How and why did we become so obsessed with graphics?

[wheresmycar]

Haven't read the above comments - responding to the OP:

I dunno about everyone else... from childhood to current, everytime the graphics improved in games i'm naturally enticed. Although i agree polishing up on the graphics front whilst compromising on gameplay is a NO NO. Good games with good quality graphics is always a +1 for me. Its unfortunate to keep up with the eye candy high-end GPU prices today are just rediculous.

I'm all for ultra-realism immersive gaming... the closer we get the better. But i understand where you're coming from... too much focus on graphics whilst compromising on the actual gameplay removes immersiveness to some/all degree. Thats the game developers job to fill in the gap

Speaking of eye candy... since going 1440p IPS on a 27" panel i can't go back to 1080p. I also like to crank-up most noticeable graphics features to high/ultra. Where performance tanks compromises are acceptable.

I admit one thing.... even if I was skint to me bones and could only afford a budget setup, if the game is good and runs decent i'd still get plenty of buzz out of it. The last budget build i had was many years ago which ran Battlefield 2 on low/medium setting and performance wasn;t all that great. It was hooked up to a, i'm assuming, 30fps tele.... but i had an absolute blast with it and spent way too many hours whooping a-s-s. If i had the money back then, i'd defo pick up beefier hardware, crank up the quality settings for some enhanced eye candy.

Why is it so hard to peacefully coexist?

lol nothing to do with hardware or games per say. Just keyboard ninjas being keyboard ninjas for the sake of it. The brand loyalty aspect of it all is what gets me the most. The rest is just down to demonstrating "i know better" and "i'm right"- some weird self-gratification policy at play without tangible rewards.

 

[..0]

it is the investors and big companies producing games that are obsessed with graphics.
the players plays what they like, but they also get tricked into pre purchase and founding games based on marketing and promises. we can be manipulated into obsessive behaviours. we are simple animals after all.

 

[bonehead123]

It simply comes down to this 1 fact:

The ever-present, all-encompassing, although misguided, human belief that "More is always better"

We have only ourselves to blame, as WE created all this stuff, and the obligatory greed, despair, and futility that goes with it, and we will most certainly die by it too

 

[londiste]

The question is simple: why?
Why are we so obsessed with graphics that we pay huge amounts of money for pretty, but soulless games and remakes of the same game that we already own?
Why do we jump at each other's throats when someone appears to have different preferences when it comes to graphical features? Why is it so hard to peacefully coexist?
Also: when did it all start and how?

Graphics are a huge part of immersion and while this does not necessarily mean photorealism it takes technology and hardware to make it look less and less immersion breaking. The exact level of quality in whatever measure has evolved over time but the gist of it remains the same.

It started with the beginning of games. And very visibly and noticeably with pc. MCGA > CGA > EGA > VGA > SVGA > ever increasing resolutions > 3d graphics > texture mapping > shadows > bump mapping > antialiasing and so on and so on. On a parallel track there was/is continuous improvement of sound, physics, animations, etc. Hell, video for a cutscene was a very new and impressive thing at one point. Consoles evolution largely mirrors the same.

Playing pretty but soulless games and remakes are purely your choice. There has never been more choice in the amount and quality of available games.

 

[Shelterdeck]

I'd take the case to the highest court in the land....the modding hierarchy.

 

[Synthwave]

I didn't.

 

[Shrek]

I've been obsessed with high resoution (and the massive real estate that goes along with it) for 40 years, and so glad it is now here.

 

[mb194dc]

It's been like that since Turrican and rise of the robots, long before 3d games even existed.

It's just magpie syndrome, everyone's attention is caught by shiny graphics even if the game plays like a turd.

 

[INSTG8R]

Now add a proper monitor, prefereably OLED, + sound and you will be able to immersive yourself like no other. Easily has more soul than playing the old game again. A good remaster will beat the original game with ease. There's tons of good remasters and remakes. We are not talking about money grab remasters here.

I have my OLED I have my 5.1 I have everything I want as far as my "wish list" my PC is "complete" but I'm also getting up in my years with medical and mental issues that as much as I wanted and got the PC I always wanted I find myself lacking the focus and/or the drive to enjoy it. Thankfully with all my years of gaming I have decade old friends from "all over the world" that when around give me that "energy" to push through all that. By myself I game for 30min if I'm lucky but if I have those friends around no matter the game, it's age, or its GFX then I truly enjoy "gaming" all my hardware doesn't bring me that joy it's playing with them that trumps all of it. I can push through my pain and suffering as long as I'm gaming with my friends, the games age or GFX fidelity matter...

 

[EsliteMoby]

I like good graphics in games. But I hate it when developers force annoying console post-process effects like depth-of-field, chromatic aberration, TAA and lens flare into PC ports and call them "cinematic next-gen". AAA graphics stagnated for a long period until next-gen consoles rolled out.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

The shortest answer: Companies want your money.

 

[TechHalp]

Firstly, this is not an AMD vs Nvidia thread.
Secondly, this is not an FSR vs DLSS thread.
Thirdly, this is not an "RT is sooo awesome, woaoah!" thread.

Now that the (to me) obvious is out of the way, let me continue with some observations.

• A lot of (especially AAA) games are being marketed by their graphics these days, like there's not a lot behind it (and a lot of times there really isn't).
• A lot of (even not so old) games are being remade with slightly upgraded graphics, and they seem to be popular for some reason.
• There's way too much fighting in the online community over which graphical feature is important, and what one should or shouldn't use. Some people really seem to make it a crusade for some reason.

The question is simple: why?
Why are we so obsessed with graphics that we pay huge amounts of money for pretty, but soulless games and remakes of the same game that we already own?
Why do we jump at each other's throats when someone appears to have different preferences when it comes to graphical features? Why is it so hard to peacefully coexist?
Also: when did it all start and how?

It's not about the graphics, out of all the games marketed on their looks, none have been a success in recent memory. It's about 60/120 fps, it's about non-janky UI and fixing old game systems, and THEN it's about graphics.

Cyberpunk, Forspoken, Immortals of Aveum, Anthem, Godfall. Outside of racing games I can't even think of a game marketed on graphics alone that has done well at all.

Why would they release a game they've already made and make MORE MONEY?
Why on earth would anyone remake a game from 2015 on unreal engine 3?
What selling point does a remake possibly have without better graphics and frame rate?

Literally play the original game if it's exactly the same lmaao.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I think this has been the case at least since the 80s and definitely since the 90s Graphics will never replace a good story or good gameplay but you can say all 3 are highly subjective. The original Nier is one of my favorite games ever and when it released the graphics were pretty terrible.

Just like with anything though the expectations are that over time visuals will improve half the reason I am even on PC is because it offers a better visual experience.... Gameplay and story are identical in most cases otherwise to console. Although I will say what Sony does with the PS5 at least when games launch on it out does most pc games visually Horizon Forbidden West is a good example it still looks better than most PC games if you can stomach 40fps.

The last pc game that blew me away visually was probably Crysis 3 But CP in spots in the path tracing mode with ray reconstruction is pretty impressive but not on the same level.

Nothing beats how blown away I was by Model 3 Arcade hardware when Virtua Fighter 3 came out it was such a massive leap over anything else I played back in 96/97

RE2 impressed me as well when it came out even though they faked pretty much everything to get it to look the way it did in 98 huge leap over one.

MGS 2 also wowed me when it was first shown.

Soul Calibur on dreamcast was probably the first time a console game looked better than Arcade for me in 1999

Those are my standouts visually over the years.

I wouldn't say I'm obsessed with graphics though I don't own a 4090 simply becuase it offers better performance than anything else I simply asked myself what is my hobby as in pc gaming worth to me and the gpu is that answer.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I have always been slightly obsessed with the latest thing, I just have older tireder eye's so lower end gaming has it's merits too.
I do like to be able to have a look, I don't necessarily need to be at the cutting edge, or in reality, not at these price's.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Wish I knew. One can easily point the finger at chipmakers, who by necessity must one-up their existing products every couple of years so that their customers have something worthwhile to buy. Developers of course want to take advantage of this extra muscle, not only because of the natural human desire to push the boundaries, but to make themselves stand out in an extremely competitive space. But we as consumers are complicit, susceptible as we are to the shiny. Oh, and don't forget escalation. How many times have you gone back to an older game that looked anywhere from fine to amazing when it was new, only to discover that it's now nearly unplayable to your recalibrated eyes? This has slowed down some for me, as the BIG jumps started to level off around 2013. That year's Tomb Raider still looks pretty good IMO, as does DOOM from three years later. 2008's Fallout 3, though.... hoo, boy. (Granted, FO3 was no graphical superstar when it launched.)

Humans are visual creatures, so it's no great wonder that we gravitate toward things that look nice. I just wish (in the context of video games) we could focus less on chasing the photorealism brass ring and lend more appreciation to games with strong visual and art design.

 

[mechtech]

How and why did we become so obsessed with graphics?​

Speak for youself lol

My favourite game at the moment is Terraria

 

[AusWolf]

Thanks for all the answers.

A lot of you guys seem to be describing the evolution of computer graphics, which is an awesome thing, no one in their right mind questions that. Of course everybody likes a good-looking game. My OP question was not around this. What I meant was, why are looks so terribly important (at least in some devs' eyes) that you can market games purely by graphics alone, and they still end up being popular. Why does the new Battlefield or CoD or Counter-Strike sell even though it's almost an exact copy of the previous one? And why do we, forum dwellers fight over which graphical feature you "have to" use to enjoy the game?

 

[mechtech]

Thanks for all the answers.

A lot of you guys seem to be describing the evolution of computer graphics, which is an awesome thing, no one in their right mind questions that. Of course everybody likes a good-looking game. My OP question was not around this. What I meant was, why are looks so terribly important (at least in some devs' eyes) that you can market games purely by graphics alone, and they still end up being popular. Why does the new Battlefield or CoD or Counter-Strike sell even though it's almost an exact copy of the previous one? And why do we, forum dwellers fight over which graphical feature you "have to" use to enjoy the game?

Well all depends.

For games like the witcher 3 where you can pause and enjoy the scenery, it's definitely a plus. For fps games where all your focus is on the guy trying to shoot you, not so much.

I am not a programmer/dev or a hard core gamer, etc.

But for me personally when it comes to gaming there are a few main/big things that really make the game for me.
1. music score
2. story/character/NPC development & details
3. things to do, end achievement, grindiness (overall personal enjoyment of flow/progression/acomplishment)
4. graphics
5. type/genre of game
6. intuitive controls

So for me graphics can be totally non-issue, and seems to be for a lot of people, just look at the indie games on steam, many of them have "8 to 16 bit" type graphics have a lot of overwhelmingly positive reviews.

I guess if the game is lacking on any of the above, then perhaps they compensate with graphics? Also I guess if you got it then flaught it (graphics power) lol

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Thanks for all the answers.

A lot of you guys seem to be describing the evolution of computer graphics, which is an awesome thing, no one in their right mind questions that. Of course everybody likes a good-looking game. My OP question was not around this. What I meant was, why are looks so terribly important (at least in some devs' eyes) that you can market games purely by graphics alone, and they still end up being popular. Why does the new Battlefield or CoD or Counter-Strike sell even though it's almost an exact copy of the previous one? And why do we, forum dwellers fight over which graphical feature you "have to" use to enjoy the game?

I mean looks are still 1/3 of the puzzle a game usually has to hit on 2 out of the 3 with gameplay/story being the other part of the pie. As far as why competitive and sports games can be somewhat similar year after year is people like familiarity just like why someone buys the same make of cars or phones really a way different animal than why looks are so important.

Battlefield did terribly with 2042 so much so the series is being rebooted maybe they tried to change too much who knows.

I can't really think of any recent games that where marketed in visuals alone though.

Immortals of Aveum never looked good to me marketing was behind it using most of UE5 features but poorly in my opinion.

CP has Pathtracing but that is clearly marked as a techdemo

Alan Wake 2 also has Pathtracing but remedy always tries new hooks when it comes to gameplay and at least try when it comes to story they also recently showed off the game with visuals dialed back to console levels.

You probably need to list a way more specific scenario or a game you think was purely marketed for it's visuals.

 

[freeagent]

I wish games looked this good 20 years ago lol.. our kids will be in for a treat.

 

[Totally]

Soulless games? You think old games have more soul? It is called being nostalgic. Most old games you fire up, will disappoint you. This is also whey they are doing remasters or even remakes. Nostalgia sells and upgraded graphics, controls or even features will only make them better.

Now add a proper monitor, prefereably OLED, + sound and you will be able to immersive yourself like no other. Easily has more soul than playing the old game again. A good remaster will beat the original game with ease. There's tons of good remasters and remakes. We are not talking about money grab remasters here.

Even thought I respect that is your opinion, it is wrong. It's not nostalgia, how is people who never experienced the original, whether they passed on the first go around or they didn't exist yet, garner the same appreciation and level of enjoyment as the original? 30+ year old game, 20-something audience, and it's nostalgia? Make that make sense.

This is why people get pissed whenever something gets remade and the ones tasked with the remake don't respect the original and do things like "make updates for modern audiences" or "streamline" things especially if those things were points that were integral to the experience. Hardware can't and never will account for those intangibles.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I wish games looked this good 20 years ago lol.. our kids will be in for a treat.

In 20 years everything will be path traced and our children won't be able to afford any gpus to play them they'll be stuck on the PSX and the Xbox Series XXX

 

[freeagent]

In 20 years everything will be path traced and our children won't be able to afford any gpus to play them they'll be stuck on the PSX and the Xbox Series XXX

I think personal computers as we all know it will no longer be around, or needed.. a relic of the past..

Hopefully overclocking does not die with us, but I have a feeling it will.

 

[AusWolf]

I mean looks are still 1/3 of the puzzle a game usually has to hit on 2 out of the 3 with gameplay/story being the other part of the pie. As far as why competitive and sports games can be somewhat similar year after year is people like familiarity just like why someone buys the same make of cars or phones really a way different animal than why looks are so important.

Buying the same make of car doesn't mean you have to swap it every time the latest model comes out, but some people do exactly that for some reason. Same with phones. The new one has a bit more pixels on its screen, a few MHz faster SoC, and? Who cares? We're being sold on superficialities, just like with the newest CS or BF.

I can't really think of any recent games that where marketed in visuals alone though.

Immortals of Aveum never looked good to me marketing was behind it using most of UE5 features but poorly in my opinion.

CP has Pathtracing but that is clearly marked as a techdemo

Alan Wake 2 also has Pathtracing but remedy always tries new hooks when it comes to gameplay and at least try when it comes to story they also recently showed off the game with visuals dialed back to console levels.

You probably need to list a way more specific scenario or a game you think was purely marketed for it's visuals.

Yeah, exactly this. Also, there was Deliver Us The Moon which was marketed as an RT tech demo, even though it's a solid game in my opinion. Then there's Forspoken which is the flag bearer of FSR 3 FG on contrary to the game itself being a flop. Cyberpunk is marketed with path tracing, even though a whole new mission is out with other DLC stuff. You don't hear about those much for some reason. It's all about the looks and performance.

I think personal computers as we all know it will no longer be around, or needed.. a relic of the past..

If that's true, that will be a very sad world.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Yeah, exactly this. Also, there was Deliver Us The Moon which was marketed as an RT tech demo, even though it's a solid game in my opinion. Then there's Forspoken which is the flag bearer of FSR 3 FG on contrary to the game itself being a flop. Cyberpunk is marketed with path tracing, even though a whole new mission is out with other DLC stuff. You don't hear about those much for some reason. It's all about the looks and performance.

I will admit even though I was excited for the expansion doing a brand new playthrough of the game just for it I was more excited for ray reconstruction and honestly what it does well is hella impressive and does improve the overall immersion of the game but until you can comfortable play it on something that cost as much as your 7800XT at 1440p it really is just a tech demo for 4090 and 4080 owners although for them 1080p gamers a 4070 does fine I tested it.

I think I said it before it is a nice to have at best.