Nvidia: saying graphics don't matter is 'nonsense'
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
{ Feb 2nd 2007 at 3:25PM }
"They're talking nonsense. It's ridiculous to say that graphics don't matter." Those are the words of Nvidia's VP of content, Roy Taylor, in response to those that don't believe graphics are important -- Nintendo presumably included. Of course, since Nvidia and graphics technology are largely synonymous with each other, it would have been ludicrous to expect him to say anything else (Our chips totally don't matter!) in his interview with Next Generation. "That's like saying, 'The quality of my TV screen doesn't matter.' Oh really? So then in that case, you can go watch 24 in black-and-white on a seven-inch screen."
The counter-argument to be made here is obviously that the sentiment shared by many gamers and Nintendo doesn't imply that we'd be happy to regress to terrible graphics. Instead, their stance has been that graphics have reached a "good enough" level and can no longer significantly enhance gameplay. The "24 in black-and-white on a seven-inch screen" argument doesn't quite make sense, as the primary qualities of the show wouldn't be particularly affected by switching to a 1080p television. Perhaps a better analogy would have Jack Bauer replaced by an angry, but not entirely believable sock puppet.
Taylor goes on to say that graphics can greatly improve in-game emotion, with technology aiding in creating detailed facial expressions and realistic movement. This is valid point, though it requires consideration of what experience the game is trying to convey. A title like Gears of War is absolutely made more fun by its intense and involving cinematic presentation, whereas a game like Wii Sports is less dependent on seamless worlds and nuanced characters. Perhaps a compromise can be reached by saying, "Graphics should be good enough for the intended gameplay."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
RYAN @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:28PM
LOL in before 1 million comments :)
stiq of joy @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:30PM
Very valid points and its correct. If it doesnt matter why is everyone excited to get hd and larger screens. People says graphics dont matter and a fun game is still fun but with the better graphics its gets you into the game more therefore you will enjoy it more right?
Crono @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:31PM
The "graphics don't matter" quote has been taken out of context way to much.
Its not that graphics don't matter, its that graphics have reached an acceptable level and balance of realism/artistry vs cost of technology.
I really don't know of ANYONE who wouldn't want a Wii with 1080p horsepower. But I know plenty of people who don't want to pay 400-600 dollars for it.
Thats why next gen you'll see Nintendo with a hi-def console that costs $250 at launch, because by then "last gen graphics" (meaning current gen) will be good enough.
RYAN @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:31PM
'Perhaps a compromise can be reached by saying, "Graphics should be good enough for the intended gameplay."'
no. graphics should not be the basis on which a game's merit is derived, in my opinion.
OMGZ LOOK AT TEH EZXPLOZIONSS!!
*hand over money*
oh noes they DIDN't Bring T3H ADVANCED SCALING EFFECTS!!!!
*hand over money*
Kengro @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:32PM
He got a good point, i will never accept to go bsck in time and have the 16 bit consoles again...
So i guess it will be 360 and Ps3 for me, i can't stand another Mario game
Johnny @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:34PM
I think its taken too literally.
When people say Graphics dont matter, I think what they really mean is that they dont matter as much as some of the other things.
There are lots of examples of games that look great graphicly, but offer nothing under the hood.
Matt @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:33PM
Ron Taylor is a moron, I'll bet he is a Wipeout fan.
RYAN @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:33PM
"Its not that graphics don't matter, its that graphics have reached an acceptable level and balance of realism/artistry vs cost of technology.
"
Q F ABSOLUTE TRUTH
I like good graphics, I just don't think they make the difference between good and bad games.
RYAN @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:34PM
"Ron Taylor is a moron, I'll bet he is a Wipeout fan."
and what's wrong with Wipeout exactly? I loved that game.
Striderhayasa @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:35PM
Hmmm, I think there has to be a better balance. One thing I definately didn't like when the next gen was approaching was the idea that the same gameplay with better graphics is acceptable or even substandard gameplay with better graphics is acceptable. As far as the Wii is concerned, sure I would love to be able to play Zelda and Wii Sports is HD with the full 5.1 surround sound and what not, but I wouldn't want to pay $400 for it either. With alternatives like the PS3 and the 360, it's okay for the Wii to be underpowered. If it was the only console on the market then we'd be screwed big time.
Besides, I've seen people scrounge around trying to sell this and that like crack addicts to save up to get a 360...not to mention a PS3. Price/Gameplay/Graphics...that's that balance. Wii has two out of three. Graphics-wise...we'll see what the Wii is hitting for soon. Gamecube sure as hell was no slouch in the graphics department.
For now, If I had to choice, I'll take gameplay over graphics.
Shagittarius @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:36PM
Ummm...ass gaskets anyone?
Keif @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:39PM
Its not like he is saying it just because Nvidia is working with sony, while ATI is use on both of the other systems, one beinga company that says graphics dont matter.
Oh wait it is.
MoonfirePewPEwPEw @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:39PM
"They're talking nonsense. It's ridiculous to say that graphics don't matter."
A company that deals with high end graphics chips saying graphics matters? While we are at it, I saw a big tobacco company saying smoking isn't unhealthy, and WalMart that they care about the consumers, it doesn't make it right.
Darkness @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:40PM
As I stated in another Blog entry a few days ago, graphics don't matter in the long run. A game built specifically for graphics will age faster than one built on straight gameplay. It's why we can play Tetris still. It's timeless and really doesn't matter what the graphics are. 2D holds up better than 3D, from what I've seen. Trying to go back to some old Playstation games is hard on the eyes.
RogueJedi86 @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:41PM
Of course graphics don't matter. Final Fantasy VII is the highly overrated favorite-game-of-all-time for many people, but frankly, its graphics are horrendous. I came into the gaming scene in the past 5 or 6 years, and I can't stand how manly the girls look, with their huge Popeye-esque forearms. Despite that, it's still consistently in the Best-Games-of-All-Time Lists.
Anyways, I have wondered about the future of video cards. Now that we have games looking like "Gears of War", where do we go from there? I could care less about the fact that the individual veins on a flower petal cast their own shadows. Are they going to go into full-immersion VR suits or something? It seems like it was inevitable that the graphic cards companies were going to hit a dead end eventually, when they simply hit the Real Look. And if we're not there yet, we'll be there within 5 years, 10 at the extreme tops.
Mr Khan @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:41PM
@ Crono,
That's exactly what i think
Lets say the Wii does well but doesn't dominate (30 mil units or so), then i think Nintendo will release the "On" (which is my bet for Wii2 name) as soon as its possible to sell an Xbox 360 for $250 at a profit (i.e. when the premium reaches $200 or so)
I doubt Nintendo will ever be at the head of the pack again, as long as the rest of the pack is willing to sell $400-$600 consoles, Nintendo will most likely sell the best technology available to sell at $200-$250 and profit
Although $20 says that this Nvidia guy wouldn't be saying this if Nvidia had made the Wii's GPU, and that, if it were possible to dump on the 360 graphically, he would be doing so also
generaldane @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:42PM
the thing is at the level where graphical capability has reached it no longer is as important as it once was
VampireHunter Z @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:42PM
Having my own private jet doesn't matter because I can't afford it.
ron @ Feb 4th 2007 1:06AM
I don't remember who, but some developer said that 256 kb's of memory for a video game was the absolute pinnacle and no game would ever need more. So, saying that graphics don't matter is ridiculous. If every aspect of life was governed by the "graphics don't matter" argument, just think where we would be right know as a civilization.
Complacency is easy and boring, and the strive to improve is paramount.
Vidikron @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:44PM
@8
I think you hit the nail on the head. I think everyone knows graphics matter and they can make a game better. But gameplay is king and I think most people would rather play a game that is fun over a game with better graphics that sucks... BUT people would also rather play a prettier version of a good game than an ugly version of the same game.
Matt @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:47PM
People seem to assume that improved graphics means that you're just taking the same game and adding bump mapping or something. What they fail to realize is that graphics can and do actively improve upon gameplay. What is Splinter Cell without the ability to cast shadows. What would Shadow of the Colossus be without the ability to show such massive creatures and environments. What would GTA be without the streaming 3D environment. Do you really think that graphics added nothing to the difference between Oblivion and Morrowind?
People want to say that we've come as far as we can and that graphics can't add anything new to the experience. I say that's BS. We've barely scratched the surface of what the 360 and PS3 can do. To say that we won't see anything new in the next 5 years out of these machines due to their increased processing power seems terribly short sighted.
By the same token, people seem to think that all the Wii needs is the Wii remote to make great games. This has been rather disturbing for me since even though the Wii is supposedly even more powerful than the GC, we have yet to see any games that even measure up to par with GC games. Sure Wii Sports is great and innovative and all. Why can't it be great and innovative and look good at the same time? The Wii is certainly capable of it.
Ted D. Moncrief @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:47PM
This is probably the best written blog post I've read on Joystiq in a long time. However, it seems a few of the commenters haven't read the whole thing and are missing the point.
Blackmoon @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:47PM
*SHOCK**HORROR*
You mean to say that a VP for a graphics company thinks graphics matter? SHOCKING!
NDT @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:47PM
"Perhaps a compromise can be reached by saying, "Graphics should be good enough for the intended gameplay.""
Wait, you mean a rational compromise to the debate? What a bunch of nonsense!
caselog1c @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:58PM
So would you rather have 57' 1080p TV with 3 Channels or a 32 Inch TV changes how you watch TV. Its really up to what the individual wants.
Dracula Jones @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:48PM
"Perhaps a better analogy would have Jack Bauer replaced by an angry, but not entirely believable sock puppet."
I would watch that.
Jake @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:49PM
Graphics matter. They aren't everything, but they definately do matter.
And no, the Wii doesn't have the best graphics you could want, nor does it have the horsepower to pull off everything you could ask for. It has enough for the types of games that will be successful on it. It is enough for Mario, SSB, and Pokemon. Though, I think Metroid and Zelda would look great in HD.
MoonfirePewPEwPEw @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:51PM
"This has been rather disturbing for me since even though the Wii is supposedly even more powerful than the GC, we have yet to see any games that even measure up to par with GC games."
Tell EA, Ubisoft, and others to stop porting over the inferior PS2 versions (why the fuck can't they port over the superior xbox ones?)(I am looking at you "Rival Swords"). Until they do that, you will not see that much of a difference.
Nossy @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:51PM
If Nintendo was the driver of the graphics industry, we'd be stuck with red monochromatic 3D glasses while holding a Wii stick.
GoonieGooGoo @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:52PM
An AAA Game achieves that perfect balance of gameplay and great graphics......
The NVidia guy is right that graphics technology improving is always a good thing.....as long as it doesn't replace good gameplay.
Nintendo may use the marketing slogan that graphics are good enough....but we know that's a joke.
Alot of people often forget that Nintendo is still a business....and they are making a nice profit off of older hardware.
I can honestly say that playing Lost Planet and R6: Vegas definitely supports NVidia's comments.....
Agent MOO @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:53PM
I've got a Wii and 360, and let me just say that GOW is overrated and boring. I had a lot more fun playing Raving Rabbids, even though there were some obvious graphic glitches in it.
JP @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:12PM
No shit. Of course a graphics card company would say that. They're company relies solely on people who want the best graphics for their systems. Time and time again, the graphics may look great now, but they don't age well and all that's left is gameplay that keeps us coming back to play even when the game may look like horseshit. FF VII was a perfect example.
Anni @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:57PM
I once road a Greyhound bus past the most beautiful countryside I'd ever seen. Too bad Greyhound buses still suck.
James Dunworth @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:58PM
Advanced graphics are getting to point where the characters are realistic looking but suffer from emotionless AI. Look at the new sports games, the character models look amazing but they have "soulless" eyes. It won't be long before we reach the "Uncanny Valley" when we will subconsciously detest the game we are watching and will yearn for a return to simpler versions.
JP @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:12PM
The new Legend of Zelda look like shit compared to games like Gears of War or Rainbow Six or even Okami, yet it won numerous Game of the Year awards for 2006? Hmmm, why is that? Maybe because it's gameplay, storytelling, and presentation is still top notch despite its lack of "HD next-gen graphics".
K @ Feb 2nd 2007 3:59PM
I think that's about right, regarding the "emotional" connection. As superior as Gears of War is, graphically, to something like Shadow of The Colossus, the latter's graphics were certainly "good enough." More than once playing SoTC, the sheer beauty of the game elicited an honest-to-god lump in my throat. A cell processor didn't do that... a well-done game on a paltry 299 Mhz processor did that.
I don't begrudge Nvidia for trying to sell me more hardware, but they're dead wrong if they think graphics are the be-all end-all of gaming.
baby sea tuna @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:02PM
@ 15
"Of course graphics don't matter. Final Fantasy VII is the highly overrated favorite-game-of-all-time for many people, but frankly, its graphics are horrendous."
Yeah, compared to today's games, but when FFVII dropped, everyone lost their shit over how incredible that game looked (Like the first time you summon Bahamut.) To say that the graphics were horrendous leads me to believe that you obviously don't know your roots.
"I came into the gaming scene in the past 5 or 6 years..."
Point proven.
Art Guy @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:03PM
I'm happy paying $400 for 360 graphics, they look great on my HDTV. I am constantly impressed with how most of the games look.
I'm NOT happy paying $250 for Wii level graphics, they look too close to the $100 GameCube. If the Wii could come close to matching 360 level graphic on standard TVs I could live with the inflated price, but for $50 less than the core 360 - it doesn't deliver. I ended up selling my Wii (for a nice profit) after playing it for a month, it wasn't worth it to me. Once it drops down in price I might pick one up again.
JodyAnthony @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:03PM
a perfect game has a perfect balance between gameplay, story, and graphics. In other words, Suikoden 2 is the greatest video game ever made, ever.
Kevin @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:05PM
I think Graphics are good but I don't think that it makes our breaks the game unless the graphics are effective the gameplay like bad camera angles. Alot of game companies are picking on Nintendo and the Wii. The Wii is doing really good right now and everyone is playa hatin. It's when your walking down the street and see a hot girl with an ugly dude. You criticize the dude because he's doing good. That's what Sony, Microsoft, and now Nvidia is doing. Don't hate, appreciate mofos
Dan @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:05PM
"Wait, you mean a rational compromise to the debate? What a bunch of nonsense!"
Yeah! This is the internet buddy. Get out of here with your reasoned responses!
Heh. This is an old debate, and Ludwig is pretty much right. Graphics are important in the sense that it sets the tone of the game. If the game is supposed to be realistic then dammit I want the best graphics I can get. But if it's supposed to be cartoony or otherwise more artistic than real, as long as the hardware can pull it off it doesn't matter.
There is another way that graphics might matter though. In the last generation of consoles, if I had my choice of consoles for a particular game I would be more likely to get it for the XBox than my PS2 or Gamecube because I knew the graphics would probably be better in general. So in this way, graphics can give one console an edge over the other, but only if the buyer has the choice in the first place. It's not going to convince me to buy a PS3 before an XBox360.
Matt @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:06PM
You have to keep in mind, nVidia's interest is more in the PC gaming market than the console market. Sure, their products are existant in the console market, however the best way to pay off $100M of annual R&D costs is to sell $200, $400, and $600 graphics cards to hundreds of thousands of PC gamers.
With that being said, and kept in mind nVidia's market position, it can be said that PC gaming has traditionally grown (in a graphical capacity) faster than console gaming. Take Oblivion on 360 versus on a high-end PC, for example. Crysis will be another one. That's not to say consoles aren't fun, heck they're great, but the niche market that is PC gaming is one where hundreds of thousands (if not millions) will devout countless dollars on hardware, which is what nVidia wants to hear.
A console owner will spend, let's say, $400 every five years (on average) for a system (obviously $250, $300, $500, and $600 are other price points), plus maybe an extra hundred in controllers and then $20-60 per game.
The PC gamer will spend (within reason) $1,000 every couple of years on a computer, and then usually $200-$300 per year (or two) on a video card, to keep current a (perceived) "decent" level of graphical quality.
Keep in mind, these figures are all for hand-built systems, and they vary, but the point is that PC gaming is very much niche, and quite a bit more expensive than console gaming. You get what you pay for, though. Prettier graphics, higher resolutions, user-created content, more precise control.
mouse_clicker @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:11PM
Actually, I think in some instances simpler graphics display emotion better, because expressions can be over so slightly exaggerated. Wind Waker had a lot more emotion just from the simple yet effective facial expressions of the characters.
Besides, no one is saying graphics don't matter. Of course you couldn't play Super Mario 64 on an Atari 2600. I don't think Nintendo ever said graphics don't matter, just that they're secondary to gameplay. A boring game with pretty graphics is still a boring game.
Miniboss @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:06PM
Very good post. I don't think anyone's saying that graphics don't matter at all. It's just that last-gen's graphics were actually pretty good. I mean, we got beautiful games like Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Ninja Gaiden, and Resident Evil out of this "dated" technology. Can we improve upon it? Of course, but it's not really going to change the way we play games.
I think the thing that needs to be taken away from all of this is that developers need to design games towards each of the consoles' strengths. The PS2 played host to both Shadow of the Colossus and Ratchet & Clank, God of War and Jak & Daxter. Each of these had very different visuals styles, but since they each used the systems' strengths to their advantage, they produced something that was immersive and beautiful, even on "antiquated" technology.
So do graphics matter? Sure, but not as much as they used to. I would say that processing power is more applicable now than hiring teams of hundreds of artists to make sure Marcus Fenix has 275 distinct armpit hairs. And even then, innovation comes from necessity... just look at what developers did on the NES, SNES, and even PS2 that rose above their perceived limitations. I hope that console cycles lengthen so that developers can come to grips with the hardware and really get to the meat of game development: gameplay.
ERrrr @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:08PM
I will have to agree with Agent MOO. I played and finished Gears of War. Yes the graphics were great but the game was repetitive and boring. WAYYY overrated. Graphics definitely don't make the game.
Joop @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:09PM
Funny that he uses 24 in his tv example, in that it's a show known for good writing.
A more accurate comparison would be this: would people rather watch 24 on a 7" B&W tv or The Tony Danza show on a 102" 1080p plasma tv? I'd stick with 24, because there is more to the enjoyment of televion and video games than seeing prettier pretties. And that's all Nintendo is saying. A 102" 1080p plasma tv is a massive paperweight if all you have to watch is last year's garbage.
Evan @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:09PM
Graphics have not mattered to gameplay since the Dreamcast. In the PS1 era, gameplay was limited by graphics... the size of the environments were limited by the number of polygons it was capable of drawing, and your ability to distinguish objects was limited by the resolution. But the Dreamcast raised the resolution and polygon count enough that graphics no longer impeded most styles of gameplay.
The step from 2D SNES/Genesis graphics to 3D PS1 graphics opened up new styles of gameplay. The step from PS1 to Dreamcast/PS2 removed most of the limitations imposed on gameplay. However, unlike previous generations, the step from standard-definition PS2/XBox graphics to high-definition PS3/360 graphics have had almost no impact on gameplay!
TwilightKnight @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:18PM
Looking at the extremes of this situation will prove to be funny.
Lets say we have a game of Pong. But the paddles and the ball and the background are the most realistic and awe dropping, graphically powerful available for the next 10 years. BUT IT IS STILL PONG.
Let's say you are playing one of the most complex RPGs ever made. Awsome real time fighting, story that makes sense and has a emotional appeal, and is over 300 hours long. But it has Atari 2600 graphics.
Which one would you play?
RUSKULL @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:18PM
The poor graphics on my deck of cards lessens the games I play them with :(
LongshotX @ Feb 2nd 2007 4:14PM
Graphics and Gameplay together make games better. That's why Gears of War is so fun to play. It does an effective job combining both. So both are important, but it all comes down to the type of game. A puzzle game or shoot em up are fine in 2D, the graphics don't have to be spectacular (exceptions: Ikaruga, Radiant Silvergun). But I don't want to play a RPG or a FPS with terrible animations, character models, etc. So this argument that there can only be one aspect of gaming is false. And to the person who said something about a Wii in 1080p. Sure I would like an HD Wii. I would like to see Link look like a believable character. I would like to see Samus in her high resolution HD suit, and use the Wii mote at the same time. Sadly, I won't be able to. So I'm left with new control schemes and last generation graphics. I just don't feel like the price point of the Wii is justified, but that's just my opinion. I may pick one up when the price drops.