Games

Thing is, looking at some games, Horizon and Elden Ring being a prime examples, we can have both great games with great graphics.

You don't really want better games with worse graphics, you want better games that don't use great graphics as an excuse to bad gameplay.

Honestly, I have to agree with the article - while you could say graphics have improved in the last decade, it's nowhere near as much as the difference as the decade before that.

I'd easily argue that the average AAA game from a decade ago looks just as good on a 1080/1440p display as the average AAA game today - and I'd still bet the difference wouldn't be that noticeable for 4K either.

And what do we gain for that diminishing return on graphics?
Singleplayer games are being made smaller, or vapid "open worlds", and cost more due to more resources going to design teams rather than the rest of the game.
Meanwhile multiplayer games get less frequent and smaller updates, and that gets padded out with aggressive micro-transactions.

I hate that "realistic" graphics has become such an over-hyped selling point in games that it's consuming AAA gaming in its entirety.

I would love for AAA games to go back to being reasonably priced with plainer looking graphics, so that resources can actually be put into making them more than just glorified tech demos.

I want better games with better graphics. The two are not mutually exclusive, games like Elden Ring prove it is possible to have both.

The problem this writer had with CoD wasn't even really the game. Its the same problem plaguing nearly all entertainment media at the moment: the writing just sucks. Its bad. Bad writing will make even a game with great gameplay turn sour.

I want shorter games, on average. 10-20 hour completion times would be right up my alley.

Chasing photorealism has been unsustainable since before MW2 came out. You could see where that line was headed. The answer has always been procedural artwork - not randomized, just rule-based. Even if an entire desert gets away with four textures for sand, those shouldn't be hand-drawn and manually-approved bitmaps. They should not be fixed-resolution. Let the machine generate them at whatever level of detail you need. Define what it's supposed to look like.

This is how that "Doom 3 on a floppy disk" game, .kkreiger, worked. It weighs 96 KB. It doesn't look like Descent. It has oodles of textures and smooth models. Blowing a few megabytes on that kind of content is a lot easier than cramming things down and a lot cheaper than mastering five hundred compressed six-channel bitmaps. Even if every rivet on a metal panel was drawn by hand with a circle tool, ship that tool, so that no matter how closely the player looks, those rivets stay circular.

You can draw rust and have it be less shiny because that's how rust is defined - and have that same smear of rust look a little bit different every time it appears, tiled across a whole battleship. Every bullet ding and cement crack can become utterly unremarkable by being completely unique and razor-sharp at macro-lens distances. You don't hire a thousand artists to manage one tree each, you hire a handful of maniacs who can define: wood. Sapling, tree, log, plank, chair, wood. Hand that to a dozen artists and watch them crank out a whole bespoke forest in an afternoon.

So... Battle bit?

Currently enjoying a several weeks-long run in Rimworld. Potato graphics go really far is the gameplay design is solid.

As a game dev who's making a better game with worse graphics - i think people who say this are in the minority, unfortunately.

I just want games where the devs get to release the game they wanted to make without the studio enshittification microtransactions, always-online single player and so on tagged on to it.

I personally want more physics simulations. I always loved 2D falling sand games where everything reacted with each other and after a long time not having games with those mechanics i found noita and i can't stop playing it. As much for the game loop then for the game's falling sand engine.

I'd love to upvote this more than once. What's the point of all those super high quality graphics if the core gameplay hasn't advanced in the slightest 🙄

Super flashy modern graphics are the RGB keyboard of gaming.

!patientgamers would agree and so do I

Yeah graphics are nice to have, but sometimes I want to game on a small and light laptop like I don't need revolutionary HD high quality all the time

I mean we could have both, but most Studios nowadays just buy the entire prop store and put everything into graphics because they can sell with that...

Obligatory: Starsector

Also Rimworld, Project Zomboid, Prison Architect, Factorio.... basically if you like sandbox games, there's a ton out there.

Depends on the genere. I think a very immersive game like Metro Exodus benefits a lot from its graphics and wouldn't work quite as well without them.

Personally I'd prefer if games used more stylized graphics like pixel art or hand drawn stuff. That's not worse in graphical quality but better imho while not needing a supercomputer to run. Spiritfarer is still one of the prettiest games I have played and it runs on the switch.

Going with stylized graphics instead of trying to do photorealism also makes the game age way more gracefully. Bastion for example still looks amazing while there's a reason Oblivion npcs are a meme.

I thought this right before I tried to play the really old pokemons again. And very quickly went back to new pokemons.

.!

I’ve got pretty similar thoughts. I wasn’t into gaming all that much up until relatively recently when I built my first gaming PC at the beginning of pandemic. Thanks to that, I’m not only on market for bleeding edge AAA titles, but also discovering 3 dacades worth of PC games. My observation is that games got worse over time. They’re also a lot more expensive to make because it all must be visually impressive, which usually ends up with poor performance and bugs, requiring high-end hardware for the game to run somehow. Quite often games are broken and unoptimized on launch, they have that generic formula, watch cinematic, hold a button, watch some more, here’s your little tutorial fight, now more cutscene and a crappy puzzle. It really makes me feel, if game developers were more limited by hardware constraint and unable to feed legions of normie players to flashy graphics, they wouldn’t have other way to makes games attractive other than with better mechanics and level design.

Meanwhile Nintendo continues to release bangers for their ancient potato console.

The problem with that is the back catalogue of games that developers have to compete with. There already are better games with worse graphics, the big studios aren't going to risk competing in that crowded market that already has its crowned victors.

Honestly can't blame Activision for putting shit campaigns into CoD. Since Modern Warfare the focus has been almost entirely on the multiplayer side of things. I suspect most players don't even touch it now. They sell millions regardless.

Infinity Ward's original MW and MW2 are the only ones worth playing. Titanfall 2 as well, since it's the same people.

Then just browser itch.io for games

There's room for both things. Call of duty sells a bazillion copies, and while I have zero interest in that kind of game, I don't hate that it exists.