I am probably unqualified to speak about this, as I am using an RX 550 low profile and a 768P monitor and almost never play newer titles, but I want to kickstart a discussion, so hear me out.

The push for more realistic graphics was ongoing for longer than most of us can remember, and it made sense for most of its lifespan, as anyone who looked at an older game can confirm - I am a person who has fun making fun of weird looking 3D people.

But I feel games’ graphics have reached the point of diminishing returns, AAA studios of today spend millions of dollars just to match the graphics’ level of their previous titles - often sacrificing other, more important things on the way, and that people are unnecessarily spending lots of money on electricity consuming heat generating GPUs.

I understand getting an expensive GPU for high resolution, high refresh rate gaming but for 1080P? you shouldn’t need anything more powerful than a 1080 TI for years. I think game studios should just slow down their graphical improvements, as they are unnecessary - in my opinion - and just prevent people with lower end systems from enjoying games, and who knows, maybe we will start seeing 50 watt gaming GPUs being viable and capable of running games at medium/high settings, going for cheap - even iGPUs render good graphics now.

TLDR: why pay for more and hurt the environment with higher power consumption when what we have is enough - and possibly overkill.

Note: it would be insane of me to claim that there is not a big difference between both pictures - Tomb Raider 2013 Vs Shadow of the Tomb raider 2018 - but can you really call either of them bad, especially the right picture (5 years old)?

Note 2: this is not much more that a discussion starter that is unlikely to evolve into something larger.

  • sculd@beehaw.orgEnglish
    17·
    11 months ago

    Pushing for even more realistic graphics will make the cost of making even higher with no significant change in enjoyment of players.

    Players enjoyed games when we had Supernintendos and DOS games. They actually gave players more room for imagination.

    • drewdevorcula@beehaw.orgEnglish
      7·
      11 months ago

      So… this is only partially correct IMHO.

      Yes, it will continue to be expensive for the studios that push the envelope. However, as those studios continue to invest large amounts of cash, the smaller studios are continually getting access to better and better tools because of it. That means that a small studio can create something that is not quite-as-good as the major studios, but still very competitive, and for significantly cheaper.

      As technology progresses, last-year’s tech will always fall in price.

      As to the point of enjoying Super Nintendo and DOS games, sure. Much of that style has returned in the form of pixel art games and what have you. But the conservative viewpoint of ‘8-bit was good enough in my day, why improve on it’ is just short-sighted in my opinion. Why keep pumping out Atari-grade stuff when so much more is possible? Why not advance and improve?