We have kind of plateaued in terms of game graphics. We can go higher but it’s expensive in terms of hardware and electricity. Games are supposed to be fun and challenging.
I feel like there has been a lot of regressions in enemy AI and physics over the years.
I can still imagine a lot more physics in my games.
But I agree on the rest yeah.
Definitely, we’re at a point where geometry isn’t a key factor in rendering times - at least for a decently optimized game (I’m looking at you, Cities Skylines 2 and all your teeth).
Games are going ham with the lighting - ray tracing and all that jazz that help with photorealism.
There are workarounds that have been used for a long time to “mimic” these effects but with a big quality Vs speed trade-off. Since computational power is now so cheap (or used to, before ai…) they’re removing those crutches and using techniques that give better results, but it’s definitely marginal improvements.
This is facts. I have a PC that can handle just about anything I throw at it in terms of graphics (aside from Control, that game is the devil for some reason), and so I don’t bother with “how cool does this look.” I want to know how well it plays. Not just the FPS I can expect, but the gameplay.
I think that’s the difference between console and PC. Consoles are still about “Look how much we can squeeze out of a PS5.” PCs don’t have that problem anymore. We know what we can get. We want to play the fucking game now. I think you don’t need to look further than the Steam Controller launch. We are so hungry for New that we’ll destroy and entire storefront for a $100 controller. No one is burning the Sony servers for the PS Remote Play.
We have kind of plateaued in terms of game graphics. We can go higher but it’s expensive in terms of hardware and electricity. Games are supposed to be fun and challenging.
I keep recalling this comparison:
We’ve long since reached “good enough” graphics, and incremental improvements are simply not going to be noticeable.
This is probably why so many game releases this console generation have been remasters.
It’s a good examples but geometry isn’t everything
It applies to every aspect of game design, not just geometry: texture resolution, lighting, audio fidelity, enemy AI.
It’s just that geometry happens to be the easiest to use as an example.
I feel like there has been a lot of regressions in enemy AI and physics over the years.
I can still imagine a lot more physics in my games.
But I agree on the rest yeah.
Of course
Definitely, we’re at a point where geometry isn’t a key factor in rendering times - at least for a decently optimized game (I’m looking at you, Cities Skylines 2 and all your teeth).
Games are going ham with the lighting - ray tracing and all that jazz that help with photorealism.
There are workarounds that have been used for a long time to “mimic” these effects but with a big quality Vs speed trade-off. Since computational power is now so cheap (or used to, before ai…) they’re removing those crutches and using techniques that give better results, but it’s definitely marginal improvements.
This is facts. I have a PC that can handle just about anything I throw at it in terms of graphics (aside from Control, that game is the devil for some reason), and so I don’t bother with “how cool does this look.” I want to know how well it plays. Not just the FPS I can expect, but the gameplay.
I think that’s the difference between console and PC. Consoles are still about “Look how much we can squeeze out of a PS5.” PCs don’t have that problem anymore. We know what we can get. We want to play the fucking game now. I think you don’t need to look further than the Steam Controller launch. We are so hungry for New that we’ll destroy and entire storefront for a $100 controller. No one is burning the Sony servers for the PS Remote Play.
Granted, it’s a fucking awesome controller.
Consoles need to innovate more but instead all we get now is a “pro” model :(