Video Games can't afford to look this good
Video Games can't afford to look this good
Even if you're talking visuals only (which obviously don't always matter), good art direction always beats high res and photorealistic.
My prime example for this is always Okami. It's a PS2 game. It's basically intemporal.
Legend of Zelda: The Windwaker. Those graphics were slammed at the time for being cartoony, but they hold up even now. Meanwhile, games that were going for realism at the time look like ass in comparison to modern realistic graphics. And today’s will suck compared to next year’s and so on.
I agree, what made WW really work to me was the animation. Also the expressiveness of characters, because in comparison N64 Link basically knew a total of two expressions, and they were dull grumpiness and angry grumpiness.
I don't like what they've done to the Wii U remake though. I don't understand why every colour needed to be balanced toward radioactive hell.
Also unrelated to visuals but the loss of the Tingle Tuner was a shame, that thing was genius. Had so much fun with my siblings with it. I'm sure they could have emulated it with 3DS if they cared, after all 3DS/Wii U connection was a thing for smash for example.
I still think Shadow of the Colossus on PS2 is one of the best looking games out there, even though it was going for a more realistic art style which has aged horribly in most other games
The problem is they put 300million in the graphics thinking it will make up the the 3 hours of fun content they copy-pasted from the last title. They charge $70 (plus $6000 in skins, skips, the other half of the game, and + a $7 month battle pass) and you still got to wait 3-6 months for the game to be in a playable state.
Same problem as Hollywood, big soulless corpos wearing the freshly harvested face of creativity to get an inverter hard. These clowns keep losing to some dudes making the game they want to play themselves because those guys actually care.
I'm not saying you are wrong but I do feel there is a huge part of this that I see a ton of people who share the same sentiment seems to always be over looked. What people don't seem to address is the fact that these corpo monsters don't thrive on feasting on your bank account, they thrive feasting off the mass compliance of consumers bending over and taking each and every butfucking these corpo vampires can throw at the consumer market.
I can't imagine a better business model than having the ability to actively lower operating costs, forcing their workforce to produce worse and worse quality products or services for every subsequent generation of the product, passing all the shit onto a furious customer base who constantly expresses hate towards the corpo circus all while continuing to fucking purchase the shittier and shittier products like it's some mating cycle, which further allows the corpo clowns to cut MORE costs by all but dismantling their customer support branches because they've realized customer satisfaction carries ZERO weight to give any sense of return on the investment they put into customer satisfaction or retention.
I dont mean for this to be any slight towards you, and I acknowledge the Lemmy community is prolly the strongest demographic out there who puts up a stand against the enshittiication movement. I'm just bitching to bitch because the biggest corpo holiday just concluded and fuck me did it put a dent in my wallet. Granted it did alnost all go to toy manufacturers cuz I'm still new at being an uncle and love spoiling the niece and nephew to fuck with my brother.
So tldr: fuck the enshittification movement right in its fucking fuck hole but it will never have a chance to die unless a massive amount of people decide to toss personal conveniences to the wind and start standing up for their greater qualiry of life's sake.
They focused so much on hyper realistic graphics that they forgot about the most important part of a game: being fun.
I've sunk way more hours in an "ugly" game such as space haven or balatro this year than in any ultra beautiful (and void of fun) AAA game.
I wonder if it has to do with the age of the player. I grew up playing old games, not first gen games but on commadore and such, ms-dos games. Win 3.1, SNES, etc. Graphics in games have never really meant much, sure pretty is pretty but I'm more than happy to play around with noita for a couple hours, simple art styles, blocky textures. I am also fine jumping in to cyberpunk or mgs or last of us or anything newer. As long as I find the gameplay fun that is first and foremost the most important part. IDGAF about multiplayer, to me multiplayer was a cop-out in the late 90s early 00s to not have to actually make decent games, and I still stand by that. IDGAF about stupid features. You make a game I find interesting and I'll likely play it, You make a game that looks pretty and has shitty gameplay I won't even spit in its general direction.
I'm not really sure it's completely like that. In the early 2000's we had "beautiful" games (aka the most advanced graphics that technology could afford) but games were fun.
Devs invested in graphics, but they also invested in innovative formulas, in gameplay... You could tell a game was unique and beautiful.
Today, AAA games are just a checklist of things that must be included (almost none pointed at making the player have fun) with an incredible level of detail that makes every single leave of every tree move independently from the rest.
I'm guessing the prettiness attracts more than a great gameplay. But I'm basically there with you.
I suspect the prettiness sells better in the investment meetings to people who have no clue about gameplay anyway.
Video game graphics seem to have reached diminishing returns at this point. Games are more expensive to make, but the end consumer barely notice any visual difference.
There was a time when having the best graphics in any video game was a selling point. People argued whether X360 or PS3 could produce best graphics. Now, nobody cares.
Honestly, I think we hit that point about 10 years ago with the XBox 1 and PS4. Yeah, XBox Series and PS5 look better, but PS4 and XBox 1 still look great IMO.
I hit the "Okay we have solved video game graphics" moment when they zoomed in on the hair on Aloy's face from Horizon: Peasant's Quest or whatever it was called. Like okay we don't need to try any harder than this.
I remember having this argument 20 years ago with a bunch of people talking about the great graphics of some games. My response was always "yeah but the gameplay isn't good."
I'll take a pretty game, sure. But I'll take 2600-level graphics and good gameplay over a lot of the AAA garbage we're being fed these days.
Anyone have the archive.org (or any other paywall side-stepping software) link for this article? I don't want to sign up for NYT,
uBlock Origin (not on Chrome) + https://raw.githubusercontent.com/liamengland1/miscfilters/master/antipaywall.txt
we're also getting pretty uncanny valley with a lot of the human models
This is why Astro bot is such a resounding success.
Astro Bot looks pretty darn good though (in both art style and graphical fidelity), so not sure if it's a good example.
And Balatro. A game by one dev, making many folks GOTY.
I like how the first line of this article below the images states how epic's flagship unreal 5 game has outdated graphics.. Doesn't make me feel like they did any sort of research.