@Octane I dont believe it but what I dont believe, even though I respect any view, is that its the only thing that matters. A console is a myriad of things, and one does not make or break it.
As I said this thing couldve had the most teraflops or at least on par with PS4. Problem is its proce wouldve shot up, itd be much bigger and it would also probably melt into your hands but thats actually what people wanted without thinking about it.
Gamers dont account for feasability and the realism of a situation. Which is ironic given gamers love realism.
But hey thats just me, some folks need only power and thats cool. Cant say i get it but its cool.
Now Playing: Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart, Crash Bandicoot 4
@BiasedSonyFan I concur. Something should be viewed on what it is not what it isnt. I cant remember whrre I said this, it may have been regarding Switch even.
Now Playing: Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart, Crash Bandicoot 4
@BLP_Software The only time I've seen "complaints" about the power was in regard to third party support. That's a valid argument. If you like COD, this console probably isn't for you, because colour me impressed if this system gets all the COD games. I don't see the issue with that. I haven't seen anyone truly complain about the TFLOPs or whatever you're suggesting. And if you're talking about the trolls in the YouTube comments, they are everywhere, and they're just, well, trolls.
Sorry, but that perception is not too far from reality. Not when Sony and Microsoft are still trying to get people to buy consoles based on the false premise that more graphical power = better video games. Nintendo fans have been hearing it from the graphics crowd for a decade, and they are not in the minority.
Nothing wrong with preferring some of the video games on Sony or Microsoft consoles. However, when every console that Nintendo releases is constantly scrutinized by many in the gaming community for what it can't do — provide cutting-edge console graphics, for example — instead of being accepted (even if not liked) as a viable alternative to the video game experience that can already be found on three gaming platforms, then you have to wonder.
The vast majority of complaints I hear about Nintendo games are about the games themselves, not that they don't have cutting edge graphics. Critiquing the graphics is perfectly valid, though, since it is still an aspect of any game. I myself enjoy some nice visuals. Still, that's just a minor thing, and if that's someone's main complaint about a company's games, they're idiots and can safely be ignored.
Anyone who buys a PS4 or Xbox One for the graphics and not the games is a complete moron, anyway. If someone wants cutting edge graphics, they should get a gaming PC.
@BiasedSonyFan Ask any serious gamer if they want resolution of framerate. A coupe of my friends are big PC gamers, if anything, the only thing I'm hearing them praise about is when games offer a higher framerate at the cost of resolution. It's the same thing I hear online. ''Graphics'' are an easy selling point to your average Joe-don't-know-diddly-squat, but they are far from your typical gamer.
Regardless, I agree with @KirbyTheVampire; Good looking visuals or a high resolution, although not important, are a nice addition. A high level of detail can be beneficial to the immersion in my opinion. I'm definitely not going to scoff a game for looking good.
Graphics and AAA third-party video games aren't unrelated. Gamers are demanding those graphics in their video games; they want the increased resolution and graphical fidelity in their video games, even at the expense of framerate. Sony, Microsoft, and video game publishers make cutting-edge graphics a focus in their advertising for a reason: graphics help to sell their video games even before anyone plays them.
As for the "just get a gaming PC" argument: prices and ease of setup matter. Console gamers like those things in consoles, but that doesn't mean that plenty of console gamers can't be graphics snobs within their world.
PC gaming is arguably cheaper than console gaming. You can pay like 500-700 dollars for a PC that can outperform modern consoles. Then once you have the computer fully set up, you really only need to upgrade parts every couple years or so, assuming you care about things like framerate and graphics. Plus, the online is free and the Steam sales are insane. You can get games that are normally full price for a fraction of what it would normally cost. If you have a list of games you want, you can binge-buy them during those sales and save hundreds of dollars. And sure, building a PC takes more know-how than plugging in a console, but it's not impossible to just buy all the parts and pay someone to build it for you. Or just look up how to build one online.
PC gaming is only as expensive as you make it. The price of console gaming is set in stone.
As for the whole gamers who care about graphics over gameplay thing, I really doubt many of those people exist, if any. They might care about visuals more than most, but no real gamer would buy a bad game just because it looks good. There have been plenty of great looking games that bombed hard because they didn't live up to people's expectations in terms of gameplay, and other things not related to visuals or resolution. Nintendo fans especially seem to stereotype non-Nintendo gamers that way, but they never stop to consider that maybe some people just don't like games like Mario Galaxy or Mario Kart or Yoshi's Woolly World?
At the end of the day, there's nothing wrong with liking good graphics or resolution. Some people just want to take their favorite games and push their visuals to the limit, and that's totally fine. I personally love when games look good. That doesn't mean I seek out the best looking games and play them just because they look good. I look for the most enjoyable games, and good graphics and resolution is just an added bonus. That's the case with 99.999% of other gamers, too.
You guys are missing one huge thing: the pretty-much-clueless console gamer who has really never touched a PC for gaming and never will. THOSE people are the ones you see on message boards and the bigger websites constantly griping about graphics and pewpewpew. Those people, truly, think the PS4 is "powerful" (lol) simply because their scope is so narrow. They've never built a gaming PC for themselves; they think LoL and Counter Strike are the only worthwhile PC games; they think Nintendo games suck because of the graphics.
And there are A LOT of these people out there, contrary to what some of you think. I used to write for a gaming website. Trust me, these people are the ones we would aim a lot of articles at if you wanted some quick views toward your goal for the week. They are the most gullible, single-minded type of consumer you could imagine.
Other than that, I agree. Knowledgeable gamers realize that graphics do not equal good, and that the PC is pretty much a one-stop-shop for most games you could want (aside from Nintendo). We enjoy the hobby simply because we enjoy games, not because it's a competition in pixels. But the big media websites have found that those chuckleheads from my first paragraph enjoy consuming clickbait articles about graphics comparisons, 4k pipe dreams, etc.
You guys are missing one huge thing: the pretty-much-clueless console gamer who has really never touched a PC for gaming and never will. THOSE people are the ones you see on message boards and the bigger websites constantly griping about graphics and pewpewpew. Those people, truly, think the PS4 is "powerful" (lol) simply because their scope is so narrow. They've never built a gaming PC for themselves; they think LoL and Counter Strike are the only worthwhile PC games; they think Nintendo games suck because of the graphics.
And there are A LOT of these people out there, contrary to what some of you think. I used to write for a gaming website. Trust me, these people are the ones we would aim a lot of articles at if you wanted some quick views toward your goal for the week. They are the most gullible, single-minded type of consumer you could imagine.
Other than that, I agree. Knowledgeable gamers realize that graphics do not equal good, and that the PC is pretty much a one-stop-shop for most games you could want (aside from Nintendo). We enjoy the hobby simply because we enjoy games, not because it's a competition in pixels. But the big media websites have found that those chuckleheads from my first paragraph enjoy consuming clickbait articles about graphics comparisons, 4k pipe dreams, etc.
True, but anyone who prefers a platform for it's power over another weaker platform is in a whole different group from the rare group of people who think games without cutting edge graphics suck. Uninformed console fanboys are of course much more prevalent than someone who prefers graphics over gameplay. The vast majority of real gamers can recognize a good game when they see/play one, regardless of it's graphics. A bad game is a bad game, no matter how pretty it looks. That's why the stereotype about non-Nintendo gamers only playing games for the graphics is so ridiculous. Anyone who would take a bad game over a good one because it has slightly better graphics is not a real gamer.
I agree about the console loyalty thing, though. I'm sure there are plenty of naive 10 year old boys on the internet who don't shut up about PlayStation being the ultimate system because it's so "powerful", meanwhile a mid-range PC can wipe the floor with it.
3 weeks from today we'll all be playing Switch. Just 3 weeks!
21 days.... 21 days.... 21 days
Once I get my hands on that Switch, from Monday to Sunday I'll never see the sun's rays... just 21 days
All have sinned and fall short of Gods glory. Wages of sin is death. Romans
God so loved the world He sent His only Son- whoever believes on Him has eternal life. Unless you believe, you will die in your sins. Whoever believes, rivers of living water flow within them. John
Ask any serious gamer if they want resolution of framerate.
Right away, you're arguing a strawman. I'm not talking about the so-called "serious" gamer. See the post by @rallydefault.
Here are other strawmen or inaccurate claims that you're both arguing:
I'm definitely not going to scoff a game for looking good.
While I often poke harmless fun at the graphics-obsessed crowd in my posts, I actually agree with you here. I play video games on both Sony consoles and a high-end gaming PC.
PC gaming is arguably cheaper than console gaming
Over time, yes. Up front, no; and many people don't consider long-term ROI when they decide between a console and a PC.
Also, don't pooh-pooh PC assembly. Many people don't even want to bother with that aspect of PC gaming.
As for the whole gamers who care about graphics over gameplay thing, I really doubt many of those people exist, if any. They might care about visuals more than most, but no real gamer would buy a bad game just because it looks good.
Not only did I not make this a debate about graphics vs. gameplay, what you said doesn't make sense. Publishers don't think about your personal criteria for who qualifies as a "real gamer"; they only try to sell video games based on the factors that appeal to their target markets (graphics being one major factor). Sony and Microsoft don't spend billions of dollars in advertising video games with "photo-realistic" visuals or cut scenes that are "rendered in real time" for nothing. Many people do buy video games because, in addition to being T-rated/M-rated/sports video games, they also look realistic.
Here are the top-20 selling video games on the PS4, and here are their Metacritic user ratings in parentheses (and don't you or @Octane dare dismiss user ratings because you think the video games are just rated by trolls who want to dis a video game for no reason):
1. CoD: Black Ops III (4.7) 2. Grand Theft Auto V (8.3)
3. FIFA 17 (4.9)
4. FIFA 16 (4.3) 5. Uncharted 4: A Thief's End (7.9)
6. Star Wars Battlefront (5.0)
7. CoD: Advanced Warfare (5.7)
8. Fallout 4 (6.5)
9. CoD: Infinite Warfare (3.5) 10. Battlefield 1 (8.4)
11. FIFA 15 (5.7)
12. Destiny (6.1) 13. The Last of Us (9.0) 14. Uncharted: The Nathan Drake Collection (8.1)
15. Minecraft (6.4) 16. The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (9.2)
17. Tom Clancy's The Division (7.0) 18. Final Fantasy XV (7.7) 19. Batman: Arkham Knight (7.6)
20. Watch Dogs (6.3)
Go ahead and discredit these ratings all you want; apparently, the user ratings of video games such as the Last of Us also don't count since these video games are only rated by trolls. For video games, Metacritic considers critic reviews with scores above 75 as "generally favorable"; for the sake of consistency, I'll also consider video games with user reviews above 7.5 as "generally favorable". From this list of 20 video games, only eight video games make the cut. Eight! Eleven of these video games aren't even rated at least a 7.0. So no, gamers don't just buy video games they think are good; they also buy average, crappy, downright-bad, or highly-polarizing video games — and in droves.
Nintendo fans especially seem to stereotype non-Nintendo gamers that way, but they never stop to consider that maybe some people just don't like games like Mario Galaxy or Mario Kart or Yoshi's Woolly World? At the end of the day, there's nothing wrong with liking good graphics or resolution. Some people just want to take their favorite games and push their visuals to the limit, and that's totally fine.
Sure, but that's not the problem. The problem is when the visuals of certain video games aren't pushed to the limit (e.g., the visuals of Nintendo games); indeed, one major reason why plenty of gamers skip Nintendo video games is because they don't have the graphical fidelity of other video games. You're right to suggest that there are other reasons why many gamers don't like Nintendo games. In fact, I'll just list two that I think are the most important:
1. The average gamer today is a male in his 30s; he plays M-rated video games; Nintendo games are not M-rated.
2. Nintendo games don't have the graphical fidelity of other video games.
While I would like to like to think the first reason is pretty much the only reason, even Nintendo games that are targeted to older audiences are either shunned by these gamers or not as loved as other video games (Zelda, Metroid, etc.). So it's not simply a matter of Nintendo video games not having a T or M rating.
I'm not denying that games with good graphics sell, but those games still got poor user ratings. If the stereotype was true and non-Nintendo gamers care only about graphics and not gameplay, they would be rated much higher than that. Despite selling well and having good graphics, a lot of those games fizzled out quickly. Besides, not all of those games are bad. Minecraft and Fallout 4, for example, are generally regarded as good games for the most part, at least outside of the PlayStation community. A lot of them had significant hype trains behind them before launch too, like The Division and Fallout 4, which would definitely help with sales.
Graphical fidelity definitely has an impact on game sales, so it doesn't help Nintendo to have outdated visuals at all. I'm just saying that literally no one would continue playing a bad game just because it looks good. They might skip good games just because the graphics are bad, which is pretty ridiculous, but hey, to each his own. At the very least they would stick with other goods games that also have good visuals.
@TomJ
In general? Yes. If something falls behind to a ridiculous degree in any category that's kinda crap. But I'm thinking more in terms of what I'll be willing to ignore. I can ignore the fact that a game that has average graphics technically if it has great gameplay and art direction. But if a game has fantastic graphics and I can run it at 4K? Who gives a crap if it's not any fun.
Same deal with hardware. It can be the most powerful machine in a tiny form factor all it wants. If it sounds like a plane taking off and you can cook an egg on the side of the case? I don't care. I am not impressed. A piece of hardware that is virtually silent and comfortable to hold? I can live with the fact that it's not running Doom at 8K.
@KirbyTheVampire
Eh, I mostly agree with you, but I still stick to my assertion that there are WAY more people out there than you may think who believe games without good graphics suck. I interacted with these people daily (my editor made us be active in the comments section for our own stories), and if you can use laws of statistical analysis to predict a large pattern off of a sample size, then you'd be pretty shocked at how many people think this way.
I also have a friend who is a community manager for a pretty big, well-known MOBA game dev, and she would tell you the exact same thing. For a large, large number of people out there, graphics=good game, lack of graphics=no sell.
@rallydefault
To be fair when you're looking at trailers and stuff graphics is basically all you see. You don't see framerate because a lot of that content is still at 30fps. You may see resolution but online streaming services are still heavily compressed and a lot of people view this stuff on phones/tablets. And you can't really appreciate the gameplay of something by looking at a video.
So all you're left with are the graphics and the art direction. Terms which people use pretty much interchangeably. And the graphics in particular is heavily focused on by the gaming press. They want that to be the main thing because it's less open to interpretation. They don't have to give an opinion about the graphics they can just do a side-by-side comparison. And that's the content that the most vocal people will get used to consuming.
But the thing I'll always go back to is this. People don't know what they want. At the end of the day the biggest hits in gaming aren't always the best looking games. So despite what people say? Gameplay is still the most important thing to gamers. It's just that it's a thing that's harder to describe and it's a little bit more subjective.
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread
Posts 10,121 to 10,140 of 70,051
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic