• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

No one buys games for graphics.

Joined
Oct 16, 2023
Messages
143 (0.24/day)
System Name -
Processor 5800x3D
Motherboard AsRock Extreme 4
Cooling Air
Memory 32GB
Video Card(s) 7900 XT
Storage 7.5 TB of SSD storage
Display(s) BenQ XL2746S DyaC+ 240hz . Phillips Momentum 1440P 165hz
Case 4000D AF modded.
Audio Device(s) External Fio K3
Power Supply 850W
Mouse XTRFY MZ1
Keyboard Mechanical
VR HMD -
Software Linux Nobara. Windows 11.
Benchmark Scores A few points.
I mean I do agree, I don't.

But we have a new modern issue... optimization.

Good video.


Ok we can look passed all the visuals, but games are just not really much better than N64, it's not that I am right in an objective sense, it's just the fact I am seeing how much we are regressing gameplay wise.

Forza, it looks amazing in the right conditions and like absolute anus everywhere else all because they wanted RT...



Again though there is no soul to Forza... it lost it.

FM2 is technically inferior not just visually, but it has the fun factor.


GT has also gone the wrong way too.

Technically inferior... massively even.. still way more fun.



Multiplayer games are going downhill fast.

BF is on a big downwards slope due to design and not listening to what people want.

COD is... unfun and braindead.


CS is a cheat fest.

Honestly stuck playing older games because nothing new really is... good


Just an opinion, share yours and talk about the topic.
 
Graphics always important, and those game graphics considered as state-of-the-art back then. It's just which direction the devs made, did they put only graphics into focus or struck balance between graphics and good story and gameplay. Talking about racing games I play A LOT of GT2 back then and I still play it today, emulated on PC. Here's a screenshot. That video you posted, if you play the game a lot you know which race gives a very good car that you can either sell for tons of money (and he did pointed that out), or you can use one straight (especially race cars that don't need tuneups). It's not a grind as long as you buy the RIGHT first car and play the right few race, just do all the license and youre good to go. Nowadays I just either download savegames that gives rare cars, or I just use cheats to stop timer so I get gold in each license so I get the prized car for each test, and some of those are great car you can use straight for races. Yeah back then everybody and their grandma buy Escudo to win races, now I use hardest car to drive to win races, TVR Speed 12 and Espace F1 are two of such cars. Also I set challenges to put as little horsepower as possible and try to win races purely by skills. It's fun this way to me IMO rather than use OP cars to win races, also it hones driving skills. I also play GT4 as well as I haven't get time to really invested playing it back then (went to college to take my Diploma and Degree). It's a spiritual successor to GT2 IMO, and I finally can play on Nurburgring. I also noticed GT3 and GT4 was easier than GT2, later found out both game have ASM ON by default (Active Stabilty Management) so when you go around corner and press accelerator hard (PS2/PS3 have pressure sensitive buttons) it won't make the tires spin either by slowing doown or limiting the throttle input so you can tackle any corner with any sort of drivetrain with ease. I disable them (and reduce or disable traction control too) and made driving much more fun.

gt2.jpg


I can always put shader effects and mod the hell out of it on emulator but I could say I'm a purist, I rarely mod any games I play, at least graphically (upscaling is another story so it won't look pixelated on FHD screen) except for certain occasion, I tried to mod GTAIV with ENBmods graphics back then in 2012 I still have screenshot of it. Doesn't look too bad but it's more of a curiosity. I didn't play GTAIV as much as San Andreas because for me overall story was worse. One of reason I hate Cyberpunk2077 is because of its crappy ending, and overall story is just meh, there are few great moments but those are far between and some events seems rushed. Still playing San Andreas till this day, from start to finish, without cheat and only mods I use it the one that fixed the bugs in-game, yep replaying those so-called hard missions like Wrong Side of The Tracks and flying RC missions.

GTAIV 2012-08-17 16-40-25-79.jpg


I never invested in any multiplayer games, I only play Planetside 2 (F2P games) with my friends, that collects about over 1000 hours but it was fun sometimes (especially double XP weekend) I haven't played one in 4 years. I buy Battlefield V to play with friends but finds out it littered with cheaters/hackers, worse than San Andreas Multiplayer so I only play like 5 hours of it before quitting.

I also play A LOT of Ace Combat series, I started playing from AC3 Electrosphere, and I continue playing the holy trinity in PS2; AC04, AC5 and Zero. I love every singe one of it, gameplay mechanics was amazing, the planes and superplanes were astonishing and each of them comes with truly amazing and unique story that really makes you invested in the whole game and genre. So when Ace Combat 7 was announced and coming for PC I'm VERY HAPPY to hear and I even pre-order it. When it comes out the graphics were simply amazing, some planes were great but storyline was major dogshit. I only replay it 3 times before I put it into rest. I never pre-order anything after this and I'm glad, as I dodged pre-ordering Doom Eternal (for me is dogshit, too arena-like and it's no longer fun for me though I did finished it in Ultra Violence but only once) Doom 2016 struck best balance for me as not being too monkey-on-acid-trip.

Nowadays I never viewed any games as interesting, seeing Starfield made boredface as I know the game will be buggy so it will be a year or two, seeing those remasters/remakes makes me yawn harder than late-nights playing Planetside 2. San Andreas remaster using mobile ports is just UTTER BULLSHIT and an insult to excellent original game. I can wait for games to mature as it become a trend, I play Witcher 3 like 3-4 years after it releases and buy the GOTY version.

Where DirectX 12 being so good that it laid out certain feature levels, lower level of hardware abstract that it would make game devs knows what to do with huge amount of graphics card in the market, but doesn't seem it headed that way either. Just read what Alan Wake 2 requirements you can see how lazy devs are, requiring DLSS/FSR as a requirement to get smooth gameplay. They just relased the game in what I called early Alpha stage and patch them as they go through like nothing. It's better back then when game comes in physical copy where game properly optimized out of the box and fit in CD/DVD thus doesn't require exabyte of data just to properly render sandwiches in 4K.

So the original question; nobody buys games for graphics. That is true, at least for me. I do enjoy Crysis, Metro 2033 but the graphics just compliments the great game it was.
 
Not me, I love good graphics. I hate pixie graphics. Only "non-graphics" game I like is Factorio.
 
In the end all games that stick with me are the ones with replay value and strong gameplay. Everything else... perhaps memorable, but not replayable. Anything linear falls under that category for me. Linear with choices is different, it has replay value.

Not a single game has replay value based on graphics. Graphically great but gameplay wise shit games are games I tend to not play for long - bad gameplay is such a huge detractor for me, it even places good graphics in a whole other perspective: I feel lied to.
 
I love me some top end graphics.. always have :)
 
I too love me some top notch graphics. That can't be the only thing a game has to offer, but then that's very rarely the case in my experience and an attempt to frame it as an either/or choice is clearly disingenuous.
 
No one thing will ever be the be all, end all, or what breaks a game. Good game development requires a balance of many skills, a team that knows how to put it all together and polish it, and a publisher that gives them enough time and funding to do that, AND test it properly before release.

One thing that worries me lately is whether AI will be overused and abused to the point of shortcuts on writing and voice acting. It's good to see that the movie industry at least is making progress toward SOME protection against that with the strike, but I'd like to see the same done for game writers and voice actors.

On a different note, I can't help but worry what will happen with game hardware manufacturing if China invades and takes Taiwan.
 
Last edited:
Just be thankful it’s not the early 2000s anymore. Performance came in leaps and bounds and each new Gen quickly destroyed the last.
 
Just be thankful it’s not the early 2000s anymore. Performance came in leaps and bounds and each new Gen quickly destroyed the last.
No we have games doing that now from developers.
 
^ Excellent case and point for that, Legend of Zelda: The Windwaker.
That game got completely blasted for its graphics when it came out and look how well it has stood the test of time almost 11 years later.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think there is room for it all, I certainly like a good looking game, including new features etc.
But I am open to alternatives or less graphical games IF the game is good and fun little else matters.

I got schooled early on with Rise of the Machines I think it was.


Real world graphics until you moved , then realised it was no Street fighter, utter shit in fact.

Nuanced point some low graphics games look better for that.

Like Limbo , the RTX version of that would be ass imho

But to be clear a percentage of every generation of playstation and GT got bought by me, because of the graphics, at least in part.
 
I think there is room for it all, I certainly like a good looking game, including new features etc.
But I am open to alternatives or less graphical games IF the game is good and fun little else matters.

I got schooled early on with Rise of the Machines I think it was.


Real world graphics until you moved , then realised it was no Street fighter, utter shit in fact.

Nuanced point some low graphics games look better for that.

Like Limbo , the RTX version of that would be ass imho

But to be clear a percentage of every generation of playstation and GT got bought by me, because of the graphics, at least in part.
It was Rise of the Robots and every magazine hyped it up in a serious manner, only for it to become one of the biggest turds in gaming. Up there with Atari's E.T.
 
It was Rise of the Robots and every magazine hyped it up in a serious manner, only for it to become one of the biggest turds in gaming. Up there with Atari's E.T.
Worse imho , I bought in.

Rise of the robot's, indeed Ty.

The extreme lack of move's, and point, put me as close as I've ever been to Fisting a TV.
 
You just have to ask the specific questions:

Do I buy games specifically for graphics? No.
Are games with basic graphics necessarily boring? No.
Is it true that advanced graphics make a game more enjoyable? It depends.
Is it true that a few games require advanced graphics to be fully enjoyable? Yes!
Do you enjoy games with advanced graphics? Hell yes!
Do you like games that depend on such advanced graphics to fully flesh themselves out? YES.
Is it true that the average gamer considers graphical fidelity a generational marker? And the answer to that is absolutely.

The reason this generation feels "underwhelming" is that system requirements are about to shoot up to insane heights due to the use of ray and path tracing, very high resolution textures and general assets (which are increasingly unique with more and more variety), advanced positional audio, etc. - all the while simultaneously, in real life we're in an economic rut with people unwilling to spend money to throw hardware at the problem; all the while game developers got really good at mastering the traditional raster-based techniques make games look more than reasonably realistic, they look pretty much amazing as it is. This presents an ugly development reality, because a LOT of time and resources are spent to make games look this good with traditional technology.

Add all of that to the fact that desktop panels have not really advanced in resolution in the past 10 years whatsoever and the bulk majority of displays is still 1080p/Full HD standard with a few 1440p's at the higher end, and there's just no point in software developed with UHD/4K and beyond in mind, leading to this illusion that things haven't really advanced despite the increase in requirements.

Enter Alan Wake 2, the game that's triggering all this discussion. It gave the boot to the ancient Nvidia Maxwell and Pascal GPUs as well as AMD's underqualified RDNA 1 hardware and is requesting DX12 Ultimate, people seem to be upset by it dropping downlevel hardware but you have to remember, Nvidia's Turing is 6 years old and already offered DX12U support from day one. The upper settings aren't supported on AMD because again, it's making extensive use of raytracing which their hardware and/or drivers is simply balls at. This conflicts with "gamer pride" and "latest generation cards must always run ultra high settings". End of the day, yes, the problem is you, the gamer, and not "optimization". Is asking for a RTX 2060 6 years later really too much? IMHO, no, it is not.

But that's just how I personally see things.
 
You just have to ask the specific questions:

Do I buy games specifically for graphics? No.
Are games with basic graphics necessarily boring? No.
Is it true that advanced graphics make a game more enjoyable? It depends.
Is it true that a few games require advanced graphics to be fully enjoyable? Yes!
Do you enjoy games with advanced graphics? Hell yes!
Do you like games that depend on such advanced graphics to fully flesh themselves out? YES.
Is it true that the average gamer considers graphical fidelity a generational marker? And the answer to that is absolutely.

The reason this generation feels "underwhelming" is that system requirements are about to shoot up to insane heights due to the use of ray and path tracing, very high resolution textures and general assets (which are increasingly unique with more and more variety), advanced positional audio, etc. - all the while simultaneously, in real life we're in an economic rut with people unwilling to spend money to throw hardware at the problem; all the while game developers got really good at mastering the traditional raster-based techniques make games look more than reasonably realistic, they look pretty much amazing as it is. This presents an ugly development reality, because a LOT of time and resources are spent to make games look this good with traditional technology.

Add all of that to the fact that desktop panels have not really advanced in resolution in the past 10 years whatsoever and the bulk majority of displays is still 1080p/Full HD standard with a few 1440p's at the higher end, and there's just no point in software developed with UHD/4K and beyond in mind, leading to this illusion that things haven't really advanced despite the increase in requirements.

Enter Alan Wake 2, the game that's triggering all this discussion. It gave the boot to the ancient Nvidia Maxwell and Pascal GPUs as well as AMD's underqualified RDNA 1 hardware and is requesting DX12 Ultimate, people seem to be upset by it dropping downlevel hardware but you have to remember, Nvidia's Turing is 6 years old and already offered DX12U support from day one. The upper settings aren't supported on AMD because again, it's making extensive use of raytracing which their hardware and/or drivers is simply balls at. This conflicts with "gamer pride" and "latest generation cards must always run ultra high settings". End of the day, yes, the problem is you, the gamer, and not "optimization". Is asking for a RTX 2060 6 years later really too much? IMHO, no, it is not.

But that's just how I personally see things.
Except it's not what is triggering it.. this is...


Game runs bad on recommended 4K hardware even at 1080P and don't look great either.
 
Graphics always important,
Tell that to classic text-based games like Zork or MUD, or 4-color block graphic classics like MULE, Missile Command, or Centipede. No one bought those games for the fancy visuals -- meaning the developers knew -- knew -- the gameplay had to be outstanding.

Today? Developers will spend 90% of their time on the visuals, and 8 of the remaining 10% trying to optimize performance so the thing even runs properly. Gameplay is a belated afterthought.
 
Do I buy a game for it's graphic ?
Hell no !
Do graphics are important for me ?
No and I don't care about graphics

All I care is gameplay.

A good gameplay make you forgot graphics everytime.
If not, the game is not good.
Simple as that.
 
i dont know, its going in a good way for VR more realistic but as for flat games i like a game that looks like a game if ya know what i mean. but over all im happy "i think".
 
The graphics need to be good enough to not be an issue.

I feel like we hit the point of diminishing returns with game engines and art assets half a decade ago. There are games that were launched in 2016 that still look fresh. Not cutting-edge, no, but given the terrible graphics quality of some 100GB games that stomp shameful 8GB GPUs into the dirt, it's really hard to argue that these huge 5-10x increases in texture size and hardware requirements are really giving us much extra eye candy for all the additional performance cost. Doom 2016, Battlefield 1, Dark Souls 3, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Horizon Zero Dawn, Destiny 2 - These are all "old" games that look fine. Arguably better than many newer games because they were released when they were finished, not 6-12 months before they were finished which seems to be 2022's and 2023's main problem.

The push for RT in everything annoys me. It tanks performance and it's subtle at best. Very few games truly look better with RT enabled, and that's because RT is just an approximation of lighting much like the raster-based approximation. Full scene, full everything, realtime path tracing of all lighting, period, is well beyond current technology, CP2077 is 3 years old now, and the path-tracing completely decimates a $1200 RTX 4080, despite leaning heavily on every crutch available from upscaling, frame-gen, temporal noise filtering etc. We are so far away from having true path-traced games and the focus on it is hurting the industry. By 2027 the RTX 6070 might be able to play today's AAA games with path-tracing, but that makes the bold assumption that Nvidia hasn't just quit the gaming GPU market to focus exclusively on the more lucrative crypto mining AI accelerator card market instead.
 
Fun and soul are often sacrificed on the altar of graphics and it's disturbing.
Even though I have the necessary hardware to run the demanding ones, I still find myself enjoying old games much more than the latter
Here's a small list of games I recently played :

Caesar 3
Jedi Knight 2 Jedi Outcast
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2
Mafia 1, City of Lost Heaven
Age of Empires 2
Warcraft 3
Re-Volt

So yeah, I'm one of those who do not buy games for graphics

Also, games and hardware are a market. Consumerism at it's finest, some games aren't even beautiful to begin with, but require a monster to only run QHD properly
Sometimes I wonder if devs wouldn't be like :
"let's honor this partnership with "insert any" and throw a random volumetric fog on top of this game, so that your fps can drop so much you'll need to buy our cards/cpu/whatever to run it properly"
 
Last edited:
Except it's not what is triggering it.. this is...


Game runs bad on recommended 4K hardware even at 1080P and don't look great either.

Forza Motorsport, another brand new release. And unsurprisingly, AMD hardware is involved in the poor experience. Ryzen and Radeon, no less. Though I blame the Ryzen bit a little less.

Do I buy a game for it's graphic ?
Hell no !
Do graphics are important for me ?
No and I don't care about graphics

All I care is gameplay.

A good gameplay make you forgot graphics everytime.
If not, the game is not good.
Simple as that.

And now suppose you have my specs (which is only an inch away from absolute fastest a 2023 gaming PC gets, with the most exotic OLED panel you can buy for HDR gaming). Do you still feel that way? Will you really not enjoy the latest generation games with the most advanced graphics around if budget wasn't an issue?

Fun and soul are often sacrificed on the altar of graphics and it's disturbing.
Even though I have the necessary hardware to run the demanding ones, I still find myself enjoying old games much more than the latter
Here's a small list of games I recently played :

Caesar 3
Jedi Knight 2 Jedi Outcast
Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2
Mafia 1, City of Lost Heaven
Age of Empires 2
Warcraft 3
Re-Volt

So yeah, I'm one of those who do not buy games for graphics

Also, games and hardware are a market. Consumerism at it's finest, some games aren't even beautiful to begin with, but require a monster to only run QHD properly
Sometimes I wonder if devs wouldn't be like :
"let's honor this partnership with "insert any" and throw a random volumetric fog on top of this game, so that your fps can drop so much you'll need to buy our cards/cpu/whatever to run it properly"

Hard disagree, it looks like you're letting nostalgia of simpler times cloud your judgment. All of these are PS1 era games from the 1990's and early 2000's.
 
Forza Motorsport, another brand new release. And unsurprisingly, AMD hardware is involved in the poor experience. Ryzen and Radeon, no less. Though I blame the Ryzen bit a little less.



And now suppose you have my specs (which is only an inch away from absolute fastest a 2023 gaming PC gets, with the most exotic OLED panel you can buy for HDR gaming). Do you still feel that way?
You are funny with your stupid bias as this is the game on the same hardware after the first game update.



I purposely separated these vids to catch some folks out, you fell.

Still it shows just how bad it is, some Nvidia users just prop up their own purchases to continue saying it's not a game or dev issue. We would expect a 4080 to be faster, I mean it's 500 more than my 7900 XT.
 
Well Tetris is addicting and was built with a lack of graphics.

Game play is what matters. If it looks good then you can enjoy it even more.
 
I agree with the idea conveyed in the title, and I invite you to look for the best-selling and most played games of all time. Ponder with yourself, and find the answer.

While graphics can undoubtedly enhance immersion, it is essential to remember that the primary factors contributing to a game's appeal are fun, storytelling, gameplay etc...
 
Back
Top