Thanks for bringing attention to this, I personally think realism sort of limits what you can do with the game, like making everything as graphically sound as possible takes more memory, the games can be laggy depending on optimisation and the animations land up being less interesting
@@MrAldoesminecraft I'm not one to say "back in my day things were simpler!!!" but 150gb download for Baldur's Gate 3 is taking the piss. I remember when a game was considered large if it was more than 12gb. I have a 1tb SSD and still refuse to install games that big, bcs it limits what I can play
Someone made joke about Baldur's Gate 3's file size like "what could possibly justify the 200 GB file size, 4k hair textures? lolol" I'm just sitting there like "There are quite literally millions of lines of dialogue in high quality audio, also the game itself has a billion lines of code that make it so you can take a BUNCH of different routes to get a reasonable conclusion to every quest. This isn't Fallout 3/4 where an NPC is just fucking IMMUNE because they're absolutely critical to the code's survival."
@@a_level_70_elite_raccoon "There are quite literally millions of lines of dialogue in high quality audio, also the game itself has a billion lines of code" That's the thing though... Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, and the best written RPG ever - Planescape: Torment - didn't really need full voice acting. Just a sprinkle here and there so the player had a character's voice in their head. This was a highly efficient method of storytelling; not only allowing players to read through lengthy dialogue exchanges at their own pace, without feeling the need to "skip" the actual voice acted sequence, but allowing the developers to write and program dialogue trees with far greater speed (since adjustments didn't need to bounce back and forth and require additional studio sessions). As for the "billion lines of code" - speaking as someone developing a game where you can talk to any character and manually ask them about topics, which involves an internal drop-through of multiple sets of topics (specific quest stage responses, character-specific responses, region-specific responses, common responses, all with potential splitters for gender and class)... code is tiny. It's just text. In fact, here's a good example - I put my books in my game, readable in-game. I have a 600 page novel, and it takes up... 3.25MBs. And that's including the code for the table of contents, and the cover images. The obsession with fully-voiced characters damaged games as much as the obsession with cutting edge visuals - not only drastically increasing the install size, but also seriously impacting the development process, and stifling innovation in the genre.
@@a_level_70_elite_raccoon The scripts aren't eating that much compared to other assets, but the audio files can be nearly half the size, or more than half the size of the entire game. Textures are coming in second place if they are going for some ultra realistic style with 4-8k diffuse maps and a bunch of other texture maps to achieve a realistic style.
games make more money but aren’t as culturally relevant (yet). It’s still pretty niche, probably due to the high cost of entry. But who hasn’t seen a movie…?
@@JCNL871 I beg to differ, especially when you consider gaming holistically which would include even the black sheep of that industry that is mobile gaming. The cost of entry for any movie at the extreme lowest would be a movie ticket, but then that would be for each time you would want to go see a movie, if even the exact same one. However, the cost of entry for gaming, to a broader extent as explained above, would only require competent computing parts and a functional screen, such as can be found in an old mobile phone. All this to say that gaming is indeed bigger and more culturally relevant/impactful than you might have initially thought, if you don't limit your scope of virtual "gaming" to just the console/pc space. Going by that perspective alone we have way more gamers than we do movie watchers, if even nobody else want to admit this, lol.
Graphics always did matter and that is why people did go to the arcades even if they had a console in their homes. Arcades were years ahead of home consoles. Also old marketting in magazines, TV and so on always talked about graphics too, about that new console or game with beautiful or/and "realistic" graphics and things like that. The rest, this "art matters more", "old games worried moremabout gameplay" talk are people that forgot about the past or trying tomfeel like an "old school badass"
@@TheMrCHELL Never said graphics don't matter, nice strawman. They do matter. Especially to publishers. Graphics have always been used for marketing. And being pretty adds value to games as products, even if how much it adds is debatable. Like other artists, developers too naturally want their work to look good. I don't deny that either. My only claim is that developers wouldn't want to dedicate time and resources to the fidelity of their game past a certain point, but are pressured by publishers into doing so because that's the only way publishers know how to market some games.
Besides the graphics fidelity, the art direction in RDR2 it's also beautiful. According to Aaron Garbut, Rockstar North's art director, the lighting and landscape of RDR2 were inspired by late 19th century paintings. Art direction matters because beside the game looking good in graphics fidelity, it also needs to be visually appealing to the player.
It is not a exception, but a good reason to actually use it. If you use realism in your game, you use it well. You can't just throw more hair into a character and call in fans for it. If it has no purpose, then just don't do it. Sometimes it doesn't even look good. Realism can ruin stuff if you don't know why to keep it there.
Almost every game this guy talked about has fun gameplay mechanics and unique art styles, they really arent an issue at all. He isn’t wrong in his words, graphics are always a plus but shouldn’t be the main priority. But these games he talks about aren’t the issue, its games like COD that spend so much time making the games look realistic instead of making them look visually appealing. Remember when MW games had a darker color tone to portray its (slightly) more realistic narratives of war, while Black Ops was a much more vibrant to be an appealing multiplayer focused FPS shooter? Cod has no reason to make every game look like that, but most of these games this guy talks about actually have really good art directors and have their own style
To me the worst crime committed by some of the AAA games that obsessively pursue realistic graphics is that sometimes they don't even look particularly interesting much less striking, they spend so much of their budget in modeling and rendering so much detail just to end up looking unremarkable. Meanwhile there's some 20 years old games out there where you can literally see the individual polygons but the visuals are beautiful regardless because they had an actual vision for the artstyle that went beyond "realistic". Is not that realism is a bad thing or that stylization is the only way of doing things well but rather that individually rendered blades of grass don't make for a particularly interesting scene on their own and sometimes faked lighting looks nicer that accurate raytracing.
Correct. I mean, I can tell people like graphics but what people likes more than graphics is a good game. If the game has incredible graphics but is overall a sh*t then there's no point. I love Terraria, Elden Ring, Nier Automata, Shadow of the Colossus, Ultrakill, Dying Light, Osu!, batman arkham asylum, The Binding of Issac, Ender Lilies, Deadcells... those are games which doesn't have AMAZING graphics but (FOR ME) they are pretty fun
When it comes to lighting in a 3D scene I've always been bothered by ultra realistic dark rooms where I can't see smack. Unless I'm meant to use a night vision tool in the game I'd much rather have the ability to see than to have the most realistic darkness in a game.
@@octopusoup I had that exact same problem earlier this year while playing the Tomb Raider remastered collection, the new lighting engine can make some rooms look gorgeous but in some parts it was so dark that I couldn't see a thing and had to switch to classic mode just to find the items in the room. Luckily the devs took the feedback from players and tweaked the lighting along with some other things when the first patch dropped a few weeks after release. There's definitely a tendency to light things realistically just for the sake of it despite the fact that it's better to fake it for visibility. Sometimes it feels like horror games are the only ones that truly plan for darkness... and brutalist games like Naissancee and Kairo that use it for the mood.
I agree with you up to the raytracing part. Stylized / Low Quality Graphics with ray tracing goes hard, especially since it's a lot easier to render ray tracing on games with less fidelity.
i tried to get my friend into prey.. but honestly i can understand why its hard game to get into.. also honestly watching some people play prey is painfull.. in good way.. you know watch somebody stuble.for 2 hours before exiting first area.. but then when they get to main lobby its different story.. sadly many quit before game really starts..
@@tpkkr Idk its a matter of different tastes i really liked it because there was strong presence of Arkane magic like in the Dishonored series. They know how to make it fun.
i’m an artist/ animator / dabbler-in-game-design who is utterly _fascinated_ by real time graphical techniques, and has a style that favours granular texture, tactile surfaces and highly detailed faces. so i’ve always felt a complicated mix of feelings on this subject. because the stuff that goes into making these naturalistic details in games is so, so interesting to me. it’s something about how, to mimic reality you have to observe it in ways you don’t normally do. like, to put peach fuzz on a character’s face, you need to pay attention to the directions hair flows on real people’s faces. which can prompt you to get an artist friend to hold still while you study them and draw a map of which way the strands run. which feels… special. like, a chance to appreciate things in the world that are so easy to miss otherwise. but my favourite graphical details in games are always the ones that the player can interact with. sloshing around in puddles, blowing bubbles, knocking over breakable physics objects, ripping through banners. especially if it actually plays a role in gameplay, like the portals and adhesion gels in Portal. sometimes achieving these things requires really clever engineering, artistry or just plain lateral thinking. honestly, i don’t care whether a game is indistinguishable from real life. i want developers to go with the style that feels right for their game. if i see polygons, or low res textures, or artefacts, eh, that’s just part of the charm of video games. but i do love it when a game world is riddled with little touches. things that aren’t strictly necessary, but inspire delight when spotted, or enhance a sense of place or character. in my opinion, when deciding what details to include (because you can’t include all of them), the developer should think about the themes of the game. the narrative, the motifs, personalities, locations, the genre, and the gameplay mechanics themselves. is this a game where food is really important to the characters, more than in your average game? if so, spend extra time getting pots of soup to bubble and slices of salmon to look appetising. or is this a game where you spend a lot of time in a car? then focus on headlights, car paint, tire marks, making the little fuzzy dice bounce around when you go over a pothole. main character an old timey detective? his magnifying glass and deerstalker hat can be where you use your fanciest glass and fabric shaders, that way players get the sense these items are _special,_ central to his life. narrow your efforts to the places that are specific to _your_ game and the feelings you want to evoke with it. make compromises other places so that what makes your game special can shine.
I think you hit the nail on the head there! It's all about intentionality. And I agree wholeheartedly with what you said about making the details factor into the gameplay and feel interactive. That's why, although I don't consider graphics to be the most important part of a game, I appreciate when a little detail feels really deliberate like there was care put into it. That's why RDR2, which I just started playing recently, fascinates me, because so much of the environment feels interactive and alive. They were going for an immersive, lively world that you could explore and stare at and look for secrets in. Not every game has to be RDR2, every game just has to be itself. What is the game about? What does it need? As you said in your comment. So again, to boil it down, it's the sense of intentionality to the details that is key.
I think physics are way cooler than graphical fidelity in games because that's actually something the player can interact with, rather than just look at. Breakable objects for example are always something I appreciate in games.
I'm +40. I don't mind pretty graphics, but it means almost nothing to me. Some of my all time favorite games are stuff like UFO Enemy Unknown, Doom1&2. First doesn't have virtually any animations and its awesome. There games like Alien Isolation where setting and art style makes huge difference of course. But I recently played was it Senua 2 Hellgate or whatever fairly new fidelity hyped game and tried in on Gamepass and sure it looked quite nice, but character felt like moving in mud. I played it for like hour or two and absolutely hated it. There's huge thing that needs to work and it's core gameplay. Like RDR2 also felt "sluggish" and looks insanely good, but there's sure difference for that other title. RDR2 character and environment felt like they have good amount of mass that suited heavy animations and controlling that mass felt good. I also bought Baldurs Gate 3 and it looks quite awesome, but somehow it felt bit boring and forgot it few months ago (absolutely going to restart it near future), but now I'm playing Divinity Original Sin that got me hooked quite badly and more so than BG3. All-in-all graphics mean quite little. Get core gameplay, plot, controls etc. to work well before investing insanely much to graphics is my opinion. Heck even good audio is vastly more important than graphics for me.
@@TheMrCHELL It's because arcade games had slightly better limiters that's why. Arcade games were nice and console games were well decent at best for most part there's bangers for sure yet a lot of console gaming market is legit trash nobody played like that. Older games also did care about gameplay especially in the arcade where they developed gameplay gimmicks to keep you hooked. Pretty graphics now is them being ironically lazy, it doesn't matter if it looks "Real" if it runs poorly and there's nothing to really do.
Which is also the devs/publishers fault, as they've forced game journalists more and more into a cage and a leash, so now journos only cover games by giving them 7/10 minimum and ride the studio's dick
@@thewrightone13jack yup, but then games with the best liking are portal 2, stardew valley or terraria - every one of them are just fun to play outside of their visuals
It’s kinda like in the art industry, a boring realistic painting that looks like a photo, will always draw more attention of the general public than a stylized, creative, and meaningful painting that most of people don’t even bother to take a little deeper look at it. That’s why AI is making so much success for instance, it can look very “realistic” in terms of rendering, and even tho it usually is superficial, makes no sense, is disproportional, and can’t even do a hand, that’s enough to satisfy most people standards
@@aryabratsahoo7474 The mods will replace the characters with anime babes, for all the good the devs crunch did them to model those high-res realistic textures.
@@mademedothis424 There's nothing wrong with reminding people of the point in a game. And that's to have fun. Graphics don't improve fun per se, but rather immersion. It's important, but less so. Anyways, your original assumption was pretty silly and couldn't be further from the truth. I'm a senior 'figure' in one of the largest 'gaming' companies. I'm being intentionally vague as I'd rather not delve into what I specifically do. No hard feelings though. Have a great rest of day!
No but you don't get the point, incredible graphics will always come with a problem. Prioritising graphics over gameplay - problem because the game won't be fun Having incredible graphics as well as incredible gameplay - the game will take a decade to produce and will be humongous (i.e. RDR2) Incredible graphics never win!
@@mademedothis424 OK, but at no point did I say it's at the expense of gameplay necessarily. My original comment said prioritizing it over gameplay is a problem, which is still undeniably true. You can scale both upwards. You can improve visual fidelity while sacrificing certain game mechanics that would otherwise frustrate users. A classic example being offering to skip cutscenes and monotone player journeys across a map. Also, based solely on this interaction, the comments you make, though they evidently demonstrate that you're intelligent and articulate, they're clearly emotionally charged, lacking contextualization and pragmatism. It also doesn't help that you've demonstrated a number of times a dismissive condescending, and perhaps even narcissistic, attitude towards those you consider "normies". I don't take any offense given you're not explicitly referring to me, but I do suggest you look inward and try fixing it. Perhaps this isn't how you usually behave, but it's so off-putting regardless. Wish you the best going forward anyways.
i've also seen games that prioritize artstyle over gameplay, like darkest dungeon 2. dd2's artstyle is so absolutely wonderful, it's an orgasm to look at, but the gameplay is just awful, it's nothing compared to the original darkest dungeon.
People often forget that graphics and animation are two separate things. People often say the “graphics are so good” when it’s not the graphics they’re noticing but the animations . And the animators don’t get the credit even though they did half the work.
Compressing files means it will have to decompress them while you play making the performance worse. It's either large size or poor performance for a lot of people these days.
@@lukasor9936 and the performance of many new aaa ganes is piss poor in the first place anyway so its either the game runs even worse or it takes 572512 gb on your hard drice
@@Damian-cilr2 depends on what you mean by poor performance, I have a mid rig, 3050 and some cheaper I7, bought it about 3 years ago and only had issues with Jedi Survivor on anything above medium and CS2. Other than that everything is above 60fps, most get above 144 and I don't need more.
I mean just look at how many dev teams work on CoD and you'll see why they don't have time to compress all this sh*t.. communication alone is a f*cking nightmare
Wanna have some bloody fun? Get urself an emulator or a direct copy of Metal Arms - Glitch in the System or Bioshock 1 from to 2007.. it indeed looks better and more immersive then many modern AA titles. And runs on 5x the fps and has actual STORY
it also makes the pc market suffer because the more demanding a game is the less people can run it well. the worst feeling is downloading a game just to have a choppy or inconsistent framerate, maybe i do need to upgrade but i can run plenty of modern games perfectly fine.
Quite the opposite. People upgrading constantly was the PC boom. Consoles always brought stagnation, but now we're kind of in a plateau (yet very close to a raytracing breakthrough)
@@MadsterV Incorrect. It is consoles that increase a minimum standard for games. This is what forces majority of PC gamers to upgrade their hardware. Otherwise companies target the majority that does not have high end PCs.
@@kordelas2514 and it's why right now min specs aren't increasing: Switch, PS4, Xbox One, and Mobile, coupled with NVidia pricing due to AI unlimited money printing demand
@@OverbiteGames Let's not forget about various scaling methods for games, high cost of AAA development and high cost of current consoles. Switch is in its own category, i.e., people buy it mainly for games based on Nintendo IPs.
I swear every time I brought up a game I really enjoyed with poor graphics to my old friend, he'd complain about graphics. Like it genuinely bothered me how often he would reduce a game to it's textures. For awhile he couldn't understand why I liked playing Minecraft because of the graphics.
FR. Whenever I show my brother a really good game, he'd complain if the graphics were PIXELART. No matter how good it is or how beautiful the pixelart is, he'd always complain about it.
Games definitely don't just boil down to graphics but personally, I refuse to play any game that came out before 2014 unless Im able to mod it in one way or another, I can't stand to look at anything that I find visually unappealing, so I pretty always use shaders for Minecraft.
Also, the higher the graphical fidelity, the lower the chances they can benefit from modding. The higher the bar is raised, the more skillful modders have to be, and the less people can make mods (that don't look sub-par).
There is also the adverse effect of more realistic looking games having trouble with movement. When a game looks realistic, characters in the game have to move realistic too, every twitch has to look and feel real because otherwise, it breaks the uncanny valley too much and its impossible to ignore. In stylized games, characters can have somewhat janky movement since even if we know they are human, they have not entered the uncanny valley where it totally ruins immersion.
Reminds me of a video on the Skyrim mining animation. Yes, we now have a nice animation for it, but the game allows the player only to get full cycles of the animation. You can't just stop it at any random point. If you do, the animation continues until it finishes a cycle. And it's a similar thing with footsteps in games. Fluid animations means a character can't just stop when you stop inputting movement. There has to be a slowdown from the full running or walking animation into a standing animation, and that takes time. So you don't stop when you stop pressing forward. When you release the input, the character will start transitioning into stopping.
@@HappyBeezerStudios that’s not realism, that’s Bethesda taking shortcuts. Also you can just hit the ore with a pick axe instead of doing the animation
exactly my thoughts, and this takes away room for creative playstyle and exploiting the mechanics in fun ways. How are you supposed to do cool unintended stuff (a very good thing to enable a player to do in game design), in a game where the only things you can do are walk, use your main weapon or whatever, and press action prompts, with super polished and extraordinarily slow animations for about every action?
Yeah this was one of my main complaints with Guardians of the Galaxy. I felt like the movement was too washy. I pushed through though and the game itself is fun and entertaining. I feel like games like Uncharted 4 did a really good job at the movement being more realistic but also really responsive and satisfying.
Remember that tweet someone made about a soda can in Spiderman being slightly polygonal and calling the game unplayable? I don't understand these people man
I do enjoy realism in games. Both visual and conceptual - for example, survival elements, little details like character «actually» drinking potion and it taking effect over time rather than seeing health bar get filled immediately after you exit menu, proper weapon reloading (no magic bullets, if you reload a half-empty mag - you're left with one half empty mag) etc. Also I love the kind of «realism» where you can just sit on a chair, walk slowly, drive and obey some rules, etc. But sometimes I just look at yet another hyperrealistic 16k trailer for a new game that's gonna require a minimum of AMVidia 6996RTXXX, 999Gb disk space and 3.5THz i11-20777kfghabc and think «Man, I'd really love to play Tetris or Pong right now...»
Artistic style has this timeless aesthetic. It never ages really BC it isn’t trying to look intensely real, it’s just got style. That said I still can’t help but like some of the crazy attention to detail in games like RDR2 and Cyberpunk 2077.
@@Latmov1234 exaggerated realism, I'll call it. They made RDR2 to feel like a story version of the cowboy west, complete with impossibly beautiful views to boot.
Agreed both Capcom and Nintendo are too based for that shit well Nintendo doesn’t do realism in some of there games but when they do they just hit the spot that matters and that’s *actually, making a game*
resident evil rlly stays strong and never disappoints the characters looks realistic, but also have a sense of animation, attitude, and non-uncanniness in themselves and i love that
Theres a guy that keeps popping up with videos like “I remastered San Andreas because Rockstar wont” and things like that. What he does is render a scene in a modeling program showcases a certain area that he rebuilt. The results are fantastic but he said in one of them that it took him like 4 hours to render each frame… wanna know what every comment says? Things like “Rockstar needs to hire him” or “one person did what Rockstar couldn’t”, “When are you releasing this?”, “can I download this on mobile” etc etc etc… not realizing that what they’re seeing isnt, and can’t be, a game. And while those are nice to look at, GTA San Andreas wouldn’t be nearly as much fun with something like RDR2’s animations and graphics. Those games still hold up because they’re heavily stylized and arcadey, try and do that with modern techniques and styles and it would be incredibly boring very quickly.
@@Fetidaf And I can bet your ass that animation companies would fire his ass because he would be wasting their processing power...4 hours per frame? how unoptimised is his graphics???
@@cinnastag it might not have been 4 hours but it was a pretty long time per frame, or maybe it was a couple hours per scene, I dont remember. But im pretty sure youre not expected to use your own computer for rendering if youre working at rockstar.
@@Fetidaf I disagree, San Andreas would hold up with better graphics. They just need to also stylize it, hit the sense of humor and you know... make a fun game on top. San Andreas is fun because of the package itself, for its time it had what you'd consider good graphics. And that's something that's lost to many, they prefer making the graphics before building a game around it.
@@Unknown_Genius that’s what I said, that it holds up pretty fine how it is. Increase texture quality and a few tweaks to make it more modern (shooting mechanics, driving controls… stuff like that). But if you change too much; it’s flaws will start to show such as the (relative to modern games) empty and lifeless world, small undetailed map and models, wonky physics, etc
i just hate the idea that games need to look 'realistic', either through mods or just base game.Why does my games set usually in fantasy need to looks like real life, im going around hunting monsters and gods or running around a future city scape killing thugs and stuff, why do i need to be reminded that real life sucks through realistic graphics.
Because playing a game that looks like real life, where you can do anything you want and NPCs react like actual people is what makes the experience fun.
@@MplusL I mean I don't think that was the point of the comment... But I would say if we are talking about horror games, and if the indie horror games are scarier, then yeah, since like 80% of the fun in horror games comes from the being scared part
ngl the graphical limitation pushed devs to develop an art style for a game. In Ds1 the emptiness of the world helps set the mood of the Golden era long gone, the world is dead and hangs on strings. while DS3 just throws trash and barrels everywhere as if some battle took place even in a random village 5 minutes ago. I love ds3 but sometimes less means more, and they seem to go back to it in DLCs
Agree - DS3 was visually disappointing. The eerie stillness of a doomed world was totally missing; replaced with constant clutter and activity. And in terms of negative space, and the signal to noise ratio... the visuals were awful. Technically competent, but in terms of artistic merit, there was no focus, just "stuff" everywhere.
constraints breed creativity, it's been said for millennia at this point. Nintendo has actually cited graphic constraints as a bonus for their console because it allows devs to make proper art styles instead of hyper-realism you see on....everything else.
@nomorenames5568 Silent HIll is the best example of it. System can't handle the open world? Make thick fog to hide everything loading it. We dont have enough polygons? Cool, people's imagination will add the messing parts. We can't animated cgi and voice actors we hired are amatures? That will only add to the uncanny valley effect! This is why the SH2 remake looks meh for me. For example, i always thought those enemies at the start were supposed to be bodies with trash bags bags on their upper torso, as if someome simple threw corpse into thrash and it came back go life
DS3 was mostly dull shades of grey everywhere with a bit of fire effects sprinkled inbetween. DS1 visual style on the other hand has this unique "wet mossy stone wall" look that made the Depths, New Londo and forests look so atmospheric.
Late to the party BUT in DS1 when you drain water of the New Londo, you can see a sea of corpses. This adds a lot to the lore of the people that got drowned in order to stop the abbys from spread. Meanwhile in Elden Ring in random ass Castle Morne there is like x10 times more corpses but the castle doesn't even look like it can support such number of people. There is so much dead bodies and it doesn't even tell a good story. It's treated like a grass, flowers and MF BARRELS just to fill scenery with something so people on the twitter won't make stupid ass posts about how ER has no graphics... I still like ER visuals tho. I like how it's not just "grass is green, sky is blue, sun is yellow and here is dad, mummy and me next to the house". I like how sky is in different colors when you enter different places. Like when you are in Limgrave the sky is green, when you're in Caelid the sky is red or even in MF blue themed Raya Lucaria sky is not in ordinary blue but in this violet magical feeling color. Yet people still say Elden Ring is BEHIND the "green grass, blue sky, mom and dad and me" looking games.
Or reviewers who say "plays like a PS2 game" as a negative point. Like: some of the best games came out during the PS2 era and you pick that as a negative?
Don't even need to go further than that honestly. And every now and then since it's release I enjoy rewatching cutscenes from MGS4 cuz they're just too good. Not to mention Revengeance is one of the best action games in existance that blows away so many of today's games and still looks amazing graphically.
Another game from 2015 that looks crazy good and runs a thousand times better than generic 'realistic' modern games is Batman Arkham Knight, and The Witcher 3 too is a valid game to list along these But yeah MGS:V runs so well, great optimization overall... and if you notice, the textures arent THAT high resolution and kinda blury still, but the thing is that it's so well directed and consistent at it that you dont even care, just like the great games of old and stylized titles
It's actually well optimized due to being able to run on the PS3 and 360, but doesn't mean it is ideal. Including the PS4 and Xbox One have been underpowered since 2014-2015. ._.
I don't think we need to exceed past the point of detail that RDR2 has. That's it. Stop pushing the benchmark. Things will taper out. Red Dead 2 is an amazing looking game. It looks like a PS5 title. If that game released today, nobody would complain. If you want to push fidelity, don't fly too close to the sun
To me 3D graphics on a level of PS2 are still good enough. Now imagine having something like MGS2 or MGS3 without worrying about computing power for frame rate, size of 3D environment, AI level, additional mechanics, etc.
@@kordelas2514 I see where you're going with that, but I think the PS2 might be one step too early. Some of those games did actually look like shit. I'd say the Xbox 360 era of games is a good medium, you've got a handful of pretty realistic games in there, but a lot more stylized games because it still makes sense. The PS2 was great, but name a game that you couldn't see textures stop in straight lines in most scenes. I will concede with the styling of the Xbox 360 era of games though, why do they all have piss shaders? Why was that a trend? Did anybody approve of that? Or even the Bloom lighting, get outta here with that shit.
@@fleetingimmersion I did not say all PS2 games, but specifically MGS2 and MGS3 because aesthetically they still look great as 3D games. That is why I would like to see games based on these aesthetics instead of similar games with more advanced graphics. I would just use additional computing power for other stuff. BTW what do you mean by "textures stop in straight lines in most scenes"?
I bought "Faith the unholy trinity" recently and I cannot fathom how genious is the game design with graphics where I can count the pixels on the screen and the controls consisting of only 5 buttons - the arrow keys and a space bar, and I'm still having a lot of fun with it.
B*llshit, I'll pick tlou2 as an example. They want to make a realistic game in 3D, you have to create a believable city and mix it up with level design. I'll give you a simple answer. AAA games are made by people that floats in a whole different universe from indie developers until things gets subtle, more subtle, too subtle. Until you need to be able to read between the lines and not above them (like most indies). Indeed Indies are easy to read and understand. In most of the case it's because they're toony. And toons smash in the face of the audience what they want to communicate it means that you're forced to read it's deep. In the case of tlou2 being able to slighty understand how they created that Hillcrest part just playing it. It's mindblowing, even more, I think that I likes tlou2 more than any indie I played, including Undertale, Outerwilds, to the moon, omori erc.. I don't apply that to each AAA games, of course, I generally prefer indies too, and that makes games like tlou2 even more hard to find.
Focusing on high graphical fidelity can also lead to the graphics actually being painful to look at in motion, due to optimisations that need to be made to actually get the games to run. Think games which look gorgeous when you're just admiring the environment, but have aggressive pop-in when moving because they just can't display enough at once to hide it. That at least may be a thing of the past soon with Nanite and similar tech, but as long as we focus on cutting edge graphics there's always corners that need to be cut because the machines of the time simply couldn't run these games otherwise.
Reminder that Red Faction Guerrilla, the game with the BEST destruction physics of all time, came out 15 years ago and we still haven't gotten anything like it ever since.
Red Faction is one of my favorite games of all time. Demolishing EDF outposts with my Hammer of Justice™️ was immensely fun! I loved the soundtrack, too. 🖖😎
Not just in visuals. Making a game have too realistic gameplay mechanics without a very good reason (like it being the design of a game like survival games or tactical shooters but still), it'll just make the game tedious. I'm a newbie solo developer who's gradually working on some stuff and not long ago, i decided to go with what looks and plays good over realism. Games are meant to be an escape from reality anyway and there are too many of the realism chasers that they've mostly forgotten fun stuff. Plus these high end graphics ain't friendly to computer hardware to the point that even consoles get frame drops.
Personally, I do like realistic elements in games regardless if the art style or overall design of one isn't realistic itself. Like for example, the protagonist of Persona 5 using their IC card or student pass to get through the ticket gates in the subway, or just how NPCs walk around and interact with the world & each other in Sleeping Dogs (granted that game is fairly realistic in other ways but not to the point of overriding the experience). I guess that falls under "attention to detail" but that should always be a bonus to a decent if not great game foundationally. Where we've gone wrong is making those details the focal point of any project above gameplay and well, thats how you get your project labled as a "tech demo".
Thankfully there are more people like you. Even some who worked for big studios. And they make interesting games. Graphics on a level of PS2' MGS2/3 are good enough for visual presentation. But now additional computing power can be used for better frame rate, AI level, larger environments, additional mechanics, etc.
There is market for more realistic games, like Arma is quite popular but it has gemplay. But not everything have to be super realistic, so many games would benefit from being less realistic but devs don't do that. What Baldur's Gate 3 need high end realistic graphics for? You cast magic and shit, it's fantasy game
@@lllIIllIllllIIIIl Jurnalists from Vulture and IGN stated back then that the early development of the game started in 2010/2011. When Dan Houser was interviewed by Vulture, he said that by late summer of 2011, he had a "broad outline and rough flow of the game defined", and that RDR2's recording sessions began in 2013 and lasted a total of 2,200 days. Also Ivan Pavlovich, Rockstar’s music supervisor, said: "We have 192 interactive mission scores, and we thought about the music constantly from the time we brought in [composer] Woody Jackson in 2015".
As a 90s kid i never care(d) about graphics; What matters are fun/artstyle/atmosphere/playability/immersion; And yap the most immersive games i played had mostly "bad" graphics..
The word you’re looking for is “soul” modern games just completely lack it. Older games had the task of attempting to become a blockbuster, without the guidance of preexisting genres paving the path. It was a creativity boom.
That's why art style is far superior, why animate the exact sweat on a character's face when you could do some really cool environmental storytelling. It's exactly why Bioshock will age better than any new COD game because so much detail is put into their environments and you really get the impression of a world that once existed.
@gimmeyourrights8292 best examples I can think of is racing games Any racing game that touted realism in the early 2000s now look and feel like complete crap compared to the modern counterparts Like GT4 vs GT7 or Dirt 2 vs Dirt Rally 2.0
@gimmeyourrights8292 exactly lol I mean there is some exception ofc like Mafia II and Dead Space 2 & 3 have held up immaculately for their age despite going for the realistic aesthetic You can't say the same for most games though Like Crysis? My God have the originals aged poorly despite being peak realism and a test of graphics at one point or The Witcher 2 which damn near looks like a high fidelity PS2 title
Woooh, let's go, something I actually know stuff about !! I'm a modder for rdr2, and so I've got quite a bit of experience with the game's files. In rdr2's case, the ginormous file size doesn't come from the size/quality of the textures but from the sheer amount. First of all, each clothing model has 4 to 6 textures. The albedo, the normal map, the material maps (which are roughness, mettalicness, AO, SSS and some other stuff depending on the shader used combined into two textures), then for certain models you'll have two wrinklemaps and wrinklemasks (are used for the wrinkles for anims). the albedo, nm and winklemaps will generally be twice the size of the other textures. Most of the player textures are in 1024 or 512 (size halved for the non ultra settings). Same for most of the important character's textures (specifically those in cutscenes) while all the other generic npcs will use 512² albedo and most of the other ones will be 256² or 128². (during the developpment, all the npc's textures were smushed to 512² and 256² for albedos, and 256² and 128² for the normal and material maps. This was done en mass so all textures now have massive compression artifacts). Overall, the character/clothes textures are roughly 7 Go, give or take. Texture Dictionnary files (*td files that can hold multiple textures at once) take up 50 Gigas (80k texture dictionnary, some holding up to 30 textures). Models take up 14 Gigas (some have embeded low quality textures but point still stands). Collision models (that aren't embed in some other models) take up 8 Gigas. Pre-rendered cutscenes take up 3 Gigas. Unlike what you implied, Animation files are not that big, only 6.5 Gigas (6.6 if you count the cutscene files) Various metadata files (.meta, .*typ, .*mt, .*map) take up only 750 Mo. Navmesh files take up 1.5 Gigas. Language text files (translation and english version) are only 200 Megas. No the thing that actually takes a ton of space in red dead (right after texture files overall) are audio files, with 29 Gigas. (Not surprising when you learn there were 500 Thousand voicelines recorded. Anyway all that to say, even though RDR2 is a massive game, the incredibly high quality of the horse balls shrinking is really not what's taking up the most space. Compare the file optimization to let's say, TLOU (any version) and you'll see how it shine. A coat's textures in rdr2 will take 1.2 Mo (1024² textures) when in TLOU it would take 21 Mo because the textures aren't merged together and each tiny detail has it's own texture. The rage engine is incredibly well optimized and so is RDR2. In the end, my point is that although rdr2 is 100 or so Gigas big, had it been made by activision it would have been twice that.
I don't think the criticism is about the horse balls, but how much unneeded filler graphics is these days and makes gaming less accessible day by day because of AAA companies pushing for realism Not to mention, pushing for realism unironically leads to games becoming dated, stylisation almost always stands the test of time, meanwhile games that try for realism are almost always dated by the next generation of consoles
@@cinnastag i'm sorry but the way he talked about rdr2 made it sound like rdr2 having all of those things (extra animation, extra realism etc) is a bad thing on itself, and i'm sorry but that's completely false. yeah. not every game needs to be as big and detailed as rdr2 but rdr2 being like that is not a problem. not everyone likes a really simple and straight forward game. i like me some doom action from time to time but i also want to take it slow and relax while playing games like rdr2 if 3a studios looked at rdr2 and said "we also must make our games as detailed as possible" then this is on them. not rdr2. also, you said that his point with the rdr2 bit was "how much unneeded filler graphics is these days and makes gaming less accessible day by day because of AAA companies pushing for realism" which is false. as the guy commented above, the texture and visual aspects of rdr2 aren't that big. the big file size comes from the share amount of everything in that game. when you move around, or you are in a high spot, rdr2 looks amazing but that's because of the art direction and how well things blend together. hell. from distance, sceneries look like they could photos from real life, but the moment you stop and look at the objects around you, you will notice that they are not that high quality. so... yeah. him implying, that the unneeded filler graphics makes gaming less accessible while talking about rdr2 is just bullshit. again. the reason why rdr2 looks this good is because of good art direction, not extremely high-fidelity graphics. without a good art direction, even a stylized game can look like shit.
I just... OH MY GOD. I, with all due respect, vehemently hate people that complain about graphics in games. All it does is push game makers to make all of their games, nearly entirely anti-low power computers.
The publishers' only selling argument nowadays are just "Yo look at how good this rabbit you'll never even pay attention to looks! The game is 80$ tho" while indie games are genuinely fun, maybe Hollow Knight's graphics aren't good, but the ambience, the style, the gameplay is incredibly good. You'll never be able to beat an indie game developper that actually play games for the gameplay with a team of multimillionaire storywriters and overworked developpers.
@@DiegoAlejanP Sorry, i didn't mean bad graphics in this way, I was just saying they didnt spend millions of dollars to make it realistic! (Ps: your english is very good! :D )
My mom hates Minecraft just for that reason, i tried to argue with her sm about this but ended up realizing shes just "squarephobic", seriously, she hates anything that is square, even sees squares where theres none, so i gave up. Minecraft graphics aren't bad, but they have their own style that they improve upon throughout the years. So if you compare Minecraft today with Minecraft alpha versions, yes, its better for sure, but the style's still the same.
Uhhh what? Minecraft does have bad graphics. And Minecraft's entire world is quite literally made of gigantic visible pixels. . None of that makes Minecraft a bad game though.
I think about this a lot. Like, imagine what could be done if you made a game with halo CE graphics, and put the rest of all that power modern machines have towards gameplay features. You could probably create something insanely massive, yet it would still probably work just fine on lower end machines.
I think the best summary criticism that can be made of this problem is "at this point just make a movie" if so much effort and money has to go into what I have to see that it surpasses the effort and money that goes into what I can play then we might as well make a hyper-realistic CGI animated series like that "love, death and robot" episode about werewolves in the army you're absolutely right, this obsession with graphics and details is ruining the idea of a video game which yes, it's video but above all it's also a game
How fitting to see Prey in here. ""There was no way I wanted to come back to triple-A, making another thing where you focus 90 percent of your efforts on having the feet not sliding on the floor. This is not what I'm making games for." Raf Colantonio, Arkane Studio's founder and gaming's Last Action Hero. After having left the very studio he founded, and after starting anew with Wolfeye Studios.
Games have had the same generic "next-gen" graphics for decades yet for some reason you still have to buy a new PC every 3 years. There's no doubt in my mind that hardware companies are manipulating the decisions of AAA companies in some way.
@@redblue5140nah, not the hardware companies alone, but marketing companies and heads of studios forcing the highest "quality graphics" like an e-peen contest on who can make a PC melt faster. I mostly play old games, but tried Alan wake 2 runs great except the load times, since apparently it needs an SSD or you spend 3 minutes in load screens each time one appears and have to move very carefully or you can fall through the floor since that part of the map did not load yet haha. Still enjoying the game which either says the game is great or I am crazy. Certainly too poor to buy a new hd.
Hey man, I understand your perspective. Of course I like and want stylized games as well and I don't think graphics should be the end all be all that dictates what games are worthwhile, however, you seriously need to consider that different people like games for different reasons. Some play games to feel like they are immersed in a different setting and seriously need graphical fidelity to achieve that feeling. I'm not saying you can't feel immersed in stylized games as well but different projects require different things, and for some projects good graphics do add a lot of value for certain players. There's clearly a big demand for it since games keep pushing the limits and still remain profitable. All I'm saying is that even if the graphics don't matter to you and certain others, it doesn't mean they are "ruining games" for everyone.
I agree with you. A lot of times they make this comparison that it's either graphics or gameplay, as if devs can't do both. Engines like Unreal make good graphics stupid easy to pull off. A lot of issues with any industry in the west is almost always vapid consumerism. People with good incomes don't care about a 70$ price tag, they buy what they want and create demand even if there shouldn't be. I personally love games with really impressive simulation, whether that's good graphics simulation or physics or what not, it's always amazing, because I play games to be immersed in a world.
How about instead of using the processing upgrades for rendering every nanometer of facial hair, we used it to make a game where you can fight the entire population of on a single map with mid-quality models and textures?
They kind of did this with a Ps3 FPS game. Huge 256 player battles with graphics that range between the quality of a Ps2 and early Ps3 titles. God I miss that game. MAG
Postal 2, Fallout 4, and Rimworld have entered the chat: Edit: ignore this if you mean textures and models, as in graphical rendering, mostly, besides in Fallout 4, as Postal 2 shows it's age, even in 4k, but Rimworld can be modified with significantly more graphical rendering intensive textures, even if the game is extremely cpu intensive, as well.
as a graphics artisti can say, most people have no idea what they're talking about. they confuse graphical fidelity with photorealism or have the delusion that cartoony means it should run on anything, also those hairs youre talking about arent actually geometry, its a shader, most eyelashes are baked to single planes and really dont add much to the draw time. lots of assets and geo and lights do.
ill add to this that artists generally dont really work that much harder to make high poly assets, usually its the baking down and retopologizing that costs most time. usually they start with a high poly model and bake the geometry detail down to lower geometry
@@soap_off depending on wether the amount of drawn objects, lights and effects increases this can add to the drawtime, but simply moving an object around taxes the cpu more than the gpu.
My dad complains about games the whole time he’s playing them if the graphics aren’t absolutely photo-realistic, it’s really a shame because he misses out on a lot of really fun games just because he doesn’t like the look of them
Weird, because if I'm presuming correctly that your dad had gamed much of his life, he should've enjoyed some games from the dawn of the 3D gaming era.
@@h8GW He’s always going on about only really wanting to see how far graphics can go, he’s always looking forward and never back when it comes to gaming if that makes sense? He said something about since he grew up around the time gaming started he’s seen it evolve over time, and so he only wants to see the new stuff?? Don’t know if any of that was clear I felt like I was rambling quite a bit there but yeah
My silent generation Grandmother refused point blank to watch Toy Story one Christmas because it wasn't realistic. She liked Finding Nemo for some reason though. Lol
He must've experienced some terrible trick from his parents, to manipulate him into following the family rules, or whatever.. bottom line is: growing up, he probably expected to see flying cars, lazers and holographic computers, and absolutely can't stand being lied to.
Back in the 90s, when PlayStation and Nintendo 64 were competing for graphical superiority, we used to discuss every aspect of every game- which one had better graphics, which one played better. We often faced the challenge of game publishing, especially those of us who grew up in the 90s. Games were hard to publish, and companies were just starting to establish themselves. The games weren't patchable, so the final product needed to be as bug-free as possible. The development cycle was around 2 to 4 years, and companies were much smaller than they are today. What I mean is that today, we have a large number of games available, including many great ones that may never achieve financial "success." This was also true in the past, but there were far fewer titles to choose from back then. Now, it seems like everything is about pushing the limits in every aspect. While this did happen before, the scale and intensity are much greater today.
The thing I hate the most with realistic style is how unoriginal it is. I mean, Minecraft for example, it doesn't have the best graphics but it's easily recognizable, perhaps one of the most recognizable styles of videogame indrustry. I want games where you can show me an isolated item and know where is from.
false.. It's like saying that movies sucks and cartoons are better because they are more recognizable, cartoons are appealing for kids because they're incisive, for kids it's hard to understand the style of a movie, camera movements, shots, subtle things that the author have or likes to add and personally it's far more interesting than any indie, you can look what's behind and read it instead of just having over the top characters/gameplay that except in some cases NEVER left me with mouth open like the uncharted 4 grappling hook or the game in a single shot whitout cuts that god of war was. And I hope they will continue doing that
@@omegaomega4036 the issue with graphics that aim at realism is that they quickly look outdated, while graphics that aim for a specific style will age much better because they don't compete against newer games with "better" graphics. Even worse when graphics is all they have, when the gameplay and story aren't anything especially unique and there are dozens or hundreds of games that do exactly the same, but either play better, look better, or both. I mean we all agree that Crysis is the best game ever, right? It looked incredible back in 2007, with graphics so good, hardware at the time couldn't even run it. On the other hand, the gameplay isn't anything special. The story isn't anything special. 'And even graphically there are many better looking games.
@@HappyBeezerStudios Final fantasy 1 looks old compared to ff6 just after 5 years and ff6 looks old compared to chrono trigger just after a year, but now chrono trigger is still modern, because the industry that brings innovation is not doing pixel art anymore. A game with realistic graphics ages in a worse way because some developers push the limits again and again, that's not the case of game like Assassions creed but it's the case of games like tlou or rdr2. Yet, old games are still solid like Uncharted 2 or GTA4. Crysis is amazing, I would compare it to Halo3 or Bioshock of the same year, it can be your favorite game but I think there are games at his level
@@omegaomega4036 I assume we really have to wait for games of the future to be able to properly judge today's games. And Ironically I've bought just 2 games released in the last 8 years, both being niche games that got me through their gameplay, lore, and artstyle.
@omegaomega4036 The person stated an opinion they had, talking about what they hate the most... And you said false. Lmao. Read. Comprehend. THEN reply. Melon.
I fully agree. This whole realism obsession is ruining games. They are better off going an unrealistic artistic route.I miss older game designs SO MUCH. All of these art styles & game types don't need to just disappear. All because game tech has advanced they act like video games are "progressing" It doesn't feel like video games are progressing? How can gaming be so out of touch with good artistic direction & game design? I don't know why there's such a lack of different types of games being made now? I just really hope console gaming wakes up and starts having fun again. Where we start seeing a bunch of games coming out again. Where we see games that aren't afraid of taking risks, embracing the crazy, embracing the wacky. Remember all the different types of previous games? They had so much success and gaming should be tapping back into that! I cannot stand this corporate, sanitized, clean room feel that a lot of these games from our current generation has. It basically feels like 95% of the game industry has been taken over by people who have no idea what a good game is because they don't play video games and didn't play games growing up. That's how a lot of games from our current game industry feels. Where THE Passion! We need to have passion make it's way back into game development in order for gaming to truly flourish. When I was growing up in the 90's, the future of gaming seemed amazing! It wasn't just about graphics. It was about physics effects, art styles, having a range of gameplay modes, gameplay mechanics, damage effects, environmental interaction, engaging AI to play against in single player mode, CPU bots in offline modes, just good AI in games campaigns. Current video games focus way too much on graphical nitpicking. It seems they forgot how much players enjoyed physics effects & other aspects that make games fun. Quirky graphics can work, if a creative art style is used. Add engaging CPU AI, gameplay modes, the list goes on.. idk what happened?
I swear this happens in every media. Every time you gain artistic freedom, you find the same steps. There'll first be experimentation (figuring out how things work), improvements in quality over time, quest for realistic fidelity, then slowly going back to the core of the artistic expression. This happened in painting, cgi in movies, drawing, and now in videos games slowly. Some media aren't there yet but I can get they will follow the same trend. It's not inherently wrong to want a piece of media to be more realistic, it needs to happen to figure out what's actually important and for that specific media. Cool vid btw :)
Dude I've been saying this a long time. I have a couple more points: I think this design trend has actually led to the opposite, where games are intentionally being less realistic because they cannot compete, thus we see a bunch of cartoony games. This leads to an increased need for optimization settings or reduces the player base based on their hardware. Older titles were designed to look amazing with graphical limitations, but turning the graphics down on a modern game will often look terrible.
Realism does get a bit boring after while, atleast for me. It's impressive, hard to make, and times consumming yeah but after seeing it so much, I just kinda wish they went with a different their own art style sometimes :/
@@TheMrCHELL Graphics always did matter and that is why people did go to the arcades even if they had a console in their homes. Arcades were years ahead of home consoles. Also old marketting in magazines, TV and so on always talked about graphics too, about that new console or game with beautiful or/and "realistic" graphics and things like that. The rest, this "art matters more", "old games worried moremabout gameplay" talk are people that forgot about the past or trying tomfeel like an "old school badass"
@@TheMrCHELL Graphics always did matter and that is why people did go to the arcades even if they had a console in their homes. Arcades were years ahead of home consoles. Also old marketting in magazines, TV and so on always talked about graphics too, about that new console or game with beautiful or/and "realistic" graphics and things like that. The rest, this "art matters more", "old games worried moremabout gameplay" talk are people that forgot about the past or trying tomfeel like an "old school badass"
Not just the graphics. They're trying to make more realistic mechanics, too, and in the end, just making more boring games. It's hard to find a great AAA game nowadays. BTW, Prey is a masterpiece! Love that game.
Wanna have some bloody fun? Get urself an emulator or a direct copy of Metal Arms - Glitch in the System or Bioshock 1 from to 2007.. it indeed looks better and more immersive then many modern AA titles. And runs on 5x the fps and has actual STORY
personally I hate the focus on graphics nowadays because the game requirements go up dramatically, personally I don't have the best PC and most new games are not playable on my PC sadly I don't understand why they push graphics so badly nowadays, not everyone own RTX 4090 to see all the details and most people play on medium graphics anyway because GPUs are really expensive and the fact that games are big like 150gb half of that size can't be even experienced only very small amount of players can really see all the details also there's problem with consoles, se should be playing in 60fps or 120fps because new consoles were meant to support that but because games push graphics so badly not all games work in such fps so we are still stuck on 30fps which is really sluggish and not enjoyable for me
want an amazing experience with a game? Ultrakill is right there, along with Dusk, basically anything made by newblood. The graphics arent the most realistic or advanced but its such an amazing game, literal proof that graphics dont matter
I can't believe someone has the exact same opinion about the modern gaming industry as I do and made a well-made video about it! None of my friends think the way I do, so it's very refreshing to find your video. Thanks for the wonderful video.
Same here! I literally spoke to someone the other day about how Little Nightmares is going to age so much better than whatever hyper realistic game that comes out today. A lot of the realistic games I see sometimes might has well have been made by the same exact group and even belong to the same game series. There's nothing to distinguish the games (graphics wise) from each other.
People who demand realistic graphics the only reason they'd buy it, don't really deserve even a mention Imo. I don't demand stylized art all the time, just do whatever that feels fits your games artistic direction.
Then they wonder why not many people are buying their game for _only_ $70, but it’s because it’s you also need a $4000 GPU to even run it on low graphic settings
Totally agree. Im tired of games having cool graphics just because. I hate how they are so bloated because the studios just want to flex how many 100h work weeks they had to put their devs through.
Graphics always did matter and that is why people did go to the arcades even if they had a console in their homes. Arcades were years ahead of home consoles. Also old marketting in magazines, TV and so on always talked about graphics too, about that new console or game with beautiful or/and "realistic" graphics and things like that. The rest, this "art matters more", "old games worried moremabout gameplay" talk are people that forgot about the past or trying tomfeel like an "old school badass"
@@TheMrCHELL Graphics always did matter and that is why people did go to the arcades even if they had a console in their homes. Arcades were years ahead of home consoles. Also old marketting in magazines, TV and so on always talked about graphics too, about that new console or game with beautiful or/and "realistic" graphics and things like that. The rest, this "art matters more", "old games worried moremabout gameplay" talk are people that forgot about the past or trying tomfeel like an "old school badass"
It's the diminishing returns: Going from the NES to the SNES was MIND BLOWING. The introduction of Voodoo graphics: Same! But today you have to hook up your Playstation to a nuclear plant to get an upgrade you cannot even see with the naked eye.
I grew up with Playstation all my life, I had the original XBOX, the PS3 and the PS4 and only recently did I get a Nintendo Switch and I've never been the same. I'm actually PLAYING games instead of running to a mission to watch a cutscene, only for me to run again to the next destination. I still enjoy my Uncharteds, and God of Wars, but now only as a kind of 'privilege' thing in the sense that if I ever just wanna play casually. I mean I've only owned Breath of The Wild for less than a year and I got three times the playtime compared to all my PS4 games combined that I've owned for years. I just wish my dad can realize this. He's always looking for the most realistic game on the market and complains why I am so into "baby games" on the nintendo.
Eh, I'm opposite. I've replayed Uncharteds and God of Wars multiple times but couldn't stand Breath of the Wild for more than a few hours. Also it's graphic style hurts my eyes after a while. I not sure if it's the contrast or what but it's extremely unappealing to me and causes some discomfort.
@@Carnivius_Prime could it be fault of the switch screen? I mean compared to a tv or monitor its a lot smaller, so your eyes have to put more effort to see the things, i never played with a switch so idk
@@LaloBalteus No it's the aesthetic of Breath and Tears. I've had no issue like that with other Switch games on TV or it's own screen. oddly enough the last time I had real issues with playing video games was my old N64 which had such blurry graphics and choppy frame rates I would quickly get migraines and nausea. Nintendo doesn't like me. :O
@Carnivius_Prime N64 had blurry graphics? N64 was a powerhouse, and didn't suffer from blurryness like the PS1. I urge you go load a PS1 and N64 game and correct yourself.
There’s a reason why intentionally old school style graphics games are still being scooped up like hot cakes. The underlying game is fun and fits with the aesthetic. Whether it be retro pixel art or crude early 3D. If the amount of time spent on squeezing ever last polygon of details out of a game was instead spent on making a the game itself more fun and content rich, we’d be in a better place.
this is why the bioshock trilogy will always be my favorite game series because not only is it artistic and visually stunning with its art deco style, but it is also one of the best stories that also has some of the best world building/lore.
Ah another one who KNOWS Wanna have some bloody fun? Get urself an emulator or a direct copy of Metal Arms - Glitch in the System or Bioshock 1 from to 2007.. it indeed looks better and more immersive then many modern AA titles. And runs on 5x the fps and has actual STORY
Agreed 100%. For me immersion comes from art style and not photo-realism. For example Vampire: The Masquerade is an ancient game but I still get immersed because the environment fits the theme. Same goes with Half-Life.
Graphics were good enough in the early aughts. By the early tens, they were quite good. Everything since then has mostly resulted in longer download times.
I've always wished that we stayed at about that graphical level. I mean, I'd be happy with PS3 era, too, but I've always wondered what kind of games we could experience if we had stuck with PS2/GCN level graphics, but benefitted from modern technology.
Tech go forward and there will always be a large slice of developers that wants to test the limits of it, graphics is fascinating and it's also fascinating how they reach new peaks (tryharding) like god of war or rdr2. you could just say you don't like realistic graphics, I can agree that ps3 graphics was cool, and I agree that some developers should stop pushing graphics too much. Exceot some, like naughtydog.
Ok, I agree, I still to this day play doom 1993, and what I like about it is how you don’t have to wait twenty minutes to play a ten minute map, no you are launched right in to the gameplay, if it has a loading time I have not seen it
0:04 i mean yea the GAMEplay is the most important part of a GAME but story is very close second If the gameplay is 10/10 but the story is 0/10 you can just ingore the story But 10/10 story and 0/10 gameplay the gameplay will distract you from the story so much that it makes the entire experience miserable Graphics(art style to be more specific) is just a modifier like if there is literally no art obviously that a x0 because there is no game but when the artstyle blows your head it elevate the entire experience(aka multiply the enjoyment) but no matter how big the the Graphics modifier small number(game)×big number(Graphics)=small number(enjoyment) But that also tells you that you cant ignore it because it goes the otherway aswell this time its big number×small jumber=small number
yeah, if the graphics are shite but the gameplay is incredible fun, it's still fun. But if the graphics are amazing, but the gameplay is bad, it's still bad to play.
personally one of my favorite parts about games is how realistic they look AND behave. i'll never experience being a male cowboy riding a horse in 1800's America while getting shot at by bounty hunters, miscalculating dimensions and trying to pass below a tree with a branch just low enough to knock me off my horse, but in red dead 2 i can do that. i can go fishing or hunting for hours, or live in a dystopian techy neon city and engage in fast paced vehicular combat (cyberpunk) these experiences are what everyone, not just gamers, look forward to the most. and that's only further proven by all the rapidly advancing VR technology and GTA 6, which is probably gonna be one of the highest grossing pieces of media in history
Yep that's one of the reasons I love games from the 2010's, cause they have good enough graphics and art style and having a good solid gameplay while not being 300 GB's .
While I've always been a proponent of stylized graphics over photorealism, I liked the RDR2 simulation stuff because it made me feel like a real wild west outlaw with all the tedium that would come with in real life/history as opposed to living a wild west fantasy, though I fully understand that most people don't want the same simulation level experience from a game that I want
I 100% agree with you on RDR2, it had a hyper focus on realism to the point of being a chore to play & I ended up dropping it. We're in the "Every game must be Crisis" age of gaming, where the focus is on absolute visual detail that the general consumer that *plays* games don't care about.
We have truly peaked in graphics; now it's time to put all the resources into optimization. As a broke gamer who bought a work laptop rather than a gaming-oriented one, I am surprised at how beautifully DMC5 is running. And to put it simply, DMC5 is a very graphically stunning game. It's able to retain its visual clarity even in low settings with a very high frame rate; truly, the RE engine is a blessing to broke gamers.
Graphics still have a LOOOOOONG way to go. If we are just talking about looking realistic in still then, yeah, we are kind of close, but all the simulation and physics, and complex NPC's (not the gimmicky NVidia AI tech demos), and interactivity is still very far behind. I agree with how efficient the RE engine is. DMC5 looks gorgeous.
i never understood this... if video games are supposed to be a different reality, then why making it so close to the actual reality? if the reality is banal, making games realistic will make them banal, which just completely misses the point
There is a difference between high fidelity and high quality. I don't mind high quality texures and some light raytracing so long as the game uses them to enhance its style. However, making everything high fidelity or "realistic" breaks immersion far more often than lower fidelity.
What makes me sad is that this push for “realistic graphics” means we get way less game with distinctive artstyle For every Hi-Fi rush we get 10 “realistic graphics” games which straight up don’t have an artstyle “Realistic graphics” games can have character designs, environmental design, world design, weapon design, enemy design etc. BUT they will never really have an artstyle
I actually like the horse balls shrinking in the cold in RDR2. I don't consider that a graphical detail, more of an environmental detail really. Little things like that make the video game world feel more alive and it seems like we sacrifice more of those environmental details as graphics themselves are pushed to be more detailed.
@@VladRadu-tq1pg Seriously. I only got a few hours into the game, but I didn't even notice that they HAD balls. These folks need to be kept away from the zoos.
Not only that: realism means the gameplay will be cut down to fit the graphics, instead of a graphic which adapt to the gameplay. Rdr2 with all those animations forces the players to a gameplay so slow. Instead an unleashed animation lead to a feeling of freedom, like in Elden Ring, where if I want to try a jump, I can try it whenever the heck I want, not just where that animation is permitted.
I agree that it's not for everyone and could offer more player freedom but there are people that enjoy slower-paced games. It's all about whether you find it immersive or tedious.
people are still waiting for a half life 3 20 years after half life 2 came out, I really doubt the same thing will happen for a game like horizon forbidden west, which is hellbent on perfect graphics, and nothing else.
"Al draagt een aap een gouden ring, het is en blijft een lelijk ding!" This is a Dutch idiom. It means: "Even if a monkey wears a golden ring, it still is and will always be an ugly thing." It is intended to say that something that or someone who is ugly (either on the outside or inside) will never truly be beautiful (in or out), no matter what they do. This phrase can be explained by taking it literally: giving a monkey (which are/were commonly seen as ugly) a golden ring will not make it significantly prettier. If the gameplay is shite, then that grafisch fidelity doesn't matter.
Graphics always did matter and that is why people did go to the arcades even if they had a console in their homes. Arcades were years ahead of home consoles. Also old marketting in magazines, TV and so on always talked about graphics too, about that new console or game with beautiful or/and "realistic" graphics and things like that. The rest, this "realism is bad", "art matters more", "old games worried more about gameplay" talk are people that forgot about the past or trying tomfeel like an "old school badass". And Nintendo always tried to do better graphics than the others, with the Nintendo, Snes, N64, Gamecube, but because of some weird choices (like using carts in the CD era), they failed with the N64 and Gamecube. It's not that Nintendo was right, Nintendo just failed and had to change things.
No, you are looking at it in a vacuum. Nintendo pushed for better graphics when graphics were still bad, but at the end of the 6th generation and during the 7th generation, graphical fidelity became more than good enough, which is when Nintendo decided to stop pushing for higher graphical fidelity. It's also when budgets ballooned for AAA games. And would you look at that the switch outsold the PS4 while coming out 3 years later with games that look like they belong on the GameCube and PS3.
Nintendo was wrong. They killed themselves with 3rd party support with a nonstandard controller with the Wii and limited RAM. Even if the hardware was selling more than any console, there was no practical way to port standard games for the wiimote and the limited processing power. The Wii U was way too expensive for what it offered. The Switch offers portability, had a desirable exclusive launch game, is really a 3DS successor (pokemon), and it has a standard controller layout with no Playstation competition. The Switch's biggest issues are the game carts are too expensive to manufacture, has a soft plastic screen that is very easy to scratch, and their controller sticks are terrible. The switch also has a huge amount of ports with not very many original quality games, but it has been getting slightly better year after year. No one is really making original heavy hitters on any platform like during 2002-2009 was getting, so xbox 360/ps3 are still outclassing modern systems and their top games.
@@JohnDoe11VII The switch is full of excellent first party exclusives. More than the PS4, PS5, Xbox One and Xbox Series S/X combined. And it also has many 3rd party AAA games. The sticks are indeed worse, though they are good enough, but if you dock it and get a standalone controller it's great. The 32GB game cards in the switch literally cost cents to produce. I'm pretty sure the picture on the cards cost as much as the card itself. Nowadays memory cards are ultra cheap. 128GB memory card costs less than a 2$ to produce.
RDR2 is a genuine prime example of absolute masterful optimization while retaining an incredible sense of realism. There is bluriness and LOD work, but they are done masterfully.
I agree with the underlying message of this video, but have to say, at 1:22, there is a clear difference there, that's purely because of resolution, but ultimately that's what was needed with the PS5's processing power, 4K resolution is the main worth of that console. But yeah, on the side rendering frames, vertices, shadows and everything other thing devs have created-, while it's improved and can hold more data, it's still in the same vein of how the ps4 renders games, we're still largely using the same game engines we had when developing on ps4, just newer variations with added features and optimisations (+rtcing)- comparing that to the ps3 to ps4 jump tho, that was A LOT that changed. So basically I had two points there and they got kinda collated into one, i'm genuinely too tired rn to be untangling it for anyone, but i don't believe it's too hard to figure out what my train of thought was, but yeah, just some info i think is correct, and wanted to share with anyone who find it interesting,,, what else are comments for :))
