I went in here excepting GAF having a field day because most game veterans's takes usually get rescinded because its too far detached from reality.
This take right here isn't. Its a fully serviceable take - And one i obviously agree with. This kind of rationale works across multiple media - For instance, the new Marvel movie looks pretty bad from a visual POV, but why is that?
I think the underlying issue is that we, the audience expect games to evolve ever more in the gameplay and visual department. But the software and tech needed for that improvement gets more expansive, more expensive and more complex to create and maintain. Budgets keep rising, but games need a certain fixed point or consumer buy-rate will decline.
So what to do?
What every developer (naturally) does is to get the job done in the same amount of time, with still a fixed amount of money. Because of the points raised above, the quality of games decreases, simply because developers cannot make such a big jump forward any more.
Its a perpetual cycle, a balancing act of the extremes. We see great examples of lower budget games done right (Robocop: Rogue City) and we see A-class titles with ditto budgets get the shoe (The aforementioned Veilguard).
I think a lot more effort needs to be invested in efficiency. Not just in the development stage, but in every aspect of a game. Maybe we should be happy where we are gameplay wise and visually speaking. Unreal Engine 5 gets a lot of stutter flack because it wants to present the next visual leap forward. But there are dozens of UE4 titles that look amazing on a fraction a budget. Heck, even the aforementioned Rogue City looks amazing and that's on UE5.
The way forward shouldn't be more complex, more grand, more everything - it should be more efficient.
The games people get amazed at the most are also done by the most incredible studios - Naughty Dog, Shinen, you name it. Why is that, beyond talent?
Exactly. Time, and efficiency.