An interesting subject that should be explored and spoken about with said developers. Your right it would be one of the biggest heart breaks of your life
This is why retro gaming is taking off so much and emulators are in the spotlight more and more. People are discovering the old stuff for the first time and realizing it's amazing. Ps2 anyone?
Retro gaming is backward. Most new games are good, unless you only look for good looking games. Look for Early Access Games that are promising and grab them when they are on sale. Most strategy games in many genres are improving over time. You don't want to play the old ones.
Players don’t want better and better graphics. Players want better and better aesthetics. That’s why Nintendo games do so well despite not having realistic graphics. They have great aesthetics instead.
Agreed. I like stylized art and it doesn't need to be realistic or gritty. The grittiness of reality is not appealing to me, especially when it is the norm. I think modern Final Fantasy style graphics are as realistic as I would like while balancing stylization. Anymore than that I feel is kind of excessive unless it's like a simulator game based on real things like a city builder or The Sims type games where the realism would be to really simulate something from real life. I tend to prefer anime-style or even chibi games because they tend to have the gameplay that I like more (I mainly like RPGs, simulation, rhythm, cozy games). I also like to make and find graphic mods, which in a game with realistic graphics is extremely difficult. Another thing... comedy. I find that because stylized graphics allows more freedom of expressions, they can have comedy and other weird things that are entertaining (like Saints Row games), whereas a lot of hyper-realism seems to discourage anything whacky or funny, that also makes characters stand out less, especially in the many games where the only character trait is being mean/sarcastic/rude for no reason other than to be edgy (looking at you Bethesda).
@@knuclear200x This 5 minute video is a bit dated, but it does a decent job of explaining what the difference between graphics and aesthetics is. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5oK8UTRgvJU.htmlsi=_pM9m2fLjUiMSFuR
I want high consistent frame rates more than anything else. Which is why I only get console exclusives on console. Literally anything else is gonna be the steam version over a console version, 100% of the time
They also tend to age faster... Halo 1 may look almost as blocky as roblox these days but "realistic" games from a decade ago tend to look like ass or generic AF with less memorable gameplay.
Realism is killing game development. It doesn't matter how real the graphics look if the game is terrible. Most games are nothing but walking sims and movies these days.
And much more *appealing* to the eyes. We don't need to be reminded of all the blemishes, skin reddening, and other imperfections of the human face. Heck, most fanart drastically improves each of these characters (like Ellie from The Last of Us).
This isn't really true, they were pushing boundaries with graphics, which is why a lot of games dropped from the 60fps standard of the PS1 down to 30fps. At the time, games like MGS2/3, Gran Tourismo 3/4, God of War2 all had mind blowing graphics for the time (but were also super fun to play).
@@dezfoto7534 they were pushing graphical fidelity, not realistic aspect of it. What we currently got is the realistic aspect, not the fidelity aspect.
Being perfectly honest, all that you need from graphics is that they're - Clear (can you tell what's happening?) - Readable (can you tell what stuff is?) - Performing adequately for what the game is (can you read and react to what's happening fast enough for the game to be reasonable?) (This one is where the technical stuff like frame rates goes) - Not eye-searingly ugly (can you look at this without wanting to remove your own retinas?) (Note that "not photo realistic" doesn't count. I'm talking "crimes against eyeballs" for this one...) Anything else is (or should be) a bonus.
@@Darkslayer289 Fans have even made an improved version of it that looks better and fixes a lot of bugs. Even if you don't like the game, the music is worth listening to. I don't know why, but it quickly gave me a sense of nostalgia. As someone who played Skyrim for over 2000 hours, it was good to go back to where it began. Even Arena, the first game in the series, had so much of the lore that would make it into the later games...
Astro Bot _does_ have high fidelity graphics, though. Even the pack-in game Astro's Playroom was a graphical showcase for the PS5, with beautifully sharp 4K resolution running at a smooth 60 fps with HDR and ray traced reflections. You can see reflections of the world in Astro's metallic face plate. This is why we need to distinguish "realism" from "fidelity." Those don't mean the same thing. You can have non-realistic stylized graphics with high fidelity.
@@hpickettz34gamers today feel like they can only play AAA games to be a legit gamer. Meanwhile people in SNES, Genesis and PS1 days didnt know who the developers of a game was and just loved gaming. Too much developer glazing now
You forgot to list Lost Legacy on PS4. Naughty Dog somehow managed to ship a second Uncharted game on PS4 just a little over a year after Uncharted 4. Now we’ll be lucky if Naughty Dog ship a single brand new game on PS5.
PS6 gets announced, Neil Druckmann goes on stage to say: "We at Naughty Dog proudly present, Last of Us Part 2 Remake 2, this time there are even more high quality textures on Abby's arms. "
Some genres benefit from photorealism, but there are plenty of counterexamples where a more "stylistic" approach works best. Nintendo is a great torchbearer of the more "cartoony" style that still appeals to many of all ages. Mario in photorealistic style would be pretty horrific, just recall the live action movie.
I think the mid-2000s in general was gaming's "edgy" phase, with ones like Shadow the Hedgehog, Twilight Princess, and the first Mario Strikers, to name a few off the top of my head. I'm sure Sony and Microsoft had their examples, but if you ask me, I don't think they've left that edgy phase. Especially if they're still chasing realism.
I disagree. Fun? Sure. For everyone? No. When you try to be for everyone, you end up being for no one. Everyone likes different things. That's why Nintendo makes a wide variety of games across every genre. No one game can be for everyone.
Yes, "games" (plural) being the operating word. One game will be fun for some, and other game will be fun to others. For different reasons on different levels. And that's great. No one will ever create anything that will be "fun" for everyone, just more or less. On the other hand, it would be easier to create something universally not fun. So there's that.
I remember when games were made to be fun rather than to be something pretty to look at. Some of these realistic games are very pretty, but they lack fun gameplay. If a game isn't fun, then it fails at being a game in the first place.
Yeah that's not true most graphically good looking games are usually really fun while I can name alot of games thar go a more cartoon approach aren't fun at all
@@redninja3056 You haven't found the right games that are not hyper-realistic, but some of the best games ever made, if you believe that hyper-realism "usually" makes something good, and the opposite does not...
I prefer Video Games having a cartoon or Anime art style instead of having realistic art style since it well be outdated in few years and also Microtransactions and greedy companies like Ea or Activision are killing Gaming industry and not Realism.
i have friends with 4k 240hz TVs, people like that want to play games that'll make use of all the TVs features and don't really care about deep gameplay. As long as they can see cool real life 4K graphics, they're satisfied. And there's a lot of them.
Developers always complain about how expensive making games is, when they CHOOSE to make them expensive. Cut down the graphics a bit. They've peaked at the last gen with the PS4 and Xbox One. You don't need to go hard on them.
@MrSpiritstealer Even indie games are very expensive to make. You have to factor in the developer's time in the cost or even the cost of them paying their bills whilst working on a game. Even simple (decent) indie games can cost upwards of $100k.
They don't really have much choice, do they? Most people will gravitate towards games with better graphics and if competing games already have great graphics then there isn't much choice other than to make great looking games.
@@michalrv3066 Can make good looking games with good game play and mechanics. They do have a choice. There are so, so many modern games that do not have insane fidelity/resolutions that are phenomenally successful. The problem is interference from stake holders and outsiders who do not know jack about what makes a good game or not and changing things to try to appease everybody because it is the new hip thing with unrealistic timelines or constant reboots of the projects. And they keep turning out flops and complain it is the consumers/fans fault. This doubles for movie/tv shows It is not their fault that companies put out inferior products compared to studios with less than half the budget.
Well open world games are mutiple games in one. Open worlds that have great combat like Rage 2 offten have shit open worlds when comes to open worlds the main focus needs to be the open world and what you can do in it.
Not all games are like this, take Red Dead Redemption 2 for example. It offers a great gaming experience along with incredible graphics. So it's upto the developer, chasing graphics is not the problem.
It is a problem, because then the games take too long to develop. The more games you develop in one generation, the more opportunities you have to experiment with gameplay and evolve your ideas in more cycles. So yes, graphics is the easiest way to impress but kills the essentials.
@@kagemara277 well i'd never play a game that looks like a cartoon. including fortinite. maybe when i was a kid. but u don't expect a man to be sitting in a couch playing anime style games. there has to be realism and blood
Stylization>Realism. There’s a reason why Nintendo is selling the best, because almost all of Sony and Microsoft’s exclusives are realistic. There’s no variety in visuals, take a long time to produce, and in Sonys case, feel more like movies than games
@@EusisLandale If that were the case, it would’ve been like the Wii where the sales plummeted after a few years, but the switch is still selling great in Year 8. My point being it’s been long enough where the novelty of the portable aspect has run out, yet it’s still selling well
@@PixelPikmin Nintendo has had the handheld marketshare under their thumb for a long time, of course the switch is successful because it's a handheld, where do you think all the DS and 3DS gamers went? The switch 2 (assuming it's handheld) is gaurenteed to be successful as long as they have games like pokemon and animal crossing. Nintendo's traditional home consoles died over the years for many self inflicting decisions, and they needed to be able to put the burden on the handheld side of the company to survive moving forward. So now all the developers that made handheld games for DS, 3DS, but not for Wii or Wii U, are now making games for the switch and switch 2.
@@micman963tbf this started when Nintendo changed their mindset from competing with specs to providing casual gamers entertaining games for them like how the Wii was praised by the adults or DS when used with cartridges that has cookbooks, e-readers and stuff while still providing gamers the exclusives they want.
Pretty graphics don't equal success,sales or fun.They're a ton of great looking games that are boring, buggy and offer no replay value. If developers concentrated on the core basics of why we buy and play games, fun, they wouldn't spend 10 years making a well polished turd.
Also maybe every game doesn’t need to be 100+ hours to fully complete. I don’t have time anymore as an adult and clearly that model of game isn’t sustainable.
While I agree in principle, I think you're forgetting how few games you used to own as a kid. You don't need to buy and play every games you hear about. Hell, as an adult even a short 8 hour game is probably going to take you several days to complete. I know that's the case for me. A 100-180 hour game might take 3-4 months of daily play to complete. And that's ok if you like the game and the genre. You don't need to buy every game you see and complete it.
@@abraxas1262 same, I consider hours per dollar when buying games, they are not cheap like it used to be, of-course fun is a factor too, if the game is long but not fun, why invest the time?
Even worse, these gains in realism are costing us more & more Hard Drive Space. Last gen the average size of a AAA game was around 60GB, but with Gen9 it's getting more than TRIPPLE that size. Black Ops 6 is confirmed to be over 300GB in size! JUST STOP! PLEASE! We have DATA Limits for crying out loud!
Like the amount of non-realism AAA Sony and Microsoft games that I can think of I can count with two hands. Meanwhile, I need a calculator to count Nintendo's.
Even Nintendo isn't perfect, such as totk taking ages to make. In general their franchises are seeing less frequent games compared to the past. The switch is so successful because Nintendo's competition are x1000 worse than they are.
There are two sides to this: Nintendo's the master when it comes to fun, jovially appealing games, *but they don't make/commission enough* Graphics shouldn't always be a grander focus, *but why pay the same price when other systems run said games better especially if there's a choice?* The Switch's take on handheld is unrivaled, *but compromises are made for high fidelity games and are still sold at the same price*
And that's not even mentioning the fact that stylized games age WAY better than realistic ones. Even just a comparison of the visuals between the gamecube versions of the Windwaker and Twilight Princess demonstrates this completely.
I don't think today's "realistic games" will ever age enough to look bad like what used to be the case, but they definitely lose their sheen of being the brand new cinematic experience very quickly. When he brought up the clip of RDR2, it didn't even register as a "realisic" game to me anymore because technology has just gotten so much better.
Even Megaman Legends 1/2 looks great to this day, basically replicating a simplified animesque style with solid colors instead of overly blurry "detailed" textures They were playstation ONE games.
I actually like both, because they are both stylized and have a consistent aesthetic. But I know what you mean, with some other games that are not stylized and meant to look "realistic". I am thinking more like the difference between Kirby 64 and Goldeneye though they're older N64 games. There's the obvious difference in how expressive the characters are. In Kirby 64 everyone even characters with dot eyes and no mouth like Waddle Dee have very expressive facial animations, and things like the squishiness of characters like Kirby is also clearly expressed.. and nobody actually TALKS in this game, yet there's clearly story and unique character personalities going on. Whereas in Goldeneye, I don't recall them even blinking, it's just a still pixelated photograph pasted on their face, even less personality than in the movies. Style Savvy DS Games have more personality and expression.
I think super realistic graphics look ugly. They look like mud on a moss covered tree/rock, though I think there can be a balance. Ratchet & Clank games, including the latest game, rift apart, as well as games like Kao the Kangaroo, and the upcoming Nikoderiko, have details and textures, but also has several different highly contrasting colors that make it more visually appealing and also make the visuals easier for the player to parse, understand, and react to.
I just don't get why there's such as massive craze for realism in games to being with. Real life is out there for you to experience at any time. To me, games have always been a great way to experience a world that isn't grounded in reality and doesn't have to abide by the rules of the real world.
Some of us can't be outside for no longer than a few minutes. I am one of those people. I remember being younger and it was in the Summer months and having fun outside and getting too hot that I had headaches and vomiting and I drank tons of water too and still that happened. If the temp is above the 70's I can't be out too long. So I like the realism in gaming where I can do that.
Because AAA game studios want to be taken seriously by the broader media industry (for some reason), and they think realism is the only way to do it. And they would probably be right, because the broader media industry is fucking stupid.
Because I can't just do shit irl that I could do in games, and you can like both tbh, I love realism , cartoony style, 2d etc etc, its not like you'll only like one type of games
Lol its just a temporary phase, developers are starting to realize that its not worth it spending most of your budget on the graphics and neglecting everything else. The last few PS5 and Series X showcases all showed games with graphics that are very reminiscent to what games looked like in 2017/ 2018, with very few exceptions, so I guess thats the fidelity that established itself as a sweetspot for being economically feasable while still having meaningfull gameplay behind it. Sorry to disappoint you, graphics nerds.
Considering most AAA games make as much as hundreds if not thousands of indie games in sales I think you should realize you're just the vocal minority.
@@AlucardNoir But indie games also cost a fraction of the budget. Like, a really tiny fraction. Profit is all about weighing earnings against cost, not just looking at earnings alone.
That was because of its complex physics system and vast open world. And both of these are actually similar to graphics in how there’s a recent trend towards including these in every game which ramps up development time and cost. And many people weren’t even happy with the new approach to Zelda, but Nintendo seems to think that open world is flat out superior to restricted exploration rather than just a different gaming philosophy entirely, which is worrying. We‘ll see, anyway.
It’s strange Sony or MS don’t just use one of these 500 person studios to focus on churning out high quality low budget games like Sea of Stars on an annual basis. Divide the massive team up and let each one focus on an idea. Do an RPG, a 2D platformer, a puzzle game, sim game, etc. They could rack of a massive list of exclusives and receive a ton of praise for newfound creativity and nostalgia. Baffling that no one is doing that.
It's called a business, and time and time again it's been proven those types of games don't sell well, so why should sony invest in games like that again when there's hundreds of indie and AA game devs that can do those type of games instead.
@@hpickettz34 Don't sell well? Ever heard of Nintendo and how well they are doing? Did you start gaming yesterday? AAA developers intentionally over spend on their games and then use that as a justification of over pricing them. Indie developers spend 1 to 10 million to make a game and if they earn between 50 - 100 million in exchange, its great business. It means shorter game development times and more games to play for the gamers. Its more fun to buy 3 fun games of 30$ each than spend 100$ on a boring AAA game. AAA developers choosing to spending 500 million on making a game and expecting a single game to make over 1 billion in sales is not smart business as evidenced by flops like suicide squad.
@ishaanmurarka9082 who's Nintendo's competitors again because it isn't ps5, Xbox or pc?, Nintendo sell well because they sell Nintendo games you can't get anywhere else, switch doesn't get the big AAA from 3rd party like gta6.
@@ishaanmurarka9082thats why people buy Nintendo why tf would u get a expensive PC to play that BS if it's what u like nintemdos always there they don't have to add them on console people want to play games like gta6 on
I love great graphics in games. The Last of Us, GoW, Uncharted, Red Dead- these are my personal favorite types of games to play and I honestly can’t see myself getting that involved in indie or Nintendo exclusives partially because of the graphics and how they look. THAT SAID, I don’t think red dead and the like look “realistic”, more like very detailed paintings, and I’m not necessarily looking for total realism in games. I just want games that are beautiful to look at, on top of playing great.
@@Emberblood Both, honestly. That’s why I love cinematic games. But I believe there’s a place for both types of games. Just like indie movies and blockbusters.
@SixTHSUN63 Meh, those graphics are definitely realistic and truth be told their probably not gonna be as impressive in like 10 or 15 years from now.I don't mind a game with great graphics and alot of detail but as time goes on I feel the demand for better graphics will hurt the industry and make consumers less invested,for me I want my games to look nice and artistic but have great gameplay along side it which is why I prefer Nintendo and indies over playable movies that look ALMOST real.
@@DeadPiixxelThere are more things they can do with consoles yet they just havent been bothering for the past 2 generations. I think handhelds are something that companies need to look into.
This has nothing to do with diminishing returns, it's plainly WOKE shit, stupid mechanics people want, micro transactions in some cases and so on. This video and people here are all the problem.
Dude I noticed this after playing the newest Spider-Man Game. They had a whole act that references Web of Shadows. Web of Shadows gameplay is leagues better! This biggest selling point was that now Spider-Man can swing and fight faster than before. Look at any fighting game on the PS2 or even PS3 and you realize how much faster the gameplay and combat is in most of those games, especially Web of Shadows. In Web of Shadows you’re flying through the are like the worlds most acrobatic bullet, the transition from horizontal to vertical combat is fluid, fast and satisfying and is basically what would happen if you combined Spider-Man with DMC and put it in an open world. It was impressive. They had to slow down the movements in new games because theirs so much graphics computing that the games would practically fly apart if you moved faster than the rendering.
This is why I’m very happy with the new Astro Bot game, it’s cute yet looks great with the graphics. I was honestly getting sick of all the games (minus Nintendo’s) nowadays being cinematic & realistic looking. I miss cartoony games like Ape Escape, Sly Cooper & Jak and Daxter, which are all also exclusives, the PS5 needs more games that are exclusive & non-realistic. (Course some series I don’t mind like God of War, Final Fantasy 7, Dead-Space & Resident Evil.)
Games are heading towards a singularity. At what point does graphical fidelity, game size and development time become so large, that companies spend two or more console generations just to make it? How long until it becomes too large that it would be impossible to fit it onto current hardware? We’ve already got games that are 100GB in size. Maybe more, I haven’t checked. How long until the next Terabyte game? That is a scary thought considering 30 years ago, games were Kilobytes in size. If companies don’t start scaling down their games, it will come to the point that the companies doing it will collapse under their own weight. They need to find a way to drastically reduce the size of these games or say “eff it” to graphical fidelity and give us a gorgeous game with stylised graphics. Otherwise the only alternative is a game that is akin to real life that only lasts 30 minutes.
It wouldnt last 30 minutes but 30 years. Each and every graphically gifted game a decade of play time at least. The Better ones will be entire lives to be experienced with each and every playthrough. Like that Roy game from Rick & Morty or the Matrix simulations from the matrix. Its not going to stop and eventually there will only be game hardware companies (Sony Sega MS Nintendo) that own smaller dev studios and no indie dev studios. The ones that stay unfranchised will be rogues. The future is a lot worse than you envision because only a handful of these games will be worth being immersed in unfortunately.
Yes but what about the obvious? Which is that projects at the level of GTA5 or GTA6 are impossible without the contribution of 100's and 1000's of people coordinating and working at it for years and years. I don't know about you but I am happy high effort games like GTA, Red Dead or Witcher series also exist alongside quicker to make AA games or lower effort Indie's made by 1 guy.
Like many times a studio will swing and its a miss like with Starfield or Hellblade 2 but sometimes its a hit or a homerun like the GTA games are or Zelda tears of the kingdom and all those years of hard work by all those people bears fruit and we should be glad they tried.
I always felt that realism was important until i realised it wasn't the "realism" itself but just that good games had enough little nice details to make me feel immersed enough that i thought it felt realistic which is something old games did really well.
Higher fidelity graphics also starts entering the uncanny valley of mechanical abstraction. It’s really weird to see James (SH2re) shoot himself up with syringes when before he’d use a first aid kit behind a pause menu. Sometimes it’s better if we just use our imagination or ignore how HP works in real life altogether. Better for the budget too.
You got tekken, spiderman, baldur gate, and games that players really like. It not that game studio can't produce games is the fact that big companies are influence by corporates who just want a buck. The gaming franchize went downhill because these studios got big companies under their name and so many expectations that they feel like to rush.
People not upgrading from the PS4 to the PS5 is caused by many other issues besides the lack of exclusive games. Thinking about customers overseas, like myself, getting a PS5 is a bloody luxury because of availability and cost. I love following the franchises I like from up close, controller in hand, but I have also learned that upcoming games from my favorite franchises aren't the only ones worth playing or being excited for. The PS4 still has a million full quality and indie games I haven't played, so I honestly don't *need* a PS5 though I want one. My Switch is giving me thousands of fun hours, and while the next Nintendo system might arrive next year, I will still be able to be happy with my current Switch, because having newer games shouldn't devaluate the fun derived from already available games. The point SHOULD be to play games and not upcoming games only. I have Tears of the Kingdom, but I'm also currently having a bigger blast with A Link to the Past. How's that for an example? Ha ha ha ha.
I didnt buy a ps5 yet simply because there isnt much That's worth playing And every thing is on ps4 ill finally buy a ps5 when gta vi hits ill Probably get astro bot with it i know there one installed i the ps5 so That's 3 games only dont care about the rest like spider man 2 final fantasy xvi
Exactly, almost every PlayStation game is NOT exclusive & is on PC & or Xbox. Why would people buy an expensive console like the PS5 if there aren’t any games for it. Sony needs to realize they need more exclusive games for the console for people to understand the worth, especially the games being good titles & series.
The PS5's sales are actually fine. They're actually pretty similar to the PS4 in the same time frame. The reason why many people have stayed is because many of the games they play like Fortnite, are still supported on PS4 and Xbox One. They see no reason to move on if the only game they really play is still on the platform. What kills a console is the userbase not that a new console is out. It's why the PS2 and Wii vastly outlived their life time
I like realism and stylization equally and both are valid for art, including games. I believe the problem truly lies on how big publishers only focus on the former, inflating their costs and overworking the developers, instead of balacing both depending on what the developers and players want. Balance is the key, simple as that.
As a developer that works on smaller games, 3-4 games a year, in 3-4 month lifecycles, it's also a lot more gratifying to be able to see through a project from start to finish. The number of developers that don't have that luxury, whether due to studio layoffs, life circumstances, or any other number of disruptions that might see them only working through a section of the game, is far too high.
This is why I play games from older times. Hell even Spyro Reignited Trilogy was great. Not only was it graphics, but everything was enhanced. Characters, different voice actors, level design, still keeping the classic gameplay feel
Sometimes you need things spelled out. Sun Tzu‘s Art of War isn’t full of deep insights, most of it is rather "obvious" actually. But it was written for a people who, in their time, were too caught up in the status quo look at their actions objectively. Same as with this I guess.
The issue with such long development times, majority of people will grow out of gaming. You get into a relationship, you have kids, you get promoted and all of that means you are too busy to be invested in a game franchise you enjoyed at 22. So a new game comes out, and it’s mostly an uphill battle to attract new players, because likely 70% of the original ones aren’t invested anymore.
Kind of crazy that games taking 10 years per game means any single person at a dev studio would only put out 3 or 4 games accross their entire working career
I wish we would get back to how things were back in the ps3/xbox 360 generation. We had arkham asylum and arkham city two years apart! Those are two amazing games. We got gta 4, red dead redemption and gta 5 in the same generation!
@9:31 that sentence right there is the problem. You can't blame Microsoft and Sony entirely. It's mostly the devs. Just because you're given the tools doesn't mean you should MAX it out with 5 year dev cycles to get a blade of grass so realistic that God himself need to buy the game. remember, the console makers do go around and ask the devs what they'd like to have in the next console to help with game development. More RAM, GPU, SSD, TFLOPS (Im no expert on hardware specs), etc, sure. OK, so they set out to build something to help with the devs game creations. When the Devs see new guts of a console looking so powerful, they then push it to the MAX. Making games 5 times more larger, 5 times more detailed, 5 times more mechanics, etc. Why not simply make a game with the scope of games from the Xbox 360/PS3 era, but using the new tools of today? Imagine Gears Of War 3 done on the Unreal 5 engine. No extra landscapes. No massive open worlds. No 100+ hours of gameplay. We'd still be okay with a 10-16 hour game that doesn't need to push the console so hard where frames would drop consistently. The devs need a chill pill. Sure some of the games are worth the wait. But for the most part why are the devs trying to squeeze every juice out of a console? Then people start blamming the console makers saying the machines aren't good enough?? WTF? It was good enough for the types of games you were making for last generation! They should keep the scope of their games the same as the previous generations utilizing the new consoles for this generations games! Stop trying to build beyond the box! It's costly, time consuming, and seldom returns profits.
I want to make another point about "better graphics" that new games make my eyes hurt. I don't know if anyone else has the same problem or maybe I'm getting old or whatever but all these graphical improvements are making EVERYTHING so very detailed that it starts to give me a headache after some time. Normally, when you go and look at a tree trunk or a rock surface or something, your eyes don't see that much detail and your brain just erases the unnecessary information to make it easier for you to handle but with these realistic craze, you are lucky if your eyes don't start bleeding.
Yeah, they are overly cluttered and filled to the brim with detail that your eyes don't really know what to look at. Older games used to have less detailed environments or areas of the game that they didn't intend on you to focus on. While having more detail on the things that you are supposed to be focusing on. It made it simple and easy to read, and you knew where to look and where to go. Modern games have a very big problem with visual clarity. The cluttered and overly dark environments just make it worse and more eye straining
They cants stop. That's the world of consumerism. So annoying. New is considered to be new for 6month, anything else is old. New phone every year, new car every 3-6 such a waste. I hate it.
This is why I laugh whenever someone says they wont play again because of the graphics. The fact that THIS VERY SENTIMENT is causing games to take longer to develop is telling.
Nintendo doesn't really pay too much attention to others and treats their stuff as toys. Nintendo doesn't really have any series that would benefit from super realistic graphics. Of course to say Nintendo doesn't care about graphics would be false
@@HDGamerofficialAn they should people seriously I can tell Mario,Zelda,Pokemon Metroid apart yet if you characters from RE ,Last Of Us and even Horizon..what's the difference?
@@wrestlinganime4life288 I get the sentiment, but this is a bad comparison, anyone who is a gamer can tell the difference between all the main characters from those franchises.
@@k.23_02 The newer games coming out look better than ps4 games. Some ps5 games don't look that great because they were really made for the ps4, but a lot of the newer ones coming out have way better colors and graphics. If you have a 4k tv it looks even better unless the game doesn't support 4k.
are you conscious we have hit a plateau? Unless some new advanced ai technology made for replicating real life releases, we have pretty much reached peak visual graphics. If you want a game to look better you should instead look at different visual techniques and style, but you should focus more in gameplay from now on. Search up in youtube the game bodycam, arguably the most realistic looking game ever made and it doesn't have insane graphics, it's just smart style and new unreal engine technology and is made by 1 dev.
I don't even need to watch this video to know how much I agree with the premise and have thought this for a long time. People's idea of realism and trying to force into into fictional media (even if it's based on real historical events) misses the entire point of fictional media and is a sign of the lack of media literacy. It's tearing everything apart and trying to study it to gain nothing from that and then wondering why you can't put it back together again perfectly or why things don't fit just as good as it used to or feel as good. We need to stop strip-mining the fun out of things.
Switch sells more because it's a handheld platform _and_ a home console. It's serving two different markets at the same time. It would be like combining the sales of DS + Wii or something.
In part, but it's also a niche for fanboys too. Like WoW has a captive fanbase who would play that shit no matter how bad it looks or ancient the game is.
Most people use the Switch as a console or a handheld, but not both. And it wasn't guaranteed to sell more than the 3DS or Gameboy. Switch sells because of exclusives. It sells because people want to play Animal Crossing or Mario Kart 8. Because playing as Mario taking over a frog's body looks funny or because the latest Zeldas look so interesting. The other consoles? Pick one and you already have access to most of the other's library and that's assuming you don't have a gaming PC that's been upgraded in the last 5 years.
@foxymetroid That's precisely my point. It sells to two largely independent markets: people who play on consoles _and_ people who play on handhelds. Thus, Nintendo has consolidated their sales for both those markets into a single product. For example, people who previously gamed on a DS or 3DS eventually upgraded to the Switch, while other people who previously gamed on a Wii or Wii U _also_ upgraded to the Switch. Obviously the games are a big factor, too. I don't deny that. But I think it's a worthwhile point about the sort of "double dipping" into two markets that nobody really talks about, but it's a big factor in the sales.
Everyone in the comments saying "we dont want realistic graphics" but then when a game comes out that doesn't look realistic like elden ring people bitch and moan.
I never taking this argument of “realism in video game bad” when they started calling RDR2 bad all of the sudden. Like the point of game like read dead is to time travel to a time none of use lived in. That’s the main appeal of these kinds of games. It’s to the point they started criticizing video game physics. I’ve always said gamer are the most obnoxious consumers. They always complain when something isn’t made their way. Even when they were never interested in the genre they still bitch. At what point it was fps games, now it’s open world game are bad, and am starting to see people criticize dark souls style games now.
It's not a hivemind. People who want good looking games with good gameplay have Nintendo, people who want realistic games with little to no gameplay have Sony, and there's a market for everything. Although for me there's no point in basic, boring, safe AAA games, they might be great for people who haven't played enough video games to be sick of the formula, after all it's only basic if you know what the average game feels like Though not every studio can afford to release just one game per decade
You're definitely looking at 2 different audiences. People who don't want realistic graphics will always be consistent in what they say. Like me, I enjoy the way elden ring looks. I wouldn't ask for any increase in graphical quality
Why does everyone keep saying the indie scene is saving the industry when every indie game is the same 3 types of games. Sorry but another pixelated platormer or first person puzzle game is not convincing me to play them
Open up the best selling downloadable games on the eshop. The variety of indies is so much higher than AAA this is such a unfounded claim you’re making
Someone had to address it !! If the games are too real, then it becomes less fun. Example- if GTA VI becomes extremely real, riding over a pedestrian would be like killing the person in real life. 🤮🤮
I agree to a large extent that realism is taking over gaming and is a problem, but there are instances where I think it's necessary. When I play a game, I personally want it to feel like a game and not real life. That's the main reason I got into retro gaming and haven't found it necessary to get a PS5 or Xbox Series system. I feel that back when developers knew that there was no way they could make their games lifelike in any way, they found ways to make their games have such a deep level of personality to make up for the lesser graphics. Nowadays, it feels like they can instantly make it realistic, so there's zero time spent giving that level of charm that they used to. It just feels like everything needs to look generic, whether it looks the same as every other game trying to look realistic (it's very hard now to tell one game from another when nearly every game had such a unique artstyle a decade ago) or every single UI element, logo design, graphical design, whatever, looking as boring and featureless as possible; it's not just in gaming, but it's certainly something I don't like and I haven't found a single person even remotely enjoy that look. Now if it's a game that can work with realsim to its benefit, I'll swoon. Simulation racing games like Gran Turismo 7 or games like Microsoft Flight Simulator are made for realism and look beautiful. I also have a soft spot for games that do their best to look realistic on consoles that just... couldn't look realistic if the world depended on it. PS1 or N64 games that push their limits and do the best they can are oddly satisfying.
Realistic games is for a certain type of people. The people that do well in life already and want more of a challenge. Or people that used to be in the military but can't serve anymore and they are desperately trying to get a taste of their past life... Normal people trying to play realistic games is asking a fatsuey to join the special forces. It's not a combination that will ever go well together.
Not sure why games are so obsessed with realism, a game don't need to be ultra realistic to look great. Most of the best grossing games of all times are non-ultra realistic, Fortnite, Dota 2, World of Warcarft, Mario and Zelda comes to mind. And yeah games like Astral Chains, Dark Souls, Dragon's dogma, Elden ring, catherine and Xenoblade are some of the best games I played in recent years and non of them really have an ultra realistic art style.
@@Ruo368cee sekiro had awful graphics tbh considering its from 2019 the graphic realism was less than gta v but the gameplay is an alltime classic thats nevr gonna get bad
I much more prefer stylized games like Guilty Gear or Gravity Rush, then overly detailed realism of modern games. If the game is fun, we will play it. We dont play games cause of how much blades of grass can be seen on the floor.
I think you misunderstanding, the graphics are there to sell the game to the masses, you know, the kind of people that are the 20-45% of people that never get the you completed the tutorial achievement on Steam.
I'm getting real tired of games "journalists" deciding to flip on a dime and start bitching about things happening in the industry they cover that they themselves have been advocating for for 25 years. PS2, PS3, 360 era you guys wouldn't stop complaining that games weren't "real looking enough" and that you would gladly take longer development cycles if the graphics would just get better. Now that you have it you want your cake and you wanna eat it too in the form of quick development times from back in that era with the coin flip of you deciding now that all of a sudden graphics aren't important, which was something that us players have been telling you since the mid 90s. Pick a side.
I believe it was the creator of Donkey Kong years and years ago back in the NES days that complained about how graphics were becoming more important than actual game play. The thing is they are what you first notice. You see a trailer for a new game and the first thing you hear is how beautiful it looks or that it looks like a PS3 game.
Sony and Microsoft are pretty much done. They need the Switch 2 to fail to have any chance of survival. Sony and Microsoft don't know how to make games. They got into the industry by "outgraphicing" the competition. graphics have plateaued and neither have any real gaming ideas.
I would have to agree. I mean, games are supposed to be a way to escape reality. Sure, some realism could help out some, but that only does so much, especially if it has to do with too much realism. This is why I personally find games with less realism to be better, as not only do those take less time to make, but those games have more fantasy and fantasy physics, if you know what I mean, which is what fiction is, in a way, about, to help escape reality.
That is why I love Nintendo for how they don't normally do realism with their games as much as Sony and MIcrosoft. The fantasy thing makes Nintendo stand out, and keep them from dying, not that they were going to die or were headed to the grave, for they weren't, but still, too much realism, and the reasons why that does not work much nowadays as described by this video, are reasons why Nintendo is good for not going with the flow, if you know what I mean. Not that Nintendo is doing realism, for they are doing the opposite.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, a game should take 3 and a half years max to make. I'm a game developer working on my own game and it makes me cringe that people talk about graphics instead of gameplay.
I absolutely loathe the fact that every GDC in recent years, every time new features and developments are showcased for game engines especially for like Unreal or Nvidia, it's always in service of these pointless highly marginal graphical improvements showing every pore and blade of grass in a realistic environment like it actually matters to an overall game or to most developers that likely won't be able to get the latest NVIFDIA card that will take 300 gigawatts to use. I especially think things like MetaHuman are a waste of time. I was disappointed because I thought surely with the burgeoning AI tech THAT would be something that could actually make developers lives easier esp with coding.
@Ziggaton To be honest, the fact that so many developers have managed to make games look so good on Switch is the strongest counter-point to the emphasis on marginal graphic improvements. If you can make games look good, even realistic at times, on 10 year old mobile hardware that is far more accesible and arguably more enjoyable overall, doesn't that feel like it makes more sense from even a business point of view? I have no problem with hardware and software optimization research that pushes gaming to its computational limits, but at some point you've got to remember you're making a "game", for people to play and enjoy. The fact that Unreal is often used more for art pieces and even film just makes it feel like it's trying to be less of a game engine and more like a 3D animation software. Heck, I don't even like "more realistic" lighting. It always looks too orange and brown to me, the very aesthetic I got tired of seeing in so many AAA titles.
@@Jinni-iras17514 For every 1 good live-service game, theres 10 bad ones. The only good live-service game to come out this year is Helldivers, but understand that Helldivers is the exception, NOT the rule. There's just simply more bad live-service games than good ones.....
@@thechosenone2123 Your argument works just the same for regular games. 1 good game for every 10. The difference is that live service games will theoretically only improve and have more content. The community and devs will keep each other alive for as long as possible. So there's no need to look towards yearly releases when the live service games can last from 3 to 10 years or more.
@@Jinni-iras17514 False. Almost every live-service game (with the exception of maybe 1 or 2) that released in the past 3 or 4 years has been a flop. The list of failed live-service games that flopped were Anthem, Avengers, Gotham Knights, Hyperscape, Suicide Squad, Skull & Bones, and many others. Most live-service games just fail and with good reason since the majority of them are generic, copy & paste doo-doo. Plus, it also doesnt help that the market is over-saturated with hero shooters and live-service games, everytime a new one is announced (which is very often), the majority of gamers are rolling their eyes. The truth is that most people DONT want them and are tired of them. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.
i have been telling this since the 2010s.I don't want realism .Iam already tired dealing with reality .I would want a fascinating fictional game enamouring me with its surrealness.There is a reason NFs flopped after MW
Not smart for most Game companies who want to make good profits to release any game in the same year GTA VI is dropping (2025). And Switch players aren't serious gamers which is why they don't have serious games and also why graphics mean not much - nothing to them. If u enjoy kiddie games with kiddie graphics, just say that. But some of us need better in the year 2024
They do look better but not all of them are just as fun as the older ones. For example God of War, the older ones are far better in terms of entertainment, Krato's brutality when finishing enemies, the boss fights. So good.
0:05 Respectfully, Hellblade II Senua's Saga looks the best. because it is the only one I wasn't too sure was from a game or real life. the other 3 it is very obvious.
