It is not surprising due to the fact that things in real life look just like they look. So if games have real graphics it means that they all look like real life, so they look the same. It isn't a bad thing. Art direction and artistic vision is what make the games unique
I've been saying this for years. I like games that go with an artstyle way more than "realistic looking" games. Games don't need to look realistic to look good. In all honesty, realistic looks kinda boring compared to the vibrant and colorful world of Genshin Impact or the very distinctive artstyle of Okami!
The market is dominated by a few engines, an equalization with both good and bad elements. It democratizes the use of technological advancements, but minimizes the diversity of the games.
Who needs graphics or gameplay? They should make a game where you just stare at empty cubicle drywall for 8 hours with RTX ON and no pee breaks until you're 65 years old, where half the players remain single. FUN! (But look at the amazing pixel shaders bro!)
@@TroX30540 That's because of sunk cost fallacy. Most virgins that play WoW already invested years of their lives. Quitting is too hard for them. WoW has undoubtedly gotten worse and worse with every expansion after ROTLK. They even released WoW "classic" because modern WoW was so bad.
I mean Zelda ToTK got universally acclaim and sold millions of copy, probably the best seller this year. But yeah devs are too focus and eobsessed is making the graphics is too realistic than making a great game.
To me the perfect blend of art direction and graphic was achieved with rdr2 and the gta5 engine. Its this perfect blend of soft photo realism that gets enhanced by the art direction, making you feel like you’re inside a little diorama
the problem with rdr2 is it's exagerated realism, some can like it, but i get bored quickly, everything takes so much time to do, even the cinematics, ill ratter play TLOU2, great graphics and super enjoyable fast paced gameplay.
I remember someone once saying that the reason modern gaming focuses so much on graphics is that funding is decided by executives that don't play games. This means that one of the few things they can understand is graphics, which forces game developers to focus on graphics to get development funding.
That is exactly why I refuse to work for one of these crappy companies and exactly why people should hate them and force them to listen to the people that actually know what they are doing. The people working for them...
@@Bruhaustindavis its only part of it, mostly they just dont care and have other agendas even beyond profits. Cinematic immersion helps make propaganda work more effectively
It's not about graphics, it's about art. When the game is beautiful people will take notice, realistic or not. Graphics provides a way to make things more beautiful, more immersive, or expand the gameplay. Those are things people care about. Just making things look more real doesn't do any of that. You need to leverage that graphic fidelity to do something that enhances the game.
Nice to see someone who gets it. Photography is also not about just capturing a random shot with a gigapixel sensor and telling yourself you've just created art - just like photorealistically copying a scene using a pencil is not art either. Art is a whole another thing that is more about invoking certain sensations, experiences and excitement than it is about properly conveying to you that "this is a table and this is a flower." The outcome depends on many constituents, including the scene, the composition, the art style, the LIGHTING, the camera angle and many others.
Pretty much. Art Direction trumps realism, both are graphics. To say Graphics don't matter when games are a visual and auditory medium is ignorant. A good game plays on gameplay, visuals and sound to create a memorable and engaging experience.
Yet i personally wouldn t play something that looks like the first half life in 2023 no matter how good the story and gamplay is.... and this guy with "hurr durr no one cares about graphics" dumb statement fr.... we can have good graphics and good gameplay they are not mutually exclusive
@@disgracetwt5513only you so no problem. Majority choose to plat that half life grapic if it has a good story, fun gameplay, replay value and less technical problem.
@@arik2216 you didn t get to the end of what i said? Literarly said that you can have good graphics and good gameplay bud and i like having both, can t do one without the other
some of my favorite games have mid/crappy graphics that's why i don't care about having crazy high performance, even a 6900xt is overkill for me, im alright with a 6800xt or 3080 at the most
The biggest problem with the current day game development is they are run by marketing and suits, They don’t play the game, that’s why they direct the game dev to be more visual, since they can “judge” the game by just watching cut scenes and trailers. It is just like the Anthem development history. They didn’t even know what they are making for 4 years and just said ironman flying look cool wrap it up! Indie games still have that gamer soul and is able to make something unique, and being limited is a good thing, it make them focus more on the core of the game and use simpler or stylized visual to package the game’s presentation.
I'd love 70% of budget allocated to make realistic graphics was redirected straight into developing complex and interesting game mechanics. Nothing irritates me more than last 20 years of gaming being mostly a dumbed down shit that nobody would even looked at if it had fidelity of Minecraft, because core gameplay is just trash...
@@crimson-foxtwitch2581SweetBabyInc is not an investor. They are an consultant firm, but yea the fact that they exist shows how corrupt the industry is
The thing is, over a decade ago, games for the most part graphically looked as good as they'd ever need to. Great art direction make some older games look better than games we are seeing today. Batman Arkham Asylum came out in 2008, and it still looks good enough to hold up to games today.
@@Hydrax_Real The video didn't say people hate realistic graphics. The video's thesis is that no one _cares_ abut graphics, which is a hyperbolic way of saying that graphics are only a supplement to the real value of games, which is the game-play. What ntrg3248 is saying is that a decade ago graphics looked good enough to convey almost everything a game would reasonably need to convey in order to tell its story, display its objects and world, and to have fun game-play. Most graphical increases are non-game-relevant things like better light reflections or skin pores on human flesh, that kind of thing. I personally do want graphics to continue improving, but at the same time, some of my favorites game are Splinter Cell: Conviction and Bulletstorm, both games that I think have 85 to 95% of all the graphical fidelity they'd ever need. Some better lip synchronization could have been nice, I guess.
Arkham Knight (while not as good of a game as Arkham City) is one of the most beautiful games ever made and beautifully executes the visual style established in City and Asylum.
Even moreso, graphics facilitate gameplay. No graphics, no gameplay. Back in the day characters were made of 3 polygons and you had to guess what you were looking at. We've hit drastically diminishing returns 10-15 years ago. AFAIR the last time I was genuinely excited for graphics was Half-Life 2 back in 2004. Graphics have obviously improved massively since then, but I can still enjoy HL2 despite how dated it looks. Lately the most fun I've had is playing old/simple games on the Steam Deck.
@@jfolz Nah, you have to be a console gamer. I played prince of Persia in 1990 on PC and the graphics where better than your today's roblox, minecraft or even PUBG :)).
That's the thing. Back in the 80s and 90s, the improvement in graphics came with a huge improvement in gameplay. Which was mostly the case becsaue of bigger data storages. But at one point it didn't go hand in hand anymore and the only thing that seemed to improve are the graphics.
I never really like super realistic games, but in my opinion in Cyberpunk 2077 it works really well. Seeing this dystopian messed up world in extreme detail and realism really makes it feel real. It is as if you are just transported into our future.
thats what happens when you take that power of graphics and blend it with an realistic-like artstyle it doesnt just look like real but has a strong art direction (albeit limited by the realistic effect)
This is why my favourite games have more art style and less graphics. Realism takes the charm out of games. Games are meant to be an escape from reality into a world of wonder. Making games realistic just turns them into copies of real life.
Give it a few years. Gaming is probably in for a big shift here in the next few years along with the rest of the entertainment industry. I'm honestly kind of surprised there hasn't been a developers strike or something.
I don't think the uploader has a good enough PC to judge video games. Cyberpunk 2077 update 2.0 completely revamped combat and is possibly the best first person open world shooter in the current market while looking next-gen. Baldur's Gate 3 has a ton of conversations but it makes the character I made feel like they're in a movie. Meanwhile he's praising Valorant, a game that copied CSGO with cartoonish graphics and all you do there is throw a grenade in the air and hope it hits someone, switch weapon to knife repeatedly for absolutely no reason and peeking doors.
@@FutaCatto2If a guy who reviews GPUs doesn't have a good enough PC to enjoy modern AAA titles, what the hell kinda PC do you need to enjoy them? Also, note how your two examples are Baldur's Gate 3, a AA CRPG (which tend to be very gameplay-focused) that can be played on a moderately fresh potato, and CP2077, which needed three years worth of updates to get good gameplay going.
I played BioShock Infinite recently and the visuals blew me away like BioShock. Crazy how it's a decade old but the art style is still more memorable than a lot of recent games.
But the gameplay is terrible with only 2 guns, more limited powers and rail roaded level design compared to the previous games, by his definition used in this video it's also not good.
Yeah....I get the feeling, that you may have not been around during the release of Bioshock Infinite. It was made by a lunatic game director, who wanted everything to be just his way, and would not listen at all to feedback from the team. While I don't want to specifically stifle creative direction - he was clearly wrong about so much of how this game was designed. Who was incredibly butthurt when Burial at Sea Episode 1 came out and was not received well. He literally quit the studio and left game development altogether. He's coming back with his first game since Infinite in the near future. When Bioshock came out it was a technical marvel that moved the genre forward. We don't really talk about Bioshock 2, because it was developed by a different team. But by the time Infinite came out, the gameplay was quite dated. Then, the puzzling choice to include racism as a main plot point, did not age well. It's always very uncomfortable on replays; especially the more you explore and dig into those themes. Edit: Adding links en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_(video_game) www.polygon.com/2021/5/10/22424321/a-look-inside-bioshock-infinites-troubled-development www.theverge.com/2022/1/3/22865129/ken-levine-ghost-story-games-development-direction-problems Ken Levine is just not the guy you want running a game studio. Infinite was never meant to be the last title in the series. It ended up that way because of Ken.
@@lucasLSDInfinite has better gunplay than most fps games today and the vigors were fun af and you can combine them and set traps and use the environment more than in the original. The level design is more linear and is better in 1, but cmon bruh, terrible?
The first time I played Bioshock Infinite I thought it kind of sucked... Now looking back I think my standards were higher because I thought it was okay nowadays.
I did a Games Design at University, I focused to do a 3D Environment & constantly my teachers & other students were telling me to improve the quality of the graphics. To start with, I had textures that had a size of 4096, but over time as I modelled & expanded this ruined castle environment, UE4 would start to slow & take ages, I am not exagaerating, it took me a full 30 minutes to save my project to cloud storage, I knew from that upload time that I had to reduce the texture size. So I reduced it to 2048, then after a few months I reduced it again to 1024 & kept it at that; and no one, none of my teachers or other students noticed I had reduced the texture quality for my final year's project.
and now you see why people invented techniques to better utilize texture space during the PS2 era back when VRAM was at an all-time premium: ***FOUR MEGABYTES.***
A texture can be all big you want it to be, but it will be unused most times.... If you use a 4K texture for a brick, you will only use the 100% of that texture the moment you play on a 4K screen and the brick takes your whole screen area... If the brick only uses a 50% of your screen then there wont be any difference between using a 2k and a 4k one... if the brick use a 10% of the screen it matters even less, thats why games are radically different designed around textures for a FPS and a TPS, also TPS tends to look better because is way harder to notice it since the camera will 99% of times always be zoomed out from other elements... There is also a reason why mipmapping is still used as optimization method
Are we talking about file size or in game performance? 4k textures are manageable by using mipmaps and strong enough hardware. (A singular building would run on most hardware. Given topology is done well and etc. ) Sadly file sizes are still enormous. I love games that make you download 4k textures separately. Easier for lower end devices with limited spaces.
@@BioClone I don't think that is 100 % correct. By my knowledge increased texture resolution remains noticable depending on the PPI of your monitor. The lower the PPI the earlier you won't notice texture improvements... There just fits more detail into a higher res texture, and that will show on lower resolutions as well.
The problem is NVIDIA has to validate the ever-increasing cost of gpus by sponsoring Game Dev to continually push the limit Graphics in games. That's creating a fomo effect where the user continually upgrade their system to keep up with a benchmark that really doesn't matter
that's why they keep making more ray tracing crap that are more demanding than the current ray tracing crap. watch how the price of rtx 50xx will skyrocket.
Totally agree. They create the need for you to update the system. I even start thinking the "not optimization fashion" is pushed by the hardware manufacturers.
@@SapiaNt0mata just as native-res raytracing was starting to slowly get viable they introduce full path tracing and frame gen lol, get a $2000 card and still have to rely on AI upscaling and interpolated frames I wonder how the videogame industry would be if they just continued to GTX 1100-series, focusing on efficiency gains to give better performance at the same price as they previously did, instead of blasting 400w+ with their new top end cards
@@Suilujzit becomes more and more difficult to shrink the process nodes and you can't just make the chips bigger. Since the release RT you can't keep up with the hardware requirements to run it with pure compute power like in the past. This makes AI upscaling mandatory, if you want to progress with graphic fidelity. Prices skyrocket for sure but tbh, didn't prices increase in your daily life too or do you have no rising inflation?
I feel like the best example of the balance of graphics and good art direction is red dead 2. The game is absolutely beautiful and not just "realistic", it's very distinctive even 5 years later
Game devs using unreal engine did the same mistake Pixar did, pushing for realism. I remember playing Firewatch back then, and while it looks cartoony as heck, the game is just so beautiful. Witcher 3, argually of the best single player action RPG have stylized character faces (sharp features), and it made the character models attractive. Everyone's pumping new games with the stupid idea that realism/realistic equals gameplay and beauty. Sad to see. Truly. Cool vid btw.
Lies of P runs on Unreal Engine, and it is very fun, and runs extremely well. The graphics are good, but not great. I honestly didn’t know that unreal engine could run at 120 FPS locked 4K on a 3080. Proving that shitty optimization is indeed the developers fault.
witcher 3 the best rpg? its one of the worse i have played lol too much linear little freedom bad open world bad combat..... baldurs gate 3 divinity original sin 1/2, skyrim, dragon age much better.
Recently, there was an Unreal promo video. It showed hyper realistic graphics. Didn't seem interesting, but then when it showed Minecraft, that used the high fidelity graphics in a stylized way, it looked way way more interesting.
Realism is cool because it feels like the game is an unreal reality, but realism in big studios always ends up breaking up the gameplay, the game concept, the systems, the content itself and many other possibilities. This is why non-realistic games are better as a game.
As a person with an extremely weak computer, I totally agree, I am limited to old games because of my settings, and I can only be grateful, I met the biggest gems in the industry thanks to that, and none of them needed stunning graphics to get me make that impression
I bought a $700 gpu (at the time) that has been going strong since 2018. I learned that good looking games almost always trash lamo can never get through em. My gpu ended up just playing indie games and mining crypto to make my money back.
As it gets more realistic, it also becomes more generic, just because of how our world is. Back when it was harder to do realistic things, well they had to find a specific style, that was artistic in both color palette, but also texture et cetera. I hope we see a shift in the next few years where they take the realism to some stylistic approach
You see the same thing in these live action movies. The realism without a theme really fails to make itself stand out. Although avatar (both the new game and the movie) is a great example on how to do “realism” correctly. The worse parts of the movies was was literally any time they show the inside of the human base/ship.
Realism doesn't have to look boring though. Photography as an art form proves that. Red Dead Redemption 2 looks both realistic and stunning. Assassin's Creed Odyssey exaggerates realism to provide a stunning vista around every corner. It's not so much the chosen style, but how it's used. Composition, color use, that sort of thing.
@@Wolfos530RDR2 brings in the golden era look of the Wild West which means that back in the days, the Wild West looked colorful, but it also brings in more of a specific painting style than 'REaLisTiC' graphics/visual style
@@Wolfos530 that's true as well, but it just needs to executed well. I've done photography, and know how life is, and there's plenty of beautiful views.
I used to say this.. Games are not supposed to be hyper realistic , we call it games for a reason it should not feel like real world , the universe of any game thay you are playing should have its essence and a feeling that would give you nostalgia if you look at the game after many years
The problem isn't good graphics. The problem is that too much focus on graphics and visual presentation comes at the cost of something else That's why a lot of double A and indie games have AAA beat in the gameplay department
For me what I miss is visual story telling. When graphics, story telling, and level design intersect it can be amazing. I remember playing Bioshock 1 when it came out. There was 'visual spectacle', but it was one meant to be engaged with actively rather than passively taken in.
I agree. Anymore it just feels like everything is either rushed or the stories are not written well or are just rehashed stories that have been done before over and over, same tropes. Similar to how movies are now days. I know there are some exceptions but it just feels like they know games sell well, they make lots of money with little effort, so quality is lacking. It's all about lining the pockets of shareholders and studio execs and not about artistic passion and story telling.
A few years ago I had a conversation with my friends about games being turned into just linear movies without any real gameplay. It's cool to see that you've come to this conclusion. I am a developer and I hope that in the future I can change this perspective of the games industry.
This is a lack of love from developers in creating games, or a lack of creativity or even laziness in creating a non-linear game. What differentiates games from films is that in games the player should have control over all their decisions. Obviously our technology is limited in creating a 100% non-linear game, but we are moving towards that. A good example is Baldur's Gate 3@@gutsglory3625
I don't think that's an issue. I like linear and cinematic games and I've played those since the PS1 era. A good blend of a gameplay loop and a captivating story is all I need, the graphics are a big bonus though.
Linear games in the PS1 era were linear because the technology at the time was limited, today there are no excuses for delivering a linear game. Furthermore, the same pleasure that linear games give you can be achieved through movies, you don't need a game for that.@@reisshep
I think that graphics kinda matter, but not when they are supposed to substitute actual gameplay. Also, i kinda thought this video would be more about modern AAA games becoming glorified cutscenes with running around sprinkled in.
My main issue with these super realistic games is the optimization and such. When the game can only be run on the high tier hardware that costs a lot of money, you lock yourself out of 90% of the market because unless the game is amazing, not many people are willing to play at 15 fps
im never willing to play at 15 fps i moved to pc for performance and it being better than 30 fps on consol,,............... just stupid to play a game that will simply play better on xbox wont crank up graphics at the cost of frames going lower than 30 typically i just wanna run thru the story or chill with my friends stray, was a visual masterpiece fully enjoyed it and ran smooth af for example even on lowest settings still was visually amazing and wasnt killing my laptop on higher graphics settings
Yeah, immortals of Aveum is a great example. When it came out, most of the reviews basically said that unless you had basically just bought a high end computer, you wouldn't be able to play the game at a stable or high FPS, and who the fluff wants to play a new game if you can barely reach 20fps?
A lot of it is because technology caught up and surpassed what games designers have been trying for and they are now trying to keep up. There is also the fact that as the tools get more advanced, it takes time to learn the new tricks and such to get the best appearance while optimizing resource use, and the advancements are coming fast. There is also the fact that storage space is not as limited as it used to be, and fixes can be done quickly, which has actually put pressure on companies to finish now, patch and release the patch later. This has been an issue for the last two decades, and it has gotten worse, not better since. Probably due to the fact that releases are now predominantly digital, rather than using a physical media to carry the game, where the end product damn well better be finished and as good as you can reasonably get it. Also not helped by the fact that PC releases have to be able to interface and work with a wider selection of configurations than consoles. There is a reason why console releases tend to be less buggy and also smoother to run. They have to work with only one hardware configuraiton (for that console) and that configuration is unlikely to change significantly over the console's life. The other side of it is due to the fact that graphics are something the Board of Executives can see and, while not technically inclined in most cases, can understand and link to buzzwords. Things like art direction and story are harder to explain and justify to a group that is more concerned that the investment they will put into the game will yield a return quickly enough due to the fact that even they have to answer to people who are very much concerned with getting a return on their investments into the company. And the graphics being mistaken for being what makes a good game is something I have seen before. I have been playing computer games for thirty years, on PCs I purchased with my own money for over twenty of them since I became an adult. This is something that happens in phases, but even during a phase where you see more quality games come out, they are actually fairly few in number. Most are forgettable to begin with. Entertaining, but forgettable. Some of the most memorable games I played had good graphics for their time, but the best tended to be fairly lackluster in terms of graphics.
Crying about low frame rates = Fail. You guys clearly weren't alive 40 years ago when we were playing Spectrum and Commodore 64 games at even slower frame rates.
Exactly, younger I was, more I was excited about Graphics, now all what's important in visuals for me is - Aesthetics, and even more, I can not enjoy Realistic games anymore, cos such games begin to look the same and all important details in visuals are lost and blurred in graphical mass...
Thats because society is trying to make you think graphics arent important your entire life. It's not true. When you were a child and loved seeing that eye candy graphics, that was a true feeling. Don't supress it watching vods like these.
@@1NightInParisOfficial Graphics is just an instrument, how important is a screwdriver when you are sitting on a chair that was made by using that screwdriver ? It's partially important, but not as much as the chair itself. Also graphics is all about technology and Art, Art itself is only in personal preferences area and no matter what "society" will tell you, if you don't like specific art, you will not like it, even if you will try to please that "society" and say that you like it, but technology is the only thing in video games that can be objectively scored because it is a mathematics, it is graphical technology or not, and optimization of mathematical processes is also part of scoring of technology, everything beyond technological processes in video games is in personal preferences only. And until graphics works properly and is optimized (optimization of processes is not only about FPS btw...) then it's not important at all, important is - Art, Design, Style, Aesthetics, cos for each person separately liking or disliking Art, Design, Style and Aesthetics will be critical to even try a video game, therefore in personal preferences graphics also is not important till it works properly, but important is the outcome, the end product that was made by using instrument named - Graphics... So graphics is subjectively or objectively important only when it is ruining the game experience, when it's not, then it have no importance for a player at all and the weight of importance goes on personal preferences like - Aesthetics, Narration, Game design or Gameplay. But for developers of course it's important, cos it is an instrument they will use to create that - Aesthetics, Narration, Game design or even Gameplay, cos as cheaper is the instrument and as less effort developer needs to put to create a product to sell and have income, then more games he can create for the market and then more income his company can have and that's why today we see this paradox, when technologies that were made to make games more optimized, became an instrument for developers to put lesser effort into optimization of their products - "there are upscaling technologies, so players will be ok to run it anyway....', and when hardware became more efficient and more powerful, then less effort developers put into optimization of their games and all we see are excuses like - "oh, that game uses different engine" < so you are using worse instruments then why I, a Players, should even care what instruments you used to make the product you ask money to pay from me, it should not be my problem, when I go to a store and purchase a latest CPU f.e. R7 7800x, I should not get i3 320 for that price with excuse like - "oh, but we have no R7 7800x to sell for you....".... When I go to a store and purchase a Lamborghini Revuelto for full price I should not get Nissan Versa, without doors, wheels and sits..... When I go to store and purchase 1kg Tomato for full price I should not get 1 piece of rotten apple instead. So why the fk I should even care what instrument you use to make the game, use better engine then, hair knowledgeable people then to code your game properly, use instruments that show better quality performance then... But reality is, that not the engine or any other thing is a problem, but that companies do not have any reason to put any effort, technologies and hardware anyway will handle it, and if not, then player should purchase more expensive and more powerful ones........ and players do that, and players support such behavior from companies, so why the fk they should even care about doing it better or putting any effort to create their game. So is Graphics important ? Yes for developers, cos it's easy way to promote product, decrease effort they need to put to create that product and is easy way to find excuses if the technical quality of that product is below any reasonable level....
@@Miniom56785 I worked on compositing. Mainly in the mumbatan sequence but some stuff in the beginning in miles world. It was very interesting. Normally in animation comp is basically bringing the image to the finish line and putting everything together. But in spiderverse the renders were very simple and all the textures and looks were done in comp. It was a lot more complex than anything I’d worked on before. It was like a giant moving coloring book. Really hope I get to work on the next one.
Would you ever take on an "apprentice" I'm really interested in learning and I want to start my own production for my TH-cam channel. I understand we have a lot going on in life currently but if there's a small inclination of a chance I'll take it so here's me doing that! I'm 19 but very eager 😊
i think it comes down to the developers dedication to make a great game but some are unlucky enough to not utilize their skill to the fullest because some company doesn't listen to the devs but only to their investors
Its just that most game devs are not competent. This is because they are severely underpaid, and competent people will just find a better paid, better working condition job creating something else. So gaming is done by passionate but incompetent people working minimum wage. Studios like CDPR or Naughty dog are known in the industry of "dont get hired, they will chain you to the desk and treat you like a slave".
Love the fact that some tubers REALLY NEED to make some absurd obviouslly statement to open people eyes. Some people really close their eyes about some concepts and games nowadays are like: graphics and accolades. Thanks to tubers like you and Sajam, I think the future is going to be a better place. AND DUDE I TOTALLY AGREE ABOUT THE LAST OF US LOSING THE ART STYLE WITH THE REMASTERED VERSION (I love the 2013 version, it looks gorgeous, not realistic). Edit 1: Not only cool looking trailers, but cool looking tiktok too... TikTok age really sucks and people there are just for phonk music, strong lights and heavy transitions with those really cringe edits. Sorry, I needed to let it out. Tik Tok sucks
This isn't really opening anyone's eyes. It's just going to be validating obvious truisms that some people cling to because it's slightly better than the even more basic consensus. But it's neither reaching the people who didn't agree nor expanding the discussion to people who do.
thank you for bringing this up, usually only "gaming channels" speak of this issue but I am glad when a "tech channel" brings it up. we need more fun games not benchmark tools
What a true gamer! Game should be fun in the first place, like the yammy juicy layers in the cake. These fancy good looking things are just decorations that attracts people want to give it a bite.
What a cry baby! Graphics were always important in game and hardware development. I'm going to bet you were not around when Nintendo 64 came out and blew people's mind with it's "realistic" graphics. Yeah, that was what people felt at the time, that graphics couldn't possible be more realistic than that. You know who belittled Nintendo 64's graphics? People that couldn't afford it! 2023: History repeats itself
@@johnny_rook Those N64 games did not lack good gameplay too. For example Wave Race 64 is still better aesthetically and gameplay wise than any other jet ski game which came after it.
@@kordelas2514 So true... But, many people think we can't have both state-of-the-art graphics and good gameplay at the same time; it seems for them is one or the other, when the reality of gaming development proves them wrong at every hardware generation past. What amazes me the most is people that see themselves as being "PC gamers" going that route, when the meme was for the longest time: "can it run Crysis?", a game with such amazing graphics it took 4 years for a GPU to play it @1080p/60fps, Max settings, while wielding awesome gameplay mechanics as well.
@@johnny_rook We have a complex issue here. The devs based on hardware have to choose specific art style and how advanced graphics they want to use for their game. Many games used to rely on being first ones on usage of novel graphical features only. And they aged badly because new games could easily replace them. If we talk about gameplay, we should address how we as humans perceive visual effects. Are we good at perceiving so many details in motion, chaotic patterns, etc.? Do modern games consider these issues? Perhaps more is less functional and less is more functional. Are gameplay mechanics properly combined with audiovisuals?
Right, look at TLoU part 1 and 2, the graphics massively enhance the immersion and story telling. The kind of people who think graphics don't matter are just ignorant chuds too stupid to have a real opinion tbh.
Yes, some of us do. That said, I'd take Valheim graphics over Sons of the Forest graphics any day. It's not about polygons/resolution/raytracing... but more about aesthetics and smoothness.
I like graphical realism if it makes sense for the style. the problem with a lot of newer titles is that companies just aren't finishing the game on launch. I am loving cyberpunk now but I bought it on launch and haven't touched it because I was waiting for it to be completed. not because it looked bad or wasn't fun. I didn't touch it because it ran horribly, and had a myriad of other problems. another thing to consider especially since you cite immortals. some publishers have burned the good will of gamers. Especially with EA. so EA can put out the most beautiful game ever and no one cares because they have no faith in the publisher anymore. everyone looks at their new IP's and says oh look the next anthem ("promised" roadmap that gets totally abandoned). I am not willing to front my money for a game with a company that has a history of greed and apathy towards its customers.
if you stop byuing from the 1st days or preorder every single game they will fix the games !!!! when everyone running like crazy to bought the game the companies have every right to kick your ass with his bullshit
For me Cyberpunk was a disappointment due to the gameplay. Felt like there was zero improvement from Witcher 3. It just feels futuristic environment attracted different audience that didn't like witcher 3 due to history/fantasy vibe.
you are very right.. this is why i dont play triple A games anymore.. the gameplay sucks.. the last triple A game i played is DOOM ETERNAL and compared to the games released recently.. they dont come close.. for me gameplay is more important than graphics.. having stunning visuals are just bonus to the gameplay..
IGAF about graphics. Modded cyberpunk is literally insane to just walk around and explore. I do wish there was more of an emphasis on gameplay though as well. Apart from cyberpunk there aren't too many graphically intense games that are actually fun to play as well.
Story, gameplay mechanics and also simplicity/accessibility are way more important than graphics nowadays. But it seems to be easier to focus on graphics. I mean the movie industry suffers from the same problem, so many movies are visually stunning, but lack in terms of their story.
people put graphics fault the game is bad, the problem on some games today isnt the graphics, is the rest of the game, thats why remakes being made are generaly praised by players. If read dead realased today with graphics of ps3 game no one would play it, ppl just keep forgeting how was graphics before
I agree. Graphics aren't everything. My game of the year was probably Zelda TOTK which had awesome art design but obviously lower resolution and framerate because of the Switch. Having said that, amazing graphics like in Demon Souls Remake really do elevate the experience of the game.
True, but even then (well, maybe not the 80s, but certainly going into the 90s) a good art style (Flashback for instance) created games you can absolutely just go and play now. Then try playing Fade To Black, when they tried to make it 3D despite the technology just not being there yet. Horrible.
@@KindredBrujah True. The 3dfx era was certainly an eyesore - I much preferred the original System Shock over its second iteration. But I'll be honest with you, the recent remake of it is much more lovely (in HDR)
I’m glad that somebody said this. I’ve seen so many people coming out to blame UE5 for issues that aren’t inherently caused by the tool. I definitely think that there’s something to be said for the ease of access to generic-looking visuals thanks to UE5, but that is more indicative of lazy developers and lack of creativity than it is an indictment of the tool they are using. Art style and atmosphere have so much more to do with the overall character and the player appreciation that comes with it.
It's not generic to have a game use fancy realistic graphics, realistic graphics can only look real. Some can look more real than others but the idea is it looks real and reality looks the same no matter where you are.
A good example of this is Hollow Knight, the game is not high-quality graphic wise like those triple A games but it is visually appealing not only that the gameplay is hard but really fun the story is amazing too, for such a low price game it's definitely a blessing.
I think the push for _"true"_ realism is to push new hardware sales; after all, the RTX 20 and 30 series is when NVIDIA last peaked in sales, their sales have been going downhill ever since. So, I'm thinking (primarily, but probably not limited to) NVIDIA are trying to push for sales of their 40 series cards by artificially increasing the system requirements for new games, even though it even affects their flagship 4090 enough to dip below the 60fps frame target. However, I hope this tactic stops soon, as it clearly isn't working out for all of these games where the sole selling point is the graphics, as the few people who want to play them can't, while the rest of us _just don't care anymore._ I'm hoping the incentive is going to be there for major studios to actually give the developers some time to make a good game that people will actually care about (and as a result, buy), rather than the graphically-intensive shovelware of today. You shouldn't need 10 gigs of VRAM to play a good game.
" I think the push for "true" realism is to push new hardware sales" Nvidia is not the one making the games though. It's the developers choice (or the investors choice) to continue pushing the graphics. Look at the new consoles. Better hardware to push higher graphics is pretty much the only thing they innovate on. You can try to leverage the new SSD for gameplay mechanics like in Rift Apart, but other than that there is nothing. Fancy graphics sells games, like it or not. More obscure artstyles don't sell as well, and there are few exceptions. For example, Ori and the will of the wisps is a phenomenal game. Unfortunately, any run-of-the-mill COD game is going to probably DOUBLE the sales of Ori, if not more. I'm not defending NVIDIA by the way, but they would not hold the same leverage if the investors cared about quality products. From the perspective of an investor, why would you fund 1,5 years of bugfixing and performance optimization when you can slap on DLSS as a bandaid and release the game unfinished? Unfortunately, fancy graphics and heavy marketing will sell the game anyway. Those investors don't care about NVIDIAS sales, they care about their own sales.
Nvidia doesn't even care if you upgrade. They're making so much money in AI, they'd rather use their manufacturing capacity to build ai cards team gaming cards anyway.
Tbh, on the toilet rn and gonna post this before watching. I care. But graphics dont need realism. Graphics to me, need Colour, substance, functionality and preference(pixel, cell, abstract, AAA(sometimes)).
For me, when Starfield launched, my expectations were high for the experience and the story. I knew there would be bugs or issues but I'm 90 hours in and I'm still enjoying the game. I agree that games need to be more about art style than simulation. TBH I'm not a fan of ray tracing in games. It feels like a developer tool that made its way to the end-user and the lack of performance when it's enabled shows. Even with that feature, there is still art direction that goes on.
I like my graphics …. To a certain degree, but admit a great game, storyline, gameplay and ending/s is my preferred gaming preference over graphical quality and special effects etc. I love BG:3 and played it in Early Access and replaying now it’s officially released and loving the story, game options, storyline etc 🥰💪👍✊🥳
This is the reason Nintendo games are evergreen and sell a lot. They are just fun to play. They run on outdated hardware, barely reach 1080p and some struggle to reach stable 30fps, but they are fun. 4k should be the ultimate resolution.
Gameplay and story are more important but graphics matter too. I remember when I first played uncharted 4, the graphics and animation definitely enhanced the experience and made it more immersive.
Nah,... I would rather play a game running over 60fps looking like stardew valley(1080P or lower) than one looking like real life running at 2fps(4k ultra with ray tracing)
For me graphics has to suit the game in order to avoid breaking the immersion. But not gonna lie, the first time I've seen the panorama of Kaer Morhen I felt like I'm sinking into the world of the game, which for me is the most fun-inducing feeling in gaming. Of course graphics/gameplay/story balance can shift, but as long as one element doesn't drag down the remaining two it's fine.
While I largely agree with the points made in the video, I have a different perspective on the relationship between fidelity, art style, and gameplay. I believe that art style and fidelity are interconnected and complement each other, rather than being in conflict. Having good fidelity and utilizing the latest technology doesn't automatically result in poor art style or gameplay, as seen in Cyberpunk. It's about using all available tools effectively. I also think there are nuances within realism. For instance, if you were to compare screenshots of Starfield, Cyberpunk, Half-Life: Alyx, and Modern Warfare 3, you'd easily distinguish them. It's not just about achieving realism; it's about how you leverage lighting, setting, colors, and environmental cues to create a distinct and realistic gaming experience. Even if you opt for a non-realistic art style, you can still utilize new features and technology, ensuring they enhance the art style instead of detracting from it (as seen in poorly executed examples like Portal RTX or Half-Life: Source). Games like TF2, with their enduring appeal and exemplary art style, could look even better if updated with higher resolutions, improved lighting, and better textures. In essence, my point is that we shouldn't treat visual fidelity, art style, and gameplay as entirely separate entities. They are interconnected, and if one aspect falters, it can negatively impact the entire game. This, I believe, is a fundamental issue in modern gaming-companies often prioritize realism without realizing the equal importance of other components. P.S.: Apologies for using so many Valve games as examples; I come from the Source engine community and decided to use games I'm most familiar with.
Will add that - "Having good fidelity" < GOOD or NOT GOOD are personal preferences only. "Cyberpunk. It's about using all available tools effectively." < yea, sure, very "effectively" 🤣🤣🤣 You can not poorly execute technologies like RTX, it's just a mimic of how lights work in real world (only in technical aspect we can talk about poor execution in mimicking technologies like RTX, when they eat more resources of hardware, than they should etc..., but this is another story in this particular topic....), they looked poorly cos to make technologies like RTX work nicely, you need to build entire scene for it and not wise versa, cos such technologies just mimicking and not creating, so in game like CP77, that was made to be just a PR material for NVidia technologies, scenes there were made under RTX, that's why it looks so standard and not inspiring and have no Artistic value at all, but even then you can see, that in the beginning it should not, cos even with RTX game can only render just 2 sources of light, character do not have proper shadows and proper reflection etc... But also you can look at Witcher 3 RTX, where this RTX ruined a lot of scenes, that were made by hand and where lights, shadows, reflections were made by hand of an artist and were placed not realistically, but to create a Aesthetical scene and that's the reason why Cyberpunk lacks Aesthetics and is just mimicking things, not creating them, you may like it, you may don't, but this is the reality, technologies like RTX are instruments that need the environment to be made in specific and limited way only to make them look good.
@@Xelluse "GOOD or NOT GOOD are personal preferences only." There is no personal preference when it comes to fidelity being good or bad. Fidelity means the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced in this case reality. However you of course can have a preference to liking games that are low or high fidelity. "You can not poorly execute technologies like RTX" Of course you can, it takes one bad denoiser and everything looks bad. However I wasn't talking about the technical side of things I was referring to the map design. Even when you use realistic lighting it's not as easy to design a good looking map. If you aren't careful you're gonna end up with too dark Hallways, too bright rooms. "you need to build entire scene for it and not wise versa, cos such technologies just mimicking and not creating" It's the same way with traditional methods though. Most if not all games that feature a lighting engine if traditional or not try to mimick lighting, ray tracing just does it better. Also no matter what method of lighting you use you're gonna have create the scene with the lighting in mind from the ground up, or it's going to look bad. "cos even with RTX game can only render just 2 sources of light, character do not have proper shadows and proper reflection etc..." Now unless this is meant as a sarcastic way to make fun of ray tracing performance, it's just false. Not sure what else to add to this point. "But also you can look at Witcher 3 RTX, where this RTX ruined a lot of scenes" While I like most of the the new scenes with added ray tracing. I still agree with the overall point. However I don't see it as a valid point against ray tracing since that is a side effect of the transitional period we're in right now. Once games start getting designed with ray tracing in mind from the ground up, problems like that will most likely go away. Take Alan Wake 2 as an example.
@@roamn4979 As example you simply ignore "EVEN WITH", that was said exactly not against RTX, but for it, that technology is good, when you use it properly. Also as was said, that it's an instrument and that not instrument is a problem, but who uses it, RTX is very simple algorithm to mimic real life light physics, but as someone who working with ray tracing since from 2003 in animations, mistakes and poor qualification of an Art director makes it look bad, and RTX on same Portal was implemented just for marketing purpose - RTX for RTX and had no Artistic value at all and without building scene the way to make RTX look aesthetic, it will not work properly and will look ugly, unlike hand made scenes, where artist have full control of the scene and can place lights and shadows even in most unrealistic way, it's not that RTX is bad, it's just an instrument and nothing more, also nothing special, in movies and animations it was used since from 1994, it's very simple, but quite resource heavy algorithm to simply mimic lights physics from real life, but it have no artistic value and is limiting the way artist can work with scene, that's why in CP77 it worked so poorly, simple scenes worked properly, but harder scenes, when you should work with multiple sources of light for example, it have shown the worst quality even in compare to ABO 6.0+ and the irony is, that when CP77 with RTX was not able to render over 2 sources of light, with simple ABO 2.0 (technology from 2009 btw) in exact same scene was rendered 4 sources of light. And quite funny, that CP77 used so outdated, poorly optimized and low quality lights-shadows imitational instrument outside RTX to make RTX look good in their game (not that RTX itself is bad or something, it works amazingly when it used in scenes in which it meant to be used and implemented properly in a scene that was made for RTX specifically and that's is one of the headache for an Artist working with RTX, you are forced to create whole scene for RTX specifically and not creating Lights, Shadows, Reflections etc... for the scene you are creating in the first place, but if you do create whole scene to make RTX work properly, then RTX make things easier and helps to make them look stunning). So it's not against RTX, as you tried to change the context, RTX is old and good instrument, but it works in quite limited borders, but it's very simple and easy technology to work with, that's why you can't fk up RTX, you can fk up the scene by creating it without strictly following the limitations of that technology. Also, Realism is the first what painter learns, cos it's the easiest style to begin and master, it's limited, have strict and easy, understandable rules and also helps to learn physiology of things in real life, so you will be able to learn how to break them and create your own style on later courses. With realism you simply learning how to copy and not how to create.
I remember seeing the videos before Uncharted came out about how the hair follicles are all there and how Nathan’s face is really detailed which was really cool but the fact that the game itself and the story were phenomenal was what made it so successful!
I am trying to see the point of your video. You first start by making a general controvesial statement on how graphics don't matter/people don't care about them. Then you shift your point on to how art style is fading away because of graphics... it doesn't make sense, graphics is a very general thing, it can mean resolution, technology of the game (like how complex the physics are) which correlates to other tech like calculated lighting, etc. After that, you shift your point on game content and the personality in the eyes of making the game enticing for the consumer to make them want to buy the game... what a headache. I can't even make a solid critique on your video because there really isn't any solid point that you are making in the first place.
Graphics are not equal to graphical fidelity, I think this video is aimed at the later rather than the former. Nobody should give a fuck about a game being more realistic looking, however having a coherent art style and a consistent frame rate for me is also part of graphics and is rather important imo.
yeah this. like it doesn't matter if the art style isn't realistic and for example looks more cartoonish, SO LONG AS all the details in the appropriate textures of everything is crisp and high res most of the time during gameplay. It's not about whether something looks photoreal or not but more about whether the style of the graphics holds up properly at resolutions higher than 1080p. Like we should at least expect that in 2023 for most games.
We're nearing the end of what you might call the "awkward middle school phase" of gaming tech development. Within a decade, game graphics will have advanced to such a point that graphics won't matter anymore because everything will look good. When that happens, all these game studios that are relying on graphics to draw in players won't be able to compete anymore.
There's a music performance in Cyberpunk Phantom Liberty and it's probably the most beautiful thing I have watched all year. I know that the game is a Nvidia tech demo aswell, which actually takes away from some of the artistic choices (especially with shading) but it looks so beautiful, and the story and gameplay is fantastic, too.
I don't care about graphics if the game doesn't look bad and doesn't have bad art direction. A game like starfiled looks bad . Cyberpunk 2022 has amazing graphics but also incredible art direction. More examples of both graphics and art direction: Ghostrunner, ghost of tsushima, sifu, stray, God of war 2018&ragnarok, rollerdrome, hifi rush, rdr2
I think what also matters is what type of game it is, for example a forza horizon or a racing game set in real locations makes complete sense for it to be somewhat graphics centered as well. Not completely of course but it definitely does matter.
You must not know anything about the art of competitive racing, if you think that. Car racing is high speed chess. The best racing game in the world is from 2008 and has really unimpressive graphics, but brilliant car physics and gameplay: iRacing.
@@artyarty1185 good productive counter argument! Sadly, every sim racing fan in the world is on my side, and I'd have millions of likes on my comment if they saw it, so your reply is equal to a sack of dung.
Best explonaiton I heard about this topic. This phenomenom inspired me to create my own game, which has soul and fun to play. This industry is not oversaturated, at least for me, there are very few games that I really enjoy.
almost 80 to 90% of indie games are just platforming, 2D/3D, trying to do the cute colorful arstyle, emotional story bla bla bla. Fucking boring oversaturated genre. Only few indie actually stood up because they are made to be fun.
Good graphics =/= realistic graphics, why are so much people mixing both ? Kena bridge of spirits -> not "realistic" but beautiful Disney Speedstorm -> Beautiful when in ULTRA at high res, not realistic DokeV (trailers) -> BEAUTIFUL, not "realist" we can have very beautiful, technically completly mind blowing graphics without it having to be "realistic" / "photorealistic" and please, stop saying that games a decade ago or idk what were already looking "as good as they needed to", that's just not true having new engines with mind blowing technical aspects which deliver amazing graphics (texture, LoD, particles, lightning etc etc etc) is just amazing seriously, it really feels like people saying that are thinking that "good graphics" = "bad games" if a good dev / studio wants to make a VERY GOOD GAME, and that this very good game can have a very nice engine which delivers amazing graphics, well then let's go for it BAD GAMES =/= GOOD LOOKING GAMES GOOD LOOKING GAMES =/= BAD GAMES necessarily. that's annoying PS : an example ? XDEFIANT is a game that is actually in term of pure gameplay, not talking about the issues around the game, a VERY good game that people like playing I would have loved if they pushed the engine to deliver better graphics... it would have just made the game even better, because of better immersions and visuals (when you play, you're watching at every instant the VISUALS, so yes having better visuals is better lol)
Lethal Company is a perfect example of a game that doesn't have realistic graphics, but is also just really fun to play. Love the video and totally agree that games are meant to be played, not watched.
@@kahnfatman Only for the cowards that use it as an excuse to pretend their real life problems go away by pretending they don't exist. You don't ever escape. It's a lie. Dark Souls reminds people of harsh reality. And it teaches to try to face your problems. Even helps people overcome depression. After breaking them of course. Games that know life isn't fair are honest if nothing else.
false, nothing like a great story, fun game play and great artistic directions and good graphics to support said artistic direction. With most things it needs to be a balance. Graphics is one piece of the pie, maybe for you it doesn't matter at all but for most people it does matter. It's just not the only thing that does and AAA companies needs to realize this.@@DeathStriker88
@@DeathStriker88yes it does. Graphics are everything that encompases the visual experience, not just about realistic vs stylized. Stylized games can have good graphics as well as bad.
Today technology improves faster than we can discern the change. This is unstoppable. Fidelity is going to improve at every aspect of a game over time. Most of what you're complaining about is just boring games, not graphics. As if a really fun game, with cool graphics is hard to come by. The problem is there is too many games, too many copies of copies, too much content that is just trying to make money... instead of being a good game.
Games like Terraria are a perfect example of ART STYLE being what matters the most. It is a 2d game with one of the best art styles I've seen in a game.
I disagree. Loved Terraria, played it 1000s of hours, but I always wished it had better graphics technology. Namely high FPS support, less input lag and integer scaling with AA instead of a blurry mess. And I also think the art could have been improved with slightly higher resolution like in Starbound
@@RealFlicke I wouldn't change anything about Terraria's graphics because it wouldn't be Terraria otherwise. I never had the same issues you have with the game
I agree. I also feel like the problem is also with games development cost going way up for large studios (which I feel is inflated and not managed well but I don’t work in the industry) so companies won’t take risks. This along with time investment is causing AAA developers to put out super safe trash that doesn’t do well. Unfortunately I don’t think we’ll ever hit a time in the near future where experimentation thrived like it did around the 2000’s from big studios. We should stop getting excited for all this garbage and try to support indie devs since they actually have the will to try new things and make good games. I think a new crash has to happen to fix the state of games where selling millions is still considered a failure for some big companies. To anyone reading, you don’t need to buy every new AAA game, play some indie games, deep dive on your store of choice; Steam, itch, Microsoft store, Nintendo store, PS store, and look for fun indie games. They don’t have predatory business practices and a lot of them try something new. Every genre has an indie dev that makes games that are fun.
The best example of graphic and gameplay ratio I've ever played was Kingdom Come Deliverance. I'd pay top dollar to see them make the graphics as real as possible, because the gameplay and immersion is already there.
I want both. Great graphics and fun to play games. The biggest problem in the entire industry is that the people who finance games and the people who make games don't actually play games.
The clip at the end, _Portal 2_ , that was one of the most pivotal moments of co-op gaming history. That level took me and my brother HOURS to figure out. You go up to the top and do the stupidest things over and over again on that level, just for that one, magical moment, to finally hit you, when you put away all your brain-cells and thinking power, and realize that being dumb is EXACTLY what you need to do.
As a very old player, I would play Empirion over Starfield and 7DTD any day of the week and twice on Sunday, you are spot on regarding the lack of real content, story line and replayability on many new titles that sacrifice that for flashy unplayable graphics many times.
Starfield doesn’t have flashy graphics, it’s a very average game in terms of graphical fidelity, and the game is full of content, story line and replayability .
@@theodorus956 As someone who played pretty much every space game available in the market, yea. Starfield is just Skyrim/Fallout in space, but with a less interesting universe and worse RPG elements. I wouldn't even call it a space game tbh.
More of the classic games actually should be remade in the newer engines with better graphics because it not only gives the current generation of developers an idea of what made games actually good, it provides a blueprint for how to make good games in these newer engines going forward. FF7 Remake was a perfect example of how to mix an older turn based game and update it for the modern era with a re-imagined combat system/graphics.
Unfortunately a lot of these remakes try to "fix" the gameplay and end up overdoing it to a point that it completely changes the feel. In many cases it shouldn't go beyond quality of life subtle touches, not adding "modern" mechanincs that drastically alter the original game's identity. I disagree that FF7 Remake's gameplay is better, it is just different. At least there is a remaster version also available if you prefer playing the original with some new quality of life features without completely changing the gameplay. If it ain't broken don't fix it.
Reshade let's you use some important new effects and tune them to your liking, priority #1 old games need is ambient occlusion, it has some very efficient effects for that, or you can go all out with RTGI.
I always wondered why I enjoy games from 2002. They look not as good as the ones today, but I just love them. And I am a late gamer. I started gaming very late. So, technically I should not like the old games. But I love them. It is definitely all about the game-play.
@@HappyDude1 Did you even read what OP wrote? He said he's a late gamer, he didn't play those games back at their time, but now. It's not nostalgic feeling for him.
I say it depends on the type of game. My biggest criticism is that videogames (especially from big studios) hardly ever touch on player world interaction, physics based gameplay, creative abilities and most importantly ignore "out of the box" thinking. back then devs were still playing their games I feel. Because when you ignored mission objectives and "fucked around" there were very often reactions from the game world, npcs etc. to it. Nowadays it's mostly "you failed" and loading last checkpoint. Everything is on rails for so long that I don't even bother trying out ignoring the instructions. besides regular indie games I feel like the VR gaming market is the greatest exception to that development. Since it's something relatively new, everyone tries creative ways to make games. A lot of stuff has always been there in our imagination but wasn't possible on traditional peripherals like keyboard and mouse. So as a long time gamer I must say Indie games, modding communitites and largely VR do spark a lot of enjoyment.
Current games lack intelligence and creativity. Just like TV and movies. $70 for a new game? BS Look at Starfield now, so glad I gave my money to Spacebourne 2 instead of Bethesda.
I think you touched on the problem, these games are built to look good in trailers because that is what gets the attention of investors and executives. People that will never actually play the games but are making the decisions. If a game is going to be allowed to continue development it must adapt to the expectations of investors and execs, the audience for the game becomes the investors and execs . At some point later down the line they can worry about making it a fun game for the jerks who actually give them money and want to have fun. Larian in contrast has no outside investors and the CEO/founder is a giant nerd himself. They made a game that from day 1 was only ever going to be targeted at gamers. You can see the massive support gamers are giving it. I bet the execs at Microsoft are like, "why are people playing this game, have you seen the graphics? Why aren't there microtransactions?" Those people at MS described Baldur's Gate before its release as something along the lines of a "stadia rpg" and didn't see it having much value. Conclude from that what you will.
The best example of Art Style vs Graphics is Half Life 2 and its Episodes 1&2. Sure, the game was demanding when it was released. But it still looks fresh as hell. I doubt if any other game has this level of longevity.
@@thelelanatorlol3978 Considering that it was made 2 decades ago and the most popular resolution back then was 1024x768 , it has held up well :) I am waiting for their RTX remix.
My friend has over 150 hours in fallout new vegas. Though it is a very old game, he really loves it. This shows how much direction of the game matters!
Another great example for this is Lethal Company. The game has a great artstyle but "bad" graphics, yet it is one of the most fun games you can play solo or with others
We are honestly just in a weird spot where software is outperforming hardware right now and i do think working on improving visuals is important in the long term whilst at the momment its a pain for us all but were laying the foundation to improve things drastically and take games to a new place, and eventually it will also open the door to more creatives making games without techbical hurdles but at the momment were just in a shitty spot and we might be for another 10 15 years like legitimately.
Lethal Company recently outnumbered CoD: mw3 in sales. A game made by a single developer with a cool style and fun gameplay. And the game keeps growing
To you, its just not fun objectively. Same worlds same monsters, nothing new, boring. A bunch of other games that are early access like "ultrakill" which trumps that game by a landslide. So if were talking about a game talk about a good one not a tiktok one. @@malserc
@@anti_s0ra_v1 a lot of nonsense from you. If you apply your logic to the other games, then suddenly almost every game is not fun if it dont have to be played 2+ hours. Tetris, chess, doodle jump, fnaf, counter strike, fortnite, etc etc. Same maps, same people, same mechanics. Are they too boring? In LC after some progress you can unlock unique moons with new unique faciloties and new monsters. Being in the early stage Lethal Company has enough to spend few hours with your friends and have a good time playing. I know at some point LC lacks of greater goal, but it still has enough to offer. I dont know what you seen in tiktok, but from my experince the game was geniualy fun. Espesially when you dont spoil anything by watching gameplays on yt. Also, this game is meant to be played with friends. With friends almost everything is fun. Maybe you should go outside and find some. If you judge games by tiktoks, and not by playing them, then you are a fool
There is a reason I come back to playing Minecraft on days end every year. It's fun, you can easily play with others, you can mod the frick out of it and I'm 25 and I started playing right before when the Beta came out. When it comes to graphics I'm a bit spoiled, so I really do want a game with good graphics for the most part but it isn't Necesary. Here's another example, I still play Dead Space 3 with one or two friends to this day because it has Co-op and because it's kinda fun to hunt for bugs and glitches. I'm also a big fan of the Dead Space franchise.
I think that sometimes having amazing graphics is pretty important, but a lot of games do need an unrealistic art style. Having seen the trailers for Unrecord, I think that it's one of the few types of games where photorealism is properly warranted. The idea of playing through a bodycam rather than the character's eyes is a very interesting concept, and I think it can only be executed to its full potential with lifelike graphics. Clearly, it's meant to feel like you're controlling real bodycam footage. Of games that are actually released, RDR2 also wouldn't work very well with any art style. Realism is one of the core design principles of the gameplay, so much so that I often find myself wishing that some mechanics weren't so accurate. It needs its nearly real graphics to pair with its highly detailed gameplay mechanics and deep, serious story. Although, most indie games have an unrealistic art style, and I do think that most of them are better off like that. Obviously, indie devs usually don't have the resources to get ultra high quality textures and things, but even if there was a "Make graphics good" button that they could click, usually it's better left unrealistic. It's much better if the dev wants the game to feel a bit goofy, or artistic. It's kind of hard for me to put into words what I mean, but since games are a form of art, whoever has the creative vision for the game intuitively knows what kind of art style to go with based on the kind of emotions the game should evoke, and how the player should experience the game.
Thanks for this very honest opinion piece, it's exactly what I've been thinking. My most played game of 2023 was Stardew Valley! Lost about 5 months to that game, it's not about the graphics, its about the game play and your enjoyment. Thanks Vex, need more creators shouting this from the rooftops. Take care matey.
The sad thing is some people still think that graphics make a game good or bad, and will just look away if a game's graphics are 3 years old. People are stupid nowadays...
Graphics tech has its place and pushing that forward will yield unique experiences but I agree, gameplay is king. Since games are so expensive to make now AAA studios will have to learn sooner or later that they could save millions by chopping out a lot of fidelity and investing into an artstyle which makes the game look good regardless. Plus stylelised art will have a timeless quality that purely realistic art naturally doesn't have as simultions get more and more complex.
Thanks for making and sharing this video, hearing these words have really cemented my understanding on what really matters in a game. It has also cleared up some misconceptions I had about graphics in video games, knowing what more to focus on rather than just making a game look fantastic.
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
The problem with realism is that the more every game looks realistic, the more every game looks the same.
It is not surprising due to the fact that things in real life look just like they look. So if games have real graphics it means that they all look like real life, so they look the same. It isn't a bad thing. Art direction and artistic vision is what make the games unique
@@vladislavmatiusenco1089yeah
I've been saying this for years. I like games that go with an artstyle way more than "realistic looking" games. Games don't need to look realistic to look good. In all honesty, realistic looks kinda boring compared to the vibrant and colorful world of Genshin Impact or the very distinctive artstyle of Okami!
The market is dominated by a few engines, an equalization with both good and bad elements. It democratizes the use of technological advancements, but minimizes the diversity of the games.
If every game looks realistic then no game is realistic.
I think one of the biggest red flags for a video game is lots of trailers but no gameplay.
Trueeeee, though there are exceptions this is generally all i need from a store page
People care about physics though
Who needs graphics or gameplay? They should make a game where you just stare at empty cubicle drywall for 8 hours with RTX ON and no pee breaks until you're 65 years old, where half the players remain single. FUN! (But look at the amazing pixel shaders bro!)
On world of warcraft, you have a lot of trailers and cinematics and it is doing really well. Even after 20 years
@@TroX30540 That's because of sunk cost fallacy. Most virgins that play WoW already invested years of their lives. Quitting is too hard for them.
WoW has undoubtedly gotten worse and worse with every expansion after ROTLK. They even released WoW "classic" because modern WoW was so bad.
Art style is so underrated. The thing about graphics is it will always be outdated at some point. But art style, art VISION, is timeless.
I mean Zelda ToTK got universally acclaim and sold millions of copy, probably the best seller this year. But yeah devs are too focus and eobsessed is making the graphics is too realistic than making a great game.
we still appreciate art pieces for hundreds and sometimes even thousands of years, art LIVES on
JSRF is a good example. It aged way better than the advanced realistic games of its era.
That is the reason why legend of Zelda tears of the kingdom on switch looks so good even without the graphics
@@jarifazmain5170 Or Wind Waker on Gamecube
To me the perfect blend of art direction and graphic was achieved with rdr2 and the gta5 engine. Its this perfect blend of soft photo realism that gets enhanced by the art direction, making you feel like you’re inside a little diorama
Star Citizen at 4k ( 3840 x 2160), Is absolutely awesome, No other game has ever came close.
the problem with rdr2 is it's exagerated realism, some can like it, but i get bored quickly, everything takes so much time to do, even the cinematics, ill ratter play TLOU2, great graphics and super enjoyable fast paced gameplay.
@@felipeazcoaga91🤡
@@ossiedunstan4419that’s games garbage
@@max-jm7hy I'm not here to defend star citizen but not every game is a story focused game. Star citizen is more of a space sandbox like X4
I remember someone once saying that the reason modern gaming focuses so much on graphics is that funding is decided by executives that don't play games. This means that one of the few things they can understand is graphics, which forces game developers to focus on graphics to get development funding.
That is exactly why I refuse to work for one of these crappy companies and exactly why people should hate them and force them to listen to the people that actually know what they are doing. The people working for them...
This would make sense, especially with how indie developers put out some of the most fun games, and they actually play games.
Except I bet you guys still pre order games and give them your money b4 playing
@@Bruhaustindavis its only part of it, mostly they just dont care and have other agendas even beyond profits. Cinematic immersion helps make propaganda work more effectively
@@timothymoore2966 XD
this reminds me of cod youtbers complaining about cod and then buying the next release again and again
It's not about graphics, it's about art. When the game is beautiful people will take notice, realistic or not. Graphics provides a way to make things more beautiful, more immersive, or expand the gameplay. Those are things people care about. Just making things look more real doesn't do any of that. You need to leverage that graphic fidelity to do something that enhances the game.
facts
Nice to see someone who gets it. Photography is also not about just capturing a random shot with a gigapixel sensor and telling yourself you've just created art - just like photorealistically copying a scene using a pencil is not art either.
Art is a whole another thing that is more about invoking certain sensations, experiences and excitement than it is about properly conveying to you that "this is a table and this is a flower." The outcome depends on many constituents, including the scene, the composition, the art style, the LIGHTING, the camera angle and many others.
Pretty much. Art Direction trumps realism, both are graphics. To say Graphics don't matter when games are a visual and auditory medium is ignorant. A good game plays on gameplay, visuals and sound to create a memorable and engaging experience.
Like fortnite. Like it or hate it. The graphics are better than most games out there and it's not realistic. Just extremely high fidelity
Facts
Graphics impress us for the first half hour, gameplay is what keeps us going and makes us come back again and again
Story is as important as game play if not more, specially if you've been gaming since late 90s then story+gameplay is what can glue you to a pc
Yet i personally wouldn t play something that looks like the first half life in 2023 no matter how good the story and gamplay is.... and this guy with "hurr durr no one cares about graphics" dumb statement fr.... we can have good graphics and good gameplay they are not mutually exclusive
@@disgracetwt5513only you so no problem. Majority choose to plat that half life grapic if it has a good story, fun gameplay, replay value and less technical problem.
@@arik2216 you didn t get to the end of what i said? Literarly said that you can have good graphics and good gameplay bud and i like having both, can t do one without the other
some of my favorite games have mid/crappy graphics
that's why i don't care about having crazy high performance, even a 6900xt is overkill for me, im alright with a 6800xt or 3080 at the most
The biggest problem with the current day game development is they are run by marketing and suits, They don’t play the game, that’s why they direct the game dev to be more visual, since they can “judge” the game by just watching cut scenes and trailers. It is just like the Anthem development history. They didn’t even know what they are making for 4 years and just said ironman flying look cool wrap it up! Indie games still have that gamer soul and is able to make something unique, and being limited is a good thing, it make them focus more on the core of the game and use simpler or stylized visual to package the game’s presentation.
investors like them have names. Sweet Baby Inc isn’t the only one but they’re the most prominent
I'd love 70% of budget allocated to make realistic graphics was redirected straight into developing complex and interesting game mechanics. Nothing irritates me more than last 20 years of gaming being mostly a dumbed down shit that nobody would even looked at if it had fidelity of Minecraft, because core gameplay is just trash...
Give me planetside 3, mech assuault 3 , crimson skies 2
@@kahlernygard809 oh planetside 3 would be so much fun! i played Planetside 1 for a super long time! the super huge batttle and siege was so epic!
@@crimson-foxtwitch2581SweetBabyInc is not an investor. They are an consultant firm, but yea the fact that they exist shows how corrupt the industry is
The thing is, over a decade ago, games for the most part graphically looked as good as they'd ever need to. Great art direction make some older games look better than games we are seeing today. Batman Arkham Asylum came out in 2008, and it still looks good enough to hold up to games today.
Not everyone hates realistic graphics. Just a video to make ppl meatride lmfao
@@Hydrax_Real The video didn't say people hate realistic graphics. The video's thesis is that no one _cares_ abut graphics, which is a hyperbolic way of saying that graphics are only a supplement to the real value of games, which is the game-play.
What ntrg3248 is saying is that a decade ago graphics looked good enough to convey almost everything a game would reasonably need to convey in order to tell its story, display its objects and world, and to have fun game-play.
Most graphical increases are non-game-relevant things like better light reflections or skin pores on human flesh, that kind of thing.
I personally do want graphics to continue improving, but at the same time, some of my favorites game are Splinter Cell: Conviction and Bulletstorm, both games that I think have 85 to 95% of all the graphical fidelity they'd ever need. Some better lip synchronization could have been nice, I guess.
@@Hydrax_Realit’s not about hating realistic graphics, it’s about design
yeah. but some ppl hate the realistic graphics. i just wanted to point that out@@Jeyblox
Arkham Knight (while not as good of a game as Arkham City) is one of the most beautiful games ever made and beautifully executes the visual style established in City and Asylum.
Graphics are there to enhance the story and gameplay, not replace them. One day developers will remember that.
Even moreso, graphics facilitate gameplay. No graphics, no gameplay. Back in the day characters were made of 3 polygons and you had to guess what you were looking at. We've hit drastically diminishing returns 10-15 years ago. AFAIR the last time I was genuinely excited for graphics was Half-Life 2 back in 2004. Graphics have obviously improved massively since then, but I can still enjoy HL2 despite how dated it looks. Lately the most fun I've had is playing old/simple games on the Steam Deck.
@@jfolz Nah, you have to be a console gamer. I played prince of Persia in 1990 on PC and the graphics where better than your today's roblox, minecraft or even PUBG :)).
That's the thing. Back in the 80s and 90s, the improvement in graphics came with a huge improvement in gameplay. Which was mostly the case becsaue of bigger data storages. But at one point it didn't go hand in hand anymore and the only thing that seemed to improve are the graphics.
@@BlueBeam10 how you managed to convince two people to upvote such a monumentally stupid comment is beyond me.
Forza Horizon
I never really like super realistic games, but in my opinion in Cyberpunk 2077 it works really well. Seeing this dystopian messed up world in extreme detail and realism really makes it feel real. It is as if you are just transported into our future.
Yep that game world is really great. gameplay wise it is generations old.
thats what happens when you take that power of graphics and blend it with an realistic-like artstyle
it doesnt just look like real but has a strong art direction (albeit limited by the realistic effect)
but you can just make mess graphics for dystopian messed up world. Check Cruelty Squad
@@hamzaahmad1345That is if you're playing like you play last generation games. It gives you the option to choose your playstyle though.
Cyberpunk isnt a releastic game.
This is why my favourite games have more art style and less graphics. Realism takes the charm out of games. Games are meant to be an escape from reality into a world of wonder. Making games realistic just turns them into copies of real life.
Good art direction matters more than graphics technology.
If you look at games that age well, a lot of them have really good art direction.
Plants vs zombies is a good example, can run on a potato but you're still gonna like the silly gameplay
Elden Ring.
Resident Evil 5 for me.
@@thefallenvalley4340you mean Bloodborne, miles ahead of anything in ER
THIS. Red Dead Redemption 2 is the best example. it came out 5 years ago yet few games in 2023 can match its graphics.
Give it a few years. Gaming is probably in for a big shift here in the next few years along with the rest of the entertainment industry. I'm honestly kind of surprised there hasn't been a developers strike or something.
Bubble going to burst
@@altantulga8138
a lot of bubbles are going to burst to be honest.
I don't think the uploader has a good enough PC to judge video games. Cyberpunk 2077 update 2.0 completely revamped combat and is possibly the best first person open world shooter in the current market while looking next-gen. Baldur's Gate 3 has a ton of conversations but it makes the character I made feel like they're in a movie. Meanwhile he's praising Valorant, a game that copied CSGO with cartoonish graphics and all you do there is throw a grenade in the air and hope it hits someone, switch weapon to knife repeatedly for absolutely no reason and peeking doors.
@@FutaCatto2you’ve simplified cs and valorant to the point where you could be describing any first person shooter.
@@FutaCatto2If a guy who reviews GPUs doesn't have a good enough PC to enjoy modern AAA titles, what the hell kinda PC do you need to enjoy them?
Also, note how your two examples are Baldur's Gate 3, a AA CRPG (which tend to be very gameplay-focused) that can be played on a moderately fresh potato, and CP2077, which needed three years worth of updates to get good gameplay going.
I played BioShock Infinite recently and the visuals blew me away like BioShock. Crazy how it's a decade old but the art style is still more memorable than a lot of recent games.
But the gameplay is terrible with only 2 guns, more limited powers and rail roaded level design compared to the previous games, by his definition used in this video it's also not good.
Yeah....I get the feeling, that you may have not been around during the release of Bioshock Infinite. It was made by a lunatic game director, who wanted everything to be just his way, and would not listen at all to feedback from the team. While I don't want to specifically stifle creative direction - he was clearly wrong about so much of how this game was designed. Who was incredibly butthurt when Burial at Sea Episode 1 came out and was not received well. He literally quit the studio and left game development altogether. He's coming back with his first game since Infinite in the near future. When Bioshock came out it was a technical marvel that moved the genre forward. We don't really talk about Bioshock 2, because it was developed by a different team. But by the time Infinite came out, the gameplay was quite dated. Then, the puzzling choice to include racism as a main plot point, did not age well. It's always very uncomfortable on replays; especially the more you explore and dig into those themes.
Edit: Adding links
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_(video_game)
www.polygon.com/2021/5/10/22424321/a-look-inside-bioshock-infinites-troubled-development
www.theverge.com/2022/1/3/22865129/ken-levine-ghost-story-games-development-direction-problems
Ken Levine is just not the guy you want running a game studio. Infinite was never meant to be the last title in the series. It ended up that way because of Ken.
@@rapidrabbit11485Artstyle was great though
@@lucasLSDInfinite has better gunplay than most fps games today and the vigors were fun af and you can combine them and set traps and use the environment more than in the original. The level design is more linear and is better in 1, but cmon bruh, terrible?
The first time I played Bioshock Infinite I thought it kind of sucked... Now looking back I think my standards were higher because I thought it was okay nowadays.
I did a Games Design at University, I focused to do a 3D Environment & constantly my teachers & other students were telling me to improve the quality of the graphics.
To start with, I had textures that had a size of 4096, but over time as I modelled & expanded this ruined castle environment, UE4 would start to slow & take ages, I am not exagaerating, it took me a full 30 minutes to save my project to cloud storage, I knew from that upload time that I had to reduce the texture size.
So I reduced it to 2048, then after a few months I reduced it again to 1024 & kept it at that; and no one, none of my teachers or other students noticed I had reduced the texture quality for my final year's project.
This is the exact reason why I reduce texture quality while maintaining other features max even though my GPU can run, I can't tell the differences.
and now you see why people invented techniques to better utilize texture space during the PS2 era back when VRAM was at an all-time premium:
***FOUR MEGABYTES.***
A texture can be all big you want it to be, but it will be unused most times.... If you use a 4K texture for a brick, you will only use the 100% of that texture the moment you play on a 4K screen and the brick takes your whole screen area...
If the brick only uses a 50% of your screen then there wont be any difference between using a 2k and a 4k one... if the brick use a 10% of the screen it matters even less, thats why games are radically different designed around textures for a FPS and a TPS, also TPS tends to look better because is way harder to notice it since the camera will 99% of times always be zoomed out from other elements...
There is also a reason why mipmapping is still used as optimization method
Are we talking about file size or in game performance?
4k textures are manageable by using mipmaps and strong enough hardware. (A singular building would run on most hardware. Given topology is done well and etc. )
Sadly file sizes are still enormous. I love games that make you download 4k textures separately. Easier for lower end devices with limited spaces.
@@BioClone I don't think that is 100 % correct. By my knowledge increased texture resolution remains noticable depending on the PPI of your monitor.
The lower the PPI the earlier you won't notice texture improvements... There just fits more detail into a higher res texture, and that will show on lower resolutions as well.
Thanks for putting this out, I'm tired of games that are basically interactive movies without any actually fun gameplay
So Playstation exclusives
That has nothing to do with 'Graphics'
@@silenthilll_ he has a point with this. Alot of good graphic games are just walking sims
@@spitlikesfire9368what are you talking about modt playstation exclusives have fantastic gameplay
@@spitlikesfire9368 Id rather play a boring amazing looking game than a terrible looking "good" game
The problem is NVIDIA has to validate the ever-increasing cost of gpus by sponsoring Game Dev to continually push the limit Graphics in games. That's creating a fomo effect where the user continually upgrade their system to keep up with a benchmark that really doesn't matter
that's why they keep making more ray tracing crap that are more demanding than the current ray tracing crap. watch how the price of rtx 50xx will skyrocket.
Totally agree. They create the need for you to update the system. I even start thinking the "not optimization fashion" is pushed by the hardware manufacturers.
Facts
@@SapiaNt0mata just as native-res raytracing was starting to slowly get viable they introduce full path tracing and frame gen lol, get a $2000 card and still have to rely on AI upscaling and interpolated frames
I wonder how the videogame industry would be if they just continued to GTX 1100-series, focusing on efficiency gains to give better performance at the same price as they previously did, instead of blasting 400w+ with their new top end cards
@@Suilujzit becomes more and more difficult to shrink the process nodes and you can't just make the chips bigger. Since the release RT you can't keep up with the hardware requirements to run it with pure compute power like in the past. This makes AI upscaling mandatory, if you want to progress with graphic fidelity. Prices skyrocket for sure but tbh, didn't prices increase in your daily life too or do you have no rising inflation?
I feel like the best example of the balance of graphics and good art direction is red dead 2. The game is absolutely beautiful and not just "realistic", it's very distinctive even 5 years later
u nailed it bro
it's because nature is just beautiful to look at on it's own
@@michaelthesanta3610 true.
GTA VI seems to have the same "art style" if we could call it that way
GTA IV
Remember when devs used to develop their own engines for a specific game
Vex: Games are meant to be played, not watched.
Hideo Kojima: Am i a joke to you?
TH-camrs and Streamers: Are we a joke to you?
He's more of a movie director stuck in the game-designer's chair.
@@Владислав-ы9м5уHe isn't even a film director nor has he ever worked in one
I did really like his death stranding game. The gameplay didnt appeal to me, but i loved the spectacle of every scene.
@@cleverman383difference is that watching on youtube is free as opposed to buying yourself.
Game devs using unreal engine did the same mistake Pixar did, pushing for realism.
I remember playing Firewatch back then, and while it looks cartoony as heck, the game is just so beautiful.
Witcher 3, argually of the best single player action RPG have stylized character faces (sharp features), and it made the character models attractive.
Everyone's pumping new games with the stupid idea that realism/realistic equals gameplay and beauty.
Sad to see. Truly.
Cool vid btw.
Lies of P runs on Unreal Engine, and it is very fun, and runs extremely well. The graphics are good, but not great. I honestly didn’t know that unreal engine could run at 120 FPS locked 4K on a 3080. Proving that shitty optimization is indeed the developers fault.
I loved Firewatch, its tiny fprest world, and the handful of characters. The ending sucked tho. Still haunts me lol
witcher 3 the best rpg? its one of the worse i have played lol too much linear little freedom bad open world bad combat..... baldurs gate 3 divinity original sin 1/2, skyrim, dragon age much better.
Pushing realism yet they forgot how to do physics. Not realistic enough, just the graphic part.
Realism sucks. Video game art design is way better. I prefer cartoony graphics with fun visuals and great gameplay to realism in games.
Recently, there was an Unreal promo video. It showed hyper realistic graphics. Didn't seem interesting, but then when it showed Minecraft, that used the high fidelity graphics in a stylized way, it looked way way more interesting.
Realism is cool because it feels like the game is an unreal reality, but realism in big studios always ends up breaking up the gameplay, the game concept, the systems, the content itself and many other possibilities. This is why non-realistic games are better as a game.
As a person with an extremely weak computer, I totally agree, I am limited to old games because of my settings, and I can only be grateful, I met the biggest gems in the industry thanks to that, and none of them needed stunning graphics to get me make that impression
As a person who owns quite a good PC, can tell, that after playing a lot of modern Graphicall games, I still enjoy artistic one much more.
being graphically limited on my first laptop ironically led to me discovering incredible games
I bought a $700 gpu (at the time) that has been going strong since 2018. I learned that good looking games almost always trash lamo can never get through em. My gpu ended up just playing indie games and mining crypto to make my money back.
@@Xelluse Shadow Of The Colossus is one of my favs
"and I can only be grateful" don't lie you know you would prefer having a good pc rather than a shitty one
As it gets more realistic, it also becomes more generic, just because of how our world is. Back when it was harder to do realistic things, well they had to find a specific style, that was artistic in both color palette, but also texture et cetera. I hope we see a shift in the next few years where they take the realism to some stylistic approach
You see the same thing in these live action movies. The realism without a theme really fails to make itself stand out. Although avatar (both the new game and the movie) is a great example on how to do “realism” correctly. The worse parts of the movies was was literally any time they show the inside of the human base/ship.
Realism doesn't have to look boring though. Photography as an art form proves that. Red Dead Redemption 2 looks both realistic and stunning. Assassin's Creed Odyssey exaggerates realism to provide a stunning vista around every corner.
It's not so much the chosen style, but how it's used. Composition, color use, that sort of thing.
@@Wolfos530RDR2 brings in the golden era look of the Wild West which means that back in the days, the Wild West looked colorful, but it also brings in more of a specific painting style than 'REaLisTiC' graphics/visual style
does OP not realise that there's beauty to be found in nature as well as ugly and bleak things to be found in real life... ok then
@@Wolfos530 that's true as well, but it just needs to executed well. I've done photography, and know how life is, and there's plenty of beautiful views.
If I want raytracing I go outside.
😂😂😂
Too bad my brain can only manage 30fps
Sounds terrifying
hahaha
🤣🤣🤣🤣
I used to say this..
Games are not supposed to be hyper realistic , we call it games for a reason it should not feel like real world , the universe of any game thay you are playing should have its essence and a feeling that would give you nostalgia if you look at the game after many years
The problem isn't good graphics. The problem is that too much focus on graphics and visual presentation comes at the cost of something else
That's why a lot of double A and indie games have AAA beat in the gameplay department
In the past games were more primitive so nerds didn't need much premise.
I fired up my Core 2 Quad, R9 380 computer and re-game some titles from 10-15 years ago.. so fun with good storytelling and immersion
For me what I miss is visual story telling. When graphics, story telling, and level design intersect it can be amazing. I remember playing Bioshock 1 when it came out. There was 'visual spectacle', but it was one meant to be engaged with actively rather than passively taken in.
I agree. Anymore it just feels like everything is either rushed or the stories are not written well or are just rehashed stories that have been done before over and over, same tropes. Similar to how movies are now days. I know there are some exceptions but it just feels like they know games sell well, they make lots of money with little effort, so quality is lacking. It's all about lining the pockets of shareholders and studio execs and not about artistic passion and story telling.
Bioshock 1 has the best opening in any videogame ever, and it cannot do that without its graphic design.
The more realistic a game looks, the more it reminds me that I can just go outside instead.
A few years ago I had a conversation with my friends about games being turned into just linear movies without any real gameplay. It's cool to see that you've come to this conclusion. I am a developer and I hope that in the future I can change this perspective of the games industry.
It's just AAA games issues.
games just lacks depth into it and as what you just said it is becoming more movie-like rather than a game itself.
This is a lack of love from developers in creating games, or a lack of creativity or even laziness in creating a non-linear game. What differentiates games from films is that in games the player should have control over all their decisions. Obviously our technology is limited in creating a 100% non-linear game, but we are moving towards that. A good example is Baldur's Gate 3@@gutsglory3625
I don't think that's an issue. I like linear and cinematic games and I've played those since the PS1 era. A good blend of a gameplay loop and a captivating story is all I need, the graphics are a big bonus though.
Linear games in the PS1 era were linear because the technology at the time was limited, today there are no excuses for delivering a linear game. Furthermore, the same pleasure that linear games give you can be achieved through movies, you don't need a game for that.@@reisshep
I think that graphics kinda matter, but not when they are supposed to substitute actual gameplay.
Also, i kinda thought this video would be more about modern AAA games becoming glorified cutscenes with running around sprinkled in.
Sorry bud that’s not what PlayStation offers
Welcome to Playstation we give you movies not games
@@Mr.GenesisYou should stop playing games in story mode difficulty then, you are clearly missing all the gameplay.
@@unversedhero6028 yes enemies do more damage and you do less damage is "Difficulty" Excuse me what? Padded damage isn't difficulty LMAO
@@unversedhero6028 Sony makes movie games doesn't matter if you play on its hardest difficulty. it's still a cutscene game :)
My main issue with these super realistic games is the optimization and such. When the game can only be run on the high tier hardware that costs a lot of money, you lock yourself out of 90% of the market because unless the game is amazing, not many people are willing to play at 15 fps
im never willing to play at 15 fps i moved to pc for performance and it being better than 30 fps on consol,,............... just stupid to play a game that will simply play better on xbox wont crank up graphics at the cost of frames going lower than 30
typically i just wanna run thru the story or chill with my friends
stray, was a visual masterpiece fully enjoyed it and ran smooth af for example
even on lowest settings still was visually amazing
and wasnt killing my laptop on higher graphics settings
Yeah, immortals of Aveum is a great example.
When it came out, most of the reviews basically said that unless you had basically just bought a high end computer, you wouldn't be able to play the game at a stable or high FPS, and who the fluff wants to play a new game if you can barely reach 20fps?
@@tweda4 but that's why companies over rely on DLSS and FSR so much nowadays - to save money and time on optimization.
A lot of it is because technology caught up and surpassed what games designers have been trying for and they are now trying to keep up. There is also the fact that as the tools get more advanced, it takes time to learn the new tricks and such to get the best appearance while optimizing resource use, and the advancements are coming fast. There is also the fact that storage space is not as limited as it used to be, and fixes can be done quickly, which has actually put pressure on companies to finish now, patch and release the patch later.
This has been an issue for the last two decades, and it has gotten worse, not better since. Probably due to the fact that releases are now predominantly digital, rather than using a physical media to carry the game, where the end product damn well better be finished and as good as you can reasonably get it. Also not helped by the fact that PC releases have to be able to interface and work with a wider selection of configurations than consoles. There is a reason why console releases tend to be less buggy and also smoother to run. They have to work with only one hardware configuraiton (for that console) and that configuration is unlikely to change significantly over the console's life.
The other side of it is due to the fact that graphics are something the Board of Executives can see and, while not technically inclined in most cases, can understand and link to buzzwords. Things like art direction and story are harder to explain and justify to a group that is more concerned that the investment they will put into the game will yield a return quickly enough due to the fact that even they have to answer to people who are very much concerned with getting a return on their investments into the company.
And the graphics being mistaken for being what makes a good game is something I have seen before. I have been playing computer games for thirty years, on PCs I purchased with my own money for over twenty of them since I became an adult. This is something that happens in phases, but even during a phase where you see more quality games come out, they are actually fairly few in number. Most are forgettable to begin with. Entertaining, but forgettable.
Some of the most memorable games I played had good graphics for their time, but the best tended to be fairly lackluster in terms of graphics.
Crying about low frame rates = Fail. You guys clearly weren't alive 40 years ago when we were playing Spectrum and Commodore 64 games at even slower frame rates.
they want us to buy a NASA computer and buy the game and wasted all our savings for a few pixels
the phone in your pocket is more powerful than a NASA computer. we have defunded NASA to such level its nonexistant.
When I was a kid, I admit I was obsessed with graphics but as I grow up, all I want is a fun game and runs well.
Exactly, younger I was, more I was excited about Graphics, now all what's important in visuals for me is - Aesthetics, and even more, I can not enjoy Realistic games anymore, cos such games begin to look the same and all important details in visuals are lost and blurred in graphical mass...
Thats because society is trying to make you think graphics arent important your entire life. It's not true. When you were a child and loved seeing that eye candy graphics, that was a true feeling. Don't supress it watching vods like these.
@@1NightInParisOfficial 🤣🤣🤣 Oh, that society.... always make you do something you won't. 😂
@@1NightInParisOfficial Graphics is just an instrument, how important is a screwdriver when you are sitting on a chair that was made by using that screwdriver ? It's partially important, but not as much as the chair itself.
Also graphics is all about technology and Art, Art itself is only in personal preferences area and no matter what "society" will tell you, if you don't like specific art, you will not like it, even if you will try to please that "society" and say that you like it, but technology is the only thing in video games that can be objectively scored because it is a mathematics, it is graphical technology or not, and optimization of mathematical processes is also part of scoring of technology, everything beyond technological processes in video games is in personal preferences only.
And until graphics works properly and is optimized (optimization of processes is not only about FPS btw...) then it's not important at all, important is - Art, Design, Style, Aesthetics, cos for each person separately liking or disliking Art, Design, Style and Aesthetics will be critical to even try a video game, therefore in personal preferences graphics also is not important till it works properly, but important is the outcome, the end product that was made by using instrument named - Graphics...
So graphics is subjectively or objectively important only when it is ruining the game experience, when it's not, then it have no importance for a player at all and the weight of importance goes on personal preferences like - Aesthetics, Narration, Game design or Gameplay.
But for developers of course it's important, cos it is an instrument they will use to create that - Aesthetics, Narration, Game design or even Gameplay, cos as cheaper is the instrument and as less effort developer needs to put to create a product to sell and have income, then more games he can create for the market and then more income his company can have and that's why today we see this paradox, when technologies that were made to make games more optimized, became an instrument for developers to put lesser effort into optimization of their products - "there are upscaling technologies, so players will be ok to run it anyway....', and when hardware became more efficient and more powerful, then less effort developers put into optimization of their games and all we see are excuses like - "oh, that game uses different engine" < so you are using worse instruments then why I, a Players, should even care what instruments you used to make the product you ask money to pay from me, it should not be my problem, when I go to a store and purchase a latest CPU f.e. R7 7800x, I should not get i3 320 for that price with excuse like - "oh, but we have no R7 7800x to sell for you....".... When I go to a store and purchase a Lamborghini Revuelto for full price I should not get Nissan Versa, without doors, wheels and sits..... When I go to store and purchase 1kg Tomato for full price I should not get 1 piece of rotten apple instead. So why the fk I should even care what instrument you use to make the game, use better engine then, hair knowledgeable people then to code your game properly, use instruments that show better quality performance then...
But reality is, that not the engine or any other thing is a problem, but that companies do not have any reason to put any effort, technologies and hardware anyway will handle it, and if not, then player should purchase more expensive and more powerful ones........ and players do that, and players support such behavior from companies, so why the fk they should even care about doing it better or putting any effort to create their game.
So is Graphics important ? Yes for developers, cos it's easy way to promote product, decrease effort they need to put to create that product and is easy way to find excuses if the technical quality of that product is below any reasonable level....
but video games are mostly marketed to kids/teenagers who don't really know any better
I worked on Across the Spiderverse and it's so cool to see so many people using it as an example of how creative animation can be :)
thank you for the amazing movie!!
would you care to share what part of the movie you worked on and what it was like working on it?
@@Miniom56785 I worked on compositing. Mainly in the mumbatan sequence but some stuff in the beginning in miles world. It was very interesting. Normally in animation comp is basically bringing the image to the finish line and putting everything together. But in spiderverse the renders were very simple and all the textures and looks were done in comp. It was a lot more complex than anything I’d worked on before. It was like a giant moving coloring book. Really hope I get to work on the next one.
@@RichardServello thanks for sharing and thanks for bringing that movie to life!
Would you ever take on an "apprentice" I'm really interested in learning and I want to start my own production for my TH-cam channel. I understand we have a lot going on in life currently but if there's a small inclination of a chance I'll take it so here's me doing that! I'm 19 but very eager 😊
i think it comes down to the developers dedication to make a great game but some are unlucky enough to not utilize their skill to the fullest because some company doesn't listen to the devs but only to their investors
Corporate greed.
Oh, how naive you are to think that's how the industry works 😂
@@Forty8-Forty5-Fifty8 never said i knew it, there's a reason, why i said "i think"
@@KenjiBiH when did I accuse you of saying that? I literally used the same terminology as you
Its just that most game devs are not competent. This is because they are severely underpaid, and competent people will just find a better paid, better working condition job creating something else. So gaming is done by passionate but incompetent people working minimum wage.
Studios like CDPR or Naughty dog are known in the industry of "dont get hired, they will chain you to the desk and treat you like a slave".
Love the fact that some tubers REALLY NEED to make some absurd obviouslly statement to open people eyes. Some people really close their eyes about some concepts and games nowadays are like: graphics and accolades.
Thanks to tubers like you and Sajam, I think the future is going to be a better place.
AND DUDE I TOTALLY AGREE ABOUT THE LAST OF US LOSING THE ART STYLE WITH THE REMASTERED VERSION (I love the 2013 version, it looks gorgeous, not realistic).
Edit 1: Not only cool looking trailers, but cool looking tiktok too... TikTok age really sucks and people there are just for phonk music, strong lights and heavy transitions with those really cringe edits. Sorry, I needed to let it out. Tik Tok sucks
wth was that tiktok hate for???
@@Santikle Tik Tok = no great for brain
@@astjuly8239 ive never used tiktok before, so is that why i have a fully functional brain?
This isn't really opening anyone's eyes. It's just going to be validating obvious truisms that some people cling to because it's slightly better than the even more basic consensus.
But it's neither reaching the people who didn't agree nor expanding the discussion to people who do.
thank you for bringing this up, usually only "gaming channels" speak of this issue but I am glad when a "tech channel" brings it up.
we need more fun games not benchmark tools
What a true gamer! Game should be fun in the first place, like the yammy juicy layers in the cake. These fancy good looking things are just decorations that attracts people want to give it a bite.
What a cry baby! Graphics were always important in game and hardware development. I'm going to bet you were not around when Nintendo 64 came out and blew people's mind with it's "realistic" graphics. Yeah, that was what people felt at the time, that graphics couldn't possible be more realistic than that. You know who belittled Nintendo 64's graphics? People that couldn't afford it! 2023: History repeats itself
@@johnny_rook Those N64 games did not lack good gameplay too. For example Wave Race 64 is still better aesthetically and gameplay wise than any other jet ski game which came after it.
@@kordelas2514 So true... But, many people think we can't have both state-of-the-art graphics and good gameplay at the same time; it seems for them is one or the other, when the reality of gaming development proves them wrong at every hardware generation past. What amazes me the most is people that see themselves as being "PC gamers" going that route, when the meme was for the longest time: "can it run Crysis?", a game with such amazing graphics it took 4 years for a GPU to play it @1080p/60fps, Max settings, while wielding awesome gameplay mechanics as well.
@@johnny_rook We have a complex issue here. The devs based on hardware have to choose specific art style and how advanced graphics they want to use for their game. Many games used to rely on being first ones on usage of novel graphical features only. And they aged badly because new games could easily replace them. If we talk about gameplay, we should address how we as humans perceive visual effects. Are we good at perceiving so many details in motion, chaotic patterns, etc.? Do modern games consider these issues? Perhaps more is less functional and less is more functional. Are gameplay mechanics properly combined with audiovisuals?
@@johnny_rook nope crysis was really boring . but is just in my opinion. cyberpunk is amazing graphic and story and gameplay
Good graphics don't matter on its own but it can enhance (or detract in some cases). Ultimately good art direction matters when it comes to graphics
This is exactly right. Of course graphics don't 'not matter'.
Right, look at TLoU part 1 and 2, the graphics massively enhance the immersion and story telling. The kind of people who think graphics don't matter are just ignorant chuds too stupid to have a real opinion tbh.
@@dangerousmindgamesThe point is that graphics should not be prioritized over gameplay and art direction
@@notsocooldude7720 exactly, good graphics is a plus but not prio one, most people want good gameplay before graphics
Yes, some of us do.
That said, I'd take Valheim graphics over Sons of the Forest graphics any day.
It's not about polygons/resolution/raytracing... but more about aesthetics and smoothness.
I like graphical realism if it makes sense for the style. the problem with a lot of newer titles is that companies just aren't finishing the game on launch. I am loving cyberpunk now but I bought it on launch and haven't touched it because I was waiting for it to be completed. not because it looked bad or wasn't fun. I didn't touch it because it ran horribly, and had a myriad of other problems. another thing to consider especially since you cite immortals. some publishers have burned the good will of gamers. Especially with EA. so EA can put out the most beautiful game ever and no one cares because they have no faith in the publisher anymore. everyone looks at their new IP's and says oh look the next anthem ("promised" roadmap that gets totally abandoned). I am not willing to front my money for a game with a company that has a history of greed and apathy towards its customers.
@@itachisaskuwho asked?
if you stop byuing from the 1st days or preorder every single game they will fix the games !!!! when everyone running like crazy to bought the game the companies have every right to kick your ass with his bullshit
For me Cyberpunk was a disappointment due to the gameplay. Felt like there was zero improvement from Witcher 3. It just feels futuristic environment attracted different audience that didn't like witcher 3 due to history/fantasy vibe.
@@GumShuro who asked u
@@xsomili5501 ur mum
you are very right.. this is why i dont play triple A games anymore.. the gameplay sucks.. the last triple A game i played is DOOM ETERNAL and compared to the games released recently.. they dont come close.. for me gameplay is more important than graphics.. having stunning visuals are just bonus to the gameplay..
that's you, and then there's them.
@@brokemono This is probably the least substantial comment I have ever seen on the internet. Thank you, Captain Obvious.
AA is the new AAA nowadays
You should compare games from the same genre. Not games like open world ones to corridor/hub like FPS.
Here i am grinding the crap out of Doom eternal on my Nintendo Switch 😂
Games dev here: completely agree with you.
Nothing to really add, you nailed it.
IGAF about graphics. Modded cyberpunk is literally insane to just walk around and explore.
I do wish there was more of an emphasis on gameplay though as well. Apart from cyberpunk there aren't too many graphically intense games that are actually fun to play as well.
Story, gameplay mechanics and also simplicity/accessibility are way more important than graphics nowadays. But it seems to be easier to focus on graphics. I mean the movie industry suffers from the same problem, so many movies are visually stunning, but lack in terms of their story.
Good point.
Everything is superhero or woke garbage in Hollywood nowadays.
I love good graphics. You can have it and art style together.
I started playing in the 80's, back then graphics were really horrible
people put graphics fault the game is bad, the problem on some games today isnt the graphics, is the rest of the game, thats why remakes being made are generaly praised by players. If read dead realased today with graphics of ps3 game no one would play it, ppl just keep forgeting how was graphics before
Some would@@andrerocha3998
I agree. Graphics aren't everything. My game of the year was probably Zelda TOTK which had awesome art design but obviously lower resolution and framerate because of the Switch.
Having said that, amazing graphics like in Demon Souls Remake really do elevate the experience of the game.
True, but even then (well, maybe not the 80s, but certainly going into the 90s) a good art style (Flashback for instance) created games you can absolutely just go and play now. Then try playing Fade To Black, when they tried to make it 3D despite the technology just not being there yet. Horrible.
@@KindredBrujah True. The 3dfx era was certainly an eyesore - I much preferred the original System Shock over its second iteration. But I'll be honest with you, the recent remake of it is much more lovely (in HDR)
I’m glad that somebody said this. I’ve seen so many people coming out to blame UE5 for issues that aren’t inherently caused by the tool. I definitely think that there’s something to be said for the ease of access to generic-looking visuals thanks to UE5, but that is more indicative of lazy developers and lack of creativity than it is an indictment of the tool they are using. Art style and atmosphere have so much more to do with the overall character and the player appreciation that comes with it.
ppl like that need to remember Batman Arkham Knight which Rocksteady used a modified Unreal Engine 3 for the Next-Gen experience
It's not generic to have a game use fancy realistic graphics, realistic graphics can only look real. Some can look more real than others but the idea is it looks real and reality looks the same no matter where you are.
Ask yourself why the best selling games are Pokemon, Minecraft, super smash brothers ultimate, etc, Nintendo games sell a ton
A good example of this is Hollow Knight, the game is not high-quality graphic wise like those triple A games but it is visually appealing not only that the gameplay is hard but really fun the story is amazing too, for such a low price game it's definitely a blessing.
Case in point, The Long Dark....what an amazing game and unique artstyle while being so immersive...
I think the push for _"true"_ realism is to push new hardware sales; after all, the RTX 20 and 30 series is when NVIDIA last peaked in sales, their sales have been going downhill ever since. So, I'm thinking (primarily, but probably not limited to) NVIDIA are trying to push for sales of their 40 series cards by artificially increasing the system requirements for new games, even though it even affects their flagship 4090 enough to dip below the 60fps frame target. However, I hope this tactic stops soon, as it clearly isn't working out for all of these games where the sole selling point is the graphics, as the few people who want to play them can't, while the rest of us _just don't care anymore._ I'm hoping the incentive is going to be there for major studios to actually give the developers some time to make a good game that people will actually care about (and as a result, buy), rather than the graphically-intensive shovelware of today. You shouldn't need 10 gigs of VRAM to play a good game.
" I think the push for "true" realism is to push new hardware sales"
Nvidia is not the one making the games though. It's the developers choice (or the investors choice) to continue pushing the graphics. Look at the new consoles. Better hardware to push higher graphics is pretty much the only thing they innovate on. You can try to leverage the new SSD for gameplay mechanics like in Rift Apart, but other than that there is nothing.
Fancy graphics sells games, like it or not. More obscure artstyles don't sell as well, and there are few exceptions. For example, Ori and the will of the wisps is a phenomenal game. Unfortunately, any run-of-the-mill COD game is going to probably DOUBLE the sales of Ori, if not more.
I'm not defending NVIDIA by the way, but they would not hold the same leverage if the investors cared about quality products. From the perspective of an investor, why would you fund 1,5 years of bugfixing and performance optimization when you can slap on DLSS as a bandaid and release the game unfinished? Unfortunately, fancy graphics and heavy marketing will sell the game anyway. Those investors don't care about NVIDIAS sales, they care about their own sales.
Nvidia doesn't even care if you upgrade. They're making so much money in AI, they'd rather use their manufacturing capacity to build ai cards team gaming cards anyway.
Tbh, on the toilet rn and gonna post this before watching.
I care. But graphics dont need realism. Graphics to me, need Colour, substance, functionality and preference(pixel, cell, abstract, AAA(sometimes)).
For me, when Starfield launched, my expectations were high for the experience and the story. I knew there would be bugs or issues but I'm 90 hours in and I'm still enjoying the game. I agree that games need to be more about art style than simulation. TBH I'm not a fan of ray tracing in games. It feels like a developer tool that made its way to the end-user and the lack of performance when it's enabled shows. Even with that feature, there is still art direction that goes on.
I like my graphics …. To a certain degree, but admit a great game, storyline, gameplay and ending/s is my preferred gaming preference over graphical quality and special effects etc. I love BG:3 and played it in Early Access and replaying now it’s officially released and loving the story, game options, storyline etc 🥰💪👍✊🥳
Good art direction and gameplay, make a game timeless.
This is the reason Nintendo games are evergreen and sell a lot. They are just fun to play. They run on outdated hardware, barely reach 1080p and some struggle to reach stable 30fps, but they are fun. 4k should be the ultimate resolution.
Gameplay and story are more important but graphics matter too. I remember when I first played uncharted 4, the graphics and animation definitely enhanced the experience and made it more immersive.
Nah,...
I would rather play a game running over 60fps looking like stardew valley(1080P or lower) than one looking like real life running at 2fps(4k ultra with ray tracing)
Graphics and gameplay are more important than story for me I'm.playing a god damned game not watching a movie or reading a book.
Nah story is the same nonsense. There is an influx of games with hard focus on story when I just don't care. Give me good gameplay.
For me graphics has to suit the game in order to avoid breaking the immersion. But not gonna lie, the first time I've seen the panorama of Kaer Morhen I felt like I'm sinking into the world of the game, which for me is the most fun-inducing feeling in gaming. Of course graphics/gameplay/story balance can shift, but as long as one element doesn't drag down the remaining two it's fine.
mechanics > story > graphics
While I largely agree with the points made in the video, I have a different perspective on the relationship between fidelity, art style, and gameplay. I believe that art style and fidelity are interconnected and complement each other, rather than being in conflict. Having good fidelity and utilizing the latest technology doesn't automatically result in poor art style or gameplay, as seen in Cyberpunk. It's about using all available tools effectively.
I also think there are nuances within realism. For instance, if you were to compare screenshots of Starfield, Cyberpunk, Half-Life: Alyx, and Modern Warfare 3, you'd easily distinguish them. It's not just about achieving realism; it's about how you leverage lighting, setting, colors, and environmental cues to create a distinct and realistic gaming experience.
Even if you opt for a non-realistic art style, you can still utilize new features and technology, ensuring they enhance the art style instead of detracting from it (as seen in poorly executed examples like Portal RTX or Half-Life: Source). Games like TF2, with their enduring appeal and exemplary art style, could look even better if updated with higher resolutions, improved lighting, and better textures.
In essence, my point is that we shouldn't treat visual fidelity, art style, and gameplay as entirely separate entities. They are interconnected, and if one aspect falters, it can negatively impact the entire game. This, I believe, is a fundamental issue in modern gaming-companies often prioritize realism without realizing the equal importance of other components.
P.S.: Apologies for using so many Valve games as examples; I come from the Source engine community and decided to use games I'm most familiar with.
Will add that - "Having good fidelity" < GOOD or NOT GOOD are personal preferences only.
"Cyberpunk. It's about using all available tools effectively." < yea, sure, very "effectively" 🤣🤣🤣
You can not poorly execute technologies like RTX, it's just a mimic of how lights work in real world (only in technical aspect we can talk about poor execution in mimicking technologies like RTX, when they eat more resources of hardware, than they should etc..., but this is another story in this particular topic....), they looked poorly cos to make technologies like RTX work nicely, you need to build entire scene for it and not wise versa, cos such technologies just mimicking and not creating, so in game like CP77, that was made to be just a PR material for NVidia technologies, scenes there were made under RTX, that's why it looks so standard and not inspiring and have no Artistic value at all, but even then you can see, that in the beginning it should not, cos even with RTX game can only render just 2 sources of light, character do not have proper shadows and proper reflection etc... But also you can look at Witcher 3 RTX, where this RTX ruined a lot of scenes, that were made by hand and where lights, shadows, reflections were made by hand of an artist and were placed not realistically, but to create a Aesthetical scene and that's the reason why Cyberpunk lacks Aesthetics and is just mimicking things, not creating them, you may like it, you may don't, but this is the reality, technologies like RTX are instruments that need the environment to be made in specific and limited way only to make them look good.
@@Xelluse
"GOOD or NOT GOOD are personal preferences only."
There is no personal preference when it comes to fidelity being good or bad. Fidelity means the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced in this case reality. However you of course can have a preference to liking games that are low or high fidelity.
"You can not poorly execute technologies like RTX"
Of course you can, it takes one bad denoiser and everything looks bad. However I wasn't talking about the technical side of things I was referring to the map design. Even when you use realistic lighting it's not as easy to design a good looking map. If you aren't careful you're gonna end up with too dark Hallways, too bright rooms.
"you need to build entire scene for it and not wise versa, cos such technologies just mimicking and not creating"
It's the same way with traditional methods though. Most if not all games that feature a lighting engine if traditional or not try to mimick lighting, ray tracing just does it better. Also no matter what method of lighting you use you're gonna have create the scene with the lighting in mind from the ground up, or it's going to look bad.
"cos even with RTX game can only render just 2 sources of light, character do not have proper shadows and proper reflection etc..."
Now unless this is meant as a sarcastic way to make fun of ray tracing performance, it's just false. Not sure what else to add to this point.
"But also you can look at Witcher 3 RTX, where this RTX ruined a lot of scenes"
While I like most of the the new scenes with added ray tracing. I still agree with the overall point. However I don't see it as a valid point against ray tracing since that is a side effect of the transitional period we're in right now. Once games start getting designed with ray tracing in mind from the ground up, problems like that will most likely go away. Take Alan Wake 2 as an example.
@@roamn4979 "EVEN WITH" < no, means nothing ??? Oh, but then your argument will fall apart, so you chose to change the context.... ironic....
@@Xelluse I'm sorry, but would you care to elaborate? I am having a hard time following what you mean. What context have I changed?
@@roamn4979 As example you simply ignore "EVEN WITH", that was said exactly not against RTX, but for it, that technology is good, when you use it properly.
Also as was said, that it's an instrument and that not instrument is a problem, but who uses it, RTX is very simple algorithm to mimic real life light physics, but as someone who working with ray tracing since from 2003 in animations, mistakes and poor qualification of an Art director makes it look bad, and RTX on same Portal was implemented just for marketing purpose - RTX for RTX and had no Artistic value at all and without building scene the way to make RTX look aesthetic, it will not work properly and will look ugly, unlike hand made scenes, where artist have full control of the scene and can place lights and shadows even in most unrealistic way, it's not that RTX is bad, it's just an instrument and nothing more, also nothing special, in movies and animations it was used since from 1994, it's very simple, but quite resource heavy algorithm to simply mimic lights physics from real life, but it have no artistic value and is limiting the way artist can work with scene, that's why in CP77 it worked so poorly, simple scenes worked properly, but harder scenes, when you should work with multiple sources of light for example, it have shown the worst quality even in compare to ABO 6.0+ and the irony is, that when CP77 with RTX was not able to render over 2 sources of light, with simple ABO 2.0 (technology from 2009 btw) in exact same scene was rendered 4 sources of light.
And quite funny, that CP77 used so outdated, poorly optimized and low quality lights-shadows imitational instrument outside RTX to make RTX look good in their game (not that RTX itself is bad or something, it works amazingly when it used in scenes in which it meant to be used and implemented properly in a scene that was made for RTX specifically and that's is one of the headache for an Artist working with RTX, you are forced to create whole scene for RTX specifically and not creating Lights, Shadows, Reflections etc... for the scene you are creating in the first place, but if you do create whole scene to make RTX work properly, then RTX make things easier and helps to make them look stunning).
So it's not against RTX, as you tried to change the context, RTX is old and good instrument, but it works in quite limited borders, but it's very simple and easy technology to work with, that's why you can't fk up RTX, you can fk up the scene by creating it without strictly following the limitations of that technology.
Also, Realism is the first what painter learns, cos it's the easiest style to begin and master, it's limited, have strict and easy, understandable rules and also helps to learn physiology of things in real life, so you will be able to learn how to break them and create your own style on later courses. With realism you simply learning how to copy and not how to create.
I remember seeing the videos before Uncharted came out about how the hair follicles are all there and how Nathan’s face is really detailed which was really cool but the fact that the game itself and the story were phenomenal was what made it so successful!
I am trying to see the point of your video. You first start by making a general controvesial statement on how graphics don't matter/people don't care about them. Then you shift your point on to how art style is fading away because of graphics... it doesn't make sense, graphics is a very general thing, it can mean resolution, technology of the game (like how complex the physics are) which correlates to other tech like calculated lighting, etc. After that, you shift your point on game content and the personality in the eyes of making the game enticing for the consumer to make them want to buy the game... what a headache. I can't even make a solid critique on your video because there really isn't any solid point that you are making in the first place.
Graphics are not equal to graphical fidelity, I think this video is aimed at the later rather than the former. Nobody should give a fuck about a game being more realistic looking, however having a coherent art style and a consistent frame rate for me is also part of graphics and is rather important imo.
yeah this. like it doesn't matter if the art style isn't realistic and for example looks more cartoonish, SO LONG AS all the details in the appropriate textures of everything is crisp and high res most of the time during gameplay. It's not about whether something looks photoreal or not but more about whether the style of the graphics holds up properly at resolutions higher than 1080p. Like we should at least expect that in 2023 for most games.
We're nearing the end of what you might call the "awkward middle school phase" of gaming tech development. Within a decade, game graphics will have advanced to such a point that graphics won't matter anymore because everything will look good. When that happens, all these game studios that are relying on graphics to draw in players won't be able to compete anymore.
There's a music performance in Cyberpunk Phantom Liberty and it's probably the most beautiful thing I have watched all year. I know that the game is a Nvidia tech demo aswell, which actually takes away from some of the artistic choices (especially with shading) but it looks so beautiful, and the story and gameplay is fantastic, too.
I don't care about graphics if the game doesn't look bad and doesn't have bad art direction. A game like starfiled looks bad . Cyberpunk 2022 has amazing graphics but also incredible art direction. More examples of both graphics and art direction: Ghostrunner, ghost of tsushima, sifu, stray, God of war 2018&ragnarok, rollerdrome, hifi rush, rdr2
I think what also matters is what type of game it is, for example a forza horizon or a racing game set in real locations makes complete sense for it to be somewhat graphics centered as well. Not completely of course but it definitely does matter.
You must not know anything about the art of competitive racing, if you think that. Car racing is high speed chess. The best racing game in the world is from 2008 and has really unimpressive graphics, but brilliant car physics and gameplay: iRacing.
"You must not know anything about the art of competitive racing"🤓🤓
@@artyarty1185 good productive counter argument! Sadly, every sim racing fan in the world is on my side, and I'd have millions of likes on my comment if they saw it, so your reply is equal to a sack of dung.
good productive counter argument! Sadly, "I'd have millions of likes on my comment (if they saw it)"
@@scary5455 And yet the game look nothing like it did in 2008...
Best explonaiton I heard about this topic. This phenomenom inspired me to create my own game, which has soul and fun to play. This industry is not oversaturated, at least for me, there are very few games that I really enjoy.
A year has passed. Where are you on your journey of making a game?
That is why i still love indie games...simple yet fun to play with affordable prices.
should i remind you of the day before
I'd say 95% of Indie games are actual garbage and shouldn't be played by anyone.
@@kiillabytezOk but generally 95% or the majority of anything would be bad, so that doesn’t really mean much.
almost 80 to 90% of indie games are just platforming, 2D/3D, trying to do the cute colorful arstyle, emotional story bla bla bla. Fucking boring oversaturated genre. Only few indie actually stood up because they are made to be fun.
Tbh majority of indie games are just boring visual novels
Good graphics =/= realistic graphics, why are so much people mixing both ?
Kena bridge of spirits -> not "realistic" but beautiful
Disney Speedstorm -> Beautiful when in ULTRA at high res, not realistic
DokeV (trailers) -> BEAUTIFUL, not "realist"
we can have very beautiful, technically completly mind blowing graphics without it having to be "realistic" / "photorealistic"
and please, stop saying that games a decade ago or idk what were already looking "as good as they needed to", that's just not true
having new engines with mind blowing technical aspects which deliver amazing graphics (texture, LoD, particles, lightning etc etc etc) is just amazing
seriously, it really feels like people saying that are thinking that "good graphics" = "bad games"
if a good dev / studio wants to make a VERY GOOD GAME, and that this very good game can have a very nice engine which delivers amazing graphics, well then let's go for it
BAD GAMES =/= GOOD LOOKING GAMES
GOOD LOOKING GAMES =/= BAD GAMES necessarily.
that's annoying
PS : an example ? XDEFIANT is a game that is actually in term of pure gameplay, not talking about the issues around the game, a VERY good game that people like playing
I would have loved if they pushed the engine to deliver better graphics... it would have just made the game even better, because of better immersions and visuals (when you play, you're watching at every instant the VISUALS, so yes having better visuals is better lol)
Lethal Company is a perfect example of a game that doesn't have realistic graphics, but is also just really fun to play. Love the video and totally agree that games are meant to be played, not watched.
the only problem with lethal company is the optimization i could barely run this game at 30 fps despite its low poly graphics
Games chasing realism ironically means that it's becoming more of what we're trying to escape from.
Spot on. Gaming means escapism.
Unfortunately the majority is only interested in a game when it's visuals are as photo realistic as possible.
Dafuq? When we say we're trying to escape reality, we don't literally mean how real life looks the fuck are you talking about?
@@kahnfatman Only for the cowards that use it as an excuse to pretend their real life problems go away by pretending they don't exist. You don't ever escape. It's a lie.
Dark Souls reminds people of harsh reality. And it teaches to try to face your problems. Even helps people overcome depression. After breaking them of course. Games that know life isn't fair are honest if nothing else.
@@Veldazandteano, ds is escapism, you don't respawn after dropping off a bridge, or have infinite opportunities to correct your mistakes irl
There needs to be balance but graphics definitely do matter. Sometimes the graphics make or brake the experience.
Graphics has nothing to do with experience
@@DeathStriker88 I disagree, RDR2 would still be a great game if it had minecraft graphics, but it would be nowhere near as successful and enjoyable
false, nothing like a great story, fun game play and great artistic directions and good graphics to support said artistic direction. With most things it needs to be a balance. Graphics is one piece of the pie, maybe for you it doesn't matter at all but for most people it does matter. It's just not the only thing that does and AAA companies needs to realize this.@@DeathStriker88
@@DeathStriker88yes it does. Graphics are everything that encompases the visual experience, not just about realistic vs stylized. Stylized games can have good graphics as well as bad.
Yes and no, depend on the game. And graphics are only part of the puzzle.
Today technology improves faster than we can discern the change. This is unstoppable. Fidelity is going to improve at every aspect of a game over time. Most of what you're complaining about is just boring games, not graphics. As if a really fun game, with cool graphics is hard to come by. The problem is there is too many games, too many copies of copies, too much content that is just trying to make money... instead of being a good game.
You are on point. Actual art style and artistic vision is much more important than "fidelity". Also gameplay is most important thing in games.
As a die-hard Deus Ex fan the clunky gameplay and horrendous graphics prevented me from playing this in over 10 years of owning it.
Games like Terraria are a perfect example of ART STYLE being what matters the most. It is a 2d game with one of the best art styles I've seen in a game.
Terraria is the GOAT
GOAT GAME MENTIONED🔥🔥🔥WOULD JOAQUINCASASCORTES624 LIKE TO SPEAK LOUDER😤🔈🔈🔈🔈
I disagree. Loved Terraria, played it 1000s of hours, but I always wished it had better graphics technology. Namely high FPS support, less input lag and integer scaling with AA instead of a blurry mess. And I also think the art could have been improved with slightly higher resolution like in Starbound
@@RealFlicke I wouldn't change anything about Terraria's graphics because it wouldn't be Terraria otherwise. I never had the same issues you have with the game
Its pixel art lets not pretend like terraria invented it
I agree. I also feel like the problem is also with games development cost going way up for large studios (which I feel is inflated and not managed well but I don’t work in the industry) so companies won’t take risks. This along with time investment is causing AAA developers to put out super safe trash that doesn’t do well. Unfortunately I don’t think we’ll ever hit a time in the near future where experimentation thrived like it did around the 2000’s from big studios. We should stop getting excited for all this garbage and try to support indie devs since they actually have the will to try new things and make good games. I think a new crash has to happen to fix the state of games where selling millions is still considered a failure for some big companies. To anyone reading, you don’t need to buy every new AAA game, play some indie games, deep dive on your store of choice; Steam, itch, Microsoft store, Nintendo store, PS store, and look for fun indie games. They don’t have predatory business practices and a lot of them try something new. Every genre has an indie dev that makes games that are fun.
they also spend way too much on marketing and there's too much bureaucracy in development.
The best example of graphic and gameplay ratio I've ever played was Kingdom Come Deliverance.
I'd pay top dollar to see them make the graphics as real as possible, because the gameplay and immersion is already there.
graphics be like:
yay the game looks 5% better, but my FPS is cut in half!
time to buy a new graphics card!
😂😂💯💯
I want both. Great graphics and fun to play games. The biggest problem in the entire industry is that the people who finance games and the people who make games don't actually play games.
The clip at the end, _Portal 2_ , that was one of the most pivotal moments of co-op gaming history. That level took me and my brother HOURS to figure out. You go up to the top and do the stupidest things over and over again on that level, just for that one, magical moment, to finally hit you, when you put away all your brain-cells and thinking power, and realize that being dumb is EXACTLY what you need to do.
Realistic graphics without substance is disaster. Gameplay and fun are what attracting gamers
As a very old player, I would play Empirion over Starfield and 7DTD any day of the week and twice on Sunday, you are spot on regarding the lack of real content, story line and replayability on many new titles that sacrifice that for flashy unplayable graphics many times.
Starfield doesn’t have flashy graphics, it’s a very average game in terms of graphical fidelity, and the game is full of content, story line and replayability .
@@ni9274it's basically skyrim but in space, don't see anything new in it
@@theodorus956 As someone who played pretty much every space game available in the market, yea. Starfield is just Skyrim/Fallout in space, but with a less interesting universe and worse RPG elements. I wouldn't even call it a space game tbh.
More of the classic games actually should be remade in the newer engines with better graphics because it not only gives the current generation of developers an idea of what made games actually good, it provides a blueprint for how to make good games in these newer engines going forward. FF7 Remake was a perfect example of how to mix an older turn based game and update it for the modern era with a re-imagined combat system/graphics.
Unfortunately a lot of these remakes try to "fix" the gameplay and end up overdoing it to a point that it completely changes the feel. In many cases it shouldn't go beyond quality of life subtle touches, not adding "modern" mechanincs that drastically alter the original game's identity. I disagree that FF7 Remake's gameplay is better, it is just different. At least there is a remaster version also available if you prefer playing the original with some new quality of life features without completely changing the gameplay. If it ain't broken don't fix it.
Reshade let's you use some important new effects and tune them to your liking, priority #1 old games need is ambient occlusion, it has some very efficient effects for that, or you can go all out with RTGI.
Current generation of devs know how to make good games…
Vex, I would love to see more videos with your unfiltered opinions like this. It really could separate you from other hardware reviewers.
I personally think that UE is trying to improve on their graphics and FPS, but they depend on you to make better gameplay with the engine.
I always wondered why I enjoy games from 2002. They look not as good as the ones today, but I just love them. And I am a late gamer. I started gaming very late. So, technically I should not like the old games. But I love them. It is definitely all about the game-play.
you should go play "no one lives forever" thank me later !
Thats because of nostalgic feeling The kids now will have the same feeling 20 years later with the games from now
@@HappyDude1 Did you even read what OP wrote? He said he's a late gamer, he didn't play those games back at their time, but now. It's not nostalgic feeling for him.
I say it depends on the type of game. My biggest criticism is that videogames (especially from big studios) hardly ever touch on player world interaction, physics based gameplay, creative abilities and most importantly ignore "out of the box" thinking.
back then devs were still playing their games I feel. Because when you ignored mission objectives and "fucked around" there were very often reactions from the game world, npcs etc. to it. Nowadays it's mostly "you failed" and loading last checkpoint. Everything is on rails for so long that I don't even bother trying out ignoring the instructions.
besides regular indie games I feel like the VR gaming market is the greatest exception to that development. Since it's something relatively new, everyone tries creative ways to make games. A lot of stuff has always been there in our imagination but wasn't possible on traditional peripherals like keyboard and mouse.
So as a long time gamer I must say Indie games, modding communitites and largely VR do spark a lot of enjoyment.
Current games lack intelligence and creativity. Just like TV and movies. $70 for a new game? BS Look at Starfield now, so glad I gave my money to Spacebourne 2 instead of Bethesda.
I think you touched on the problem, these games are built to look good in trailers because that is what gets the attention of investors and executives. People that will never actually play the games but are making the decisions. If a game is going to be allowed to continue development it must adapt to the expectations of investors and execs, the audience for the game becomes the investors and execs . At some point later down the line they can worry about making it a fun game for the jerks who actually give them money and want to have fun.
Larian in contrast has no outside investors and the CEO/founder is a giant nerd himself. They made a game that from day 1 was only ever going to be targeted at gamers. You can see the massive support gamers are giving it. I bet the execs at Microsoft are like, "why are people playing this game, have you seen the graphics? Why aren't there microtransactions?" Those people at MS described Baldur's Gate before its release as something along the lines of a "stadia rpg" and didn't see it having much value. Conclude from that what you will.
The best example of Art Style vs Graphics is Half Life 2 and its Episodes 1&2. Sure, the game was demanding when it was released. But it still looks fresh as hell. I doubt if any other game has this level of longevity.
A lot of 2D games have this level of longetivity.
@@beri4138we just need a golden berry to complete the trilogy of pfp’s
Well no, half life 2 is definitely showing its age though the VR mod makes it a lot better by allowing the brain to fill iin the blur.
@@thelelanatorlol3978 Considering that it was made 2 decades ago and the most popular resolution back then was 1024x768 , it has held up well :)
I am waiting for their RTX remix.
My friend has over 150 hours in fallout new vegas. Though it is a very old game, he really loves it. This shows how much direction of the game matters!
Another great example for this is Lethal Company. The game has a great artstyle but "bad" graphics, yet it is one of the most fun games you can play solo or with others
We are honestly just in a weird spot where software is outperforming hardware right now and i do think working on improving visuals is important in the long term whilst at the momment its a pain for us all but were laying the foundation to improve things drastically and take games to a new place, and eventually it will also open the door to more creatives making games without techbical hurdles but at the momment were just in a shitty spot and we might be for another 10 15 years like legitimately.
Lethal Company recently outnumbered CoD: mw3 in sales. A game made by a single developer with a cool style and fun gameplay. And the game keeps growing
The same indie developer who made The Upturned “turned” the tides.😂
yea but that game is shit and for tiktok kids we're talking about good games getting affected here
@@anti_s0ra_v1 I played LC and it's not shit, even considering it's in early access
To you, its just not fun objectively. Same worlds same monsters, nothing new, boring. A bunch of other games that are early access like "ultrakill" which trumps that game by a landslide. So if were talking about a game talk about a good one not a tiktok one. @@malserc
@@anti_s0ra_v1 a lot of nonsense from you. If you apply your logic to the other games, then suddenly almost every game is not fun if it dont have to be played 2+ hours. Tetris, chess, doodle jump, fnaf, counter strike, fortnite, etc etc. Same maps, same people, same mechanics. Are they too boring? In LC after some progress you can unlock unique moons with new unique faciloties and new monsters. Being in the early stage Lethal Company has enough to spend few hours with your friends and have a good time playing. I know at some point LC lacks of greater goal, but it still has enough to offer. I dont know what you seen in tiktok, but from my experince the game was geniualy fun. Espesially when you dont spoil anything by watching gameplays on yt. Also, this game is meant to be played with friends. With friends almost everything is fun. Maybe you should go outside and find some.
If you judge games by tiktoks, and not by playing them, then you are a fool
There is a reason I come back to playing Minecraft on days end every year. It's fun, you can easily play with others, you can mod the frick out of it and I'm 25 and I started playing right before when the Beta came out.
When it comes to graphics I'm a bit spoiled, so I really do want a game with good graphics for the most part but it isn't Necesary.
Here's another example, I still play Dead Space 3 with one or two friends to this day because it has Co-op and because it's kinda fun to hunt for bugs and glitches. I'm also a big fan of the Dead Space franchise.
I think that sometimes having amazing graphics is pretty important, but a lot of games do need an unrealistic art style.
Having seen the trailers for Unrecord, I think that it's one of the few types of games where photorealism is properly warranted. The idea of playing through a bodycam rather than the character's eyes is a very interesting concept, and I think it can only be executed to its full potential with lifelike graphics. Clearly, it's meant to feel like you're controlling real bodycam footage.
Of games that are actually released, RDR2 also wouldn't work very well with any art style. Realism is one of the core design principles of the gameplay, so much so that I often find myself wishing that some mechanics weren't so accurate. It needs its nearly real graphics to pair with its highly detailed gameplay mechanics and deep, serious story.
Although, most indie games have an unrealistic art style, and I do think that most of them are better off like that. Obviously, indie devs usually don't have the resources to get ultra high quality textures and things, but even if there was a "Make graphics good" button that they could click, usually it's better left unrealistic. It's much better if the dev wants the game to feel a bit goofy, or artistic. It's kind of hard for me to put into words what I mean, but since games are a form of art, whoever has the creative vision for the game intuitively knows what kind of art style to go with based on the kind of emotions the game should evoke, and how the player should experience the game.
Thanks for this very honest opinion piece, it's exactly what I've been thinking. My most played game of 2023 was Stardew Valley! Lost about 5 months to that game, it's not about the graphics, its about the game play and your enjoyment. Thanks Vex, need more creators shouting this from the rooftops. Take care matey.
The sad thing is some people still think that graphics make a game good or bad, and will just look away if a game's graphics are 3 years old. People are stupid nowadays...
A new fool is born every day :P but eventually pretty graphics take so long to make it won't matter. 90 dollar games here we go.
@@mikfhan I bought only one game at full price, Grim Dawn.
Graphics tech has its place and pushing that forward will yield unique experiences but I agree, gameplay is king.
Since games are so expensive to make now AAA studios will have to learn sooner or later that they could save millions by chopping out a lot of fidelity and investing into an artstyle which makes the game look good regardless. Plus stylelised art will have a timeless quality that purely realistic art naturally doesn't have as simultions get more and more complex.
Thanks for making and sharing this video, hearing these words have really cemented my understanding on what really matters in a game. It has also cleared up some misconceptions I had about graphics in video games, knowing what more to focus on rather than just making a game look fantastic.