Graphics can't win the war.

[Matthew Jabour]

In my last post, I stated that, when it comes to making games, graphics can make a difference if used properly. I said that a competent team can use a particular aesthetic - photorealism is only one example - to make a good experience. But, I was only tangentially related to the big debate going on: how the Xbox One will have worse graphics than the PS4.

Excuse me while I sigh in irritation again.
...
...
Okay, I'm back.

See, the fact of the matter is, when it comes to consoles, graphics DON'T matter. At all. In fact, they may even hurt the console.

To back this up, let's take a quick look back at our history. Gaming has been around for over 30 years now, but I'll just be specifying on the NES period and on, since that's the beginning of what we now consider gaming. And let me just point out that, in every generation since then, the console with superior graphics has not come in first. Let me repeat that: in EVERY generation, the console with the best graphics sold less than other, less powerful, systems. In fact, they usually come in last.

Let's take an in-depth look, shall we?
Generation 3: The 16-Bit Sega Master system failed to show up the technically simplistic NES.
Generation 4: Nintendo and Sega came in close, but the Neo Geo, a far more powerful machine, was steamrolled. Also in that generation, the 32X and Atari Jaguar showed that increasing graphics without preparation led to a decrease in quality.
Generation 5: The N64 handled 3D well, but it failed to handle the technically inferior PS1 selling triple its amount.
Generation 6: Microsoft's new powerhouse of a console barely even budged the giant monolith the PS2 had become.
Generation 7: Sony and Microsoft were both utterly flattened by the tiny little box called Wii.

This doesn't even mention handhelds, where Nintendo, still five years behind the cutting edge, crushes all opposition.

And don't even get me started on PC gaming. Now, for a long time, PC gamers have boasted about how they have graphics far superior to anything like those heathens in the console area. "Look at how fast Minecraft runs," they say. "You can barely even see the pixels!"
But here's the thing: the PC is not a console. Oh sure, you can play games on it, in the same way that I can play a port of Modern Warfare 3 on my iPhone, but that isn't what it's built for. Your Personal Computer is a tool, with which you do things pertaining to real life. You are reading this on your PC. You type reports on your PC. You watch pornography on your PC. It is a jack of all trades, but a console it is not. And by the way, my Cookie Clicker app runs at 48 FPS on my IPhone. Check, and mate.

So, getting back on topic, graphics never make a console win. They barely even give it an edge. So let's all focus on what really matters: predicting who will win on the internet.

 

[Orange12345]

I think the hub-ub about COD ghosts (which is what I am assuming this is about) only running at 720p, is not that 720p is "bad" just that COD:Ghosts, a game being released on the current 10 YEAR old hardware cannot be run at 1080p on the next generation gives the impression that the next generation is already absurdly obsolete.

P.S. I am just trying to explain from what I understand the problem is I am not "Choosing a side", console wars are dumb. and I do completely agree that graphics don't make a good game

 

[Thr33X]

Now me, I'm a lifelong console player and part-time PC gamer (can only count on two fingers the games I play on PC, Warframe and APB Reloaded)...and not only that but I'm an older gamer who's lived through "generation 3" of video gaming up until now. I can attest firsthand to how in the grand scheme of things how insignificant graphics are to the overall experience of a game.

Yup, I said insignificant.

It makes my blood boil when I see how people try to hype up the graphics capabilities of games as if they are the be all-end all factor of superiority. There is merit to such a claim when a game has no excuse for being inferior, such as some of the games that are being reported as having lackluster visuals for the XB1, but when it's brought up to the effect of "game X is better than game Y because it has better graphics", oh man do I wish I had a way to smack people through their monitors.

At this point, nobody has a clue as to why some of these games on the XB1 lineup are apparently technologically inferior, but does this take anything away from the game experience? Personally I say it shouldn't, but I came up in a time where graphics were the last thing that we looked at. Compare my mindset to someone in their 20s or younger and you'd probably get a different answer...but that's the kicker. In this particular case, there is no "agreeing to disagree" or "differences in opinion". Anyone who predicates graphic capabilities as being a major factor to a good game is plain wrong.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

On the whole I agree. Graphics do not a winning console make.

That said, I feel people are grossly overstating the effects graphics may or may not have on the success of a console. It's just one part of a bigger picture alongside a whole lot of other factors such as price, games library, image/reputation, gimmicks and so on.

Some quick examples of other factors graphically capable consoles had to deal with:
- The NEO GEO and its games were ungodly expensive for the time.
- The 32x stupidly got released mere months before the more powerful 5th gen Saturn.
- The Jaguar? Ok yeah, fair enough, that was a piece of shit that they made way too complicated to program for so almost no one was able to actually tap its full power.
- The N64 had this image of the "kiddy console" (really, I remember lots of people dismissing it for that reason), while the PS1 embraced the growing audience of older gamers and was rewarded for it. I also remember N64 games being quite a bit more expensive than competitors around here.
- The Xbox was a new and untested player on the market, while the PS2 had the advantage of building upon the success of its predecessor, as well as being a relatively cheap dvd-player.

I'm not saying these examples were the defining factors for success (or lack thereof), but they at the very least did their part.

Also, the Master System was not 16-bit. It had a Zilog Z80 processor with 8-bit architecture. On the whole though, it was indeed a more capable console than the NES.

 

[Able Seacat]

As most people said in your other thread, aesthetics over graphics.

Oh sure, you can play games on it, in the same way that I can play a port of Modern Warfare 3 on my iPhone, but that isn't what it's built for.

Except some people do build a PC dedicated for playing games.

 

[synobal]

You're console peasantry is showing. My PC is built for gaming and yet I can do a lot of other stuff on it, your xbox? also built for gaming yet you can also do other stuff on it. The difference is my PC does more, better faster and cheaper with a larger game library.

In this next console war, and yes a CONSOLE war I can't tell you who will win, but at this point the Xbox is less powerful, harder to develop for, and more expensive for the PS4. It does have a better launch library and that is a big deal.

I do have to be worried though, the lower price point and more powerful hardware of the PS4 makes it very attractive for developers. With the xbox launch titles being able to only run at 720p at 30FPS and at times dipping lower when there is a lot of action on screen.

I can't tell you who will win the next console war, but I know I'd not want to be Microsoft at this point.

 

[The Enquirer]

I think the hub-ub about COD ghosts (which is what I am assuming this is about) only running at 720p, is not that 720p is "bad" just that COD:Ghosts, a game being released on the current 10 YEAR old hardware cannot be run at 1080p on the next generation gives the impression that the next generation is already absurdly obsolete.

P.S. I am just trying to explain from what I understand the problem is I am not "Choosing a side", console wars are dumb. and I do completely agree that graphics don't make a good game

Actually the Xbox One runs at 720p upscaled to 1080p (not nearly as good as just 1080p). There were actually frame-rate issues cited on the ps4 version so I guess it will have trouble running 1080p already. While Pc has been running at greater than 1080p for a while now.

 

[Thr33X]

As most people said in your other thread, aesthetics over graphics.

Oh sure, you can play games on it, in the same way that I can play a port of Modern Warfare 3 on my iPhone, but that isn't what it's built for.

Except some people do build a PC dedicated for playing games.

The keyword in your statement is "some". That's an exception and not a rule. 90-95% of PCs in use today are not used primarily for gaming, so Mr. Jabour's statement holds weight whether you choose to accept it or not.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

A non-techie/gamer will look at the Bone and see something more expensive with lower graphical fidelity, while a glance to the PS4 will highlight a massive cost saving and better graphics.

For those people who don't already have a next gen console earmarked, undoubetdly in part because they already have some trophies/gamerscore invested in one of them and want to keep them moving forward, the PS4 appears to be a better option. In those two factors, it is a better option. If you want the same, multiplatform game to look better, the PS4 is the better option.

Watching < 1080p content on a native 1080p LCD/LED display will look worse than watching it on a 720p screen. LCD screens have a fixed number of pixels, their "native resolution" and going lower than this results in poorer image quality. Windowed gaming is an option here (if you're a PC user) though it has it's own drawbacks (requires more computing power).

 

[synobal]

As most people said in your other thread, aesthetics over graphics.

Oh sure, you can play games on it, in the same way that I can play a port of Modern Warfare 3 on my iPhone, but that isn't what it's built for.

Except some people do build a PC dedicated for playing games.

The keyword in your statement is "some". That's an exception and not a rule. 90-95% of PCs in use today are not used primarily for gaming, so Mr. Jabour's statement holds weight whether you choose to accept it or not.

I don't see your point it is like saying 95% of cars aren't used for racing there for cars cannot be considered a vehicle for racing.

I agree PC's aren't a big player in the up coming console war, those in the know have a gaming PC and use it, those who aren't will pick between one of the other options open to them.

 

[Vegosiux]

But here's the thing: the PC is not a console. Oh sure, you can play games on it, in the same way that I can play a port of Modern Warfare 3 on my iPhone, but that isn't what it's built for. Your Personal Computer is a tool, with which you do things pertaining to real life. You are reading this on your PC. You type reports on your PC. You watch pornography on your PC. It is a jack of all trades, but a console it is not.

Explain how "being a console" in and of itself should be a desirable, or even a relevant trait when it comes to gaming hardware?

Edit: Sorry, messed up my quotes.

 

[Something Amyss]

So, getting back on topic, graphics never make a console win. They barely even give it an edge. So let's all focus on what really matters: predicting who will win on the internet.

How fortunate, then, that one of the major factors in all these cases was cost. And now you have the more expensive unit also having the inferior graphics.

Also, the whole complaint about PCs is just weak. Neither the Xbone or PS4 is solely a gaming consoles (and neither were their predecessors), so what difference does it make if a PC isn't? If my PC is going to run games smoother (which is kind of funny) in better resolution and a better framerate, why does it matter that I can also run MS Office?

Hell, they've been marketing the Xbone to businesses!

I think the hub-ub about COD ghosts (which is what I am assuming this is about) only running at 720p, is not that 720p is "bad" just that COD:Ghosts, a game being released on the current 10 YEAR old hardware cannot be run at 1080p on the next generation gives the impression that the next generation is already absurdly obsolete.

It also makes one question what we're in for for the next 8-10 years. If they're already making sacrifices, are we in for another decade of brown corridors?

I think another big thing to point out is that the people selling us the hardware are some of the primary pushers of TEH GRAFFIX. Honestly, when you've been pushing how much visuals matter to us for so long, it becomes fair criticism that you're not doing the supermegahidef stuff you were talking about. Especially if someone else is. On the same game.

Especially if the PS3 could do it last gen. We expect things to progress. That's why they put out new consoles, remember.