Hey guys, don't forget to leave a like, a comment and share the video around if you wanna see more content like this :) Also, no, I don't hate Cyberpunk 2077 - But glitches be bad lol.
I think you should check it out if you got the PC specs. It’s one of the best games I’ve ever played. Granted, I wasn’t following the hype as religiously as most people were, but the world and gameplay are beyond satisfying if you can run it. The characters are great, I can’t recommend it enough.
on my second playthrough of persona 5 royal and I have to say THAT IT IS AMAZING MY GOD ITS MY FAVOURITE GAME!. and i can tell that you have taken alot of insperation from it (art wise).
I also think that if there wasn't this massive focus on graphics, details and realism in the gaming industry, there would be way less time and resources required to make game, giving developers more opportunity to polish the game itself and not just it's visuals
Completely agreed. I'm actually a 3D modeler (not professional), and I find making something that's realistic, removing the difficulty factor out of my judgement, is just... Not fun. I much prefer making things stylized, charismatic, and sometimes just cartoonishly "rule of cool." I've gotten so sick of everything trying to look more and more realistic to the point textures and normal maps are focusing on the FREAKING PORES ON PEOPLE'S FACES! These are details nobody gives a shit about outside marketing material, and even those that do stop caring shortly after seeing it. It's just gotten so absurd how everyone is just trying to make "bleak real life: 2" in every game, and while that's fine and fun for some that aim for a realistic setting, I'm so sick of everything just being a CG version of real life so much so that even Sonic succumbed to being slapped into a hyper-detailed world he sticks out in. I just want games to experiment in visuals and aesthetics, again. I miss when the wackiness of the N64 and PS1 were the norm and not the exception.
Well for the most part the people who take care of the game's visuals aren't going to be really connected to the mechanics or bug testing and the team that does that will be just making 3D models and other stuff like that. There would be some focus on polishing animation that is necessary for gameplay by conveying the information correctly but the art team might not be as involved with that as the team doing mocap or programming. Most studios have different teams working on each segment of the game, it's not like the guys hired to do 3D modeling could simply be moved to the coding team. Though if you're talking about the budget, that is a point. Although I'm fairly certain that the guys modeling pots and pans and stuff are being paid peanuts, simply there because not having the background assets that nobody really pays attention to anyway would put the game in the uncanny valley and the world wouldn't feel lived-in.
Oh most definitely, way too much time is spent on making the game look as realistic as possible, to an absurd level, that most of the development cycle has been spent on the artistic side of things, but not the fine tuning of the gameplay or optimization of all the systems at work. Leaving us with a product that looks pretty, but runs horribly, renders slowly, and gameplay that feels half baked.
Unique and interesting art styles are always gonna trump simply trying to look as realistic as technologically possible Night in the woods Hollow knight Splatoon (1 is my favorite) BoTW Minecraft Almost any persona game Neon white All of these games, are considered timeless, because the devs knew that going for the most realistic style possible would simply date their game
The Megaman games too, despite having rarely new games. The series 8-16-32 bit sprites have their charm. Despite the games being known for their difficulty.
I'd put "Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker" there too ... a game criticized for not being "realistic" but, today, is praised for holding better than any other "realistic games" from the same time.
i remember when elden ring was coming out and there were soooo many people baahing it for its graphics, saying itd be terrible and forgotten after a few weeks.. ended up being one of the best games ever made, it just writes itself at this point
I have the opinion of artstyle over graphics, if you have a great artstyle, an example being Breath of the Wild, but if the goal is to make realism then go ahead. But yeah, there's amount of pizzazz that I can see in artstyle, like the newest Street Fighter looks realistic, but it still has a style to it with the characters and the amount of colors that splash about with some strikes.
@@Perdix64 Not really, we effectively crossed the threshhold of being high quality enough where it doesn't age that poorly anymore. Reality does not ever change how it looks, so the closer the art becomes to it, the closer it becomes to never becoming obsolete ever again.
@@lpfan4491 I don't quite think so, we'll eventually reach a threshold where it does look like physical humans in a game. Not like what David Cage is doing, but looks realistic, making those games "obsolete" by comparison.
@@lpfan4491 that just makes it going closer to become even more obsolete and forgettable due to how it's too close to reality that we have no sense of wanting to explore more.
I think a game that understands the importance of both graphics and style was Ghost of Tsushima. Yes, it’s heavy in the graphics department, but CHRIST IN A CRUTCH the game oozes an artistic style like the samurai movies of old.
Essentially what this means is: Graphics should be taken seriously but not so much that it’s at the expense of everything else. I say that cause some people are still gonna get antsy.
While realistic graphics can help with immersion it can also damage it if the game is glitchy you can be immersed in a set piece turn around and have a horse walking upside down killing that immersion while a game like ultrakill with its low-ploy graphics and at time murky but with it taking place in hell and with with only a few bugs I’ve seen makes the game immersive and memorable
@@jaysanj152 that can be said with every game so it isn't really an argument. Something that is true with everything is less an argument and more just a fact.
I know the most obvious counter towards the overreliance and hyperfixation of realistic graphics is making more cartoony/stylized artstyles, but I do think there's a middle ground between the too extreme. I remember that in the 2020 Game Awards, while TLOU2 won almost every other award, it got beat by Ghost of Tsushima in art direction. That got me thinking for a bit. Yes, I will admit that TLOU2 is a technological Marvel in how it replicates the real world, but in terms of artstyle, it's not really all that different from the many other post-apocalyptic games out there. I appreciated games like GOT and Doom Eternal for having realistic details in their graphics whole still finding a way to make their aesthetic look unique to themselves (GOT being heavily-inspired by old samurai films and Eternal looking like a metal cover being brought to life.)
Award Shows are a sham. Once Companies realized Awards could be used as a Marketing Tool they just exploited it and found ways to "Buy" Votes. It can be fun to see, but should never be taken seriously.
I suppose you could say that Nintendo does a similar thing, just the other way around. Plenty of Nintendo games as of late have realistic textures, but are still cartoony and stylized in design.
The inde scene is a great example of this. A lot of those games don’t have the best graphics. In fact, a lot of them focus on throwbacks to the 8 to 16 bit era. But they have a lot of personality, and they usually can still get across their story and gameplay. While it’s the AAA games that seem determined to push: ‘better graphics equal better game.’ mindset.
@@thomasffrench3639 Fnaf, Bendy and the ink machine, practically all of the horror games that you see anymore are indie games Other than security breach, none of them are AAA type horror. The sad thing is, they do become AAA style whore. That’s when they start circling the drain. We happy few Is an unfortunate example of this
Would be so nice to see games try look good other than be realistic Curious on your thoughts towards HI FI Rush seeing as its from Tango Gameworks of all creators.
One of the things that the Square Enix fan base had to fight and push for, for YEARS was to get something...anything from The World Ends With You, A game that Oozes with art in many forms of media, be it graphical with the amazing sprite works and action, Artistic with the very memorable character designs, or Musical with one of the best OST that have every walked out Squares office. TWEWY to this day is very under appreciated by Square for reasons unknown. I say that art style on the back of the game Box and just KNEW i had to see what this game is about, cause theres no way a game on the DS could look this amazing.
@@squidzarecool720 we got Neo TWEWY. No, it's not everything I wanted from a TWEWY sequel, but I think it's an amazing game nonetheless; and as a TWEWY fan, I'll take what I can get.
@@squidzarecool720 as both a TWEWY fan and an ace attorney fan, it absolutely killed me to see Neo TWEWY and The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles release on the exact same day.
6:27 Yes the first thing I think of when contemplating purchasing a video game is "Is the main character fuckable". THAT is why I play Halo and The Binding of Isaac.
The way I see it is, I don't think it's bad to want a game to look good. I like to ogle at some nice looking graphics. That being said, there's so much more to a game than that. Gameplay to me will always be most important. As long as it's fun to play, I can somewhat look past unlike say a movie or show I think looks bad. I would also like to say I'm not really a fan of how things constantly have to get more realistic cause usually that just means griddy and dark. I feel like part of why I love a game series like Kirby so much is it's charm and colourful identity that I don't really get from games that constantly get more "realistic". Those are just my thoughts.
I really think a game with a distinct art style is a major plus of a games visuals. Even a game like Legends Arceus I think looks pretty good with the water color style it's trying to go for.
I am an absolute graphics nerd. The technology is really fascinating to me. There's been a few games as of late that have blown me away with how the art direction is accelerated by the sheer graphical power. While graphics aren't everything, an already great game can be even better with a good art direction, and use of graphical tech. Look at Hi-fi rush, Dead Space Remake, Signalis, Tf2, Bioshock, Prey 2017, etc. While some of these games aim for a more realistic look, the art direction and use of tech really makes them look gorgeous
I love AA games with cel shading like that new Hi-Fi Rush game or the game I will endlessly shill because of its bad marketing NEO The World Ends with You. I love the emphasis on energy those games have in the animations for the jet set radio style shading. Also the Xenoblade games need more appreciation for making captivating open worlds.
I miss the days where Kingdom Hearts looked like... Kingdom Hearts. The cutscenes lost all their charm when they reached 0.8 and now they constantly anime gasp and do their battle poses and it both looks and sounds so stupid. Remember when Sora squashed Donald with the door after being ambushed by Heartless? That was hilarious, I want more of that, please!
Remember when Goofy and Donald both get either locked out of or knocked out of the last Riku Boss arena? I still remember how silly yet fitting it was.
same feeling I had with most games that jump to unreal engine to me Tone is where Art style matters most, DMCV had people weary that DMC wouldn't feel like DMC since many loved the DMC4 designs myself included but eventually they just felt right and honestly the issue became less about art style and more characters looking like themselves, Nero looks fine but thanks to Mods on PC just giving him his hair from 4 and he looks just like himself again, Dante looks better with his long shaggy hair than his short cut at the beginning of ch 10 the more realistic a character looks doesn't bother me until they stop looking like themselves like all the jokes about Donald and Goofy in KH4 just looking like a real Duck and Dog, that would be where I have a problem not cartoon characters juxtaposed with real people
But the style change is happening cause the characters are getting older and the story is growing… the art is moving with the story. So in a way kingdom hearts is still kingdom hearts. So idk what you mean.
As a graphic: visuals are just a tool and I feel many people tend to forget that and treat them like a goal. Art is supposed to make you FEEL, and we have it really hammered into our heads during the course of our education. Either Van Gogh nor Pollock is realistic, but they make you remember them alright. Even old masters like Rembrandt, when you look close, get realistic only from the distance, since realism itself feels unrealistic to our brains (that's why you have ie punching sounds put in even in pretty realistic movies, I believe there's an Dead Island 2 video with sound designers explained why ie a cleaver sounds the way it sounds ingame) I personally always found my colleagues who fixate on realistic-ness, ie copying like a machine from the photos, to be a bit.. stupid compared to the rest of us, and I was always just a lower mid tier student. And at least one person I find really uninspiring and generic I know ended up in gaming, so I'm kinda sceptic about art design these days. If you don't have anything to say and are doing it just for the (meager) paycheck, how the result is supposed to be memorable? I'm kinda happy I'm not working in my trade, so I could spend all Saturday in museum sketching and making notes to create Orcs I personally would find cool. Also, if I wanted realism I'd go live a real life or attend a LARP, not look at it through gaming or film. I find it weird that this concept is not really popular, really feels like a first world thing. If you look at Chinese or Indian cinema, or even older American films, are they realistic? They are artful or fun most of the time, because entertainment products are not real life. One of the oldest rules in theatre you had was that the heroes are supposed to be Gods and Kings, if people wanted to know what Johnny was doing yesterday they'd just ask. But rich people live by proxy, so realism is important to them because they are unwilling to engage with real life. Just like paying to drive everywhere and paying for a cleaning lady, and then paying for gym to move their bodies in a fashionable way. Thank you for coming to my TEDX talk.
I would say graphics can be selling point for game like back then i played re 4 ,sotc and gow 2 because how great the graphic are but in the end the main thing were the gameplay that i love from this games
A game series I would like to bring up is Spark the Electric Jester, particularly 2 and 3. The second game goes for more realistic lighting while the third utilizes cell shading to a greater extent. Not only do I find the third game's design to be more memorable and appealing than the second I also believe it better suits the character designs.
There's a reason there's so many indie boomer shooters have been doing retro style graphics lately, and it's readability and how versatile one can approach tone and color with low poly models and simple geometry, some of it's nostalgia but these limitations make more creative environments, textures and design. Dread Templar is looking astounding inits style and Gloomwood oozes Thief and Bloodborne aesthetic, mixed in one.
I totally agree the style and art direction is a lot more visually pleasing then hyper realistic graphics, take Okami on the wii or even the old skylanders games for example. Both of them definitely show there age nowadays but the unique stylisation and colour pallets more then make up for it and even somewhat embrace those jagged edges and lower res textures. They look a lot more recognisable from one another then the hyper realism that we mostly see today, there’s even a case to be made that they can actually feel more alive
I feel like one game that doesnt get enough credit for this is the first garden warfare game. It feels like a mildly cartoonish interpretation of the modern suburban lifestyle yet has the plants vs zombies aspects stand out strong in a game than genuinely convinces you that people use to live in those places and imo the last game in the series ruined it by going overboard on the cartoonish aspects to where it just loses the unique blend of both it had earlier. The blend of cartoony looks yet with more normal looking architecture makes the game age well.
@@superbrainz2357 Oh 100% agree! I remember playing that game for hourssss, ur comment makes me want to revisit it again but just looking at some of the screenshots I totally see what you mean it’s held up super, looks as vibrant and charming as ever. I really hope we see a resurgence in this kind of art direction soon and not just in games for younger audiences I feel like that kind of style could work well if done right in more mature games as well, we have seen it be done before in the animation industry with shows like Primal, I feel like it’s something not a lot of games have dipped there goes into and could be the breath of fresh air more mature games desperately need
In cases like Final Fantasy 7 remake I would argue that the realism even harms the gameplay, when the characters do actions like pushing a button or pulling a lever and it takes like 5 to 10 seconds to make it look more realisitc. Which doesn't sound like much but I'm pretty sure we all had at least one moment where we where annoyed to do something cause it takes a few second too long to do. Other games would be bashed for this kind of game flow breaking. or heck, I legit hate features like the character running out of breath when running.
There’s games that people STILL warn to play despite graphics that won’t overwork an ATM SCREEN! And games that are hated more by the graphics processor than the poor soul that but on the eye Candy and is now choking on buggy garbage that might be hollow with DLC spaces or is *unfinished!!!*
Honestly I agree with you with basically everything you have said here. To me the most important thing about a video game is the gameplay. Story usually comes next, but it doesn't always have to be great. Graphics are... honestly the least important part to me. As long as it doesn't look like absolutely trash it doesn't bother me so much, but even then if the gameplay and story are good I'd probably still play it. Can't say the same for a game that looks good, but it's gameplay is terrible Also love seeing Mischief Makers in this video. Man I miss that game
Simply put graphics have a end point. I personally fell we've more or less reached it and just need focus on style which is far more important take the DQ series for example sure graphics give it boost but they've used the same designs for years the only difference is smoothness. DQ8 still looks good despite how many pass by.
Honestly, I get infuriated with how many games (mostly in Unreal Engine) rely on graphics instead of fun gameplay. I have enjoyed and remembered few games made in that engine because they all look and play the same. One of the few exceptions to this is Choo Choo Charles, which has an actual artstyle to it. It does use plenty of the more realistic graphics most unreal games are known for, but with that bit of style, it managed to stick in my mind, that and the general gameplay of it is fun. "Good" graphics can often lead to a game losing its identity and I fear this might happen with Subnautica's switch to Unreal 5. Let's hope game devs realize that style is important and so is gameplay for their high graphics games(mostly unreal engine to be honest)
I think some of the games that best exemplifies how an artstyle can overshadow graphics are Shin Megami Tensei 5, and Astral chain, both are still really nice to look at despite being switch games
UrinatingTree back when he reviewed games (between 2007-2011) put it best: "Graphics don't make the fucking game! What makes a game is fun and addicting gameplay."
I'm the person that adores the Rush series from sonic for their artstyle, it just feels so nostalgic to look at 3d low-poly models on 2d pixelart it feels very pleasing but maybe the DS has made the edges not as sharp as I see them on my emulator.
Art style over Graphical fidelity anytime, that can make a game last decades. Here's my hot-take: gameplay over story, to me a good story can carry subpar gameplay but the story alone has never carried a game, those games that get awards for the story usually gets their dev studios killed because they aren't appealing to the sentiment of games should have gameplay, looking straight at Disco Elysium.
Anime art style is more realistic than than most cartoons and why is it too much to ask to have characters that look attractive and cool? That's one of the many reasons why I didn't like TLOU2. There's nothing "unrealistic" about a female character looking attractive and feminine. Tifa and Aerith from FF7 Remake are realistic looking. Look at the cosplays of them, those look pretty realistic.
This might sound weird but I think this intense focus on realistic graphics is because of a lack of artistic ability or plain laziness by developers. Like MK said, back in the old days you needed a stylized art style to compensate for limited graphical ability along with good gameplay. But now with current graphics, devs are beginning to believe that creating a "cinematic" and "immersive" experience is more important than making a game with good or at least non-glitchy gameplay.
For me, I've always been one to incentivize a good story in a game over anything else. If a game has a good one, that can really draw me into the world, then it's usually one I will play the crap out of. Games, at their core, are interactive experiences. They need to make you able to interact with the world, feel apart of it. Without that, there's just nothing. So a game of cutscenes can pull you out as much as one that doesn't have world cohesion.
TLoU2 was great. When the graphics weren’t skipped over. The character models and animations outside of cutscenes are absurd and uncanny while cutscenes themselves are awkward. Good graphics don’t excuse garbage gameplay loops.
Personally, I've always really enjoyed pixelated art styles, especially for RPGs. Realism is nice at times, but I always appreciate good pixel art. I've also noticed that a lot of games that have a pixelated art style tend to have more complex or engaging stories, with the best example probably being Octopath Traveler, one of my favorite games of all time. A pixelated art style also never stopped Undertale from taking the world by storm, and, although it was never officially given an English translation, Mother 3 is also a game I consider to be one of the best of all time - all while having a distinctly pixelated art style. And it's not because I just love the art and nothing more (Okay, maybe Octopath Traveler is just that beautiful), but it's because all three of these games have an incredibly engaging story (or stories) that they tell behind that simplistic veil. They don't need realistic graphics to be compelling to play.
I miss when everyone wasn't so focused on graphics. When it comes to pokemon and sonic, everyone's always complaining about the graphics of those games. While graphics are indeed an important thing to have in a video game, graphics alone aren't what makes a video game good or fun to play. I also miss the days when being "open world" wasn't such a big thing people wanted. It all started with breath of the wild and everyone thought it was SOOOO good and they all wanted most video games these days to be like that.
Graphics have been a thing since the 90s though. It's not really all that recent. It's the focus on graphics that got us stuff like Rise of the Robots, FMV games like Night Trap or consoles like the 3DO and the Atari Jaguar. People just pretend they don't exist because they were either commercial or critical failures. Also because people were used to advertising just lying about absolutely everything back then so it didn't stand out so much.
@@joakkar Yes, graphics have been a thing since the 90s and even the 80s, but I just hate how much people immediately start pointing out how they look everytime there's a new game trailer, and then they start getting skeptical and start saying that they're gonna have low expectations when the game comes out.
I never was one of those people who complained about graphics and how they HAVE to be good or it’s terrible and can change how the game is. To me graphics were always a bonus if it looks awesome/realistic, but as long as I can see what I’m watching and doing and it runs smoothly or runs how it should operate then it’s all good.
Graphics are important, because they are what keep the art style and part of the overall tone intact. THAT is what keeps me immersed. I usually find myself more immersed in Pokemon Heartgold than in Sword and Shield not only due to its art direction, but because Game Freak, at that time, had gotten more comfortable with the DS, and were able to make sure all the graphics made sense together and didn't tank the system. PLA still had some graphical issues that messed with my immersion, but it was better because the gameplay elements helped make up for it. S/V would have really kept my immersion if the framerate didn't take me out of it constantly, because outside of that, it was a pretty nice experience. Where I start to take issue is when studios specifically hire perfectionists and put them in a situation where, if they don't crunch, the game won't be finished in time because "muh schedule". Then in the end there's not enough time put into other aspects of the game anyway. I'm sorry, and I really do appreciate the work into make said graphics, but I'd much rather take a game that functions better as a game than as a set piece. In other words, yeah, I agree with you lol
I've been playing No Straight Roads recently, and I am in love with the game's art style and presentation. It reminds me of the late 90s and early 2000s cartoons and video games with more modern polish.
I often don't like to see a game becoming too realistic. It's unique styles that can draw me in, along with how the gameplay feels, direction of the story, etc. There has to be some balance that makes it all work together. I would find myself looking towards indie games rather than the more realistic-looking games because the latter doesn't quite appeal to me. Simply, the game has to be a good time for me without graphics being the main concern.
Fyi if anyone says: "Last of us 2 hated due to LGTBQ representation" Are looking too deep into the glass... And if you can look at that deep into the glass, you can see the writers did the following: - Made the gay charater look like a monster. - Have the gay charater be traumatized. - Have the gay charater get sucky gameplay - Have the gay charater do something we know they wouldn't do. - Have the gay charater lose everything. - Have the gay charater be horribly MAIMED. - Kills off a gay charater who's the main gay charaters lover. Mean while miss Buff and straight gets everything and is "okay with it" Sorry but... The game hates LGTBQ charaters more then your haters do :/
Borderlands is an excellent example of how an stylized look can make it timeless, sure it's goofy, but it's a great game with a very memorable art style
Breath of the Wild and soon Tears of the Kingdom are great examples. Despite looking like a giant oil painting, the world sucks me in way more than uncharted, last of us, or far cry.
the indie game market really is the place that breaks the mold of hyper realism. there are so many games there that have their own visual art style that makes it stand out beautifully. games such as: Aragami Midnight Fight Express Dead Cells Salt and Sanctuary Ultrakill Dread Templar Neon White and so so many others as well.
I'd argue those games have a ton of fluff where characters are forced to walk and talk when you could just have a cutscene play instead, fake gameplay kills me way more since i'd rather it be a quick time event so i can play the game, Like mangakamen said immursion isnt the same for everyone, the way i wanna play may not be what the creator intends but i dont care if i wanna run around like a jackass while someone is trying to talk to me let me do it
With little to no gameplay, its a movie parading as a game. Elden Ring showed everyone what a game should be, about gameplay and not "muh excessive cutscenes and storyyyyy". So I hope the other game developers learn nothing from it.
I totally agree on artistic style and design trumps high end visual graphics; because they definitely don't age that well. I mean, why else would TLOU need to have 2 remasters? I mean, the original still looks great to this day, but obviously hasn't aged that well, but a game like Wind Waker; even before it's remake, the game still looks great because of the cartoony art direction they decided to go with, and it's back on the Gamecube. The one thing I can't stand though, is how people will automatically dismiss a game just because it has a distinctive art style that's seen as cartoony, and so, those games are looked at as "kiddy", while that's obviously not the case for games that go that route with their art style; Mad World being an good example. Personally, I think having a game where graphics aren't the main focus, but the gameplay, story, optimization, and character dialogue is far more important. We come to PLAY the games, not just watch them like movies, or have them play themselves. As impressive as a game with an fantastic graphic feudality, if that's all there is to it, I'd end up losing interest overall. However, there are games that can do both really well, like Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart or Returnal for the PS5; those games look amazing, but also PLAY amazingly too. We should be able to have both worlds, but in most cases it seems more funding goes towards the visual side of things, to really sell how cinematic the game looks and feels.
I think the reason why the indie scene is so big nowadays - to the point it can't REALLY be called "indie" by most standards - is because ever since, like, the seventh generation of consoles we've reached the point where any technological advancements are reaching diminishing returns. And it's ESPECIALLY true of the latest generation. It takes so much effort to make a top of the line graphical experience and we're only seeing marginal improvements. It's kinda telling for me how the big selling point of the PS5 and Xbox whatever this one is called was raytracing - rather than some significant selling point like the Switch's handheld mode or even just improving the general performance for a lower price tag due to stronger processors and memory becoming cheaper, they chose to focus a great deal of the marketing on "barely noticeable lighting effect improvements." Mind you, it's not like the console market doesn't know that simply saying "better graphics" is no longer a viable option to make the central marketing stance. Even in the earlier generations, one of the contributing reasons why the PS2 is the best performing console of all time was because it integrated a DVD player. And that was at a time where the graphical leap between generations was utterly massive, not just "slightly faster load times, fewer frame rate drops and better lighting effects." It t takes so much effort to build for modern hardware that it's only really shoved devs with less time and money out of the way - AA developers have basically vanished and AAA devs aren't able to spin as many plates. For instance, Capcom used to be spinning so many plates that they could make entire crossover games out of game franchises that were still relevant in the players' memory, but now they're only able to do Resident Evil, Monster Hunter and Street Fighter and the fixation on hi-fidelity graphics is probably a good reason for that. The cost of development means that the game needs to play it safe so that the developer can get guaranteed ROI. Nowadays a game is basically only ever going to be considered AAA or indie.
@@s3studios597 4 Qualities That Video Gaming in General should REALLY be about are Fun Factor, Compelling Factor, Captivating Factor and Fantastic Quality, Period Dot Dash.
Hyper realistic graphics can be awesome, but unique and creative art designs will stand the test of time better than realistic graphics could ever hope to,
I agree, to be honest, people care way too much about graphics now a days its part of why games take forever to be made now and a lot of the time they still need some post launch updates to fix game breaking bugs. Maybe resources wasted on needlessly realistic graphics should be used to actually make the game fun and playable before launch instead.
Good shit here with graphics and I feel that with the newer Pokemon games even though the graphics aren't as great as they could be I still like them a lot just being fun and all
The problem with Last of Us 2 wasn't that it was an LGBT character for the lead, it was that it was Last of Us and wanted players to think that Joel was a character worth avenging. On the actual topic, high end graphics can enhance a good art aesthetic but aren't needed for more simple aesthetics (Windwaker still looks fantastic despite its age due to the art style chosen, whereas Twilight Princess and Ocarina of Time both show their age because they tried to look more realistic). All too often in the last decade, games have gone for graphics over style, or even over substance. It doesn't matter how good a game looks if there's no reason to play more than an hour. Some end up focusing so much on appearance that they forget to have any real game, and then choose an ugly aesthetic that makes them even less appealing to play (Babylon Falls).
Yeaj definitely had something interesting to say and I agree It's why I'm buzzing so much about HI FI Rush (for the first time in ages) and it's art design as its awesome to look at and oozing with love and style while Forspoken while graphically impressive did nothing for me since the world is incredibly bare and art design not very memorable
I completely agree for the record, I will say the heavy emphasis on graphics have pushed code optimization much further than it would have gone through a gameplay perspective. So it's not all bad.
I've always been style>graphics type of guy, this has held true from my origins as a console gamer all the way to now being a PC gamer. My brother always thought I was weird for it but I recently showed him games I still play after 10 years as opposed to games he played a year ago. Even he agreed the stylized games even though older stuck out more than the latest games with photo realistic graphics especially when those graphics don't do anything to help the game itself.
I remember seeing a comment on a video comparing the graphics of the original nier replicant and the remake and so many of them said the graphics were bad. One in particular said something about how both of them look like shit and they hate both Sony and Square Enix for this.
Sometimes 8-bit with a good portrait for the dialogue is okay. We don't need full human like models with realistic texture. Unless the game takes place in a MODERN or MMO style, then I'm okay with high res graphics. ¬-¬
For that opening question, I'm willing to bet no. My source: Undertale and Deltarune, not to mention Faith: The Unholy Trinity and just about every pixelated indie game to come out in the last 5 years
It amazes me we even still need to have this discussion, when fucking Undertale, is one of the more iconic and influtential games in the last 10 years.
As part of my dissertation, I analyzed how important different factors were to influencing people's opinions of games. Out of around 100 people, gameplay and mechanics were most people's prime concern, but graphics was consistently 2nd or 3rd. Monetisation and microtransactions usually came 3rd or 4th.
No, you're definitely onto something. From my perspective, a "good" game keeps the player engaged with its story and mechanics. Yes, having good graphics tends to improve that experience, but only by so much. You could have the best graphics on the market, but it won't make up for a crappy gameplay experience.
@31 Đoàn Nam Phong With all due respect, I was on my way out the door when I was typing that comment. When you're pressed for time it's best to keep things simple and to the point. Had this not been the case, I would've included some examples of what I considered to be some games worth playing. Such examples would've included Monster Hunter Rise, Torchlight II, and some of the old-school platformers like Spyro, Ty the Tasmanian Tiger, Crash Bandicoot, and Sly Cooper just to name a few.
Another thing I want to point out for why graphics can ruin games is the fact that when it comes to PC gaming, people with less expensive or older PC's may struggle to even run the game if the graphics are too good and especially if it they aren't well optimized. This isn't as much of a problem for consoles, because a games are usually further optimized for them, but it can still be a problem when it's not done well. There's a lot of games that have come out that I didn't buy just because I know I wouldn't be able to run them, and even if I could the good graphics don't matter when I have to put every graphics setting to the lowest it can go to even have a chance of the game running smoothly.
One game that managed to be visually stunning, immersive, and (most importantly) fun was Battlefield One. Visually it's one of the best looking games I've ever seen. Watching a level (be it single or multiplayer) slowly go from a sunny area to a smoke filled hellscape filled with craters and the cries of soldiers being wounded or killed makes it feel a little less like a game (the player's hurt cries sound more strained and painful than any other game I've played). And, of course, it's an absolute blast to play.
I love the argument "I want a game to be more stylized than realistic" and "They spend more time making the game look good then writing a plot that's engaging." Hell, the video's description of "Graphics are important, but they aren't the most important things when it comes to games." is so stale that it doesn't cover anything actually important. My problem is how frequently misinformative these statements are and how overshadowed parts of these arguments are being left out. Seemingly 99 out of a 100 times, the person using these arguments know nothing about proper game design or their development process. Saying you want a game that's more stylized than realistic is a boring argument. Obviously we want them, if anything we kinda need them. If everything looks realistic, things would quickly become stale, but this doesn't happen because we're not drowning in them. Same goes for the more distinctive visuals, if we get those non-stop, what says we wouldn't get tired of seeing them? The amount of games aiming for a more unique visual esthetic are infinitely more commonplace than games aiming for semi-realistic to realistic visual styles. Making games look realistic (without asset flipping ) is so much harder to do than folks give credit -- Giving games their own stylization (again, without asset flipping) is harder than most give credit. But many just refuse to give said credit where it's owed. Hi-Fi Rush is getting mentioned a ton. Now is it repetitive? Yeah... but I'd be lying if I said the art style wasn't something we needed. The visuals the game shoots for was worked into the game so well that it'd be rude not to give it the respect it deserves. It's so blatant when mentioning that we need variety, but some people do not understand the importance of more photo-real games. Games that aim for realism needs it. Games that play and look realistic aren't boring... just because it may be something you're not interested in, doesn't mean we don't need them. And I have zero understanding of how folks can actually think good graphics typically mean "mute/dull gameplay." There's more games with realistic graphics that hit good sales and deliver an excellent gameplay experience/narrative than ones that don't. I've never once seen a development studio not split developers into their fitting habitats -- storyboarding, gameplay engineering, voice acting (if the game needs them), sound designers, etc. And yes, I know single developers and small teams exist but my comment still holds... but for some reason, people think when high-end graphics and engines are made for a game, it means they all care more for it's looks than it's plot line/gameplay. Also-also, plot twist, but games typically get tested very extensively by designers and the general public way more than you may think, but many of you don't seem to accept this and just blame "bad game" with "they didn't test this game once." Graphics aren't everything, but neither is the story. I don't think either can work if the two halves aren't strung together. If anything, the string of low-bit games is the true aging trend, but not many discuss it... it's always the realistic games that people want to ache over. Games that have actual graphical fidelity are way more enjoyable than the next 8/16-bit snore because apparently "You don't need good graphics to make a good game." When the game LOOKS appealing and the story/general gameplay actually works, then that's a good time. 2D pixilated stuff is a mess, it's old, it's boring, and it's just no longer interesting. The next time a really REALLY good looking game comes out, and it flops... don't blame the graphics, and don't claim the dev's put more time on said graphics than anything else. It's obviously not the problem or the cause. Internal affairs, development hell, and so on are what should be to blame.
@@danielramsey6141 Pardon, but the comment I left was my view on said argument and how others need to stop constantly using the same argument(s). It wasn't directed towards the video uploader. I mentioned the description just the once and followed everything else up on the generic complaints other people make... Piece it together. My statement still stands, don't be offended by it. I agree with very-VERY many of the comments he made in the video, but it wasn't what I was directing the comment towards. You'd pick up on that if you actually read it. Again, I was discussing how I don't agree with the stereotypical arguments many people make. Go do something better with yourself rather than letting small things you don't understand make you grumpy.
I remember a couple years back about one of the batman Arkham games, whichever one was coming out at the time. They had a picture of a generic goon and explained how that one character model had more pixels or polygons or some such than the entirety of the original Arkham game. Rather than being impressed, I was mortified. I thought, "what a monumental waste." It barely looked any better than the models from the previous game, but somehow used exponentially more resources. An entire games worth of data used on just one character - how unbelievably vain.
I find graphics are like icing on a cake. If the cake is bland, it doesn't matter how well decorated the icing is. It's just empty sugar. Undertale sold on its story, gameplay and art style as a deliberate artistic choice. I still play a lot of my older PS1 games because I like the stories. Most of them are JRPG's and it's a style of game I tend to enjoy. And sometimes a jump in graphics affects the gameplay. This happened with the Tales of Mothership games when it moved from sprites/cells to 3d models. Tales of Legendia on the PS2 was a solid game in terms of story, but the sudden change to a 3d style also changed the way the combat system works and it drastically slowed down the battles themselves, on top of making certain moves in combat harder to pull off because they required a bit of timing and the frame rate could shift a bit mid-attack. This you could say is because the same team that'd been doing side-scrolling left-to-right combat in the previous title just didn't have the experience necessary to make the 3d combat system work. They did improve incrementally with each later title in the series, but it was a rough transition no two ways about it. If I had to say, the six most important things to any game would be; 1: Story 2: Gameplay 3: Replayability 4: Music 5: Voiceover (where applicable) 6: Graphics To me, graphics are on the lowest on the list. Because the only way story wouldn't be important is if you were making a game that was solely about PVP and nothing else. Just a straight up competitive game where the actual story is irrelevant. In which case the only things the team needs to focus on is Gameplay and Graphics. However, those games are only as fun as the interactions you have other other players. I'm certainly not good at PVP and it can be frustrating to a lot of people. If it's not your jam, you're not gonna play that game at all if that's the only thing it has to offer. Replayability is a big one that most tend to forget. You want a game so good you want to play it again with all the little extras and bonuses you unlocked, going through it again to find things you missed, testing yourself on harder difficulties, etc etc. A game where you play through once and then never touch it again isn't much of a game. It becomes quickly forgettable and you just move on to something that'll hold your interest longer. And if it's a game that you paid full retail price for and you're done after one play through, it feels like you got cheated.
In honesty I'm not sure. It is a lot to think about. (Though Security Breaches graphics didn't look like it was going for looking as realistic as possible to me though. I think the game simply got bigger then they intended as I believe Scott himself said it got bigger then it was originally planned. So I think the game size got bigger then they could handle leading them to neglecting proper beta testing.)
I often think of indie games artistic style and graphics. To use dusk and iron lung for examples, they look like old ps1 and boomer shooter games, but with modern lighting techniques. They looks so gross and grungy, and the monsters look terrifying, despite how low poly everything is. Then I look at some of the new call of duty games. They look incredible, but nothing sticks out. Modern warfare, Cold War, and modern warfare 2 all look the same. Even old cods had style and personality. Especially in the zombies modes. For a time, realism was great and what everyone strived for. Now that we’ve reach near perfection, it’s all looking the same. So some people take inspiration from retro styles to try to stand out more.
The problem with extreme realism is that it also limits how much game can be made. Yes this can have the "golden age" effect where the reuse of assets makes the game feel much more cohesive, But it more often than not has the effect of handicapping an otherwise great product. Instead of being able to focus the effort into fully polishing and improving the gameplay, mechanics and story, most devs are working on simply getting the graphics to look as "realistic" as possible whilst also keeping the game playable for the general audience. It's the exact situation that happened with both RE2 and RE3 remakes, the extreme graphical fidelity that those games had was absolutely amazing, but if we're all honest, those games don't hold a candle to the amount of content that the originals had.
Thing is, graphics age a lot faster now, The Last of Us 2 was incredible to see when it came out, less than 3 years after release, the facial expresions look like a joke, and it makes it worse that the developers were so confident back in 2020, the game has the audacity to flex that aspect, so now the game keeps reminding you "look how goofy I look".
Hey guys, don't forget to leave a like, a comment and share the video around if you wanna see more content like this :) Also, no, I don't hate Cyberpunk 2077 - But glitches be bad lol.
I think you should check it out if you got the PC specs. It’s one of the best games I’ve ever played. Granted, I wasn’t following the hype as religiously as most people were, but the world and gameplay are beyond satisfying if you can run it. The characters are great, I can’t recommend it enough.
Good graphics can also bother the frame rate. Frame rate over graphics any day.
Don’t worry i do
on my second playthrough of persona 5 royal and I have to say THAT IT IS AMAZING MY GOD ITS MY FAVOURITE GAME!. and i can tell that you have taken alot of insperation from it (art wise).
Whatif u make a vid about ambience like fears of fathom is sooo scary but 8ts design theme is blurry and not realistic
I also think that if there wasn't this massive focus on graphics, details and realism in the gaming industry, there would be way less time and resources required to make game, giving developers more opportunity to polish the game itself and not just it's visuals
Completely agreed. I'm actually a 3D modeler (not professional), and I find making something that's realistic, removing the difficulty factor out of my judgement, is just... Not fun. I much prefer making things stylized, charismatic, and sometimes just cartoonishly "rule of cool." I've gotten so sick of everything trying to look more and more realistic to the point textures and normal maps are focusing on the FREAKING PORES ON PEOPLE'S FACES! These are details nobody gives a shit about outside marketing material, and even those that do stop caring shortly after seeing it.
It's just gotten so absurd how everyone is just trying to make "bleak real life: 2" in every game, and while that's fine and fun for some that aim for a realistic setting, I'm so sick of everything just being a CG version of real life so much so that even Sonic succumbed to being slapped into a hyper-detailed world he sticks out in. I just want games to experiment in visuals and aesthetics, again. I miss when the wackiness of the N64 and PS1 were the norm and not the exception.
Or they owukd be able to use the time to actually make the game instead kf a 2 hour gsme that has a nice waterfall
@@ToaKoran good news modders indie devs and passions devs exist and are able to more than ever :D
Well for the most part the people who take care of the game's visuals aren't going to be really connected to the mechanics or bug testing and the team that does that will be just making 3D models and other stuff like that. There would be some focus on polishing animation that is necessary for gameplay by conveying the information correctly but the art team might not be as involved with that as the team doing mocap or programming. Most studios have different teams working on each segment of the game, it's not like the guys hired to do 3D modeling could simply be moved to the coding team.
Though if you're talking about the budget, that is a point. Although I'm fairly certain that the guys modeling pots and pans and stuff are being paid peanuts, simply there because not having the background assets that nobody really pays attention to anyway would put the game in the uncanny valley and the world wouldn't feel lived-in.
Oh most definitely, way too much time is spent on making the game look as realistic as possible, to an absurd level, that most of the development cycle has been spent on the artistic side of things, but not the fine tuning of the gameplay or optimization of all the systems at work. Leaving us with a product that looks pretty, but runs horribly, renders slowly, and gameplay that feels half baked.
Unique and interesting art styles are always gonna trump simply trying to look as realistic as technologically possible
Night in the woods
Hollow knight
Splatoon (1 is my favorite)
BoTW
Minecraft
Almost any persona game
Neon white
All of these games, are considered timeless, because the devs knew that going for the most realistic style possible would simply date their game
Glad someone mentioned Splatoon and Hollow Knight 💚
The Megaman games too, despite having rarely new games. The series 8-16-32 bit sprites have their charm. Despite the games being known for their difficulty.
I'd put "Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker" there too ... a game criticized for not being "realistic" but, today, is praised for holding better than any other "realistic games" from the same time.
@@VivioSaf frfr, cant believe it slipped my mind
i remember when elden ring was coming out and there were soooo many people baahing it for its graphics, saying itd be terrible and forgotten after a few weeks..
ended up being one of the best games ever made, it just writes itself at this point
I have the opinion of artstyle over graphics, if you have a great artstyle, an example being Breath of the Wild, but if the goal is to make realism then go ahead. But yeah, there's amount of pizzazz that I can see in artstyle, like the newest Street Fighter looks realistic, but it still has a style to it with the characters and the amount of colors that splash about with some strikes.
Pretty much, good art ages incredibly well, Photorealistic games always age like crap
@@bloody4558 truth, it's really weird that nowadays we're drifting to photorealism.
@@Perdix64 Not really, we effectively crossed the threshhold of being high quality enough where it doesn't age that poorly anymore. Reality does not ever change how it looks, so the closer the art becomes to it, the closer it becomes to never becoming obsolete ever again.
@@lpfan4491 I don't quite think so, we'll eventually reach a threshold where it does look like physical humans in a game. Not like what David Cage is doing, but looks realistic, making those games "obsolete" by comparison.
@@lpfan4491 that just makes it going closer to become even more obsolete and forgettable due to how it's too close to reality that we have no sense of wanting to explore more.
I think a game that understands the importance of both graphics and style was Ghost of Tsushima. Yes, it’s heavy in the graphics department, but CHRIST IN A CRUTCH the game oozes an artistic style like the samurai movies of old.
When you have a mode for your game named after Korosawa movies, you know what your inspiration is, and it is glorious.
Frig when the games so good the devs get named official ambassadors to the tsushima islands
You can even set the game to look like an old samurai movie, grainy black and white film look and everything.
Essentially what this means is: Graphics should be taken seriously but not so much that it’s at the expense of everything else. I say that cause some people are still gonna get antsy.
This may be a hot take buuuuuut:
Stylized Graphics >>> Realistic Graphics
Based
Only a hot take to people who only play the middest games imaginable
That's just fact tho, not a hot take
@@Hououin818 especially since "realistic" tends to look dated fast stylized is timeless
No, no, you have a point
While realistic graphics can help with immersion it can also damage it if the game is glitchy you can be immersed in a set piece turn around and have a horse walking upside down killing that immersion while a game like ultrakill with its low-ploy graphics and at time murky but with it taking place in hell and with with only a few bugs I’ve seen makes the game immersive and memorable
But if Ultrakill is just as glitchy and the controls are unresponsive...It can also damage just as much immersion.
@@jaysanj152 that can be said with every game so it isn't really an argument. Something that is true with everything is less an argument and more just a fact.
I know the most obvious counter towards the overreliance and hyperfixation of realistic graphics is making more cartoony/stylized artstyles, but I do think there's a middle ground between the too extreme.
I remember that in the 2020 Game Awards, while TLOU2 won almost every other award, it got beat by Ghost of Tsushima in art direction. That got me thinking for a bit. Yes, I will admit that TLOU2 is a technological Marvel in how it replicates the real world, but in terms of artstyle, it's not really all that different from the many other post-apocalyptic games out there. I appreciated games like GOT and Doom Eternal for having realistic details in their graphics whole still finding a way to make their aesthetic look unique to themselves (GOT being heavily-inspired by old samurai films and Eternal looking like a metal cover being brought to life.)
Award Shows are a sham. Once Companies realized Awards could be used as a Marketing Tool they just exploited it and found ways to "Buy" Votes. It can be fun to see, but should never be taken seriously.
Ghost of Tsushima deserved game of the year
Brutal legend woot
@@maninanikittycat4238 yeah you know how media is gotta serve that cult
I suppose you could say that Nintendo does a similar thing, just the other way around. Plenty of Nintendo games as of late have realistic textures, but are still cartoony and stylized in design.
The inde scene is a great example of this.
A lot of those games don’t have the best graphics. In fact, a lot of them focus on throwbacks to the 8 to 16 bit era.
But they have a lot of personality, and they usually can still get across their story and gameplay.
While it’s the AAA games that seem determined to push: ‘better graphics equal better game.’ mindset.
Yeah, but I don’t really want only 2D games to get the indie throwback treatment. Where is the Resident Evil inspired indie games?
@@thomasffrench3639 Fnaf, Bendy and the ink machine, practically all of the horror games that you see anymore are indie games
Other than security breach, none of them are AAA type horror.
The sad thing is, they do become AAA style whore. That’s when they start circling the drain.
We happy few
Is an unfortunate example of this
Would be so nice to see games try look good other than be realistic
Curious on your thoughts towards HI FI Rush seeing as its from Tango Gameworks of all creators.
Hi fi rush is actually amazing, i hope it gains more attention overtime, its a real gem of a rhythm game
Welcome your cha ce to enter the indie games passionate devs and modders amking games and mods like games scene
One of the things that the Square Enix fan base had to fight and push for, for YEARS was to get something...anything from The World Ends With You, A game that Oozes with art in many forms of media, be it graphical with the amazing sprite works and action, Artistic with the very memorable character designs, or Musical with one of the best OST that have every walked out Squares office. TWEWY to this day is very under appreciated by Square for reasons unknown.
I say that art style on the back of the game Box and just KNEW i had to see what this game is about, cause theres no way a game on the DS could look this amazing.
Based TWEWY enjoyer
Seriously TWEWY is such a fun, unique, and underrated game. Too bad Square Enix doesnt give a shit about it.
@@squidzarecool720 we got Neo TWEWY. No, it's not everything I wanted from a TWEWY sequel, but I think it's an amazing game nonetheless; and as a TWEWY fan, I'll take what I can get.
@@jerichtandoc7789 Neo was amazing. Its just nobody but diehard fans heard of it because it was so badly marketed.
@@squidzarecool720 as both a TWEWY fan and an ace attorney fan, it absolutely killed me to see Neo TWEWY and The Great Ace Attorney Chronicles release on the exact same day.
6:27 Yes the first thing I think of when contemplating purchasing a video game is "Is the main character fuckable". THAT is why I play Halo and The Binding of Isaac.
Damn, these Isaac cheeks are so FIRE MIND "flaming tears"
Master Chief? More like ASSter Shiiiiiet
The way I see it is, I don't think it's bad to want a game to look good. I like to ogle at some nice looking graphics. That being said, there's so much more to a game than that. Gameplay to me will always be most important. As long as it's fun to play, I can somewhat look past unlike say a movie or show I think looks bad. I would also like to say I'm not really a fan of how things constantly have to get more realistic cause usually that just means griddy and dark. I feel like part of why I love a game series like Kirby so much is it's charm and colourful identity that I don't really get from games that constantly get more "realistic". Those are just my thoughts.
I really think a game with a distinct art style is a major plus of a games visuals. Even a game like Legends Arceus I think looks pretty good with the water color style it's trying to go for.
I am an absolute graphics nerd. The technology is really fascinating to me. There's been a few games as of late that have blown me away with how the art direction is accelerated by the sheer graphical power. While graphics aren't everything, an already great game can be even better with a good art direction, and use of graphical tech. Look at Hi-fi rush, Dead Space Remake, Signalis, Tf2, Bioshock, Prey 2017, etc. While some of these games aim for a more realistic look, the art direction and use of tech really makes them look gorgeous
I love AA games with cel shading like that new Hi-Fi Rush game or the game I will endlessly shill because of its bad marketing NEO The World Ends with You. I love the emphasis on energy those games have in the animations for the jet set radio style shading. Also the Xenoblade games need more appreciation for making captivating open worlds.
I miss the days where Kingdom Hearts looked like... Kingdom Hearts. The cutscenes lost all their charm when they reached 0.8 and now they constantly anime gasp and do their battle poses and it both looks and sounds so stupid. Remember when Sora squashed Donald with the door after being ambushed by Heartless? That was hilarious, I want more of that, please!
Remember when Goofy and Donald both get either locked out of or knocked out of the last Riku Boss arena? I still remember how silly yet fitting it was.
same feeling I had with most games that jump to unreal engine
to me Tone is where Art style matters most, DMCV had people weary that DMC wouldn't feel like DMC since many loved the DMC4 designs myself included but eventually they just felt right and honestly the issue became less about art style and more characters looking like themselves, Nero looks fine but thanks to Mods on PC just giving him his hair from 4 and he looks just like himself again, Dante looks better with his long shaggy hair than his short cut at the beginning of ch 10
the more realistic a character looks doesn't bother me until they stop looking like themselves like all the jokes about Donald and Goofy in KH4 just looking like a real Duck and Dog, that would be where I have a problem not cartoon characters juxtaposed with real people
But the style change is happening cause the characters are getting older and the story is growing… the art is moving with the story. So in a way kingdom hearts is still kingdom hearts. So idk what you mean.
The only time they seem to interact normally is in Yen Sid's Tower
@@kazkatgamer6722 I think sora looks young in 3 than he did in 2
As a graphic: visuals are just a tool and I feel many people tend to forget that and treat them like a goal. Art is supposed to make you FEEL, and we have it really hammered into our heads during the course of our education. Either Van Gogh nor Pollock is realistic, but they make you remember them alright. Even old masters like Rembrandt, when you look close, get realistic only from the distance, since realism itself feels unrealistic to our brains (that's why you have ie punching sounds put in even in pretty realistic movies, I believe there's an Dead Island 2 video with sound designers explained why ie a cleaver sounds the way it sounds ingame)
I personally always found my colleagues who fixate on realistic-ness, ie copying like a machine from the photos, to be a bit.. stupid compared to the rest of us, and I was always just a lower mid tier student. And at least one person I find really uninspiring and generic I know ended up in gaming, so I'm kinda sceptic about art design these days. If you don't have anything to say and are doing it just for the (meager) paycheck, how the result is supposed to be memorable? I'm kinda happy I'm not working in my trade, so I could spend all Saturday in museum sketching and making notes to create Orcs I personally would find cool.
Also, if I wanted realism I'd go live a real life or attend a LARP, not look at it through gaming or film. I find it weird that this concept is not really popular, really feels like a first world thing. If you look at Chinese or Indian cinema, or even older American films, are they realistic? They are artful or fun most of the time, because entertainment products are not real life. One of the oldest rules in theatre you had was that the heroes are supposed to be Gods and Kings, if people wanted to know what Johnny was doing yesterday they'd just ask. But rich people live by proxy, so realism is important to them because they are unwilling to engage with real life. Just like paying to drive everywhere and paying for a cleaning lady, and then paying for gym to move their bodies in a fashionable way. Thank you for coming to my TEDX talk.
I would say graphics can be selling point for game like back then i played re 4 ,sotc and gow 2 because how great the graphic are but in the end the main thing were the gameplay that i love from this games
A game series I would like to bring up is Spark the Electric Jester, particularly 2 and 3. The second game goes for more realistic lighting while the third utilizes cell shading to a greater extent. Not only do I find the third game's design to be more memorable and appealing than the second I also believe it better suits the character designs.
Had to give you a like for that River City Girls clip/visual mention. I love that game. Especially with the music and artstyle.
Too bad its sequel is a mess.
There's a reason there's so many indie boomer shooters have been doing retro style graphics lately, and it's readability and how versatile one can approach tone and color with low poly models and simple geometry, some of it's nostalgia but these limitations make more creative environments, textures and design. Dread Templar is looking astounding inits style and Gloomwood oozes Thief and Bloodborne aesthetic, mixed in one.
I totally agree the style and art direction is a lot more visually pleasing then hyper realistic graphics, take Okami on the wii or even the old skylanders games for example. Both of them definitely show there age nowadays but the unique stylisation and colour pallets more then make up for it and even somewhat embrace those jagged edges and lower res textures. They look a lot more recognisable from one another then the hyper realism that we mostly see today, there’s even a case to be made that they can actually feel more alive
I feel like one game that doesnt get enough credit for this is the first garden warfare game.
It feels like a mildly cartoonish interpretation of the modern suburban lifestyle yet has the plants vs zombies aspects stand out strong in a game than genuinely convinces you that people use to live in those places and imo the last game in the series ruined it by going overboard on the cartoonish aspects to where it just loses the unique blend of both it had earlier.
The blend of cartoony looks yet with more normal looking architecture makes the game age well.
@@superbrainz2357 Oh 100% agree! I remember playing that game for hourssss, ur comment makes me want to revisit it again but just looking at some of the screenshots I totally see what you mean it’s held up super, looks as vibrant and charming as ever. I really hope we see a resurgence in this kind of art direction soon and not just in games for younger audiences I feel like that kind of style could work well if done right in more mature games as well, we have seen it be done before in the animation industry with shows like Primal, I feel like it’s something not a lot of games have dipped there goes into and could be the breath of fresh air more mature games desperately need
In cases like Final Fantasy 7 remake I would argue that the realism even harms the gameplay, when the characters do actions like pushing a button or pulling a lever and it takes like 5 to 10 seconds to make it look more realisitc. Which doesn't sound like much but I'm pretty sure we all had at least one moment where we where annoyed to do something cause it takes a few second too long to do. Other games would be bashed for this kind of game flow breaking.
or heck, I legit hate features like the character running out of breath when running.
Oh, I agree. It can be really bad if game devs put graphical fidelity over everything else. Just look at vanilla Final Fantasy 14 for example.
There’s games that people STILL warn to play despite graphics that won’t overwork an ATM SCREEN!
And games that are hated more by the graphics processor than the poor soul that but on the eye Candy and is now choking on buggy garbage that might be hollow with DLC spaces or is *unfinished!!!*
Honestly I agree with you with basically everything you have said here.
To me the most important thing about a video game is the gameplay. Story usually comes next, but it doesn't always have to be great. Graphics are... honestly the least important part to me. As long as it doesn't look like absolutely trash it doesn't bother me so much, but even then if the gameplay and story are good I'd probably still play it. Can't say the same for a game that looks good, but it's gameplay is terrible
Also love seeing Mischief Makers in this video. Man I miss that game
Okami’s beautiful art direction is goat’d and one of the reasons I love that game.
For me “graphically” the only thing that matters is consistent frames. Outside from that, I want a good art direction. I also love indie games.
Here two things graphics can be as se*y as a Victoria secrets model doesn't mean anything if the gameplay and story sucks
Simply put graphics have a end point. I personally fell we've more or less reached it and just need focus on style which is far more important take the DQ series for example sure graphics give it boost but they've used the same designs for years the only difference is smoothness. DQ8 still looks good despite how many pass by.
Honestly one of my favourite game is Wind Waker because it has it's own charm.
Honestly, I get infuriated with how many games (mostly in Unreal Engine) rely on graphics instead of fun gameplay. I have enjoyed and remembered few games made in that engine because they all look and play the same. One of the few exceptions to this is Choo Choo Charles, which has an actual artstyle to it. It does use plenty of the more realistic graphics most unreal games are known for, but with that bit of style, it managed to stick in my mind, that and the general gameplay of it is fun. "Good" graphics can often lead to a game losing its identity and I fear this might happen with Subnautica's switch to Unreal 5. Let's hope game devs realize that style is important and so is gameplay for their high graphics games(mostly unreal engine to be honest)
I think some of the games that best exemplifies how an artstyle can overshadow graphics are Shin Megami Tensei 5, and Astral chain, both are still really nice to look at despite being switch games
UrinatingTree back when he reviewed games (between 2007-2011) put it best: "Graphics don't make the fucking game! What makes a game is fun and addicting gameplay."
Graphics are important but they must not compromise the games themselves. Fallout New Vegas and Elder Scrolls 4 Oblivion> Fallout 4 and Skyrim.
I'm the person that adores the Rush series from sonic for their artstyle, it just feels so nostalgic to look at 3d low-poly models on 2d pixelart it feels very pleasing but maybe the DS has made the edges not as sharp as I see them on my emulator.
Art style over Graphical fidelity anytime, that can make a game last decades. Here's my hot-take: gameplay over story, to me a good story can carry subpar gameplay but the story alone has never carried a game, those games that get awards for the story usually gets their dev studios killed because they aren't appealing to the sentiment of games should have gameplay, looking straight at Disco Elysium.
Anime art style is more realistic than than most cartoons and why is it too much to ask to have characters that look attractive and cool? That's one of the many reasons why I didn't like TLOU2. There's nothing "unrealistic" about a female character looking attractive and feminine. Tifa and Aerith from FF7 Remake are realistic looking. Look at the cosplays of them, those look pretty realistic.
This might sound weird but I think this intense focus on realistic graphics is because of a lack of artistic ability or plain laziness by developers. Like MK said, back in the old days you needed a stylized art style to compensate for limited graphical ability along with good gameplay. But now with current graphics, devs are beginning to believe that creating a "cinematic" and "immersive" experience is more important than making a game with good or at least non-glitchy gameplay.
I would recommend bricky's video on "art style is forever"
8:50 that felt more like a horror flick…
XD
For me, I've always been one to incentivize a good story in a game over anything else. If a game has a good one, that can really draw me into the world, then it's usually one I will play the crap out of. Games, at their core, are interactive experiences. They need to make you able to interact with the world, feel apart of it. Without that, there's just nothing. So a game of cutscenes can pull you out as much as one that doesn't have world cohesion.
TLoU2 was great. When the graphics weren’t skipped over.
The character models and animations outside of cutscenes are absurd and uncanny while cutscenes themselves are awkward.
Good graphics don’t excuse garbage gameplay loops.
Personally, I've always really enjoyed pixelated art styles, especially for RPGs. Realism is nice at times, but I always appreciate good pixel art. I've also noticed that a lot of games that have a pixelated art style tend to have more complex or engaging stories, with the best example probably being Octopath Traveler, one of my favorite games of all time. A pixelated art style also never stopped Undertale from taking the world by storm, and, although it was never officially given an English translation, Mother 3 is also a game I consider to be one of the best of all time - all while having a distinctly pixelated art style. And it's not because I just love the art and nothing more (Okay, maybe Octopath Traveler is just that beautiful), but it's because all three of these games have an incredibly engaging story (or stories) that they tell behind that simplistic veil. They don't need realistic graphics to be compelling to play.
I miss when everyone wasn't so focused on graphics. When it comes to pokemon and sonic, everyone's always complaining about the graphics of those games. While graphics are indeed an important thing to have in a video game, graphics alone aren't what makes a video game good or fun to play. I also miss the days when being "open world" wasn't such a big thing people wanted. It all started with breath of the wild and everyone thought it was SOOOO good and they all wanted most video games these days to be like that.
Graphics have been a thing since the 90s though. It's not really all that recent. It's the focus on graphics that got us stuff like Rise of the Robots, FMV games like Night Trap or consoles like the 3DO and the Atari Jaguar. People just pretend they don't exist because they were either commercial or critical failures. Also because people were used to advertising just lying about absolutely everything back then so it didn't stand out so much.
@@joakkar Yes, graphics have been a thing since the 90s and even the 80s, but I just hate how much people immediately start pointing out how they look everytime there's a new game trailer, and then they start getting skeptical and start saying that they're gonna have low expectations when the game comes out.
I never was one of those people who complained about graphics and how they HAVE to be good or it’s terrible and can change how the game is. To me graphics were always a bonus if it looks awesome/realistic, but as long as I can see what I’m watching and doing and it runs smoothly or runs how it should operate then it’s all good.
Graphics are important, because they are what keep the art style and part of the overall tone intact. THAT is what keeps me immersed. I usually find myself more immersed in Pokemon Heartgold than in Sword and Shield not only due to its art direction, but because Game Freak, at that time, had gotten more comfortable with the DS, and were able to make sure all the graphics made sense together and didn't tank the system. PLA still had some graphical issues that messed with my immersion, but it was better because the gameplay elements helped make up for it. S/V would have really kept my immersion if the framerate didn't take me out of it constantly, because outside of that, it was a pretty nice experience.
Where I start to take issue is when studios specifically hire perfectionists and put them in a situation where, if they don't crunch, the game won't be finished in time because "muh schedule". Then in the end there's not enough time put into other aspects of the game anyway. I'm sorry, and I really do appreciate the work into make said graphics, but I'd much rather take a game that functions better as a game than as a set piece.
In other words, yeah, I agree with you lol
seriously the algorithim has given me your videos time and again and i was surprised i hadnt subbed you have gained one
I've been playing No Straight Roads recently, and I am in love with the game's art style and presentation. It reminds me of the late 90s and early 2000s cartoons and video games with more modern polish.
I often don't like to see a game becoming too realistic. It's unique styles that can draw me in, along with how the gameplay feels, direction of the story, etc. There has to be some balance that makes it all work together. I would find myself looking towards indie games rather than the more realistic-looking games because the latter doesn't quite appeal to me. Simply, the game has to be a good time for me without graphics being the main concern.
Fyi if anyone says: "Last of us 2 hated due to LGTBQ representation"
Are looking too deep into the glass...
And if you can look at that deep into the glass, you can see the writers did the following:
- Made the gay charater look like a monster.
- Have the gay charater be traumatized.
- Have the gay charater get sucky gameplay
- Have the gay charater do something we know they wouldn't do.
- Have the gay charater lose everything.
- Have the gay charater be horribly MAIMED.
- Kills off a gay charater who's the main gay charaters lover.
Mean while miss Buff and straight gets everything and is "okay with it"
Sorry but... The game hates LGTBQ charaters more then your haters do :/
Borderlands is an excellent example of how an stylized look can make it timeless, sure it's goofy, but it's a great game with a very memorable art style
Breath of the Wild and soon Tears of the Kingdom are great examples. Despite looking like a giant oil painting, the world sucks me in way more than uncharted, last of us, or far cry.
7:07 Kamen said griddy, like the hit Fortnite dance move
the indie game market really is the place that breaks the mold of hyper realism. there are so many games there that have their own visual art style that makes it stand out beautifully.
games such as:
Aragami
Midnight Fight Express
Dead Cells
Salt and Sanctuary
Ultrakill
Dread Templar
Neon White
and so so many others as well.
The current God of War series is the perfect example of great graphics and great story. Now, will other game developers learn from that? Who knows.
I'd argue those games have a ton of fluff where characters are forced to walk and talk when you could just have a cutscene play instead, fake gameplay kills me way more since i'd rather it be a quick time event so i can play the game,
Like mangakamen said immursion isnt the same for everyone, the way i wanna play may not be what the creator intends but i dont care if i wanna run around like a jackass while someone is trying to talk to me let me do it
With little to no gameplay, its a movie parading as a game. Elden Ring showed everyone what a game should be, about gameplay and not "muh excessive cutscenes and storyyyyy". So I hope the other game developers learn nothing from it.
I totally agree on artistic style and design trumps high end visual graphics; because they definitely don't age that well. I mean, why else would TLOU need to have 2 remasters? I mean, the original still looks great to this day, but obviously hasn't aged that well, but a game like Wind Waker; even before it's remake, the game still looks great because of the cartoony art direction they decided to go with, and it's back on the Gamecube.
The one thing I can't stand though, is how people will automatically dismiss a game just because it has a distinctive art style that's seen as cartoony, and so, those games are looked at as "kiddy", while that's obviously not the case for games that go that route with their art style; Mad World being an good example. Personally, I think having a game where graphics aren't the main focus, but the gameplay, story, optimization, and character dialogue is far more important. We come to PLAY the games, not just watch them like movies, or have them play themselves. As impressive as a game with an fantastic graphic feudality, if that's all there is to it, I'd end up losing interest overall. However, there are games that can do both really well, like Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart or Returnal for the PS5; those games look amazing, but also PLAY amazingly too. We should be able to have both worlds, but in most cases it seems more funding goes towards the visual side of things, to really sell how cinematic the game looks and feels.
I think the reason why the indie scene is so big nowadays - to the point it can't REALLY be called "indie" by most standards - is because ever since, like, the seventh generation of consoles we've reached the point where any technological advancements are reaching diminishing returns. And it's ESPECIALLY true of the latest generation.
It takes so much effort to make a top of the line graphical experience and we're only seeing marginal improvements. It's kinda telling for me how the big selling point of the PS5 and Xbox whatever this one is called was raytracing - rather than some significant selling point like the Switch's handheld mode or even just improving the general performance for a lower price tag due to stronger processors and memory becoming cheaper, they chose to focus a great deal of the marketing on "barely noticeable lighting effect improvements."
Mind you, it's not like the console market doesn't know that simply saying "better graphics" is no longer a viable option to make the central marketing stance. Even in the earlier generations, one of the contributing reasons why the PS2 is the best performing console of all time was because it integrated a DVD player. And that was at a time where the graphical leap between generations was utterly massive, not just "slightly faster load times, fewer frame rate drops and better lighting effects."
It t takes so much effort to build for modern hardware that it's only really shoved devs with less time and money out of the way - AA developers have basically vanished and AAA devs aren't able to spin as many plates. For instance, Capcom used to be spinning so many plates that they could make entire crossover games out of game franchises that were still relevant in the players' memory, but now they're only able to do Resident Evil, Monster Hunter and Street Fighter and the fixation on hi-fidelity graphics is probably a good reason for that. The cost of development means that the game needs to play it safe so that the developer can get guaranteed ROI. Nowadays a game is basically only ever going to be considered AAA or indie.
This is honestly the biggest tragedy of all this. All this focus on graphics killed AA games and lead to the total homogenization of AAA games.
@@s3studios597 4 Qualities That Video Gaming in General should REALLY be about are Fun Factor, Compelling Factor, Captivating Factor and Fantastic Quality, Period Dot Dash.
I don't know if you inserted that small example of Mischief Makers, or your editor, but whoever did it, I have to say...
You are beautiful!
Hyper realistic graphics can be awesome, but unique and creative art designs will stand the test of time better than realistic graphics could ever hope to,
I agree, to be honest, people care way too much about graphics now a days its part of why games take forever to be made now and a lot of the time they still need some post launch updates to fix game breaking bugs. Maybe resources wasted on needlessly realistic graphics should be used to actually make the game fun and playable before launch instead.
Good shit here with graphics and I feel that with the newer Pokemon games even though the graphics aren't as great as they could be I still like them a lot just being fun and all
The problem with Last of Us 2 wasn't that it was an LGBT character for the lead, it was that it was Last of Us and wanted players to think that Joel was a character worth avenging.
On the actual topic, high end graphics can enhance a good art aesthetic but aren't needed for more simple aesthetics (Windwaker still looks fantastic despite its age due to the art style chosen, whereas Twilight Princess and Ocarina of Time both show their age because they tried to look more realistic). All too often in the last decade, games have gone for graphics over style, or even over substance. It doesn't matter how good a game looks if there's no reason to play more than an hour. Some end up focusing so much on appearance that they forget to have any real game, and then choose an ugly aesthetic that makes them even less appealing to play (Babylon Falls).
Art style is a form of graphics
Totalbiscuit used to talk alot on this topic, ascetic vs graphics.
Yeaj definitely had something interesting to say and I agree
It's why I'm buzzing so much about HI FI Rush (for the first time in ages) and it's art design as its awesome to look at and oozing with love and style while Forspoken while graphically impressive did nothing for me since the world is incredibly bare and art design not very memorable
I completely agree for the record, I will say the heavy emphasis on graphics have pushed code optimization much further than it would have gone through a gameplay perspective. So it's not all bad.
the second he brought up rising an ad popped uo
I've always been style>graphics type of guy, this has held true from my origins as a console gamer all the way to now being a PC gamer. My brother always thought I was weird for it but I recently showed him games I still play after 10 years as opposed to games he played a year ago. Even he agreed the stylized games even though older stuck out more than the latest games with photo realistic graphics especially when those graphics don't do anything to help the game itself.
I honestly have grown so tired of games trying to look semi realistic graphics and i prefer something thats stylistic and has an identity of its own
Yes imo
Minecraft being the best selling game of all time pretty much proves graphics don't really matter anymore, gameplay and style do
I remember seeing a comment on a video comparing the graphics of the original nier replicant and the remake and so many of them said the graphics were bad. One in particular said something about how both of them look like shit and they hate both Sony and Square Enix for this.
I’ve never cared for how “real” a game looked as long as it’s a good time to play.
Sometimes 8-bit with a good portrait for the dialogue is okay.
We don't need full human like models with realistic texture.
Unless the game takes place in a MODERN or MMO style, then I'm okay with high res graphics. ¬-¬
1:25
I don't recall pong & Luna being apart of mario
Whenever i play i always play on 40-50 fps and a bit lower graphics cause 60fps+ makes the game too smooth for me and it feels weird
"The amount of possibilities"
*Shows Sonic Unleashed*
Smooth move.
I think MGR uses cool visuals to try to make up for gameplay.
For that opening question, I'm willing to bet no.
My source: Undertale and Deltarune, not to mention Faith: The Unholy Trinity and just about every pixelated indie game to come out in the last 5 years
It amazes me we even still need to have this discussion, when fucking Undertale, is one of the more iconic and influtential games in the last 10 years.
As part of my dissertation, I analyzed how important different factors were to influencing people's opinions of games. Out of around 100 people, gameplay and mechanics were most people's prime concern, but graphics was consistently 2nd or 3rd. Monetisation and microtransactions usually came 3rd or 4th.
No, you're definitely onto something. From my perspective, a "good" game keeps the player engaged with its story and mechanics. Yes, having good graphics tends to improve that experience, but only by so much. You could have the best graphics on the market, but it won't make up for a crappy gameplay experience.
ín't that litẻally ưhat he said in the lát of us 2 section?
@31 Đoàn Nam Phong With all due respect, I was on my way out the door when I was typing that comment. When you're pressed for time it's best to keep things simple and to the point. Had this not been the case, I would've included some examples of what I considered to be some games worth playing. Such examples would've included Monster Hunter Rise, Torchlight II, and some of the old-school platformers like Spyro, Ty the Tasmanian Tiger, Crash Bandicoot, and Sly Cooper just to name a few.
Another thing I want to point out for why graphics can ruin games is the fact that when it comes to PC gaming, people with less expensive or older PC's may struggle to even run the game if the graphics are too good and especially if it they aren't well optimized. This isn't as much of a problem for consoles, because a games are usually further optimized for them, but it can still be a problem when it's not done well. There's a lot of games that have come out that I didn't buy just because I know I wouldn't be able to run them, and even if I could the good graphics don't matter when I have to put every graphics setting to the lowest it can go to even have a chance of the game running smoothly.
I guess that's always been the case lately sometimes video game makers forget to make a game before making good graphics
12:37 morgana jumpscare (viewer beware)
One game that managed to be visually stunning, immersive, and (most importantly) fun was Battlefield One. Visually it's one of the best looking games I've ever seen. Watching a level (be it single or multiplayer) slowly go from a sunny area to a smoke filled hellscape filled with craters and the cries of soldiers being wounded or killed makes it feel a little less like a game (the player's hurt cries sound more strained and painful than any other game I've played). And, of course, it's an absolute blast to play.
I love the argument "I want a game to be more stylized than realistic" and "They spend more time making the game look good then writing a plot that's engaging."
Hell, the video's description of "Graphics are important, but they aren't the most important things when it comes to games." is so stale that it doesn't cover anything actually important.
My problem is how frequently misinformative these statements are and how overshadowed parts of these arguments are being left out. Seemingly 99 out of a 100 times, the person using these arguments know nothing about proper game design or their development process.
Saying you want a game that's more stylized than realistic is a boring argument. Obviously we want them, if anything we kinda need them. If everything looks realistic, things would quickly become stale, but this doesn't happen because we're not drowning in them. Same goes for the more distinctive visuals, if we get those non-stop, what says we wouldn't get tired of seeing them? The amount of games aiming for a more unique visual esthetic are infinitely more commonplace than games aiming for semi-realistic to realistic visual styles. Making games look realistic (without asset flipping ) is so much harder to do than folks give credit -- Giving games their own stylization (again, without asset flipping) is harder than most give credit. But many just refuse to give said credit where it's owed. Hi-Fi Rush is getting mentioned a ton. Now is it repetitive? Yeah... but I'd be lying if I said the art style wasn't something we needed. The visuals the game shoots for was worked into the game so well that it'd be rude not to give it the respect it deserves. It's so blatant when mentioning that we need variety, but some people do not understand the importance of more photo-real games. Games that aim for realism needs it. Games that play and look realistic aren't boring... just because it may be something you're not interested in, doesn't mean we don't need them.
And I have zero understanding of how folks can actually think good graphics typically mean "mute/dull gameplay." There's more games with realistic graphics that hit good sales and deliver an excellent gameplay experience/narrative than ones that don't. I've never once seen a development studio not split developers into their fitting habitats -- storyboarding, gameplay engineering, voice acting (if the game needs them), sound designers, etc. And yes, I know single developers and small teams exist but my comment still holds... but for some reason, people think when high-end graphics and engines are made for a game, it means they all care more for it's looks than it's plot line/gameplay. Also-also, plot twist, but games typically get tested very extensively by designers and the general public way more than you may think, but many of you don't seem to accept this and just blame "bad game" with "they didn't test this game once."
Graphics aren't everything, but neither is the story. I don't think either can work if the two halves aren't strung together. If anything, the string of low-bit games is the true aging trend, but not many discuss it... it's always the realistic games that people want to ache over. Games that have actual graphical fidelity are way more enjoyable than the next 8/16-bit snore because apparently "You don't need good graphics to make a good game." When the game LOOKS appealing and the story/general gameplay actually works, then that's a good time. 2D pixilated stuff is a mess, it's old, it's boring, and it's just no longer interesting.
The next time a really REALLY good looking game comes out, and it flops... don't blame the graphics, and don't claim the dev's put more time on said graphics than anything else. It's obviously not the problem or the cause. Internal affairs, development hell, and so on are what should be to blame.
You know this is an Opinion from this guys’ views on the arguement right?! And honestly I agree with them.
@@danielramsey6141 Pardon, but the comment I left was my view on said argument and how others need to stop constantly using the same argument(s). It wasn't directed towards the video uploader. I mentioned the description just the once and followed everything else up on the generic complaints other people make... Piece it together.
My statement still stands, don't be offended by it. I agree with very-VERY many of the comments he made in the video, but it wasn't what I was directing the comment towards. You'd pick up on that if you actually read it. Again, I was discussing how I don't agree with the stereotypical arguments many people make. Go do something better with yourself rather than letting small things you don't understand make you grumpy.
I remember a couple years back about one of the batman Arkham games, whichever one was coming out at the time. They had a picture of a generic goon and explained how that one character model had more pixels or polygons or some such than the entirety of the original Arkham game. Rather than being impressed, I was mortified. I thought, "what a monumental waste." It barely looked any better than the models from the previous game, but somehow used exponentially more resources. An entire games worth of data used on just one character - how unbelievably vain.
*NOW...* I finally have context for that wacky thumbnail.
Man, would have loved to see pokken tournament DX on here, cause those honestly feel like the best graphics we could have gotten for a pokemon game
I find graphics are like icing on a cake. If the cake is bland, it doesn't matter how well decorated the icing is. It's just empty sugar. Undertale sold on its story, gameplay and art style as a deliberate artistic choice. I still play a lot of my older PS1 games because I like the stories. Most of them are JRPG's and it's a style of game I tend to enjoy. And sometimes a jump in graphics affects the gameplay. This happened with the Tales of Mothership games when it moved from sprites/cells to 3d models. Tales of Legendia on the PS2 was a solid game in terms of story, but the sudden change to a 3d style also changed the way the combat system works and it drastically slowed down the battles themselves, on top of making certain moves in combat harder to pull off because they required a bit of timing and the frame rate could shift a bit mid-attack.
This you could say is because the same team that'd been doing side-scrolling left-to-right combat in the previous title just didn't have the experience necessary to make the 3d combat system work. They did improve incrementally with each later title in the series, but it was a rough transition no two ways about it. If I had to say, the six most important things to any game would be;
1: Story
2: Gameplay
3: Replayability
4: Music
5: Voiceover (where applicable)
6: Graphics
To me, graphics are on the lowest on the list. Because the only way story wouldn't be important is if you were making a game that was solely about PVP and nothing else. Just a straight up competitive game where the actual story is irrelevant. In which case the only things the team needs to focus on is Gameplay and Graphics. However, those games are only as fun as the interactions you have other other players. I'm certainly not good at PVP and it can be frustrating to a lot of people. If it's not your jam, you're not gonna play that game at all if that's the only thing it has to offer.
Replayability is a big one that most tend to forget. You want a game so good you want to play it again with all the little extras and bonuses you unlocked, going through it again to find things you missed, testing yourself on harder difficulties, etc etc. A game where you play through once and then never touch it again isn't much of a game. It becomes quickly forgettable and you just move on to something that'll hold your interest longer. And if it's a game that you paid full retail price for and you're done after one play through, it feels like you got cheated.
that sounds like an excuse to dislike something without proper reasoning... except maybe politics/disliking specific people...
In honesty I'm not sure. It is a lot to think about. (Though Security Breaches graphics didn't look like it was going for looking as realistic as possible to me though. I think the game simply got bigger then they intended as I believe Scott himself said it got bigger then it was originally planned. So I think the game size got bigger then they could handle leading them to neglecting proper beta testing.)
I often think of indie games artistic style and graphics. To use dusk and iron lung for examples, they look like old ps1 and boomer shooter games, but with modern lighting techniques. They looks so gross and grungy, and the monsters look terrifying, despite how low poly everything is.
Then I look at some of the new call of duty games. They look incredible, but nothing sticks out. Modern warfare, Cold War, and modern warfare 2 all look the same.
Even old cods had style and personality. Especially in the zombies modes.
For a time, realism was great and what everyone strived for. Now that we’ve reach near perfection, it’s all looking the same. So some people take inspiration from retro styles to try to stand out more.
So it's like the phrase, "All bark, no bite".
There's a reason why there's a demand for retro gaming.
The problem with extreme realism is that it also limits how much game can be made. Yes this can have the "golden age" effect where the reuse of assets makes the game feel much more cohesive, But it more often than not has the effect of handicapping an otherwise great product.
Instead of being able to focus the effort into fully polishing and improving the gameplay, mechanics and story, most devs are working on simply getting the graphics to look as "realistic" as possible whilst also keeping the game playable for the general audience. It's the exact situation that happened with both RE2 and RE3 remakes, the extreme graphical fidelity that those games had was absolutely amazing, but if we're all honest, those games don't hold a candle to the amount of content that the originals had.
Thing is, graphics age a lot faster now, The Last of Us 2 was incredible to see when it came out, less than 3 years after release, the facial expresions look like a joke, and it makes it worse that the developers were so confident back in 2020, the game has the audacity to flex that aspect, so now the game keeps reminding you "look how goofy I look".