!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
The question is whether "realism" was ever a good target. The best games are not the most realistic ones.
So many retro games are replayable and fun to this day, but I struggle to return to games whose art style relied on being "cutting edge realistic" 20 years ago.
I dunno, Crysis looks pretty great on modern hardware and its 18 years old.
Also, CRYSIS IS 18 WHERE DID THE TIME GO?
There's a joke in there somewhere about Crysis being the age of consent but I just can't land it right now.
Probably because I'm old enough to remember it's release.
Really? Cause I don't know, I can play Shadow of the Colossus, Resident Evil 4, Metal Gear Solid 3, Ninja Gaiden Black, God of War, Burnout Revenge and GTA San Andreas just fine.
And yes, those are all 20 years ago. You are now dead and I made it happen.
As a side note, man, 2005 was a YEAR in gaming. That list gives 1998 a run for its money.
Did those go for realism though, or were they just good at balancing the more detailed art design with the gameplay?
Factorio and Balatro
Like cgi and other visual effects, realism has some applications that can massively improve the experience in some games. Just like how lighting has a massive impact, or sound design, etc.
Chasing it at the expense of game play or art design is a negative though.
Eventually we hit a limit to how round we could make car tires.
Rush on the N64 had octagonal tires and real damage! I still play it every year or so.
Oh it's a bit of a running joke that every time there's a new Forza or Gran Turismo, they brag about how round the tires are and how wet the pavement looks.
Kind of like smartphones. They all kind of blew up into this rectangular slab, and...
Nothing. It's all the same shit. I'm using a OnePlus 6T from 2018, and I think I'll have it easily for another 3 years. Things eventually just stagnate.
I was hoping that eventually smartphones would evolve to do everything. Especially when things like Samsung Dex were intorduced, it looked to me like maybe in the future phones could replace desktops, running a full desktop OS when docked and some simplified mobile UI + power saving when in mobile mode.
But no, I only have a locked-down computer.
I miss physical keyboards on phones
Let's compare two completely separate games to a game and a remaster.
Generational leaps then:
Good lord.
EDIT: That isn't even the Zero Dawn remaster. That is literally two still-image screenshots of Forbidden West on both platforms.
Good. Lord.
Yeah no. You went from console to portable.
We've had absolutely huge leaps in graphical ability. Denying that we're getting diminishing returns now is just ridiculous.
The fact that the Game Boy Advance looks that much better than the Super Nintendo despite being a handheld, battery powered device is insane
I mean, how much more photorealistic can you get? Regardless, the same game would look very different in 4K (real, not what consoles do) vs 1080p.
Don't get me started on Horizon: Forbidden West. It was a beautiful game. It also had every gameplay problem the first one did, and added several more to boot. The last half of the game was fucking tedious, and I basically finished it out of spite.
This is true of literally any technology. There are so many things that can be improved in the early stages that progress seems very fast. Over time, the industry finds most of the optimal ways of doing things and starts hitting diminishing returns on research & development.
The only way to break out of this cycle is to discover a paradigm shift that changes the overall structure of the industry and forces a rethinking of existing solutions.
The automobile is a very mature technology and is thus a great example of these trends. Cars have achieved optimal design and slowed to incremental progress multiple times, only to have the cycle broken by paradigm shifts. The most recent one is electrification.
Okay then why are they arbitrarily requiring new GPUs? It's not just about the diminishing returns of "next gen graphics".
That’s exactly why. Diminishing returns means exponentially more processing power for minimal visual improvement.
I don't mind the graphics that much, what really pisses me off is the lack of optimization and heavy reliance on frame gen.
Ironically, Zelda Link to the Past ran at 60fps, and Ocarina of Time ran at 20fps.
The same framerates are probably in the Horizon pictures below lol.
Now, Ocarina of Time had to run at 20fps because it had one of the biggest draw distances of any N64 game at the time. This was so the player could see to the other end of Hyrule Field, or other large spaces. They had to sacrifice framerate, but for the time it was totally worth the sacrifice.
Modern games sacrifice performance for an improvement so tiny that most people would not be able to tell unless they are sitting 2 feet from a large 4k screen.
Had to, as in "they didn't have enough experience to optimize the games". Same for Super Mario 64. Some programmers decompiled the code and made it run like a dream on original hardware.
The programming knowledge did not exist at the time. Its not that they did not have the experience, it was impossible for them to have the knowledge because it did not exist at the time. You can't really count that against them.
Kaze optimizing Mario 64 is amazing, but it would have been impossible for Nintendo to have programmed the game like that because Kaze is able to use programming technique and knowledge that literally did not exist at the time the N64 was new. Its like saying that the NASA engineers that designed the Atlas LV-3B spacecraft were bad engineers or incapable of making a good rocket design just because of what NASA engineers could design today with the knowledge that did not exist in the 50s.
yeah but the right hand pic has twenty billion more triangles that are compressed down and upscaled with AI so the engine programmers dont have to design tools to optimise art assets.
I don't understand why developers and publishers aren't prioritizing spectacle games with simple graphics like TABS, mount and blade, or similar. Use modern processing power to just throw tons of shit on screen, make it totally chaotic and confusing. Huge battles are super entertaining.
The dream of the '10s/20s game industry was VR. Hyper-realistic settings were supposed to supplant the real world. Ready Player One was what big development studios genuinely thought they were aiming for.
They lost sight of video games as an abstraction and drank too much of their own cyberpunk kool-aid. So we had this fixation on Ray Tracing and AI-driven NPC interactions that gradually lost sight of the gameplay loop and the broader iterative social dynamics of online play.
That hasn't eliminated development in these spheres, but it has bifricated the space between game novelty and game immersion. If you want the next Starcraft or Earthbound or Counterstrike, you need to look towards the indie studios and their low-graphics / highly experimental dev studios (where games like Stardew Valley and Undertale and Balatro live). The AAA studios are just turning out 100 hour long movies with a few obnoxious gameplay elements sprinkled in.
Why not do apples to apples?
A cutscene isn't the best representation. This shows off the 8-bit vs 16-bit better.
The problem as I see it is that there is an upper limit on how good any game can look graphically. You can't make a game that looks more realistic than literal reality, so any improvement is going to just approach that limit. (Barring direct brain interfacing that gives better info than the optical nerve)
Before, we started from a point that was so far removed from reality than practically anything would be an improvement. Like say "reality" is 10,000. Early games started at 10, then when we switched to 3D it was 1,000. That an enormous relative improvement, even if it's far from the max. But now your improvements are going from 8,000 to 8,500 and while it's still a big absolute improvement, it's relatively minor -- and you're never going to get a perfect 10,000 so the amount you can improve by gets smaller and smaller.
All that to say, the days of huge graphical leaps are over, but the marketing for video games acts like that's not the case. Hence all the buzzwords around new tech without much to show for it.
And they're shocked that no one bought the PS5 pro for 800 dollars
The improvement levels are the same amount they used to be. It’s just that adding 100mhz to a 100mhz processor doubles your performance, adding 100mhz to a modern processor adds little in comparison as a for instance.
Has anyone ever really noticed how samey everything looks right now? It's a bit hard to explain, because it's not the aesthetics of any kind of art style used, but the tech employed and how it's employed. Remember how a lot of early 3D in film just looked like it was plastic? It's like that, but with a wider variety of materials than plastic. Yet every modern game kinda looks like it's made using toys.
Like, 20 years from now I think it would be possible to look at any given game that is contemporary right now and be able to tell by how it looks when it was made. The way PS1 era games have a certain quality to them that marks when they were made, or how games of the early 2000's are denoted by their use of browns and grays.
My guess is a lot of convergence to a smaller set of known game engines. Godot, unreal, unity, plus a few others and some in-house like valves source.
I could be wrong but I presume in the past almost every game was made with its own custom engine. Now a lot of them have the "unreal engine" look.
But I'm not complaining. Looks great to me and leads to better performance and fewer bugs in the long run. Of course there are some caveats
There's no better generational leap than Monster Hunter Wilds, which looks like a PS2 game on its lowest settings and still chugs at 24fps on my PC.
I wouldn't mind like a new style of controller like maybe a fleshlight with buttons on the side or something
To be fair there isn't just graphics.
Something like Zelda Twilight princess HHD to Zelda Breath of the wild was a huge leap in just gameplay. (And also in graphics but that's not my point)
Games did teach me about diminishing returns though
tbf I went from Wii to PS4 and shit a brick
Yeah, but the Wii was a very underpowered system, and it didn't even have HDMI. That transition wouldn't have been as stark going from PS3 to PS4.
I would argue that late SNES era games look far better than their early 3d era follow ups
Slightly improved graphics while having worse enemy ai, unreal engine stutter, constant hand holding with in game puzzles, restricted character creation, all while having to wait for updates to fix issues that shouldn't be there at launch.
