Stylized graphics with great gameplay can make a game hold up for decades. Photo realistic graphics with uninspired gameplay ages like milk in the sun.
Those big studios complain that players require extremely realistic and cutting edge graphics but they're the ones who cultivated such an audience and push for such graphics. Whenever I talk to members of that seemingly young audience, they don't believe me when I say I don't care about graphics and I'm perfectly happy replaying 20 year old games. I also prefer style over realism.
Reminds me of the old “but can it run Crysis” meme. The people who grew up with the gaming industry and watched the evolution of graphics continue to be blown away by the photorealistic graphics while the people who started out with high-fidelity graphics don’t seem to care. I’ve been thinking for a while now studios should be finding an easily reproducible art style similar to how JRPGs use an anime aesthetic. Make games cheaper and visually distinct, and put all your efforts into gameplay and narrative rather than how many polygons are in each rock.
Nah... I've in my 30's. I've been playing video-games ever since the Super NES... Everyone in my generation is also kinda tired of photo-realistic graphics. We just say "Yeah, it's impressive, I guess... ok.". At this point, it's just more of the same... the only people that really are blown away by photo-realistic graphics are people who don't actually play games. I haven't even bought any consoles after the PS3 because everything after that is completely pointless... Consoles spent the last 20 years trying to become inferior PCs.
@@DBinitiate Yeah, but my 486 ran Doom badly. Yeah, we were blown away by good graphics, but it is apparent now those tech driven games (Starglider, Gyron, Tau Ceti, all those 3D cutting edge pieces), are all long forgotten now. Now I remember shitty looking games that had a great story (Phantasie 3, Four Crystals of Trazere). But it did run Descent, which I still think had the greatest map ever...
But Crysis was incredibly fun, so you wanted to be able to run it. Now? What high end game do you really struggle with that is worth the cost of new gear?
The mocap stuff actually reminded me of the very first Prince of Persia, which did use a very primitive form of mocap. The player character's movement animations are traced over from recording one of the developer's brother(?) just doing those actions. It's one of the reasons why the movements in that game are so fluid despite it being an ancient game. However, the artstyle is still just pixel graphics and it works great for it. So yeah... Also, I will still put the Owlcat CRPGs (and even the old Baldur's Gate games) far above Baldur's Gate 3 despite them being silly little miniatures.
Seems to me that there's a lot in common with how Hollywood has been making so many movies & shows not for the actual audience, but to satisfy their own egos (and agendas) - and then yelling the audience for not being properly enthusiastic about the product.
The slop isn’t for you, it’s for the kids. A lot of children today aren’t growing up with the high-quality stuff we did, and so the “modern audience” will manifest once these kids grow up and don’t know any better but to accept and buy that kind of crap.
Constraints and limitations breed creativity and innovation. As the Purse Strings tighten AAA studios are going to learn all about it. That said let's stop pretending a Mass Extinction Event in AAA space will have little to no knock-on effects to other spaces/niches/tribes of gaming. Let's hope the one two punch of Astrobot winning GotY and Svincke's speech (and it's reception) beforehand opened enough eyes.
I think it's interesting how the AAA industry has this obsessive focus on realistic graphics, while I'm seeing more and more indie devs trying out the "demake" style of making games look like old school PS1 games, for example Bloodborne PSX
Good art direction trumps graphical fidelity every time. Good gameplay trumps mediocre graphics every time. The key is budgeting for what you want and are capable of, and realising that you aren't owed an audience.
I prefer my games to play, while also looking good. That said, I am finding myself more and more playing 10 plus year old games. I have a laptop, very small screened laptop for portability. I do not even see the photo realistic graphics. Games like Bioshock, Batman, Mafia 2 Classic, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Fallout3-4, and the Elder Scrolls looks phenomenal to me. Other than that I play Owlcat and Larian crpgs that are gorgeous on a small screen. Point is I don't need to see a characters nose hairs, I need stability and good gameplay. If they went back to that, they will sell more. People want fun over shallow broken prettiness. Give us quality again.
No, we'll have both. Yes, hardware might be overkill for your gaming needs, but the drive for better graphics, from Nvidia, softcos, and gamers, has driven graphics cards prices down for the same performance. Why do I need a much bigger graphics card? For AI of course. So I benefit from it, so why not. Maybe one day I'll pick up a VR headset as well
I do prefer stylistic over realistic. Also, imagine how much more assets could be crammed in a game if they went for lower polygon counts? Games can still look smooth and crisp and run smoothly without seeing every pore and pimple on someone’s face.
Ultra high photorealism is for screenshot archer tech flex bros, who feel the need to count nose pores and use 8k maps for skyrim manhole covers. I don't care about that stuff, I care about how the game looks at 3rd person view distance, and stylized games look just fine there. I do not care if every leaf on a tree and rubble on the road is high rez maps. My home is full of "realistic" western art, but none of it is photorealistic. It's all stylized to be honest, and no one whips out the magnifying glass to appreciate it.
I've honestly never met the vocal minority in person and I'm in that age group. As a matter of fact everyone around my age have been the most consistent to complain about sacrificing gameplay for graphics throughout my life. The law of diminishing returns on graphics has been the most obvious to those of us who've watched the industry for at least 4 decades.
This article is such a bogus. AAA industry is outsourcing most of their work to highly optimized companies that specialize on specific tasks (mocap studios, 3D scans of irl environments, etc.) If CDPR had to make the environment scans for Witcher 4 themselves, and pay for the hardware and technology development to do it, they would already be out of budget, instead they just pay a license to use a database of preexisting scans from the other company. Making good looking games has never been easier, UE5 is designed to pump out high fidelity games even with low skill workers trough drag and drop environment and no coding. even indie asset flip horror games looks visually absolutely stunning these days, that is even with the sole deveroper taking most time making it actually fun to play.
UE 5 is the worst iteration period. Its not optimized and its made for lazy people who dont want to optimize. Stop shilling for an engine that can barely run on the average system.
@@jimmythecrow exaxtly, it allows for fast prototyping and worldbuilding... but it takes skilled dev with years of experience in UE to make the game any good, apart of visuals. I was judging UE5 for what it is, but I do agree that it needs few more years of development to become good. I was not shilling for UE5, I was saying in context of running AAA industry it is the cheap option in their eyes.
I love stylised games, semi-realistic or hyperbolised. My favourite childhood game was Heroes of Might and Magic III, and it still holds up to this day while running on potato or babushka-phone, because it is hand-drawn and animated with a lot of soul. Dishonored was amasing. I loved janky ass TES 3 through 5 for the vibe of their games, and only ever needed better resolution textures and maybe faces to love the games, ESO, while questionably Elder Scrolls for some, finally struck the balance of beauty and vibe with the series. I am huge MMORPG genre and strategies player and both of these almost never spot best in gen graphics, but that's fine because I am in for the whole map, the feel, the immersion in other galaxy where my civilisation is expanding or I roleplay horsewoman from Rohan taking up sword on Laurelin server. Tyranny was insanely well stylised. And, btw, I also love graphic-novelesque RPG/tactical games like Banner Saga, Ash of Gods, now waiting for Shadow of the Road to be published by Owlcat, and these all rely heavily on 2D graphics. The last AAA game I bougth, actually, was EA BG3, and I bought it because I am turn-based girlie running TTRPGs on my own and am core genre audience, not because I was thirsty for elf vampire or goth cleric girl.
@@jimmythecrow hm. Do you mean all of them? I don't think Bloodborne is anything like The Last of Us for example - and I don't mean it's just a different setting hence the visuals differ. I think Bloodborne clearly doesn't want and doesn't try to be realistic, it goes for something else that I can't really name at the moment because I feel like saying "horror style" doesn't convey that direction all that well. Same with Elden. To me all Dark Souls games look a bit cartoony especially DS2 (just look at those character creator menus). W3 also has a slightly cartoonish style to it, although I'd say it's the weakest stylization from those 3.
Small anecdote, Amorata. At launch of Cyberpunk 2077, I was running a Ryzen 5 (I forget the model, but it was an older one) and a NVidia 1660 Ti. For whatever reason, 1.0 ran flawlessly for me. No hiccups at all. The 1.1 update broke everything for me, started seeing T-posed pedestrians, broken cutscenes and whatnot. Anywho, I don't really have a preference. Well, I say that, but I actively hate being able to count the hair follicles and pores. I hate photorealistic, I'm not a matrix-bro, I just want good fun games that look good, but won't make my GPU into the newest Chernobyl meltdown. Like, I was just watching a friend play Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty and I still love the look of Tychus and Raynor. The Adjutant creeped me the freak out though. Zerg/Xenomorph body horror I can do just fine, but a creepy robo-lady splitting her face just skeeved me out.
Top two games that have made more money in the history of gaming are Space Invaders and Pacman. I'm in my 50s and I've been playing Atari 2600, Xbox (original), Dreamcast and PSX games. I can't stand contemporary games. Extremely expensive , plus mediocre stories and gameplay. In fact, one of the nominees for best game of the year is a remake of a 90s game. Graphics matter, of course. But not photorealism. I would argue that photorealistic graphics are a waste of time. I want fantasy, not real life.
Also, look at popular indies lately. Balatro. Ballionaire. Luck Be A Landlord. The limited access/closed beta The Bazaar. These games all take ideas you wouldn't expect to work (poker but count up, pachinko to win, slots madness, etc) but work wonderfully, and outside of The Bazaar, these games are voxeled. They function for what they need to be, and people Love them. Hell, a game I enjoy a lot is CrisTale. I haven't gotten that far, but the characters look cut from paper swatches with a lot of fun stylization- not in the South Park way but in a paper doll way. The MC can see the future and past at the same time, and it helps and that game is enjoyable for the aesthetics! I don't want triple As burning us at the stake for daring want good games with lower graphics. I just want something fun.
Gameplay should always be the top priority over graphics and story. I've said this for years. Hell the games in the west are even less challenging than they were over 10 years ago. Games were practically being catered to these tourist critics than actual gamers. This is why I've always stuck to games in the east.
i think the games are being catered to streamers, esecially females who like to cry on camera. any casual player can smell bs. it won't make them stop consuming but they at least know it's bs. streamers on the other hand have turned games into long series of gameplay that many people binge watch. we don't call these "games" movie games for no reason.
I very much prefer 'realistic enough' art styles like BG3 and Witcher 3. I'm absolutely content with the graphics style in the first few Mass Effect games. I also like some of the more cartoony styles like Wildstar (the shelved MMORPG), SWTOR and older WoW. The art style absolutely has to fit the genre though, and I *hate* when studios switch up the art style (or combat style) of an established franchise (looking at you Veilguard). My definite preference though, is BG3's style. Realistic "enough", but fortified by the writing, acting, mocap and gameplay.
I've been playing games since 1982 so graphics are not a huge issue for me. However, my 3070 has been really struggling with games that I used to run fine since Nvidia's latest driver update. The other problem is the size of games nowadays do games need to be 100gb
I still run a 1080 and haven't had an issue playing vr. Newer games have obviously finally moved out of range but i could just buy a new grapgics card and i will be back in the game.
I like that they couldn't help but shit on sub sections of the community they marketed to for years I swear if these suits aren't attacking people they aren't happy
There's diminishing returns on chasing graphics. Look at some of the most beloved and still played games today....look at the retro revolution of games trying to look like NES, SNES, or Genesis games. Fun games with unique graphics or at least good graphics last longer in the memory compared to a game that's hyper realistic looking and needs a PC that already ran you quite the pretty penny to have another $100+ part installed every other year or less. It's why I'm worried about future consoles over PCs. I'm a console gamer, have been since the early 90s when I could hold a controller in my hands and got an NES, PC gaming was a dream to me in the digital age simply because it wasn't until late October this year my ISP got something out my way besides DSL with 150gb a month data cap...I only JUST got unlimited data late this year. PS5 makes you upgrade the SSD memory YOURSELF....is the PS6 or even a possible PS7 gonna make you do both that and install a new graphics card that you have to buy yourself? Look at the whole PS5 vs PS5 Pro situation with how you can BARELY tell a difference but it's gonna come without a disc drive and costs more cash compared to the already released PS5...it doesn't even come with a STAND ffs. Then there's the unoptimized nature of a lot of modern games that makes them take up a lot of space....yeesh.
Its getting ridiculous for consoles too. Eventually if game companies keep going with graphics fidelity then they'll lose 70% of their market as consoles just deny running them above 30fps if they even do at all... Monster Hunter Wilds' beta was pushing those limits hard. Unless console companies wanna slot better video cards in there and jack the price up to $1000-$1500, then nobody will buy consoles when they can just make the switch to PC. Then there's the problem with digital libraries. Xbox can port to Pc but Playstation players... your digital libraries are held by the balls by Sony, you either stay cucked or lose the whole library. AI is to blame for alot of this tbh. When the 40 series nvidia cards were introduced, suddenly every game company frothed at the mouth for DLSS. They can pretend they dont have to optimize better or match 60 fps as long as they have a game that supports DLSS, now every computer has to have tons of ram, tons of vram, every game is running high end without optimization, and Nvidia makes killer profits off it all so they are less incentivized to lower their prices. It's a race where neither the customer nor the console and game companies are the victors, only Nvidia until their 50 series cards' BS prices allows AMD and Intel to catch up in the market, maybe then we can get back to realistic prices for GPUs.
@@jimmythecrow Bad optimization under the pretext that they think they don't have to optimize as long as DLSS is a thing. I'm not saying it's consoles fault, I'm saying that games will soon not be playable on console if they keep going like this.
To me, beyond a certain point, improving graphics starts to have diminishing returns -- especially when you consider development costs and times, download times, drive space, hardware requirements, etc., when file sizes get too big I loose interest in the game. Once you get past the level of Skyrim, Dark Souls, and The Sims 3, (or less for some genera) more fidelity is wasted on me. And then there is the beauty that can come with well done stylized graphics. If I manage to make any more games (seeming unlikely), I'll likely lean into mildly stylize or realistically proportioned cartoon or anime style.
These games do not look realistic, they instead look modern Movie-esque. The color grading, lighting, bloom, and shadows are completely unrealistic; just look at that image at 0:30. Nowhere in the world are you going to see such eye straining sky where the brightness of the sun envelops the entire sky, while washing out the colors of the environment into a flat brown/gray or otherwise desaturated color scheme. They have a perverse sense of what looks realistic, and just like modern movies it's real eyesore to see.
idk, CDPR produced Cyberpunk 2077, which sold really well I think they made $700M on their fresh IP... There is an audience for it, it just has to be well done. GTA5, highest grossing game ever, has great graphics, very realistic however not as cinematic as other 3rd person experiences like God of War or CP2077. There is only one GTA and only one Rockstar Games, but I think we'll be in for a twist with the new sequel. I'm a 39y/o who built my own pc, a moderate gaming rig and the only thing that crashes my pc is Riot Games and Vanguard anti-cheat, and no it's not because I cheat lol. You're right though PC gaming is not friendly to low spec PC's. If you do decide to spend a couple g's on a PC though, it will last you decades, rather than buying a PS5, PS5 Pro, and a PS6 in the same time period The article is based on a PR dude from Square Enix making a statement. Square Enix is producing games like FF7Remake, Rebirth, etc. and FF XVI.. Sixteen is an amazing game with amazing graphics fidelity and great gameplay. It feels like a cope that he is putting forth a statement like this, bc it's almost like making an excuse as to why Square Enix had a rough few business quarters in 2024, it's no secret that they were spending a lot on producing all sorts of RPGs.. They could have slowed down production, not produced so many and used more polish on the ones they did make. Big Square Enix fan, but they produced too many titles lately I think trying to capitalize on the pandemic gaming boom bc we were all stuck in our houses with not a lot to do. Gaming market did great for those years but now that we are back to normal, it only makes sense that the gaming boom during that time period wouldn't last forever. I like your avatar, btw. Cute.
Triple A are hoping that people start accepting lower quality so they can charge people for producing repetitive content and not pay writers. The only way AI can help their industry is if they can reduce standards
The graphics arguement has always existed... and every time the highest graphics games come out, in 3 years they look like playdough compared to the current highest graphics... making them look bad and age poorly. Stylized games last forever, everyone complains about games like WoW or LoZ windwaker but after decades they look great and games like gears of war and GTA4 looks horrible
I have come up with four examples that demonstrate why art style is more important than graphics: 1) Persona 4 Golden, a game that can easily run on the CPU integrated graphics. The art style is so good, however, that it looks visually interesting even to this day. 2) DA Veilguard. Impressive graphics but the art style is off-putting. The game garnered plenty of hate for different reasons (all just), but the art style certainly wasn't doing it any favors. 3) Starfield. This game is both unimpressive graphically and has an art style that can only be described as uninspired/bland/boring. Visually, there's nothing about this game that makes you go: "Wow, this looks great." 4) Ori and the Will of the Wisps. Amazing graphics, but more importantly, incredible art style. This game is an orgy for the eyes.
I care more about artistic quality than graphical fidelity; it has to look good. A pile of. . . Filth, rendered in photorealistic 8k graphics, is still a pile of filth. Edit: Since you ask, I'm a bit partial to cel-shading, like Breath of the Wild or Borderlamds. Also to 2d pixel graphics. But that's far from my top priority in looking for a game. I'd take good realistic cgi over bad cel-shading in a heartbeat.
Well, I do have a opinion alright.. Seeing evidence online that UE5 is pushing the tech envelope for modern gaming, forcing gamers to buy ever more demanding and complex hardware, puter hardware that are extremely overpriced in some countries - so what? culture shouldn't be limited to a privileged few that can afford it, and I know its a stretch to call modern gaming "Culture", but that's beside the point. Devs say that Unreal Engine 5 is cheap and easier to learn and use, but the cost is having a limited playerbase, some of the best 'developers' have fully embraced UE5, most notorious being CDPR, they had their own engine for Cyberpunk and they switched to UE5 after the exodus, the game was gorgeous and it ran well enough for me, despite the game in the start being a bug infested mess, still is but a lot was fixed even with mods and the story was complex, compelling and fun enough Stalker 2 and so many other devs embracing how easy the newest unreal engine, knowingly dooming a lot of gamers to never play their games, or play it when they can afford the new hardware - which is something I consider a fatal flaw in the modern gaming industry, gaming developing shouldnt be "easy", it should be fun, including for the devs! when devs have fun they make BG3, they make Path of Exile1n2, they make Balatro. I'll never understand this obsession with graphics, games should be fun, it should tell a fun story and then secondly have a theme, and at third, they can look beautiful, after fun gameplay and story have been considered. If you all are looking for a fun game, not easy, but at the same time its a beautiful looking game, and CHEAP, try Kainga: Seeds of Civilization, a rogue-like civ-like builder, its not one of those hella old games filled with complex things shoved in your face, everything is shown in the screen, you have a immortal Demigod called "Thinker", who leads his tribe, walks around 3D maps looking for Inspiration to unlock technologies, some are basic, some are completely groundbreaking, all this with tribals being 2D in a 3D world, that is beautifully created - despite some bugs, I have yet to regret buying this game, I can tell the dev was having fun and was inspired too - if that doesnt convince you, you can always try Stardew Valley, made by another amazing developer. I like the theme around this channel, Eldritch being, I hope to see it grow ever more
40 50? i havent meant any guy gamer that has super grafics asa top seling point for games heck my and my pals loved valheim a game with grafics looking like from 2001 so no the top grafics thing is the minoraty of gamers like the dei modern audiance
The problem is simple really, downgrade in conent. Graphics vise, if it was optimised before lunch, than it is not a big issue that game game does not look like a photo realistic. As long as they have their own style it is alright. But graphics feels like they peaked over a decade ago. The useage of unreal engine all the time, that is for the most part looks the same, feels the same, and is unoptimised. It harms games. Than you got the content vise is less, like what is the point of a big beautiful open world if there is nothing to do in it? It just becomes windowdressing without any substance. Than far too much political pushing, PR nightmares that are still working in the studios when they have not been sacked for attacking the consumer base and potential fanbase. They work in a industry they need to get this in their heads: They make products, and there is zero obligation from the gamers that are their consumers by the way to buy their games at all. They need to make attarctive products that will bring the gamers in. But how can that be done if their product is subpar? There are so many game devs in the world and so much games to look at, Asian games and indies are pulling ahead, due to the failure from the AAA studios. Content is the most important thing to have in a game, that it is fun to play, that world building is there, dialog, story, characters are on point, music helps a ton. But can only do that much. I have played all my life, and I get the feeling that gaming is at a low point, I think most big studios will down size or disapear. The smaller indies might get to the top. Who knowes, but they can't go on like this, they need to change their ways. Im just bored with most games that comes out this days. I remeber having more games I whated to play than money, now it is the other way around, few games that I what to play and money in my pocket. How times have changed. Most studios have gone down the ESG path, DEI and forgoten that they need gamers to make a profit. Look at most of the games coming out, they are DOA and will never brake even due to their overbloated bugets. If only they made middle shelf games and see what was popular and made a big buget title in that ip. That will get them sales. But now most people are reluctant to buy games, because they cost to much and quality vise is not there anymore.
shorter games does not mean it should cost less. i am perfectly fine with spending 70-120 euro on a game like astrobot. i can and will appreciate the level of detail, polish and testing that goes into such a game. i don't care if it's short. in fact, i like it more if it's a no nonsense game that can be finished in a week of casual play time. this way of thinking of short game = lower price is what got us into this mess. you guys are just burning through games. mindless consumers that just want the latest cheap slop. addicts. games are not movies or books. they cannot be cheaper just because they are shorter. mechanics and animations take time to be developed, fine tuned and it doesn't matter if the game is short - you still need the same amount of work to develop them. you can reuse the mechanics later and make a 20 hour game into a 40 hour game without much of a tradeoff. most of the money today is spent on meetings, pointless discussions and debate about how to make investors a, b, c happy while also pushing a message that we need to push. even small studios have more staff doing tone policing than developers working on the game.
How is wanting to spend 100+ hours in a game "burning through a game"? To the contrary, your preference for 5 hour games you can play in a week "burns through" far more than I do - and personally, I don't have $70 to spend on a new game every week. There are a HUGE variety of factors involved in the cost of a game - a shorter game can, in fact, cost less than a longer game. A longer game can cost less than a shorter game - its not a simple formula. But personally? I'm not willing to spend $70 on the wide majority of shorter games. I'd rather spend 70, and not be looking for a new game in a week or two.
@@TheAbysmalCritic keyword "every week". that's what i mean burning through. buying more than a handful of games in a whole year, especially now when they are almost all bad is a problem. i wasn't commenting about you but about gamers in general. i don't understand why you would not spend more for high quality. for example, in the early 90s a gameboy cartridge was around 50% of the price of the system and the system was $225 adjusted for inflation. that would put a game cartridge at $110. it was very expensive and the games were very short because it was all gameplay.
I love your channel. Thank you for answering my questions. Stopped by to give you a shout-out this morning.(ruclips.net/video/RR3hILhjbd0/видео.htmlsi=f3rEboU7JZen35CG) and thumbs up.
I couldn't care less about graphical fidelity. I usually play on the lowest settings just to push as many frames as possible. In a year plagued with flops, there's nothing like going back and emulating a huge backlog of games from my childhood to realize that great story and gameplay make up for older gen graphics immeasurably.
Stylized graphics with great gameplay can make a game hold up for decades.
Photo realistic graphics with uninspired gameplay ages like milk in the sun.
Those big studios complain that players require extremely realistic and cutting edge graphics but they're the ones who cultivated such an audience and push for such graphics. Whenever I talk to members of that seemingly young audience, they don't believe me when I say I don't care about graphics and I'm perfectly happy replaying 20 year old games. I also prefer style over realism.
Reminds me of the old “but can it run Crysis” meme.
The people who grew up with the gaming industry and watched the evolution of graphics continue to be blown away by the photorealistic graphics while the people who started out with high-fidelity graphics don’t seem to care.
I’ve been thinking for a while now studios should be finding an easily reproducible art style similar to how JRPGs use an anime aesthetic. Make games cheaper and visually distinct, and put all your efforts into gameplay and narrative rather than how many polygons are in each rock.
Even better:
The base standard for computing power is "Can it run DOOM?"
People don't care about how crappy it looks, just that it can play DOOM.
Nah... I've in my 30's. I've been playing video-games ever since the Super NES...
Everyone in my generation is also kinda tired of photo-realistic graphics. We just say "Yeah, it's impressive, I guess... ok.".
At this point, it's just more of the same...
the only people that really are blown away by photo-realistic graphics are people who don't actually play games.
I haven't even bought any consoles after the PS3 because everything after that is completely pointless...
Consoles spent the last 20 years trying to become inferior PCs.
@@DBinitiate Yeah, but my 486 ran Doom badly.
Yeah, we were blown away by good graphics,
but it is apparent now those tech driven games (Starglider, Gyron, Tau Ceti, all those 3D cutting edge pieces),
are all long forgotten now. Now I remember shitty looking games that had a great story (Phantasie 3, Four Crystals of Trazere).
But it did run Descent, which I still think had the greatest map ever...
But Crysis was incredibly fun, so you wanted to be able to run it. Now? What high end game do you really struggle with that is worth the cost of new gear?
The mocap stuff actually reminded me of the very first Prince of Persia, which did use a very primitive form of mocap.
The player character's movement animations are traced over from recording one of the developer's brother(?) just doing those actions.
It's one of the reasons why the movements in that game are so fluid despite it being an ancient game.
However, the artstyle is still just pixel graphics and it works great for it. So yeah...
Also, I will still put the Owlcat CRPGs (and even the old Baldur's Gate games) far above Baldur's Gate 3 despite them being silly little miniatures.
I love this woman. She's so intelligent 😍
Seems to me that there's a lot in common with how Hollywood has been making so many movies & shows not for the actual audience, but to satisfy their own egos (and agendas) - and then yelling the audience for not being properly enthusiastic about the product.
The Classical music industry did the same, decades before. I'm partial to Alan Hovhaness, but the "enlightened" prefer Bernstein's Mass.
The slop isn’t for you, it’s for the kids. A lot of children today aren’t growing up with the high-quality stuff we did, and so the “modern audience” will manifest once these kids grow up and don’t know any better but to accept and buy that kind of crap.
Constraints and limitations breed creativity and innovation. As the Purse Strings tighten AAA studios are going to learn all about it. That said let's stop pretending a Mass Extinction Event in AAA space will have little to no knock-on effects to other spaces/niches/tribes of gaming. Let's hope the one two punch of Astrobot winning GotY and Svincke's speech (and it's reception) beforehand opened enough eyes.
I think it's interesting how the AAA industry has this obsessive focus on realistic graphics, while I'm seeing more and more indie devs trying out the "demake" style of making games look like old school PS1 games, for example Bloodborne PSX
those arent indie devs, those are hobbyists.
Good art direction trumps graphical fidelity every time. Good gameplay trumps mediocre graphics every time. The key is budgeting for what you want and are capable of, and realising that you aren't owed an audience.
Agreed
I prefer my games to play, while also looking good. That said, I am finding myself more and more playing 10 plus year old games. I have a laptop, very small screened laptop for portability. I do not even see the photo realistic graphics. Games like Bioshock, Batman, Mafia 2 Classic, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Fallout3-4, and the Elder Scrolls looks phenomenal to me. Other than that I play Owlcat and Larian crpgs that are gorgeous on a small screen. Point is I don't need to see a characters nose hairs, I need stability and good gameplay.
If they went back to that, they will sell more. People want fun over shallow broken prettiness. Give us quality again.
No, we'll have both.
Yes, hardware might be overkill for your gaming needs,
but the drive for better graphics, from Nvidia, softcos, and gamers,
has driven graphics cards prices down for the same performance.
Why do I need a much bigger graphics card? For AI of course.
So I benefit from it, so why not. Maybe one day I'll pick up a VR headset as well
I do prefer stylistic over realistic. Also, imagine how much more assets could be crammed in a game if they went for lower polygon counts? Games can still look smooth and crisp and run smoothly without seeing every pore and pimple on someone’s face.
Ultra high photorealism is for screenshot archer tech flex bros, who feel the need to count nose pores and use 8k maps for skyrim manhole covers. I don't care about that stuff, I care about how the game looks at 3rd person view distance, and stylized games look just fine there. I do not care if every leaf on a tree and rubble on the road is high rez maps. My home is full of "realistic" western art, but none of it is photorealistic. It's all stylized to be honest, and no one whips out the magnifying glass to appreciate it.
where are the manhole covers in Skyrim??
@@keungwan5901 Solitude, and yes there is a mod for 8k manhole covers
I've honestly never met the vocal minority in person and I'm in that age group. As a matter of fact everyone around my age have been the most consistent to complain about sacrificing gameplay for graphics throughout my life. The law of diminishing returns on graphics has been the most obvious to those of us who've watched the industry for at least 4 decades.
Don't let your kids play Roblox folks. It is not a safe place for children.
This article is such a bogus. AAA industry is outsourcing most of their work to highly optimized companies that specialize on specific tasks (mocap studios, 3D scans of irl environments, etc.)
If CDPR had to make the environment scans for Witcher 4 themselves, and pay for the hardware and technology development to do it, they would already be out of budget, instead they just pay a license to use a database of preexisting scans from the other company.
Making good looking games has never been easier, UE5 is designed to pump out high fidelity games even with low skill workers trough drag and drop environment and no coding.
even indie asset flip horror games looks visually absolutely stunning these days, that is even with the sole deveroper taking most time making it actually fun to play.
UE 5 is the worst iteration period. Its not optimized and its made for lazy people who dont want to optimize. Stop shilling for an engine that can barely run on the average system.
@@jimmythecrow exaxtly, it allows for fast prototyping and worldbuilding... but it takes skilled dev with years of experience in UE to make the game any good, apart of visuals.
I was judging UE5 for what it is, but I do agree that it needs few more years of development to become good.
I was not shilling for UE5, I was saying in context of running AAA industry it is the cheap option in their eyes.
I love stylised games, semi-realistic or hyperbolised. My favourite childhood game was Heroes of Might and Magic III, and it still holds up to this day while running on potato or babushka-phone, because it is hand-drawn and animated with a lot of soul. Dishonored was amasing. I loved janky ass TES 3 through 5 for the vibe of their games, and only ever needed better resolution textures and maybe faces to love the games, ESO, while questionably Elder Scrolls for some, finally struck the balance of beauty and vibe with the series. I am huge MMORPG genre and strategies player and both of these almost never spot best in gen graphics, but that's fine because I am in for the whole map, the feel, the immersion in other galaxy where my civilisation is expanding or I roleplay horsewoman from Rohan taking up sword on Laurelin server. Tyranny was insanely well stylised. And, btw, I also love graphic-novelesque RPG/tactical games like Banner Saga, Ash of Gods, now waiting for Shadow of the Road to be published by Owlcat, and these all rely heavily on 2D graphics. The last AAA game I bougth, actually, was EA BG3, and I bought it because I am turn-based girlie running TTRPGs on my own and am core genre audience, not because I was thirsty for elf vampire or goth cleric girl.
I love this woman. She's so intelligent.
Slightly stylized, I consider Witcher 3 stylized. Bloodborne. Elden Ring. Those are timless graphics.
lol what? theyre realistic graphics. No style
@@jimmythecrow hm. Do you mean all of them? I don't think Bloodborne is anything like The Last of Us for example - and I don't mean it's just a different setting hence the visuals differ. I think Bloodborne clearly doesn't want and doesn't try to be realistic, it goes for something else that I can't really name at the moment because I feel like saying "horror style" doesn't convey that direction all that well. Same with Elden. To me all Dark Souls games look a bit cartoony especially DS2 (just look at those character creator menus). W3 also has a slightly cartoonish style to it, although I'd say it's the weakest stylization from those 3.
Small anecdote, Amorata. At launch of Cyberpunk 2077, I was running a Ryzen 5 (I forget the model, but it was an older one) and a NVidia 1660 Ti. For whatever reason, 1.0 ran flawlessly for me. No hiccups at all. The 1.1 update broke everything for me, started seeing T-posed pedestrians, broken cutscenes and whatnot.
Anywho, I don't really have a preference. Well, I say that, but I actively hate being able to count the hair follicles and pores. I hate photorealistic, I'm not a matrix-bro, I just want good fun games that look good, but won't make my GPU into the newest Chernobyl meltdown. Like, I was just watching a friend play Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty and I still love the look of Tychus and Raynor. The Adjutant creeped me the freak out though. Zerg/Xenomorph body horror I can do just fine, but a creepy robo-lady splitting her face just skeeved me out.
Wow it's like they really care about true quality for good games and accessibility
Top two games that have made more money in the history of gaming are Space Invaders and Pacman. I'm in my 50s and I've been playing Atari 2600, Xbox (original), Dreamcast and PSX games. I can't stand contemporary games. Extremely expensive , plus mediocre stories and gameplay. In fact, one of the nominees for best game of the year is a remake of a 90s game.
Graphics matter, of course. But not photorealism. I would argue that photorealistic graphics are a waste of time. I want fantasy, not real life.
My preference for graphical style is the kind that fits the story and gameplay.
Like you said, those are king.
Bro quoted the Sonic meme, what a legend.
Also, look at popular indies lately. Balatro. Ballionaire. Luck Be A Landlord. The limited access/closed beta The Bazaar. These games all take ideas you wouldn't expect to work (poker but count up, pachinko to win, slots madness, etc) but work wonderfully, and outside of The Bazaar, these games are voxeled. They function for what they need to be, and people Love them.
Hell, a game I enjoy a lot is CrisTale. I haven't gotten that far, but the characters look cut from paper swatches with a lot of fun stylization- not in the South Park way but in a paper doll way. The MC can see the future and past at the same time, and it helps and that game is enjoyable for the aesthetics!
I don't want triple As burning us at the stake for daring want good games with lower graphics. I just want something fun.
all i want is a game that runs 60+ fps on 1080p everything released in the past 5 years cannot even reach that.
Gameplay should always be the top priority over graphics and story. I've said this for years. Hell the games in the west are even less challenging than they were over 10 years ago. Games were practically being catered to these tourist critics than actual gamers. This is why I've always stuck to games in the east.
i think the games are being catered to streamers, esecially females who like to cry on camera. any casual player can smell bs. it won't make them stop consuming but they at least know it's bs. streamers on the other hand have turned games into long series of gameplay that many people binge watch. we don't call these "games" movie games for no reason.
I very much prefer 'realistic enough' art styles like BG3 and Witcher 3. I'm absolutely content with the graphics style in the first few Mass Effect games. I also like some of the more cartoony styles like Wildstar (the shelved MMORPG), SWTOR and older WoW. The art style absolutely has to fit the genre though, and I *hate* when studios switch up the art style (or combat style) of an established franchise (looking at you Veilguard).
My definite preference though, is BG3's style. Realistic "enough", but fortified by the writing, acting, mocap and gameplay.
I've been playing games since 1982 so graphics are not a huge issue for me. However, my 3070 has been really struggling with games that I used to run fine since Nvidia's latest driver update. The other problem is the size of games nowadays do games need to be 100gb
I still run a 1080 and haven't had an issue playing vr.
Newer games have obviously finally moved out of range but i could just buy a new grapgics card and i will be back in the game.
I like that they couldn't help but shit on sub sections of the community they marketed to for years I swear if these suits aren't attacking people they aren't happy
There's diminishing returns on chasing graphics. Look at some of the most beloved and still played games today....look at the retro revolution of games trying to look like NES, SNES, or Genesis games. Fun games with unique graphics or at least good graphics last longer in the memory compared to a game that's hyper realistic looking and needs a PC that already ran you quite the pretty penny to have another $100+ part installed every other year or less. It's why I'm worried about future consoles over PCs. I'm a console gamer, have been since the early 90s when I could hold a controller in my hands and got an NES, PC gaming was a dream to me in the digital age simply because it wasn't until late October this year my ISP got something out my way besides DSL with 150gb a month data cap...I only JUST got unlimited data late this year. PS5 makes you upgrade the SSD memory YOURSELF....is the PS6 or even a possible PS7 gonna make you do both that and install a new graphics card that you have to buy yourself? Look at the whole PS5 vs PS5 Pro situation with how you can BARELY tell a difference but it's gonna come without a disc drive and costs more cash compared to the already released PS5...it doesn't even come with a STAND ffs. Then there's the unoptimized nature of a lot of modern games that makes them take up a lot of space....yeesh.
Its getting ridiculous for consoles too. Eventually if game companies keep going with graphics fidelity then they'll lose 70% of their market as consoles just deny running them above 30fps if they even do at all... Monster Hunter Wilds' beta was pushing those limits hard. Unless console companies wanna slot better video cards in there and jack the price up to $1000-$1500, then nobody will buy consoles when they can just make the switch to PC. Then there's the problem with digital libraries. Xbox can port to Pc but Playstation players... your digital libraries are held by the balls by Sony, you either stay cucked or lose the whole library.
AI is to blame for alot of this tbh. When the 40 series nvidia cards were introduced, suddenly every game company frothed at the mouth for DLSS. They can pretend they dont have to optimize better or match 60 fps as long as they have a game that supports DLSS, now every computer has to have tons of ram, tons of vram, every game is running high end without optimization, and Nvidia makes killer profits off it all so they are less incentivized to lower their prices. It's a race where neither the customer nor the console and game companies are the victors, only Nvidia until their 50 series cards' BS prices allows AMD and Intel to catch up in the market, maybe then we can get back to realistic prices for GPUs.
its not the consoles. The consoles are made just fine, the issue is bad optimization.
@@jimmythecrow Bad optimization under the pretext that they think they don't have to optimize as long as DLSS is a thing. I'm not saying it's consoles fault, I'm saying that games will soon not be playable on console if they keep going like this.
To me, beyond a certain point, improving graphics starts to have diminishing returns -- especially when you consider development costs and times, download times, drive space, hardware requirements, etc., when file sizes get too big I loose interest in the game. Once you get past the level of Skyrim, Dark Souls, and The Sims 3, (or less for some genera) more fidelity is wasted on me. And then there is the beauty that can come with well done stylized graphics.
If I manage to make any more games (seeming unlikely), I'll likely lean into mildly stylize or realistically proportioned cartoon or anime style.
These games do not look realistic, they instead look modern Movie-esque. The color grading, lighting, bloom, and shadows are completely unrealistic; just look at that image at 0:30. Nowhere in the world are you going to see such eye straining sky where the brightness of the sun envelops the entire sky, while washing out the colors of the environment into a flat brown/gray or otherwise desaturated color scheme.
They have a perverse sense of what looks realistic, and just like modern movies it's real eyesore to see.
idk, CDPR produced Cyberpunk 2077, which sold really well I think they made $700M on their fresh IP... There is an audience for it, it just has to be well done. GTA5, highest grossing game ever, has great graphics, very realistic however not as cinematic as other 3rd person experiences like God of War or CP2077. There is only one GTA and only one Rockstar Games, but I think we'll be in for a twist with the new sequel.
I'm a 39y/o who built my own pc, a moderate gaming rig and the only thing that crashes my pc is Riot Games and Vanguard anti-cheat, and no it's not because I cheat lol. You're right though PC gaming is not friendly to low spec PC's. If you do decide to spend a couple g's on a PC though, it will last you decades, rather than buying a PS5, PS5 Pro, and a PS6 in the same time period
The article is based on a PR dude from Square Enix making a statement. Square Enix is producing games like FF7Remake, Rebirth, etc. and FF XVI.. Sixteen is an amazing game with amazing graphics fidelity and great gameplay. It feels like a cope that he is putting forth a statement like this, bc it's almost like making an excuse as to why Square Enix had a rough few business quarters in 2024, it's no secret that they were spending a lot on producing all sorts of RPGs..
They could have slowed down production, not produced so many and used more polish on the ones they did make. Big Square Enix fan, but they produced too many titles lately I think trying to capitalize on the pandemic gaming boom bc we were all stuck in our houses with not a lot to do. Gaming market did great for those years but now that we are back to normal, it only makes sense that the gaming boom during that time period wouldn't last forever.
I like your avatar, btw. Cute.
Triple A are hoping that people start accepting lower quality so they can charge people for producing repetitive content and not pay writers. The only way AI can help their industry is if they can reduce standards
I love this woman. She's so intelligent
The graphics arguement has always existed... and every time the highest graphics games come out, in 3 years they look like playdough compared to the current highest graphics... making them look bad and age poorly. Stylized games last forever, everyone complains about games like WoW or LoZ windwaker but after decades they look great and games like gears of war and GTA4 looks horrible
I have come up with four examples that demonstrate why art style is more important than graphics:
1) Persona 4 Golden, a game that can easily run on the CPU integrated graphics. The art style is so good, however, that it looks visually interesting even to this day.
2) DA Veilguard. Impressive graphics but the art style is off-putting. The game garnered plenty of hate for different reasons (all just), but the art style certainly wasn't doing it any favors.
3) Starfield. This game is both unimpressive graphically and has an art style that can only be described as uninspired/bland/boring. Visually, there's nothing about this game that makes you go: "Wow, this looks great."
4) Ori and the Will of the Wisps. Amazing graphics, but more importantly, incredible art style. This game is an orgy for the eyes.
I care more about artistic quality than graphical fidelity; it has to look good. A pile of. . . Filth, rendered in photorealistic 8k graphics, is still a pile of filth.
Edit: Since you ask, I'm a bit partial to cel-shading, like Breath of the Wild or Borderlamds. Also to 2d pixel graphics. But that's far from my top priority in looking for a game. I'd take good realistic cgi over bad cel-shading in a heartbeat.
Well, I do have a opinion alright..
Seeing evidence online that UE5 is pushing the tech envelope for modern gaming, forcing gamers to buy ever more demanding and complex hardware, puter hardware that are extremely overpriced in some countries - so what?
culture shouldn't be limited to a privileged few that can afford it, and I know its a stretch to call modern gaming "Culture", but that's beside the point.
Devs say that Unreal Engine 5 is cheap and easier to learn and use, but the cost is having a limited playerbase, some of the best 'developers' have fully embraced UE5, most notorious being CDPR, they had their own engine for Cyberpunk and they switched to UE5 after the exodus, the game was gorgeous and it ran well enough for me, despite the game in the start being a bug infested mess, still is but a lot was fixed even with mods and the story was complex, compelling and fun enough
Stalker 2 and so many other devs embracing how easy the newest unreal engine, knowingly dooming a lot of gamers to never play their games, or play it when they can afford the new hardware - which is something I consider a fatal flaw in the modern gaming industry, gaming developing shouldnt be "easy", it should be fun, including for the devs!
when devs have fun they make BG3, they make Path of Exile1n2, they make Balatro.
I'll never understand this obsession with graphics, games should be fun, it should tell a fun story and then secondly have a theme, and at third, they can look beautiful, after fun gameplay and story have been considered.
If you all are looking for a fun game, not easy, but at the same time its a beautiful looking game, and CHEAP, try Kainga: Seeds of Civilization, a rogue-like civ-like builder, its not one of those hella old games filled with complex things shoved in your face, everything is shown in the screen, you have a immortal Demigod called "Thinker", who leads his tribe, walks around 3D maps looking for Inspiration to unlock technologies, some are basic, some are completely groundbreaking, all this with tribals being 2D in a 3D world, that is beautifully created - despite some bugs, I have yet to regret buying this game, I can tell the dev was having fun and was inspired too - if that doesnt convince you, you can always try Stardew Valley, made by another amazing developer.
I like the theme around this channel, Eldritch being, I hope to see it grow ever more
40 50? i havent meant any guy gamer that has super grafics asa top seling point for games heck my and my pals loved valheim a game with grafics looking like from 2001 so no the top grafics thing is the minoraty of gamers like the dei modern audiance
The problem is simple really, downgrade in conent. Graphics vise, if it was optimised before lunch, than it is not a big issue that game game does not look like a photo realistic. As long as they have their own style it is alright. But graphics feels like they peaked over a decade ago. The useage of unreal engine all the time, that is for the most part looks the same, feels the same, and is unoptimised. It harms games. Than you got the content vise is less, like what is the point of a big beautiful open world if there is nothing to do in it? It just becomes windowdressing without any substance. Than far too much political pushing, PR nightmares that are still working in the studios when they have not been sacked for attacking the consumer base and potential fanbase. They work in a industry they need to get this in their heads: They make products, and there is zero obligation from the gamers that are their consumers by the way to buy their games at all. They need to make attarctive products that will bring the gamers in. But how can that be done if their product is subpar? There are so many game devs in the world and so much games to look at, Asian games and indies are pulling ahead, due to the failure from the AAA studios. Content is the most important thing to have in a game, that it is fun to play, that world building is there, dialog, story, characters are on point, music helps a ton. But can only do that much. I have played all my life, and I get the feeling that gaming is at a low point, I think most big studios will down size or disapear. The smaller indies might get to the top. Who knowes, but they can't go on like this, they need to change their ways. Im just bored with most games that comes out this days. I remeber having more games I whated to play than money, now it is the other way around, few games that I what to play and money in my pocket. How times have changed. Most studios have gone down the ESG path, DEI and forgoten that they need gamers to make a profit. Look at most of the games coming out, they are DOA and will never brake even due to their overbloated bugets. If only they made middle shelf games and see what was popular and made a big buget title in that ip. That will get them sales. But now most people are reluctant to buy games, because they cost to much and quality vise is not there anymore.
shorter games does not mean it should cost less. i am perfectly fine with spending 70-120 euro on a game like astrobot. i can and will appreciate the level of detail, polish and testing that goes into such a game. i don't care if it's short. in fact, i like it more if it's a no nonsense game that can be finished in a week of casual play time. this way of thinking of short game = lower price is what got us into this mess. you guys are just burning through games. mindless consumers that just want the latest cheap slop. addicts.
games are not movies or books. they cannot be cheaper just because they are shorter. mechanics and animations take time to be developed, fine tuned and it doesn't matter if the game is short - you still need the same amount of work to develop them. you can reuse the mechanics later and make a 20 hour game into a 40 hour game without much of a tradeoff.
most of the money today is spent on meetings, pointless discussions and debate about how to make investors a, b, c happy while also pushing a message that we need to push. even small studios have more staff doing tone policing than developers working on the game.
How is wanting to spend 100+ hours in a game "burning through a game"?
To the contrary, your preference for 5 hour games you can play in a week "burns through" far more than I do - and personally, I don't have $70 to spend on a new game every week.
There are a HUGE variety of factors involved in the cost of a game - a shorter game can, in fact, cost less than a longer game. A longer game can cost less than a shorter game - its not a simple formula. But personally? I'm not willing to spend $70 on the wide majority of shorter games. I'd rather spend 70, and not be looking for a new game in a week or two.
@@TheAbysmalCritic keyword "every week". that's what i mean burning through. buying more than a handful of games in a whole year, especially now when they are almost all bad is a problem. i wasn't commenting about you but about gamers in general. i don't understand why you would not spend more for high quality. for example, in the early 90s a gameboy cartridge was around 50% of the price of the system and the system was $225 adjusted for inflation. that would put a game cartridge at $110. it was very expensive and the games were very short because it was all gameplay.
no, this is unwatchable.
quake was always a better engine than unreal.
intel always had better chips than amd.
it's not even a comparisson but people will never learn.
I love your channel. Thank you for answering my questions. Stopped by to give you a shout-out this morning.(ruclips.net/video/RR3hILhjbd0/видео.htmlsi=f3rEboU7JZen35CG) and thumbs up.
Any time! And thank you!
@@TheAbysmalCritic your welcom
I couldn't care less about graphical fidelity. I usually play on the lowest settings just to push as many frames as possible. In a year plagued with flops, there's nothing like going back and emulating a huge backlog of games from my childhood to realize that great story and gameplay make up for older gen graphics immeasurably.