Literally and unironically when did you stop caring about 'muh graphix'

After I played New Vegas and realized I didn't care if every game I played after that looked like it as long as it was as good as it to
and of course I'm still playing New Vegas because nothing has showed it up yet

A little after the PS4 and Xbone 1 dropped. After looking at how games stagnated and barely changed in the last decade I realized that console graphics are a joke. No to mention that the 10% graphical boost cut the framerate to 25. A tiny improvement in textures and it tanks it that far? AND they're trying to push the 4k meme even when the game looks like shit? Fuck that

The PS1. It was an era of games that ran like shit and looked like crap, just because 3D was the new hotness even though it looked like shit.

At the same time tons of sprite based games that looked amazing started coming out.

So maybe I still do care about 'muh graphix', just in the "I want it to look good with a great style" and not 'MUH REALISM'

Attached: breath-of-fire-3-06.png (800x600, 931.65K)

have not. it's 2020 there's no excuse for bad graphix in AAA games unless they have an original artstyle. shit like halo infinite is just depressing to look at

PS2 era I suppose. Everything looked great finally, no need for any more other than better textures.

>2020
>still plays AAA shit

I've never really played anything with cutting edge graphics past the Sega Genesis era so I suppose I was that way from the start.
3DS resolution and graphical quality people bitched about never bothered me either. The games were fun, the music was good, and regardless of it being 240p, the character designs were still good too even if that counts as part of graphics.

Around this time, yeah.

I do this from time to time.

OG Xbox was when I first thought graphics were "good enough", as in I'd be okay if there was never any advancement on computer graphics after that point.

I hate that games still focus on getting increasingly minor incremental improvements of graphics while completely ignoring player's ability to interact with the game world (something that peaked in 1992 with Ultima 7, the only game where you can change the diapers of a random NPC baby and then throw the dirty diaper at another NPC and the NPC will run away in terror).

Never because I'm not a console warrior with buyer's remorse doing damage control.

I stopped when someone explained to me the difference between real time graphics and pre-rendering. I play Tekken and I always really liked how the characters look in the FMVs, so I thought one day the characters would look like that during gameplay because they sometimes don’t look how they were “meant to be”. Then someone said I would basically need a supercomputer to render the hyperrealistic textures at 60fps in real time.

Attached: AD5D1A74-4865-482A-B788-71CD48158193.jpg (519x452, 32.27K)

Why are chinks such fucking retards?

When my FPS would tank below 60.

pretty much this, aesthetic is more important
fidelity is a such a poor thing to chase, fps is much more critical
in a better world we wouldn't have gone much farther paste ps3 or even ps2 level grafix and instead looked to add more content and quality in lieu of the fidelity

Halflife/counterstrike/SC2/WC3/WOW

??
Did you mean to quote someone else?

As soon as I found out about emulation I stopped caring about graphics. The constant graphics pushing is really only relevant to the most current content, and maybe that's why people rather want remasters with current graphics instead of just going to play or emulate an old game. They're plenty available and easy to access, but there's so much narrative about whatever looks best being better to play.

Truth. AAA graphics are a boogeyman.

Never did care. I think the denand for "realism" is a bad idea in general, kills the longevity of a game.

Appealing art styles are better, fit it with your world. Realism is best suited for sandboxes or shooters.

As long as the character isn't comprised of literal blocks I can look past the visuals.

I grew up playing older consoles like the n64, ps2, and wii before I got my ps4 5 years after release. Never gave a shit, i always enjoyed single player games anyways

I replayed shit like king kong and scrapland that were on the xbox recently and they still look pretty damn good
I can appreciate graphical quality higher than that but the games are enjoyable enough at that point and were reaching the point were new graphical upgrades like bloom and motion blur and other post processing arguably look worse than what we had before

I never cared but maybe that's because when I was a kid most graphics were pixelated messes that only vaguely looked like the things they represent. I'd be fine with graphics staying at PS2 quality forever if it means good gameplay.

Never?
Graphics are not the most important thing to me but I still care about them

The middle of this gen. I was big on graphics until they basically became the only point of importance of tons of games. Half the time it feels like gameplay or story has completely taken a back seat now.

I still care about graphics, but I only really play simulators these days

Not sure what to answer: during the GC/PS2 era most games were stylized and had many graphical effects that served as "make up" for any lack of power. However the 360/PS3 and the "muh realism" era made it clear consoles weren't powerful enough so many titles suffered from shitty frame rate, ugly textures and pathetic resolutions. The jump to the current gen at least offered decent antialiasing and HD resolutions (finally).

Now you might've noticed I didn't mention PC and that's because sadly pc in many cases is tied to what the consoles of that gen can do.

You could probably do that in Postal 2.

After crysis. Around that time I started to realize that just because a game's graphics are good doesn't mean that the game is well designed or fun

After Pixel Shader 2. This was the thing that allowed textures to look like various materials, and not just a picture that is lit the same as all other textures around. Metal looked like metal, wood like wood, plastics were plastics, and so on. So around 2002-2005, I guess. All other later technical improvements seemed very minor, and didn't have that wow factor anymore.
It was pretty much the last major step in the rapid 3D graphics improvements of the late 90s.

/v is extremely hypocrite when it comes to this. In general they will be saying that they don't care, but then for specific games they dont like, graphics arguments will always be dropped and made a huge issue with things like, "looks like a ps2 game".

I am a sucker for good quality cel shaded graphics...I guess by western standards that would imply I never cared

Crysis. I thought that the focus should be on having passable graphics that allowed you to have a much larger maps, player counts and interactable/deployable/increased assets on the map. But they never did and with console limitations they never increased the player count.

does graphix refer to screenshots used in game marketing or the actual experience of playing the game with the audiovisual feedback you react to?

Attached: 1480405957258.jpg (2560x1440, 3.3M)

ive never bought or not bought a game bc of the graphics

A good long time ago actually. I started noticing a trend of graphics over quality. and that the best looking games weren't the best games.

it was then that the concept of "less is more" entered my mind, and the idea that older games were better precisely because they had to work under harder restrictions.

Rules and challenge lead to creativity
100% freedom tends to lead to devs having no direction.

When I realized I only care about 60 fps and a high resolution. Shadows are the only settings i care about

When I played Baldur's Gate 2 for the first time in 2014 and had more fun with a game than I'd had in years. The level art is pretty good and comfy but nothing spectacular graphically

i dont know genius why dont you take your best guess?

Around 7th gen when games stopped having massive noticeable improvements and yet graphics cards were only becoming more expensive between each new generation

Attached: 1563428691069.png (1000x1000, 502.43K)

Bro this whole board is people saying whatever they can to win an argument or to get as many responses as possible.

I'm a chad; I never did. Aesthetic artstyles have been a thing since the dawn of cinema and animation, why the fuck would I only enjoy video games a certain way? Try and imagine GRIS with Call of Duty "I can see his pores" graphics.

Doesn't fit what they're going for.

I think it was around the GC era when I played Eternal Darkness, a game that does not have great graphics but really knows how to use its art direction to its fullest

Let's be fair, a AAA game should not look bad simply because of how much money has been thrown at it. I can excuse it on any lower levels of budget.

In gen 7 with the graphicfaggots running wild shitting up that made me realize that I never really cared.

So fpbp

Half life 2