Topic: Console graphics regression

@Mars_ @jedgamesguy I have played plenty on more powerful consoles like on Series X but I still feel that games like the ones I listed in my previous comment look more visually impressive.

I think it’s to do with the art style so like how F-Zero GX still holds up extremely well visually today despite being a 480p game.

@Anti-Matter I agree in preferring Cartoony graphics to hyper-realistic ones but even those can easily use more power than Switch has, especially when you get into all sorts of animations like in Mario Wonder. If you have adorable high quality art like in Animal Crossing but also want it to interact with lots of objects, that could easily be a resource hog which would require(at minimum) Switch 2 resources.

I can see ho improvement in graphics now. I think everyone is falling for hype. Detail{faces, crackas in ground and animation} has come on for sure. But graphics?????

@Grumblevolcano You share my sentiments.

@Grumblevolcano
I'd say that 4K is overhyped in terms of how much it matters generally. But I think on this forum people tend to pretend it means nothing at all which is even more incorrect. It's not the most important advancement, in many ways it's one of the less important advancements, but it's certainly not nothing

As I said earlier, either on this thread or elsewhere, I've been messing around with Wii U emulation. Running Mario Kart 8 at 8K internal resolution on a 4K OLED and then swapping back to Mario Kart 8 Deluxe on Switch on the same TV running as good as it does at 1080p? There's a noticeable difference. Not game changing given it's literally the same game but still, very noticeable

Also, once you do this, other stuff starts to stand out. There is an option in this emulator to crank up the shadow detail. I did but didn't think much of it. Until I swapped back to Deluxe and noticed the competitively low quality self shadows. And once you crank the resolution up textures and HUD elements start to stand out. There's a lot more to making a game "4K" than just running it at a higher resolution. But again, don't discount 4K

I think @TopazLink has one of the better contributions to this thread so far. To me the one thing that still stands out as relatively poor in games is hair, cloth, skin. Physics in games is basically non existent outside of specific interactive items and scripted objects. There's a LONG way for games to go in these areas. And it's both not about hyper realism and could be something that impacts gameplay

I see what you mean. Graphics can look realistic as they can get, but it's the art style that I fall for. Okami and Persona 5 are games that I still find visually impressive.

I think there are games that still look good these days, but maybe there's less of a focus on art direction.

So many people these days are making tons of assets for one game, there is no way it's all going to look amazing or be cohesive. And even if it's "photorealistic" for now, it won't be in 5 years. But that doesn't really matter, graphics are a great way to market to the general public. There is a huge focus on preorders and shifting copies during the launch window - after that they usually discount quite heavily. It's less of a money maker and more like passive income I suppose.

Personally, I think we've lost "gamey" aspect to things. They were like that due to technical restraints, but having to suspend your disbelief at what was on screen was quite immersive. Your mind could fill in the gaps - now we're being told what is in the gaps.
Did I believe that 5 buildings and a couple of people was considered a city? No! But in old RPGs like Pokémon, that worked.

I'm interested to see what kids/teens think these days. Maybe they like what we have now?
I knew the importance of older consoles, but I didn't really click with many N64/PS1 titles. I mainly stuck with GameCube/PS2.
Maybe PS3 or PS4 is retro for them now, but so many of those titles can be played on current generation consoles or have remasters. The lines might be more blurred than they were for me.

@Kimyonaakuma
I think you've somewhat hit on what this topic is really about to some people. I honestly think that some people latch onto attacking higher fidelity in games as somewhat of a package deal. It's not really about games looking really good being "bad", it's just that they generally don't like what gaming has become

The way I see it the visuals are not really part of that equation. The visuals being great? That's great. I'm fine with that. The better they are, generally, the easier it is to fall into that world. If I'm thinking about how the textures are low quality, how that asset is low poly, how the self shadows are shimmering, the stair-step in the powerlines? I'm not thinking about the game. And sure, great art direction helps close that gap also. But so does a higher fidelity

But the problem with "modern games"? It's not this. The problem, IMO, is the fact that gaming isn't really a hobby for nerds anymore. Games are increasingly not about building a set of skills and using your mastery those skills to beat progressively harder challenges. Games are, these days, more often about pressing a button to move from one cutscene to the next. And it seems that the "pretty games" are far more guilty of this

If the next Zelda is BotW but with more scale, more puzzles, more dungeons, more challenge but at a higher fidelity whether that's with a unique art style or more of a realistic look? I'm all for that. But if Zelda turns into the sort of game that's more popular on Playstation? The kind of game where you walk slowly between checkpoints while your companion unloads lore? If we get to the end of the game and it's just "press X to defeat Gannon" between two 20min cutscenes? Yeah.... that I'd have issue with

To me the problem is that too many of these games pushing for the highest quality graphics don't have a remotely unique art style and increasingly lean into the same couple of genres, while the people making them put out fewer games because the one game takes too long to make.

Honestly half the reason I'm fine with the modern take on Zelda "replacing" the old style is that I know Nintendo will actually put out other Zelda games between the big ones. If they weren't, it would be a much harder pill to swallow. Similarly I don't have an issue with the modern AAA Sony game, but their disinterest in nearly anything else is infuriating.

@kkslider5552000
It's a bit of a vicious cycle. There's so much content being pumped out that if you want to do well you need to stand out. Which means you need to make a great looking game. But in order to do that you need to spend the money. And nobody is going to risk that amount of money on something that's experimental, challenging or has a potentially divisive style

These kinds of games we're talking about here are the kinds of games that will cost $10s of millions. At the higher end it's more like $100s of millions. But either way, it's a fair amount of money to gamble. And if I was someone putting down that kind of money on a project? I'd be wanting to make it as low risk as possible. Aim for mass appeal. Accessible content that's easy to digest for the average consumer. You'd probably go "well this other game did well, lets make a game that's more like that"

Same reason why pop music is the way it is. Super accessible, not challenging. You fill stadiums with Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran not Tropical F*** Storm and Black Midi. So if you're doing the gaming equivalent of only going to acts that can fill stadiums or top the charts? If all you're doing is buying the highest budget, lowest risk, most mass market games there are? Why are you surprised that all you find is the gaming equivalent of elevator or shopping mall music

And that's what's required for a game to have high end visuals. "Stadium filling" budgets

I mean the obvious solution is to not rely on high budget games, but real stupid people in these companies don't know how that works and seem to hate the concept of only making a reasonable profit per game.

Really stands out this year, where Suicide Squad and Skull and Bones have gotten completely overshadowed by smaller games like Helldivers 2 and Lethal Company, while the latest Like a Dragon, and Persona remake have gotten to a million sales in record time and Sony's strategy of AAA or else has lead to them basically admitting they won't have a big game this year (and I don't feel confident in their ability to have A game this year, barring exclusives they might've bought from someone else).

And Nintendo in their least relevant year (seemingly) since the Switch started will probably still make money off of most if not all the games they'll release. The same company that only needed BOTW to sell 2 million to make profit I'm going to guess is not spending absurd amounts of money on these games.