Are People Obsessed With Graphics?

[turkey3_scratch]

Do you think people are overly obsessed with graphics?

 

[ThatVietGuy]

Some people - yes.

 

[swifty_morgan]

i think people are more obsessed with what they don't have.

 

[Huang Ray]

What do you mean?

People AREN'T obsessed with graphics.

They just want to play their games on ultra or high settings smoothly.

Do you meant GPU?

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Some people - yes.

I was wondering because I see how PC gamers constantly are ranting on console gamers because they have better graphics. And how PC gamers only tend to talk about graphics...

 

[turkey3_scratch]

What do you mean?

People AREN'T obsessed with graphics.

They just want to play their games on ultra or high settings smoothly.

Do you meant GPU?

Suppose they have to play the game at low settings at 30FPS. COuld they still enjoy the game or not? I would personally. If they can't enjoy the game at all they are obsessed.

 

[jbrown156]

Do you think people are overly obsessed with graphics?

no not really but sometime people are a little over the top with it and can seriously over do it with their perspective and expectations of what graphics card can do and what it should .. eg a 4850 was considered a beast in 2009 and now because its been surpassed by way more cards people are calling a low end card ,, but get this the card is still strong enough to play modern games even with ddr3 memory

 

[sla70r]

I want to play games at the best level of graphics capable.

 

[BradleyJames]

for me, my computer is my hobby. I keep throwing money at it just because i like too. I maybe only game 6-8 hours a week. i like tinkering more than gaming. Im obsessed with higher end parts and becnchmark numbers.

 

[Eximo]

for me, my computer is my hobby. I keep throwing money at it just because i like too. I maybe only game 6-8 hours a week. i like tinkering more than gaming. Im obsessed with higher end parts and becnchmark numbers.

Agreed, I spend more time researching and building then I do actually playing games (Also not a huge fan of the AAA titles that are re-hashes of the same old games, and the lack of custom maps and modding available these days)

Modding is probably the most notable advantage that PCs have, and the list of available games isn't limited by what the console vendors will allow.

 

[zpam]

Yes we are, coming from consoles you don't care much. But once you get to see a 1440p or 1080p game at ultra resolutions running 60fps+ its never the same, in terms of graphical beauty.

 

[spdragoo]

Graphics, smaphics. Graphics are like special-effects in movies: they enhance the experience, but they aren't a replacement for storyline. A game with super-high-end-strain-your-$1000-GPU graphics but a craptacular story is a loser compared to a game with only so-so graphics but an engaging & entertaining storyline.

Think about Starcraft -- not the newer Starcraft II, the original one. How many games from 17 years ago (Starcraft came out in 1997, the Brood War add-on in 1998) do you still see for sale in stores or online? Even games like Combat Flight Simulator 2 (released in 2000) have long disappeared from the "bargain" shelves in the stores. Yet you can still pick up the "Battle Chest" version of Starcraft (including Brood War & the strategy guide) in stores. That's because the storyline keeps you engaged, even though it predates the use of true 3D graphics in RTS games. And that's why fans were glad that Blizzard took so long to develop Starcraft 2: we didn't just want better/updated graphics, we wanted a great storyline to play through.

Besides, once you start going over 60 FPS anyway, you're not actually seeing any visual improvements. So as long as your hardware easily runs your games at 60+ FPS at the resolution you game at, the rest is just simple posturing.

 

[BradleyJames]

Graphics, smaphics. Graphics are like special-effects in movies: they enhance the experience, but they aren't a replacement for storyline. A game with super-high-end-strain-your-$1000-GPU graphics but a craptacular story is a loser compared to a game with only so-so graphics but an engaging & entertaining storyline.

Think about Starcraft -- not the newer Starcraft II, the original one. How many games from 17 years ago (Starcraft came out in 1997, the Brood War add-on in 1998) do you still see for sale in stores or online? Even games like Combat Flight Simulator 2 (released in 2000) have long disappeared from the "bargain" shelves in the stores. Yet you can still pick up the "Battle Chest" version of Starcraft (including Brood War & the strategy guide) in stores. That's because the storyline keeps you engaged, even though it predates the use of true 3D graphics in RTS games. And that's why fans were glad that Blizzard took so long to develop Starcraft 2: we didn't just want better/updated graphics, we wanted a great storyline to play through.

Besides, once you start going over 60 FPS anyway, you're not actually seeing any visual improvements. So as long as your hardware easily runs your games at 60+ FPS at the resolution you game at, the rest is just simple posturing.

Once you start gaming at 100+ fps, you notice the difference at just gaming at 60. ask anyone with a good gaming monitor

 

[spdragoo]

So...in other words, you have to have the "right" monitor to see the difference...kind of like how, if you're not going to game at 1080p, let alone 4K resolutions, you won't see a lot of performance boost with a top-line GPU vs. a mid-range GPU.

But even if you have the killer set-up that gives you a superb 100+ FPS with ultra settings game experience...if the game's storyline is crap, then the cash you spent for the hardware to run the killer graphics is wasted. Great graphics with a blah story means the game quickly ends up in the "sell it to Half Price Books" box next to your back door; so-so graphics with a killer storyline means the game stays next to your PC on the "take out every few months or so & play it even though it's over 10+ years old" shelf.

 

[BradleyJames]

So...in other words, you have to have the "right" monitor to see the difference...kind of like how, if you're not going to game at 1080p, let alone 4K resolutions, you won't see a lot of performance boost with a top-line GPU vs. a mid-range GPU.

But even if you have the killer set-up that gives you a superb 100+ FPS with ultra settings game experience...if the game's storyline is crap, then the cash you spent for the hardware to run the killer graphics is wasted. Great graphics with a blah story means the game quickly ends up in the "sell it to Half Price Books" box next to your back door; so-so graphics with a killer storyline means the game stays next to your PC on the "take out every few months or so & play it even though it's over 10+ years old" shelf.

like i said, its a hobby. I used to quarter mile drag race and autocross as a hobby, got a wife and kids and my priorities changed. I started building computers instead, instead of racing times, i like to tinker around, overclock and run benchmarks. Its not as much of a rush, but it is cool when firestrike tells you that you beat 97% of all scores. I enjoy staying on top of as much of the new tech as i can.