I thought we were done with the 'you can hardly tell the difference' bullshit a long time ago.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried :)

First off, companies started using them as bullet points only after all consumers talked about was "OMG did you see how  good that looked???"

Secondly, I think what is cliche are the amount of people that claim something that obviously matters doesnt matter. There is a very big difference from being able to do without or something not mattering. Take your minecraft example for instance... if you could recreate the exact same experience, sell it at the exact same price and run it on the exact same hardware but have one looking like it does now and the other looking as good as crysis 3. Which of these two games do you think people will buy? I can bet every organ in my body that no one will buy the bad looking version of the game. Its like making 2 versions GTA5 with one version looking like GTA3 and both running on a PS4 and priced at $60. Yet in some deluded world you want us to believe that the GTA3 looking version will sell just as much as the GTA5 looking version, on the same console for the same price???

So yh, "graphics" do matter.

Compaines started using graphics as bullet points AFTER people started caring about it? Ever heard of blast processing? Yeah, ok.

And secondly, your point is moot. People BUY Mincraft. Total sales have eclipsed just about anything last gen that didn't have the words Mario or Sports in it (Wii games were 480P for fucks sake). Graphics, FPS, 720P/1080P...these are INTERNET message board nerd debates. The average guy or child doesn't know what a frame per second IS. They don't know, they don't care.

The only thing that matters for the vast majority is how "good" the game is. It's been true since Astroids and it'll be true until gaming is dead.

As long as the internet is a "thing", a select few will find new first world problems to bitch about.

I was more talking about the Pac-man era (first half of the 80's). There was no point in arguing that the arcade version of Pac-Man or Space Invaders looked much better than the versions for home consoles or home computers... you couldn't afford the arcade machine anyway. And there was a buyont spirit in these pioneer days of video games, so less fighting who had the best home console or home computer.

The early 90's are another story, gamers were already spoiled then with much gaming choices. But even then arguing about superior systems or game versions kept within limits... at least at our school.

On my 23" Monitor....maybe not. But with big screens going mainstream, yes there is a noticeable difference.

You are confused. You are very right, the average guy or child hasn't got a clue what fps or even resolution is. All that is truly just forum talk.

But that average person doesn't have to know anything about all that to know that street fighter 2 doesn't look as good as street fighter 4. Or is that a moot point?

An you can't dismiss a point by just ignoring its facts. Minecraft has sold a shit ton of copies. No argument there. But you didn't answer the question.

If there were two versions of minecraft, both cost the exact same amount. One of them looked like crysis 3 and the other looked like minecraft looks now. Both games were content and performance ideantical and ran on the same platform. Which do you think will sell more?

Your point is that graphics doesn't matter right? If the answer to the above question is the worse looking version will sell well or just as much as the version that looks like crysis 3, then you would be right and I would concede defeat. Its a simple question really. 

My answer to the above question is that the worse looking version of the game will not sell a single copy. Unless of course the person buying it doesn't know there is a better looking version of the exact same game out there for the exact same price. And this is simply cause one version looks better than the other. nothing more. So whats your answer to that question?

I played BF4 on PS3 and X1. The X1 version has sharper textures, better lighting, significantly less pop in, etc. Also, the 8th gen versions look less impressive when you only see them running at 30 fps.

I suggest you go look at screen shots comparing the 7th gen versions to the 8th gen versions. You don't need 1080p to see the differences.

You're asking me to answer a hypothetical question that can't have a factual answer. The facts are, and my point is, that the number one factor in whether the majority of people enjoy or purchase a game is the game itself and not how many FPS it has or it's graphical merits.

That's ultimately all that matters to the majority of consumers.

Second reply of yours that misses the point congratulations! Of course I didnt understand because you replied with stuff that made no sense in relation to my comment.
I know about supersampling and downsampling I also know about AA etc.  But you still needlessly explained that "AA is not a button press away" etc. You are the one not being able/willing to read what other people write.


I said something you said "misinformation" and argued because you read something between the lines I didnt even say or whatever. Thats why I said you should stop jumping to conclusions.

The reason why I listed those things  is because I wanted to show you that whatever you call misinformation is either a fact or my opinion and neither misleading nor is it "Just so much misinformation"

I also never said that 64xMSAA or 8xMSAA is "cheaper than a higher resolution" etc.  Again I still dont understand why you are arguing with me at all.

You again needlessly try to explain to me what supersampling is. I also never said supersampling is the perfect replacement for higher resolution or whatever you think I said (because there has to be a reason you keep talking about supersampling) I even said I prefer higher resolutions over lower resolutions any day.
And Again I never said I want a game to have so much AA it will look as crisp as a 1080p crisis I just said it would be sufficient at 576p with some AA in most cases (dont forget I said I prefer higher resolutions! just a reminder!)


I also never said anyone said "low res = unplayable". I just said that "576p with AA would be perfectly playable." its two completely different things.
So your "And no one said games can't be playable at lower resolutions. That is not what this thread was about." is again  out of place


Its like me saying "I want apples for breakfast" and you explain to me how bananas are yellow etc.


And what does Mighty #9 have to do with this conversation?


Seriously I dont get what you want to say at all.