I miss the days of pushing raw graphics

[Kashimi]

Remember when games were coming out that straight pushed the limits of current tech and devs tried to make games look as real as possible? It's such a shame that we're stuck in this loop of pushing to make games as accessible as possible to as many people as possible rather than trying to push graphical boundaries and win customers over that way.

Witcher 3 is currently considered one of the best looking games available and it was released in 2015. There hasn't been another big title since then that suits at the top of the chart for graphics. That's over 3 years without a any real competition.

What do you think? Would you like to set more games pushing graphics, or do you prefer stylized games that avoid realistic graphics?

[Irritablesquid]

I don't care about realistic graphics, I'd rather have good gameplay and a good story.

[Merlin]

At this point I don't really care. So long as the art style is cohesive and evokes a good mood. You can see an asset flip game with better graphics than older games but be an ugly looking mess compared to it.

I've asserted that I think we reached eternally acceptable graphics fidelity in the XB360/PS3 era. We can always push it further, but it is more effort for so little. It wastes dev time and money and I just don't care.

I'd also like to point out that its more important to optimize graphics development. I didn't think we'd see any sort of ray tracing or related tech in live graphics but Nvidia has done it. Now, they've done it poorly and half-heartedly, but it exists and it works sort of. This will hopefully make the development process less complex for graphics teams. But even in terms of pushing more or leaving it as is, I don't want to have to keep buying more expensive GPUs every few years just to keep up. It is getting better, but prices are still unusually high on that tech at the moment.

So I think while it was exciting, ultimately the goal was to reach some singularity, and hey, we are getting close enough that I'm happy and I'm glad we are where we are.

I prefer if we have nice graphics, but need to spend less and less on the tech needed to play it. I mean, there is a reason I didn't buy a PS3, expensive. Same with the Xbox1(at least on launch, what a blunder).

I think what is more important is streamlining and making cheaper both the hardware for games and the process to create games. We hit the ceiling where its too impractical to make higher level graphics without wasting time needlessly. A lot of indies use less detailed graphics or 2d pixel art because it is a time sink to play ball with AAA games in that regard. Just food for thought.

[Astraea]

Like kalin said above me, part of that is a lot of AAA developers make their games multiplatform, so gamers are more or less dependent on the beginning of a new console generation for seeing huge improvements in graphics. This includes pc gamers, even though their machines might have much more power than current gen consoles, which sucks for them but that's how it is at the moment.

On the other hand I think it's not that big of a loss, because I value stability of graphics and gameplay way more for my gaming experience. Steady framerates, no pushing and excellent gameplay. Those points are more likely to be focused on with how the market works right now. Which doesn't mean there aren't any shitty games with good graphics right now, it just means they could have been more beautiful and more shitty at the same time.

[Hambone]

Absolutely not man, inflated graphics budgets fuck over the industry and push out B-tier developers

[humanevil]

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.

i dont think we have its just that consoles havent moved on so the graphics hasnt as companys dont want to program for pc's and use there hardware so the cheap out and make all there games for console then if we are lucky we get an ok port for the pc i would name a game that would probably prove my point however i heard this was a nice place to come and chat games so i dont think ill clight that fues lol

[xadu]

I would LOVE to see a good focus on animation!

Lara animations on the first Tomb Raiders felt more realistic than the animations on the latest games.

I cringe each time lara jumps and grabs a wall. It feels sooo consoleish crappy animation. She is not correctly aimed. Gravity is unrealistic. She moves like super mario bross.

[isturbo1984]

Yes, japanese does have a lot to do with it. Whether you are talking consoles or PC... Microsoft, Nvidia and AMD are all Western (specifically American) companies. One of which, has the most powerful console on the market right now. While Japanese PlayStation recently came out with a piss poor upgrade system and Nintendo is trying to call their handheld a console.

You are also wrong about the 360 too. It was notoriously easier to develop for.--Again, in the same era as the PS3's cell processor, while superior in squeezing out juice, most PS3 ports under-performed. Also, might I add, the same gen as the Wii.--Not exactly a power house.

[R.U.S.E]

As for me, I'm more concerned with consistent animated movements than Realistic Graphics these days, just seeing stiff animation like the mass effect series and the Fallout series really bother me.

I would LOVE to see a good focus on animation!

[xadu]

I remember the days where Tomb Raider was too pixelated, so I temporarily changed the resolution up and down, just to see how it looked at his best, and suffered how low the FPS fell at high resolutions.

It had a big difference between high settings and low settings, so I needed more powerful hardware all the time, and all the time there was a new processor, or a new GPU which crushed the older ones.

Every time I bought a new CPU, or a new GPU, I played old games again to enjoy them at high resolution.

But today, it is the same to play at low settings or high settings. The differences are minor. I have an old CPU (i7 920), and an old GPU (Geforce 670), and I can play any game I want. I do not use 4K, but don't need it. I don't notice the difference between 4K and 720p after the game starts, and my CPU is like 10 years old, but still on the same league than new ones, because new CPUs were like just 5-10% faster each year.

[GypsyJuice95]

Yeah I agree, I do like graphics but would rather have a more enjoyable game than a pretty game. RDR2 got it right lol

[The_Dirk_Diggler]

I personally thought pushing graphics was awesome back in 2007, 2008. But those days are gone. With the outsourcing of coding to China and the relative ease of making a game "look good" developers don't have to push graphics because casual gamers will buy anything that looks good.

Also the advnacing of graphics these days is more about shadowing, lighting, post processing. Textures, animations, and modeling have pretty much topped out. It's harder to notice these other effects and kind of harder to appreciate outside of screenshots and comparison videos.

[fenrif]

When the market is dominated by EA, Ubisoft and Activition who deliberatly target console hardware instead of PC the emphasis on graphics tend to be toned down. Japanese or not has nothing to do with it. When the 360 was king of the consoles graphical development across the board was hamstrung for about a decade.

[fenrif]

What does the anime avatar have to do with anything?

[fenrif]

It's because about ten years ago developers decided to focus on console hardware over PC hardware and it completely stunted the improvement of graphics, as well as gameplay. Graphical fidelity is still pushed, but not to the extremes that are capable with modern PC hardware. Instead it's the push to wring the blood out of the stone that is limited console hardware.