Have Your Say: Are Graphics Important?

[Fabrice Bourguignon]

None of the current games is ugly. The matter is the performance (fps), multi sceens gestion, VR, Physics, FFB, economic model (mods, dlc, .....). The strong point of Pcars is the multiplayer gestion needed to create easly and quikly a race with steam friends.

 

[Case_]

To elaborate a bit more on my very comprehensive answer in the morning...yes, the graphics are important. It's not just about the immersion factor. Some have already mentioned that graphics helps sell the games, and that is absolutely true. But there's an even more important aspect to that beside the financial one - graphics attracts players. Do you remember the Las Vegas e-race that was running graphically very barebones rFactor 2 mod? In the chat during the broadcast, comments about the visuals were by far the most common. I still remember some people praising what they were watching as "the best looking PS2 game ever", with plenty of comments like "so this is what the best of hardcore sims look like?" or "1997 called and wants its game graphics back". It was sad to watch, really. Sure, you may scoff at comments like that and people making them, thinking they don't understand that physics is by far the more important thing in a sim (for you, at least). But the fact remains that if you show someone a game that looks very dated and tell him this is the best racing simulator, they're not likely to go check it out for themselves. Some will, obviously, and possibly even like the experience, but you're likely to lose most of them even before they had a chance to experience the sim for themselves. And that's a big shame.

So yes, graphics are pretty important, even if it might not be the most important thing for most of the people here, I guess.

(BTW, I have to mention I'm not exactly a fan of the question. It's quite "clickbaity" and bit too obviously meant to provoke a big discussion on a fairly controversial subject.)

 

[BenCollins]

No excuse for bad graphics though. I think Automobilista charging for DLC for their primitive graphics is obscene. If they can't be bothered investing in updating their graphics engine, the last think they should think of doing is charging their customers for new content, 15 years out of date.

 

[Case_]

If they can't be bothered investing in updating their graphics engine

They are investing in updating their graphics engine for their next game.

 

[thatmotorfreak]

As someone who sticks to GTR2 and Automobilista, graphics are nothing more than the icing on the cake (or the sweet barbecue sauce on chicken; I'm not a deserts type of guy much).

It's not my top priority but I would definitely love it if someone were to take ISI's driving physics and give it some AAA title production values.

 

[Matheus Machado]

Yes, hence why VR is unusable these days imo.

 

[dcully]

Automobilista a sublime driving experience with top class FFB,not the most amazing graphics but still decent looking.
Everything else feels sterile to drive by comparison to me.

 

[dcully]

No excuse for bad graphics though. I think Automobilista charging for DLC for their primitive graphics is obscene. If they can't be bothered investing in updating their graphics engine, the last think they should think of doing is charging their customers for new content, 15 years out of date.

If thats the case i could say charging for primitive physics is wrong.
Instead i just dont buy anything with primitive physics
Primitive is harsh, have you tried to try run AMS with DRS ? and with suggested settings? totally different than out of the box gfx.

 

[DKGORACE]

Spent a lot of money on my hardware, I expect some eye candy.

However, Its not on the top of my list, Prime example, I believe Pcars is considered to have the best graphics of the current games?, I've done less than 10 hours on it. If the game can't keep up with the candy, then no deal.

Well said, if I have a $400+ GPU and a $300 processor to handle it....Indeed give me the eye candy!!

 

[snyperal]

graphics are important, but so is content to me.

 

[Andy_J]

No excuse for bad graphics though. I think Automobilista charging for DLC for their primitive graphics is obscene. If they can't be bothered investing in updating their graphics engine, the last think they should think of doing is charging their customers for new content, 15 years out of date.

I don't regard this as bad or primitive graphics. Perhaps it's your GPU and monitor that's at fault?

 

[rainer61]

Since 1997 I had 95% of my seattime playing sims with nowadays called outdatet graphics. So I am not too picky. For me, physics comes first. Then it is the sound followed directly by AI-behavior (AI-behavior = bye bye Projects Cars). Performance comes next, I always use good midrange compys. After all these points are checked, I enjoy the graphics for immersion. But this is only me.

 

[Lipe 29]

I guess both things are important. I also like Project Cars a lot. What most people doesn't know, is that you can change a lot of things in the game, even the physics configuration.
But till these days, one of the best physics and damage sistem that i've ever seen in a game, was on IndyCar Racing II (1996, seriously!).

 

[Fabrice Bourguignon]

IndyCar Racing II

Fantastic game from a fantastic serie. 90's Indycar were the best automotive competition ever.

 

[jaysm]

Not especially, I turn most of it off if I am not lapping on my own. Constant smooth high FPS and high trackside detail to pick braking points is most useful. Other cars can be blobs as long as they are accurately placed. Games with good smoke effects can help you know about other cars lock ups and such.

If I am lapping on my own and the machine does no have to handle as many cars or any AI I do turn it up as far as I can and enjoy, but that is hot lapping, not racing.

 

[JPL083]

It depend's... If everything else is "there" craphic's can be also as great as possible, but if everything is just like midway there, craphic's cannot replace or save the game from what it is missing from somewhere else, if it isn't for some reason really fun. The balance is most important, everything in good enough level, physic's, sound, craphic's. Depend's also how the craphic's fit in the game what you have. Or... Top notch physic's, good enough sharp and clear craphic's with RIGHT COLOR'S and without million useless power eating feature's. And sound, well... You can hear everything from vacuum-cleaner's (Not bashing GT!) Yeah right... To life like thing's, but those need to be minimum atleast halfway there. But physic's and sound, then craphic's, that's it.

 

[M D Gourley]

How much importance should be placed on graphics in a racing simulation, and do below par visuals have a negative impact on the gaming experience?

For me personally...it depends...on the rest of the game experience eg I own Simbins GTR, the graphics, to me anyway are sub-par, but the FFB / physics and Audio are great in GTR, so I like this Sim...but not as much as I like AMS, Raceroom, or AC because these Sim have great FFB / Physics and Audio with the addition of nice Graphics.
On the other side of the coin I also own GT5 , amazing top shelf graphics but below par Audio and only satisfactory FFB / Physics (only my personal thoughts only)...so to me GT5 is not a Sim / Game I drive at all now even though it has amazing Graphics.....it is all about balance and to me Reiza's Automobilista has the right balance between Graphics / Audio / FFB - Physics (my 2 cents)

 

[randMracer]

When I'm racing I don't pay that much attention to track side eye candy. True physics and FFB is what makes the sim for me. The only thing I think that needs great graphics would be the track condition and realistic car damage.

 

[FJBH10]

It might come from me having grown up with PS2 era racing games and later having a laptop that could never handle the better looking games but to me, the graphics are not really a concern. If a game plays well and is fun for me, if it looks good, all the better for it. Two of my all time favourite racing games could be considered to have bad graphics; Grand Prix Legends, which has outdated graphics even with the mods and rFactor 2 which although not too bad, cannot compare to something like Project Cars or Assetto Corsa when it comes to graphics. To me, graphics makes no difference, if I can enjoy the game enough to do a full length race on it (GPL for example), then I'll play it. What about you guys?

 

[FJBH10]

Of course it's important, but it doesn't have to be photorealistic to be good. Although for sims in particular it's nice if certain aspects of reality look like reality. But between the two, I'd rather my cpu be running high-end physics than high-end graphics, and the best sims do seem to have to make a choice between those.

Plus there's the whole "good enough at 50 feet" deal. high res textures and tiny details matter on screenshots... but they really don't affect the driving experience. It's more the overall impression that counts then.

Agree 100%, no-one's gonna be driving in a sim scoffing at the quality of the spectator's trouser texture but as soon as you start in a sim with poor ffb you notice it.