First, I can’t afford a new computer or even a new graphics card. All these “gaming on a budget” type things are all priced in USD, and I’m in Canada after conversion and the Canada tax, local shops are selling it for a lot more… I can only imagine that going up with the tariffs.
Second, graphics ain’t shit. Look at some of the most popular games around and some of them have the “worst” graphics. I don’t mean to pick on any game in specific, but I’ll mention two notable examples: the first is Minecraft. Square voxels and pretty basic visuals all around. Easily one of the most popular titles of all time. I don’t play it, but I get it. The other example I want to point to is schedule I. Honestly the graphics in the game, when compared to the nearly realistic content that games like assassin’s Creed has, and it’s basically trash by comparison. The game is huge and hugely popular. The graphics, or lack thereof, is not a detractor from how fun the game is.
Don’t get me wrong. High graphics can contribute to a good game; and therein lies the problem. You need to have a good game that you can apply the graphics to, in order for it to be valuable. If you take away the graphics and replace the visuals with something far more basic, and the game loses its appeal, your game sucks. Fix that first, then try again.
I have a pretty massive collection of steam titles that I’m planning to play as things start to devolve into higher and higher specs for basically no gains. Like ray tracing, it’s cool, looks good… But I don’t need it to have fun in a game. I usually turn it off because it compromises performance for basically no real gain. Sure, shadows look a bit more shit, and lights aren’t as glowy, but I don’t care about that. I just want to play. Why is RT a requirement for some games now? The hell?
Anyways. High graphics are better in more cinematic games, but publishers have gotten so obsessed with making cinematic content that they forgot to include a game with it.
Give me more substance, more character development, more scenes, not just action.
I never understood the point of realistic (or heavily stylized) graphics. Maybe it’s just me, but after about 5 minutes of “wow” my brain’s visual processor starts treating it as anything else, whether it’s Doom 2, Borderlands 2, or Stalker 2.
First, I can’t afford a new computer or even a new graphics card. All these “gaming on a budget” type things are all priced in USD, and I’m in Canada after conversion and the Canada tax, local shops are selling it for a lot more… I can only imagine that going up with the tariffs.
Second, graphics ain’t shit. Look at some of the most popular games around and some of them have the “worst” graphics. I don’t mean to pick on any game in specific, but I’ll mention two notable examples: the first is Minecraft. Square voxels and pretty basic visuals all around. Easily one of the most popular titles of all time. I don’t play it, but I get it. The other example I want to point to is schedule I. Honestly the graphics in the game, when compared to the nearly realistic content that games like assassin’s Creed has, and it’s basically trash by comparison. The game is huge and hugely popular. The graphics, or lack thereof, is not a detractor from how fun the game is.
Don’t get me wrong. High graphics can contribute to a good game; and therein lies the problem. You need to have a good game that you can apply the graphics to, in order for it to be valuable. If you take away the graphics and replace the visuals with something far more basic, and the game loses its appeal, your game sucks. Fix that first, then try again.
I have a pretty massive collection of steam titles that I’m planning to play as things start to devolve into higher and higher specs for basically no gains. Like ray tracing, it’s cool, looks good… But I don’t need it to have fun in a game. I usually turn it off because it compromises performance for basically no real gain. Sure, shadows look a bit more shit, and lights aren’t as glowy, but I don’t care about that. I just want to play. Why is RT a requirement for some games now? The hell?
Anyways. High graphics are better in more cinematic games, but publishers have gotten so obsessed with making cinematic content that they forgot to include a game with it.
Give me more substance, more character development, more scenes, not just action.
I would agree that schedule 1 has very high graphics.
I never understood the point of realistic (or heavily stylized) graphics. Maybe it’s just me, but after about 5 minutes of “wow” my brain’s visual processor starts treating it as anything else, whether it’s Doom 2, Borderlands 2, or Stalker 2.