with my reciet..With that said i picked up the keyboard great invesment for me..Played fable an got my money back an picked up a piano lol..How ever people still play diablo 2 after all these years..Why you say because the games still fantastic..Baldurs gate 2 is still played even though the games graphics are so out dated..Ive heard that some one is remaking it with dragon ages engine..Hope this is true..Hope its done soon also..Not sure how the party is going to work..Dragon ages system doesnt let you have a six party player base..Ill still play dungien keeper 2..Simcity 4 till this day..No one has come close to remaking a decent simcity game..

Graphics dont mean squat..Ill upgrade my card every 4 years though..Just to keep up with being able to run the new games on high..

...saying you prefer gameplay over graphics is pointless and silly. when you buy a wristwatch you don't say you prefer looks over timekeeping, the timekeeping IS the watch, without it, you don't have a watch, you just have a silly thing on your wrist with weird numbers/hands.Kh1ndjal

Enough to buy a GTX 470. But that's not to say that I won't play old games or something. I'm currently playing Grand Theft Auto III, and we all know how amazing the graphics are in that.

Some do prefer looks over timekeeping (Rolex vs. Timex), some gamers prefer UT3 over UT2004 even though the later is superior in every way.Gooeykat

i suppose there is a threshold for bad gameplay that people can tolerate. however, i believe it is low enough not to be worth considering. there may be some truth to what you are saying, considering how well heavy rain did (does it have even have gameplay?). as for macs, i would say people who them consider them to be a superior product, and i doubt any mac user will say "macs are worse than PCs for me, but i bought one for the aesthetics". if someone goes for graphics over gameplay, in their opinion, gameplay is still better or equal.

i think i may be very wrong but i think if i think too much about it my head will explode.

I love playing games with high quality graphics but what made me hate graphics,developers these days spend to much time focusing on graphics and physics making so much delays in release date for example in 1997 Final fantasy 7 was released in 1998 FF8 and in 1999 FF9 each game had good story lots of secrets and areas to explore, but now we get crappy linear FF game each 3 years with good graphic quality.

It largely depends on the game. I don't like to think graphics and gameplay/story are mutually exclusive to one another. If devs utilize the potential graphics can offer, then they can couple that with the story/immersion real well. Amnesia is delivering well on that so far from what I've played. Stalker does well using the graphics to portray good atmosphere. I can only imagine how it could have made Deus Ex even better than it is if Ion Storm provided a strong engine that could portray its atmosphere in quite a fitting way.

That said, I will admit that even if graphics hit that objective, and the game falls flat on story and/or gameplay, then the graphics, however good, will mean nothing. On the other side of the coin, if a game has relative poor graphics, but the gameplay/story is nailed solid, the game is still great (i.e. Deus Ex).

I don't mind them as long as they're memorable and make the game stand out a bit. I don't even mind Deus Ex as it has plenty of character and memorable places but something like FEAR or Rogue Warrior then I find them bland.

I'm used to crappy graphics, as I've always had a crappy PC. Graphics are a nice bonus though :P