I can always watch a movie that doesn’t cost $70 but tends to look more photorealistic mostly because it’s usually just a series of photos taken of reality.

The most important part of interactive media is the fact that it is interactive.

Their obsession with laying everyone off after every release is costing them talent

I care so much more about whether the game runs smooth and has decently high fps than hair physics, ray tracing and photorealism. Those attributes do not add to the fun of a game imo.

The problem that AAA studios face is that high-fidelity is their unique selling point, it's their niche of the market.

Every indie studio can produce a game that's fun, so you don't want to compete with those.
They have to produce titles with high-fidelity textures, with an extensive game world, story etc..

But as the indies get ever better, the AAA studios have to take more risks to be unique, which is why you see these ridiculous budgets and the invests not paying off so often...

Its one of the biggest selling points of AAA games. AAA companies sell products that get you to give them your money. They do not care at all about the quality of the game experience. They care that the games get bought and graphic fidelity keeps helping that happen. U til consumers fucking stop, they won't pivot.

I get the point they're going with here, as well as the comments so far, but I think there should be some balance. As a begrudging Bethesda fan, most important to me is that the game fucking works lol. Starfield looks great as long as it's just a single frame, but as they start moving their face it still bothers me that their cut scenes still can't match cut scenes from 20 years ago on consoles 2 generations older.

Hell, high on life used a cartoony art style but it felt more alive than starfield. That being said, I can't with the anime looking indie games. There's just so many of them that in my head it's all slop or shovelware (I know that isn't the case, just how my brain works). But things like mewgenics and meccha chameleon are great. To me, it can be cartoony, it doesn't have to have the best graphics, but it needs to have refreshing gameplay, and I don't want it to look or feel like a PS2 anime game.

Those attributes do not add to the fun of a game imo.

I'm going to mildly disagree. I like my games to be immersive, and I don't know if it's just me, but don't find myself immersed with pixel art.

All other things being equal (a phrase doing a lot of heavy lifting) I prefer photorealistic graphics. Obviously, if a game isn't fun then it doesn't matter how pretty it is, but if a game isn't fun, pixel graphics aren't going to change that.

I want to see more games with depth and scale. As it stands, most games these days are really good looking, but play no different than games from 1998. Sometimes they have even regressed on the depth of games from 1998.

The best looking game that actually has a lot of depth that has come out in recent years has been Baldur's Gate 3.

Smooth rendering is table stakes, for sure.

I too like games being immersive, but its not photorealism or pixel art, there's a lot in between, I can still go and play ps1 games like mgs1 and get immersed in the story.

Obviously, if a game isn't fun then it doesn't matter how pretty it is

That was essentially what I was trying to say lol

I can still go and play ps1 games like mgs1 and get immersed in the story.

For me it's like watching SD Video on a CRT TV. Back then, it was the best we had and we didn't know better, but in a world with 4k video on a high end TV, I can't go back-- the poor visuals become distracting to me. That feels like a "me" problem, though.

Well we cant just make a Halo game but we can remake an old one in UE5!

That's their other unique selling point: endless remakes.

I recently re-played a 2005 game because the game play is so much fun. The graphics were merely ok even for the time and yet better gameplay than many games today.

Presses F to pay respects

well that's enough interaction for me today 👍

What game, if you don't mind me asking?

The graphics don't need to be hyper realistic, as long as they are good, have a consistent style and whatnot.

Of course in general "realistic graphics" are considered good, and so it will be pursued but they are just sacrificing everything to maybe achieve a higher level of realistic graphics, which obviously self sabotages the game

play no different than games from 1998

Do you have any examples?

I feel like even 2008’s games all played substantially different from 1998’s.

A more appropriate comparison might be 2026 to 2016.

Pixel art is a long way off from a game with realistic graphics that at least runs well because they didn't animate every single hair or whatever.

Games in 1998 were not the mass market media that AAA games are today. For every person who enjoys Workers and Resources: Soviet Republic there are a few hundred who find that level of depth pointless and wholly, actively offputting.

There are so many games that look pretty, but are boring to play. I wish the big studios would focus on gameplay more than trying to make my GPU meltdown.

On a positive note, the research and development from AAA studios also usually advances the industry as a whole.

The people who do that are proud of their work and give talks about how they achieved things. Something like power wash simulator kinda just would be a lot less fun on pre-doom graphics, or even on PS1 graphics.

No One Lives Forever (1 and 2) and then Contract Jack.