I guess normies still equate graphic quality with overall game quality, so that’s why there’s such a big emphasis on photorrealism for many AAA games. An old colleague from university, ~2010, only liked to play the shiniest, “best looking” stuff and scoffed at 2D games, “we’re way past super nintendos”.
The graphics are too expensive for AAA games? AAA means they are throwing the highest category budget for developing a game. And they ONLY invest in graphics, discarding the rest like a proper story (if any), decent characters, bug fixing, balancing, etc. Now they create junk only 1% of players with a 4090 can run somewhay decently on medium settings with 30fps average and loads of framedrops.
Wow guys, amazing, thanks I guess, this costed me 80 euros. Can’t you tone down the graphics by at least 60% and focus on the “game” part of the game instead?
There are plenty of titles that do just that you can buy instead you know.
Oh I do, I’m skipping all AAA games. I illegally download them out of curiosity, but often delete them after 30min of playtime. But it still gets me angry because it basically is a major scam. Luring in loads of people with cool looking videos, then to deliver a bug simulator with most content locked behind more purchases (DLC’s, loot boxes, subscriptions), completely unbalanced and abandoned after the fist sale period because fixing the bugs and balance doesn’t provide more income so might as well quit and start a new scam. And then the audacity to complain people should not expect Baldur’s Gate 3 to be a standard to compare other games to. Maybe do see it as a standard and try to create a properly working product with actual decent content worth it’s money?
People care about graphics.
But they care about other things more
So the graphics need to be in service to something.Imo the problem is that studios have become risk adverse because their budget is so big, so they pick an already popular IP, choose a marketable aspect of that IP, and spend that fortune turning the dial of that aspect up to 11.
Like X but bigger map
Like Y but more playable characters
Like Z but better graphics
Etc
But none of the time actually innovating any new player experience.And players are finally getting fed up with playing the same handful of AAA game experiences again and again with different titles.
Graphics just happens to be the marketable attribute they like to crank most often
What they need to do is throw some spaghetti at the wall, see what’s fun, then throw their hundreds of millions of dollars behind THAT.
Imho, graphics don’t make the game. There are people here still playing doom and portal. Even games like Terraria aren’t too demanding. You don’t need amazing graphics.
Or any graphics for dwarf fortress and nethack (other rouguelikes also apply)
Yeah, been playing Enter the Gungeon and it’s amazing as well
There have been massive diminishing returns on graphical quality vs. hardware and developer requirements since the PS3 era.
I will always put an emphasis on art style and gameplay over trend-chasing and what takes the most computing power.
People still love cult movies and other classics from 100 to 50 years ago, with handcrafted or minimal budget special effects, no CGI. It’s because it’s an entire art form and it can’t just be reduced solely to aesthetic appeal. That kind of approach is just a result of the commodification of art. You want to reduce a successful work of art to some quantifiable metric besides popularity/sales, so that you can create repeatable processes around producing it and selling it, and optimize them for cost, but art defies quantification. Even just basic “enjoyable gameplay” defies that.
This guy MBAs.
That should have come across as critical of the commodification.
It did. Not sure why they said that. And I agree with you 100%. In fact, the success of Minecraft and Roblox alone should show that sometimes paying attention to the graphics is not necessarily what a developer should be doing.
There is room for AAA games with mindblowing graphics, but there should also be room for AAA games where they focus on other features over worrying about how amazing the graphics are.
Mufasa wouldn’t have been a bad movie if they just sprang for animation, and voice actors who even attempt to sound like the characters they’re playing.
you can make the most beautiful cake and its worth nothing if there is just sawdust inside
Yup, first and foremost, figure out your gameplay loops.
Get that right and you can pretty it all up later.
Maybe they’d do better if they tried selling games instead of games as a service and stores with a game attached.
I thought we had all reached consensus that style is more important than realism. And you can do style without mega hardware.
On the other hand, the fidelity in bg3 I think added something to it. I don’t think it would have been the same experience if they were simple sprites like the original games. Is it worth all the hardware? Maybe.
BG3 wasn’t nearly as far as they’re trying to push though. For example it was beautiful on the normal PS5, as were the Horizon Zero Dawn games. And yet somehow that’s not far enough for them.
Fidelity has value but gets diminishing returns the harder it gets.
The NYT article doesn’t mention that new AAA console games often cost $70. I have not bought a brand new game in years because I just can’t justify that cost. I have such a huge backlog between PS4 and PC, that there is just no reason to buy new games
I am betting, adjusted for inflation, that would not be especially higher than a new NES game.
It might even be cheaper.
Yeah I’m always surprised when people are complaining about the cost to buy (not to produce) a game nowadays.
Where I live, games are way cheaper than they used to be during the Playstation 1 Era and it’s now really easy to buy used games online.
Of course if you buy every season pass or special skin for they used to game, it ends up more expensive.
All the best games I’ve played recently are deliberately low poly models, low res textures, and 100% focused on JUST satisfying gamefeel and fun gameplay mechanics.
Fuck graphical fidelity and fuck “AAA” studios for wasting our time and money on it.
I WANT SHORTER GAMES WITH WORSE GRAPHICS MADE BY PEOPLE WHO ARE PAID MORE TO WORK LESS AND I’M NOT KIDDING
I don’t really think it should be “worse” or specifically low-poly. There is a balance that can be struck and I feel that accepting the lowest quality possible is an excuse for developers to put in as little work as possible while still charging us as much as possible.
I WANT SHORTER GAMES
Can I have my cake and eat it too? I want games with a short critical path, but satisfying ways to spend more time with it if it’s fun.
So like interesting NG+ stuff, boss rush modes, different builds, whatever.
Actually, on that point, I love it when a game becomes a platform for continuous content. Minecraft is a bit trite as an example but it fits: You buy it once, and you can beat it in a couple hours if you really want to, but you can extract as much enjoyment out of it as your imagination will allow, and the developers are constantly adding more stuff to do (although not all of what’s added feels great all the time…)
built in randomizers please
Absolutely on the shorter games. I just do not have time for 30 to 40 hour games anymore. 8 to 10 hours is the sweet spot for me. After that I get bored and the game feels like a drag.
Imo it feels like the content is not very fresh compared to when you played that first rpg/open world/etc. It just does not feel like these aaa studios are innovating anymore- I’m looking for compelling stories and tight gameplay loops but they’re feeding us rehashed side quests fillers and eye candy. Anyone feel like they’re just playing borderlands sequels where you’re constantly forced into a meaningless quest to do somebody’s bidding?
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I am soooo fucking sick to death of everything needing to be ‘open world’ (for some reason) that I could puke. Sure, some games may benefit from - or hell, even be downright enriched in some manner by - their use, but outside of a few, notable exceptions (Elden Ring and RDR1/2, in particular, spring to mind, for example) when I see a studio touting their “new and improved, expansive, X times bigger, blahblahblah” open world, all I can think is two things:
-
There will almost certainly be no more than five types (and likely significantly less, tbh) of copy/paste activity I’ll be expected to engage in shotgunned haphazardly across the map. The studios that go ‘above and beyond’ MIGHT attempt to switch things up a bit by slightly altering building or adversary layouts in places, but that’s usually a ‘best case scenario’ kinda thing, and you’ll probably be fortunate to end up with some sort of palette swap. How compelling, eh?
-
I’m going to be subjected to either a veritable fuckton of bland, faceless NPC’s with an equally bland line or two of ‘dialogue’ that is ultimately meaningless or a flimsy pretext to go over there somewhere for… reasons… or a handful or so of them that are inexplicably absolutely VITAL to (or otherwise the impetus behind) everything that is plot - which they have a flimsy pretext for, natch.
Look, I played WoW back in the day already. If I really desperately wanted to waste dozens of hours of my time delivering imaginary packages to forgettable people, or being sent in search of someone who is the only one who can help stop BBEG/the apocalypse/whatever - and will totally help, but need a favor first… Ugh - then I’d go back to the good ol’ WoW treadmill. I left that shit behind because I was sick of it all just feeling like checkmarks someone had to tick off somewhere to appease the C-Suite douchenozzles that don’t understand why we can’t add in a battlepass. (Those are SOOO hot right now!)
Tbh I don’t think you’re in the minority. By far there are so very few truly well done open worlds, but how many of them were anything like mass effect which tied the stories together and had actual ramifications? The time investment is so not worth running around their lifeless worlds accomplishing nothing; I really dislike open world games
-
BUT HOW DO WE FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY OUR NEW CONSOLES?
That’s the fun part: you don’t! :D
That is to say, they tried. And now there are basically no fucking games on whatever they’re calling the latest X-turd, and barely anything worth note on the PS5.
You would think if anyone had any brains they wouldn’t want you to have to buy new consoles all the time. Aside from Nintendo, the hardware is usually a loss leader for the other major players and they make all their money on the licensing costs on the software, i.e. game sales, whereas they lose money every time a console ships out the door. Especially nowadays when the distribution is mostly digital and costs them practically nothing vs. the bad old days when they had to press discs and print labels and shit. Machine sales themselves have never been profitable at least for the first several years each system is out for the last several console generations.
It would be more profitable for Sony and Microsoft to keep you on the same console generation forever – with the inevitable falling cost of manufacturing the things, to boot – keeping it at the same MSRP and simply selling you more and more games for it.
Plus it would make their console sales numbers look really badass… eventually. “The Microsoft Xbox X One X S XS Series OneX S is the best selling video game console in history, selling 1.2 billion units over its 45 year life cycle, and counting!”
I guess that’s why they’re hoping that cloud gaming takes off, so that people “rent” consoles instead of owning anything
I’m also going to add my stone to the pile here and point out that this hyperfixation on more and more “graphics” usually results in it ultimately being impossible to actually see what the fuck is happening on the screen.
You are a realistic barbarian dude who is brown, and wearing brown. standing in a realistic landscape which is brown, against a realistic highly textured and bump mapped bunch of trees which are brown, with leaves that are waving around in all directions realistically and are brown, trying to dodge arrows (which are brown) raining on you from the half dozen hairy orcs in the distance, who are also brown. And about nine pixels tall, and hidden in the bushes. Which are brown. And if this isn’t happening verbatim (or even if it is), 2/3 of the screen is also covered by a zillion glowy particle effects, motion blur, and bloom, which are the only colorful parts of the image but still add up to you not being able to actually see jack shit out of what’s important.
Bonus points if this also requires near frame-perfect inputs to handle, and you have half a second of input lag in between all the shit your console is trying to render plus the two or three frames eaten by postprocessing to make it “look pretty.”
Yeah, fuck all that.
A major part of game deign that everyone seems to forget a lot these days in the name of making everything realistic and/or extra graphicy is clearly communicating to the player just what the hell is going on. Older games, I find, often did a significantly better job of this.
This was actually a lot worse in the early 2000s, as this video shows: https://youtu.be/6qQIhIOaiY4 I agree that there tends to be too much visual clutter on the screen sometimes in current games, especially particle effects. It’s ironic that almost every 3rd person game seems to have a “Batman vision” toggle these days that simplifies what you see on screen so you have a chance to actual see stuff that’s important. Also the often criticised yellow markers for climbing passages.
I totally agree. It’s actually difficult for my brain to process all that detail. Part of it may be due to me being raised with ps1/ps2 graphics.
This screams anecdotal. I don’t find that this is true of next gen titles in general. Lots and lots of absolutely stunning, gorgeous games are available to play where not everything is brown, or otherwise difficult to see.
The concept of realistic graphics doesn’t necessarily have to equate to realism either. Hear me out. Games can look so gorgeous and realistic without having graphics that portray something that looks like this world in which we live. Alien worlds, unnatural colors, but still with light that behaves physically correct using advanced techniques.
I’m all for amazing graphics, and giving developers the tools they need to fulfill their visions. If it looks like garbage though, don’t buy the shit.
I think it’s crazy that we always want prettier games when you still have visual glitches like cars disappearing in your rearview mirror, buildings and textures appearing late, screen tearing when you make your POV spin.
I don’t really need way better graphics, but I’d need these things gone as they take me out of my game way more than no raytracing or a slight fps drop.
I think these things would be easy to solve if we didn’t always get better graphics.
You can hide glitches from videos and screenshots, but you can’t hide the graphics.
Glitches are something people notice after they spend their money, which is why corporations don’t care about them as much.
Object permanence in a game still has yet to blow my mind. Dwarf fortress does it pretty well (abandoning a mine to ruin only to revisit the walls you etched aeons ago as an adventurer), and minecraft of course, but any game with decent graphics seem to just abandon this altogether. You’re just visiting that world, you’re not making any change
Star Citizen is putting a lot of effort into this, and it looks like they’re getting good results.
Well I meant more something like you driving a car fast in an open world and having objects appearing in front of you because everything isn’t loaded yet.
Or landscape disappearing from your rear view mirror in racing games in order to save some memory.
These things wouldn’t cost anything to solve if we gave up some graphical fidelity.
Also, interactivity. Both games you mentioned have unparalleled interactivity when compared with the triple A space.
Not saying it’s necessary, but at a certain level of fidelity/realism it starts to look really weird when the world doesn’t meaningfully react to your actions.
Even for games that have the most minimum required, it’s an issue. Modern games can’t populate the maps anymore because of the system requirements to do that while also having “pretty graphics”.
What cutting edge graphics? The blurry as smudge that is TAA in all the modern games? Fuck off. What’s expensive is the actual slop that is modern games
Yeah and we are going to see more of that in the future since everyone and their mom are switching to UE5.
TAA, motion blur, depth of field. Why do “technologies” to turn a good looking game into a trash looking game even exist?
Space Marine 2 is sharp AF BTW. Also not Unreal Engine, but the Swarm Engine, BTW.
The texture detail in that game is crazy, even though you normally don’t see most of it because it’s too small.
It also has a really fun gameplay loop, that I haven’t felt in a while. Good shit.
