What do you guys think ?
Thursday, 13 Mar 2025
Exclusive insights, data, and analysis for financial market experts.
Search
Have an existing account?
Sign In
Good graphics can enhance a good game
Good graphics cant save a mediocre game
Gameplay > everything else
The large size of game files these days is more about poor file optimization than the fidelity lol
I’m starting to prefer artistic design much more than graphical fidelity.
Just look at Elden Ring, it’s a fucking gorgeous game and not that demanding at all.
Ghost of Tsushima is 60 smth gb and is one of the most beautiful games of all time graphically, RDR2 isn’t much bigger than GTA 5 either, thankfully SOME companies are still good at optimizing games with good graphics… Then again, I feel like we could just use already made graphic systems and cut developer time in half.
I’m in his camp, but because I prefer an artistic artstyle over hyper realism any day of the week. Realism is boring. I want the game to look like a cartoon or pixar movie.
Hell, for “realism” I prefer where games were at around 2000-2010. Games like Deus Ex, Fallout: New Vegas, Vampires the Masquerade: Bloodline and such are comfy as hell.
I work in game dev, and while opinions may differ; I dislike working on super-high fidelity games. For the simple reason that its so much slower to work with.
The engine takes longer to launch, the files take longer to sync, you have more (and more severe) graphics related bugs, shaders take a centry to compile, and the game takes longer to build.
I do like a good looking game. The Horizons series, Elden Ring, Cyberpunk, but I think anything above the 80GB mark really starts to put people off, and we have seen examples where a small file size can go a really long way in the hands of a talented art team.
The biggest culprits seem to be simpler games by huge publishers. Activision and the like, trying to justify their regular repackaging by pushing graphics to extremes that noone asked for.
agreed too many games try hard to push the limits of graphics but almost never justify it
Agreed. Graphics are good enough now tbh. Ps4 generation seems more than enough for me.
Cyberpunk takes up 70gb and is one of the peaks of graphical fidelity right now. Idk how cod can take 200gb+
Graphics definitely aren’t stagnant, but we have reached a point of diminishing returns. The graphical leap from the X-Box One / PS4 to the Series X / PS5 is probably the smallest graphical leap I’ve ever seen. However, the improvement in visuals is definitely still there.
I mean, game sizes are definitely getting out of control. But I’m still excited to see graphical improvements as we can get them.
I agree 100%.
The best linoleum texture is still in Alien Isolation. The best garbage bags are still in Watch_Dogs
Overall, what the PS360 era lacked for fidelity was some good volumetric light with the right color accuracy. And maybe a bit more particles in all areas. There is a certain harshness that you find in games from that generation compared to last-gen. But it got kind of fixed right around 2014, with games like Assassin’s Creed: Unity, Alien: Isolation, P.T, Ground Zeroes…and yeah, by 2015, I’m not saying that games graphics peaked, but they kind of hit the hard diminishing returns zone.
You look at the early/mid-gen games from the PS4, The Witcher 3, Horizon: Zero Dawn, God Of War, Batman: Arkham Knight…they still hold up like incredibly well. And even approaching the next gen, RDR2, TLOU2, Detroit: Become Human or things like Kena, Ratchet&Clank remake, Spider-Man…I don’t know what much to expect, except…the framerate.
Like yeah, textures are more crisp, resolution is higher, light is calculated like real light. But overall the tricks were working 100% to trick my brain in Ground Zeroes/Phantom Pain. I don’t know if I’ll ever care again for visual fidelity progress. Some games look marginally better than other, but not to a significant degree anymore. And it’s been like that for going on 10 years yeah 😀
We have gotten to a point that the visual fidelity of games is increasing development time and as a result devs are releasing half made games.
So reverting back to a simpler visual of game, decreasing dev time and as a result improving the overall quality would be great.
Would also make games cheaper and not result in a studio shutting down when they have a bad game.
Super-fancy graphical fidelity means jack shit if your hardware isnt good enough to run it. I’d rather have a less graphically enhanced but more fun game than a pretty, boring shlock.
Art direction will always be more important than the actual graphical fidelity. It’s a big reason why a lot of Super Nintendo games still hold up and look amazing
Gameplay is everything dawg i still play ps2 style games because they are legitimately fun and good and the ps2 feel sometimes makes the game better (especially horror games)
I just find it funny all his examples literally all have water reflections and shadows… Plus really good fidelity. Also I find it goofy how he says graphics are stagnant when there’s literally cyberpunk or sm2 that look better then any game from 2015. Also have we forgotten unreal engine five and all the games made in it?
Photorealistic games are dated upon release, I wish more devs worked on stylized visuals that age better. The new mario and luigi game is a solid example
Battlefield 3 looks better than Battlefield 2042.
Hate to be that guy but that’s MGSV Ground Zeroes and not the Phantom Pain in the top left pic. Came out in 2014 and was only a few GB
I’d rather games run better and look worse. 30fps should have been laughed out of gaming during the gamecube.
Personally just having the ps4/xbox one generation of games in 4k and 60fps is good enough for me.
Death stranding and resident evil 2 remake still look fantastic with the higher resolutions
Agreed. Put more effort into story and gameplay
Graphics and visuals rank among the least important factors of a game for me. It’s all about the gameplay.
Completely agree 100% getting tired of pushing for that 2% increased fidelity that seems to require 10% more power. I was completely content with gfx fidelity about 15 years or so ago and never wanted more. The trade offs just simply aren’t worth it. I mean games like mass effect still look great and that was released in 2007
Let me add to it : control ultimate edition : 42 gb, plague tale both games : 50 gb and 55 gb,mafia definitive edition 50 gb.
Art style is a big factor
People that play Everquest, LoTRO, Runescape, pixel games prove that graphics don’t matter if your game is fun
I agree but also fuck off with the online only bullshit
I’ve never been a graphics guy. Gameplay and artistic license over all. With that being said, if you check the first two then go ham. I just hate that I have to delete two games to download one these days.
Good graphics are nice but good, fun gameplay makes the game
Graphical fidelity is a game of diminishing returns.
The higher you go the more work it takes for less of a difference.
Aesthetic and art design are much more important than graphical fidelity. This is best exemplified by games that look as pleasing on lower and hardware such as breath of the wild or tears of the kingdom or games that are old but still look good because the graphical fidelity is neutralized by the art direction.
An additional variable is speed of action. If you think about it it’s not very sensible to put ultra high resolution textures in a game where you’re mostly moving quickly. You are not going to be able to see the detail at the speed that you will be at most of the time.
It makes me wonder if there’s not a middle ground, lower resolution textures for items that are going to be seen moving quickly or the player is just not going to be at a pick out the detail of and high resolution textures and areas where the player will be often or where the player is moving slowly.