Anyone else just no where near as invested in visual fidelity/performance as the rest of this forum/enthusiast circles?

[The Boat]

I don't care nearly as much about resolution as most people and even framerate to a point. I like my games stable and the more the better of course, but for some people even 30 FPS seems like the end of the world and, you know, sometimes it's just fine. As for the rest, well, yeah I also don't care that much.

 

[Thera]

I care about it. But that doesn't mean that's my priority.
That's also why I think the main upgrade of next gen is the SSD above anything else.

 

[RedAhmed]

Me too. I don't care about graphics fidelity, as long as a game performs well. Whether it performs well in 480p or in 4k HDR, they're both good to me.
Which is also why I don't understand complaints like low resolution games looking too blurry on their screen that they can't play it anymore.
I mean, everyone has their own standards, but I can tolerate any game as long as it runs well. I care more about 60 fps vs 30 fps, but even there it's not much of a dealbreaker if a game is 30 fps when it could be 60 (with small exceptions, I love Mario games and racing games to be 60 fps personally).

The only thing that excites me about the power increase for each next gen is that we can get games on a bigger/better scope and/or new gameplay improvements. And not having stuff on 4k HDR or ray tracing.

 

[Vitamin_B_Complex]

People who refuse to play a game because it's 30fps are clowns. There i said it.

(Unless low fps makes them nauseous, which only applies to a fraction of a fraction of the gaming community.)

 

[Deleted member 5127]

I've got a 4K telly and I don't really care about 4K in games, is it nice? Sure, but 1080p still looks fantastic IMO. I do care about 60fps as that actually impacts gameplay, but I'm not gonna pass on a game because it's 30fps.

Resolution bumps aren't that impressive anymore, art style, talent and polish go a long way, to me Mario Odyssey and even Mario Kart 8 which is pretty old by now, look a lot better than the Crash games on the PS4.

 

[mentok15]

It depends. Been playing destiny 2 on a one s. Its a dynamic 1080p at 30fps and I still think it looks good.

 

[Menchin]

I don't care very much about fidelity on consoles, though at least passable 30FPS is a must

On my PC however, I expect high fidelity and high performance, since I do have the specs to support it

 

[greengr]

The deepest critique some people can grasp is a DF video explaining which numbers are higher than others.

Click to shrink...

You dont understand, xbone is 900p upscaled to 1080p,ps4 is native 1080p thats MAJOR difference /s

 

[Dervius]

I know people have always cared about graphics, but I feel like things in enthusiast circles (based on places like Era) have gotten worse when it comes to the all encompassing importance that is given to graphics and performance. Digital Foundry videos are shared for everything and viewed with the same level of importance as as critical analysis of a game and whether it's actually any good.

For me at least, this stuff only comes into play in two situations - where poor performance genuinely impacts the playability of a game, or I've got multiple options on where to buy something. I understand if you own multiple platforms, it makes total sense to want to buy the best performing version (assuming the cost is the same).

Now I'm not a '30FPS is the same as 60FPS' person. I've built my own PCs and was primarily a PC-person from 2004-2014. Obviously 60FPS is better. But the importance given to it just seems to go way over the top. Similarly with resolution. I remember tossing up whether to buy Mark of the Ninja on Switch last year, and a bunch of people said it was 30FPS so don't bother. But I bought it and it was great. Would 60FPS have been better? Sure, but it wouldn't have fundamentally changed how much I enjoyed the game. I just find it wild people are making purchasing decisions on this stuff to be sorta crazy.

Click to shrink...

I agree it can be overblown in enthusiast circles, but games are a technical medium as much as an artistic one.

People fawning over the technical accomplishments highlighted by things like Digital Foundry videos doesn't seem out of place given the nature of gaming.

I'm not fussed about cars or motorsport, but there ate scores of people who love the granular detail and technical achievement new advances represent. But to most of us, cars will get us from A to B at 70mph or less.

 

[Leviathan]

I'm with you. Absolutely nothing but the game library matters to me when it comes to buying a new console. That's part of why I'm not even following news on the new ones until they announce something unavailable for the old generation that I desperately need to play.

Mostly a PC gamer but I've definitely been a bit confused by the shift in focus on console.

 

[Donniewahlberg]

I really just care that a game is fun and doesn't run poorly, oppose to any imaginary line in the sand for what makes a game *good enough*. I couldn't have told you the pikmin 3 demo is 576p in handheld for example lol it looks great, it plays great, what else do you need? To each their own of course, I can't sit and tell someone that their opinion isn't their opinion but that's where I'm at.

 

[Elven_Star]

RTSS and all types of fps counters should be banned.

 

[Aniki]

Well higher frame rates are always nice and make the game better and i love games with amazing graphics but if a game doesn't feature these then it's absolutely not a dealbreaker. There is more to games then just graphics and how well they perform. Bad performance only ever makes me drop a game when it really hinders me playing the game adequately.

 

[giapel]

My main console is the switch. I don't have a gaming PC. I have a PS4 but never cared for the Pro as I find it a waste of time. So yeah, I'm in the same boat with you OP.

 

[Magic Mushroom]

Gameplay > GFX.

Click to shrink...

Obviously, but they're not mutually exclusive. I do want my games to look the best they can and feel super smooth to play (didn't buy that 3080 for nothing). It improves the overall experience of playing the game.

 

[FarSight XR-20]

I'm with you OP. I don't care about 4k or 60 fps.

 

[toy_brain]

I care about v-sync and the framerate being mostly stable, but that's about it.
We are so far into diminishing returns that I really cannot get excited about Raytracing, or 120fps modes, or 4k.
And while I think the Digital Foundry guys do interesting and thorough analysis, it comes off as increasingly asinine when they are zooming into individual frames to count pixels and point out differences in lighting effects. It also misleads* people into caring about things they otherwise wouldn't, and stokes fanboy flames.
Worrying about the framerate, or the lighting, is missing the bigger picture of what the game is like to play, what message its trying to get across, and how interesting the games world is to explore and play around in.
Those are the important things.

*Not trying to call the DF guys deceptive. They just put the info out there, people then mislead themselves.

 

[Muitnorts]

This is the least I've cared going generation to generation.
I get excited by great looking games but the visuals and performance of current gen is still pretty impressive with games like TLOU2 and GoT.

But then I care enough that I've preordered so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Tavernade]

Yeah I get utterly baffled here where people act like a game not being 60 FPS at all times means it's a broken scam and an embarrassment on all of Company X and how could anyone support them.

60 FPS is nice and I do notice but if you put a gun to my head I couldn't think of a single example of it.

 

[Mona]

visual fidelity can kick rocks, performance on the other hand...

but then you've got games like Uncharted 4 that look pretty damn smooth at 30, how does ND do that

 

[werezompire]

The load time improvements are of much more interest to me than the visual improvements when it comes to the next gen. Hate load times so much.

 

[The Shape]

Me.

Sometimes I have to take a break from this forum, the discussion is very tiring.

I still play my PS3 regularly, and that's 720p. It's fun though and I don't count pixels on my TV.

 

[Secretofmateria]

Graphics and resolution are important to me

 

[RPGam3r]

30fps is perfectly fine for me. So I obviously don't fit in with a segment of gamers that think 30fps is unplayable.

 

[dedge]

I both want to see the latest and greatest in tech and also dont mind playing PS3/GameCube/etc games (or older) blown up on my 4KTV. And I'm both investing in both next gen consoles next month, and if I had to, would probably be fine just playing a Switch exclusively.

I do think higher framerates and resolution are great, and I want them, but I do struggle with telling 30 vs 60 (not side by side playing but some games feel really good at 30 and you could trick me into thinking they are higher) and really just want a smooth number above all else.

As far as DF goes, I think their breakdown videos are super interesting, but then so is all their content which includes a lot of retro. It's fun seeing them analyze how a game is actually running and any tricks it might be using to get there. Whether it's showing how a PS4 Pro is punching above it's weight, or how a developer made a Saturn port, they just bring a cut above to the table with their quality of work. It must be incredibly tiring for them to be called fanboys of every platform and have their objective analysis be used as platform war bullet points.

 

[zuf]

It really is dominating discussions at the moment but I guess that's expected with a new gen.

I can't remember the last time there was a thoughful thread about game design or an in-depth review of a game or genre. There used to be a few of those on here. I remember a really good one about The Evil Within 2. Maybe they get lost in the shuffle now.

 

[I_love_potatoes]

For me the only thing I care about is multiplayer games should be 60fps.

I still remember back in the day going from from Halo 3 30fps to CoD MW2 60fps and constantly having to get readjusted to the difference. It was jarring.

So for me, 60fps needs to be a minimum for multplayer games, no question.

 

[boris_feinbrand]

Just going through the classic RE games at the moment I realised that I don't give a flying fuck about cutting edge graphics anymore. As long as a game is technically sound (performance being acceptable for the challenge presented)

 

[MysticGon]

Hard agree OP.

I am interested in advance graphical technology as much as anyone else who follows this industry. It recreates the real world and the real world is beautiful.

I can appreciate the amount of knowledge and craftsmanship that goes into making detailed models and realistic animations, etc...

But at the end of the day a stable, consistent, clean presentation is what all I want.

No screen tearing, ghosting, stuttering, slowdowns, pop-ins, jarring LOD changes or freezing animations and I'm a happy camper. If you need 720p30 to get there so be it.

 

[Orb]

Yeah, I don't care much about graphics at all. Gameplay is what matters to me. I have never truly been impressed with graphics in a video game and I think seeking photorealistic graphics is ultimately a detriment to the industry.

That being said, performance and stability does matter to me. I think a steady locked framerate is desirable, although 30fps is totally fine in some types of games.

 

[EnlightenedMint]

In the same boat OP.

Pretty sure my PS4 is still connected to a 720p TV and my PC monitor is just 1080p.

 

[RivalGT]

9 out of 10 times I'm likely to pick the 60 fps version if it's stable and locked. But not if the game looks much worse at 60 fps. I remember playing FH4 on the one X, and it's performance mode was 1080p 60, the 4k mode looked a generation apart. Shadow of the colossus was another that looked a lot better in its 1440p mode, it just made it difficult for me to pick the 60 fps mode over it.

 

[RM8]

I still play 3DS games 🤷

There's really no such thing as too jaggy or too low-res to me.

 

[kiriku]

I agree, I am a console gamer who basically went PC a few years ago. I can appreciate high framerates, resolutions and all that stuff. I understand people have their own limits for what constitutes a bad-looking or -running game, but sometimes it comes across as an obsession with finding the slightest visual faults in a game using stats and graphs. Like a game needs perfect visuals, or it will forever be slightly tainted in the back of your mind no matter how good it is overall.
And in a way, I guess DF are the kind of "objective" reviewers some people always wanted. But I feel like their material is pushed by some people as proof of either how good or bad a game is, and a way to escalate silly console wars.

 

[Imp]

I can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 FPS. I do notice the difference in graphics but even still that's not really a factor if the game is fun to play.

 

[Arrogant PsycHOPathy]

I am right there with you, OP.

 

[NameUser]

I don't care about 4k, but I want the frame rate to be locked (preferably at 60).

 

[Gaiaknight]

i bought and beaten doom 2016 on switch despite owning a xbox one x and a ps4 pro its not the most important thing to me.

 

[Aaron D.]

Considering my GOTY lists are dominated my hyper-indies (dev teams of 5 or less people), I'd say I have little interest in cutting-edge visual tech/presentation.

For reference, my last number of GOTY picks; Logistical: Earth, Overcrowd, Star Traders, Unexplored, Stephen's Sausage Roll...all developed by 2 or less people.

I do have an appreciation for well-actualized visuals though on an academic level. Just typically not interested in the types of games wrapped around those AAA(A) visuals.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Fortunately, this stuff tends to settle down a bit a year after launch or so.

 

[nemorrhoids]

I think art style and charm is infinitely more important to me than straight visual fidelity. Some games use their high visual fidelity to create a compelling atmosphere, like Red Dead Redemption 2 or The Witcher 3. Without the amazing fidelity those games enjoy, I think their atmosphere would suffer or be entirely diminished. Other games have little atmosphere despite their amazing visual fidelity, like some of the Assassin's Creed games imo.

But it's not always a necessity: some games utilize intentionally low-fidelity graphics to create a better atmosphere. A Short Hike and DUSK come to mind immediately, and those are games that would probably be harmed by better graphics. Those are clearly highly stylized though.

I don't mind people putting particularly ugly graphics or egregious designs on blast, but when people complain about shit like Yakuza not looking like Red Dead when everything in Yakuza builds to a greater atmosphere is what tilts me.

 

[ultramooz]

I totally agree with OP.

As long as a game is functional and frame rate is not hampering gameplay, I care more about the mechanics and the art direction than technicalities.

Some people don't really care about the subtleties in "art direction" - they classify games in broad categories : Cartoon / Anime / Hyper realistic / retro pixels...

Usually game is good when it's realistic, game is bad if it's pixel art. Cartoon games are for kids.

But at least with technical stuff, taste is not in question : numbers and specs are not indicative of a taste level in art - mathematics don't lie.

 

[PlanetSmasher]

I legitimately don't care about things like ray tracing or HDR or whatever. Like I cannot bring myself to give even a remote fraction of a shit. And resolution counting is even worse.

I do need good frame rates, though, because bad frame rates give me horrible eye strain that leads to massive migraines.

 

[Kuribo’s Shoe]

Thanks for this thread. I am one of you.

 

[Dervius]

It really is dominating discussions at the moment but I guess that's expected with a new gen.

I can't remember the last time there was a thoughful thread about game design or an in-depth review of a game or genre. There used to be a few of those on here. I remember a really good one about The Evil Within 2. Maybe they get lost in the shuffle now.

Click to shrink...

This is a good point, and I know the exact thread you mean.

 

[Twister]

Yeah, I really don't care at all. The Switch is my primary platform when I own a PC and PS4 Pro, so that tells you a lot. If the game is fun and the frame-rate is consistent enough, I just couldn't care less.

 

[Zen]

I've never really cared that much about it. I prefer laptops to towers for their form factor, and I'm perfectly happy with a base PS4. Only time I would buy new hardware now is to play a game that isn't available on something I own.

Well....my laptop is getting a bit long in the tooth at 7 years old, so I maaaay be shopping around a bit for the current offerings, if only because I want to get a consistent framerate on FFXIV.

 

[Man Called Aerodynamics]

Yes. It's interesting to me, and I like reading about it and watching DF comparisons, but for example, I was perfectly happy playing Final Fantasy XV on Xbox even though the visual quality was much worse than on PS4.

 

[Dogui]

People care a lot more about graphics when new consoles are on the horizon or if its release are still recent, i think. It's mostly to justify purchasing a new box imo.

Personally, i don't give much of a shit to anything more advanced than a late PS2 game.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

I care about the overall presentation, which I believe is much more important than the sum of its parts. Maximizing each individual aspect is not an appealing subject matter to me, unless improving a particular aspect would significantly improve the gameplay experience.

I think that the complexity of the interactivity, gameplay mechanics/design, fluidity of movement (i.e., animation and physics), geometry complexity/density/variability, and complexity of simulations will all be much more important areas than raw image quality and performance (i.e., resolution and frame rate) going forward.