AHHHHHHHHQILYG! (Gaming)

by Vortech , A Fourth Wheel, Sunday, July 01, 2018, 15:35 (2137 days ago) @ Revenant1988

I'm really tired of everyone arguing past each other every time Cody brings this up.

I'm going to try to review and hopefully we can all get on the same page so at least we can argue the things people are really claiming:

Cody's claims:

1. All other things being equal, better graphics make for a better game. (I suspect he would also admit that this is based only on the fact that graphics are an aspect of a game that can materially influence the quality of the game. That means the same could be said of all aspects of a game - making this claim almost uselessly obvious. (the fallacy of composition notwithstanding) However, that really means people should not be lining up to argue the point.).
No examples of a bad game with good graphics will address this claim. Establishing a "value" for 4K resolution will not access this claim. The only way to argue this is by either claiming a) that graphics have no effect on the quality of a game whatsoever, or b) You somehow played the exact same game with better and worse graphics and are prepared to claim that the better graphics made the game objectively worse (though apparently even that will not work because of the subjectivity of "better" as we have now seen with the Halo argument line which must be as close to this as is possible. Bottom line, there's no reason for arguing this point with him.

2. System resources are better spent on other things than increasing resolution once you hit 1080, because of the increasing cost and diminishing returns past that point. If you must argue something, argue this claim, but please avoid drifting into Claim 1 or listing specific examples of games. This all boils down to Cody's personal preferences — real or imagined since there is no real opportunity to do A/B/X testing on this — and trying to argue that someone does not really like the things they say they like sounds like a phenomenal waste of time to me. It seems like a plausible point, but the biggest weakness (besides the subjectivity and pointlessness mentioned earlier) is the idea that graphics are some sort of zero-sum system that can be evaluated so mathematically. Maybe not going 4K would enable a massive increase in other aspects of the graphics, or maybe it would just mean that they could not justify the development work cost for things that can't be put on a badge on the back of the box, or maybe the development schedule means they have plenty of graphic artists who can make higher Rez textures, but not the coders/artists needed to do other kinds of work. If I were to guess, I would say there is a fuzzy truth in the claim, but that it does not work well as a guiding principle in the real world because of difficulties in implementation and because most games are not art projects funded through a patron of infinite wealth and minimal interest, but commercial enterprises, so giving people what they want to buy is an essential design step or else the whole thing is moot.