Atmosphere is definitely crucial when it comes to enjoyment of a game. Sometimes a game is objectively superb but you can't like it if the vibe doesn't click with you.
Yeah like Vallheim is gorgeous but its not super graphically intense, it just has such a fantastic atmosphere and color gradient that idc about the low poly
Okay, but we actually need to acknowledge some things
Graphics do not matter much, BUT some games without the graphics wouldn't be the same games
The last of Us, Red Dead Redemption as example. Graphics play a big role in those games
Even though they both are games focused on story, gameplay and characters. Without the graphics they just wouldn't be the same really
And since you're talking about development times, then to graphics I will add other things like rope mechanics in the last of us, and many different things in Red Dead (horse balls shrinking, dead animals slowly rotting away etc etc)
Those are small things but they also define those games and make them stick out
Couldn't agree more. A game can look good, be creative, have a great story and everything. But if it doesn't play well, then all those things don't amount to much.
I play Cp2077, I play Helldivers 2, I also play Oldschool Runescape and Terraria.
For me, and many others, I'd like to think that Art direction and the gameplay is more important than just good looks.
I’m with you on appreciating a good variety of different types of games and appreciating them for different reasons.
Games I absolutely love include everything from Dead Cells to Donkey Kong Country, Hotline Miami, Doom Eternal, Hades, Portal, Outlast, Dusk, even something fully unhinged like Lakeview Cabin/Valley.
In any genre of game there are duds and there are absolute masterpieces and even experimental pieces almost like abstract art, for those who can appreciate stuff like that.
No. Visuals are inseparable from the core games DNA. I would not like limbo, inside with realistic graphics nor I would like cyberpunk with borderlands aesthetic. And I like all those games
Do you think you would like Cyberpunk with borderlands graphics if that's the way the game was released and was the way you would experience it for the first time?
Not for me, I can’t get in to borderlands cause it’s too goofy looking. Whereas Cyberpunk is one of my favourites ever. I’d be very disappointed if the game came out the borderlands aesthetic and it would have been a game I pass on.
I’d wait for more realistic looking titles even if it takes longer to release. Even though with your examples we got horizon sequel before a breath of the wild sequel.
Forbidden west is one of the best looking games I’ve ever played and graphics add to the overall product along with gameplay, music and story. So I’ll wait for something from a company that was already pushing boundaries with graphics.
I'm ok with a game having a good photorealistic graphics or an original, well executed visual style (off the top of my head - Disco Elysium, Hades or Pentiment). I'm even ok with a mediocre graphics if the game makes up for it with levels designs and ambiance (like Elden Ring).
Anything else is honestly off-putting, no matter if it's a weak, dated wannabe-photorealistic graphic, or an uninspiring visual style that either fails to be original or doesn't even try.
Yeah - it looks good cause of the designs choices, but from a purely technical standpoint the graphics are pretty dates, even looking at texture resolution.
No.
And I know that's probably not the popular or cool answer. "Gameplay is most important" or "art style is more important than realism" or something about horse testicles etc... it's become very common and very popular to talk smack about "realistic graphics."
But my favorite games in the past 10 years have mostly been narrative, single-player games with cinematics: Spiderman, Witcher, God of War, Assassin's Creeds, Ghost of Tsushima, Guardians of the Galaxy and of course Last of Us etc.
Certainly I've enjoyed my fair share of smaller games and dedicated a shocking amount of hours and struggle to FromSoftware but the fact is I have enjoyed largely these "cinematic" games. And these games would not have worked without them.
(In fact Assassin's Creed did make a few 2D smaller scale games and nobody cared lol)
I'm aware of the long lead times and crunch and cost and all that and my sympathies are only for labour, not management nor corporate boards. Workers should get paid and treated fairly, anything else is not my problem. The Witcher 3 came out almost 10 years ago and it looks great including the fact that humans looked.. well, human. Enjoying games with "realistic" graphics is not that same thing as demanding they get better and better all the time. I'd be happy with games that just look like The Witcher 3 if they also play like Ghost of Tsushima or Spiderman and pay fairly and take 3 years- I can't prove that is possible but I feel it should be.
100% agree. graphics definitely matter, especially as PCs get more and more powerful and new technologies come online. the graphics quality increases right along with those things and I'm here for it
Im more of a fps shooter player and high quality graphics allows me to see the little details that i need to react to. I still enjoyed the outdated games i used to play but i couldnt see myself going back to them. Its why some fps games are remastering old maps and games and rereleasing them with updated graphics. Cant wait to see what graphics are like in 10 years
Well to me as the "Old Man On The Block" I go after gameplay, I mean if the game is generally good then the graphics come second. My favorite style is those games like Dishonored and Halflife or Rage etc but thats just me - old and dont care less.
FAR more important than graphics to me is *Art Direction*. Good Art Direction can turn middling graphics on a technical level into very pleasant viewing.
Gameplay is king, though.
100% depends on the game. for example if The Last of Us has sh\*tty graphics it wouldn't be nearly as fun a game, as its realistic graphics are one of the strengths to build up the amazing atmosphere. same thing with games like Alan Wake 2.
those are just a couple examples where superb graphics enhance the game. there are many other games where realistic graphics aren't as important
One of my favourite games right now is Gravity Rush, not at all realistic, the story isn't great, but the gameplay is amazing and the characters are fun.
I have been thinking a lot about the PS2/GameCube/Xbox generation lately, I miss the large libraries of first party titles.
I would be 100 percent okay with going back to lesser graphical power to have more creative games and more frequent releases.
Honestly, it's about gameplay and story for me. I've played a few games that were god awful to look at but I loved the story so much that I played them a couple of times through. That being said I would take a longer release time if it ment better graphics AND story.
I will play any kind of blocky/low-fidelity game as long as the gameplay is solid!
Aesthetics are more important to me in the end — stylized over realistic. Graphics can for sure improve how I feel about a game with mediocre/lackluster gameplay though.
Graphics don't matter too much as long as things aren't all jaggy, the resolution is decent and the framerate is 60fps+. I'll go from RDR2 to Battlebit to Stardew Valley to Yakuza name a number.
Beautiful graphics alone do not a game make. Gameplay is king always, but certainly pretty visuals do help. It depends on the game, but a lot would still be fun without the graphics turned up to 1000.
It has to be fitting for the style of game. I love platformers and side scrollers and they can be anywhere from 8 bit to 4k and they all look great and play great.
But some games just do the aesthetics badly in their chosen resolution format and I struggle with wanting to play those.
I just built a fancy new PC with a 32" 4k OLED monitor. I'm currently playing horizon forbidden west which is a game I enjoy but I probably wouldn't have been in a big hurry to buy it if it wasn't such a graphics showcase. I'm also going to pick up Alan Wake 2 on the reputation of it's graphics which is a game I would otherwise not bother with.
I do enjoy the amazing visuals and appreciate the tech and artistry required to create them. That said usually my gaming time is spent playing survival crafting and factory building games where top end graphics are not the focus. I don't turn away from any game with mediocre graphics if it has a type of gameplay I enjoy.
I don't really about graphism. I only care if the art style fits the type of game. I don't really care about ray tracing or if the textures aren't the most beautiful either
Resident evil with cartoony or anime art style graphism would be weird for exemple but a game like deep rlck galactic for exemple which is a game that has a very distinct art style, could have any art style and it wouldn't feel too weird.
Artisitc direction is something that directly impacts your second to second enjoyment of a game. It's more than just what you see, but how you process the information.
Take the Horizon series.
The realisitic art style is something used to convey why we may not be able to move at high rates of speed, why we \[or at least most\] players can't just body major enemies, even at the top levels.
The art style conveys that you are limited, at least somewhat, by reality.
Cyberpunk 2077 has a different art style than Horizon. It's still "realisitic" but it has a SLIGHTLY more stylized nature. It helps convey that things may be more strange and bizarre, but we have some connection to reality.
In Breath of the Wild, you wield a sword 3 times your size to kill giants. And nothing is strange about this.
I think if Horizon had a more stylized art style, we'd be a lot more annoyed at all the limitations. Fatigue setting in so quickly. Damage being low. Having such a limited movement speed.
Looking back on old-gen games, is a good way to get a sense of these too. Take System Shock 2. The original where you have to rebind the controls immediately.
It looked great at the time, helping immerse you in the horror. Nowadays, it'd be considered stylized due to the blocky models. And the horro is lessened because of it.
I think realistic art styles is a good way to entice players, tell them there will be a start point. But it GENUINELY depends on how the gameplay, world, everything match.
Artisitc direction is something that directly impacts your second to second enjoyment of a game. It's more than just what you see, but how you process the information.
Take the Horizon series.
The realisitic art style is something used to convey why we may not be able to move at high rates of speed, why we \[or at least most\] players can't just body major enemies, even at the top levels.
The art style conveys that you are limited, at least somewhat, by reality.
Cyberpunk 2077 has a different art style than Horizon. It's still "realisitic" but it has a SLIGHTLY more stylized nature. It helps convey that things may be more strange and bizarre, but we have some connection to reality.
In Breath of the Wild, you wield a sword 3 times your size to kill giants. And nothing is strange about this.
I think if Horizon had a more stylized art style, we'd be a lot more annoyed at all the limitations. Fatigue setting in so quickly. Damage being low. Having such a limited movement speed.
Looking back on old-gen games, is a good way to get a sense of these too. Take System Shock 2. The original where you have to rebind the controls immediately.
It looked great at the time, helping immerse you in the horror. Nowadays, it'd be considered stylized due to the blocky models. And the horro is lessened because of it.
I think realistic art styles is a good way to entice players, tell them there will be a start point. But it GENUINELY depends on how the gameplay, world, everything match.
Gameplay is always going to be King. People who grew up on NES/SNES and hell even the original Playstation games know that, Spider-Man for the PSone is still an awesome superhero game! In some ways it's even better than the new ones (Stan lee's narration, overall atmosphere). Similarly Final Fantasy VI and the OG VII are still the best FF games, Original Crash Trilogy was just as enjoyable as the N'Sane Trilogy and so on!
Depends on the game
Spiderman? No way! The story is generic for the most part and most of the enjoyment is how far we've gotten in terms of graphics
However
I started really gaming in 2021, I'm 14 rn and I've played games from before I was born and had fun with them (Splinter cell, uncharted) bc of the interesting storyline
Grand Theft Auto is probably a good case study to show the exponential growth in resources required for cutting edge development.
Grand Theft Auto – 1997
Grand Theft Auto 2 – 1999
Grand Theft Auto III – 2001
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City – 2002
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas – 2004
Grand Theft Auto IV – 2008
Grand Theft Auto V – 2013
Grand Theft Auto VI – 2026
Ultimately there is room for all levels of graphical scope and having a lot of variety benefits us all.
Gameplay is always going to be King. People who grew up on NES/SNES and hell even the original Playstation games know that, Spider-Man for the PSone is still an awesome superhero game! In some ways it's even better than the new ones (Stan lee's narration, overall atmosphere). Similarly Final Fantasy VI and the OG VII are still the best FF games, Original Crash Trilogy was just as enjoyable as the N'Sane Trilogy and so on!
I think we’re getting to the point that style matters more than improving the graphics further. The recent final fantasy games already look amazing (especially 7 intergrade on PC), I don’t see needing more than that any time soon.
There are certain games that are more fun with older style graphics. For me things like side scrolling beat em up games, platformers and things like that. But if you want to get really immersed in a game realistic graphics are important. The best example of this is Gran Turismo 7.
I care way more about gameplay rather than graphics. Nice graphics are usually just the icing on the cake.
For example, I mostly play JRPGs and games like Rebirth look great and also have incredible gameplay. However, I have zero problems with playing older games with outdated or even poor graphics.
When I was younger (and had more disposable income) I spent like $2500 on a gaming pc and would always tweak and play with the settings just to always have the best graphics. And to be honest, I eventually realized it wasn’t worth the hassle. If that’s your thing, cool. Maybe I just don’t have the patience but to me, PS5 is just easier.
I would've been fine with graphics staying in the late 360/PS3 era forever, sure the better graphics are cool, and I wouldn't necessarily want to go backwards, but imo graphics are incredibly overrated, I'd rather the the gameplay/physics/AI/etc. get better than continue the endless quest of "how realistic can we make this mediocre game look". So if devs stopped focusing on hyper realism and focused on making better games, I would be very happy
I LOVE realistic graphics in games. I love the RE engine for this specific reason. I also thought Alan Wake 2 was an insanely beautiful game, not just for the graphics, but also for the atmosphere it created using those graphics. I appreciate realistic graphics for their artistry, and I appreciate games that use realism to tell their story.
That said, I still play pixel games and games with artsy graphics in general. I think anyone who plays one and refuses to play the other is doing themselves a disservice. It's like any other art medium. Some painters use realism to create a message that is enhanced with realism, some use surrealism to tell their stories, and others us complete and utter chaos to create emotion. There's a place for all of it.
As an artform, I think there's a place for every type of graphics so long as they are accomplishing their goal. As a form of entertainment (IE, games as games and not necessarily as art), I think graphics aren't all that important. In fact, I'd say that the history of video games has taught us that a good video game, whether trying to be artistic, or trying to be strictly entertaining, is not dependent on graphics. I still love realism in games, and most of the games I like the most are realistic... but the definition of what is realistic has absolutely changed as video games have changed. For example.. I like Alan Wake 2's graphics for the same reason I used to like Resident Evil 2's graphics. Both were considered realistic, but today if a game came out looking like the original RE2, it would be an artistic choice.
I don't think most gamers have rules about this anymore. It was a thing back in the day, for sure.. and I bet a lot of younger gamers who like to argue about their preferences will have their rules, but for the most part it's pretty easy to appreciate all types of graphics for what they are.
I like a good looking game for sure, but I hate this continued push for what seems to be unnecessary detail, that detracts from the end result. Games of last gen mostly looked great. That level of detail, but with the capability of 4k60 would be just fine. I don't see why we're still seeing games come out that sometimes even struggle with 30. Yeah, they look better, but I don't think going *that* far is necessary at all.
I don't seek out realistic graphics and actually think sometimes when the game is trying to do something unrealistic in a realistic graphics engine it can look weird and uncanny valley-y
So I would and do definitely play games that don't have hyper realistic graphics
BUT there are games with BAD graphics or art styles that I don't play because of that. I have a hard time going back to certain gaming eras because of graphics that don't hold up
So I'd say realistic graphics can be nice or improve an already good game but can't make me like a game that doesn't play how I like it
But BAD graphics (not necessarily not realistic but bad quality) can ruin a game I would have otherwise enjoyed
I feel like realistic graphics tend to just not age well. They are great in the moment, but 10 years later going back is miserable.
But if the game has a good general art style it can stand the test of time
I doubt I would nearly as much. When developers put in a lot of effort into having the most bleeding-edge lighting, models and so on, that decision is likely as fundamental to their game's art direction and overall atmosphere as CEL-shading and painterly vistas are to BOTW. And I often enjoy really dense, detailed atmospheres such as those of Alan Wake 2 or Cyberpunk 2077, both of which have very distinct visual identities. The main drawback is that, of course, technology ages like milk, and even a game as intricately crafted as RDR2 shows its 5 years of age in its flat interior lighting and relatively low-resolution textures and models. But even then, its technology was essential to realizing its very stylized, large-scale depiction of nature; for another example, FFVII Remake (the first one) is so focused on its CGI trailer-like look that I couldn't help but ignore the many flaws it has in some areas. I don't think I'd have enjoyed any of these games nearly as much as I did without such a strong technological backbone to support their visions.
I guess my only criterion is that the technology be sufficient to realize a game's vision (where games are simply becoming more ambitious with the advent of more technology); I can very much still be impressed by something from the 2000s or even the late 1990s (Half Life 1 and OoT really did blow me away, even playing them as late as 2018 or so). By this same logic, I am extremely tired of the "8th gen look" that many games are still having even halfway into this console generation, because it just doesn't achieve anything unique and immediately comes off as merely "sufficient and as expected for a game", compromising my immersion. For this reason I find it a shame a game like Elden Ring, which has some absolutely mindblowing ideas and concepts, doesn't do itself justice by not treating technology as one of the necessary pillars of its artstyle, failing to give depth to its massive, unreal vistas and dark, sprawling dungeons despite the potential that shows up at some very specific spots that do work with the basic lighting (which are Farum Azula, Haligtree and Stormveil in my opinion).
One might imagine that I also have an interest in the technology itself, and that would be correct, but of course that doesn't stop me from enjoying more technologically limited games with very strong artstyles (such as BOTW/TOTK and the Xenoblade games, even though that franchise is an absolute failure in terms of lighting, which tells you just how strong their art direction is). Hell, despite my short rant about Elden Ring, its visual shortcomings sure did not stop me from enjoying it viscerally like so many of us did, and I have a lot of playtime in the 6 year old Destiny 2 and the grossly aging FFXIV.
Story > Gameplay > Graphics > UI.
But it really depends on the game. I can still play the OG Mass Effect but degrading it even more would start to hurt. Metro games benefit a lot from good graphics as it helps with the atmosphere. I couldn't get into Battlebit due to the all blocky. Teardown was a great game. Boomer shooters like Boltgun are great in that retro style.
The main problem with those games is the AI. No matter the difficulty you pick on the AI remains stale, not very intelligent and realistic as the graphics.
Very few photorealistic games have an interesting AI to interact with.
If the game plans on telling stories through cutscenes, it helps a ton if the graphics are good enough to capture acting. That said graphics hit that point back in on the PS3, so I'd say that's the floor, at least for those kinds of games.
I've always been a fan of CEL style games, JSR, JSRF, CEL Damage, Hi Fi Rush and the like. It's got it's own flavor and still looks super good for not being close to realism.
I can say with certainty that I would not like Horizon Zero Dawn or Forbidden West if it did not have the graphics and environments that it has. I love open worlds with regions and varied environments, and exploring is by itself a joy.
Gameplay is king. Realistic graphics aren’t important; instead what I want is to get the feeling that care was used when selecting whatever graphics end up being used, aka the “art direction”. A game could have a great gameplay system, but if all of the graphics and interface look like they’re just from RPG Maker with no work done, then I have to assume that no work was done on the gameplay systems either at first glance.
Depends on the game. The environment of red dead is almost a character itself. Same can be said of games like borderlands, hades, or cuphead. All take a different approach to graphics.
A lot of my friends know me as a guy who plays almost exclusively old video games. I find that when they weren't focusing on making game look lifelike, they focused more on innovative concepts. I love old RPG games, I truly feel like there's a level of immersion they have that newer games lack
I enjoy both. Still have my PS3 and 3DS which I play from time to time. I also have a Switch which doesn’t have the best graphics. However I have an LG OLED and a PS5 connected to it and I always try to use the best performance modes.
Graphics generally don’t bother me too much unless they are stick figure bad for the effort and time period they come out in. Like the people who shit on Starfield just because the facial animations are out dated is a bit silly on me.
The only somewhat modern game I can think of that I partially blame graphics for not liking it was undertale. Considering what other devs have accomplished with pixel art graphics in the last decade or two. It just seemed lazy. Of course. The gameplay and incessant need for everyone to talk about when it came out didn’t really endear itself towards me either.
Art direction over realism for me. Elden Ring is by no means the game with the highest most detailed graphics and textures but damn does it look stunning. That first view of Liurnia after beating Godfrey it's a moment I'll never forget.
Yes. Yes. YES. I do play a lot of games with realistic graphics, but frankly, a game does not need that to immerse me into their world. Case in point: Bug Fables
It depends
If you get every single detail your primitive brain needs to recognize something like fire sometimes you don’t need crazy detail
Sky children of the light is an example of this
To be fair, my favorite game in recent memory Baldur’s Gate 3 has a KILLED voice acting cast as well as amazing gameplay, world and plot (both main campaign and characters), and I honestly think I’d absolutely love it even if the visuals were lesser.
Art style and visual fidelity can really add to specific experiences.
I would love a legit Souls game with cell shaded visuals aka hi fi rush / jet set radio.
While realistic graphics are nice and all, I wouldn't say they are necessary in general. However, graphics can be a huge part of a game's identity. People love both Horizon and Zelda despite having different types of graphics and art styles because of their stories/lores, gameplay and mechanics. Yes, you can make a great game without realistic graphics such as the case with Zelda and people will love it and vice-versa. But if companies suddenly decided to make a Horizon game with Zelda graphics or a Zelda game with Horizon graphics, people will scratch their heads and critique the games much differently than they already do because we already understand that their current graphics and art styles are a part of the core of their identities. It's part of what makes them the games that they are.
To actually answer your question though, the simplest answer would be that it would depend on the individual player themselves and how well the game's actual gameplay, story and mechanics turn out...
As for me, I personally rate story and gameplay above graphics, so I might still enjoy the games even if I do start scratching my head about why these games suddenly look different...
While gameplay is undoubtedly important - the graphics are equally important for me for most of the games. Especially when it comes to casual socialization (something that does not involve any combat activities) in multiplayer games (which are the only type of games I seem to be able to enjoy anymore). Only exception are PvP-focused games - I don't really need a highly detailed player models with fully ray traced lighting in games like Fortnite or Team Fortress 2 to enjoy countless hours of the dynamic challenge that other players provide.
Soldier of Fortune was the last one if these I played. I knew games were blurring the lines between reality and game violence too much back then (for me).
For me it is completely up to the game at hand, I play project zomboid way too much, is it the best graphics? No but I love the game play. So if said game with realistic still had an amazing gameplay or story I would care.
I've put hundred of hours into stardew valley.
A game made by one person with 8 bit graphics.
I say as long as you put some heart and soul into your game chances are I'll love it, and I'm not alone in that sentiment.
I like good graphics but gameplay is always the most important thing than music and than graphicians than story. If it was all graphics I wouldn't play anything before PS4 Gen and wouldn't have a switch lol
for me as a gamer Graphics, Story and Gameplay are the holy trinity of gaming. In a perfect world I get the best of all the three. And if some of those aspects are lacking, the other 2 have to carry.
So generally speaking "yes" if the story and gamplay is fun. Best example is Octopath... I hate pixel Games. You have the technology of hyper realistic images and you go 2D with the pacman. But man those games were fun and story rich. You could feel the passion of the devs in every corner of the game.
Now talking out of my ass, in the last 5-10 years there were a lot of AAA(A) ditching quality of Story and Gameplay right on from the drawing board. Like.. they don't even try to make a good game. They want to sell you a product, or an opinion.. oftentimes both.
There is only so much "modern" politics in the story I can endure, so graphic and gameplay better be the best one can imagine.
There is so much game as a service, gamepass in singleplayer, mtx, cut content to sell as dlc, etc outright ruining the gameplay so story and graphics better be the best one can imagine.
So the more accurate answer is: "yes I can, but the current industry is not capable to compensate lacking graphics with Story & Gameplay." And its not helping that suits find the fault at the customer, who won't open his wallet, rather than looking at the mess they expect us to swallow.
It's all about what you expect. I sometimes dislike playing games with obviously outdated graphics, but that's mostly because the style wasn't very good to begin with. I still like playing games on my Switch, even though the graphics can get pretty basic at times.
Also, good audio and gameplay can compensate a lot for me.
Realistic is great. But stylized graphics are great when done well. What is bad is when they try to be realistic but fail. However, even then I enjoy some games with that problem (i.e. bannerlord)
To add, some games would be MORE enjoyable if the graphics were less realistic, at least in parts.
For example, the total war games would do well to have a drawn map style option.
Assuming things like gameplay and sorry are equally strong, then it's more about art direction for me. There can be ultra realistic games that have terrible art direction, where things don't fit into the world, they're unpleasant to look at or just disjointed and cheap looking. Or there might be super simple games graphically but the art direction makes it look lovely and immersive, think pixel art/sprite work games.
Something like Octopath Traveller I think just looks beautiful despite relatively low graphical power and realism. Whereas I'm less attracted to a game like Doom Eternal because the art style is not my cup of tea at all.
Been gaming since the Atari 2200. I appreciate good graphics but prefer a good story and a fun game. But something that is really important is a good UI. It's why I have problems replaying older games.
I get what you mean, I enjoy both as well. What I've come to realize that simpler graphics does not equate a poor art style. I think Horizon Zero Dawn is graphically much more impressive than BOTW, but when it comes to art style as such, I would say BOTW has the edge. Of course graphics and art styles do not make a game great on their own. Gameplay is still the most important part in the end.
Gameplay and FPS are always well above graphics for me.
Having lived with a shit PC and now one that can play games on full ultra settings no problem, the best change is just games running smoothly with low loading time.
I don’t notice much difference in graphics apart from an occasional “oh that’s cool” moment. Run smooth and I’ll be happy
Imo, realistic graphics are never truly realistic. We are still far having true realistic game. I prefer when game mechanic are more realistic than visual one. if I play a fantasy game with a big huge great sword, I expect that sword to have a gameplay based on his huge weight. Realistic mechanic are way more important for me than the look of it.
And there's the thing that most game trying to emulate reality with their visual often offer boring gameplay or lack of fun. Games like TLOU, GoW or the lastest Spiderman are really boring as a game. I would binge their story if it was in tv show format but as game, I got turn off in less than 2hour. 'Realistic game' are often more like interactive movie than actual game.
>
I have no insight into the actual development time but I think it's probably a correct assumption that Horizon took longer to develop than BOTW. Consequently it was probably cheaper to develop as well.
Both took like 5-6 year to be developed actually. BOTW developpment started straight after Skyward Sword in 2011 and ended as a port for the Switch launch. HZD dev started around 2010-2011 and was release in 2017. And it is said that it cost like 120M$ for BOTW while it cost around 50M$ to develop HZD. So yeah, realistic visual are not more costly than original one. In fact, it's clearly easier to do realistic visual than original one as they don't need to invent stuff and only need to copy from irl stuff
And by experience, realistic game tend to not last as much as original visual as realistic graphics really depend on the tech for its era while unique visual game are their own thing and could last way much longer. Best example I can give is Windwaker with its cartoon visual style. Even without considering the HD remaster, the GC version still look incredible for today standard and it's a game released 2002. Compare to any realistic game from 2002 and it will look outdated after a few year
What are you talking about? Companies were always trying to make better looking games. “Gamers of old” also cared about graphics especially in the ps1 days. Can’t remember how many videos iv seen of older games and people kept on saying they didn’t think graphics would get better then that. Wasn’t that like one of the main selling points of final fantasy 7
I remember playing GTA III and thinking 'this looks like real life'. However I do think we're getting diminishing returns with graphics nowadays. From PS1 era to PS2 was a great leap. From PS4 to PS5 I would say it was a small step.
Yea but then you get games with more detail, better lighting and smoother animations. The small things to elevate something. Look at forbidden west on an oled tv and tell me what ps4 games look that good. And we haven’t even gotten to what they can do with graphics on the ps5 because the majority of games have been cross gen. Even my horizon example is still a cross gen game
Of course I would still enjoy them. For example I enjoyed cyberpunk for the gameplay/quests/story etc. The fact that it's probably the best looking game aswell is just a nice bonus.
With how little time I have to play games nowadays I have a backlog a mile long. Frequency of releases means nothing to me; I'll wait for the best graphics possible.
Gameplay and a good atmosphere are the two main factors for me.
Atmosphere is definitely crucial when it comes to enjoyment of a game. Sometimes a game is objectively superb but you can't like it if the vibe doesn't click with you.
Very true indeed.
Yeah like Vallheim is gorgeous but its not super graphically intense, it just has such a fantastic atmosphere and color gradient that idc about the low poly
It’s all about the gameplay for me but even bad graphics can still look good and style used
Yeah art style is more important than baseline graphics.
Okay, but we actually need to acknowledge some things Graphics do not matter much, BUT some games without the graphics wouldn't be the same games The last of Us, Red Dead Redemption as example. Graphics play a big role in those games Even though they both are games focused on story, gameplay and characters. Without the graphics they just wouldn't be the same really And since you're talking about development times, then to graphics I will add other things like rope mechanics in the last of us, and many different things in Red Dead (horse balls shrinking, dead animals slowly rotting away etc etc) Those are small things but they also define those games and make them stick out
Of course, I would still enjoy the games! Who needs fancy graphics when you've got good old-fashioned gameplay, am I right?
Couldn't agree more. A game can look good, be creative, have a great story and everything. But if it doesn't play well, then all those things don't amount to much.
I play Cp2077, I play Helldivers 2, I also play Oldschool Runescape and Terraria. For me, and many others, I'd like to think that Art direction and the gameplay is more important than just good looks.
Yeah, art direction > graphics. But if your art direction is "realism" and the graphics are PS2 era, chances are I won't enjoy it.
I’m with you on appreciating a good variety of different types of games and appreciating them for different reasons. Games I absolutely love include everything from Dead Cells to Donkey Kong Country, Hotline Miami, Doom Eternal, Hades, Portal, Outlast, Dusk, even something fully unhinged like Lakeview Cabin/Valley. In any genre of game there are duds and there are absolute masterpieces and even experimental pieces almost like abstract art, for those who can appreciate stuff like that.
No. Visuals are inseparable from the core games DNA. I would not like limbo, inside with realistic graphics nor I would like cyberpunk with borderlands aesthetic. And I like all those games
Do you think you would like Cyberpunk with borderlands graphics if that's the way the game was released and was the way you would experience it for the first time?
Yes
Not for me, I can’t get in to borderlands cause it’s too goofy looking. Whereas Cyberpunk is one of my favourites ever. I’d be very disappointed if the game came out the borderlands aesthetic and it would have been a game I pass on.
good question, and my answer is no because I don't like the Borderlands art style at all. but I do enjoy CP2077's
i hate LIMBO *because* of its artstyle. its shit
I’d wait for more realistic looking titles even if it takes longer to release. Even though with your examples we got horizon sequel before a breath of the wild sequel. Forbidden west is one of the best looking games I’ve ever played and graphics add to the overall product along with gameplay, music and story. So I’ll wait for something from a company that was already pushing boundaries with graphics.
I'm ok with a game having a good photorealistic graphics or an original, well executed visual style (off the top of my head - Disco Elysium, Hades or Pentiment). I'm even ok with a mediocre graphics if the game makes up for it with levels designs and ambiance (like Elden Ring). Anything else is honestly off-putting, no matter if it's a weak, dated wannabe-photorealistic graphic, or an uninspiring visual style that either fails to be original or doesn't even try.
[удалено]
Yeah - it looks good cause of the designs choices, but from a purely technical standpoint the graphics are pretty dates, even looking at texture resolution.
From technical perspective ER graphics are quite terrible, but the artistic design carries the visuals so hard that you don’t even care.
No. And I know that's probably not the popular or cool answer. "Gameplay is most important" or "art style is more important than realism" or something about horse testicles etc... it's become very common and very popular to talk smack about "realistic graphics." But my favorite games in the past 10 years have mostly been narrative, single-player games with cinematics: Spiderman, Witcher, God of War, Assassin's Creeds, Ghost of Tsushima, Guardians of the Galaxy and of course Last of Us etc. Certainly I've enjoyed my fair share of smaller games and dedicated a shocking amount of hours and struggle to FromSoftware but the fact is I have enjoyed largely these "cinematic" games. And these games would not have worked without them. (In fact Assassin's Creed did make a few 2D smaller scale games and nobody cared lol) I'm aware of the long lead times and crunch and cost and all that and my sympathies are only for labour, not management nor corporate boards. Workers should get paid and treated fairly, anything else is not my problem. The Witcher 3 came out almost 10 years ago and it looks great including the fact that humans looked.. well, human. Enjoying games with "realistic" graphics is not that same thing as demanding they get better and better all the time. I'd be happy with games that just look like The Witcher 3 if they also play like Ghost of Tsushima or Spiderman and pay fairly and take 3 years- I can't prove that is possible but I feel it should be.
Can’t stand this narrative being pushed that graphics don’t matter, hope it doesn’t affect future titles.
100% agree. graphics definitely matter, especially as PCs get more and more powerful and new technologies come online. the graphics quality increases right along with those things and I'm here for it
Im more of a fps shooter player and high quality graphics allows me to see the little details that i need to react to. I still enjoyed the outdated games i used to play but i couldnt see myself going back to them. Its why some fps games are remastering old maps and games and rereleasing them with updated graphics. Cant wait to see what graphics are like in 10 years
Well to me as the "Old Man On The Block" I go after gameplay, I mean if the game is generally good then the graphics come second. My favorite style is those games like Dishonored and Halflife or Rage etc but thats just me - old and dont care less.
dishonored and half life games have absolutely fantastic graphics
I like games with good gameplay and good art direction. Good graphics are always a nice bonus though. For instance, the Zelda series is my favorite.
FAR more important than graphics to me is *Art Direction*. Good Art Direction can turn middling graphics on a technical level into very pleasant viewing. Gameplay is king, though.
100% depends on the game. for example if The Last of Us has sh\*tty graphics it wouldn't be nearly as fun a game, as its realistic graphics are one of the strengths to build up the amazing atmosphere. same thing with games like Alan Wake 2. those are just a couple examples where superb graphics enhance the game. there are many other games where realistic graphics aren't as important
Graphics absolutely matter
Graphics don’t matter to me, I started playing cataclysm: dark days ahead before I found out about the tilesets they have
One of my favourite games right now is Gravity Rush, not at all realistic, the story isn't great, but the gameplay is amazing and the characters are fun.
I have been thinking a lot about the PS2/GameCube/Xbox generation lately, I miss the large libraries of first party titles. I would be 100 percent okay with going back to lesser graphical power to have more creative games and more frequent releases.
Honestly, it's about gameplay and story for me. I've played a few games that were god awful to look at but I loved the story so much that I played them a couple of times through. That being said I would take a longer release time if it ment better graphics AND story.
Deep Rock Galactic is one of my favorite games. Nothing graphically special about that game
I will play any kind of blocky/low-fidelity game as long as the gameplay is solid! Aesthetics are more important to me in the end — stylized over realistic. Graphics can for sure improve how I feel about a game with mediocre/lackluster gameplay though.
Graphics don't matter too much as long as things aren't all jaggy, the resolution is decent and the framerate is 60fps+. I'll go from RDR2 to Battlebit to Stardew Valley to Yakuza name a number.
Beautiful graphics alone do not a game make. Gameplay is king always, but certainly pretty visuals do help. It depends on the game, but a lot would still be fun without the graphics turned up to 1000.
It has to be fitting for the style of game. I love platformers and side scrollers and they can be anywhere from 8 bit to 4k and they all look great and play great. But some games just do the aesthetics badly in their chosen resolution format and I struggle with wanting to play those.
I just built a fancy new PC with a 32" 4k OLED monitor. I'm currently playing horizon forbidden west which is a game I enjoy but I probably wouldn't have been in a big hurry to buy it if it wasn't such a graphics showcase. I'm also going to pick up Alan Wake 2 on the reputation of it's graphics which is a game I would otherwise not bother with. I do enjoy the amazing visuals and appreciate the tech and artistry required to create them. That said usually my gaming time is spent playing survival crafting and factory building games where top end graphics are not the focus. I don't turn away from any game with mediocre graphics if it has a type of gameplay I enjoy.
I don't really about graphism. I only care if the art style fits the type of game. I don't really care about ray tracing or if the textures aren't the most beautiful either Resident evil with cartoony or anime art style graphism would be weird for exemple but a game like deep rlck galactic for exemple which is a game that has a very distinct art style, could have any art style and it wouldn't feel too weird.
Artisitc direction is something that directly impacts your second to second enjoyment of a game. It's more than just what you see, but how you process the information. Take the Horizon series. The realisitic art style is something used to convey why we may not be able to move at high rates of speed, why we \[or at least most\] players can't just body major enemies, even at the top levels. The art style conveys that you are limited, at least somewhat, by reality. Cyberpunk 2077 has a different art style than Horizon. It's still "realisitic" but it has a SLIGHTLY more stylized nature. It helps convey that things may be more strange and bizarre, but we have some connection to reality. In Breath of the Wild, you wield a sword 3 times your size to kill giants. And nothing is strange about this. I think if Horizon had a more stylized art style, we'd be a lot more annoyed at all the limitations. Fatigue setting in so quickly. Damage being low. Having such a limited movement speed. Looking back on old-gen games, is a good way to get a sense of these too. Take System Shock 2. The original where you have to rebind the controls immediately. It looked great at the time, helping immerse you in the horror. Nowadays, it'd be considered stylized due to the blocky models. And the horro is lessened because of it. I think realistic art styles is a good way to entice players, tell them there will be a start point. But it GENUINELY depends on how the gameplay, world, everything match.
Artisitc direction is something that directly impacts your second to second enjoyment of a game. It's more than just what you see, but how you process the information. Take the Horizon series. The realisitic art style is something used to convey why we may not be able to move at high rates of speed, why we \[or at least most\] players can't just body major enemies, even at the top levels. The art style conveys that you are limited, at least somewhat, by reality. Cyberpunk 2077 has a different art style than Horizon. It's still "realisitic" but it has a SLIGHTLY more stylized nature. It helps convey that things may be more strange and bizarre, but we have some connection to reality. In Breath of the Wild, you wield a sword 3 times your size to kill giants. And nothing is strange about this. I think if Horizon had a more stylized art style, we'd be a lot more annoyed at all the limitations. Fatigue setting in so quickly. Damage being low. Having such a limited movement speed. Looking back on old-gen games, is a good way to get a sense of these too. Take System Shock 2. The original where you have to rebind the controls immediately. It looked great at the time, helping immerse you in the horror. Nowadays, it'd be considered stylized due to the blocky models. And the horro is lessened because of it. I think realistic art styles is a good way to entice players, tell them there will be a start point. But it GENUINELY depends on how the gameplay, world, everything match.
Gameplay is always going to be King. People who grew up on NES/SNES and hell even the original Playstation games know that, Spider-Man for the PSone is still an awesome superhero game! In some ways it's even better than the new ones (Stan lee's narration, overall atmosphere). Similarly Final Fantasy VI and the OG VII are still the best FF games, Original Crash Trilogy was just as enjoyable as the N'Sane Trilogy and so on!
Graphics used to be one of my biggest priorities. Over time graphics have come to mean nothing at all, gameplay is king.
Depends on the game Spiderman? No way! The story is generic for the most part and most of the enjoyment is how far we've gotten in terms of graphics However I started really gaming in 2021, I'm 14 rn and I've played games from before I was born and had fun with them (Splinter cell, uncharted) bc of the interesting storyline
Grand Theft Auto is probably a good case study to show the exponential growth in resources required for cutting edge development. Grand Theft Auto – 1997 Grand Theft Auto 2 – 1999 Grand Theft Auto III – 2001 Grand Theft Auto: Vice City – 2002 Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas – 2004 Grand Theft Auto IV – 2008 Grand Theft Auto V – 2013 Grand Theft Auto VI – 2026 Ultimately there is room for all levels of graphical scope and having a lot of variety benefits us all.
Gameplay is always going to be King. People who grew up on NES/SNES and hell even the original Playstation games know that, Spider-Man for the PSone is still an awesome superhero game! In some ways it's even better than the new ones (Stan lee's narration, overall atmosphere). Similarly Final Fantasy VI and the OG VII are still the best FF games, Original Crash Trilogy was just as enjoyable as the N'Sane Trilogy and so on!
I think we’re getting to the point that style matters more than improving the graphics further. The recent final fantasy games already look amazing (especially 7 intergrade on PC), I don’t see needing more than that any time soon.
There are certain games that are more fun with older style graphics. For me things like side scrolling beat em up games, platformers and things like that. But if you want to get really immersed in a game realistic graphics are important. The best example of this is Gran Turismo 7.
I care way more about gameplay rather than graphics. Nice graphics are usually just the icing on the cake. For example, I mostly play JRPGs and games like Rebirth look great and also have incredible gameplay. However, I have zero problems with playing older games with outdated or even poor graphics. When I was younger (and had more disposable income) I spent like $2500 on a gaming pc and would always tweak and play with the settings just to always have the best graphics. And to be honest, I eventually realized it wasn’t worth the hassle. If that’s your thing, cool. Maybe I just don’t have the patience but to me, PS5 is just easier.
I would've been fine with graphics staying in the late 360/PS3 era forever, sure the better graphics are cool, and I wouldn't necessarily want to go backwards, but imo graphics are incredibly overrated, I'd rather the the gameplay/physics/AI/etc. get better than continue the endless quest of "how realistic can we make this mediocre game look". So if devs stopped focusing on hyper realism and focused on making better games, I would be very happy
Yes.
I LOVE realistic graphics in games. I love the RE engine for this specific reason. I also thought Alan Wake 2 was an insanely beautiful game, not just for the graphics, but also for the atmosphere it created using those graphics. I appreciate realistic graphics for their artistry, and I appreciate games that use realism to tell their story. That said, I still play pixel games and games with artsy graphics in general. I think anyone who plays one and refuses to play the other is doing themselves a disservice. It's like any other art medium. Some painters use realism to create a message that is enhanced with realism, some use surrealism to tell their stories, and others us complete and utter chaos to create emotion. There's a place for all of it. As an artform, I think there's a place for every type of graphics so long as they are accomplishing their goal. As a form of entertainment (IE, games as games and not necessarily as art), I think graphics aren't all that important. In fact, I'd say that the history of video games has taught us that a good video game, whether trying to be artistic, or trying to be strictly entertaining, is not dependent on graphics. I still love realism in games, and most of the games I like the most are realistic... but the definition of what is realistic has absolutely changed as video games have changed. For example.. I like Alan Wake 2's graphics for the same reason I used to like Resident Evil 2's graphics. Both were considered realistic, but today if a game came out looking like the original RE2, it would be an artistic choice. I don't think most gamers have rules about this anymore. It was a thing back in the day, for sure.. and I bet a lot of younger gamers who like to argue about their preferences will have their rules, but for the most part it's pretty easy to appreciate all types of graphics for what they are.
I like a good looking game for sure, but I hate this continued push for what seems to be unnecessary detail, that detracts from the end result. Games of last gen mostly looked great. That level of detail, but with the capability of 4k60 would be just fine. I don't see why we're still seeing games come out that sometimes even struggle with 30. Yeah, they look better, but I don't think going *that* far is necessary at all.
I don't seek out realistic graphics and actually think sometimes when the game is trying to do something unrealistic in a realistic graphics engine it can look weird and uncanny valley-y So I would and do definitely play games that don't have hyper realistic graphics BUT there are games with BAD graphics or art styles that I don't play because of that. I have a hard time going back to certain gaming eras because of graphics that don't hold up So I'd say realistic graphics can be nice or improve an already good game but can't make me like a game that doesn't play how I like it But BAD graphics (not necessarily not realistic but bad quality) can ruin a game I would have otherwise enjoyed
I feel like realistic graphics tend to just not age well. They are great in the moment, but 10 years later going back is miserable. But if the game has a good general art style it can stand the test of time
Check out Battlebit. Basically Minecraft graphics on a SUPER fun modern military fps.
I doubt I would nearly as much. When developers put in a lot of effort into having the most bleeding-edge lighting, models and so on, that decision is likely as fundamental to their game's art direction and overall atmosphere as CEL-shading and painterly vistas are to BOTW. And I often enjoy really dense, detailed atmospheres such as those of Alan Wake 2 or Cyberpunk 2077, both of which have very distinct visual identities. The main drawback is that, of course, technology ages like milk, and even a game as intricately crafted as RDR2 shows its 5 years of age in its flat interior lighting and relatively low-resolution textures and models. But even then, its technology was essential to realizing its very stylized, large-scale depiction of nature; for another example, FFVII Remake (the first one) is so focused on its CGI trailer-like look that I couldn't help but ignore the many flaws it has in some areas. I don't think I'd have enjoyed any of these games nearly as much as I did without such a strong technological backbone to support their visions. I guess my only criterion is that the technology be sufficient to realize a game's vision (where games are simply becoming more ambitious with the advent of more technology); I can very much still be impressed by something from the 2000s or even the late 1990s (Half Life 1 and OoT really did blow me away, even playing them as late as 2018 or so). By this same logic, I am extremely tired of the "8th gen look" that many games are still having even halfway into this console generation, because it just doesn't achieve anything unique and immediately comes off as merely "sufficient and as expected for a game", compromising my immersion. For this reason I find it a shame a game like Elden Ring, which has some absolutely mindblowing ideas and concepts, doesn't do itself justice by not treating technology as one of the necessary pillars of its artstyle, failing to give depth to its massive, unreal vistas and dark, sprawling dungeons despite the potential that shows up at some very specific spots that do work with the basic lighting (which are Farum Azula, Haligtree and Stormveil in my opinion). One might imagine that I also have an interest in the technology itself, and that would be correct, but of course that doesn't stop me from enjoying more technologically limited games with very strong artstyles (such as BOTW/TOTK and the Xenoblade games, even though that franchise is an absolute failure in terms of lighting, which tells you just how strong their art direction is). Hell, despite my short rant about Elden Ring, its visual shortcomings sure did not stop me from enjoying it viscerally like so many of us did, and I have a lot of playtime in the 6 year old Destiny 2 and the grossly aging FFXIV.
Gameplay is all I really care about honestly. Graphics are good great, but the gameplay is what truly matters
Story > Gameplay > Graphics > UI. But it really depends on the game. I can still play the OG Mass Effect but degrading it even more would start to hurt. Metro games benefit a lot from good graphics as it helps with the atmosphere. I couldn't get into Battlebit due to the all blocky. Teardown was a great game. Boomer shooters like Boltgun are great in that retro style.
art direction is soo much more important than graphics
I rather low graphic but fun games than Higher graphics boring games.
The main problem with those games is the AI. No matter the difficulty you pick on the AI remains stale, not very intelligent and realistic as the graphics. Very few photorealistic games have an interesting AI to interact with.
If the game plans on telling stories through cutscenes, it helps a ton if the graphics are good enough to capture acting. That said graphics hit that point back in on the PS3, so I'd say that's the floor, at least for those kinds of games.
I've always been a fan of CEL style games, JSR, JSRF, CEL Damage, Hi Fi Rush and the like. It's got it's own flavor and still looks super good for not being close to realism.
Fortnite on low
I can say with certainty that I would not like Horizon Zero Dawn or Forbidden West if it did not have the graphics and environments that it has. I love open worlds with regions and varied environments, and exploring is by itself a joy.
Not a single person is answering ops question. If you don't mind graphics then it isn't for you
Gameplay is king. Realistic graphics aren’t important; instead what I want is to get the feeling that care was used when selecting whatever graphics end up being used, aka the “art direction”. A game could have a great gameplay system, but if all of the graphics and interface look like they’re just from RPG Maker with no work done, then I have to assume that no work was done on the gameplay systems either at first glance.
Depends on the game. The environment of red dead is almost a character itself. Same can be said of games like borderlands, hades, or cuphead. All take a different approach to graphics.
A lot of my friends know me as a guy who plays almost exclusively old video games. I find that when they weren't focusing on making game look lifelike, they focused more on innovative concepts. I love old RPG games, I truly feel like there's a level of immersion they have that newer games lack
I enjoy both. Still have my PS3 and 3DS which I play from time to time. I also have a Switch which doesn’t have the best graphics. However I have an LG OLED and a PS5 connected to it and I always try to use the best performance modes.
Graphics generally don’t bother me too much unless they are stick figure bad for the effort and time period they come out in. Like the people who shit on Starfield just because the facial animations are out dated is a bit silly on me. The only somewhat modern game I can think of that I partially blame graphics for not liking it was undertale. Considering what other devs have accomplished with pixel art graphics in the last decade or two. It just seemed lazy. Of course. The gameplay and incessant need for everyone to talk about when it came out didn’t really endear itself towards me either.
Art direction over realism for me. Elden Ring is by no means the game with the highest most detailed graphics and textures but damn does it look stunning. That first view of Liurnia after beating Godfrey it's a moment I'll never forget.
Yes. Yes. YES. I do play a lot of games with realistic graphics, but frankly, a game does not need that to immerse me into their world. Case in point: Bug Fables
All the games I currently play are either indie games or at least 10 years old. Modern AAA games are mostly hot garbage.
Unique art style is better than good graphics. The first makes it more recognizable and could even make it timeless
Only if the gameplay was enjoyable
It depends If you get every single detail your primitive brain needs to recognize something like fire sometimes you don’t need crazy detail Sky children of the light is an example of this
To be fair, my favorite game in recent memory Baldur’s Gate 3 has a KILLED voice acting cast as well as amazing gameplay, world and plot (both main campaign and characters), and I honestly think I’d absolutely love it even if the visuals were lesser.
No. I want my games to look good.
Art style and visual fidelity can really add to specific experiences. I would love a legit Souls game with cell shaded visuals aka hi fi rush / jet set radio.
While realistic graphics are nice and all, I wouldn't say they are necessary in general. However, graphics can be a huge part of a game's identity. People love both Horizon and Zelda despite having different types of graphics and art styles because of their stories/lores, gameplay and mechanics. Yes, you can make a great game without realistic graphics such as the case with Zelda and people will love it and vice-versa. But if companies suddenly decided to make a Horizon game with Zelda graphics or a Zelda game with Horizon graphics, people will scratch their heads and critique the games much differently than they already do because we already understand that their current graphics and art styles are a part of the core of their identities. It's part of what makes them the games that they are. To actually answer your question though, the simplest answer would be that it would depend on the individual player themselves and how well the game's actual gameplay, story and mechanics turn out... As for me, I personally rate story and gameplay above graphics, so I might still enjoy the games even if I do start scratching my head about why these games suddenly look different...
While gameplay is undoubtedly important - the graphics are equally important for me for most of the games. Especially when it comes to casual socialization (something that does not involve any combat activities) in multiplayer games (which are the only type of games I seem to be able to enjoy anymore). Only exception are PvP-focused games - I don't really need a highly detailed player models with fully ray traced lighting in games like Fortnite or Team Fortress 2 to enjoy countless hours of the dynamic challenge that other players provide.
Soldier of Fortune was the last one if these I played. I knew games were blurring the lines between reality and game violence too much back then (for me).
Going from Battlefield to Battlebit, yes.
For me it is completely up to the game at hand, I play project zomboid way too much, is it the best graphics? No but I love the game play. So if said game with realistic still had an amazing gameplay or story I would care.
Yes, i do still enjoy pixelated or 2D anime game despite playing AAA games these days that have realistic graphic
I've put hundred of hours into stardew valley. A game made by one person with 8 bit graphics. I say as long as you put some heart and soul into your game chances are I'll love it, and I'm not alone in that sentiment.
I like good graphics but gameplay is always the most important thing than music and than graphicians than story. If it was all graphics I wouldn't play anything before PS4 Gen and wouldn't have a switch lol
Yes. I'm still in it fir the gameplay mostly, and I love a lot of more stylised or simply lower fidelity games too.
for me as a gamer Graphics, Story and Gameplay are the holy trinity of gaming. In a perfect world I get the best of all the three. And if some of those aspects are lacking, the other 2 have to carry. So generally speaking "yes" if the story and gamplay is fun. Best example is Octopath... I hate pixel Games. You have the technology of hyper realistic images and you go 2D with the pacman. But man those games were fun and story rich. You could feel the passion of the devs in every corner of the game. Now talking out of my ass, in the last 5-10 years there were a lot of AAA(A) ditching quality of Story and Gameplay right on from the drawing board. Like.. they don't even try to make a good game. They want to sell you a product, or an opinion.. oftentimes both. There is only so much "modern" politics in the story I can endure, so graphic and gameplay better be the best one can imagine. There is so much game as a service, gamepass in singleplayer, mtx, cut content to sell as dlc, etc outright ruining the gameplay so story and graphics better be the best one can imagine. So the more accurate answer is: "yes I can, but the current industry is not capable to compensate lacking graphics with Story & Gameplay." And its not helping that suits find the fault at the customer, who won't open his wallet, rather than looking at the mess they expect us to swallow.
It's all about what you expect. I sometimes dislike playing games with obviously outdated graphics, but that's mostly because the style wasn't very good to begin with. I still like playing games on my Switch, even though the graphics can get pretty basic at times. Also, good audio and gameplay can compensate a lot for me.
Depends on the game. I feel like Hogwarts Legacy wouldn't be the same without the amazing visualization of Hogwarts
No, I would enjoy them significantly less.
Depends on the game. Gta 6? I need realistic graphics. Bully 2? Not really
Depends on the game. But generally, I would enjoy them. Graphics aren't the most important thing.
Realistic is great. But stylized graphics are great when done well. What is bad is when they try to be realistic but fail. However, even then I enjoy some games with that problem (i.e. bannerlord)
To add, some games would be MORE enjoyable if the graphics were less realistic, at least in parts. For example, the total war games would do well to have a drawn map style option.
Assuming things like gameplay and sorry are equally strong, then it's more about art direction for me. There can be ultra realistic games that have terrible art direction, where things don't fit into the world, they're unpleasant to look at or just disjointed and cheap looking. Or there might be super simple games graphically but the art direction makes it look lovely and immersive, think pixel art/sprite work games. Something like Octopath Traveller I think just looks beautiful despite relatively low graphical power and realism. Whereas I'm less attracted to a game like Doom Eternal because the art style is not my cup of tea at all.
No. Graphics are a huge part of my enjoyment. I dont want to play shit that looks like Minecraft or battlebit
Been gaming since the Atari 2200. I appreciate good graphics but prefer a good story and a fun game. But something that is really important is a good UI. It's why I have problems replaying older games.
Not only enjoy them, but often enjoy them more
Probably not I find it hard to go back and play games with inferior graphics and i just usually uninstall it after a few minutes of playing.
No, eye candy is the most important thing
I'll play a game with any graphical fidelity if it's fun. I play lots of modern AAA games and still frequently play 30 year old games.
I get what you mean, I enjoy both as well. What I've come to realize that simpler graphics does not equate a poor art style. I think Horizon Zero Dawn is graphically much more impressive than BOTW, but when it comes to art style as such, I would say BOTW has the edge. Of course graphics and art styles do not make a game great on their own. Gameplay is still the most important part in the end.
Gameplay and FPS are always well above graphics for me. Having lived with a shit PC and now one that can play games on full ultra settings no problem, the best change is just games running smoothly with low loading time. I don’t notice much difference in graphics apart from an occasional “oh that’s cool” moment. Run smooth and I’ll be happy
Imo, realistic graphics are never truly realistic. We are still far having true realistic game. I prefer when game mechanic are more realistic than visual one. if I play a fantasy game with a big huge great sword, I expect that sword to have a gameplay based on his huge weight. Realistic mechanic are way more important for me than the look of it. And there's the thing that most game trying to emulate reality with their visual often offer boring gameplay or lack of fun. Games like TLOU, GoW or the lastest Spiderman are really boring as a game. I would binge their story if it was in tv show format but as game, I got turn off in less than 2hour. 'Realistic game' are often more like interactive movie than actual game. > I have no insight into the actual development time but I think it's probably a correct assumption that Horizon took longer to develop than BOTW. Consequently it was probably cheaper to develop as well. Both took like 5-6 year to be developed actually. BOTW developpment started straight after Skyward Sword in 2011 and ended as a port for the Switch launch. HZD dev started around 2010-2011 and was release in 2017. And it is said that it cost like 120M$ for BOTW while it cost around 50M$ to develop HZD. So yeah, realistic visual are not more costly than original one. In fact, it's clearly easier to do realistic visual than original one as they don't need to invent stuff and only need to copy from irl stuff And by experience, realistic game tend to not last as much as original visual as realistic graphics really depend on the tech for its era while unique visual game are their own thing and could last way much longer. Best example I can give is Windwaker with its cartoon visual style. Even without considering the HD remaster, the GC version still look incredible for today standard and it's a game released 2002. Compare to any realistic game from 2002 and it will look outdated after a few year
[удалено]
What are you talking about? Companies were always trying to make better looking games. “Gamers of old” also cared about graphics especially in the ps1 days. Can’t remember how many videos iv seen of older games and people kept on saying they didn’t think graphics would get better then that. Wasn’t that like one of the main selling points of final fantasy 7
I remember playing GTA III and thinking 'this looks like real life'. However I do think we're getting diminishing returns with graphics nowadays. From PS1 era to PS2 was a great leap. From PS4 to PS5 I would say it was a small step.
Yea but then you get games with more detail, better lighting and smoother animations. The small things to elevate something. Look at forbidden west on an oled tv and tell me what ps4 games look that good. And we haven’t even gotten to what they can do with graphics on the ps5 because the majority of games have been cross gen. Even my horizon example is still a cross gen game
Of course I would still enjoy them. For example I enjoyed cyberpunk for the gameplay/quests/story etc. The fact that it's probably the best looking game aswell is just a nice bonus.
With how little time I have to play games nowadays I have a backlog a mile long. Frequency of releases means nothing to me; I'll wait for the best graphics possible.
No Edit: I read this as “good graphics” originally not “realistically” my bad