The fallout of the success of the Wii raises some questions for me. While I don't think we can definitively say why it was successful (Nintendo brand? Zelda? The controller? Price? Hype? All the above?), we can say that a lot of people are willing to overlook inferior graphics compared to the latest and greatest. The Wii's success smacks of DS vs PSP redux and proves that the traditional console notion that improved graphics are necessary to sell new consoles may be wrong. Is Nintendo right that we had reached some sort of graphical saturation point in the XBox/PS2/Gamecube generation? Certainly, if you compare a Wii game to a 360/PS3 game side-by-side, you see the difference, but in terms of perception, has the public said, "The previous gen's graphics look good enough"? If so, how does this bode for future R&D graphics budgets? Will companies be less willing to spend a lot of money creating detailed assets and squeezing all the performance out of a system if many people simply don't appreciate it?
How much do people really care about graphics?
- Thread starter g35er
- Start date
If it weren't for the control scheme, Wii wouldn't sell remotely as well. I think that's all there is to it. People are lulled in by the hope for a new kind of game. IMO the thing's a bit of a letdown in that area too (if WiiSports control styles and limits become typical).
IMO, Wii's success (as DS's success) has little relevance on the sales of their competitors. Just as I see PSP competing in a slightly different market to what DS is selling to, I think Wii's success is especially because it's something new and fresh and probably is that 'perfect 2nd console'. I also think it's being picked up by people that are not interested in an Xbox360 or a PS3. In fact, considering the Wii's selling price, I'd even go as far to say that it's prime user base are people that probably own a DS and have not been interested in any of the other consoles to date.
Heck, I'll probably end up picking up a Wii one day - not because I don't care about graphics, but because I see it as that perfect 2nd console for some fun with people that are not necessarely into gaming or when having friends over etc.
Heck, I'll probably end up picking up a Wii one day - not because I don't care about graphics, but because I see it as that perfect 2nd console for some fun with people that are not necessarely into gaming or when having friends over etc.
DeadlyNinja
Veteran
If Virtual Console and Live Arcade is any indication, people care more about gameplay than graphics. I mean, if people did care about graphics, neither of these services would be successful. I myself have always firmly believe in gameplay over graphics. I mean, if I remade Superman 64 with PS9 graphics and the original N64 gameplay, would you want to play it again for the PS9 graphics? There are certain exceptions to the rule and I'll try to explain it the best I can without sounding like a hypocrite.
Think about FPS for a second: Would they be as fun or as playable if they ran at 5-10 fps? In the FPS genre, frame rate is very important part of the gameplay. If Half Life ran at 10 fps, do you think it'll be as good as 60 frames? Heck, a FPS at 10 frames would probably be almost unplayable. Ok, I know I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this, but graphically, Quake 4 was very ho-hm IMO. What really caught my eye was the blazing fast frame rate. Keep in mind I saw this game at the Digital Life convention in October, so you know the machine that ran the game wasn't some crappy budget card from a 99 cent store. It was also running on a laptop with a 17 inches LCD I believe. It was the Quake 4 tourney in case anyone else was there that day. I thought Quake 4 looked nice in the pictures, but when I saw it, I wasn't impressed. I don't think FPS is the only genre where graphics can be tide to the gameplay, but they are still the minority to me. Ask yourself this: If Mario ran on a machine capable of building each and every single strand of his mustache with 10 million polygons, do those 10 million polygons make the game 10 million times from fun than Mario 64? Of course this is coming from a guy who still enjoys playing NES games on his computer so others might disagree with me.
Think about FPS for a second: Would they be as fun or as playable if they ran at 5-10 fps? In the FPS genre, frame rate is very important part of the gameplay. If Half Life ran at 10 fps, do you think it'll be as good as 60 frames? Heck, a FPS at 10 frames would probably be almost unplayable. Ok, I know I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this, but graphically, Quake 4 was very ho-hm IMO. What really caught my eye was the blazing fast frame rate. Keep in mind I saw this game at the Digital Life convention in October, so you know the machine that ran the game wasn't some crappy budget card from a 99 cent store. It was also running on a laptop with a 17 inches LCD I believe. It was the Quake 4 tourney in case anyone else was there that day. I thought Quake 4 looked nice in the pictures, but when I saw it, I wasn't impressed. I don't think FPS is the only genre where graphics can be tide to the gameplay, but they are still the minority to me. Ask yourself this: If Mario ran on a machine capable of building each and every single strand of his mustache with 10 million polygons, do those 10 million polygons make the game 10 million times from fun than Mario 64? Of course this is coming from a guy who still enjoys playing NES games on his computer so others might disagree with me.
thatdude90210
Regular
I haven't turned on my 360 since I got my Wii at launch. I was right in the middle of Gears of War. Since then I've gotten halfway through Zelda and pass pro level in every sport in Wiisports.
That's coming from someone who used to upgrade graphic card almost every generation, from Voodoo2 SLI to x800xt (the latest consoles + plasma tv put an end to that upgrade madness).
fun >>>> graphics.
That's coming from someone who used to upgrade graphic card almost every generation, from Voodoo2 SLI to x800xt (the latest consoles + plasma tv put an end to that upgrade madness).
fun >>>> graphics.
I believe that fun in games is split into a few obvious components (graphics, game space <world>, music, story, controls) and depending on one's preference one may weigh more than another. Graphics are a definite enhancer but they are not the end all. Good gameplay (controls, music, game space, story) is made better with good graphics but bad graphics - though not necessarily spoiling the gameplay - keep it from reaching potentially greater enjoyability.
Am I correct in saying this
Yes. Because I know everything and my mother says that I'm smart
Am I correct in saying this
Yes. Because I know everything and my mother says that I'm smartPeople, overall, care about what they are told to care about at any given point, really. Even us, as much as we think we are above the masses in most purchasing decisions are effected by marketing (hype, media, etc.) and get excited about stuff that may not even be that great.
Gameplay doesn't really matter -- many of the best games sell poorly and many games with sucky gameplay sell well.
Graphics don't really matter -- many ugly games sell really well and many beautiful games sell poorly.
Then there's the ugly games with bad gameplay that sell. And beautiful games with good gameplay that don't.
Overall, I think good games generally sell well and bad games sell poorly, but that isn't necessarily a truth that can be followed to the 'T'. If you want to see some strange consumer choices affected by mass mentality then look at Japan's sales of DS and Nintendo's games vs the rest of the game industry (not to say the DS is bad, not at all, but even questionable games are dominanting -- that one's for you xbd! -- because of consumer hysteria).
I'm inclined to believe that hype, brand, marketing, and consumer trends have as much effect on what sells than the actual content sold.
In short, no I don't think graphics really matter -- at least not more so than half a dozen other things affecting consumers at any given time.
Gameplay doesn't really matter -- many of the best games sell poorly and many games with sucky gameplay sell well.
Graphics don't really matter -- many ugly games sell really well and many beautiful games sell poorly.
Then there's the ugly games with bad gameplay that sell. And beautiful games with good gameplay that don't.
Overall, I think good games generally sell well and bad games sell poorly, but that isn't necessarily a truth that can be followed to the 'T'. If you want to see some strange consumer choices affected by mass mentality then look at Japan's sales of DS and Nintendo's games vs the rest of the game industry (not to say the DS is bad, not at all, but even questionable games are dominanting -- that one's for you xbd! -- because of consumer hysteria).
I'm inclined to believe that hype, brand, marketing, and consumer trends have as much effect on what sells than the actual content sold.
In short, no I don't think graphics really matter -- at least not more so than half a dozen other things affecting consumers at any given time.
You could say that we all base our desires on whether we feel part of the crowd, whether that be a conscious decision or not. We are all social animals and so want to feel like we fit in with our peers and are having fun with the same things. Otherwise people will inevitably feel "lonely" and isolated. Marketing appeals to that, among other things.
Of course, we each have individual interests that influence just what we end up playing. And some people are just tormented souls who really try to consciously fight being part of the crowd (or following any other apparent human activity stereotypes) (of course, with mixed results lol).... like me
jamesnmandy
Newcomer
my personal tastes have changed with age and exposure to PC gaming (which i sold to get a 360), i simply cannot stand to play an older game simply because of the crap graphics, it's painful to look at, so it's no longer fun, games like Grand Turismo 2 that me and my friends played to death on the Playstation for instance, it should not have lost it's fun factor just because of it's dated graphics right?....wrong.....it's utterly disgusting to look at now and therefore is absolutely no fun at all, ever since i got a HDTV and HD programming and a 360, i have no interest in even watching TV or playing games at anyone else's house anymore because it's such a let down
graphics and gameplay CAN indeed co-exist, GoW, NFS:MW, PGR3, Ninety Nine Nights, all have great graphics and are also fun to play...this is what i go for now, the game simply has to deliver on both ends or it gets sold/traded, whatever
as far as the consoles go, i think it's apparrent that the Wii's Wiimote wasn't enough to propel it forward far enough to overcome it's last gen graphics, many people on different forums are now "over" the novelty of it and are wanting to sell/trade for a 360 or PS3, as i predicted
graphics and gameplay CAN indeed co-exist, GoW, NFS:MW, PGR3, Ninety Nine Nights, all have great graphics and are also fun to play...this is what i go for now, the game simply has to deliver on both ends or it gets sold/traded, whatever
as far as the consoles go, i think it's apparrent that the Wii's Wiimote wasn't enough to propel it forward far enough to overcome it's last gen graphics, many people on different forums are now "over" the novelty of it and are wanting to sell/trade for a 360 or PS3, as i predicted
Gosh, we're talking about graphics in relation to the gaming market?
Who the heck knows. For all we know, graphics matter as much as the sellers in the market want them to matter. There's no clear theory on how much graphics drives the gaming software market though graphics have mattered historically. Each console cycle is launched due to the console makers and devs claiming that there is something fresh that the market needs. The primary factor in advertising is usually graphics (the extolling of bits and colors and triangles pushed mentioned in a press release or commercial) so it must matter. How much it matters is much more difficult to answer. It only matters if there is a direct corrolation between advertising about graphics and how games that do such sell versus game that don't. There are no numbers on this.
As for the folks mentioning that handheld platforms don't have better graphics than, yet can outsell their console counterparts, please note that: (a) handheld games have fantastic graphics for what they are, which are handheld games (miniturized console games) and (2) are cheaper to develope for devs and purchase for consumers.
Who the heck knows. For all we know, graphics matter as much as the sellers in the market want them to matter. There's no clear theory on how much graphics drives the gaming software market though graphics have mattered historically. Each console cycle is launched due to the console makers and devs claiming that there is something fresh that the market needs. The primary factor in advertising is usually graphics (the extolling of bits and colors and triangles pushed mentioned in a press release or commercial) so it must matter. How much it matters is much more difficult to answer. It only matters if there is a direct corrolation between advertising about graphics and how games that do such sell versus game that don't. There are no numbers on this.As for the folks mentioning that handheld platforms don't have better graphics than, yet can outsell their console counterparts, please note that: (a) handheld games have fantastic graphics for what they are, which are handheld games (miniturized console games) and (2) are cheaper to develope for devs and purchase for consumers.
Try maxing out Oblivion, Rainbow Six Vegas and virtually everything on the market right now and having it run immaculately .
Plus if graphics don't sell, why in the blazes are people buying XB360s and PS3s? And why did people buy PS2s and XBs and GCs instead of sticking with PS1s?
I see what your going for you Shifty Geezer, but remember that the market forced a change by not only selling new hardware but by phasing out previous gen software. Sometimes just the fact that something is new causes folks to buy new hardware. If the big three decided to all come out with control gimmics and barely discernable graphical improvements, I'm sure that consoles (at least with early adopters) would sell as they are selling now.
Exactly. If graphics weren't an issue, consoles wouldn't have progressed any further than Atari. Wii's success is primarily due to the fact that it's extremely cheap in comparison to it's competitors. Also the games are all ages, sex and gamestyle, all inclusive games. In English, it's the system that didn't cost you too much that's fun to break out during a party.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well sure, but that doesn't mean graphics don't matter. People buy new things that improve (or sometimes just give something different) over old things. That could be new control schemes. That could be new graphics. Now consider if Nintendo and Microsoft both released Wiimote type gaming consoles, only one was with Wii's graphics, and one was with XB360's. Assuming the games across the platforms were generally the same with only the graphics different, do you think people would buy the cheaper Wii with inferior graphics, or the MS console with much better graphics? If they were the same price? Well then, obviously the better graphics machine, which means graphics matter. If the better graphics costs more, then there's a question raised about whether the graphics matter as much as the higher pricetag. But they do matter. You can't remove them from the equation. They are one part of the overall package that convines someone to buy a console.
For the record the first time a Wii advert appeared on TV, I was with a couple of mates. One was dozing on the chair and had been enthusing about the Wii for a while. The other and I were sat at the table, and we were talking about Wii, at which point he said 'looks like a PS2 though'. He's no hardcore gamer, but graphics were something he noted and was disappointed by.
At the end of the day some people care more about graphics than new gameplay interfaces. Some care more about new interfaces than graphics. I dare say that everyone could have both, they'd choose both though. Pointing to Wii sales doesn't mean people couldn't care less about graphics. If a rival comes out with fancy interfaces and Nintendo's next console is no different in interface while keeping Wii level graphics, they'll miss out.
Well, certainly people on this forum and other game forums care about graphics but consider the "mainstream". The success of the Wii has sent shockwaves through the industry. While the question of how much of a role graphical power plays in selling a console has in the past been mostly theory, the success of the Wii finally puts at least the beginnings of some empirical evidence before us. Again, while the reason the Wii is successful is up to debate, we can say definitively that its "last-gen" graphics is apparently not the big hinderence that many thought it would be in terms of the console's sellability.
Nintendo's arguement is not that graphics is not an issue, but that "last-gen" graphics are good enough. Regardless of who buys it, in the early analysis, it seems people favor cheap and okay graphics over expensive and high-tech, if the Wii vs PS3 sales are to be believed.
I don't know anyone who thought low quality visuals would be much of a hamper to it's saleability. Apart from a few hardcore graphics fiends who'd refuse to buy it, I think everyone accepts that Wii lives or dies but it's interface.
And as for it's success, I think it's a little premature to call it a runaway success. High volume sales at launch were facilitated by being simple hardware to make and when demand for the next new thing is highest. For all we know PS3 and XB360 would have sold just as quickly if they could have provided those numbers on day 1, showing graphics are just as much a pull. The question remains whether Wii's control scheme has staying power or not. Will these things sell millions in a couple of years time? Or will people be bored of waving a wand by then and want to press buttons but with the benefit of fantastic HD visuals? Some of the fastest selling items in history have also been remarkably short-lived. Barbie has never had the sales frenzy of Cabbage Patch Kids, but which one is the toy kids still buy?
DeadlyNinja
Veteran
It's called a Nintendo DS. That system has a combination of N64/PS1 quality and it is unstoppable right now.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 13524
- Games Industry
