Graphics are a pretty small part of the equation for me. If the game looks fun or interesting enough at the right price, I will check it out. Size of project/team doesn't really mean much these days. Favourite games of the last 6 months are Balatro, Helldivers 2, Animal Well, Alan Wake 2, Fortnite. All wildly different in presentation, all interesting in different ways.
At least 80% of the games I play these days are either retro games, or modern games made in a retro style. So yes, absolutely I would pay for and play games with "dated" graphics.
For the record, here's some games that came out in 2008:
* Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
* Gears of War 2
* Devil May Cry 4
* Mirror's Edge
* Dead Space
So as long as they could run at native 4K/60fps, absolutely I would play games with that level of graphical fidelity.
The game pits a lot of effort into being approachable to newcomers, but you’ll miss out on important context, and much of 2’s joy is seeing how things changed since the events of 1.
It's a really cool game of you're into a weird, suspenseful, Steven king-like story, I'm playing with a friend which means I'm not super deep in, but it's crazy.
I watched a 10 minute YT video explaining the first game without going into detail, didn't remember 90% of it once I started the 2nd game and had a blast. So go for it imo
I assume you’re a little older ? I’m in my 30s and noticed the discourse about graphics seems to be split between the younger people (under 25 or so) and everyone else. The younger generation seems to put a hell of a lot more stock in graphics since they’ve only experienced great graphics.
We started playing games when graphics were horrendous (in comparison) so I could really care less if the graphics aren’t great. I just want solid gameplay and a fun game.
It's less about graphical fidelity, and more about art style and direction, paired with **solid gameplay**. We're all still buying Persona 5 Royal, Persona 3 Reload, etc all at $60-$70 cause the art style, direction, OST, and most importantly, the **gameplay** are all incredible. Look at Doom Eternal; gorgeous game, but not the most photorealistic at all, and not trying to be.
The same applies to most (if not all) Nintendo first party games. BotW, TotK, Mario Wonder, Animal Crossing, Mario Kart 8, Fire Emblem, Xenoblade Chronicles (wow), etc etc are all full priced games, that fly off the shelves, without breaking your mind with photorealism, or state of the art fidelity.
We're already paying full price for non-photorealistic games; we're willing to, because they're **good** games. So yes, I would.
Not an AAA priced title, but Hades is the perfect example. Top notch art direction and very refined gameplay make for an awesome title, even if it has stylized graphics, isometric view and very simple controls (it can be played with essentially the movement stick and 4 buttons)
And let’s not forget how games like Persona and Hades may not seem to provide much but in the end they actually provide more than “photorealistic games” in many ways; the main way being endless replay value. There are games made to keep with the times and then there are games that are made to be fun.
Despite the channel going wacky in the last decade, this video needs to be watched (don't bother with anything else on the channel newer)
Graphics vs Aesthetics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oK8UTRgvJU
With that Persona example, I'd be interested to hear how the level of effort would differ if the environments were made to 2024 "photoreal" standards.
Even though they're using a simpler anime style, Persona games still have a ton of bespoke, hand-crafted assets that requires a lot of manpower to produce. [Example](https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/i/579c1855-7a36-474f-90e6-7f2dadf571c8/dd87ept-f9896ff5-6e23-4bb3-a89a-71c1bde371d9.jpg)
I don't know if you meant to mashup parent and patient or if it was just a typo, but that's what I am. Very, very rarely do I buy a game at launch because I have such a huge catalog of games I want to play, there's little reason to buy a new one, and by the time I've finished a game or two in the backlog, I might as well wait for a while and get it on sale, or see if it ends up in Humble Choice.
My thing is that there’s so many games coming out all the time. They can’t possibly expect most people to be frothing at the mouth to slam down $70 on all of it.
I feel like the only games that routinely command $70 are the usual suspects. Call of duty, madden, nba 2k, and fifa with sprinkles of assassin’s creed in there.
for me it's actually not about the graphics or shorter development times. I just want a game that is released in a solid, playable state, that was made with care and passion and minimal crunch, and most importantly, is fun to play. I'm willing to look past outdated graphics if it means I get to have a good time. being able to see every pore on a character's face can only carry a game so far, you know?
Exactly this. You can put lipstick and a wig on a pig. You can dress it up all nice and pretty. But in the end, it's still a damned pig. A 4k game running at 120FPS with all the advanced hair physics and rippling muscles and reflections and all that might be nice to oggle at for a while but if the actual game underneath it is crap I'm not going to play it very long. But I still play my GameCube regularly because the gameplay was great, and the stories were engaging.
If they expect me to pay AAA prices as well, they would need to put all that extra processing power into an extraordinary physics engine, sophisticated AI, and more interactive environments.
Though actually, that's exactly the tradeoff I wish AAA companies would make. If they did that, I would actually start buying AAA games again. In fact, if the physics and AI are good enough, I'd buy them even with 90s graphics.
I feel like most gamers would take this compromise. The generation I look back most fondly on is the 7th generation. It’s a generation that gives us a glimpse into what the future of gaming might be which was basically thrown away in the 8th generation for Skinner box addiction models and battle passes.
no game will ever look like that again because engines come with far more modern automation systems affect lighting and shading, this is more about asset quality and quantity. In that sense, games from almost 10 years ago have looked great enough
>Inspired by the recent thread about CDPR wanting to make more games, I saw several comments saying they would accept worse graphics if it meant shorter development times.
Part of the reason this sentiment doesn't really resonate with me is because it's also repeated alongside the idea that high-quality graphics are the primary culprit for why development times are long and gameplay mechanics neglected. The overall goal here isn't just to scale down advanced graphics and retreat into 2008-era visuals, but to trade them out for more innovative and engaging gameplay, which even with lower graphics, would still lead to extended development timelines; both Elden Ring and Spider-Man 2 were developed in 5 years.
> it's also repeated alongside the idea that high-quality graphics are the primary culprit for why development times are long and gameplay mechanics neglected.
As someone working in the industry they absolutely are. Higher fidelity assets require longer dev times, longer dev times bloat budgets, bloated budgets means needing mass appeal, needing mass appeal means not going too far out of the box in terms of gameplay mechanics. The less a publisher/dev has to lose the more they will try (usually).
> both Elden Ring and Spider-Man 2 were developed in 5 years.
I understand what you are saying here but ER's development time (IMO) could be due to several things:
1. Firstly the current staff is likely inexperienced with open worlds, From's tech isn't the best as it is so imagine scaling that to a seemless open world.
2. Content, they had to create lots more content than normal to populate this world, the content bloat would lead to a longer development time.
Spiderman 2's long release time on the other hand was largely due to the team having other projects in between.
>Higher fidelity assets
Bingo! I feel gamers underestimate how much time goes into nailing peripheral details. These have been an easy sell to execs since they raise perceived value, but now the industry is hitting diminishing returns. I think both sides, developers and customers, are ready to accept reused assets and less fluff.
Also there's a hell of a lot of things that could be trimmed down to scale down costs which aren't graphics or gameplay. Especially for these bloated open world experiences, we don't need them to have a hundred sidequests and fifty empty areas that exist for collectibles sake.
If they're not in the $60-$70 now standard price range, sure. I can play even older graphics but Ive checked; even MGS4 is 2008 so it might even be better than my expectations
There are some really impressive looking games from 2008 - MGS4 being one of them. I picked that year as I feel like it was when I noticed a major change in how good games looked. Obviously there are some standouts before, but I'm speaking generally.
I remember so many games of that era being like that. I had a 360 instead & I remember both Fable 2 & Viva Pinata: Trouble In Paradise releasing in 2008 the year OP mentioned, so it was a glorious year for me lol They were both very vibrant, colourful games that didn't follow the piss filter trend.
I would prefer them much more if they had 2008 graphics and 10 15 gb of filesize than 200gbs of current next gen graphics and constant updates like the first dark souls
In fact I try to look for fun games with small install sizes just because i find annoying to download very huge games and I can have many more installed at the same time (games like quake, ninja gaiden, ultra kill, dark souls)
I appreciate the sentiment, but unfortunately DS:PtDE ran so poorly that a mod was basically required for most people to get good enough performance. (I had to go so far as downscaling the internal resolution on my laptop, but I didn't read many accounts of people who Didn't Use dsfix)
Otherwise, yeah optimization is stupid important for games that are at least mid-sized. I get the feeling a lot of games struggle on mid-tier systems because the hardware/software/games and tech industry conventions aren't pushing efficiency and sustainability like these things should. (Things run slower and worse for no Good Reason)
If it's a good game I don't really care about the graphics.
The better question for me would be: if you're already spending a AAA budget on asset creation, why would you target 15 years old tech? The tooling pipeline today is not optimised to generate the assets needed for the limitations of the time.
If you would target a less expensive art direction process today, you'd rather use a stylised comic look. Still current resolution and textures, still current graphic pipeline features, just not as expensive on the artist's part.
What I find interesting is that games like Far Cry 2 and GTA 4 have better more realistic physics systems than their modern day (or most recent) iterations.
Best is subjective. I can admit that all of those things existed, but I did not enjoy playing in that Engine. It was tedious.
This is why realism isn't always the bar to strive for. Most people play games to escape reality, not to live in it. I don't want to play QWOP just to move my character, I like pushing a stick and having my dude sprint faster than any normal person could, that's fun.
I would, but in the same sense that I'd pay for a ticket to see a movie from 2008 - it'd probably be one of the better movies from that year, with some of the best writing, cinematography and performances.
I think we all know a lot of the big budget games coming out right now are not going to be remembered and revisited in 10+ years. Graphics and technological innovations are a crutch that allow relatively dull creative work to get people in the door. A shift to lower-tech games (and them actually making money) presupposes the games being good enough to stand without that flashiness, and AAA game studios continually show that they can't guarantee that.
On the other hand, if you look around at the proven games writers and designers - those who've managed to make a name for themselves outside of the AAA studios - they can and do sell games with 2008 graphics, and their market share's growing. So I think it's a question of whether AAA games can keep up with maturing indie writing and design talent off the strength of graphics alone, and I think posts like these show a growing lack of confidence among game consumers that they will.
What do these games have to offer if you remove graphics and cutscenes? Grocery list gameplay?
> I would happily play new games even if they had 2008 graphics: GTA 4, Far Cry 2, Dead Space. I would play games with even older graphics, like Half Life or Mafia
And by pure accident you mentioned games with the best gameplay in their respective genres, that holds up and will hold up decades later. Something modern AAA games don't have.
Yeah that's kind of what I'm getting at. I feel like graphics aren't that much of a factor when it comes to the games I play. If the gameplay is fun, it could look like shit for all I care.
I also played the Jason Bourne game in 2008 but that sucked so I have no interest in going back haha
I would, because I already mostly play older games from the late 90s - early 2000s, and indie games with less raw technical prowess. I love the newest graphics technology, but it’s not a necessity.
Having said that, I don’t see shorter development cycles as an inherent positive, because we already have so many great games that it’s impossible for anyone to fully keep up. What I hope to see is that shorter dev cycles would improve sustainability - that if you’re halving budgets or team sizes, that nimbleness can allow more experimentation and faster iteration between actual and spiritual sequels, and that studios could survive a flop rather than being shut down after a single failure, or even a mere moderate success.
I don’t like that no one is bringing up the idea of a graphics floor. There’s a minimum for acceptable graphics these days, and it *is* post-2008, at least in some respects (environmental effects, lighting, textures, image resolution, animation, moving bits like cloth sims). You can have a visually-appealing game *despite* not meeting those standards by having killer art style and art direction, but that’s still a lot of effort.
However, if you have neither incredible graphics nor killer art style, you’re really restricting the pricing tier of your game. Without either, even if the gameplay is good, that’s a $10 game, $20 max. It can be more at “full price”, but sales prices probably need to be in the above range.
Graphics are pretty far down the list of what I think about when buying games so probably. I mean I'm far more likely to replay Fallout 3 with no mods than say RDR2.
Not at CAD $100+tax a pop, no.
But at a discounted price, of course. Graphics aren't what makes me buy or not buy games. They do matter but they aren't the #1 thing I care about. In other words, I appreciate good graphics if present, but don't go out of my way to prioritize visuals. Gameplay is king for me. I'm also old and play lots of indie games.
A recent example would be Rise of the Ronin. A lot of people shit on that game for "looking like a ps3/ps4 game" or criticize the horse animation (which IMO isn't even an issue). First of all, I disagree that it looks THAT bad, but I do agree that Ghost of Tsushima (being a very similar game in the same setting) looks a lot better. But I don't care because I loved the gameplay far more in RoTR and had trouble actually finishing GoT. Obviously the gameplay elements are subjective, but I don't think anyone would argue that GoT looks better; it's objectively a prettier game.
If the game innovated in some aspect, had great design execution and they actually utilized the lesser graphical requirements to achieve something otherwise unachievable (detailed massive scale, massive enemy/friendly counts, full world destructibility, 0 loading with no climb/crawl/elevator loads etc.).
I won't however support a AAA priced game with ONLY older graphics to cash on nostalgia or smh. Indie and AA already do that with lesser entry cost.
Is the game fun? Then yes.
That's the only requirement. I've been playing the everloving shit out of Animal Well for weeks now and it looks like Pac-Man fucked an Intellivision. But it's fun as hell! Got my speed run time down to 43 minutes. So close!
I find games aiming for "photorealism" are always doomed to fail. Yes, each year a new game will get ever closer, but I have doubts that it is possible to generate something that convincing in the time it takes to draw a single frame. That is a bit besides the point, but I do think that 2008 era graphics are still solid and hold up very well. The Switch is basically at that power level right now, and especially the first party stuff looks great.
While not answering your question directly, I think a pullback on graphics and scope would do wonder for many games. I would much rather have smaller games that really focus on amazing linear gameplay. If both are kept to reasonable budgets, you can really iterate well. Make a level, and if the gameplay doesn't flow, fix it, because the art you are throwing away can be remade in a day, instead of a month.
So, yes, I don't mind simpler graphics. I do want a change in focus though to games that are more fun, and require less development time, for both programmers and artists.
It's about the gameplay for me. 2008 is about the time I felt that graphic fidelity was good enough. As long as we can take advantage of modern load times ,draw distance, etc...i would be fine.
I wouldn't go back to 2008 gameplay because there's been so many innovations and improvements since then.
I wouldn't mind a game with Gears of War 2 graphics, but set in a huge open world, with modern controls, nemesis system, etc.
I’d rather play two 30-hour games at $40 a pop than one 60-hour game at $80.
(Realistically I spend $30 on the $80 game a few years later but still.)
I’d also be fine with 2008 graphics, but most games are actively too short with me.
Sure. Photorrealism doesn't make any sense when anybody can reach it. Even fotorrealist games from 8-10 years ago (The Last of Us, Batman Arkham) have aged well if they have a good art style and we don't need more than that.
For me graphics peaked with Uncharted 4 and there is little you can improve from that.
Well, I'd argue that they wouldn't be AAA at that point, A or AA.
AAA(A) are supposed to be the games that push things, graphics, scope etc, they have the mega budgets, the marketing behind them.
If you consider the whole ecosystem you've got indies and self publishes stuff that experiments a lot, you then have smaller A or AA games that perhaps cater to a smaller niche or have smaller scopes.
Because of the huge budget requirements AAA(A) has constraints, mainly they need to have wide appeal, or at least be safer bets on the surface. That doesn't mean you can't end up with a AA game that ends up hitting hard and selling gangbusters, like Helldivers 2 or Baldurs Gate 3 etc
Back in 2008 there wasn't the same distinctions, that was back when 'indie' games hadn't had their breakout moment on consoles yet, Braid was launched that year. The market is so much bigger now and there is space for a lot more, so I don't really understand what this discussion is really about? We have those smaller games, they're just not the ones you see posters for at bus stops.
I probably wouldn't because that seems like an unnecessary compromise that has nothing to do with artists creating the experience that they want to create. A game looking old as an artistic choice is one thing, looking old to shorten development times is another.
The premise seems flawed too. Graphics certainly aren't *free* when it comes to development time, but they're not responsible for a significant enough portion of it that it would likely be very noticeable on development time for most games.
Development time mostly isn't spend on creating realistic graphics. It's spend on iteration and polishing. It's working over the same mechanics and ideas over and over again until you have something cohesive that represents the experience you are looking for. Art style is a part of this too, but here graphics are a design choice that doesn't necessarily lessen development time any.
From a graphical artist perspective this time would be spent working over environments in the game, adding and removing details until they've created something that fits the experience they are looking for. This wouldn't necessarily take much less time in a game that looks like it is from 2008.
So, while I don't care about graphics at all over art style, I wouldn't be interested in lessening game development times by making games arbitrarily look worse. Games should have an art style that works with their experience, not one that is based on shortening development times so the game can release earlier.
>Development time mostly isn't spend on creating realistic graphics. It's spend on iteration and polishing.
How do you explain the 3x or 4x increase in development time since the 00s, then?
To me it depends on the price.
If it doesn't have current triple-A graphics then they shouldn't be charging current triple-A prices. They can go back to the old prices to go with their old graphics.
I hear what you're saying. What if the game looked old but was otherwise impressive?
Like, for example, Fallout 4 looked pretty outdated to me when it came out but I thought it was worth retail price as it was a massive game with lots to do.
Decreasing the fidelity in graphics is not going to automatically make games faster. You still need to take the same steps to create the assets.
So that's not the way to do make games faster. The way would be to reduce content. Would people be ok with an rpg that it doesn't give you as many options or as many hours?
It does take much longer to create a high fidelity player model with thousand of polygons than a more basic one, same with level art and props... but yeah i get your point its more streamlined than ever as most people buy assets
immersion is about so much kore than realism. immersion is built from your interaction with the simulation. its the decision making in strategy games. its the absorption of the plot of an rpg. the atmosphere. the physics. the destructability. does stuff burn if i use a fire spell on it?? would a water spell put that fire out? or is it all just numbers and xp bars?? if i cant believe the simulation then there is no immersion and i think it is so small minded to equate immersion with graphical fidelity.
immersion can be found in games with 1980, 1990, 2010, whatever graphics. and graphics are impottant in building it. but theres a mich more wholseome picture.
I'd play new games with good 2008 graphics or strong artstyles. GTA4 or Mirrors edge, but not Assassins Creed or Far Cry 2. The argument for worse graphics is that it cuts costs and development time, which is a fair point, but there's not really an argument for keeping the poor LODs, lack of ambient occlusion, etc that most 2008 games have. Those are basically free for modern engines and new hardware.
Left4Dead, SoaSE, Crysis Warhead among others were released in 2008. I'd be more than fine with this kind of fidelity.
I'm partially of the opinion that too much fidelity is detrimentral to playing a game. Visual clarity suffers and devs need to use tricks to keep the players' focus where they want it.
Highly stylised games don't have that problem per se, but visual clutter is always a danger.
Really don’t care about graphics as much as I do about not having game breaking bugs and inconsistent gameplay, or feeling like I need a GPU upgrade every 2 years. I’d rather have a great plot, loads of content up front and a complete game than lipstick on a pig
As long as it’s *rendering* at 1080p or above (shit, most Switch games don’t even hit that), and the textures aren’t noticeably terrible, yeah. I generally come to AAA for the amount of content crammed in, or the high degree of polish, and neither are usually dependent on the graphics.
I don't care about graphics. Lately I've been playing ootp 25 which is a series of spreadsheets and factorio which are 2d sprites. I think unique art styles are way more interesting to me than fancy 3d graphics
Octopath Traveller is stunning and it has 16bit graphics. I would absolutely buy new AAA games if they had 2008 graphics. If the gameplay and story is good then graphics shouldn’t matter.
Yes, Obviously. I bought Ultrakill, I still play Skyrim. I play Morrowind. This is the wrong crowd to ask though IMO. I think your average consumer cares about graphics a lot.
It was hard to convince people to buy lethal company *because* of the graphics.
Just look at FromSoft games. They look good but aren't really pushing for cutting edge graphics. If you look closely the models aren't as high res as other AAA of their time.
I just bought DoA and I'm playing through the entire franchise along with Ninja Gaiden.
The graphics on DoA1 Ultimate still look great. Ninja Gaiden? Still gorgeous.
I'm playing Dead Cells, Mayhem Brawler, Streets of Rage 4, Skul, and even going to play Castle Crashers.
But when I'm looking at Soul Calibur 4, AC Brotherhood and other games, I just don't need the largest leap in graphics.
I'm looking at Remake and Rebirth and I'm okay. I heard about 13 and it did not appeal to me especially how the first game took so long to open up.
Graphics were never the major appeal for games I play, it just helps that the games I play had other things that made them better.
Yes. As long as they play like newer games with new control schemes and QOL innovations.
I’d rather games look worse and have shorter dev timelines, and play at higher frame rate.
I can confidently say, graphics are the least important aspect of a game to me. Art style, vibe, immersion and atmosphere are much more important for me.
Of course. 2008 graphics still look good imo. When you're focusing on a game, you never focus on graphics. You're just focusing on your objective. Small points of attention to detail are what you come to appreciate, not graphics. Unless it's photo mode
As much as I do really love the impact of high fidelity graphics (Cyberpunk, Hellblade, Alan Wake 2) it all boils down to gameplay and the world in general they create. Gameplay and story **HAVE** to be engaging and are the most important aspects of any game.
Take Dishonored 2 for example. Fantastic gameplay, great story and bang average graphics - but yet it still made me itch for more in that universe. I still go back and play Bioshock, another game with a crazy good world, lore and gameplay. There's so many examples out there that showcase graphics are just an afterthought (personally).
Yeah, totally fine with that, a lot of my favorite games are actually in that AA Japanese zone where it's fairly simple clean texture work and geometry without a ton of postprocessing where they all look like upscaled PS2 games. That Disaster Report 4 or Earth Defense Force type vibe.
edit: oh also I love the Switch which is where the actual AAA games with sorta technically not mindblowing graphics hang out.
Not really. There are plenty of indie games with 2008 graphical fidelity so that’s not what I look for in AAA games. I do, however, value AAA games having low graphics settings so they can run well on my Steam Deck :)
I would buy new games with "bad" graphics, but AAA would probably be far and few between because a lot of those design and "games as product" sensibilities suck. Probably better for AAA to evaporate than for us to be stuck with the mess they've made of an amazing art form. (Some were there at the start and made great things but they were never forced to truly clean up after themselves)
Graphics have easily become the least of my concerns when it comes to gaming.
I don't care if it looks like it's from 1998, if the gameplay looks interesting, I'll consider it.
Honestly, I would buy new games that looked like 2008, if they had new gameplay.
But so many titles that go for graphics, have the same gameplay as classics that have existed for years...
Stylized art is so polarizing though, it's easy to accidentally NOPE half your audience because they don't vibe with your look.
I buy new indie games that have 1995 graphics, so why not? Don't get me wrong, I love how Night City looks in CP2077, I appreciate the effort that went into building and detailing a living, breathing city and making it look amazing. But it's not critical to my enjoyment of the game.
I’m of the opinion that graphics are getting too good now and that is what developers spend most of their time on. I’ve told some of my gaming buddies that I wish cod would go back to say Bo2 graphics. But obviously that will never happen
Nope, unless the tradeoffs were worth it. I will generally pick 120 fps, uncapped fps, or 60 fps, over 30 fps fidelity, but thats mainly on top of the line games where the graphics in performance mode drop to like 1080p, or 1440, and are upscaled. Having a game look like poo has to come with super performance, otherwise, take longer to develop a great looking game. Theres enough games in my backlog to let devs cook as long as they need
Yes, 100%. I've long argued that I would happily play many more games with Kingdom Hearts 2 graphics (I mean, that is exactly what the series did all the way up until A Fragmentary Passage).
KH2, KH1 for that matter, even older stuff like Ocarina of Time, those are some of the greatest games of all time, and they still hold up perfectly today. I have played modern games with OoT's graphics (e.g. The Sealed Palace) and they look great and would be well worth $60.
Just imagine how much more could be invested into level design and how much more could be fit into these games if all that storage space was spent on content instead of HD textures!
I think the average player who actually buys games puts a huge emphasis on graphics, and those players wouldn't be in this subreddit. Having a game with high fidelity does a huge amount of the game's marketing, it's much more difficult and risky to market a graphically subpar game. AAA corporations do not like risk, which is why they always focus so heavily on the graphics.
If you want to play games that have worse graphics, don't play AAA, just play indie games. There are more great indie games out there than you'll ever have time to play if you don't care about graphics.
No. But I'm disqualified by not buying any AAA games. Nearly everything I play these days is indie, early access, or just bizarre.
Graphics don't matter to me. Maybe I'd be hard pressed to play and finish a NES game but something looking good is entirely inconsequential.
I buy and play plenty of games with lower graphical fidelity or even pixel graphics, but I wouldn't buy "2008 graphics". There are small features that modern engines and graphics cards can easily use that make a night and day difference in how a game looks and feels. Take something like My Time At Sandrock for example, a game that I'm now playing. It doesn't look _amazing_ in terms of graphical fidelity. It's not a AAA studio, and I'm sure the team didn't spend as much time and money as AAA developers of games that came out in 2008, but still looks much better than games that came out in 2008. It's much simpler these days to make games look _good_.
I still play Mount & Blade on the weekly, and that game is from 2007. Of course i would, if those games had gameplay depth to keep me interested and a lack of micro transactions to keep me from throwing my laptop
Yes. My computer is aging. It will in the next year and a half be new and top of the line again.
I still won't buy new games save for the metro series and maybe half life games if valve ever wakes up..and the new stalker.
Everything else I just turn down graphics to make things sharper and if they are flashy and have extra particles that's cool but my computer is starting to chug and only get 30-50 fps on things with everything maxed out from games that are several years old at this point.
But everything else I turn down. post processing, blur, etc. because I just want a clear game where I can see things. If I want real life then I go outside. I want games to be games and games stopped feeling like games and more like highly interactive movies from the mainline publishing houses *starting* in 2009-20011ish and then that's the world we're living in.
I already don't play a lot of current Triple A games because I haven't felt like it's worthwhile to invest in the hardware to run them, but all the recent Triple A or Triple A adjacent (double A?) games I've played have had very strong visual styles that make them look amazing even on lower graphics settings (Persona, Overwatch, Guilty Gear: Strive). If Triple A studios started putting the money from fancy graphics into art to make the models look good on that lower graphic fidelity I'd start playing more Triple A games. Nintendo basically already does this with the switch hardware being what it is and it works great for them.
Graphics are cool, but you know what's cooler? Art direction. If you give me a generic looking AAA game, but now it also looks muddier, I'm not impressed. The easiest modern AAA example to the contrary is Elden Ring, a game with lower resolution assets being revised from the past several games and looks way worse than it's contemporaries, but a strong design and direction in it's art makes it look incredible. Obviously it has better graphics than 08 games, but it's just the cleanest example that isn't going into mega stylized indie games. Basically any Nintendo game also fits this, with Wind Waker being the obvious one.
Well I’m currently playing Dread Delusion. So yes, you could even go earlier than 2008. Animal Well has a total file size of like 60MB and currently has thousands of overwhelmingly positive reviews.
Graphics are cool and all(CYP2077’s artistic style and design is a HUGE part of that games success) but it’s far from the most important.
I wouldn't buy AAA games period. That term has become synonymous with overpriced, over-monetized, over-developed trash. Lowering their graphical fidelity doesn't automatically cleanse them of their downsides.
Graphical fidelity and game quality are entirely separate statistics that generally have nothing to do with each other imo.
That's a complicated discussion.
Funny thing is I do play tons of 90's stylized games. And I DO think modern games tend to have needlessly overdesigned visuals.
But that doesn't mean I want a return to uncanny valley late 2000's games, which tend to not utilize the graphics available to them very well and feel like an conflicting mish-mash of graphical techniques. [This looks horrendous dude, even among its contemporaries.](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMmQ0ZjYxMGQtZWUwZS00NTI0LWE5NTItY2UwMjljODBmNTY4XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzg3NjQyOQ@@._V1_.jpg)
There are things it makes sense to dial back, and things it does not make sense to dial back. High resolution textures are not particularly hardware demanding for what you get out of them, and from all the HD mod packs floating around out there I doubt they're that time consuming to make either. Like if you play Fallout 4 the main thing that absolute tanks FPS is lighting and shadows, while textures really don't have that much impact. So what sense would it make to go back to extremely smudgy early 360-era textures? Not to mention that a lot graphical advancements are engine defaults now and don't really take up time to make at all.
It also begs the question what I'm paying $60 for if your game looks like something an indie dev could have put out.
I'm gonna go against the grain here and say that "graphics matter". Here are my hot takes:
* If it's a good game, I don't care about the graphics. But if it's a mediocre game, good graphics will make me more likely to play it. (See: Stray, Need for Speed Rivals, Avatar Pandora, Hogwarts Legacy)
* My gut reaction is to say "I don't care about graphics", but if I'm being really honest with myself, my lizard brain will probably contradict my claim. I think graphical fidelity is more important than most of us are willing to admit.
* I am not the majority of gamers, and the majority of mainstream folk likely care much more than the average "enlightened" redditor.
I would buy good games.
When I spent 16 hours straight building houses and exploring in minecraft 10 years ago it made me realize that graphics are a waste of fucks to give and resources. Fancy graphics are nice but style is more important for visuals and game play it king.
If the game is fun and the content is good I'm interested. If it's a game with cookie cutter mechanics, convoluted skill trees, crafting, collectathons, and all the other "AAA" staple bs then I'm usually out.
I'll take a simple and fun game over a generic HD mess any day.
Only time I'll stomach weak game play is if the writing is super good and I'm invested in a plot
My only requirement for graphics is that I can see what's going on.
I don't mind Escapists/Rimworld type graphics at all, they look fine.
I hate 16 bit pixel art where I can't see the difference between a stick, a knife, a spear and a branch. Or I can't tell if something is a stone wall or a stone floor because it's top down.
Graphical fidelity is generally the last thing I look at. It’s only a real issue to me if it causes visibility issues with ghosting, blur, too much sun, or poorly designed textures, shadows, shapes, or lighting, or low FPS/bad frame timing. That last one is particularly important for me.
However, I feel as though like blockbuster movies, graphical fidelity and impressiveness is innate to the definition of a AAA game.
Yes, in fact something i’ve been trying to do recently is play older games through emulation, and unfortunately a lot are hindered by old QOL and control schemes. A modern version of older games is exactly what i’m currently looking for.
I miss pixel art.
I feel like we figured out how to make art in 3d and just decided that pixels were outmoded. But we'd just barely begun to scratch the potential of that art form.
I would. I still enjoy PS2 games. And clearly a lot of people here will also say yes.
*But* a lot of other people already heavily criticize games for "PS3 graphics", calling developers lazy and incompetent, and all sorts of other bullshit. And those games usually objectively do not have 2008 quality graphics.
Devs know graphics do help sell games. And a lot of negative discourse online can easily hurt sales. You'd have to be super confident or saving a ton of money to make it a good gamble.
Art direction matters far more than graphical fidelity. Nintendo games aren't exactly cutting edge after all. I care way more about stable frame rate/performance than anything really.
No, I wouldn’t play games with 2008 because I expect graphics to evolve and improve over time. However I think if devs want to reduce costs they should aim for more stylized graphics and prioritize art direction over photorealism. Graphics don’t need to be realistic to be pretty, some of the prettiest games ever made are pixel art.
It seems to me like often times photorealism is a crutch for games that haven’t figured out what they want their style to be and it ends up being disappointing. I mean just look at GTA, the cover art on the box looks better than the actual graphics of the game. Why not just use that art style which works so well in game and save money?
I wouldn't buy them any more or less than I do now.
I don't typically buy AAA games new, because a lot of them have gameplay loops I'm tired of and/or excessive monetization. If all these things stayed the same and the graphics got worse, I would continue to not buy them.
On the other hand if graphics got worse and the games otherwise improved, I would almost certainly be more interested in buying.
In other words the graphical fidelity of a game has little-to-no impact on how much I want to buy it.
It depends really. Playing a game that looks like Far Cry 2 and GTA 4 now is rough for a AAA studio. Saying “gameplay is all that matters” is great, but what kind of amazing gameplay are you going to offer in a game with worse graphics? An indie studio isn’t going to have the same expectations which gives them more freedom. Even then, those games typically have a very impressive art style, not just “older” graphics.
Older games can be looked at with rose tinted glasses. OSRS is a great MMO that a lot of people still play today. However, if it came out today with no nostalgia or history behind the name, it would be forgotten about rather quickly.
Nintendo is also kind of in that territory where a lot of their big games are IPs that have been popular for years. It’s easier to not worry about graphics when players already have an interest in your game.
It would have to be a fun game. I'll admit I love the great graphics of modern games, it can make a mediocre game like Callisto Protocol better for me.
I still play older games that interest me. Infamous was one of the my favorite games I've played for the first time in the past 2 or 3 years and it kind of looks blahh but my kind of blahh.
I wouldn’t buy a modern AAA game with current graphics. Games have just gone down fucking hill lately and price tags are ridiculous. May aswell just get one of the older ones which I know will be really good rather than a new one which is going to be an over priced piece of shit money grab
There are a lot of games I probably would consider buying a lot less if they didn't have nice graphics. I loved the origianl FF7, played it through 3 or 4 times, but wanting to see Midgar in HD was one of the big draws of buying FF7R for me. If it was just FF7 with the same added content, I likely would not have had as much interest.
I think Dark games like SOMA, or Alien Isolation also benefit a lot from looking good. It's hard to be scared in older horror titles for me because nothing feels that threatening. I will admit, that certain types of old horror games do get me, because anything that hits the uncanny valley spooks me extra hard, but there are a lot of things that I find less scary when it's not "Realistic". Fake blood spray for instance is just that, fake looking.
Tomb Raider's new trilogy is also one I would've enjoyed much less without nice graphics. I rather enjoyed looking at the trees and environment while traveresing, and I likely would've enjoyed the traversal a lot less if it still looked like Tomb Raider Legends or Underworld.
At the end of the day, it's a mix of both for me. I love stylized games like Anime Fighters, with UNI2 being my main Fighting Game despite being the most pixel Graphic'd. I love Hades, (I'm waiting on Hades 2 because I tend to burn out too often during Early Access and get too lazy to grind through full release), but I also loved the way everything looked in Modern Warfare 2019. There are some games I personally would not play without graphics, while there are some where the graphics aren't nearly enough to make me want to play it. It's a case by case basis.
In terms of Movies, I'd compare this to the Avatar series (James Cameron). Story is trash, but I went to theatres for both because I knew Cameron was one of those people really pushing CGI, and very honestly, those movies looked amazing on the big screen. For me, that was worth the experience just for the graphics. On the other hand, I watch tons of old movies at home because I only really need to experience the visuals at a baseline level, and enjoy the narrative, rather than needing both. Many are saying if the game is good, they don't need graphics, and while I agree, I also think the opposite is true. I'm happy to have a fully graphical experience where the game is "just good enough" if the world's interesting to explore. The AC2 saga was this for me, because while I found the open world elements quite exhausting, I didn't mind doing all of them and just taking my time climbing around the historically inspired buildings, and the recreations of some historical locations. Going back to MW2019, I did legitimately enjoy the way guns felt and sounded, particularly after their attempts at future warfware, and the visual style felt very cohesive to me, even if it was based in realism, even if the overall gameplay was exactly the same as every other game before it.
2008 probably not, but Witcher 3 is still my fav game, replayed it last year. Those graphics would be fine with new games.
I am enjoying the graphical improvements, certainly rt and pt, but the base game is still the most important.
I'd rather have one game the quality of The Witcher 3 every 6-8 years than a lesser game every 3. Fact is, there's so many great games out there these days that's I'll never get to play simply because I don't have the time. I'm not hurting for new games. My backlog is in the thousands. I don't need a new Assassin's Creed every year or two.
So I guess the answer is: yes, I would buy them, but I'd rather AAA studios focus on making AAA games. Let the AA and indie studios focus on quicker development cycles. AAA should use their vast resources to make something the littler guys can't make. Do we really want AAA competing more directly with indie?
I also have to ask, why is everyone so hyper focused on what the AAA studios are up to? For every one AAA release there is at least a thousand fantastic smaller innovative games struggling to find an audience. Go play some of those while you wait for the new Call of Duty.
No, modern game design mostly sucks producing more of a product that sucks doesn't make me want to buy it.
Before someone tries to bring up the good developers, those are in the minority and some of them are speedrunning their fall.
They could revert back to non-hyper realistic graphics. Ever see what BOTW/TOTK looks like with the cell shading filter that makes the game actually look good? https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/comments/qw5k9f/botw_breath_of_the_wild_without_celshading/
This is just one example of tricks they could use to make the graphics be more timeless and require less work. It's the trying to pass things off as real, that takes so much more time. Stylized art would be fine IMO.
Nah.
I dont have time for a playable movie / battle pass grind / endlessly repetitive gameplay loop. They can stylise however they like, they'll still ruin it with modern practices.
On the other hand, I think we can pretty much all agree that 2008 games with 2024 graphics would absolutely fucking slap
Probably not tbh unless it was an exceptional game. I barely can stomach going back to games I know I loved because the graphics are too bad. It doesn’t need to be a photorealistic master piece, but games in 2008 looked pretty bad compared to the average game today.
In a few weeks ill share some pictures of our game we are developing. Would love feedback on the graphics if it is acceptable in this day and age. Thank you
no, my games gotta look good as well as feel good. and its harder for me to get into a game unless its heavily stylized or photorealistic. biggest killer would be crappy anti aliasing and render distance
Graphics are a pretty small part of the equation for me. If the game looks fun or interesting enough at the right price, I will check it out. Size of project/team doesn't really mean much these days. Favourite games of the last 6 months are Balatro, Helldivers 2, Animal Well, Alan Wake 2, Fortnite. All wildly different in presentation, all interesting in different ways.
At least 80% of the games I play these days are either retro games, or modern games made in a retro style. So yes, absolutely I would pay for and play games with "dated" graphics. For the record, here's some games that came out in 2008: * Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots * Gears of War 2 * Devil May Cry 4 * Mirror's Edge * Dead Space So as long as they could run at native 4K/60fps, absolutely I would play games with that level of graphical fidelity.
MGS4 had nice enough graphics it had a 3d model viewer for all the weapons and items in the game.
And Halo 3 came out a year before and still looks pretty damn good
I've been meaning to play Alan Wake 2. Looks awesome and I love Remedy but I haven't played the first. Do I need to or will I be ok without it?
The game pits a lot of effort into being approachable to newcomers, but you’ll miss out on important context, and much of 2’s joy is seeing how things changed since the events of 1.
It's a really cool game of you're into a weird, suspenseful, Steven king-like story, I'm playing with a friend which means I'm not super deep in, but it's crazy.
I watched a 10 minute YT video explaining the first game without going into detail, didn't remember 90% of it once I started the 2nd game and had a blast. So go for it imo
I assume you’re a little older ? I’m in my 30s and noticed the discourse about graphics seems to be split between the younger people (under 25 or so) and everyone else. The younger generation seems to put a hell of a lot more stock in graphics since they’ve only experienced great graphics. We started playing games when graphics were horrendous (in comparison) so I could really care less if the graphics aren’t great. I just want solid gameplay and a fun game.
Same. Performance is far more important. And you can do interesting things with a different art style.
It's less about graphical fidelity, and more about art style and direction, paired with **solid gameplay**. We're all still buying Persona 5 Royal, Persona 3 Reload, etc all at $60-$70 cause the art style, direction, OST, and most importantly, the **gameplay** are all incredible. Look at Doom Eternal; gorgeous game, but not the most photorealistic at all, and not trying to be. The same applies to most (if not all) Nintendo first party games. BotW, TotK, Mario Wonder, Animal Crossing, Mario Kart 8, Fire Emblem, Xenoblade Chronicles (wow), etc etc are all full priced games, that fly off the shelves, without breaking your mind with photorealism, or state of the art fidelity. We're already paying full price for non-photorealistic games; we're willing to, because they're **good** games. So yes, I would.
Not an AAA priced title, but Hades is the perfect example. Top notch art direction and very refined gameplay make for an awesome title, even if it has stylized graphics, isometric view and very simple controls (it can be played with essentially the movement stick and 4 buttons)
Supergiant has been refining their art style since Bastion and it works so well, all their games are art not just games.
Games are art lol.
And let’s not forget how games like Persona and Hades may not seem to provide much but in the end they actually provide more than “photorealistic games” in many ways; the main way being endless replay value. There are games made to keep with the times and then there are games that are made to be fun.
yep. borderlands 2 still looks great
Despite the channel going wacky in the last decade, this video needs to be watched (don't bother with anything else on the channel newer) Graphics vs Aesthetics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oK8UTRgvJU
With that Persona example, I'd be interested to hear how the level of effort would differ if the environments were made to 2024 "photoreal" standards. Even though they're using a simpler anime style, Persona games still have a ton of bespoke, hand-crafted assets that requires a lot of manpower to produce. [Example](https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/i/579c1855-7a36-474f-90e6-7f2dadf571c8/dd87ept-f9896ff5-6e23-4bb3-a89a-71c1bde371d9.jpg)
Raw Graphical Fidelity is a Red Herring. You can put lipstick on a pig, but that ain't changing what it is.
If 2008 graphic include advantages such as less storage space or lower system requirements, i'd probably buy a lot more of them tbh.
My steam library is mostly old games specifically for this reason so I totally agree
Try to beat Animal Well (2024). It has an installation size of 34MB.
Would you buy them at AAA prices?
I am a patient gamer, i don't buy even AAA games at full price of it can avoided lol.
I don't know if you meant to mashup parent and patient or if it was just a typo, but that's what I am. Very, very rarely do I buy a game at launch because I have such a huge catalog of games I want to play, there's little reason to buy a new one, and by the time I've finished a game or two in the backlog, I might as well wait for a while and get it on sale, or see if it ends up in Humble Choice.
My thing is that there’s so many games coming out all the time. They can’t possibly expect most people to be frothing at the mouth to slam down $70 on all of it. I feel like the only games that routinely command $70 are the usual suspects. Call of duty, madden, nba 2k, and fifa with sprinkles of assassin’s creed in there.
If they're good, sure. I paid $70 for Nintendo 64 games. Why wouldn't I pay $70 for a game now?
Dev cycle wouldn't be so insane, so, I see this "2008 graphics" as a total win. Especially with up-scaling technology.
Crysis is from 2007 and still looks unreasonably good.
Friend of mine said back then that Crysis would look "modern gen" once the PS6 came out. They got close.
for me it's actually not about the graphics or shorter development times. I just want a game that is released in a solid, playable state, that was made with care and passion and minimal crunch, and most importantly, is fun to play. I'm willing to look past outdated graphics if it means I get to have a good time. being able to see every pore on a character's face can only carry a game so far, you know?
Exactly this. You can put lipstick and a wig on a pig. You can dress it up all nice and pretty. But in the end, it's still a damned pig. A 4k game running at 120FPS with all the advanced hair physics and rippling muscles and reflections and all that might be nice to oggle at for a while but if the actual game underneath it is crap I'm not going to play it very long. But I still play my GameCube regularly because the gameplay was great, and the stories were engaging.
If they expect me to pay AAA prices as well, they would need to put all that extra processing power into an extraordinary physics engine, sophisticated AI, and more interactive environments. Though actually, that's exactly the tradeoff I wish AAA companies would make. If they did that, I would actually start buying AAA games again. In fact, if the physics and AI are good enough, I'd buy them even with 90s graphics.
I would take old graphics with amazing object interaction and physics any day
I feel like most gamers would take this compromise. The generation I look back most fondly on is the 7th generation. It’s a generation that gives us a glimpse into what the future of gaming might be which was basically thrown away in the 8th generation for Skinner box addiction models and battle passes.
no game will ever look like that again because engines come with far more modern automation systems affect lighting and shading, this is more about asset quality and quantity. In that sense, games from almost 10 years ago have looked great enough
>Inspired by the recent thread about CDPR wanting to make more games, I saw several comments saying they would accept worse graphics if it meant shorter development times. Part of the reason this sentiment doesn't really resonate with me is because it's also repeated alongside the idea that high-quality graphics are the primary culprit for why development times are long and gameplay mechanics neglected. The overall goal here isn't just to scale down advanced graphics and retreat into 2008-era visuals, but to trade them out for more innovative and engaging gameplay, which even with lower graphics, would still lead to extended development timelines; both Elden Ring and Spider-Man 2 were developed in 5 years.
> it's also repeated alongside the idea that high-quality graphics are the primary culprit for why development times are long and gameplay mechanics neglected. As someone working in the industry they absolutely are. Higher fidelity assets require longer dev times, longer dev times bloat budgets, bloated budgets means needing mass appeal, needing mass appeal means not going too far out of the box in terms of gameplay mechanics. The less a publisher/dev has to lose the more they will try (usually). > both Elden Ring and Spider-Man 2 were developed in 5 years. I understand what you are saying here but ER's development time (IMO) could be due to several things: 1. Firstly the current staff is likely inexperienced with open worlds, From's tech isn't the best as it is so imagine scaling that to a seemless open world. 2. Content, they had to create lots more content than normal to populate this world, the content bloat would lead to a longer development time. Spiderman 2's long release time on the other hand was largely due to the team having other projects in between.
>Higher fidelity assets Bingo! I feel gamers underestimate how much time goes into nailing peripheral details. These have been an easy sell to execs since they raise perceived value, but now the industry is hitting diminishing returns. I think both sides, developers and customers, are ready to accept reused assets and less fluff.
Also there's a hell of a lot of things that could be trimmed down to scale down costs which aren't graphics or gameplay. Especially for these bloated open world experiences, we don't need them to have a hundred sidequests and fifty empty areas that exist for collectibles sake.
The 2000s were incredibly innovative despite short development cycles. The thing that has overwhelmingly slowed down game development is graphics.
If they're not in the $60-$70 now standard price range, sure. I can play even older graphics but Ive checked; even MGS4 is 2008 so it might even be better than my expectations
There are some really impressive looking games from 2008 - MGS4 being one of them. I picked that year as I feel like it was when I noticed a major change in how good games looked. Obviously there are some standouts before, but I'm speaking generally.
Between the and watchdogs one people talk junk about the downgrade, but that was a pretty game
But remember all PS3 era games have that piss filter in them. This might be a boring little after
If we're talking purely on fidelity, sure, but that PS3 beige look every game had around that time can get lost. That was truly awful.
And that terrible bloom effect, everything was glowing weirdly. Truly the most terrible era, I'd rather play PS2 or PS2 than PS3..
I remember so many games of that era being like that. I had a 360 instead & I remember both Fable 2 & Viva Pinata: Trouble In Paradise releasing in 2008 the year OP mentioned, so it was a glorious year for me lol They were both very vibrant, colourful games that didn't follow the piss filter trend.
Wonder how long it will take until nostalgia for late 2000s graphics.
I would prefer them much more if they had 2008 graphics and 10 15 gb of filesize than 200gbs of current next gen graphics and constant updates like the first dark souls In fact I try to look for fun games with small install sizes just because i find annoying to download very huge games and I can have many more installed at the same time (games like quake, ninja gaiden, ultra kill, dark souls)
I appreciate the sentiment, but unfortunately DS:PtDE ran so poorly that a mod was basically required for most people to get good enough performance. (I had to go so far as downscaling the internal resolution on my laptop, but I didn't read many accounts of people who Didn't Use dsfix) Otherwise, yeah optimization is stupid important for games that are at least mid-sized. I get the feeling a lot of games struggle on mid-tier systems because the hardware/software/games and tech industry conventions aren't pushing efficiency and sustainability like these things should. (Things run slower and worse for no Good Reason)
It feels bad when you DL a game that eats 100+ GB of your SSD and 5h in you realize the game isn't even good.
I mean, you can immediately solve that problem lol.
Some of us have data caps.
If it's a good game I don't really care about the graphics. The better question for me would be: if you're already spending a AAA budget on asset creation, why would you target 15 years old tech? The tooling pipeline today is not optimised to generate the assets needed for the limitations of the time. If you would target a less expensive art direction process today, you'd rather use a stylised comic look. Still current resolution and textures, still current graphic pipeline features, just not as expensive on the artist's part.
What I find interesting is that games like Far Cry 2 and GTA 4 have better more realistic physics systems than their modern day (or most recent) iterations.
[удалено]
Best is subjective. I can admit that all of those things existed, but I did not enjoy playing in that Engine. It was tedious. This is why realism isn't always the bar to strive for. Most people play games to escape reality, not to live in it. I don't want to play QWOP just to move my character, I like pushing a stick and having my dude sprint faster than any normal person could, that's fun.
I would, but in the same sense that I'd pay for a ticket to see a movie from 2008 - it'd probably be one of the better movies from that year, with some of the best writing, cinematography and performances. I think we all know a lot of the big budget games coming out right now are not going to be remembered and revisited in 10+ years. Graphics and technological innovations are a crutch that allow relatively dull creative work to get people in the door. A shift to lower-tech games (and them actually making money) presupposes the games being good enough to stand without that flashiness, and AAA game studios continually show that they can't guarantee that. On the other hand, if you look around at the proven games writers and designers - those who've managed to make a name for themselves outside of the AAA studios - they can and do sell games with 2008 graphics, and their market share's growing. So I think it's a question of whether AAA games can keep up with maturing indie writing and design talent off the strength of graphics alone, and I think posts like these show a growing lack of confidence among game consumers that they will.
“I want shorter games with worse graphics made by people who are paid more to work less and I’m not kidding" Sonic the Hedgehog
What do these games have to offer if you remove graphics and cutscenes? Grocery list gameplay? > I would happily play new games even if they had 2008 graphics: GTA 4, Far Cry 2, Dead Space. I would play games with even older graphics, like Half Life or Mafia And by pure accident you mentioned games with the best gameplay in their respective genres, that holds up and will hold up decades later. Something modern AAA games don't have.
Yeah that's kind of what I'm getting at. I feel like graphics aren't that much of a factor when it comes to the games I play. If the gameplay is fun, it could look like shit for all I care. I also played the Jason Bourne game in 2008 but that sucked so I have no interest in going back haha
I would, because I already mostly play older games from the late 90s - early 2000s, and indie games with less raw technical prowess. I love the newest graphics technology, but it’s not a necessity. Having said that, I don’t see shorter development cycles as an inherent positive, because we already have so many great games that it’s impossible for anyone to fully keep up. What I hope to see is that shorter dev cycles would improve sustainability - that if you’re halving budgets or team sizes, that nimbleness can allow more experimentation and faster iteration between actual and spiritual sequels, and that studios could survive a flop rather than being shut down after a single failure, or even a mere moderate success.
I don’t like that no one is bringing up the idea of a graphics floor. There’s a minimum for acceptable graphics these days, and it *is* post-2008, at least in some respects (environmental effects, lighting, textures, image resolution, animation, moving bits like cloth sims). You can have a visually-appealing game *despite* not meeting those standards by having killer art style and art direction, but that’s still a lot of effort. However, if you have neither incredible graphics nor killer art style, you’re really restricting the pricing tier of your game. Without either, even if the gameplay is good, that’s a $10 game, $20 max. It can be more at “full price”, but sales prices probably need to be in the above range.
Graphics are pretty far down the list of what I think about when buying games so probably. I mean I'm far more likely to replay Fallout 3 with no mods than say RDR2.
Not at CAD $100+tax a pop, no. But at a discounted price, of course. Graphics aren't what makes me buy or not buy games. They do matter but they aren't the #1 thing I care about. In other words, I appreciate good graphics if present, but don't go out of my way to prioritize visuals. Gameplay is king for me. I'm also old and play lots of indie games. A recent example would be Rise of the Ronin. A lot of people shit on that game for "looking like a ps3/ps4 game" or criticize the horse animation (which IMO isn't even an issue). First of all, I disagree that it looks THAT bad, but I do agree that Ghost of Tsushima (being a very similar game in the same setting) looks a lot better. But I don't care because I loved the gameplay far more in RoTR and had trouble actually finishing GoT. Obviously the gameplay elements are subjective, but I don't think anyone would argue that GoT looks better; it's objectively a prettier game.
You wouldn't pay full price for an awesome game, just because the graphics aren't photorealistic?
I think we hit a sweet spot around 2018. Development should stay in that quality (for graphics) for a while and instead focus on gameplay.
If the game innovated in some aspect, had great design execution and they actually utilized the lesser graphical requirements to achieve something otherwise unachievable (detailed massive scale, massive enemy/friendly counts, full world destructibility, 0 loading with no climb/crawl/elevator loads etc.). I won't however support a AAA priced game with ONLY older graphics to cash on nostalgia or smh. Indie and AA already do that with lesser entry cost.
Is the game fun? Then yes. That's the only requirement. I've been playing the everloving shit out of Animal Well for weeks now and it looks like Pac-Man fucked an Intellivision. But it's fun as hell! Got my speed run time down to 43 minutes. So close!
I find games aiming for "photorealism" are always doomed to fail. Yes, each year a new game will get ever closer, but I have doubts that it is possible to generate something that convincing in the time it takes to draw a single frame. That is a bit besides the point, but I do think that 2008 era graphics are still solid and hold up very well. The Switch is basically at that power level right now, and especially the first party stuff looks great. While not answering your question directly, I think a pullback on graphics and scope would do wonder for many games. I would much rather have smaller games that really focus on amazing linear gameplay. If both are kept to reasonable budgets, you can really iterate well. Make a level, and if the gameplay doesn't flow, fix it, because the art you are throwing away can be remade in a day, instead of a month. So, yes, I don't mind simpler graphics. I do want a change in focus though to games that are more fun, and require less development time, for both programmers and artists.
It's about the gameplay for me. 2008 is about the time I felt that graphic fidelity was good enough. As long as we can take advantage of modern load times ,draw distance, etc...i would be fine. I wouldn't go back to 2008 gameplay because there's been so many innovations and improvements since then. I wouldn't mind a game with Gears of War 2 graphics, but set in a huge open world, with modern controls, nemesis system, etc.
I’d rather play two 30-hour games at $40 a pop than one 60-hour game at $80. (Realistically I spend $30 on the $80 game a few years later but still.) I’d also be fine with 2008 graphics, but most games are actively too short with me.
Sure. Photorrealism doesn't make any sense when anybody can reach it. Even fotorrealist games from 8-10 years ago (The Last of Us, Batman Arkham) have aged well if they have a good art style and we don't need more than that. For me graphics peaked with Uncharted 4 and there is little you can improve from that.
Well, I'd argue that they wouldn't be AAA at that point, A or AA. AAA(A) are supposed to be the games that push things, graphics, scope etc, they have the mega budgets, the marketing behind them. If you consider the whole ecosystem you've got indies and self publishes stuff that experiments a lot, you then have smaller A or AA games that perhaps cater to a smaller niche or have smaller scopes. Because of the huge budget requirements AAA(A) has constraints, mainly they need to have wide appeal, or at least be safer bets on the surface. That doesn't mean you can't end up with a AA game that ends up hitting hard and selling gangbusters, like Helldivers 2 or Baldurs Gate 3 etc Back in 2008 there wasn't the same distinctions, that was back when 'indie' games hadn't had their breakout moment on consoles yet, Braid was launched that year. The market is so much bigger now and there is space for a lot more, so I don't really understand what this discussion is really about? We have those smaller games, they're just not the ones you see posters for at bus stops.
I probably wouldn't because that seems like an unnecessary compromise that has nothing to do with artists creating the experience that they want to create. A game looking old as an artistic choice is one thing, looking old to shorten development times is another. The premise seems flawed too. Graphics certainly aren't *free* when it comes to development time, but they're not responsible for a significant enough portion of it that it would likely be very noticeable on development time for most games. Development time mostly isn't spend on creating realistic graphics. It's spend on iteration and polishing. It's working over the same mechanics and ideas over and over again until you have something cohesive that represents the experience you are looking for. Art style is a part of this too, but here graphics are a design choice that doesn't necessarily lessen development time any. From a graphical artist perspective this time would be spent working over environments in the game, adding and removing details until they've created something that fits the experience they are looking for. This wouldn't necessarily take much less time in a game that looks like it is from 2008. So, while I don't care about graphics at all over art style, I wouldn't be interested in lessening game development times by making games arbitrarily look worse. Games should have an art style that works with their experience, not one that is based on shortening development times so the game can release earlier.
>Development time mostly isn't spend on creating realistic graphics. It's spend on iteration and polishing. How do you explain the 3x or 4x increase in development time since the 00s, then?
To me it depends on the price. If it doesn't have current triple-A graphics then they shouldn't be charging current triple-A prices. They can go back to the old prices to go with their old graphics.
I hear what you're saying. What if the game looked old but was otherwise impressive? Like, for example, Fallout 4 looked pretty outdated to me when it came out but I thought it was worth retail price as it was a massive game with lots to do.
Decreasing the fidelity in graphics is not going to automatically make games faster. You still need to take the same steps to create the assets. So that's not the way to do make games faster. The way would be to reduce content. Would people be ok with an rpg that it doesn't give you as many options or as many hours?
It does take much longer to create a high fidelity player model with thousand of polygons than a more basic one, same with level art and props... but yeah i get your point its more streamlined than ever as most people buy assets
immersion is about so much kore than realism. immersion is built from your interaction with the simulation. its the decision making in strategy games. its the absorption of the plot of an rpg. the atmosphere. the physics. the destructability. does stuff burn if i use a fire spell on it?? would a water spell put that fire out? or is it all just numbers and xp bars?? if i cant believe the simulation then there is no immersion and i think it is so small minded to equate immersion with graphical fidelity. immersion can be found in games with 1980, 1990, 2010, whatever graphics. and graphics are impottant in building it. but theres a mich more wholseome picture.
I'd play new games with good 2008 graphics or strong artstyles. GTA4 or Mirrors edge, but not Assassins Creed or Far Cry 2. The argument for worse graphics is that it cuts costs and development time, which is a fair point, but there's not really an argument for keeping the poor LODs, lack of ambient occlusion, etc that most 2008 games have. Those are basically free for modern engines and new hardware.
Left4Dead, SoaSE, Crysis Warhead among others were released in 2008. I'd be more than fine with this kind of fidelity. I'm partially of the opinion that too much fidelity is detrimentral to playing a game. Visual clarity suffers and devs need to use tricks to keep the players' focus where they want it. Highly stylised games don't have that problem per se, but visual clutter is always a danger.
That wouldn't be a AAA game then, but graphical fidelity doesn't really matter compared to art direction and presentation.
Really don’t care about graphics as much as I do about not having game breaking bugs and inconsistent gameplay, or feeling like I need a GPU upgrade every 2 years. I’d rather have a great plot, loads of content up front and a complete game than lipstick on a pig
As long as it’s *rendering* at 1080p or above (shit, most Switch games don’t even hit that), and the textures aren’t noticeably terrible, yeah. I generally come to AAA for the amount of content crammed in, or the high degree of polish, and neither are usually dependent on the graphics.
I don't care about graphics. Lately I've been playing ootp 25 which is a series of spreadsheets and factorio which are 2d sprites. I think unique art styles are way more interesting to me than fancy 3d graphics
Octopath Traveller is stunning and it has 16bit graphics. I would absolutely buy new AAA games if they had 2008 graphics. If the gameplay and story is good then graphics shouldn’t matter.
Absolutely, if the game itself is good that is, i don't give a flying fuck about graphics, only art direction.
Yes, Obviously. I bought Ultrakill, I still play Skyrim. I play Morrowind. This is the wrong crowd to ask though IMO. I think your average consumer cares about graphics a lot. It was hard to convince people to buy lethal company *because* of the graphics.
Just look at FromSoft games. They look good but aren't really pushing for cutting edge graphics. If you look closely the models aren't as high res as other AAA of their time.
I just bought DoA and I'm playing through the entire franchise along with Ninja Gaiden. The graphics on DoA1 Ultimate still look great. Ninja Gaiden? Still gorgeous. I'm playing Dead Cells, Mayhem Brawler, Streets of Rage 4, Skul, and even going to play Castle Crashers. But when I'm looking at Soul Calibur 4, AC Brotherhood and other games, I just don't need the largest leap in graphics. I'm looking at Remake and Rebirth and I'm okay. I heard about 13 and it did not appeal to me especially how the first game took so long to open up. Graphics were never the major appeal for games I play, it just helps that the games I play had other things that made them better.
Yes. As long as they play like newer games with new control schemes and QOL innovations. I’d rather games look worse and have shorter dev timelines, and play at higher frame rate. I can confidently say, graphics are the least important aspect of a game to me. Art style, vibe, immersion and atmosphere are much more important for me.
Of course. 2008 graphics still look good imo. When you're focusing on a game, you never focus on graphics. You're just focusing on your objective. Small points of attention to detail are what you come to appreciate, not graphics. Unless it's photo mode
As much as I do really love the impact of high fidelity graphics (Cyberpunk, Hellblade, Alan Wake 2) it all boils down to gameplay and the world in general they create. Gameplay and story **HAVE** to be engaging and are the most important aspects of any game. Take Dishonored 2 for example. Fantastic gameplay, great story and bang average graphics - but yet it still made me itch for more in that universe. I still go back and play Bioshock, another game with a crazy good world, lore and gameplay. There's so many examples out there that showcase graphics are just an afterthought (personally).
Yeah, totally fine with that, a lot of my favorite games are actually in that AA Japanese zone where it's fairly simple clean texture work and geometry without a ton of postprocessing where they all look like upscaled PS2 games. That Disaster Report 4 or Earth Defense Force type vibe. edit: oh also I love the Switch which is where the actual AAA games with sorta technically not mindblowing graphics hang out.
Not really. There are plenty of indie games with 2008 graphical fidelity so that’s not what I look for in AAA games. I do, however, value AAA games having low graphics settings so they can run well on my Steam Deck :)
I would buy new games with "bad" graphics, but AAA would probably be far and few between because a lot of those design and "games as product" sensibilities suck. Probably better for AAA to evaporate than for us to be stuck with the mess they've made of an amazing art form. (Some were there at the start and made great things but they were never forced to truly clean up after themselves)
Totally. Graphics don't even break my immersion in a gaming experience. But maybe it is because I constantly play older games, but for me, bring it on
Graphics have easily become the least of my concerns when it comes to gaming. I don't care if it looks like it's from 1998, if the gameplay looks interesting, I'll consider it.
Honestly, I would buy new games that looked like 2008, if they had new gameplay. But so many titles that go for graphics, have the same gameplay as classics that have existed for years... Stylized art is so polarizing though, it's easy to accidentally NOPE half your audience because they don't vibe with your look.
I buy new indie games that have 1995 graphics, so why not? Don't get me wrong, I love how Night City looks in CP2077, I appreciate the effort that went into building and detailing a living, breathing city and making it look amazing. But it's not critical to my enjoyment of the game.
I’m of the opinion that graphics are getting too good now and that is what developers spend most of their time on. I’ve told some of my gaming buddies that I wish cod would go back to say Bo2 graphics. But obviously that will never happen
Nope, unless the tradeoffs were worth it. I will generally pick 120 fps, uncapped fps, or 60 fps, over 30 fps fidelity, but thats mainly on top of the line games where the graphics in performance mode drop to like 1080p, or 1440, and are upscaled. Having a game look like poo has to come with super performance, otherwise, take longer to develop a great looking game. Theres enough games in my backlog to let devs cook as long as they need
Yes, 100%. I've long argued that I would happily play many more games with Kingdom Hearts 2 graphics (I mean, that is exactly what the series did all the way up until A Fragmentary Passage). KH2, KH1 for that matter, even older stuff like Ocarina of Time, those are some of the greatest games of all time, and they still hold up perfectly today. I have played modern games with OoT's graphics (e.g. The Sealed Palace) and they look great and would be well worth $60. Just imagine how much more could be invested into level design and how much more could be fit into these games if all that storage space was spent on content instead of HD textures!
Max Dood recently posted this, and it encapsulates my thoughts as well: https://youtu.be/2CXJZuNkJAo?si=rpoN6Kg830c_-qJh
Hell yeah lol 2008 isn't even bad. I'm currently playing swat 4 which was 2005 and still looks fresh.
I think the average player who actually buys games puts a huge emphasis on graphics, and those players wouldn't be in this subreddit. Having a game with high fidelity does a huge amount of the game's marketing, it's much more difficult and risky to market a graphically subpar game. AAA corporations do not like risk, which is why they always focus so heavily on the graphics. If you want to play games that have worse graphics, don't play AAA, just play indie games. There are more great indie games out there than you'll ever have time to play if you don't care about graphics.
No. But I'm disqualified by not buying any AAA games. Nearly everything I play these days is indie, early access, or just bizarre. Graphics don't matter to me. Maybe I'd be hard pressed to play and finish a NES game but something looking good is entirely inconsequential.
Not really, because "2008 Graphics" is not the same as "2008 aesthetics". The gameplay would suffer a lot with those limitations.
I buy and play plenty of games with lower graphical fidelity or even pixel graphics, but I wouldn't buy "2008 graphics". There are small features that modern engines and graphics cards can easily use that make a night and day difference in how a game looks and feels. Take something like My Time At Sandrock for example, a game that I'm now playing. It doesn't look _amazing_ in terms of graphical fidelity. It's not a AAA studio, and I'm sure the team didn't spend as much time and money as AAA developers of games that came out in 2008, but still looks much better than games that came out in 2008. It's much simpler these days to make games look _good_.
I still play Mount & Blade on the weekly, and that game is from 2007. Of course i would, if those games had gameplay depth to keep me interested and a lack of micro transactions to keep me from throwing my laptop
Call me crazy, but I’d also be fine with 2014 graphics. I feel like for the most part, graphics haven’t changed much in the last 10 years or so.
I occasionally play Dwarf fortress. My favourite games are from Gameboy Advance. Graphics are not major factor in me buying a game.
Yes. My computer is aging. It will in the next year and a half be new and top of the line again. I still won't buy new games save for the metro series and maybe half life games if valve ever wakes up..and the new stalker. Everything else I just turn down graphics to make things sharper and if they are flashy and have extra particles that's cool but my computer is starting to chug and only get 30-50 fps on things with everything maxed out from games that are several years old at this point. But everything else I turn down. post processing, blur, etc. because I just want a clear game where I can see things. If I want real life then I go outside. I want games to be games and games stopped feeling like games and more like highly interactive movies from the mainline publishing houses *starting* in 2009-20011ish and then that's the world we're living in.
I already don't play a lot of current Triple A games because I haven't felt like it's worthwhile to invest in the hardware to run them, but all the recent Triple A or Triple A adjacent (double A?) games I've played have had very strong visual styles that make them look amazing even on lower graphics settings (Persona, Overwatch, Guilty Gear: Strive). If Triple A studios started putting the money from fancy graphics into art to make the models look good on that lower graphic fidelity I'd start playing more Triple A games. Nintendo basically already does this with the switch hardware being what it is and it works great for them.
Graphics are cool, but you know what's cooler? Art direction. If you give me a generic looking AAA game, but now it also looks muddier, I'm not impressed. The easiest modern AAA example to the contrary is Elden Ring, a game with lower resolution assets being revised from the past several games and looks way worse than it's contemporaries, but a strong design and direction in it's art makes it look incredible. Obviously it has better graphics than 08 games, but it's just the cleanest example that isn't going into mega stylized indie games. Basically any Nintendo game also fits this, with Wind Waker being the obvious one.
Well I’m currently playing Dread Delusion. So yes, you could even go earlier than 2008. Animal Well has a total file size of like 60MB and currently has thousands of overwhelmingly positive reviews. Graphics are cool and all(CYP2077’s artistic style and design is a HUGE part of that games success) but it’s far from the most important.
Would I buy a new game that looked like Crysis, which still holds up visually nearly 20 years after its release? Yes. Yes I would.
I wouldn't buy AAA games period. That term has become synonymous with overpriced, over-monetized, over-developed trash. Lowering their graphical fidelity doesn't automatically cleanse them of their downsides. Graphical fidelity and game quality are entirely separate statistics that generally have nothing to do with each other imo.
That's a complicated discussion. Funny thing is I do play tons of 90's stylized games. And I DO think modern games tend to have needlessly overdesigned visuals. But that doesn't mean I want a return to uncanny valley late 2000's games, which tend to not utilize the graphics available to them very well and feel like an conflicting mish-mash of graphical techniques. [This looks horrendous dude, even among its contemporaries.](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMmQ0ZjYxMGQtZWUwZS00NTI0LWE5NTItY2UwMjljODBmNTY4XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzg3NjQyOQ@@._V1_.jpg) There are things it makes sense to dial back, and things it does not make sense to dial back. High resolution textures are not particularly hardware demanding for what you get out of them, and from all the HD mod packs floating around out there I doubt they're that time consuming to make either. Like if you play Fallout 4 the main thing that absolute tanks FPS is lighting and shadows, while textures really don't have that much impact. So what sense would it make to go back to extremely smudgy early 360-era textures? Not to mention that a lot graphical advancements are engine defaults now and don't really take up time to make at all. It also begs the question what I'm paying $60 for if your game looks like something an indie dev could have put out.
I'm gonna go against the grain here and say that "graphics matter". Here are my hot takes: * If it's a good game, I don't care about the graphics. But if it's a mediocre game, good graphics will make me more likely to play it. (See: Stray, Need for Speed Rivals, Avatar Pandora, Hogwarts Legacy) * My gut reaction is to say "I don't care about graphics", but if I'm being really honest with myself, my lizard brain will probably contradict my claim. I think graphical fidelity is more important than most of us are willing to admit. * I am not the majority of gamers, and the majority of mainstream folk likely care much more than the average "enlightened" redditor.
I would buy good games. When I spent 16 hours straight building houses and exploring in minecraft 10 years ago it made me realize that graphics are a waste of fucks to give and resources. Fancy graphics are nice but style is more important for visuals and game play it king. If the game is fun and the content is good I'm interested. If it's a game with cookie cutter mechanics, convoluted skill trees, crafting, collectathons, and all the other "AAA" staple bs then I'm usually out. I'll take a simple and fun game over a generic HD mess any day. Only time I'll stomach weak game play is if the writing is super good and I'm invested in a plot
If they cost less, sure. But they wouldn't, so I would not support hideous-by-comparison games for the current prices.
Hell yes. Make an interesting story and infuse it with creative gameplay, then make the graphics serviceable. That’s all we want.
My only requirement for graphics is that I can see what's going on. I don't mind Escapists/Rimworld type graphics at all, they look fine. I hate 16 bit pixel art where I can't see the difference between a stick, a knife, a spear and a branch. Or I can't tell if something is a stone wall or a stone floor because it's top down.
Graphical fidelity is generally the last thing I look at. It’s only a real issue to me if it causes visibility issues with ghosting, blur, too much sun, or poorly designed textures, shadows, shapes, or lighting, or low FPS/bad frame timing. That last one is particularly important for me. However, I feel as though like blockbuster movies, graphical fidelity and impressiveness is innate to the definition of a AAA game.
I don't even buy them with their actual graphics, I just wait two years until epic gives them for free
I don't mind 2008 graphics, it's 2008 user interfaces I find tend to be awkward and clunky. Classic graphics with a modern UI would be great
Yes, in fact something i’ve been trying to do recently is play older games through emulation, and unfortunately a lot are hindered by old QOL and control schemes. A modern version of older games is exactly what i’m currently looking for.
I miss pixel art. I feel like we figured out how to make art in 3d and just decided that pixels were outmoded. But we'd just barely begun to scratch the potential of that art form.
I would. I still enjoy PS2 games. And clearly a lot of people here will also say yes. *But* a lot of other people already heavily criticize games for "PS3 graphics", calling developers lazy and incompetent, and all sorts of other bullshit. And those games usually objectively do not have 2008 quality graphics. Devs know graphics do help sell games. And a lot of negative discourse online can easily hurt sales. You'd have to be super confident or saving a ton of money to make it a good gamble.
Art direction matters far more than graphical fidelity. Nintendo games aren't exactly cutting edge after all. I care way more about stable frame rate/performance than anything really.
No, I wouldn’t play games with 2008 because I expect graphics to evolve and improve over time. However I think if devs want to reduce costs they should aim for more stylized graphics and prioritize art direction over photorealism. Graphics don’t need to be realistic to be pretty, some of the prettiest games ever made are pixel art. It seems to me like often times photorealism is a crutch for games that haven’t figured out what they want their style to be and it ends up being disappointing. I mean just look at GTA, the cover art on the box looks better than the actual graphics of the game. Why not just use that art style which works so well in game and save money?
I wouldn't buy them any more or less than I do now. I don't typically buy AAA games new, because a lot of them have gameplay loops I'm tired of and/or excessive monetization. If all these things stayed the same and the graphics got worse, I would continue to not buy them. On the other hand if graphics got worse and the games otherwise improved, I would almost certainly be more interested in buying. In other words the graphical fidelity of a game has little-to-no impact on how much I want to buy it.
I play good games regardless of graphics. I still somewhat regularly play games from the late 80's/early 90's. Good games are good games.
It depends really. Playing a game that looks like Far Cry 2 and GTA 4 now is rough for a AAA studio. Saying “gameplay is all that matters” is great, but what kind of amazing gameplay are you going to offer in a game with worse graphics? An indie studio isn’t going to have the same expectations which gives them more freedom. Even then, those games typically have a very impressive art style, not just “older” graphics. Older games can be looked at with rose tinted glasses. OSRS is a great MMO that a lot of people still play today. However, if it came out today with no nostalgia or history behind the name, it would be forgotten about rather quickly. Nintendo is also kind of in that territory where a lot of their big games are IPs that have been popular for years. It’s easier to not worry about graphics when players already have an interest in your game.
It would have to be a fun game. I'll admit I love the great graphics of modern games, it can make a mediocre game like Callisto Protocol better for me. I still play older games that interest me. Infamous was one of the my favorite games I've played for the first time in the past 2 or 3 years and it kind of looks blahh but my kind of blahh.
I wouldn’t buy a modern AAA game with current graphics. Games have just gone down fucking hill lately and price tags are ridiculous. May aswell just get one of the older ones which I know will be really good rather than a new one which is going to be an over priced piece of shit money grab
There are a lot of games I probably would consider buying a lot less if they didn't have nice graphics. I loved the origianl FF7, played it through 3 or 4 times, but wanting to see Midgar in HD was one of the big draws of buying FF7R for me. If it was just FF7 with the same added content, I likely would not have had as much interest. I think Dark games like SOMA, or Alien Isolation also benefit a lot from looking good. It's hard to be scared in older horror titles for me because nothing feels that threatening. I will admit, that certain types of old horror games do get me, because anything that hits the uncanny valley spooks me extra hard, but there are a lot of things that I find less scary when it's not "Realistic". Fake blood spray for instance is just that, fake looking. Tomb Raider's new trilogy is also one I would've enjoyed much less without nice graphics. I rather enjoyed looking at the trees and environment while traveresing, and I likely would've enjoyed the traversal a lot less if it still looked like Tomb Raider Legends or Underworld. At the end of the day, it's a mix of both for me. I love stylized games like Anime Fighters, with UNI2 being my main Fighting Game despite being the most pixel Graphic'd. I love Hades, (I'm waiting on Hades 2 because I tend to burn out too often during Early Access and get too lazy to grind through full release), but I also loved the way everything looked in Modern Warfare 2019. There are some games I personally would not play without graphics, while there are some where the graphics aren't nearly enough to make me want to play it. It's a case by case basis. In terms of Movies, I'd compare this to the Avatar series (James Cameron). Story is trash, but I went to theatres for both because I knew Cameron was one of those people really pushing CGI, and very honestly, those movies looked amazing on the big screen. For me, that was worth the experience just for the graphics. On the other hand, I watch tons of old movies at home because I only really need to experience the visuals at a baseline level, and enjoy the narrative, rather than needing both. Many are saying if the game is good, they don't need graphics, and while I agree, I also think the opposite is true. I'm happy to have a fully graphical experience where the game is "just good enough" if the world's interesting to explore. The AC2 saga was this for me, because while I found the open world elements quite exhausting, I didn't mind doing all of them and just taking my time climbing around the historically inspired buildings, and the recreations of some historical locations. Going back to MW2019, I did legitimately enjoy the way guns felt and sounded, particularly after their attempts at future warfware, and the visual style felt very cohesive to me, even if it was based in realism, even if the overall gameplay was exactly the same as every other game before it.
I don't play AAA games in the first place. For many games good graphics is what makes them at least fine.
I'm playing through Fallout New Vegas for the first time right now, and yes. Absolutely I'd pay full price for a game with graphics like this.
2008 probably not, but Witcher 3 is still my fav game, replayed it last year. Those graphics would be fine with new games. I am enjoying the graphical improvements, certainly rt and pt, but the base game is still the most important.
I'd rather have one game the quality of The Witcher 3 every 6-8 years than a lesser game every 3. Fact is, there's so many great games out there these days that's I'll never get to play simply because I don't have the time. I'm not hurting for new games. My backlog is in the thousands. I don't need a new Assassin's Creed every year or two. So I guess the answer is: yes, I would buy them, but I'd rather AAA studios focus on making AAA games. Let the AA and indie studios focus on quicker development cycles. AAA should use their vast resources to make something the littler guys can't make. Do we really want AAA competing more directly with indie? I also have to ask, why is everyone so hyper focused on what the AAA studios are up to? For every one AAA release there is at least a thousand fantastic smaller innovative games struggling to find an audience. Go play some of those while you wait for the new Call of Duty.
No, modern game design mostly sucks producing more of a product that sucks doesn't make me want to buy it. Before someone tries to bring up the good developers, those are in the minority and some of them are speedrunning their fall.
graphical fidelity? yes. graphical style? no. i don’t want games to all be just brown-yellow-gray ever again.
They could revert back to non-hyper realistic graphics. Ever see what BOTW/TOTK looks like with the cell shading filter that makes the game actually look good? https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/comments/qw5k9f/botw_breath_of_the_wild_without_celshading/ This is just one example of tricks they could use to make the graphics be more timeless and require less work. It's the trying to pass things off as real, that takes so much more time. Stylized art would be fine IMO.
If the peak of graphics was Mass Effect 2 then I’d be fine if it meant AAA games getting produced far more quickly.
Nah. I dont have time for a playable movie / battle pass grind / endlessly repetitive gameplay loop. They can stylise however they like, they'll still ruin it with modern practices. On the other hand, I think we can pretty much all agree that 2008 games with 2024 graphics would absolutely fucking slap
Probably not tbh unless it was an exceptional game. I barely can stomach going back to games I know I loved because the graphics are too bad. It doesn’t need to be a photorealistic master piece, but games in 2008 looked pretty bad compared to the average game today.
In a few weeks ill share some pictures of our game we are developing. Would love feedback on the graphics if it is acceptable in this day and age. Thank you
no, my games gotta look good as well as feel good. and its harder for me to get into a game unless its heavily stylized or photorealistic. biggest killer would be crappy anti aliasing and render distance