I miss the days of pushing raw graphics

[aileron]

Is this really the case? If so it sucks. Yeah the best looking games are not always (maybe not even the majority) the most fun. But the cutting edge of graphics one year becomes the norm of graphics a couple years later. At least that's the way it used to be. And I think that's a good thing until you reach the pinnacle of graphics: That they are indistinguishable from reality. Wouldn't that be awesome if that was possible? Not every game would take advantage of it, but wouldn't you like that technology to exist?

[RevolverGirl]

To me I dont think thats nessecary, sure it helps if a game looks beautiful, but I think artstyle is more important (I still think Journey is one of the most beautiful looking games ever made). And I have never been one for graphics anyway. Thats why I still love Nintendo, they make good games without trying to push the limits of realism. Its mostly about gameplay and fun with them.
And I think we already hit a point where most games are as good looking as they are going to get. I think the true worth of a game is what it can provide you, how it will stand out, how it plays. Or how creative it is.
but thats just me

[Kraneloran]

Why do games have to look as real as possible? And it's almost like gaming today is ALL about graphics and lootboxes. I wouldn't mind a good game with unrealistic graphics every now and then.

I will answer your Question in the most subjective way possible, although I'm a little bit closer to your camp:

Because after Final Fantasy 7 all we children wanted to see was the characters to look so real, that we could tell ourselves that they're actually real :'(

[ciderPunk1877]

There are some very graphically intensive games being released now - Red Dead, God of War, and - despite its flaws - Battlefield 5.

We even have a console on the market that's regularly pushed as "the most powerful console ever."

You don't see as much of the "graphics wars" anymore, though, simply because we've reached the law of diminishing returns.

[Kashimi]

It is pricey to develop a game with cutting edge graphics and it is super time consuming, but when you back the massive graphics with good gameplay and good story telling you generally come out ahead.

SaltyPaladin I'm not sure what you're saying. Most games that come out are games that have ultra stylized unrealistic graphics.

[Lars]

It's quite expensive to push the graphical barriers like they used to, and I'm not sure most of the customers care any longer. Most games look good enough these days, and development is expensive as it is already.

[SaltyPaladin]

Why do games have to look as real as possible? And it's almost like gaming today is ALL about graphics and lootboxes. I wouldn't mind a good game with unrealistic graphics every now and then.

[kalin]

We're kind of in a weird cycle drop where the PC and console targets are all kind of stuck in a plateau of quality largely centered around where ps4/xb1 is at. I think we'll see a big upgrade push with the ps5 cycle. I wish it was more aggressive but that's just how it is I suppose. You can make some graphic tech that pushes higher end for PC, but the assets are still just largely going to be made for ps4 gen tech

[Justince]

It's well known in game development that limitations breed creativity. Unique problem solving and variation in approach to a technological issues in many older games created a lot of character and interesting history. Now that graphics horsepower has flattened out, and hardware is all basically homogenized, studios need massive investment in both manpower and external libraries just to keep up with the pack. When the credits screen to a modern game takes over 15 minutes to go by, something has gone wrong in my opinion.

Sure games like Witcher 3 are awesome looking, but what kind of staying power will it have when games always have to 1-up each other over graphics or content? I think the market is simply over-saturated, and most studios aren't willing to reinvent the wheel or go crazy with new graphical techniques when their product will simply be forgotten in six months. Another thing to consider is the constantly aging console market. Developers could go crazy with hardware on modern PCs, but their investors all want console ports as well. Making a stripped down port is much more work than simply creating the game within the confines of the lowest performing hardware in the first place.

[Kraneloran]

Mhh, I should be someone countering your viewpoint, as many graphically impressive Video-Games lack substance even compared to Games from Era's where the best we had was 2D.
But I can't argue like that. At best we would have a conflict in terminology.
I make a distinction between graphics and visuals, to point out, that even in the SNES era of gaming, games strove to have more impressive and detailed visuals, for example Secret of Mana (1 and 2), while others tried to do the same but compromized gameplay for deadlines. Terranigma showed that you can have almost perfect gameplay and impressive musical, visual and artistic design if you take the time.

Still, when new tech emerged everyone wanted to make as much money as possible by advertising the fact that we have now graphical capabilities that never were possible before, and so, the art of making videogames became fooling people that artistic value doesn't exist and if a video game is not using the latest state-of-the-art graphics is not worth giving attention to.

So what I try to say is, that I think that rushing to some technical apsolute to have a more reality-mimicing graphics in a video-game is the wrong direction
while I, at the same time, agree that I'd like to have games that have more immersive visuals without compromising gameplay.