Resolution vs Effects (Gaming)

by Revenant1988 , How do I forum?, Saturday, June 30, 2018, 15:19 (2138 days ago) @ Cody Miller

Hey remember when I said 4K was a waste because you could get better looking games at 1080p? That instead of rendering 4x the pixels you could use better effects on the ones that you have with all that extra GPU power?

The Switch port of Wolfenstein New Colossus runs at a low resolution, often down to 640 x 360, but opted to keep all the effects and stuff from the other versions. The result? Well according to Digital Foundry:

"It's the best looking handheld shooter we've ever seen"

#morefxfewerpixels #4KButnotToday

I know there is a vocal subset of gamers that like to jerk-off to how good a game looks, the resolution, effects blah blah blah.

I am not one of them.

As long as the game is FUN and runs smoothly for what it is, it doesn't have to look hyper realistic etc.

Graphics are not separate from fun. You interface with a game almost exclusively through audio and visual means. What’s more ‘fun’ : exploring a gorgeous detailed world? Or a world that looks like Quake 1? What’s more fun, killing an enemy with a cool explosion with great particle effects, or just having a crappy explosion sprite?

Alright I'll bite- Halo CE VS Destiny 2. I vastly, VASTLY prefer Halo CE over D2. I remember exploring the levels in HCE way past the developers intended scope, such as running out into the middle of nowhere on mission 2, just because I could. Or trying to explore the depths of the silent cartographer. Of course I know there are no enemies down there etc, or the textures ended at a point and things got less polished. It was hella fun!

I absolutely remember exploring the world of the original Doom and Doom 2, for hours. Just because. Legitimate secret areas were icing on the cake. D2 kinda has those with lost sectors, and I remember mentioning what a shame it was that several of them were beautiful to the point where the rest of the game didn't have anything like them visually, that they were unique but they just got....repetitive.

Exploding a group of grunts and elites with a rocket, and then how ms-paint looking their blood puddles on the ground were- didn't care! Popping a dregs head and that woosh of ether that happens is pretty neat too, but I'm not sure that I'd dislike it if it didn't have that for example. It's just satisfying to pop them.

D2. I stopped playing it. It isn't fun for me. It LOOKS GORGEOUS. Fantastic attention paid to details and environments. But none of that matters. It's just D1 all over again. No substance. Can't explore as much. Feels like it isn't encouraged, actually it feels like it's discouraged. "See somewhere and you can go there" LMAO- noooope.

Graphics are part of the fun in a real way. So you should absolutely care how your game looks. Also please point to where I said I want hyper realism, because I never said that.

I didn't and I never said you did.

I simply commented that I think people who focus on graphics miss the point.

Did playing D1 on xbox 360 make it any less fun than having the graphics of XB1? I recall several people on these forums saying that it didn't It certainly didn't HURT, but it wasn't important.