58
Photorealism just puts a lot of constraints on gameplay mechanics and art direction.
I am literally playing minecraft without any of those shader texturepacks because I kind of prefer games not being ultra realistic. If being realistic was more fun than we would not need games to have fun because we have real life which is as real as you can get.
I would argue fancy graphics help sell it. It’s the easiest way to grab attention, be it in a trailer or while watching a streamer. Depending on the game it also helps immersion, but not all games need that. All AAA games need to be sold though (at least that’s the aim of any AAA publisher). And people have bought them. And they still do. But they’re starting to learn that attention grabbing graphics doesn’t equal good game.
Many people (including me) consider the best game of 2024 to be Balatro.
Balatro. A game made by one guy who legitimately didn't even think anyone other than his friends and family would buy it.
AAA studios do not understand what people enjoy at all.
Balatro is 1) a fluke, an exception, a rarity and 2) not something big studios could even possibly replicate. What would be the point of a big studio trying to make a game that one developer can pull off? The closest the likes of Ubisoft in particular are getting to games like Baltro are their Indie-esque side projects that parts of their bigger studios engage in on the side, like Valiant Hearts. Those can never be enough to finance a big operation though.
You're missing my point and arguing against a strawman here. All I'm arguing is that the things AAA studios focus on (like hyper-realism) are not the things that make a game fun, and AAA studios sound be putting fun as the focus.
Just saw a video today about how on steam roughly half of the best rated games are indie titles. Needless to say that the 2D graphics are not photorealistic.
Maybe, instead throwing money on graphics alone, focus on making fun games?
I like that we can get both indie and AAA and that indie developers can successfully create a whole of the former without big business. Not many places any more where a single person can offer a quality product that sits next to a business' with hundreds of millions of investment.
Realistic does not equal to good looking. In example Zelda Breath of the Wild looks good, but its hardly realistic. And if all games are very realistic, then it gets a little bit boring, as all games start to look the same. The AAA gaming industry is too much focused on lip sync, realistic faces, grass and puddles. I don't feel like getting lost in a game, but more like watching a movie. It's so boring to me (I'm looking at you Red Dead Redemption 2).
I've always disliked how washed out BotW looks. It's like they could only process limited colours so they reduced the contrast and everything is light grey with a hint of colour.
It's actually a deliberate stylistic choice. The colors are washed out with a post-processing filter. Textures are actually much more colorful. You can fix this in an emulator, but the problem is that it's difficult to find a color preset that works in all lighting conditions. BotW has a consistent, almost painterly art style, even if it's relatively muted.
Yep, did this, looked great and I loved it. Botw modded was a great experience. Just skipping all those unskippable cutscenes was worth it already. (Teleport animations, sign repair dialogue, etc etc)
Rdr2 was a fanatic game though...
I had the good fortune to have a medical emergency that allowed me to be on sick leave long enough to play through it at a leisurely pace.
Worth it.
I think the point is that it would have still been a fantastic game if it hadn't sunk a load of money into looking like a movie.
In fact, the "cinematic" shit was the worst part of it IMO. There were gameplay segments where it got very tedious.
I disagree. The art design and realism was one of the reasons why it was so good. It's still one of the best looking games of all time. It also proves that you can make a good looking game that also is fun and fulfilling. It's honestly a success story all around.
What, you mean you don't play games and go "Well that looked great! Well worth my time!" like an awful lot of the AAA game industry appears to think gamers do?
Huh.
Seriously though, I'm curious how we ended up in the make-shit-prettier race and not a make-the-writing-good, or make-the-game-actually-fun, or even things like make-more-than-two-dungeons (looking at you, Starfield) race.
Especially given the cost to me, personally, to keep upgrading my GPU has reached an untenable level: I'm sure as crap not paying $2000 for a new GPU just so we get a few extra frames of hair jiggle or slightly better lighting or whatever.
What do you think is easiest to show in a 1min trailer: industry leading graphics, good writing or fun gameplay?
Graphical realism is an easier metric than good writing or fun.
All MBAs, in all industries, need to be done away with.
People from outside the industry have seen a profit opportunity and decided to invest. As investors, they think they’re smarter than everyone else, even the people they pay to do things for them. Since they have no attachment to games as a medium they’re wowed by flashy visuals, and since investors have the money you need to produce a game, you cater to their tastes if you want to get paid.
That, and I think graphics is the easiest part of a game to min/max. You can take any pile of garbage and hire a couple animators, 3D artists etc etc to make it look gorgeous, but it's difficult to find someone who can write a really good story every single year for a release
Turns out you have to make a good game too. Who would have guessed?
Good games don't automatically sell, on the contrary. Your average Ubisoft open world slop is "good", but that's not enough. Even very good, exceptional games don't automatically sell. Game development is inherently risky. Large publishers tried to game the system by making "safe" bets, by offering spectacle in combination with tried and true mechanics and narratives. This worked for a long time, but due to changing market conditions, the core audience for these types of games getting tired of them and younger gamers not caring about the presentation, these publishers are spending more on a shrinking segment of the market.
The problem is that they maneuvered themselves into a corner. They have built huge, art-heavy studios in expensive cities to make large games that bring in large sums of money that finance this costly development. You can't easily downsize this kind of operation, you can't easily change your modus operandi after having built entire companies around it. I'm convinced that this will result in the death of most large publishers and developers. Ubisoft is only the start.
Why should EA, Microsoft or Sony fare any differently? Each can only hope that enough of their major competitors die so that they don't have to fight around the same segment of the market anymore. They are all fundamentally unable to meaningfully capture the P2W and Gacha markets (same thing, really), especially in Asia, a segment where companies that were built to serve these types of games are truly at home. Those will slowly take over, until they too are too large and bloated to respond to changing market conditions - or until some event outside of their control, like a major conflict and/or economic crisis, wipes them off the map, paving the way for someone else entirely to lead the industry. The only thing that will remain constant is millions of small Indies fighting for scraps, with a tiny handful having the right combination of luck and skill (although mostly the former) to make a decent living.
"too"
Amen
The Michael Bay method of video game production - overproduced with no substance
I think the issue is a bit more nuanced. Graphics have gotten so good that it is relatively easy to get character animations which sit in the uncanny valley.
The uncanny valley is bad. You can have beautiful, photorealistic graphics everywhere, but if your characters are in the uncanny valley, the overall aesthetic is more similar to a game which didn't have the photorealism at all.
In the past, the goalpost was at a different spot, so putting all the resources towards realism still wouldn't get you into the valley, and everyone just thought it looked great.
I spoke against the need for realistic graphics last time the topic came up, and I'll say a word in favour of it now: It's pretty awesome having realistic lighting and shadows when you're admiring the scenery in Skyrim. My 6600 can barely keep up, but the work it's doing there is fully aesthetically worthwhile. The same can't be said for every GPU-hungry game that comes out, and it may not have the central importance that it used to, but nice graphics are still nice to have. I say that as someone who appreciates NetHack at least as much as any new AAA game.
To be fair, I don't think all of the blame can be laid on execs. Game directors and Art directors are often the source of the issue.
I've seen execs come to a studio and say: "Make something AAA, a single player game with unique gameplay and a great 10 hour story, and get it done in a couple of years. Don't worry about the bottom line, we want a showcase experience."
Then the directors come back with: "Okay, showcase you say? How about a AAAA 20v20 open world multiplayer shooter (nobody is doing that!), SaaS (to keep'em coming back), with ultra realistic graphics (it'll be epically fun that way), a $100million budget (we'll outsource to save money), MTX so we can make tons of money (we get profit sharing right?), and we do it in 3 years (for work-life balance)?"
Devs are just sitting there shaking their heads and thinking... "Here we go again..."
How about a AAAA 20v20 open world multiplayer shooter (nobody is doing that!), SaaS (to keep'em coming back), with ultra realistic graphics (it'll be epically fun that way), a $100million budget (we'll outsource to save money), MTX so we can make tons of money (we get profit sharing right?), and we do it in 3 years (for work-life balance)
I 100% believe most of these unrealistic expectations come from the execs. Decisions like these aren't made by art directors. They come from on high. Art directors and game directors aren't the ones making the monied decisions.
I've seen it first hand. Repeated statements by the corp execs asking for one thing, studio directors trying to push something else.
I mean, I've also seen execs ask for ridiculous shit as well, I'm just saying sometimes it really does come from the studios themselves.
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
58 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30620 readers
153 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS