What's new
  • Donate and support Agora Road's Macintosh Cafe to keep the forum alive and make any necessary upgrades to have a more pleasant experience! In addition, you will be able to have "moods" enabled on your profile and have donation only awards! Update: I configured the site with Brave Browser, so you can send tips to the site with BAT.

    You can now donate directly to the forum without signing up for patreon. You will still have all of the same perks in patreon but its now one less sign up method. It will be under Account Upgrades

    This is the submission thread for the 2nd E-zine! Please use the dropbox linke for submissions and bump the thread with ideas, comments, statements, or just to bump. If you want to submit your stories or whatever you want to the second edition.

Modern gamers and their obsession with graphics and performance.

manpaint

Sustainer of Eternity
Joined
Aug 11, 2022
Messages
192
Reaction score
195
Awards
34
Website
rs-archive.neocities.org
One thing I have noticed in recent times is that modern gamers™ have an obsession with graphics and performance.

Perphaps it is simply because I grew up with mediocre computer hardware, but I just don't get why everyone is so obseeded with 60 FPS and 4k resolution.

I understand that people want a certain threshold of quality when they buy a game. For example, the graphics in Pokemon: Legends Arceus are garbage for a 80$ game, but in some games looking fine, people scream if they don't get a constant 60 FPS.

What are you thoughts on this? I personally prefer style and stability over 4k textures and 120 FPS.
 

Andy Kaufman

i know
Joined
Feb 19, 2022
Messages
694
Reaction score
2,237
Awards
158
modern gamers
nope
That's entirely crafted by the industry and always has been because things like polygon count, FPS and resolution are very easy to market.
"our game good because big noombah!!! Bigger noombah then competition geam!"
Gamers blindly bought into it because they're the most guillible demographic.
145.jpg
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

llillilll

Active Traveler
Joined
May 26, 2021
Messages
183
Reaction score
446
Awards
69
One thing I have noticed in recent times is that modern gamers™ have an obsession with graphics and performance.

Perphaps it is simply because I grew up with mediocre computer hardware, but I just don't get why everyone is so obseeded with 60 FPS and 4k resolution.

I understand that people want a certain threshold of quality when they buy a game. For example, the graphics in Pokemon: Legends Arceus are garbage for a 80$ game, but in some games looking fine, people scream if they don't get a constant 60 FPS.

What are you thoughts on this? I personally prefer style and stability over 4k textures and 120 FPS.
IDC about the graphics but performance is quite important. If a game runs with low resources It means the code is well written and less buggy.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

manpaint

Sustainer of Eternity
Joined
Aug 11, 2022
Messages
192
Reaction score
195
Awards
34
Website
rs-archive.neocities.org
nope
That's entirely crafted by the industry and always has been because things like polygon count, FPS and resolution are very easy to market.
"our game good because big noombah!!! Bigger noombah then competition geam!"
Gamers blindly bought into it because they're the most guillible demographic.
145.jpg
Hmm I didn't thought of that. It is true that gamers™ are very guillible.

I personally think that we have reached a point were computers graphics are good enough and that we should stop trying to advance on that front, but as it make games less marketable, this ain't going to happens.
 

SolidStateSurvivor

Soon to be father of John Titor
Joined
Feb 15, 2022
Messages
403
Reaction score
1,405
Awards
110
Website
youtuube.neocities.org
Depends on the game for me. With something like Grand Theft Auto VI, I hope it's the sleakest, most detailed game to ever release, it's kind of their staple. Even if it will most likely have that typical Rockstar jank for controls/gameplay I personally find the immersion of the series to be more important. GTA has always been a "jack of all trades, master of none" type series from a gameplay perspective. There's something to be said for people still finding hidden little details in these games all these years later. Realism, good graphics, and little attentions to detail (proper weapon reloads, historical accuracy, etc) go a long way in games seeking to mimmick reality.

That being said, those story driven Sony games that feel like walking sim movies I can't stand, even if they do look well polished graphically.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Andy Kaufman

i know
Joined
Feb 19, 2022
Messages
694
Reaction score
2,237
Awards
158
we have reached a point were computers graphics are good enough and that we should stop trying to advance on that front
I think PS3 era graphics were already there.
I really suggest you watch this video, this guy can verbalise my thoughts better than I ever could and I share most of his opinions on the vidya industry:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u68iQAp4ces
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Collision

Green Tea Ice Cream
Joined
Jun 5, 2022
Messages
214
Reaction score
570
Awards
56
Since this seems to be a direct restatement of what @PizzaW0lf was asking last night, I feel obligated to respond.
One thing I have noticed in recent times is that modern gamers™ have an obsession with graphics and performance.

Perphaps it is simply because I grew up with mediocre computer hardware, but I just don't get why everyone is so obseeded with 60 FPS and 4k resolution.
As has already been said, this isn't a new obsession. Games have been marketed this way since before I was born (i.e., since before the 1990s). Here's an ad for Wolfenstein 3D (1992) which talks up how immersive and graphically impressive the game is:
wolf3d_ad.jpg

If you want to go looking you can find plenty of other examples (the advertising for the TurboGrafx-16/PC Engine come to mind).

To address why people are obsessed with this, I question how many consumers actually are. Most people don't seem to choose games purely based on polygon counts or maximum achievable frame rates. The fact that game consoles continue to shamble along despite essentially becoming pre-built PCs would seem to indicate that ease of access is a bigger driver of sales than technology. Historically though, I can see where you're coming from. Game advertising definitely used to fixate on graphics and, to a lesser extent, performance. Primarily, I think this is because it's easier to explain to people than more abstract attributes. Why should you buy Tomb Raider instead of Legacy of Kain? The answer is because it pushes more polygons obviously! Differences in graphical fidelity are obvious and easily demonstrated to consumers while other qualities might not be. This worked better in an era where most games had to be developed outside of large do-everything environments like Unity or Unreal. Since it is more common for games, even fairly complex games, to be developed as plugins to these big software environments; it has become largely meaningless how many polygons you can push. Still, at the very high end, I think graphics-based marketing is easier than the alternative. Humans are visual creatures after all.
For example, the graphics in Pokemon: Legends Arceus are garbage for a 80$ game, but in some games looking fine, people scream if they don't get a constant 60 FPS.
Even on fairly low-end equipment, 60 frames per second is noticeably better looking than 30 (with traditional 3D animation techniques). There might be reasons to operate at a lower frame rate but in general a decently designed PC game should be able to handle 60 frames per second. It's just my opinion but I think an inconsistent frame rate is worse than a low one. Like many other people, I've spent a good amount of money on my hardware and I'm not interested in software that can't use it properly.
What are you thoughts on this? I personally prefer style and stability over 4k textures and 120 FPS.
Personally, I don't see why I should have to sacrifice either of these things. To the extent that it's possible though I want games that deliver both in terms of technical features and in terms of style. As someone interested in computer graphics for their own sake, the technical performance of a game is as much part of the artistic value as anything else. The idea that technical performance has to be sacrificed in favor of other more abstract qualities seems like a recent development to me. Personally, I think that this idea comes from a landscape largely made up of jumped-up amateurs who wouldn't have been able to cut it 20 years ago. Maybe I'm just an asshole though.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Jessica3cho

ばかばかしい外人
Gold
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
1,054
Reaction score
2,202
Awards
205
Website
recanimepodcast.com
Even Gamer™ is a marketing term these days. Industries will latch on to whatever market they can find "solidarity" with and push product after product onto them. GamerFuel? Just preworkout. Fancy LED systems? You can DIY that shit. 4K 60 FPS? Literally nonsense. Gamer clothing? Give me a fucking break.

These people are lemmings. Play what you want to play, how you want to play, and if someone whines about OnLy GeTtInG 59.5 fPs on their 4K, 16 thread CPU, 32gb RAM super computer, then thank them for letting you know that you need to avoid their manchild ass.

Of course, don't get me wrong. I've done a lot of stress testing in my life and enjoy trying to beat whacky standards. Sometimes I crank my graphics down and overclock my CPU & GPU just because I want to see how big a framerate I can pump out. Its just a fun thing to do. The issue becomes when you think you need these things. You're being as vain as the moron who needs to buy Gucci that you probably make fun of.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

h00

Traveler
Joined
Apr 15, 2022
Messages
84
Reaction score
301
Awards
32
As others have said, this isn't new. There used to be a lot of fun to be had in overclocking your system and researching computer hardware so you could be THE GUY running Crysis.
1660664554060.png

Throwback to these watercoolers.

Computers are cool, and seeing them pump out high quality renders, or high quality gameplay, has always been an enjoyment to some.
1660664690753.png

Render from 2000
1660664755246.png

Crysis from 2007

But yeah, polygon count is nothing without good artistic direction. (Ex: why Morrowind looks better than Oblivion). And there's TONS of games I see that people parade around as having amazing graphics and I can't help but think 'this isn't even 2012 tier'.

But whether it's a painting or an image produced by a computer, humans like eyecandy. Don't worry about it so much.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards
Joined
Jul 5, 2022
Messages
72
Reaction score
408
Awards
36
Graphics could have stopped at Playstation 2 level. That was enough to be able to depict any object decently well, with proper human faces and so on. Anything after that is a gimmick and the diminishing returns are so tiny at this point.
To directly address the thread topic, I don't have any idea why you feel like this is a recent development - as has been pointed out, the obsession with graphics has been part of gaming culture since day dot. Is there any evidence to suggest that gamers have become even more fixated on it in modern times?
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

manpaint

Sustainer of Eternity
Joined
Aug 11, 2022
Messages
192
Reaction score
195
Awards
34
Website
rs-archive.neocities.org
I think PS3 era graphics were already there.
I really suggest you watch this video, this guy can verbalise my thoughts better than I ever could and I share most of his opinions on the vidya industry:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u68iQAp4ces

It is true that there was definitively a stagnation in the past decade when it comes to innvovation in the gaming insustry (from AAA compagnies). I guess the crux of the issue is compagnies pushing the envelope too far and sacrifing gameplay and innovation on the altar of graphics - as it's very marketable and part of human nature to seek pretty things.

But one thing I dislike is change for the shake of change, often compagnies upgrade graphics just for the sake of upgrading graphics.

As an example, let's take RuneScape 3 (yes I know, very heretic). As a dataminer, I know exactly what changed. During 2014-2019 most textures had a resolution of 512 x 513 pixels. Starting in 2019, most new models created now have a texture with a resolution of 1024 x 1024 pixels. They also made a new client that performed worse, but that's beside the point.

Here's a comparaison of two areas that use the given texture resolution sets:

1280px-Sliske%27s_Labyrinth_entrance.png

1280px-Kharid-et_main_fortress.png

Do you see a difference? Sure it technically looks slightly better but the difference is negligible. They sacrified performance and stability for a slighly better texture resolution (among other things).

Now, it is extremely rare for most game to get updated with a slightly better resolution (aside for some remasters) but I think this example speak about how the industry is obsessed with "progress".

I believe that always using the latest and greatest tech™ is ultimately a detriment more than a benefit as it makes games more costly to make - which in turn makes compagnies play safer. I guess you could also make an argument that this may decrease microtransactions due to lowered cost, but I think that compagnies greed is inevitable, even if games were cheaper to produce.
 

manpaint

Sustainer of Eternity
Joined
Aug 11, 2022
Messages
192
Reaction score
195
Awards
34
Website
rs-archive.neocities.org
To directly address the thread topic, I don't have any idea why you feel like this is a recent development - as has been pointed out, the obsession with graphics has been part of gaming culture since day dot. Is there any evidence to suggest that gamers have become even more fixated on it in modern times?
I think I was less prone to notice it since I grew up with Nintendo consoles and a mediocre computers. While sometimes the graphical jump was noticable, I never saw it as a talking point (both from consumer and marketing).

I noticed that trend with YT like DigitalFoundry that measure the FPS of a given game as a metric of quality. You see people talking about graphics pretty much everywhere on social media, but maybe that just social media being social media.

From my POV, it seems like everyone started caring about graphics in 2017, but in reality, that is clearly not the case.
 

Collision

Green Tea Ice Cream
Joined
Jun 5, 2022
Messages
214
Reaction score
570
Awards
56
As an example, let's take RuneScape 3 (yes I know, very heretic). As a dataminer, I know exactly what changed. During 2014-2019 most textures had a resolution of 512 x 513 pixels. Starting in 2019, most new models created now have a texture with a resolution of 1024 x 1024 pixels. They also made a new client that performed worse, but that's beside the point.
Increasing the texture size shouldn't require any significant software changes and most people have GPUs that can handle textures significantly larger than 1024x1024. Why is the texture size change more significant than whatever it is that was done to the software?
 
Virtual Cafe Awards
Joined
Jul 5, 2022
Messages
72
Reaction score
408
Awards
36
I think I was less prone to notice it since I grew up with Nintendo consoles and a mediocre computers. While sometimes the graphical jump was noticable, I never saw it as a talking point (both from consumer and marketing).

I noticed that trend with YT like DigitalFoundry that measure the FPS of a given game as a metric of quality. You see people talking about graphics pretty much everywhere on social media, but maybe that just social media being social media.

From my POV, it seems like everyone started caring about graphics in 2017, but in reality, that is clearly not the case.
To be honest it seems like you must be either quite young or new to gaming if you only noticed people talking about game graphics as recently as five years ago, nothing wrong with that though ;)
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

manpaint

Sustainer of Eternity
Joined
Aug 11, 2022
Messages
192
Reaction score
195
Awards
34
Website
rs-archive.neocities.org
Increasing the texture size shouldn't require any significant software changes and most people have GPUs that can handle textures significantly larger than 1024x1024. Why is the texture size change more significant than whatever it is that was done to the software?
Hmm it is true that that in a vacuum it is not the greatest example. There are some people out there that have 2012 game client loading modern area so maybe I should have picked a better example.

In RuneScape 3's case, most of the issue stems from the new client they are using. Before 2016, they used a java based client before switching to one written in C++.

Despite being adbvertised as a "client that can run on a potato" it is the polar opposite of that. The main selling point of the client was a greater render distance. The implementation of that feature is a disaster, here's an example:

Let's say you don't want to want to play with the 'ultra' render distance. One first instinct is probably going to go in the game settings and lower it. The thing is, it does not reduce the ressource the game is using. The game will still load all the textures, models and NPCs, you just will not be able to see them.

This mean that most people are forced to play the game on low graphics that only slightly improve performance. Historically speaking, RuneScape was pretty much a game that any PC was able to play, and it was the case until the release of that new client*. They have completely destroyed what made the game so much popular in the first place, all for the sake of "better graphics".

*Note: This statement means that most computer were able to play RuneScape on high graphics. For the cheapest one, you might have needed to play on low graphics, but the game was playable. This simply not the case nowaday with the new client requiring 1 GB+ of RAM, wherea the Java client could run on 300 mb of RAM - for an identical game (as there was a period where you could choose wich client to play on).
 

Collision

Green Tea Ice Cream
Joined
Jun 5, 2022
Messages
214
Reaction score
570
Awards
56
In RuneScape 3's case, most of the issue stems from the new client they are using. Before 2016, they used a java based client before switching to one written in C++.

Despite being adbvertised as a "client that can run on a potato" it is the polar opposite of that. The main selling point of the client was a greater render distance. The implementation of that feature is a disaster, here's an example:

Let's say you don't want to want to play with the 'ultra' render distance. One first instinct is probably going to go in the game settings and lower it. The thing is, it does not reduce the ressource the game is using. The game will still load all the textures, models and NPCs, you just will not be able to see them.

This mean that most people are forced to play the game on low graphics that only slightly improve performance. Historically speaking, RuneScape was pretty much a game that any PC was able to play, and it was the case until the release of that new client*. They have completely destroyed what made the game so much popular in the first place, all for the sake of "better graphics".
This sounds like a software design failure and not a failure caused by the improved graphics in particular. Even if computer graphics didn't march inexorably forward bad software would still be bad software.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

manpaint

Sustainer of Eternity
Joined
Aug 11, 2022
Messages
192
Reaction score
195
Awards
34
Website
rs-archive.neocities.org
This sounds like a software design failure and not a failure caused by the improved graphics in particular. Even if computer graphics didn't march inexorably forward bad software would still be bad software.
While I agree that this a software design failure, I stll think that the "we need better graphics" mindset was the catalyst for this.
 

PizzaW0lf

Traveler
Joined
Jul 16, 2022
Messages
65
Reaction score
243
Awards
25
Gamers have always been obsessed with graphics but I think the difference then to now is that before, a graphical jump would actually mean something big and would lead to many new gameplay opportunities. Graphics were used to determine what fundamental games you'd be playing. Archimedies123 made a video on this conveniently enough.
View: https://youtu.be/Gg9vQne6K9c


Nowadays, graphics don't mean as much as they don't instantly lead to new gameplay types and genres. The PS4 generation is really not that much different from the PS3 generation other than being more polished and more detailed. The only new gameplay ideas we got from the PS4 generation in terms of "Not being able to this last gen" is the battle royale genre and open world games finally reaching their fullest potential. BotW is a game that would need to be on an HD console in order for it to work as this type of Zelda game wouldn't have worked on the Wii. And you could try to scale it down but it wouldn't be the same.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

manpaint

Sustainer of Eternity
Joined
Aug 11, 2022
Messages
192
Reaction score
195
Awards
34
Website
rs-archive.neocities.org
Gamers have always been obsessed with graphics but I think the difference then to now is that before, a graphical jump would actually mean something big and would lead to many new gameplay opportunities. Graphics were used to determine what fundamental games you'd be playing. Archimedies123 made a video on this conveniently enough.
View: https://youtu.be/Gg9vQne6K9c


Nowadays, graphics don't mean as much as they don't instantly lead to new gameplay types and genres. The PS4 generation is really not that much different from the PS3 generation other than being more polished and more detailed. The only new gameplay ideas we got from the PS4 generation in terms of "Not being able to this last gen" is the battle royale genre and open world games finally reaching their fullest potential. BotW is a game that would need to be on an HD console in order for it to work as this type of Zelda game wouldn't have worked on the Wii. And you could try to scale it down but it wouldn't be the same.

I agree. We definitevely need more games that follow Rule 3.
 

RisingThumb

Imaginary manifestation of fun
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Messages
127
Reaction score
166
Awards
29
Website
risingthumb.xyz
One thing I have noticed in recent times is that modern gamers™ have an obsession with graphics and performance.

Perphaps it is simply because I grew up with mediocre computer hardware, but I just don't get why everyone is so obseeded with 60 FPS and 4k resolution.

I understand that people want a certain threshold of quality when they buy a game. For example, the graphics in Pokemon: Legends Arceus are garbage for a 80$ game, but in some games looking fine, people scream if they don't get a constant 60 FPS.

What are you thoughts on this? I personally prefer style and stability over 4k textures and 120 FPS.
I thought we buried this argument in the grave alongside the console wars of Xbox 360 and PS3 over a decade ago? Dunno if /v/ is still beating a dead horse with it. That said, I literally haven't seen a single gamer drooling about graphics or performance since the console wars where the 60fps was yet to be reached by Console gamers.

>What are you thoughts on this? I personally prefer style and stability over 4k textures and 120 FPS.
Just so it's noted, because the way it's worded is like a binary choice between style and stability or 4k textures and 120FPS... you can get both. Performance and stability are closely related(see number of framerate-related bugs), and for some game styles, getting 4k textures is basically free. In particular, games where procedural textures are used(like any Physically-Based Rendering(PBR) game since all the extra bits like normal maps, depth maps etc come free) or where rasterised textures exported from a vector art tool are used(like Castle Crashers).

>Perphaps it is simply because I grew up with mediocre computer hardware, but I just don't get why everyone is so obseeded with 60 FPS and 4k resolution.
If you haven't done so already, go and try a system capable of 60fps, or 4k graphics(possibly via a cyber cafe or equivalent). You'll see the benefits, but then you'll see that there's a cost-benefit tradeoff as a consumer to be made. As a game developer there's a cost-benefit tradeoff in doing 120fps or exporting with 4k graphics(and having the presence of mind to keep source files to export high res textures).

Personally, I prefer 120fps, 4k textures, stylised and stable games.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards