Why do people not care about graphics anymore?

are you illiterate

Gameplay is trash too, what's your point?

>stylized
why is "style" the only thing uggos run to when they know they cannot defend how a game looks?

youtube.com/watch?v=dmvpD5fdmMI

>MUH GRAPHIX
Children please leave.

Attached: 1559458883571.jpg (196x193, 7.42K)

Because graphics whores are colossal fucking autists and faggots, devs do well not to cater to these """people""" who will still nitpick the textures on a rock or something equally retarded.

>Why do people not care about graphics anymore?

Game developers stopped caring about the art of designing and crafting quality game and gameplay. Game developers now only want to cash in and make big money. In order to maximize revenue, you need to make a game that appeals to the largest number of people. If you make a game that requires a GPU capable of raytracing, you severely limit your potential customer base. If you make a game with ultra-high graphics, you increase your customer base but alienate all those customers will older generation hardware. However, if you make a game that doesn't require much processing power and runs at extremely high frames per second, your potential customer base becomes enormously expansive.

So, crappy developers will take the most shortcuts they can to achieve this. They will take shortcuts of imagination by simply developing a clone of an already existing and proven product, such as Unreal Tournament (and just think of all of its clones ever since).

And this pattern of producing cheap, inferior games will continue to get worse because people keep buying them and playing them.

>people like this Riot cashgrab
good one. Chinks just marketed it to hell and back.

Why is this shit artstyle so popular these days? Valorant looks like complete generic trash.

stylized to run on a PS3 maybe

In a competitive game, visual clarity is more important than graphics. In the heat of the moment you don't want players to second-guess whether something on the screen is an enemy, a shadow, or a lens flare or something. All the things you need to interact with have to pop out from the background and be easily recognizable, which means simple silhouettes, simple textures, distinct colors and no extra distracting shit just to make the game look more realistic.

No you retard. RIOT just wants toasters to be able to run it because they're the primary market. The better it looks the smaller the market share they can grab.
Valorant spends 80% of its skills in fucking up your vision.

Because the only reason a game wouldn't always strive for realism is for a stylistic choice. What a stupid question.

valorant looks so bad compared to tf2, the guy lost all of his talent

Valorant needs to run on toasters.
I wouldn't complain as much if it at least properly supported 21:9.

I heard that shit has an anti cheat that never turns off

/thread

yeap. It even told me CpU Z was hax the other day when I wasn't playing, and didn't have CPU Z open. god bless riot.

gameplay is much more important than appearance.
as long as the framerate is smooth and the colors aren't repulsive to look at, it doesn't matter how real it looks at all. Thinking visuals are just as important as gameplay to moreso is an absolute brainlet take.

I mean lets face it, we've all played a game or games that was visually stunning but absolute garbage in every other aspect

Attached: 155562260445.jpg (400x266, 18.97K)

Latin America doesn't matter, the market is tiny, except for rare cases like football games. Devs are focusing on China.

you seem like it

I'm Mexican and I've always owned mid range rigs, been using computers since 93.

Appearance is gameplay. Developers use things like color, value and composition to deliver a message to the player without outright having to tell them. Complimentary colors are used in DOOM 2016, for example, to indicate to the player that an enemy is staggered. You could also convey this with a number of other visual cues.
Visuals in a game are extremely important. When you say graphics aren't important, what you probably mean is graphic fidelity isn't as important. If you're not convinced, try playing Valorant with your eyes closed.

a game is the sum of it's parts.
gameplay, visuals, story, sound, music, dialogue, voice acting, controls etc.
Whether it includes some or all these things.
whether it goes for breathtaking realism, cartoonish charctiures or 2d sprites.
If you just want gameplay stick to tabletop the "video" in videogames is there for a reason.
Though yes I have played good ugly games and pretty games that sucked. That didn't change the fact that visuals played a role.

2020 should Half Life Alyx
Thread invalid

/thread

user, they downgraded the graphics from the initial trailers

A game can look fine with the proper engine and shaders

Attached: Fartnite.png (1920x1080, 2.95M)

>Realism good
>Non realism bad
Fuck GTA for cucking 2000s """gamers""" tastes in entertainment.

>comparing a singleplayer game meant to be a graphical benchmark and a technical achievement to a stylized shooter with visibility in mind

have you played Valorant though? there is stylistic choice. Then there is lazy.

People don't. If people ever cared about graphics, console gaming would have died with SNES.

>GTA San Andreas: Arguably the best GTA, arcadey as fuck

When did they lose their way?

>Fuck GTA for cucking 2000s """gamers""" tastes in entertainment.
What the fuck did you mean by this?

Here's the best looking game right now vs the best from 2010 (Rage). Graphics have gotten significantly better, it's just that the difference is really only noticeable in first party games that have the budget to push modern hardware.

Attached: rage 2010 vs horizon .jpg (3840x2960, 3.72M)

gameplay > graphics

I've been saying this since 2006.

Attached: minecraft hamster.jpg (1280x720, 83.53K)

This user gets it