*spin-off* Importance of graphics in the purchase decision process

[Nesh]

Graphics are very important depending on genre, purpose and the target audience.
Graphics are less important for titles such as Dance Central, Singstar or Guitar Hero. But extremely important for games such as Mass Effect where expression of character development, emotion and plot is dependable on visual and audio quality. If it doesnt do well there it fails to meet expectations and achieve its purpose. The experience is tied to the visual quality.
Child of Eden relies on art direction more than visuals that push the envelope.
Gran Turismo has to push the visuals to the limit. The user expects to see cars and tracks represented as close to reality as possible. It targets realism

It is also important what kind of trade offs are made between visual fidelity and performance. Some games need to sacrifice visual feats in favor of fast smooth experience. If the Devil May Cry reboot looks much better than DMC4 but is less responsive expect the target audience to be pissed as gameplay is hindered. For that game timing and control are crucial like a fighting game. Do the opposite for games such as Uncharted and Gears and people would be pissed that the visual expression is not good enough to be immersed into the world

The general idea is that all games have to meet some visual quality, but some have to push reach higher

no graphics are not everything but if this generation taught us anything the higher perforoming 3rd party games (and online service) for the majority of this gen sold a lot more machines for 360 than anyone ever expected.

I doubt this generation has taught us that. Software sales are mostly correlated to user base than with which platform had the best performing version. Multiplatform games are so close in performance that it doesnt make much of a difference anyways to the average joe unless the performance disparity of 2006-2007 continued through the present. In European regions there are many examples where PS3 software sales outperform 360 software sales, unlike the US where 360 outperforms the PS3 but thats where 360 hardware sales do better.

 

[AlphaWolf]

The importance of the device specs is going to depend on a significant visible difference in output quality. If they achieve movie quality visuals with the lower machine specs, it might be hard to convince people to shell out extra for subtle differences in framerate or levels of effects that could be achieved by the more powerful machine.

Not that I think they could ever get near that with a 6670, or that a 6670 derivative will be appearing in any console launching in 2013.

 

[TheChefO]

Graphics pull in, It's then uptown the gameplay to keep them.

EXACTLY.

For those that can't see this or dispute it, you're blind to reality.

Now, this isn't to say an "ugly" game can't sell... Minecraft by most modern standards would fall into that category, but the unique gameplay made up for it.

But revolutionary or even unique gameplay is rare these days.

And selling on such a concept is difficult to do as it isn't easy to show why someone should buy a game due to how it plays.

It's much easier to say, "Did you see BF3?! Check this out!".

Everyone gets that.

Not everyone gets Minecraft just from looking at it. Traditional gamers are generally intrigued enough to take a look in the first place and look past the graphics and see it for it's "inner beauty" ... but the majority of the world is filled with Shallow Hals.

Having said that, if BF3 played like ****, well it wouldn't get very far either as bottom line, it is a videogame. It's just that better graphics help to immerse one into the world that the game developer intended which can lead to a much more enjoyable experience.


Bottom line, graphics should never get in the way of intended presentation, but that is still a lofty goal to aspire to yet... at least in 3D.

 

[Rodéric]

Marketing images is dead easy, marketing gameplay is pretty tough...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Also the graphics only need be 'good enough'. If the graphics are in the same ballpark, like the usual XB and PS2 versions of the same game, the extra cost of XB's power wasn't enough to draw people away. Thus a console designer doesn't need to aim for the very best possible at any cost, but the right amount to look good to Joe Gamer while fitting in with the corporate business strategy. If your rival is losing billions including a 4 Oompaloompa GPU, if a 2 Oompaloompa GPU won't look massively different it could well be worth the savings, especially if you can then offer a price advatange to your console.

We're even at a point where launching with bleeding-edge hardware might be overkill. For console gamers who haven't seen the best on PC, a console upgrade to something midrange is still going to look fabulous to them versus the current low-IQ offerings on PS360.

 

[Prophecy2k]

I don't even believe that this kind of thing is even up for debate on B3D of all places (where 99% of the conversation on here is about graphics and the HW and technology that renders it).

There is more than enough evidence to support the notion that graphics are important. It's the primary reason that we go through console cycles in the first place.

Also, to those people mentioning the Wii as an example of graphics not being important to the mass market consumer, I think you guys are confusing graphics techology with the broad term "graphics" which encompasses much more than that.

There are many games on the Wii which are artistically and technically beautiful, given the technological limitations of the HW. Mario Galaxy 1/2, Zelda SS and a plethora of other games, many of which are some of the highest selling games this generation.

The Wii's whole appeal is not only it's motion controls but the beautiful, colourful, appealing and artistically driven games available on the machine. The Wii only goes to prove how important graphics are to every gamer, alongside other consideration when buying into a dedicated gaming platform.

Of course graphics aren't the sole purchasing factor, but to try to intimate that graphics are completely unimportant is naive, disingenuous and completely ignores the world and history of the games industry we follow today.

 

[function]

Just make Uncharted 4 an Xbox 3 exclusive! Then Xbox 3 owners can say their machine is actually more powerful + lazydevs etc.

The number of people that really care about graphics is smaller than the number of people that claim they really care about graphics. Most people just care somewhat and balance it against a number of other things. We really are hitting a point of diminishing returns, and it's a long time since processing power was the largest or even a significant bottleneck in the continued evolution of gameplay mechanics. Also, not every "hardcore" gamer wants, or is able to get (kid gamer, married man gamer) a huge noisy super expensive hotbox (that scares ladies) under the telly in the living room. The $200 graphics card you can afford and that fits in you PC is better than the $500 graphics card you can't afford and that doesn't fit.

There's an awful lot of bullshit attached to this "hardcore" gamer idea. Presumeably, I shouldn't game on my Xbox any more as my PC blows it out of the water (in theory), nor should I have enjoyed playing on my Megadrive before Xmas (a real one, not a damn emulator!). Just what does being "hardcore" mean?

I like Kinect, and I want an even more kickass version of it to be standard with the next Xbox. There are about a billion Kinect related ideas that I'd like to see devs try to implement in their games and all of them excite me more than seeing Gears of Brofist Zone 4 in 3D HD. Which I would actually like to see, I'd just like to see other things more.

A 6670 would be disappointing, but if I get something good in exchange (no leaf blower + decent flash cache + MegaKinect + Live BC) I'll really not be crying.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't even believe that this kind of thing is even up for debate on B3D of all places (where 99% of the conversation on here is about graphics and the HW and technology that renders it).

There is more than enough evidence to support the notion that graphics are important. It's the primary reason that we go through console cycles in the first place.

Of course they are important. The question is how important as a buying decision, and what should be invested in them. History shows that the most awesomest graphics (PC Engine etc.) don't equal success without the rest of the package working well for consumers, and Wii shows that skimping on graphics can still lead to a successful product, as does Gameboy (lower graphics to improve other higher value features in a handheld).

Where we might all want the bestest graphics hardware ever assembled to appear in the next consoles, ratioanl thought has to look at this objectively from the POV of releasing a successful, profitable product, which is what half of GPU development is. In that regards, the bestest evarr graphix possible might not make economic sense next-gen, and quite possibly won't lead to significant loss in sales either. People are still buying PS360s now despite their graphics being well below what PC achieves in the same games, because the overall package of the consoles works well with consumers on many levels. Likewise next-gen, perhaps for the first time ever with consoles, the PC will no doubt be ahead of the best consoles can reaslitically offer because the PC has introduced multiple GPU setups. As the consoles cannot compete with the PC for the graphics crown, a more reasonable target has to be picked. Ergo the question isn't, "are graphics (quintessentially) important?" but, "how important are graphics and what level should next-gen target?"

 

[Kaotik]

The number of people that really care about graphics is smaller than the number of people that claim they really care about graphics.

Those who really care about graphics use PC, or live in a barrell where they haven't ever seen PC graphics.
The jaggies on console games, with or without any AA methods they might use, are just horrendous

 

[AlphaWolf]

Those who really care about graphics use PC, or live in a barrell where they haven't ever seen PC graphics.
The jaggies on console games, with or without any AA methods they might use, are just horrendous

There's a huge gap between caring and needing the absolute best, and that goes for PC gamers as well, many (the vast majority) of whom have less than optimal setups.

 

[Kaotik]

There's a huge gap between caring and needing the absolute best, and that goes for PC gamers as well, many (the vast majority) of whom have less than optimal setups.

...which still go rocketing past anything consoles can offer

 

[function]

Yeah, Intel integrated graphics are like ascending to gaming heaven!

I've got a 560 Ti - the bit where all the newer drivers (including the Skyrim optimised ones) keep crashing and recovering while on the desktop is just a bonus that makes my 1337 graphics taste all the sweeter, and it's something consoles can't compete with.

Entirely inappropriate analogy: a homely girl who's trustworthy and good fun can be preferable to a bitch with a pretty face.

 

[kagemaru]

If the PS4 launched at the same price as the Xbox but offered higher performance, I would surely pick up the PS4. I understand graphics aren't everything but with the stronger console im almost guaranteed to have the better versions of multi-platform games. Besides nothing stops me from picking up a possibly cheaper Xbox down the line when the next halo, gears, *insert killer app here*. It just wouldn't be my primary console.

 

[Rodéric]

As long as the graphics don't look "dated" I'm fine with them.
I said it a couple of times already, but it's more than time for art to get back in graphics, photo-realism is nice, but doesn't age well, and more of the same gets boring ;p

(I think the Wii worked well because it didn't look that aged at release, it's not quite the case anymore, it looks clearly dated, and only the most graphics art oriented one still look fine.)

 

[Prophecy2k]

As long as the graphics don't look "dated" I'm fine with them.
I said it a couple of times already, but it's more than time for art to get back in graphics, photo-realism is nice, but doesn't age well, and more of the same gets boring ;p

(I think the Wii worked well because it didn't look that aged at release, it's not quite the case anymore, it looks clearly dated, and only the most graphics art oriented one still look fine.)

I heartily agree

 

[Prophecy2k]

Ergo the question isn't, "are graphics (quintessentially) important?" but, "how important are graphics and what level should next-gen target?"

Ok, i guess i was slightly confused then by the thread title which seems to pose the question about whether graphics are important in a gamer's purchasing decision.

I interpreted that as to mean regarding a system or a game, do graphics matter at all or are things like gameplay, story etc more important.

For me graphics are essential. I'm a bonafide graphics whore without apology.

I own a gaming PC, but i prefer the conveniece of consoles, and so i will be going with the most powerful box next-gen regardless (although i'll more than likely end up buying both Sony & MS' boxes by the end of the gen, depending on what Sony does with PSN and their party features, and what my twin bro does).

Still i'll buy the vast majority of my games on the most powerful box, because as Kagemaru said, if i'm paying £30-£40 on a game i want to play the definitive console version.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If the PS4 launched at the same price as the Xbox but offered higher performance, I would surely pick up the PS4.

And plenty of other folk would to. But if XB3 was $200 cheaper and the difference wasn't particularly noticeable, would you still prefer more powerful hardware? Do you think the vast majority of console buyers would? I wouldn't PS2 proved that categorically; the advantage of XB visually just wasn't enough to justify the cost. Throw in all the other stuff like paid-for Live versus free gaming, or your existing friend network, and a difference of...25% in the visuals (slightly more polygonal characters, a few less dynamic lights, a little lower IQ) probably won't be important to most buyers. In fact this gen proves that. A lot of mulitplatform titles look better on XB360 but people still choose PS3.

Still i'll buy the vast majority of my games on the most powerful box, because as Kagemaru said, if i'm paying £30-£40 on a game i want to play the definitive console version.

Do you own both consoles? Most folk don't, so they have to pick the platform for the generation. If one looks a dog compared to other(s), it's an easy choice, but if the difference is marginal then the choice becomes muddied by the many other variables. Skyrim on PS3 may not be the optimal version but it's the version I'd buy for my £30-40 because I don't have another platform to play it on.

 

[sebbbi]

I think a common misconception is that a fast GPU would only provide increased eye candy, and does not improve the gameplay at all. But I personally feel that frame rate plays a huge role in gameplay. Solid (vsynch locked) 60 fps gameplay is a completely different experience than unlocked 30 fps (dipping to 25 fps whenever somehting important happens). Variable frame length is a bad thing for game experience (you never feel you have full control over the game -- really important thing in precision sensitive games), and increased input lag (33 ms frames x 2 = 66 ms input lag, a common scenario in multithreaded 30 fps game engine) make it harder to reach to gameplay events.

Also it takes more GPU resources to render dynamic scenes (dynamic lighting vs baked lightmaps, dynamic deforming objects and destructable scenery vs static meshes, etc). Extra GPU resources allows developers to create game worlds that are more dynamic. And more dynamic interactive worlds are one of the key things that players always ask for when talking about future consoles.

 

[Rangers]

Of course they are important. The question is how important as a buying decision, and what should be invested in them. History shows that the most awesomest graphics (PC Engine etc.) don't equal success without the rest of the package working well for consumers, and Wii shows that skimping on graphics can still lead to a successful product, as does Gameboy (lower graphics to improve other higher value features in a handheld).

Wii was a qualified success though, as I always point out if you add up the HD consoles they sold quite a bit better (and they're essentially the same machine). People want to act like Wii steamrolled this gen but it really didn't. Another issue was the lack of longevity in the platform, and total lack of third party support, both arguably attributable to lack of graphics power (Nintendo even said as much I believe when they asked third parties why they didn't support Wii the third parties said "graphics", hence Wii U was born to at least catch up to PS360). Right now Wii is on it's deathbead while 360 and a lesser extent PS3 roll along in year 5 and 6.

Handhelds imo have a long history of graphics not being all that important (EG, DS vs PSP). So it shouldn't surprise that so far in Japan 3DS is kicking Vita's tail. I dont think that market plays by the same rules.

I guess we have to be careful about defining our market where graphics are key, I say it's the traditional hardcore console market. That's not the market Wii won.

 

[Mize]

Put me down as a graphics whore who will buy the one with the best hardware first...then the other one a bit later