personally I get a headache from most modern games, the 3D graphics have become too detailed and noisy
I haven’t had a computer that could run top of the line graphics for a long time, and consoles are a joke so graphics improvements are lost on me for many reasons. > It is exciting for potentially new game mechanics and features, and richer, more dynamic and complex worlds.
But when’s the last time a game excited you because it had a cool mechanic? I think the last time for me was dishonored, cause it had a very fleshed out time stop ability where you could pluck bullets out of the air mid flight. But now games don't sell based on mechanics.
The leaps in technology aren't as overtly drastic anymore so the changes aren't as obvious.
>To me, a new games generation isn't exciting for graphics anymore. It is exciting for potentially new game mechanics and features, and richer, more dynamic and complex worlds. I would like to see technological advancement in areas like game physics and mechanics, but it seems that devs are more concerned with making their games marginally better looking at the expense of precious system resources. It's sad
well said, i have to agree
i am content with graphics from 2010 to be honest. i dont care much for how things look, i would rather the game be interesting and have cool mechanics. you could achieve so much if your game has bare graphics, but i guess the normands would think its too ugly
Stagnation is real.
The difference between 2-3 years from 80s to 2000s is huge. Compare Daggerfall to Morrowind to Oblivion for example. But when you come to late 2000s the gap suddenly becomes smaller and smaller, Oblivion to Skyrim was not much of a big gap compared to past imho.
I absolutely agree there is some kind of stagnation post 2010-2011ish. I played Skyrim (not SE), Deus Ex Human Revolution, Gta5 and they all seemed like recent enoug games. I can't believe Deus Ex and Skyrim will be 10 years old by end of this year.
Yeah I wish they would stop with that shit already so that I don't have to keep buying a new computer to play the newest games. The graphics from 5 years ago were already fine. Just work on world building and shit instead of graphics please.
Yes the improvement in graphics from one generation has slowed down but it's still significant. It may not seem that way on consoles though.
The reality is that console graphics have always been behind the norm and are what is keeping the industry from moving forward faster.
It's why a console costs $500ish at MSRP and a top of the line gaming pc costs over $2000.
I play the same games on a console then on my PC. It always looks way better on PC. You get what you pay for. For example you don't really get True 4k resolution on consoles. It's a psuedo 4K upsourcing tech.
To play modern day games on 4K ultra high graphics at 60hz would require a GPU that costs way more than a console.
>>53264>pseudo 4k upsourcing
*Upscaling not upsourcing
The thing is that games need broad appeal in order to be successful and make money, if you could only play on $2000-3000 PC's very few people would actually pay those prices to play, games would be far more expensive and a lot of smaller companies would go bankrupt.
Consoles diversify and broaden the market, also most people doesn't really care about playing at 4K 120FPS or something, I would rather play a good PS1 game than a bad 4K game.
Also the new consoles can actually do native 4K 60FPS, yes not every game runs at that resolution, but saying that you don't get native 4K is a complete lie, of course it won't be as high quality as a $2000 PC but that's not a reason to lie about it.
>potentially new game mechanics and features, and richer, more dynamic and complex worlds
As if these were being developed past the bare minimum required to get the game out the door.
I only play retro at this point. The games are challenging, they tend not to have any sort of political agenda injected into them, they tend to be more of a pure, simple gaming experience and the art, graphics and music have a timeless quality to them. You can often get a good deal on the games due to their age (so much so, I don't bother with piracy) and you can run them on a potato.
I stopped caring about graphics after HL2 and fell off the bus completely after Skyrim. I got Doom 2016 as a gift and haven't finished it.
The area where games lag HARD is the AI but considering most are multiplayer now I guess devs don't care about AI because human players take up the slack.
often new graphical features are just small unnoticeable details, to you that is, but these little details take like a huge impact on gpu/cpu use and there is no way to disable these things. it is sort of annoying, I'd rather play at a higher fps than have super-realistic grass simulation or 4k uncompressed textures that I won't even notice
Indeed. I was going to parrot myself again about generation six being the impasse but I guess I don't need to say it. By early 2000ish it was advanced enough to do whatever you needed.
there are no graphic leaps anymore, there used to be from 5th to 6th gen then everything after that is just adding more polygons to textures which are not really that noticeable. games from 10 years ago look about the same as games now and play the same too, there's only so much artists can do with the tech, even if software runs all of it there's only so much detailing a 3d modeler and animator can do, unironically the new trend will be to reject realism and go back to cartoony simple stuff in the following years.
Nanite tech is basically going to mean the end of graphical upgrades. You can't get any better than being able to render an infinite polygon model.