How and why did we become so obsessed with graphics?

[wNotyarD]

The moment I can jack into the metaverse through a socket in my neck I'll be jumping on the bandwagon!

Searching for Abstergo agents...

 

[Belfaborac]

That's where I would draw the line, I am not,,"merging with tech" I'll leave that , Ty, not a big metaverse fan though either.

Not me. I'll be (well, in the extremely unlikely event that I'll be sufficiently affluent) buying in a metric f#ckton of instant noodles (japanese tonkotsu and thai creamy tom-yum), hiring a nurse to feed and clean me and then jack in for the duration. Of course, I'll be nearly dead (or fully dead) by the time the possibility arrives, so the duration will be rather limited.

To me, it all started with the release of the Voodoo 3DFX.

Yup, me too. Revelation time.

Why would anyone not be obsessed over graphics is my question

That is indeed the question. All else being equal, better graphics equals more immersion equals more enjoyment.

It's not applicable to every game or every genre of games of course, but broadly speaking.

 

[AusWolf]

Why would anyone not be obsessed over graphics is my question

I'm staring at how nicely modelled Shadowheart in BG3 is for hours, it easily added more 20 hours to my play time just dressing up characters. Heck I would definitely play BG3 again when a remake come out in 5 years perhaps.

And yeah I replayed Witcher 3 when RTGI patch came out

If that's your take on it, sure, go ahead. I think there's a line between amazement and obsession, and I'd rather not cross that line. It's not just healthier, but cheaper, too.

All else being equal, better graphics equals more immersion equals more enjoyment.

And that's the thing. Why do we focus on graphics instead of the "all else", since it's very far from equal?

 

[Belfaborac]

Obviously because it matters. A game with bad gameplay and glorious graphics is better than a game with bad gameplay and bad graphics. The point of some seems to be that glorious graphics must equal bad gameplay, but that makes exactly zero sense. It has been done, more than once, and I want more of it. Lots and lots more.

 

[freeagent]

Why would anyone not be obsessed over graphics is my question

It is a good question, I love all the deets turned up

 

[Vayra86]

To me, it all started with the release of the Voodoo 3DFX. Until then, quality never mattered much (Wolfenstein, Duke Nukem). But the day this card came out, and I saw a demo of Unreal playing at 60 FPS on it, I became fascinated with how beautiful the scenery was. From there on, I changed my computer religiously every summer using my summer job money to get the best GC possible (Nvidia Xentor 16, Nvidia TNT 32, Geforce GTS etc). Oh, good memories!

Yeah this is where graphics quality started to become a thing for me too. Unreal 1. Damn son. That game at that time

 

[AusWolf]

A game with bad gameplay and glorious graphics is better than a game with bad gameplay and bad graphics.

I would argue that it's not. A game with bad gameplay is a game with bad gameplay.

The point of some seems to be that glorious graphics must equal bad gameplay, but that makes exactly zero sense.

It's not the point here, though, and I never implied as such.

 

[Belfaborac]

What is the point though? I find it blatantly obvious why people are, if not obsessed ('cause that's never very good), then at least enamoured with great graphics quality - it just looks so damn good.

No, I won't play a game with terrible gameplay just because it looks good, but likewise I won't play a game with good gameplay if I think it looks terrible. There are no doubt plenty of both, but there is also no shortage at all of games where neither aspect is bad. Many, many more than I will ever get around to playing, in fact, so for myself I don't see where the big problem lies. Just do what I do: wait for reviews and don't buy the games you think you won't like. I haven't bought a game I though was sh*t in....oh, I don't know how long really.

Then again, one man's/girls' bad gameplay is another man's/girls' good gameplay, so where does that leave us? At least glorious graphics are, to a far greater degree, glorious graphics regardless.

 

[Noci]

Well after reading most of the posts here I get some more insight in how other peeps experience the history of pc game graphics and based on that project their expectations to future developments.
I agree a catchy storyline and smooth gameplay is just as much important as super duper graphics.
I think a game is good if I'm swallowed into this virtual world and forget about the reality around me. It's like making a journey with new impressions around every corner

I strongly believe that game developers will keep on pushing the limits on what is technically possible, just to stand out of the competition and get the biggest piece of the pie. Be it with graphic realism or artistic expression, whatever sells is leading. They all want to go for the big bucks, wouldn't you? Game developers who do it out of passion to share their creative child with the world are commendable, but at the end of the day they have to pay their bills too.
Hardware developers will pretty much do the same as this is their business model, making money.

So as long as we all are paying for this and jump on the wagon the navigational lines are pretty much set, with some detours as some hypes show up along the way.
I also wonder what he impact of AI will be and how it will leave it's footprint on the future directions.

As for the obsession for graphics

And as long as there are different game pc configurations, there will always be peeps comparing to and bitching about others because that is human nature, it is in our genes. Without competition we probably would still walk aroud naked and live in caves. But we evolved (well, some of us did ), so there is no need for the annoyances as metioned by the OP.
So my advise; live and let live. Advise people on possible improvements based on knowledge but don't dictate, your perception might be the weird one here. Always try to look at a dilemma from both perspectives and deal with the fact that other people don't share your opinion and try to respect that.

For me personally, my rig suits me. Whatever I throw at it, it can deal with it in a way that is satisfactory for me. If not I try to tweak or adjust my criteria.
Some folks here with a waaay bigger budget (or other priorities) have a top tier power house of a pc may find that strange, but hey, that's your problem .

 

[kurosagi01]

As much as i love the growth in graphics realism or more importantly the potential going forward, i totally agree with this guy.... its still touch and go and sometimes the inconsistencies or lack of realism in achieving realism is evident. We have to admit we've come a long way from those block-2D or texture-less 3D play screeners. Atleast its something. Yep more work required for captivating and gameplay addictive titles but lucky for me im a simple MP shoot-em-up and strategy gamer and these categories are less story fixated hence WIN WIN here!

I mean the last game that made me go wow at the graphics was Bloodborne.
But the art direction,story, voice acting and the gameplay is what makes it stand out.
The only ones that seem to get it at the moment is from software.
Sure they are not using the latest and greatest "graphic " engine but they have mastered the engine they are using to build an overall a great game that ticks all the boxes.

 

[R-T-B]

That's where I would draw the line, I am not,,"merging with tech" I'll leave that , Ty, not a big metaverse fan though either.

I feel that way now but question if I will retain that belief as I grow older, and my body begins to fail me.

 

[Totally]

I would argue that it's not. A game with bad gameplay is a game with bad gameplay.

But it's going to get a lot more people to swipe their card before they know what's up, there's still a healthy population who really don't research and "window shop." It's a lot costlier to develop good or fix bad gameplay. This is the crux of the issue from the business side, risk vs. reward is lopsided. On the consumer side I think we're also part of the problem in that we're a lot more forgiving "as long as it's pretty" and everything else isn't a hot mess. If the graphics are bad there will never be and end to the criticism.

 

[user112]

I personally don't care if a games graphics look ultra real or not but having enough detail to know I'm looking at a dog with out walking up to it to read the text "bark,bark" is always nice. even better to have nice smooth text that doesn't look like it's made of minecraft blocks or a Rorschach test. after that a wide range of vibrant colors is a pretty good way to keep a game feeling fresh if your going to be looking at it for hours. then you have more modern 3D games that tend to involve high speed meaning you want higher frame rates so the game can react as fast as you can.

 

[freeagent]

Remember that movie called Gamer?

That's how it will be like.. the ping man, the ping..

 

[lexluthermiester]

How and why did we become so obsessed with graphics?

This question is very compelling. I have a theory that has multiple aspects.

1. We have been striving for 6 decades to take computing power to the next level. It is a thirst for advancement that started before most of us visiting TPU were born and is an ever-present part of the computer technology sector.

2. People are "wired" to be looking for the "latest & greatest".

3. Where gaming is specifically concerned, ever since the very first "video" games, the gaming public has hungered for ever more impressive visuals and experiences, with a lot of people wanting to see "real to the touch" levels of details. We're closer to that then we have ever been and yet people still want more.

4. The age-old mentality of one-up-man-ship prevails. Everyone always wants the tech that is "better" and more advanced than their neighbors/friends/family.

The nuances of these thoughts can get much more fine-grained, but these are the basics, in my observations. This is my theory.

 

[de.das.dude]

Late to the thread,

but i recently got an Odroid Go Advance black edition for some old school retro gaming.

I honestly cant believe how engaging games could be with 8 bit graphics. In fact i havent felt this engrossed in a game (pokemon) in such a long damn time.

 

[AusWolf]

What is the point though? I find it blatantly obvious why people are, if not obsessed ('cause that's never very good), then at least enamoured with great graphics quality - it just looks so damn good.

Everybody goes through some level of wow factor when looking at pretty graphics - it's natural. When you take it to the level of arguing that everybody should enable X feature because it makes gaming unquestionably better, or that gaming below a certain resolution or frame rate is dogshit and everybody should accept it as fact - now, that's something else, and this is the point of the question here.

Late to the thread,

but i recently got an Odroid Go Advance black edition for some old school retro gaming.

I honestly cant believe how engaging games could be with 8 bit graphics. In fact i havent felt this engrossed in a game (pokemon) in such a long damn time.

I've just tried W40k: Boltgun which looks like Doom 2 all over again with slightly upgraded graphics (it has polygons) and ultrawide support. And it's fine.

 

[Vayra86]

What is the point though? I find it blatantly obvious why people are, if not obsessed ('cause that's never very good), then at least enamoured with great graphics quality - it just looks so damn good.

No, I won't play a game with terrible gameplay just because it looks good, but likewise I won't play a game with good gameplay if I think it looks terrible. There are no doubt plenty of both, but there is also no shortage at all of games where neither aspect is bad. Many, many more than I will ever get around to playing, in fact, so for myself I don't see where the big problem lies. Just do what I do: wait for reviews and don't buy the games you think you won't like. I haven't bought a game I though was sh*t in....oh, I don't know how long really.

Then again, one man's/girls' bad gameplay is another man's/girls' good gameplay, so where does that leave us? At least glorious graphics are, to a far greater degree, glorious graphics regardless.

Well, Immortals of Aveum: its glorious graphics are directly detrimental to good gameplay. Where does that slot in for you? Or do you not consider those graphics glorious?

This is a big point that the guy in that video a page or so ago made, and its a very interesting one imho. The increased amount of detail is actually damaging gameplay.

 

[Belfaborac]

It doesn't really slot in anywhere for me, since the game doesn't interest me, I know hardly anything about it and I'll never buy it. Whatever may be the case with Immortals of Aveum it is a single example which cannot prove anything conclusively either way. I'm sure it is easily possible to overload a game with graphical effects to the point where gameplay and functionality will suffer, but I can't see how graphical fidelity can do the same thing. Unless, of course, it makes the game impossible to run properly, thereby making everything suffer. In that case it's just a bad job all-round.

Anyway, I find it bothersome that for some the argument seems to be (if only between the lines) that if the graphics are great, then it must follow that the gameplay will suffer. That simply isn't, nor has it ever been, the case. There are, has been and likely always will be all manner of permutations. And since it is functionally impossible to reach anything even remotely like a consensus on what good and bad gameplay is....

On a purely personal level I would cite Baldur's Gate 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 as evidence that you can indeed have both excellent gameplay and excellent graphics. The existence of games which only have the graphics element and are otherwise "empty" is likely due to some combination of greed and laziness on the developer side, while those with only the gameplay element are likely indie games with small budgets and/or specific audiences in mind. At least in general, or so I assume. Either way the solution to either, or both, is of course to simply not buy them, not think about them, or, like me, even know about them.

Everything in the world moves on a curve, be it the economy, democracy, or anything else. Sometimes the right way, sometimes the wrong way. If the gaming market is shit at the moment and getting shittier, the solution is to do something about it. Don't buy games you think are crap, or at least write bad reviews if you for some inexplicable reason do so any way. And also write directly to the developer, expressing your feelings and opinions. If enough people agree with you and do the same, things will likely get better. If people can't be arsed, things stay the same or continue downhill.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Anyway, I find it bothersome that for some the argument seems to be (if only between the lines) that if the graphics are great, then it must follow that the gameplay will suffer. That simply isn't, nor has it ever been, the case. There are, has been and likely always will be all manner of permutations. And since it is functionally impossible to reach anything even remotely like a consensus on what good and bad gameplay is....

I don't think that's anyone's thesis. Immortals of Aveum was brought up as an example of how highly realistic/detailed graphics can negatively impact gameplay, but I don't think anyone's argued that they will. Visual design is important regardless of fidelity level.

Regarding graphics obsession, regarding performance reviews here on TPU, the game will look perfectly fine to my eyes, but comments will frequently pop up saying, "looks worse than games 5 yrs ago" (which may be true when compared to the best-looking from then), or even "looks like literal garbage". Does everyone care that much? No. But it seems like enough people do that visuals get more dev time relative to other factors than some of us feel is warranted. As a midrange (more like low end now that the "traditional" low end has basically ceased to exist) customer, I'd prefer a game look a little less detailed and run well on modest hardware than look mind-blowingly fantastic at 4K Ultra but only be playable at 1080p Med on 2- or 3-gen-old midrange cards. Of the recent analyses, the 1-gen-old 3050 (which admittedly stretches the boundary of the term "mid-range") only manages 1080p60U in CS2, AC6 and Atlas Fallen. And guess what we have with all three? Complaints about visuals.

 

[nguyen]

I don't think that's anyone's thesis. Immortals of Aveum was brought up as an example of how highly realistic/detailed graphics can negatively impact gameplay, but I don't think anyone's argued that they will. Visual design is important regardless of fidelity level.

Regarding graphics obsession, regarding performance reviews here on TPU, the game will look perfectly fine to my eyes, but comments will frequently pop up saying, "looks worse than games 5 yrs ago" (which may be true when compared to the best-looking from then), or even "looks like literal garbage". Does everyone care that much? No. But it seems like enough people do that visuals get more dev time relative to other factors than some of us feel is warranted. As a midrange (more like low end now that the "traditional" low end has basically ceased to exist) customer, I'd prefer a game look a little less detailed and run well on modest hardware than look mind-blowingly fantastic at 4K Ultra but only be playable at 1080p Med on 2- or 3-gen-old midrange cards. Of the recent analyses, the 1-gen-old 3050 (which admittedly stretches the boundary of the term "mid-range") only manages 1080p60U in CS2, AC6 and Atlas Fallen. And guess what we have with all three? Complaints about visuals.

I played a bit of Immortals of Aveum and the graphics look extremely mediocre to me, combined with unskippable cutscenes put the Immortal of Aveum in the "immediate refund category".

Not to mention Immortals of Aveum run like crap on every GPU, poor FPS = poor visual presentation, so yeah the game has quite bad "graphics" along with many other factors.

 

[wolar]

Good graphics is just a tool, just like good voice acting, narration etc., all together combined make up a game.
I don't believe good graphics necessarily means high fidelity and RT and whatnot, good graphics are made to fit the game, they could look like 2000s graphics and still be topnotch.
At the end a game is how it plays, to each game different weight is put in each aspect (way many aspects exist than what i listed) to make it good.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Good graphics is just a tool, just like good voice acting, narration etc., all together combined make up a game.
I don't believe good graphics necessarily means high fidelity and RT and whatnot, good graphics are made to fit the game, they could look like 2000s graphics and still be topnotch.
At the end a game is how it plays, to each game different weight is put in each aspect (way many aspects exist than what i listed) to make it good.

My favorite take on the relationship between graphics and visuals:

 

[Belfaborac]

As a midrange (more like low end now that the "traditional" low end has basically ceased to exist) customer, I'd prefer a game look a little less detailed and run well on modest hardware than look mind-blowingly fantastic at 4K Ultra but only be playable at 1080p Med on 2- or 3-gen-old midrange cards.

Of course, but that's a question of how much thought and work has been put into making the game scalable and hence playable at all levels. It's not a point against also having mindblowing graphics at the high end in one and the same game.

 

[ymdhis]

People have been trashing each other for which one of them can run better graphics as far back as the 80s and 90s (Speccy vs C64, Amiga vs PC, 16-bit console wars, the era of Doom Clones, the first 3d accelerators, etc). This is nothing new.

It's just more annoying today with all the youtuber dumbasses showing off their sponsored hardware builds, the paid company shills posting on boards and social media (nvidia has those as an official job position, community manager or something like that), and because every component is ten times as expensive and uses four times as much power as they used to be.