Topic: How Graphically impressive do you want your videogames to be?

To start, as hard as it is to believe, Those who play games on Nintendo systems also like to play games on other consoles from time to time. The topic of this discussion came to me when i was playing Titanfall 2 on PS4. Good game, you should play it, by the way. And just from the opening chapter alone, this game is a visual marvel. Everywhere you look, from plants to the scratches in the rocks, there's something impressive to look at.
But it did get me thinking. If this game were to be ported to Switch, there would definetly be a downgrade. Something the devs might not want. But if i'm being honest, I'd be fine with a downgrade. Yes, a downgrade in all it's blurry, messy glory. I Only play games for the game and story nowadays anyway. Done well, It'd still have the same story and gameplay, You'd just have to put up with the fact certian things don't look like they're really there.
This got me thinking; How graphically impressive do we want our games to be? Do they really need to be this Graphically impressive if it means certain things have to be sacraficed to get it on lower end hardware?
See, I Think the reason certain games take up so much space, even when you buy them phisically is because Developers have gotten so used to just putting everything on the hard drive. Not just because of all the systems that are running under the hood to make sure that the game's mechanics run properly (Though lord knows that's a big factor that should not be discounted, along with having uncompressed sound, but this is a topic better reserved for someone with more tech experience), But just because we've gotten so used to every game coming out raising the bar in terms of graphical quality. Does it have to be that way? Or should developers be looking to downscale the graphical quality of Videogames because we've done everything humanly possible?
Because if I'm being honest, I'm not sure if a character's hair being blurred on or not or being unable to see the snowflakes melt on a character's coat or seeing edges on everything really contributes or damages a game's main goal at the end of it all. It's still the same game, what matters is whether or not the game can keep me going long enough. It depends on the game, i guess.
Thus, i wanted to throw the question out there; Do you prefer your games have the best graphics possible, no matter what? Or are you OK with dealing with the fact it's not as good looking as it could be? I've been holding off on asking this question for a while, as I'm worried that you'll just think I'm fine with everything being as chunky as the N64 days. I guess i feel we've gone as far as we can go with graphics in games and don't know how much farther we can go.
But that's just me, of course. What's your limit on how good or bad a game looks?

I’ve always enjoyed great graphics and the work that goes into getting them that way. It’s a marvel to see some of the details teams can create in gameplay environments now. That being said, I only own a switch. There are a whole lot of games that I would love to play on other systems (especially PC as that’s what I grew up playing through college). But with the little time I have for gaming, I want to be able to play fantasticly designed games anywhere I have time to (whether it’s story or levels or gameplay in general or whatever). I’ve found that most of the time, I rarely pay attention to the graphical details (they are more just helping show the environment than being the game itself) unless I take a random moment to look around (which I definitely do because I still like to experience the atmosphere) or the game requires/suggests that I take a look at a vista or something (BoTW).

TLDR for me graphics aren’t everything, but I like them to be as beautiful as they can be. It helps me get lost in games even further.

I really don't mind that much about the gap in graphics between Nintendo and Sony + Microsoft. Sure, it'd be preferable for the Switch to be more graphically enhanced, especially for games which are very beautiful (e.g. BOTW) but I'll happily stick with 1080 pixels docked and 720 handheld as long as the graphics aren't unacceptably poor and the games are good. Yes, there is a problem with porting from more powerful consoles like the PS4 but the gameplay will remain the same, regardless.

It does not bother me at all. I do have a PC monitor 1440p 144hz and a series X but even last month I was mostly playing Monster Hunter stories and Ys IX on switch and mostly docked. The fact I can go out for the weekend and take the game with me is just a game changer

I mean, you say that like it's a bad thing. =P

Generally, graphics are not the defining feature behind platform choice for me. I don't mind if some games look downgraded compared to others as long as it is not missing gameplay features. That said, if a game performs noticeably worse on the Switch compared to PS4 such as unstable framerate, I am more likely to pick up the game on PS4 as a result. Different genres can also make a difference. I am more likely to pick up puzzle and visual novel games on the Switch than on PS4/elsewhere.

There are also factors such as price and availability. Games like Doom Eternal on Switch, as much as I wouldn't mind a copy, I got a physical copy on PS4 for a fraction of the price. If a third-party game has launch and price parity, then I am also more likely to buy on the Switch.

I am impressed by higher fidelity games managing to run on something meagerly specced, but that doesn't mean I'll sacrifice everything just to play it that way, which is why typically when a game I already own on something like PS4 or PC gets a Switch port, most of the time I don't double dip, like with Witcher 3 and DOOM Eternal

I will say though I do think graphical presentation does add way more to a game's aesthetics or atmosphere than a lot of people are willing to give it credit for. The visual fidelity of games like Spider-Man, God of War, Jedi: Fallen Order DMC5, Resident Evil 2 Remake and Final Fantasy VII Remake are just additive to the experience in my eyes, and I also vastly prefer how a game like Samurai Shodown or Street Fighter V visually looks to something like KOFXIV, and those games looking as good as they do makes it equally as exhilirating to watch as they are to play

@CactusMan I actually never picked up DOA6. I was going to when I saw they added Mai Shiranui to the roster but then I saw those goddamn DLC prices on the PS Store and just said "nope"

As long as things look clean & not blurry (and even only 720p looks clean to me) I'm good with any graphics as long as they're at least PS2 level (for 3D games at least. 16 & even 8 bit graphics for 2D games can look good depending on art direction)

Though I will admit I like playing a really pretty looking game every once in awhile.

I was fine at Gamecube. Anything above that isn't at all necessary for me. Certainly doesn't sell me a 500 quid console lol.

For the most part I just need to be able to see the damn thing, And FPS at least needs to be 30,

For shooters tho I have a hard time at 30 fps, And I need a good rez for it or I wont be able to see were I'm aiming.

So overall I couldn't really care, Game cube to 64 games are good enough looking for me.

I grew up on N64 and thus have no standards lol

For me the graphics is absolute secondary to gameplay. Meening, that if the gameplay work really Well, I don't mind if the graphics has some minor problems. I have TROPICO 6, which several reviews stated had graphical problems. I have only played the patched version, so the graphics might had some gameplay-issues. But since we are talking about a City-building/strategy-game, I have doubts regarding this.

Another game I have just begun playing is FIREWATCH, and this game also have its critics about the switch graphics. Personally I haven't noticed any slack or other problems. But another point is - I can't see, how any minor problems in any Way should influence the gameplay negative.

I can understand @snatcher's point regarding first-person shooters, a gamegenre where precision is everything, but for those games, where this isn't a primary issue, the judgement of graphics should be toned down.

We're at a point now where this isn't even a topic worth discussing.

Modern games tend to look fantastic, even those on a shoestring budget (just look at Bertil Hörberg's games). It really just comes down to the quality of a game's art direction at this point.

Genre also matters. For example, I'm not terribly keen on non-fantasy open-world games with heavily stylised visuals. The appeal of games such as GTAV is that you can cause chaos in a world that, by and large, resembles an exaggerated version of that which we live in. While the still-excellent GTA: Vice City holds up today, I find the newer games to be a lot more engrossing due to improvements in graphical realism, even though I am not as big a fan of the characters, story, settings (or politics) of more recent installments in the franchise.

Graphically, the only thing I would want, really, are for games to be rendered at the hardware's native resolution and for a consistent frame rate. Everything else is a bonus. With the odd 3DS game, however, some games yielded better performance in 2D mode. With Dead or Alive: Dimensions, for example, I often went back and forth between 3D and 2D, because as much as I freaking love stereoscopic 3D, I also loved the silky smooth frame rate of the game in 2D. Either way, the game is freaking gorgeous.

For the most part, I find Switch ports to be far more impressive than their ultra-max-super-duper-ultimate-cream-cheese equivalents on PC. I played DOOM (2016) on PC after having played it on Switch, and I must confess that I didn't find the PC version to be anywhere near as impressive, even with its "ultra" high resolution textures and silky smooth frame rate.

The convenience of the Switch will always win me over as opposed to having the absolute best graphics and performance. The graphical capabilities of the Switch are already fantastic as it is. Can it be improved? Of course. Hell, I intend to grab the OLED model on day one, but time and resources are also finite, and few developers would be able to refine their games to perfection or opt for jaw-droppingly realistic visuals (except perhaps for Rockstar, which may perhaps explain why GTA6 is taking so damn long ).

With all that said though, VR technology is very exciting, and I would want the resolution and graphical quality of such games to be as high as humanly possible, definitely, but for games that I play on any other device, I am far easier to please.

@CactusMan You sly dog you.

The one thing that ***** me is there's a widespread attitude (not on here), that if a game doesn't have the absolute best and life-like graphics, then it must be a bad game and it isn't worth playing.

Whenever I tell people I have a Switch, a common response is "oh the graphics aren't as good as PS4/Xbox". So f*****g what?

It honestly reminds me of back in the Gamecube/Wii era when people would say "Oh but it doesn't have a DVD player!" Again, so f*****g what?

Made a rule a while back that I won't discuss gaming with people so ill-informed, not worth the energy or frustration of putting up with someone's ignorance.

I don't expect it. I expect games to be fun and playable. If they look pretty that's nice too but it's the least of my concern.

@Tendo64 I think you underestimate the amount of people who used a PlayStation 2 back in the day as a makeshift DVD player. That's like one of the biggest reasons that console became the best-selling one in history since it was perfect for families who didn't have the cash to blow on a discrete one lol

Hell I still used my PS3 as one as well as both my PS4 and PS5 for 4K movies. It's actually a way bigger selling point for more casual folk than one might think

Yeah, I get that, I also use my PS3 for bluray movies. Just seems flawed though for people to put down a gaming console for being, well, a gaming console, and not a multimedia player.

The 3DS has some of my favorite looking games of all time. So personally speaking, we’ve arrived.

But then I also don’t play games that simulate the photo-real world 🤷🏿‍♀️

really for me things like artstyle and performance are the most important, ive been replaying Tales of Vesperia on switch and feel the visuals still hold up due to how its presented, and outside of some frame pacing issues the switch version runs really well with battles running at a smooth 60fps.

in terms of visuals they can have an effect on the gameplay in a way, im not talking about high end 4k photorealism but rather if a games world is aesthetically pleasing it can make it more enjoyable to spend time in, its one of the reasons why i enjoyed my time with games like the Xenoblade series (outside of how 2 ran in handheld)

though i would say performance could also count as a gameplay aspect since i find when a game has an unstable framerate or drops below 30 it can end up feeling bad to play, (and for some can be outright headache inducing) its also why im glad that we don't have to worry about 50hz games in europe anymore.