Making blanket statements about groups of fans is never a good idea. And if any offended shooter fans want to even the score, feel free to toss out some generalizations of your own. I'm a fan of old-school JRPGs, so accuse me of living in the past, liking male heroes that look like females, and heading off to cosplay conventions. Go right ahead.

Because I'm about to make an observation that is bound to annoy a great many: I look at various major sources and sites like N4G every day, and when it comes to shooters, many of the most popular headlines involve the graphical display of any given FPS title. For example, the #1 story currently on N4G is, "Battlefield 3 Native Resolutions on Consoles Confirmed." And this is very common. People dissecting videos for the slightest visual imperfection and using it as ammunition against the "other" fans (i.e., BF3 vs. MW3), the continual push by publishers to promote the graphics (EA pushing Frostbite 2), etc.

Unless a game features a blend of gameplay that disqualifies it as a first-person shooter (examples would be Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Dead Island ), it really seems that graphics are the primary concern. And that's probably because shooters really haven't done anything too different in the past few years, right? Or is it just because fans of the genre are self-admitted graphic whores? Resistance 3 has gotten a ton of flak for not being as refined or polished as upcoming blockbusters, but it's a great shooter. I'm not sure why that fact is being overlooked.

Beyond the EA vs. Activision mud-slinging, it really seems as if any new FPS immediately falls under the graphical microscope, and that's all the fans really care about. Now, I could be wrong. And I'm not insulting the shooter fans for being shallow or something; I'm just wondering if the visual presentation really is most important in their minds. It's a mild, cheerful, unassuming question, so don't freak out…I just wanna know.

Subscribe
Notify of
61 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
SmokeyPSD
SmokeyPSD
9 years ago

This is a real valid question and I think it rings true from talking to people other than myself who love the genre and the visuals are the biggest draw. It even goes to console rivalry with singular games being taken apart for their visuals not just warring franchises.

afelhofer
afelhofer
9 years ago

I would have to agree.I would not consider myself a FPS fan, more of an RPG fan. But when it comes to shooters I would rather have better graphics than not. when it comes to RPGs, at least for me, its not about the graphics its about the gameplay and story.

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
9 years ago

As an avid FPS player I don't really care about the graphics, but maybe it's because I'm an older gamer. I still find BF2, CSS, and TFC the most enjoyable FPS games EVER.

johnld
johnld
9 years ago

i feel the same, as long as i can see fine and can differentiate between enemy with ghillie suit and tree i could care less about graphics.

Axe99
Axe99
9 years ago

Same here – I think the overly critical eye on graphics is partly due to the appeal of arcade FPS games (ArmA doesn't get as rough a run for its graphics, as that's not why fans play the game) to people in their early to mid-teens, who may not have developed as much of an appreciation for depth of gameplay or storytelling (this isn't to say that those games can't appeal to other groups as well – I'm _well_ beyond that age range, and have played ever console CoD and every PS3 Battlefield, as well as a bunch of other shooters). A great example of this is MAG – a lot of the younger crowd didn't get into it so much, and really disliked the more basic visuals, and so it ended up having an (on average, there were still kids that played it) fan base. I suspect that while BF3's getting the same graphical attention CoD is, this doesn't bother the core BF3 fans as much as the people wanting to have a go at CoD ;).

Excelsior1
Excelsior1
9 years ago

i would say graphics are very important in fps becuase they are generally weaker in other areas. plus, their very nature puts the presentation up front so to speak. i think a lot of fps gamers do place graphics at premium, but there is evidence of them placing gameplay upfront as well. it's a really good question.

the competition in the fps genre is extremely tough right now and unless you have cod or halo in your name developer's need to show up with a top notch presentation just to get their foot in the door.


Last edited by Excelsior1 on 9/7/2011 12:58:13 PM

slugga_status
slugga_status
9 years ago

I'd have to disagree. I play a lot of FPS' among the other games I play. When playing a FPS' the last thing I really analyze about it is the graphics.

In a FPS' it's more so about environment and gameplay for me. It doesn't have to look great just descent. If it's fun to play with a good concept then I'm in. If the gameplay in Killzone sucked then I'd careless about how good it looks.

The main things I look for is what I'm able to do and weaponry that I can use and the effects they have..

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

For you, that's true, but I think Ben is wondering on a wider basis. I mean, he's right about the way that shooters (and other action games) are analyzed at the pixel and frame level, by various self appointed experts. It's become almost a ritual for various places to pronounce what the rendering resolution is, what the frame rate is, and what visual imperfections there are. These things typically make their way into reviews of games as well.It does sometimes seem that to many players, these are the things that matter.

slugga_status
slugga_status
9 years ago

True, yet I don't believe you can place that within the FPS only realm. It just seems that almost every game that is released people speak about graphics period. I don't think it's genre specific at all..and it's sad that people put so much stock into graphics. Nobody wants a crappy frame rate, resolution, etc. Yet shouldn't our games be about gameplay?

Oxvial
Oxvial
9 years ago

FPS, history for me and it better be good because I got bored with those type of games.

Graphics are of course important but not matter how good Crysis looked that crap put me to sleep asap.


Last edited by Oxvial on 9/7/2011 12:56:02 PM

Qubex
Qubex
9 years ago

I thought Crysis 2 was very good… I haven't finished it yet though 🙂

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Beamboom
Beamboom
9 years ago

I thought Crysis 2 was very good too! It's one of my absolute favourites this year even. How can you not dig that suit and that voice, "cloak enabled"…? 🙂

I guess this only goes to further prove how there can not be one universally awesome game. 🙂


Last edited by Beamboom on 9/8/2011 1:37:37 AM

Qubex
Qubex
9 years ago

Great stuff Beamboom 🙂

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

I think that for a lot of people that is the case. I hear (read comments from also) people who decry a game because of it's use of a 'inferior' anti-aliasing scheme or filtering algorithm. Sometimes I wonder whether the game itself is important, or if the technology of the game 'engine' is the star now?

That may be one of the more annoying elements of criticism thrown at other games in other genre. GT5 for example get's crap over it's filtering or shadows or any number of other technical compromises in the graphics engine. And these things trump gameplay or depth when it comes to deciding if the game is any good.

You could see this in yesterday's discussion of JRPGS when numerous people questioned WKC on the basis of it's graphics, calling them outdated or inferior. Obviously there were other elements to that discussion, but that particular criticism appears in many a review as well. criticism of the graphics trumps gameplay, story, control, sound, online, whatever else.

So, in the spirit of what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, perhaps graphics are the be all and end all of the shooter?

Excelsior1
Excelsior1
9 years ago

@highlander

yes, i think the discussion yesterday shows that some of us do hold graphics at premium. others not so much but i think we can agree we would like most games to have good graphics. i will say this. one of my favorite games of this gen was fallout 3. it's certainly no graphical powerhouse and tends to chug along on the ps3 at times…but i still loved every minute of it.

you mention gt5 getting a lot of crap for its graphical issues. that is true it does. i think some of that stems from the fact that the past gt games were known for perfection and their presentation was near perfect. so it was kind of a surpise to see those issues in a gt game. those issues are by no means game breaking nor do they ruin the racing but they were a downer for some.

there's nothing wrong with gamers wanting great graphics in a fps game or any other genre. i still think most gamers would place gameplay first combined with the quality of multiplayer in regard to fps games but graphics are almost right up there with those qualties for some people.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

I'm not saying graphics are not a factor, but they are not, nor should bey be, the most important factor.However many gamers and reviewers show through their opinions that graphics are – to them – the most important factor. Not to defend GT5 specifically, but HD games in general that run at anything like 720p or better look tremendous compared to the games of the PS2 & 480i/p generation. It seems churlish to me to complain about minor graphical imperfections when the base level for graphics is so much higher than it was 6 years ago. And no, I'm not including PC games and graphics in this discussion because I don't see the point in comparing gaming rigs that cost $1000+ to video game console that retail in the $200-$300 range.

Crabba
Crabba
9 years ago

Just FYI Highlander, I was playing games with higher than 720p resolution more than 10 years ago on the PC, in fact probably more like 15-20 years ago…. and I haven't paid even close to $1000 for a PC in a long, long time…


Last edited by Crabba on 9/7/2011 2:40:36 PM

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

It is my view that graphics, in a review, should be evaluated based on their contribution to or detraction from the experience as a whole.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

craba,

The point is we're talking about video game consoles, not PCs, I thought that was sufficiently clear.

Crabba
Crabba
9 years ago

Highlander, hey you were the one who brough up PC, not me 🙂 Besides, I thought we were talking about graphics, video games and specifically FPS-games, not consoles…

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

I mentioned PCs to specifically exclude them from the discussion since at any given point in the last two decades a gaming rig was far more expensive than a game console. Sorry if you can't see that, I thought it was perfectly clear.

Qubex
Qubex
9 years ago

Regarding the graphical debate centred around GT5… the main gripe was why did we have these graphica problems when the game was in development for 5 years. If it was a slap dash multiplatform I would have understood, but it wasn't. It was a premier AAA title from Sony.

Not saying it isn't a good game… of course it is… but these details should have been sorted… that is what people expected anyway, well the ones that car about quality that is…

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Beamboom
Beamboom
9 years ago

I don't see people saying graphics being the *most* important factor. What I see is that it is an important factor – not most important. That is an important(!) difference. Just like audio is very important too. Or as you say, gameplay, controls, etc.

And if a game has a weak spot people tend to point at that. That's just human nature 🙂

Qubex
Qubex
9 years ago

Yes BeamBoom… and sorry for my bad spelling in the rush to write my original post…

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Crabba
Crabba
9 years ago

Well Highlander, that's just not true though. I paid about $400 for my latest gaming PC, which is more than a $100 less than I paid for my PS3, and both are about equally old about now, and yet my PC is way above the recommended specs for the upcoming Rage for example.

Anyway, it was just an FYI, no need to get your feathers in a bunch 🙂

erislocker
erislocker
9 years ago

i miss the times when the focus was to make a game fun. not impress with shit that doesn't add to the fun. sure i like awesome graphics. but i love a good story even more.

i love the AC series because they have a fantastic story (truly) and the gameplay is really fun (albeit a bit repetitive in the earlier titles).

remember when all you did was pop in a cartridge, turn on power, press start, and you are immediately playing. simple, never ending fun.

same with multiplayer. it is oh-so-much more fun to play in the same room than with a headset. sure it's cool to have the whole screen to yourself, but not even give an option of splitscreen? that is the one thing that FPS have not given up yet (the split screen), but all other games seem to be giving that up…

end rant

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

LAN parties… Not quite the same as split screen, but still 1000 times better than headsets. My wife and I both play Burnout together on occasion, or White Knight, and both of us being in the same room on different PS3s is a lot of fun, and so much better than gaming online via a headset.

Excelsior1
Excelsior1
9 years ago

@erislocker

i don't know about the headset thing. some of my best gaming thrills of this gen have been when i was in a clan that all used headsets going against an evenly matched opponet that had headsets too. it's an adrenilne rush and quite addicting to go up against quality human opponets. i just find online mp sessions way more fun and lively when people are using headsets. you can always mute the people you don't like.

i do understand what you were saying. it would be even better to have the gamers in the same room but that's not always practical. when that's the case i think a headset is a good option that enriches the mp experience in general.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

Wanna have a good headset game? Make people take a shot of whiskey for melee deaths.

Beamboom
Beamboom
9 years ago

I prefer to play multiplayer online with headset. Easier to get rid of/ignore the guys I don't like then. 🙂


Last edited by Beamboom on 9/8/2011 1:51:45 AM

Alienange
Alienange
9 years ago

No, graphics are not the all important feature of an fps and you should know that by simply looking at sales numbers. People buy what they like and clearly, the best selling fps is not the BEST graphics on the planet, but nonetheless, they are completely adequate and rather enjoyable.

Only a dev that can't get a grip on what makes the best fps the best is going to start drawing attention to its graphics in HOPES that that is what the fans want. Creating an artificial hype as it were. This is quickly seen for what it is though and the gameplay always beats out the illusion of graphics equaling a better game.

Besides, have we forgotten what the release of the multiplat FFXIII brought to the internet? FPS are certainly not alone in having some devs and misguided fans/haters touting graphics as the end all.

jimmyhandsome
jimmyhandsome
9 years ago

I think games in general this generation are measured by graphics due to the more powerful consoles (relatively speaking). FPS happen to be the most popular genre this generation, I think thats why it seems like FPS fans are graphics whores.

Beamboom
Beamboom
9 years ago

I believe it is like this because typically the most impressive graphics are found in shooters. That has made gamers associate fps with awesome graphics.
Myself included. I like most genres including FPS, but I kinda *expect* to get impressed when I insert a new fps into the ps3. I do not have anywhere near the same expectations with other genre games.

That being said, for me personally I rate the artistic creativity and originality higher than framerate and resolution. That's why I still rate BioShock as my best fps experience so far this gen, with Crysis 2 as a good 2nd.

But I gotta say my first impressions after just a couple of hours with Resistance 3 today is very, very good. I do not rule out the possibility that it will move Crysis to #3.


Last edited by Beamboom on 9/7/2011 2:09:51 PM

kevinater321
kevinater321
9 years ago

I don't think graphics are the biggest factor when deciding to buy a game. I think it depends more on how tight the controls and how fast and fluid the gameplay is. After all, Call of Duty outsells killzone. Buy hell it sure helps to have a pretty looking game..

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

Thank you for saying Dead Island is not an FPS.

There are a lot of issues at play here. I'll just say an FPS damn well better have great graphics because the gameplay is severely limited anyway. If she's dumb, she better be pretty.

The other is that this is the fuel for the console war, if one game is even minutely graphically superior than the other on the lens of truth you get fanboy explosions. They need ammunition to keep shooting you know? And FPS games are the hollow point bullets.

Temjin001
Temjin001
9 years ago

N4G, hehe, yeah, articles of any nature, usually the emotionally charged types, can make the headlines there. And not to be a hypocrite, I've posted an article there that hit around 1100degrees, not about graphics, but something that could probably be considered just as equally wasteful in time.

But anyway, I'm not going to be disagreeable. I do think graphics matter a lot for FPS games, and just most action games in general. I think in the case of this BF3 news, it's been something of a hot button issue because everyone knows that DICE has been showboating BF3 with high end PC presentations. Most of what gamers have had to assure them of the quality of the port has been by DICE's word alone. Just as DICE didn't just come out and reveal on the onset that BF3 would be 30fps (headline topping news, remember) or if BF3 runs at a sub 720p resolution (704p is nothing to sneeze at, CoD is what? 550p) gamers want confirming evidence as to just how representational BF3's console offerings will actually be.
BUt anyway, yes, I think in games that aren't nearly as story driven, or nearly as methodical, and are also about immersing oneself in a virtual setting, especially from the first person, graphics do matter a lot.


Last edited by Temjin001 on 9/7/2011 2:33:37 PM

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

It saddens me that we sometimes have to stoop a bit to get those hits, but at least our actual body of material is often superior to what you find elsewhere.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

Maybe graphics don't matter much, CoD still looks really outdated.

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

Absolutely. That's what I'm sayin'. If graphics were -the- most important part, CoD would not be king.

Crabba
Crabba
9 years ago

Well, graphics may not be the most important thing, but it sure IS important. For example, that's one of the biggest selling points of Killzone 2 (and 3) and even one of the greatest games of all-time, Uncharted 2. The fact that these are great games also obviously just make them even greater.

I'm not in any way a FPS fan, but if I'm gonna play an FPS I'll play the best-looking ones which is why I'm a little bit interested in Battlefield 3. I'm sure there are examples of games with great graphics but are still bad, but great games with great graphics make them even better, and well that's one of the core strengths of the PS3, no pun intended..

sirbob6
sirbob6
9 years ago

I'd say that graphics are very, very important because they help with immersion.

However, gameplay and controls come out ahead of it. If a game is boring and doesn't feel right then no matter how pretty it is it will still suck.

Ignitus
Ignitus
9 years ago

If graphics were the most important thing in a FPS Killzone would be the king, yet it sells fewer than the PS3 version of COD.

Fun gameplay comes in first than graphics in my book and it seems (sales wise) that I'm not alone.

Crabba
Crabba
9 years ago

Ok, so if gameplay would come first, why would Call of duty beat Killzone?? IMO Killzone 2 is a heck of a lot more fun to play than any CoD game, and looks a LOT better doing it, and still sells a lot less.

Ignitus
Ignitus
9 years ago

I don't know for sure but I guess it has to do that in your opinion Killzone is better than COD but there are a lot more PS3 gamers that think otherwise and buy the COD games over Killzone.

BTW, I haven't played a COD game at all but I don't think 15 million+ gamers can be wrong.

Crabba
Crabba
9 years ago

That's because it has nothing to do with graphics, or gameplay but whatever is the "popular" game that all the other kids play, which means CoD, or Halo right now in this world where everything must be about multiplayer.

What's "wrong"? Then I guess 2b Chinese can't be wrong. So the millions of people who choose Killzone over CoD are wrong?

Doppel
Doppel
9 years ago

Constant Framerate is, in my opinion, is the most important in a first person shooter. Having a constant locked framerate makes it much more comfortable to play.

30fps is nice while 60 is very good.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
9 years ago

everything better be 60fps on PS4

Qubex
Qubex
9 years ago

Yes… I hope we are not "cheated" again about a fully fledged capable HD console.

But this time I have learnt my lesson. I won't purchase the PS4 day one, I will let it settle in for at least 6 months to a year. See the technicals and how it performs before climbing in like I did the PS3… paying a hefty price to be like one of the first in Singapore to get one.

I won't do that again…

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"


Last edited by Qubex on 9/7/2011 11:22:03 PM

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

I disagree. Some people do, yes. But they are ignorant to what makes games great. Graphics that are excellent certainly do deserve praise! Absolutely they do. But that is not the most important factor.

However, what I am really disagreeing on is the idea that FPS fans and the genre itself hold graphics as the highest and most important point.

If that were true, then why the aech ee double hockeysticks is CoD the best selling game of all time, let alone best selling shooter. No one in their right mind would say that CoD is the pinnacle of graphics engineering. Yet, it is easily the go-to shooter of the generation.

jimmyhandsome
jimmyhandsome
9 years ago

Word. You could say the same thing about the Halo series.