Video Games Can’t Afford to Look This Good

Oh don't dismiss that they're also graphics and programming wizards. They don't work with the cutting edge, but they run circles around anyone on the lower end, making games look and run better on potato hardware is no easy feat.

I'd argue the optimization required to make something like that happen is significantly more skillful than all of the crap AAA stuff that takes 250gb and requires shader compilations every boot.

If you like sound design, the sound design in Don't Starve is by far the best ive ever heard. It is the game that convinced me of your point.

I'd say it's less about imagination than gameplay. I'm reminded of old action figures. Some of them were articulated at the knees, elbows, feet, wrists, and head. Very posable, but you could see all the joints. Then you had the bigger and more detailed figures, but they were barely more than statues. Looked great but you couldn't really do anything with them.

And then you had themed Lego sets. Only a vague passing resemblance to the IP, but your imagination is the limit on what you do with them.

I may be outsider but lower graphic level horror games actually work more for me, because imagination fills the gaps better than engine rendering plastic looking tentacles can

Read the Article pleasw

One way to understand the video game industry’s current crisis is by looking closely at Spider-Man’s spandex.

For decades, companies like Sony and Microsoft have bet that realistic graphics were the key to attracting bigger audiences. By investing in technology, they have elevated flat pixelated worlds into experiences that often feel like stepping into a movie.

Designers of last year’s Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 used the processing power of the PlayStation 5 so Peter Parker’s outfits would be rendered with realistic textures and skyscraper windows could reflect rays of sunlight.

That level of detail did not come cheap.

Insomniac Games, which is owned by Sony, spent about $300 million to develop Spider-Man 2, according to leaked documents, more than triple the budget of the first game in the series, which was released five years earlier. Chasing Hollywood realism requires Hollywood budgets, and even though Spider-Man 2 sold more than 11 million copies, several members of Insomniac lost their jobs when Sony announced 900 layoffs in February.

Cinematic games are getting so expensive and time-consuming to make that the video game industry has started to acknowledge that investing in graphics is providing diminished financial returns.

“It’s very clear that high-fidelity visuals are only moving the needle for a vocal class of gamers in their 40s and 50s,” said Jacob Navok, a former executive at Square Enix who left that studio, known for the Final Fantasy series, in 2016 to start his own media company. “But what does my 7-year-old son play? Minecraft. Roblox. Fortnite.”

Joost van Dreunen, a market analyst and professor at New York University, said it was clear what younger generations value in their video games: “Playing is an excuse for hanging out with other people.”

When millions are happy to play old games with outdated graphics — including Roblox (2006), Minecraft (2009) and Fortnite (2017) — it creates challenges for studios that make blockbuster single-player titles. The industry’s audience has slightly shrunk for the first time in decades. Studios are rapidly closing and sweeping layoffs have affected more than 20,000 employees in the past two years, including more than 2,500 Microsoft workers.

Many video game developers built their careers during an era that glorified graphical fidelity. They marveled at a scene from The Last of Us: Part II in which Ellie, the protagonist, removes a shirt over her head to reveal bruises and scrapes on her back without any technical glitches.

But a few years later, costly graphical upgrades are often barely noticeable.

When the studio Naughty Dog released a remastered version of The Last of Us: Part II this year, light bounced off lakes and puddles with a more realistic shimmer. In a November ad for the PlayStation 5 Pro, an enhanced version of the Sony console that retails for almost $700, the billboards in Spider-Man 2’s Manhattan featured crisper letters.

Optimizing cinematic games for a narrow group of consumers who have spent hundreds of dollars on a console or computer may no longer make financial sense. Studios are increasingly prioritizing games with basic graphics that can be played on the smartphones already in everyone’s pocket.

“They essentially run on toasters,” said Matthew Ball, an entrepreneur and video game analyst, talking about games like Roblox and League of Legends. “The developers aren’t chasing graphics but the social connections that players have built over time.” Going Hollywood

Developers had long taught players to equate realism with excellence, but this new toaster generation of gamers is upsetting industry orthodoxies. The developer behind Animal Well, which received extensive praise this year, said the game’s file size was smaller than many of the screenshots used to promote it.

A company like Nintendo was once the exception that proved the rule, telling its audiences over the past 40 years that graphics were not a priority.

That strategy had shown weaknesses through the 1990s and 2000s, when the Nintendo 64 and GameCube had weaker visuals and sold fewer copies than Sony consoles. But now the tables have turned. Industry figures joke about how a cartoony game like Luigi’s Mansion 3 on the Nintendo Switch considerably outsells gorgeous cinematic narratives on the PlayStation 5 like Final Fantasy VII Rebirth.

There are a number of theories why gamers have turned their backs on realism. One hypothesis is that players got tired of seeing the same artistic style in major releases. Others speculate that cinematic graphics require so much time and money to develop that gameplay suffers, leaving customers with a hollow experience.

Another theory is that major studios have spent recent years reshaping themselves in Hollywood’s image, pursuing crossover deals that have given audiences “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” and “The Last of Us” on HBO. Not only have companies like Ubisoft opened divisions to produce films, but their games include an astonishing amount of scenes where players watch the story unfold.

In 2007, the first Assassin’s Creed provided more than 2.5 hours of footage for a fan edit of the game’s narrative. As the series progressed, so did Ubisoft’s taste for cinema. Like many studios, it increasingly leaned on motion-capture animators who could create scenes using human actors on soundstages. A fan edit of Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla, which was released in 2020, lasted about 23 hours — longer than two seasons of “Game of Thrones.”

Gamers and journalists began talking about how the franchise’s entries had gotten too bloated and expensive. Ubisoft developers advertised last year’s Assassin’s Creed Mirage, which had about five hours of cut scenes, as “more intimate.”

The immersive graphics of virtual reality can also be prohibitive for gamers; the Meta Quest Pro sells for $1,000 and the Apple Vision Pro for $3,500. This year, the chief executive of Ubisoft, Yves Guillemot, told the company’s investors that because the virtual reality version of Assassin’s Creed did not meet sales expectations, the company was not increasing its investment in the technology. ImageA person plays a video game on a tablet. Live service games that are playable on mobile devices, like Genshin Impact, can generate large amounts of revenue. Credit...Ina Fassbender/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Many studios have instead turned to the live service model, where graphics are less important than a regular drip of new content that keeps players engaged. Genshin Impact, by the studio Hoyoverse, makes roughly $2 billion every year on mobile platforms alone, according to the data tracker Sensor Tower. Going Broke?

It was clear this year, however, that the live service strategy carries its own risks. Warner Bros. Discovery took a $200 million loss on Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, according to Bloomberg. Sony closed the studio behind Concord, its attempt to compete with team-based shooters like Overwatch and Apex Legends, one month after the game released to a minuscule player base.

“We have a market that has been in growth mode for decades,” Ball said. “Now we are in a mature market where instead of making bets on growth, companies need to try and steal shares from each other.”

Some industry professionals believe there is a path for superb-looking games to survive the cost crunch.

“I used to be a high-fidelity guy; I would log into games and if it didn’t look hyperrealistic, then it was not so interesting,” said David Reitman, a managing director at PricewaterhouseCoopers, where he leads the consulting firm’s games division. “There was a race to hyperrealism, and it’s tough to pivot away. You have set expectations.”

Reitman sees a future where most of the heavy costs associated with cutting-edge graphics are handled by artificial intelligence. He said that manufacturers were working on creating A.I. chips for consoles that would facilitate those changes, and that some game studios were already using smart algorithms to improve graphics further than anything previously seen.

He expects that sports games will be the first genre to see considerable improvements because developers have access to hundreds of hours of game footage. “They can take feeds from leagues and transpose them into graphical renderings,” Reitman said, “leveraging language models to generate the incremental movements and facial expressions of players.”

Some independent developers are less convinced. “The idea that there will be content from A.I. before we figure out how it works and where it will source data from is really hard,” said Rami Ismail, a game developer in the Netherlands.

Ismail is worried that major studios are in a tight spot where traditional games have become too expensive but live service games have become too risky. He pointed to recent games that had both jaw-dropping realism — Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora (individual pebbles of gravel cast shadows) and Senua’s Saga: Hellblade II (rays of sunlight flicker through the trees) — and lackluster sales.

He recalled a question that emerged early in the coronavirus pandemic and has become something of an unofficial motto in the video game industry.

“How can we as an industry make sho

I use Firefox's "reader mode"

Edit: nyt managed to enshittify even that. will wonders never cease

Live and drink!

What is this?

This is why so many indie games are awesome. The graphics don't need to be great when the soundtracks and gameplay more than make up for it. Those are what actually matter. I have most of Undertale's OST committed to memory at this point lol

The Wii was a fantastic example of this. Less capable hardware used in very imaginative ways, and had the capacity to bring older people into the games

This article wasn't about indie games.

I'm sorry sir, but I'm not an indie dev. I need to show the investors that my game will earn $100 million otherwise it's a failure.

Story goes somewhere below Replay value, and controls go to number one. Gameplay and controls are pretty much interchangable unless you want a cinema simulator.

Add sound design as number two above music as number three and then the list is done.

Well, everyone has their priorities. The problem is that even the people, who do value realistic graphics the most, are not captured by new AAA games.

Just wanna throw Windwaker into the examples of highly stylized art style games that aged great.

Unfortunately, Cyberpunk is exactly the kind of product that is going to keep driving the realistic approach. It's four years later now and the game's visuals are still state-of-the-art in many areas. Even after earning as much backlash on release as any game in recent memory, it was a massively profitable project in the end.

This is why Sony, Microsoft, and the big third parties like Ubisoft keep taking shots in this realm.

I honestly feel like this with Genshin Impact. It looks absolutely breathtaking and in 20 years it will still be beautiful. It runs on a damn potato. I personally like the lighting in a lot of scenes way better than the lighting in some titles that have path tracing.

I have always liked art styles in games better than realism.

Agreed; Veilguard has pretty okay graphics. Not great, but acceptable - the high mark for me is BG3. But moving back to the earlier entries, they may have had stories that felt more 'real' (e.g., the setting felt more internally consistent) and gave more options, but the graphics and gameplay haven't aged well.

Similarly, Fallout: New Vegas hasn't aged so well. It was a great game, but it looks pretty rough now, unless you load it down with hi-res mods.

I don't demand photorealism, but I'd like better visuals than PS3-level graphics.

It's bullshit accounting, they're not spending it on the devs or the games, they're spending it on advertising and the c levels Paydays. There are a ton of really good looking games, that had what would be considered shoestring budgets, but these companies bitching about it aren't actually in it for the games anymore, its just for the money.

Look, I'm gonna be real with you, the pool of writers who are exceptionally good at specifically writing for games is really damn small.

Everyone is trained on novels and movies, and so many games try to hamfist in a three-act arc because they haven't figured out that this is an entirely different medium and needs its own set of rules for how art plays out.

Traditional filmmaking ideas includes stuff like the direction a character is moving on the screen impacting what the scene "means." Stuff like that is basically impossible to cultivate in, say, a first or third-person game where you can't be sure what direction characters will be seen moving. Thus, games need their own narrative rules.

I think the first person to really crack those rules was Yoko Taro, that guy knows how to write for a game specifically.

It's hard for them to realize because good graphics used to effectively sell lots of copies of games. If they spent their graphics budget on writers, they'd have spent way too much on writing.

Yeah, but you can't make a TV ad about good writing.

High end graphics cards have become so expensive that people can’t afford gaming with good graphics

Not only that, but mid range cards just haven't really moved that much in terms of performance. The ultra high end used to be a terrible value only for people who want the best and didn't care about money. Now it almost makes sense from a performance per dollar standpoint to go ultra high end. At launch the 4090 was almost twice the performance of the 4080, but only cost about 1.5x. And somehow the value gets worse the lower end you go.

Meanwhile mid-high end cards like the 4060 and 7600 (which used to be some of the best values) are barely outperforming their predecessors.

Oh man... I still can't read it because of the atrocious background. I was hoping this link would have just been normal text.

I linked the gift article. This link shouldn't be necessary, right?

Yeah, that frustrates me a lot, too. They almost had it right, that they need to go beyond realism to make truly good-looking games. But in practice, they say that only to show you the most boring-ass graphics known to humanity. I don't need your pebbles to cast shadows. I can walk outside and find a pebble that casts shadows in a minute tops. Make the pebbles cast light instead, that could look cool. Or make them cast a basketball game. That's at least something, I haven't seen yet.