High fidelity is ruining games

[Magmarock]

High fidelity is ruining games.

The last game I played that impressed with high fidelity was the original Crysis from 2007.

After watching this video

 

For a while now I've held the belief that the push graphics is destroying game. Video cards with heat sinks so heavy and bulky that it will tear itself apart unless braced properly, photo realistic looking games that only look 10% better than what they did 10 years ago, long load times limited physics, low frame rates. I am so sick of seeing these boring lifeless realistic games that I have been looking towards retro and indie games just to escape the homogenized mess.

Here's a good video on the subject

 

This was more of a rant, but years ago I used to look forward to the latest tech. Now I dread it. I'm going to go and play some Unreal Tournament. It's like Fortnight but good.

I was inspired to make this post after watching Luke and Linus talk about DLSS and how the industry might be moving away from native res. If Nintendo can make games look good on a toaster than we really gotta stop with the excuses.

[Middcore]

1 hour ago, Magmarock said:

If Nintendo can make games look good on a toaster than we really gotta stop with the excuses.

Someone clearly hasn't seen Pokemon Scarlet and Violet. 

[Magmarock]

1 hour ago, Middcore said:

Someone clearly hasn't seen Pokemon Scarlet and Violet. 

lol true, I was mostly referring to BOT

[da na]

I get your point.

Physics in Just Cause 2 are still incredibly impressive to this day, for example. Late 2000s games can look fantastic.

And then you have games like Cyberpunk 2077 with a....... "mid" storyline at best, with the whole selling point of the game being "b-but it looks good".

[Mojo-Jojo]

The more realistic a game looks, the more visual inconsistencies stand out. Nintendo games look good because they have a cartoony art style. They can get away with a lot more in that context.

 

I still think there are genres where realism makes sense, and in those cases striving for higher fidelity is a logical decision.

[ewitte]

Most games look WAY better than 10% better than 10 years ago.  I'm not sure what you are looking at...  Maybe just don't have the hardware to turn the settings up past low/medium???

 

 

 

 

[Middcore]

3 hours ago, ewitte said:

Most games look WAY better than 10% better than 10 years ago.  I'm not sure what you are looking at...  

 

People tend to have real nostalgia goggles for how good old games they haven't actually played in a long time looked. 

[Avocado Diaboli]

19 hours ago, Magmarock said:

The last game I played that impressed with high fidelity was the original Crysis from 2007.

And did it impress you with its gameplay? Is that why Crysis is still held up as a pinnacle of game design 15 years later and not just a punchline to a joke because it bet all on graphics over what you actually get to do in it? 

 

Even if I superficially agree with you that the push for graphics has always been a detriment to games and the skill of the people making these eye candy games, it's still notable that a lot of your criticisms have nothing to do with gameplay, aesthetic or narrative. You know, the stuff that actually sticks with you after you turn off the game. Games should focus on those qualities first. Graphics should come dead last.

[Magmarock]

3 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

And did it impress you with its gameplay? Is that why Crysis is still held up as a pinnacle of game design 15 years later and not just a punchline to a joke because it bet all on graphics over what you actually get to do in it? 

 

Even if I superficially agree with you that the push for graphics has always been a detriment to games and the skill of the people making these eye candy games, it's still notable that a lot of your criticisms have nothing to do with gameplay, aesthetic or narrative. You know, the stuff that actually sticks with you after you turn off the game. Games should focus on those qualities first. Graphics should come dead last.

Actually Crysis 1 was a lot of fun. I enjoyed the large but linear environments, it really felt like the best of both worlds. The open space and freedom of an open world game without the fetch quests and focus of a linear game.

 

Back on topic, I think I could've made my first post a little better but it's worth noting that everything aspect of a game takes time and money. The more time and money you put into graphics the less time and money will go into gameplay. This won't always be the case but it often is. This is why most of the stuff I'm playing today are indie shooter with retro graphics. The photo realistic stuff like Last of Us or whatever latest UE5 stuff that comes from Activision doesn't interest me. Nanite, lumen, ray tracing. I couldn't care less. Fear and Silent Hill had amazing lighting without need such gimmicks because the artists just painted it in.

 

[Magmarock]

11 hours ago, Mojo-Jojo said:

The more realistic a game looks, the more visual inconsistencies stand out. Nintendo games look good because they have a cartoony art style. They can get away with a lot more in that context.

 

I still think there are genres where realism makes sense, and in those cases striving for higher fidelity is a logical decision.

Horror games and sports including racing games tend to work well with realistic style, but we've long passed the need for new technology to create that look. You can make photo realistic graphics using tech from years ago. Look at Tomb Raider 2013. Still looks real in my opinion. Although I think the ones from the 2008 looks better.

[Magmarock]

10 hours ago, ewitte said:

Most games look WAY better than 10% better than 10 years ago.  I'm not sure what you are looking at...  Maybe just don't have the hardware to turn the settings up past low/medium???

 

 

 

 

I'm look at these and yeah I stand by what I said.
https://tinyurl.com/nhb8b26

7 hours ago, Middcore said:

 

People tend to have real nostalgia goggles for how good old games they haven't actually played in a long time looked. 

This is just the young person version of "back in my day" argument which isn't an argument at all.

[Middcore]

3 minutes ago, Magmarock said:

This is just the young person version of "back in my day" argument which isn't an argument at all.

 

I'm not interested in having an "argument" with someone who's just emotionally ranting. 

[NF-A12x25]

2 hours ago, Magmarock said:

This is just the young person version of "back in my day" argument which isn't an argument at all.

no, it’s just a good rebuttal to the “back in my day” shit you’re spouting. Ever heard the quote “99% of everything is garbage?” It’s always been true. Most art is utterly forgettable, including games. Current day stuff is no exception, but to cherry pick the standouts from years ago (which are of course great games) and use them as examples of how good games used to be and how much they’ve ‘degenerated’ is disingenuous at best. There’s always been good and bad games, there always will be.

[Magmarock]

I'm just going to leave this here.

MG1 1998   
MG2 2001   

Tomb Raider 2013 
last of us PC remake 2023

[CaptainQuirk26]

I am well aware of these issues, however, once the industry gets set on a path like this then if you want anybody to take you seriously, you have to lean into it. As a game developer, I'm getting away from this issue by using heavily stylized graphics (I'm working on a game right now that makes everything look handrawn by a three-year-old, and it uses toon shading with possible RT light calculation), but I have a few projects planned that would need a more realistic artstyle, and so if I want anyone to take them seriously I've got to go overboard on the visuals. Thankfully one of them is a Source engine project so I don't have to work as hard on that one, and the other will probably use Source 2, which is really well optimized.

[BrandonLatzig]

Its a mixture of thing factors, going back a decade or two
People have been pushing for higher graphics because it gives them an excuse for why they buy new tech, in this case cpus and gpus. Meanwhile games really.don't need it. Games need graphics and an art style that work for it. They dont need to be realistic, they dont need to be cartoony, they need to work with the game. For example, if borderlands looked realistic and gritty, would it have gotten all of its sequels and spinoffs? Imo, no. It would of been lost in the muckpile of what games were then, all brown and gritty. its cell shading and (imo again) dated visuals helped it

[CaptainQuirk26]

1 hour ago, BrandonLatzig said:

Its a mixture of thing factors, going back a decade or two
People have been pushing for higher graphics because it gives them an excuse for why they buy new tech, in this case cpus and gpus. Meanwhile games really.don't need it. Games need graphics and an art style that work for it. They dont need to be realistic, they dont need to be cartoony, they need to work with the game. For example, if borderlands looked realistic and gritty, would it have gotten all of its sequels and spinoffs? Imo, no. It would of been lost in the muckpile of what games were then, all brown and gritty. its cell shading and (imo again) dated visuals helped it

Oh yeah, games with more stylized graphics are definitely more likely to hold up visually. I mean, a good example would be Team Fortress 2. Visually, it holds up in all but geometric detail, and most people just ignore that. But if you compare that to Half-Life 2's graphics, it's the same graphical quality but Half-Life 2's graphics aim for fidelity, instead of a stylized art style. Half-Life 2 doesn't hold up visually.

[CaptainQuirk26]

21 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

And did it impress you with its gameplay? Is that why Crysis is still held up as a pinnacle of game design 15 years later and not just a punchline to a joke because it bet all on graphics over what you actually get to do in it? 

 

Even if I superficially agree with you that the push for graphics has always been a detriment to games and the skill of the people making these eye candy games, it's still notable that a lot of your criticisms have nothing to do with gameplay, aesthetic or narrative. You know, the stuff that actually sticks with you after you turn off the game. Games should focus on those qualities first. Graphics should come dead last.

Literally, my third favorite game is a fucking Scratch game. Was it graphically impressive? Fuck no. But did it have an interesting story? Yes. Was the gameplay engaging? Yes. Did the soundtrack haunt my dreams for weeks? Not telling.

 

BTW you should check it out. This link leads to the best way to experience it.

[Magmarock]

18 hours ago, CaptainQuirk26 said:

I am well aware of these issues, however, once the industry gets set on a path like this then if you want anybody to take you seriously, you have to lean into it. As a game developer, I'm getting away from this issue by using heavily stylized graphics (I'm working on a game right now that makes everything look handrawn by a three-year-old, and it uses toon shading with possible RT light calculation), but I have a few projects planned that would need a more realistic artstyle, and so if I want anyone to take them seriously I've got to go overboard on the visuals. Thankfully one of them is a Source engine project so I don't have to work as hard on that one, and the other will probably use Source 2, which is really well optimized.

I'm not a developer myself but I don't think you do, obviously graphics are important you need something to stand out and capture the tone of what you're making. But if you use the same overdone style as everyone else you'll just get lost in the crowed. I personally like retro pixel style myself but even that is kind of being done to death.

I don't know what kind of game you're making but might I suggest cell shade? Have you seen Bomb Rush Cyberfunk. It's going for a jet set radio style and it looks amazing. A lot of games aren't doing that so if you can get a good looking toon style going people just might look twice at your game. Again this is just a quick and dirty suggestion, but don't think you have to do what everyone else is doing just because... it's what everyone else is doing.

[Magmarock]

8 hours ago, CaptainQuirk26 said:

 Half-Life 2 doesn't hold up visually.

Half Life doesn't hold up at all. Yes I mean it, yes I played them both when they were new, no I'm not trying to start drama. Overrated game is overrated.

[thrasher_565]

48 minutes ago, Magmarock said:

Half Life doesn't hold up at all. Yes I mean it, yes I played them both when they were new, no I'm not trying to start drama. Overrated game is overrated.

half life 2 was the best game if it only finished...

half life one was a huge step in turns of graphics in its day. and yes there a remake of it.

for me oblivion looks too good...

[Mark Kaine]

On 9/27/2023 at 3:53 AM, Magmarock said:

If Nintendo can make games look good on a toaster than we really gotta stop with the excuses.

problem is they dont... its a pixelated mess barely above wii graphics.  but i do agree with the  sentiment,  graphics are pretty much stuck at ps360 gen because developers always try to make everything "4k" ... so textures, details, physics naturally suffer...

 

its the opposite of when realism, physics,  new gameplay ideas,  good AI, etc was a thing, nowadays all that matters is that its shiny and "high resolution"... textures,  physics,  gameplay, animations, etc, take a backseat... 

 

Solution:  you tell me! k-thanks~

[Magmarock]

On 9/29/2023 at 1:46 PM, thrasher_565 said:

half life 2 was the best game if it only finished...

half life one was a huge step in turns of graphics in its day. and yes there a remake of it.

for me oblivion looks too good...

If you're talking about Half Life 2 it indeed had some nice tech, but was surpassed less than a year later by Fear

[CaptainQuirk26]

3 hours ago, Magmarock said:

If you're talking about Half Life 2 it indeed had some nice tech, but was surpassed less than a year later by Fear

And yet the engine was capable of so much more than it was utilized for by HL2. I mean, just look at Portal 2, or even Black Mesa. The Stanley Parable used that engine. It's only just passing into obsolescence.

[xAcid9]

On 9/27/2023 at 9:53 AM, Magmarock said:

High fidelity is ruining AAA games.

FTFY

 

On 9/28/2023 at 1:15 PM, Magmarock said:

I'm just going to leave this here.

What are you trying to show here?