Support NeoGAF

[Madflavor]

Here we go lads.



2:15 - 3:08 is the kind of shit I've been saying for years. The pursuit for higher graphical fidelity is ballooning the budget and development time, to the point where it takes for too long for games to release. We've seen people obsess over graphics, especially on Gaf. The threads on Resident Evil 4 Remake, Elden Ring, and FFVII: Rebirth leading up to their releases, are recent prime examples of this. People posting screenshots and clips complaining about lighting, textures, crushed blacks, framerate, etc. Then the games come out and they end up being incredible games that people loved anyway, and the vast majority of people didn't care about graphical imperfections.

While I do think there's a place for AAA games that try to push visuals to the absolute limit with current technology, it doesn't feel like it's a big selling point like it used to be. We are well passed the days where we'd see Graphical Leaps between console generations. It became Graphical Babysteps between the 7th to the 8th gen, and now it barely feels like there's been much of a difference between the 8th and 9th gen. There are examples of models and animations almost 10 years ago that look just as good and in some cases even better than some games coming out today.

(Rise of the Tomb Raider 2015)

Ultimately Max seems to think that going the extra mile to accomplish that extra fidelity with some modern games, is not really worth the investment or all the extra time it takes to develop games, and I'm inclined to agree. You look at the masters of the craft when it comes to visuals, and Rockstar and Naughty Dog top that list. GTA:VI entered development in 2014, and it's been 4 years since ND released their last "new" game, and we've seen nothing regarding their new IP or TLOU3. Will GTA:VI and TLOU3 be fantastic generation defining games? Probably. But once upon a time these companies were releasing generation defining games in more than half the time. In short, if feels like video game development has flown too close to the sun in the pursuit to continue to push graphical fidelity to higher limits, and in many aspects both gamers and game developers have paid a price for it.


"Making games look more photorealistic is not the only means of improving the game experience. I know, on this point I risk being misunderstood, so remember, I am a man who once programmed a baseball game with no baseball players. If anyone appreciates graphics, it’s me! But my point is that this is just one path to improved game. We need to find others. Improvement has more than one definition"

-Satoru Iwata (2005)

 

[Wooxsvan]

at this point i dont think so, games look good enough for me to be lost in them

 

[Walter Matthau]

Not as much as they used to

 

[Sushi_Combo]

Make a game that's fun to play.

 

[LaughingStock]

Gameplay is king. Everything else is just a bonus.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Not like they used to. Most people are playing GaaS titles or sports games that don’t push visuals at all.

I’d love to see games focus on things other than graphics. Why not advance the medium in sound or animations or AI.

 

[Pelao]

Been a while since they don't, in my opinion.
Having good graphics is a nice bonus, but gameplay will forever be king.

 

[bitbydeath]

Yes, graphics are still massively important, a lot of the reactions to GTAVI were about its graphics.

 

[Crayon]

The unfortunate thing is they don't sell the games as much as they have to meet very high expectations. If a game has any kind of marketing budget, it's expected to look AWESOME. You have to leapfrog everything else if you want to get noticed for graphics. So that kinda leaves room for only one game at a time to be the king. If it's disputed between two or more, then neither has graphics good enough to command attention.

Everyone wants it both ways, though. More games cheaper and sooner, but graphics that are at these very high levels.

PS4 games looked really good and I don't think PS5 graphics are jumping out to regular players. If you know what you are looking for, the jump is there, but you need to be able to isolate certain techniques to make these comparisons. As far as overall on-screen impact, we're done until there is some kind of tech breakthrough. The improvements will have to be incremental.

Seriously, set up some normie gamers with cyberpunk and have them take the pepsi challenge between no-rt and full on pathtracing. I don't think it's going to be a landslide for pathtracing, to say the least. I know my threshold for being impressed is being affected by how gradual the improvements are. So for me, cyberpunk rt/pt is really impressive but for normal people, I don't think it's got that kind of impact.

 

[Danjin44]

Games like Elden Ring and Armored Core VI proves you don’t need expensive graphics.

 

[dorkimoe]

Gameplay is king. Everything else is just a bonus.

this but also 60*fps

 

[NeverYouMind]

Get the f@#k out of here! There is a reason that I am willing to play games like the first instead of games like the second. Presentation, artstyle, and mechanics are important. Graphics are indicative of that. As far as the gap between AA and AAA... there is a lot of content bloat and details that do not add anything of value to the gameplay or narrative.

 

[FoxMcChief]

Vampire Survivors mother fuckers!

Gameplay loop matters most.

 

[Laptop1991]

No not now, i think we look at the overall game more since the rise of monetization and live service games, if a game looks older but it as a better gaming experience then i would rarther play that than a better looking game with limited or boring gameplay, in fact that's basically what i've been doing these last few years.

 

[LavitzSlambert]

We've hit such a point of diminishing returns with graphical fidelity. Been there for years already. There is definitely a floor of what is deemed acceptable for an AAA release (look at the Halo Infinite reactions) that a studio needs to hit, but beyond that I don't think most people actually care that much. Certainly not enough to justify the time and money spent. On a personal note, I appreciate nice visuals, but it needs to be accompanied by substance in gameplay itself. I won't care about the beautiful landscape you created if it's part of an empty field with no reason to explore it. Likewise, I don't care about all the details of your character model when I am just going to throw on a helmet or spend my time in first person mode.

 

[Codes 208]

*looks at nintendo*

No

Jokes aside, all i want is a good artstyle and good gameplay

 

[LaughingStock]

this but also 60*fps

I love my 200+fps. But 30 fps may be just fine too.

 

[VeganElduderino]

for me , yes and no , all are important , but I sometimes buy a game just for its art style and music! a few games I bought just for its art style are
Night in the woods
Hollow Knight
Cult of the lamb
Limbo

 

[Kataploom]

They always do, but "graphics" mean different things for different people, many people, and specially of newer generations prefer great art direction and don't give a damn about graphical fidelity, so you can be sure that for many Genshin Impact looks way better than Hellblade 2 or Alan Wake 2

 

[hinch7]

Visual presentation doesn't mean much if a game isn't fun or enjoyable to play. So no, not really. If you look at the most popular games today or the last several years, they've all have solid/well tuned gameplay loops and mechanics. Hardly any game released nowadays are hyped just for its visuals primarily. Nintendo got it right decades ago. Still glad graphics have advanced so quickly in so little time, but at the end of a day a game is supposed to played, not looked at. If I wanted to do that I'd just watch a film or read a book.

Also, like the poster above said.. we've hit a point of diminishing returns in fidelity, at least for character models; where its good enough for the most part.

 

[RCU005]

Short Answer: YES
Long Answer: NO

Let's be real, graphics do sell games. One of the reason Uncharted 2 got a lot of hyped when it was announced was because it looked great. It was the first game Sony put "The graphics in this trailer are real in-game shenanigans". People loved the game for many other reasons, but it was so good-looking at the time. The same thing happened with Killzone 2 (regardless of the fake announce trailer), and God of War 3.

People got hyped for The Order 1886 because of the graphics. Sadly, the game turned out to be a disappointment for different reasons for many people, but no one can't deny that it looks great even now.

On the other hand, Halo Infinite got slammed because of the graphics when gameplay was revealed and it got it delayed. The same thing happened to Prince of Persia remake. It looked bad, and now it's shovelware.

People WANT good graphics, graphics DO sell. What doesn't sell and it doesn't make sense now or never, it's the extremely detailed graphics that some games have. I will always appreciate that developers take time to put on all these little (minuscule) details in games, because it means they're passionate about the games and whatnot, and everybody loves little details. However, less than 1% of people even see it, much less realize it.

Do we need a trail of ants that walk in the ground and move the leaves in a realistic manner?
Do we need to have puddles that dry out in real time?

I can't think of examples, but games like Horizon I and II, Uncharted 4, TLOUS I and II, RDR2, etc. have then. There are videos on Youtube about these details in many games.

Maybe I'm wrong, but those excruciating details have to take time and resources to make.

Then, there's the other side of the coin with Nintendo. They are making old-looking games that people enjoy, so people also want good gameplay regardless of graphics. However, they want graphics proportionate to the system they are on. Buying a switch game you won't expect PS5 graphics, but also, I don't think anyone wants a game that looks like an N64.

Another issue is that games don't have to be HUGE!. Is there a way to make a game that list 15, 20 or 30 hours, without having HUGE maps? Do all games have to be open world?

IMO, there needs to be a balance between graphics, gameplay and length of the game. There also needs to be variety of gamplay types and genres. Another important thing is art style, which should be a priority over graphics in most cases.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

Visuals is the first thing that catches your attention. In graphics, I would include animations and art direction. Those things come together. So, games like Cuphead or Hollow Knight also sell because of graphics/art direction.

It's not enough to sell the game, though. If beautiful visuals are an empty shell, the game will flop.

 

[64bitmodels]

Get the f@#k out of here! There is a reason that I am willing to play games like the first instead of games like the second. Presentation, artstyle, and mechanics are important. Graphics are indicative of that. As far as the gap between AA and AAA... there is a lot of bloat and details that do not add anything of value to the gameplay or narrative.

Presentation. Neither of these games are necessarily the most big budget high detailed games ever- the former just has an artstyle you like more.


these people are simply saying that expensive, top of teh line graphics like what you see in most of Sony's 1st party are not necessary for a good game- nor do they sell games as much as they used to back in the 90s.

Let's be real, graphics do sell games. One of the reason Uncharted 2 got a lot of hyped when it was announced was because it looked great.

2009 bro.

The same thing happened with Killzone 2 (regardless of the fake announce trailer), and God of War 3.

2005. 2010. can you name any examples from after the triassic period

On the other hand, Halo Infinite got slammed because of the graphics when gameplay was revealed and it got it delayed. The same thing happened to Prince of Persia remake. It looked bad, and now it's shovelware.

This just means that people don't want bad looking games. Not that we want top of the line big budget amazing looking games ALL the time.

 

[NeverYouMind]

Presentation. Neither of these games are necessarily the most big budget high detailed games ever- the former just has an artstyle you like more.

these people are simply saying that expensive, top of teh line graphics like what you see in most of Sony's 1st party are not necessary for a good game- nor do they sell games as much as they used to back in the 90s.

2005. 2010. can you name any examples from after the triassic period

Witcher 3, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Cyberpunk did just that. Grand Theft Auto VI is likely going to do that next.

 

[twilo99]

No

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

you need graphics to be able to see anything. so. yes.

 

[Gaiff]

Did they ever? Can we name a single game that sold a lot solely because of its graphics? I can't.

I can name a million games with awful graphics and great gameplay that did well. I can't think of the opposite though.

 

[Jesb]

Art direction/presentation and gameplay is what matters most.

 

[Bernardougf]

To me no... dont care.. give me 60 fps or bust... played Elden Ring ps4 version on my ps5 just for locked 60 fps.... for me graphics of today's games are perfectly fine to enjoy everything.

Time to comeback and concentrate on creativity and gameplay ... the graphics have been nailed ... more reflection on puddles and pretty lights on the sky wont make any game that much better.

 

[semiconscious]

Not as much as they used to

yep. diminishing returns. I don't need to see everyone's pores in order to get lost in a game...

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

Can we name a single game that sold a lot solely because of its graphics? I can't.

crysis

 

[PixelatedBeast]

Im playing through a Plague Tale Innocence to get a better appreciation for "walking simulators", and I must say this game is not as shallow as I thought it was, but the graphics are doing a lot of the heavy lifting. High quality materials used on the character models to convey realisim, has great voice acting and the animations look good. To know that it was made by a team of 40 people is impressive, but Im not so sure it all comes together without having decent last gen graphics. The facial animations arent top tier, but everything else is done well enough to make it believable.

If the game was made with pixel art, or cell shaded graphics, it probably wouldnt have the same impact.

 

[Efren is G.O.A.T.]

I honestly believe that graphics are "enough" as they are now. Gameplay will always triumph over everything but if they really do want to improve graphics or fluidity then make your "graphics mode" 60fps and your "performance mode" 120fps.

 

[JimRyanGOAT]

Depends

If a game has good graphics then usually the gameplay sucks

But if it has bad graphics most people will be like "eww I dont wanna play this game it looks like shit"


Some games are just expected to look good, but I just got a switch and these games are really fun despire their graphics issues

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Not in the way they used to. I don't think people care nearly as much about impressive technical showcases as they used to. What matters more than anything now is whether something has a recognizable art style - doubly so because of the influx of more casual players who typically want something familiar rather than something that'll broaden their horizons.

 

[Gaiff]

crysis

It’s generally considered a very good game.

 

[64bitmodels]

If a game has good graphics then usually the gameplay sucks

excuse me??????

 

[rm082e]

We've long since hit the point of diminishing returns. As good a Cyberpunk looks, I don't think I needed the graphics to look as good as they do to enjoy that game. If that game were on par with the Tomb Raider game, or Control in terms of graphics, I would have enjoyed it just as much.

 

[ProtoByte]

Yes they do. And also no.

Graphical fidelity, ie texture quality in and of itself was never enough to sell games. Aesthetics? Maybe not entirely, but they were a hugely important component. Amongst the most without a doubt.

Before you ever play a game, you see it first. Art direction, perspective and animation are the first and most easily identifiable things when you watch a game being played.

 

[Esca]

It still has an impact but not like it use to. But a very good looking game will catch more people's attention and get them to look more into the game to see if it is something that suits your taste or it might show some real holy shit stuff and you become more interested.

 

[ByWatterson]

Graphics, yes.

Advancements in graphics? No. I can suspend disbelief quite easily with PS4 era fidelity.

 

[Durin]

Pretty much anything related to graphics this gen has been a diminished return. Even the games pushing fidelity the hardest I don't think are wowing people like they did last gen, or the 360/PS3 gen ushering in the concept of AAA games.

People still care about graphics, but the ability to floor people with them has reduced while the budgets don't stop ballooning yielding more samey games + sequels/remakes.

I'm mostly a PC gamer, but at this point, I'm more excited about the Switch 2 (and other PC portables) bringing PS4-level visuals on the go with fun Nintendo games than I am with the PS5 Pro doing ray-tracing a bit better. AAA is mostly boring now.

 

[Sojiro]

Gameplay is king. Everything else is just a bonus.

This is where I have been at for a couple of generations now. There was a time where "omg the graphics" was really something I focused on, but I am long since passed that. Don't get me wrong, I can still appreciate great looking visuals, but not at the expense of these crazy ass fucking budgets and decade long development cycles AAA games now have. It just isn't worth it.

Definitely not a popular opinion on these boards, but for me we could have stayed at around this level of visuals and I would be happy.

It always puts a smile on my face to see some posters flip their shit over visuals in threads around here while I am thinking whatever game still looks pretty good. I will admit having a strong art style is still a must, but gameplay is always the king, and the focus on all the extra bullshit details are completely unnecessary and not worth the money and time spent on them.

 

[NeverYouMind]

This is where I have been at for a couple of generations now. There was a time where "omg the graphics" was really something I focused on, but I am long since passed that. Don't get me wrong, I can still appreciate great looking visuals, but not at the expense of these crazy ass fucking budgets and decade long development cycles AAA games now have. It just isn't worth it.

Definitely not a popular opinion on these boards, but for me we could have stayed at around this level of visuals and I would be happy.

It always puts a smile on my face to see some posters flip their shit over visuals in threads around here while I am thinking whatever game still looks pretty good. I will admit having a strong art style is still a must, but gameplay is always the king, and the focus on all the extra bullshit details are completely unnecessary and not worth the money and time spent on them.

Shenmue was a graphical marvel for the Dreamcast and had bad gameplay.

 

[Sojiro]

Shenmue was a graphical marvel for the Dreamcast and had bad gameplay.

It was a graphical marvel for the Dreamcast, hence why I said we could have stayed visually at that point and I personally would be fine, which yes I know not many would share the opinion of. Point is, graphics for me have long since been the most important aspect of a game, and you yourself posted a game that wasn't close to being a graphical powerhouse of its age so I am not sure if you entirely disagree with this thread's overall premise.

I picked shenmue as it is a great looking game for it's time and has larger areas than something like Soul Calibur which had great visuals as well, but were restricted to smaller arenas. I also disagree that the gameplay was bad, but it's not like either of us are going to change the others opinion on that.

 

[LostDonkey]

Lots of things sell games. Graphics is definitely one of them.

A great story, likeable characters, interesting worlds all sell games as well.

Violence sells games, guns, fast cars, great music, these can all be factors in someone choosing to buy a game.

For me though, it's ass and titties.

 

[Shits_McGiggles]

I’ve seen idiots on this board say that they can’t play PS3 games like Dead Space 2 because the graphics are too outdated. Of course graphics still matter to the average user, otherwise the most popular comments wouldn’t be “looks like a PS3 game LOL.”

 

[64bitmodels]

I’ve seen idiots on this board say that they can’t play PS3 games like Dead Space 2 because the graphics are too outdated. Of course graphics still matter to the average user, otherwise the most popular comments wouldn’t be “looks like a PS3 game LOL.”

that's the thing here. Money speaks louder than words and while people say this same platitude of "gameplay matters more than graphics" they don't speak it when it comes to their purchasing decisions

 

[Kurimao]

No, or we'd all be gushing Hellblade 2.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Lets be real here. Graphics never really sold games. We just like to pretend like they did because there was once a time when in general the best looking games were also the overall best games (think back to the early 2000s). Over time that changed dramatically though.