-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Do graphics sell games anymore?
- Thread starter Madflavor
- Start date
Meicyn
Gold Member
The best part of Shenmue is when you go to the arcade and play better Sega titles like Space Harrier instead of Shenmue.
Represent.
Banned
Yes.
The second people saw this, people were sold.
The second people saw this, people were sold.
ZehDon
Member
If it were a linear corridor walking simulator, I doubt many people would've been all that interested. I believe what interested them was the concept of a sprawling urban open world from the makers of GTAV that looked like that trailer. Deduct the former, and the later doesn't matter.Yes.
The second people saw this, people were sold.
Fbh
Member
I think production values are more important than just "graphics".
Taking a game like Baldur's Gate 3 as an example: It's not really a graphical showcase, but IMO the jump to proper cutscenes and up close animations when talking to characters was a big factor in giving it more mainstream appeal than previous Larian Games where everything plays out in a top down view with characters doing basic animations.
Taking a game like Baldur's Gate 3 as an example: It's not really a graphical showcase, but IMO the jump to proper cutscenes and up close animations when talking to characters was a big factor in giving it more mainstream appeal than previous Larian Games where everything plays out in a top down view with characters doing basic animations.
DavidGzz
Gold Member
They used to more when great graphics were scarce. But now we're desensitized to it. If something as good looking as HB2 came out in 2010, people would buy it just because of the visuals. Now we weigh the cost to hour value. Addictive games that last 20+ hours are more important when you're spending 50 plus dollars. You can get a survivors game for $3 that will last you 100 plus hours these days.
Snowdonhoffen
Member
While not as they used to, I'd say yes. But people want to see those pretty graphics in an extended look or demo not just pictures or small clips, and not only they want to look at realistic stuff, they also want to fulfill that power fantasy in some way.
This felt like you were at war:
This felt like you were fighting for your survival:
This was an action movie:
This made you feel like an outlaw cowboy:
Made you feel like a samurai in a film:
Made you feel like you were free to drive anything, anywhere:
So my point is, graphics + a cool showing will get people interested in your game. You can't rely on cutscenes or captures.
This felt like you were at war:
This felt like you were fighting for your survival:
This was an action movie:
This made you feel like an outlaw cowboy:
Made you feel like a samurai in a film:
Made you feel like you were free to drive anything, anywhere:
So my point is, graphics + a cool showing will get people interested in your game. You can't rely on cutscenes or captures.
AeonGaidenRaiden
Member
For the majority id say yes. I mean just look at the ongoing thread "Graphical fidelity i expect this gen". If you think developers are going to drop the graphics for more interraction, you are dead wrong lol. They know that the first thing that sells their game is going to be that graphically bombastic first trailer. Its all people talk about. Im not sayin I need it but no Im not gonna buy a PS6 to play some indie pixelated crap either. I can do that on a switch.
March Climber
Member
I feel like this sudden change in sentiment about graphics is mainly a thing because the budgets for high end games have reached insane, unstable highs.
That’s my problem with this topic, Max’s video, and all of the people here who are stating the same talking points about art style and gameplay.
This point is being made from concern and fear(of dev studios being closed left and right), rather than genuine disdain for the idea of graphical leaps.
That’s my problem with this topic, Max’s video, and all of the people here who are stating the same talking points about art style and gameplay.
This point is being made from concern and fear(of dev studios being closed left and right), rather than genuine disdain for the idea of graphical leaps.
Majukun
Member
yes.
and they are more easily marketable than actual good gameplay, hence the focus on it.
also they are more easily reproduceable...don't wanna take anything away from artists around the world, but graphic is the kind of problem you can solve by throwing money at it
good design does not.
and they are more easily marketable than actual good gameplay, hence the focus on it.
also they are more easily reproduceable...don't wanna take anything away from artists around the world, but graphic is the kind of problem you can solve by throwing money at it
good design does not.
Nope,
I dont even play TLOU 1 & 2 or other sony 1st party game
Im currently playing Genshin Impact,Honkai Star Rail,Megaton Musashi Wired,Earth Defence Force 6,Gundam Battle Online 2 daily.
Will be buying Shin Megami Tensei 6 next month,brother will be buying Elden Ring Expansion.
So yeah,never cared about these "high end graphics" game,its always about the gameplay for me.
I dont even play TLOU 1 & 2 or other sony 1st party game
Im currently playing Genshin Impact,Honkai Star Rail,Megaton Musashi Wired,Earth Defence Force 6,Gundam Battle Online 2 daily.
Will be buying Shin Megami Tensei 6 next month,brother will be buying Elden Ring Expansion.
So yeah,never cared about these "high end graphics" game,its always about the gameplay for me.
ShaiKhulud1989
Gold Member
Ever since RDR2 and TLOU2 it was clear that we’ve finally reached the tech ceiling. It’s not about the technology anymore but about art, overall production values and the amount of money and man hours that devs and publishers are willing to spent on a project. Tech or raw graphics alone won’t sell your game anymore, since even indie titles can use UE with splendid assets. Just look at Robert Cop game. Still, scope, the overall level of production values paired with impeccable art-style still matter for customers.
Part of the reason why general public is not moved by Hellblade 2 is that it’s on-rails experience with laughably limited scope. But people are still impressed by GTA VI or Cyberpunk 2077 with Path Tracing. It’s not hard to make something real anymore (especially since games like GT, The Order or Driveclub reached that point on PS4), but it’s very hard to make something comparable to Night City or Vice City in scope and art coherence.
There are also games like Hi-Fi Rush that are soaking in pure style, so with proper marketing it is also a great selling point. Especially if you want to cover a broader range of platforms without reserving to cutting edge tech.
Part of the reason why general public is not moved by Hellblade 2 is that it’s on-rails experience with laughably limited scope. But people are still impressed by GTA VI or Cyberpunk 2077 with Path Tracing. It’s not hard to make something real anymore (especially since games like GT, The Order or Driveclub reached that point on PS4), but it’s very hard to make something comparable to Night City or Vice City in scope and art coherence.
There are also games like Hi-Fi Rush that are soaking in pure style, so with proper marketing it is also a great selling point. Especially if you want to cover a broader range of platforms without reserving to cutting edge tech.
JimmyRustler
Member
As if people wouldn’t have been sold on it if it would have looked exactly like GTAV.Yes.
The second people saw this, people were sold.
ricardo_sousa11
Member
Yes,
They just dont sell games that ONLY do graphics and forget gameplay.
They just dont sell games that ONLY do graphics and forget gameplay.
Pedro Motta
Member
Technology has to be the way graphics evolve, not just better looking graphics, but ways to achieve them faster. Last few years we've seen an increase in rendering fidelity but not in ways to artists do them faster.
We have a good game changer lately in creating worlds with Houdini and procedural generation, that's why we see bigger worlds, but not betters worlds.
I think Path-tracing is a technology that will help a lot of AAA games get to the desired quality without having to spend do much time, and of course AI will also help this a lot.
We're just stuck momentarily in a transition period, where the tech and hardware are not quite there yet.
We have a good game changer lately in creating worlds with Houdini and procedural generation, that's why we see bigger worlds, but not betters worlds.
I think Path-tracing is a technology that will help a lot of AAA games get to the desired quality without having to spend do much time, and of course AI will also help this a lot.
We're just stuck momentarily in a transition period, where the tech and hardware are not quite there yet.
Wildebeest
Member
The problem is that graphics have become so advanced with so many "cinematic" filters and 4k hyper-detailing techniques that aesthetically, games look like total ass. You literally have to be neck deep in the 3d graphics culture to understand why they don't actually look like total ass. If somehow someone was able to make a game that was graphically on a high level and also didn't look like total ass, then the sleeping masses would awake and be there for it.
existensmaximum
Member
LazyParrot
Member
It's not so much that graphics sell games, but that a subset of gamers feels cheated when they buy an expensive new console or graphics card and then don't get any games with graphics that live up to their new expectations.
Last edited:
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
Visual / art design > graphics
Lucifers Beard
Member
The jump in graphics isn't nearly as big these days as it was back in the 90s or early 00s so I don't think so. Also, gameplay is what we actually play games for.
KXVXII9X
Member
Overall presentation (art and sound direction, animation quality, visual clarity, general polish) still heavily matter to me but photorealism is no longer a requirement for me to enjoy a game and doesn't wow me the same way it did. I much prefer a great use of art direction and interesting gameplay.
Even something as primitive as Animal Well has a more lively environment than a lot of AAA games due to great sound direction and beautiful animations. There is always some kind of movement in that game with a really rich atmosphere.
Even something as primitive as Animal Well has a more lively environment than a lot of AAA games due to great sound direction and beautiful animations. There is always some kind of movement in that game with a really rich atmosphere.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
The real question is...
Has a game ever sold well based on its graphics alone?
I would say the answer is a resounding No. I mean just look at The Order. And now Hellblade 2.
I believe that graphics still does for games what its always done for games. Gets people talking. But at the end of the day though, it being a good game is what sells it. It having good graphics just gets it attention.
Has a game ever sold well based on its graphics alone?
I would say the answer is a resounding No. I mean just look at The Order. And now Hellblade 2.
I believe that graphics still does for games what its always done for games. Gets people talking. But at the end of the day though, it being a good game is what sells it. It having good graphics just gets it attention.
Blood Borne
Member
It never did.
Any game that sold well and had great graphics is because it was also a good game and not because it had great graphics.
Any game that sold well and had great graphics is because it was also a good game and not because it had great graphics.
SportsFan581
Member
Sure. Just to a lesser degree than in the past.
Certainly there was a lot of talk about the UE5 and Matrix demos around here, and that wasn't about the gameplay or innovative level design.
Certainly there was a lot of talk about the UE5 and Matrix demos around here, and that wasn't about the gameplay or innovative level design.
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
Which were a lot easier to live up to when graphical jumps were larger. All we wanted from PS1 to PS2 were polygons that don't jitter and shades. Now with PS4 to PS5 we expect amazing physics and raytracing in which the current consoles can hardly perform the latter and devs outside of valve and Nintendo are hardly interested in making the former
Roman Empire
Member
Gameplay, Art Style and Direction > Graphics.
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
I'd argue Mario 64 sold on its graphics. I was absolutely floored when I saw that demo for the first time. That was the biggest leap ever. Going from the 2d 16 bit era to PlayStation/saturn/64.
Since then it's been iterative and less and less of a leap each gen.
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
It's easy for people here to say no, but if something like The Last of Us, or Gears of War, or Uncharted, or GTA VI, or a plethora of other game franchises that have established high expectations for pushing the visual bar were to come out and be a step back in visual fidelity, the pitchforks would be out and the game would absolutely bomb.
If you're Nintendo and everyone expects your games to have a more simplistic look, you can get away with it. If you're FROM and no one expects your game to be a technical showcase, you can get away with it. But Naughty Dog? The Coalition? Rockstar? Nah.
It's all about consumer expectations.
If you're Nintendo and everyone expects your games to have a more simplistic look, you can get away with it. If you're FROM and no one expects your game to be a technical showcase, you can get away with it. But Naughty Dog? The Coalition? Rockstar? Nah.
It's all about consumer expectations.
Last edited:
NeverYouMind
Member
Hellblade 2 is not a game. It is a linear interactive experience where barely anything happens. If I want to experience something of that fidelity a movie or TV show would present it a lot better in a more concise timeframe.Graphics are a nice extra to have. But graphics alone don't make a successful game.
Just look at Hellblade 2, best graphics of the generation so far, mediocre gameplay and this is the result.
It is a boring CGI movie with some third person shooting set pieces and no interactivity. The shooting segments could probably be done in 30 minutes if the cutscenes weren't unskipable. It is a $60 demo. Do you really wonder why nobody bought it?
P.S. Nintendo's modern output is mediocre at best and uninspired and archaic at worst. Only reason anyone gives them the time of day is because at one point they were the only real choice for gaming and now have a horde of man children chasing their childhood feels and spreading the good word.
Last edited:
March Climber
Member
This is a trap question, because no matter what game someone names as a game that clearly sold based on it’s graphics, people here will find multiple reasons for the answer to be about the game’s other aspects instead.
FIREKNIGHT2029
Member
They sell games but they have to be accompanied by good gameplay. You can't release an ass game with good graphics and expect it to sell.
Gameplay is the most important aspect to any game and will continue to be the most important because after you get tired of looking at good graphics, you expect to play the game. If the gameplay is ass then you might as well be looking at a picture or watching paint dry.
Gameplay is the most important aspect to any game and will continue to be the most important because after you get tired of looking at good graphics, you expect to play the game. If the gameplay is ass then you might as well be looking at a picture or watching paint dry.
dcx4610
Member
We've hit a point where even budget games have pretty nice graphics. I think the Switch proved that graphics don't really matter all that much to the mainstream audience. Just as long as they aren't embarrassing and the game is good, that's all that matters.
Where graphics do matter is games like GTA or Call of Duty. Those are seen as generational titles (GTA at least) that push the boundaries and are supposed to showcase the next level of graphics and what's possible. For most games though, nope.
Where graphics do matter is games like GTA or Call of Duty. Those are seen as generational titles (GTA at least) that push the boundaries and are supposed to showcase the next level of graphics and what's possible. For most games though, nope.
Audiophile
Member
I won't play a game if the visuals are very inconsistent with lots of artefacts and/or very bad performance. Exceptional visuals is a big bonus point and elevates a game that's otherwise good. But I'll take more rudimentary visuals if that's the style they're going for and they hit it with a tidy and steady image.
I consider significant framerate drops, poor frame pacing or tearing to be a broken product at this point, same goes for excessive aliasing/shimmer and crispy/smeared temporal artefacts. In which case I'll just skip it altogether or wait until there's a way to enjoy it without those issues.
If you can't hit a stable 30fps with no tearing and instead think it's ok to release your game at 31fps or a sub-48fps in a 60Hz container with tearing and uneven pacing then I'm immediately out, and again, same goes for overbearing aliasing or temporal roughness. I also think relying on [non-ML] upscaling to get your sub-1080p game up to 1440p/4K is just flat out unacceptable too.
Also, the more important the world, the immersion and the atmosphere is, the more important the visuals are in pulling me in. RDR2 for eg. wouldn't be a patch on itself if it had mediocre visuals.
Though, much of a graphics whore as I am, I really wanna see simulation and dynamism at the same time. Most games just feel dead.
That said, I still need something to blow my socks off every couple years; especially as we enter a new gen. I like smaller games, medium games and bigger games as long as they have a target in mind and competently hit it, but it's just my nature that I need to see something that really raises the bar from some of the big studios. It seems GTAVI is gonna be up there and hopefully Sony can provide a major leap in the second half of this gen for a few games. Novelty and progress are just part of the deal for me; and if they can't provide it I probably won't take part.
I consider significant framerate drops, poor frame pacing or tearing to be a broken product at this point, same goes for excessive aliasing/shimmer and crispy/smeared temporal artefacts. In which case I'll just skip it altogether or wait until there's a way to enjoy it without those issues.
If you can't hit a stable 30fps with no tearing and instead think it's ok to release your game at 31fps or a sub-48fps in a 60Hz container with tearing and uneven pacing then I'm immediately out, and again, same goes for overbearing aliasing or temporal roughness. I also think relying on [non-ML] upscaling to get your sub-1080p game up to 1440p/4K is just flat out unacceptable too.
Also, the more important the world, the immersion and the atmosphere is, the more important the visuals are in pulling me in. RDR2 for eg. wouldn't be a patch on itself if it had mediocre visuals.
Though, much of a graphics whore as I am, I really wanna see simulation and dynamism at the same time. Most games just feel dead.
That said, I still need something to blow my socks off every couple years; especially as we enter a new gen. I like smaller games, medium games and bigger games as long as they have a target in mind and competently hit it, but it's just my nature that I need to see something that really raises the bar from some of the big studios. It seems GTAVI is gonna be up there and hopefully Sony can provide a major leap in the second half of this gen for a few games. Novelty and progress are just part of the deal for me; and if they can't provide it I probably won't take part.
Last edited:
JMZ555
Member
Graphics are just one part of the puzzle to make a great game.
If the foundation of a game is based on having great graphics but is not supported by great Gameplay, art style etc then its doomed to crumble and fail.
Amazing graphics certainly get people interested to buy and I'm certain there are plenty of people who don't read reviews or do research and buy a game purely on how its looks.
But if its a hollow experience or has issues I feel word of mouth is pretty fast these days.
If the foundation of a game is based on having great graphics but is not supported by great Gameplay, art style etc then its doomed to crumble and fail.
Amazing graphics certainly get people interested to buy and I'm certain there are plenty of people who don't read reviews or do research and buy a game purely on how its looks.
But if its a hollow experience or has issues I feel word of mouth is pretty fast these days.
Last edited:
cinnamonandgravy
Member
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Not sure why you post that gif. It’s true.