All the best games I’ve played recently are deliberately low poly models, low res textures, and 100% focused on JUST satisfying gamefeel and fun gameplay mechanics.
Fuck graphical fidelity and fuck “AAA” studios for wasting our time and money on it.
I WANT SHORTER GAMES WITH WORSE GRAPHICS MADE BY PEOPLE WHO ARE PAID MORE TO WORK LESS AND I’M NOT KIDDING
I WANT SHORTER GAMES
Can I have my cake and eat it too? I want games with a short critical path, but satisfying ways to spend more time with it if it’s fun.
So like interesting NG+ stuff, boss rush modes, different builds, whatever.
built in randomizers please
Actually, on that point, I love it when a game becomes a platform for continuous content. Minecraft is a bit trite as an example but it fits: You buy it once, and you can beat it in a couple hours if you really want to, but you can extract as much enjoyment out of it as your imagination will allow, and the developers are constantly adding more stuff to do (although not all of what’s added feels great all the time…)
I don’t really think it should be “worse” or specifically low-poly. There is a balance that can be struck and I feel that accepting the lowest quality possible is an excuse for developers to put in as little work as possible while still charging us as much as possible.
The graphics are too expensive for AAA games? AAA means they are throwing the highest category budget for developing a game. And they ONLY invest in graphics, discarding the rest like a proper story (if any), decent characters, bug fixing, balancing, etc. Now they create junk only 1% of players with a 4090 can run somewhay decently on medium settings with 30fps average and loads of framedrops.
Wow guys, amazing, thanks I guess, this costed me 80 euros. Can’t you tone down the graphics by at least 60% and focus on the “game” part of the game instead?
There are plenty of titles that do just that you can buy instead you know.
Oh I do, I’m skipping all AAA games. I illegally download them out of curiosity, but often delete them after 30min of playtime. But it still gets me angry because it basically is a major scam. Luring in loads of people with cool looking videos, then to deliver a bug simulator with most content locked behind more purchases (DLC’s, loot boxes, subscriptions), completely unbalanced and abandoned after the fist sale period because fixing the bugs and balance doesn’t provide more income so might as well quit and start a new scam. And then the audacity to complain people should not expect Baldur’s Gate 3 to be a standard to compare other games to. Maybe do see it as a standard and try to create a properly working product with actual decent content worth it’s money?
Maybe they’d do better if they tried selling games instead of games as a service and stores with a game attached.
People care about graphics.
But they care about other things more
So the graphics need to be in service to something.Imo the problem is that studios have become risk adverse because their budget is so big, so they pick an already popular IP, choose a marketable aspect of that IP, and spend that fortune turning the dial of that aspect up to 11.
Like X but bigger map
Like Y but more playable characters
Like Z but better graphics
Etc
But none of the time actually innovating any new player experience.And players are finally getting fed up with playing the same handful of AAA game experiences again and again with different titles.
Graphics just happens to be the marketable attribute they like to crank most often
The NYT article doesn’t mention that new AAA console games often cost $70. I have not bought a brand new game in years because I just can’t justify that cost. I have such a huge backlog between PS4 and PC, that there is just no reason to buy new games
I am betting, adjusted for inflation, that would not be especially higher than a new NES game.
It might even be cheaper.
That’s definitely true. Didn’t think about inflation. I still think $70 is a lot more than the many other ways to play, including inexpensive older games, Steam sales, Epic/Amazon giveaways, etc, all of which have “good enough” graphics for me
Yeah I’m always surprised when people are complaining about the cost to buy (not to produce) a game nowadays.
Where I live, games are way cheaper than they used to be during the Playstation 1 Era and it’s now really easy to buy used games online.
Of course if you buy every season pass or special skin for they used to game, it ends up more expensive.
People still love cult movies and other classics from 100 to 50 years ago, with handcrafted or minimal budget special effects, no CGI. It’s because it’s an entire art form and it can’t just be reduced solely to aesthetic appeal. That kind of approach is just a result of the commodification of art. You want to reduce a successful work of art to some quantifiable metric besides popularity/sales, so that you can create repeatable processes around producing it and selling it, and optimize them for cost, but art defies quantification. Even just basic “enjoyable gameplay” defies that.
This guy MBAs.
That should have come across as critical of the commodification.
It did. Not sure why they said that. And I agree with you 100%. In fact, the success of Minecraft and Roblox alone should show that sometimes paying attention to the graphics is not necessarily what a developer should be doing.
There is room for AAA games with mindblowing graphics, but there should also be room for AAA games where they focus on other features over worrying about how amazing the graphics are.
I thought we had all reached consensus that style is more important than realism. And you can do style without mega hardware.
On the other hand, the fidelity in bg3 I think added something to it. I don’t think it would have been the same experience if they were simple sprites like the original games. Is it worth all the hardware? Maybe.
Fidelity has value but gets diminishing returns the harder it gets.
BG3 wasn’t nearly as far as they’re trying to push though. For example it was beautiful on the normal PS5, as were the Horizon Zero Dawn games. And yet somehow that’s not far enough for them.
I think it’s crazy that we always want prettier games when you still have visual glitches like cars disappearing in your rearview mirror, buildings and textures appearing late, screen tearing when you make your POV spin.
I don’t really need way better graphics, but I’d need these things gone as they take me out of my game way more than no raytracing or a slight fps drop.
I think these things would be easy to solve if we didn’t always get better graphics.
You can hide glitches from videos and screenshots, but you can’t hide the graphics.
Glitches are something people notice after they spend their money, which is why corporations don’t care about them as much.
Imho, graphics don’t make the game. There are people here still playing doom and portal. Even games like Terraria aren’t too demanding. You don’t need amazing graphics.
Or any graphics for dwarf fortress and nethack (other rouguelikes also apply)
Yeah, been playing Enter the Gungeon and it’s amazing as well
What cutting edge graphics? The blurry as smudge that is TAA in all the modern games? Fuck off. What’s expensive is the actual slop that is modern games
TAA, motion blur, depth of field. Why do “technologies” to turn a good looking game into a trash looking game even exist?
Yeah and we are going to see more of that in the future since everyone and their mom are switching to UE5.
Space Marine 2 is sharp AF BTW. Also not Unreal Engine, but the Swarm Engine, BTW.
The texture detail in that game is crazy, even though you normally don’t see most of it because it’s too small.
It also has a really fun gameplay loop, that I haven’t felt in a while. Good shit.
9 times out of 10, I won’t see your brand new AAA title for several years after release. While there are occasional exceptions, I don’t really buy at launch. Your cutting edge graphics mean nothing to me without story, characters, and writing. If you invest in looks without substance, I will never waste my time with you.
There have been massive diminishing returns on graphical quality vs. hardware and developer requirements since the PS3 era.
I will always put an emphasis on art style and gameplay over trend-chasing and what takes the most computing power.
I can only really think of two games that really justify enormous development costs, and that’s Red Dead Redemption 2 and Baldur’s Gate 3.
If your game isn’t pushing things to that level of expectation, you really need to rethink what you’re doing with that budget.
Animal Well was the best game I played this year and it was made by one dude who built his own engine.
Balatro is a close second with the best soundtrack. The Dev bought it on Fiverr.
I’m also going to add my stone to the pile here and point out that this hyperfixation on more and more “graphics” usually results in it ultimately being impossible to actually see what the fuck is happening on the screen.
You are a realistic barbarian dude who is brown, and wearing brown. standing in a realistic landscape which is brown, against a realistic highly textured and bump mapped bunch of trees which are brown, with leaves that are waving around in all directions realistically and are brown, trying to dodge arrows (which are brown) raining on you from the half dozen hairy orcs in the distance, who are also brown. And about nine pixels tall, and hidden in the bushes. Which are brown. And if this isn’t happening verbatim (or even if it is), 2/3 of the screen is also covered by a zillion glowy particle effects, motion blur, and bloom, which are the only colorful parts of the image but still add up to you not being able to actually see jack shit out of what’s important.
Bonus points if this also requires near frame-perfect inputs to handle, and you have half a second of input lag in between all the shit your console is trying to render plus the two or three frames eaten by postprocessing to make it “look pretty.”
Yeah, fuck all that.
A major part of game deign that everyone seems to forget a lot these days in the name of making everything realistic and/or extra graphicy is clearly communicating to the player just what the hell is going on. Older games, I find, often did a significantly better job of this.
This was actually a lot worse in the early 2000s, as this video shows: https://youtu.be/6qQIhIOaiY4 I agree that there tends to be too much visual clutter on the screen sometimes in current games, especially particle effects. It’s ironic that almost every 3rd person game seems to have a “Batman vision” toggle these days that simplifies what you see on screen so you have a chance to actual see stuff that’s important. Also the often criticised yellow markers for climbing passages.
This screams anecdotal. I don’t find that this is true of next gen titles in general. Lots and lots of absolutely stunning, gorgeous games are available to play where not everything is brown, or otherwise difficult to see.
The concept of realistic graphics doesn’t necessarily have to equate to realism either. Hear me out. Games can look so gorgeous and realistic without having graphics that portray something that looks like this world in which we live. Alien worlds, unnatural colors, but still with light that behaves physically correct using advanced techniques.
I’m all for amazing graphics, and giving developers the tools they need to fulfill their visions. If it looks like garbage though, don’t buy the shit.
I totally agree. It’s actually difficult for my brain to process all that detail. Part of it may be due to me being raised with ps1/ps2 graphics.
