Support NeoGAF

[zeroluck]

Current gen consoles is too weak for any graphics evolution. Blurry UE5 games don't look much better than games that are decade old.

 

[lughnasadh123]

Different people are going to come in with different expectations for a wide array of different games. PC to Switch to PS Pro to Mobile are going to be wildly different.

Is the unasked question here "Are Switch 2 graphics good enough going forward to be the standard so it can get more games?" No, it's not. Not even close for anyone other than Nintendo fans who are going to eat up whatever you plate for them anyways.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I’m also wondering how Sony sell PS6 to the mass market in 2028.

8K resolution?
Mass market- No thanks

120fps?
Mass market - No thanks

Outside of that then games that look indistinguishable from movies and cost $1 billion to develop.

Developers - No thanks

I actually don't think it's as complex as that.

How did Sony market the PS2?

Prior to the PS4 games were at most 1080p and no one cared.

Image quality, gameplay, physics are all way more important than resolution and framerate.

The gaming market used to focus on bits and then we largely moved to polygon count. We always find something new and in the era of upscaling, native resolution really doesn't matter anymore.

 

[notseqi]

How did Sony market the PS2?

DVD player

 

[viveks86]

I’m also wondering how Sony sell PS6 to the mass market in 2028.

8K resolution?
Mass market- No thanks

120fps?
Mass market - No thanks

Outside of that then games that look indistinguishable from movies and cost $1 billion to develop.

Developers - No thanks

The same way they sold the PS5. Have you seen anything about 4k or 8k or 60 fps in their marketing, other than the labels on the box? Seriously, gamers will go where the games are. When tech improves enough to warrant another leap, it will happen. Even PS5 pro is already struggling with popular games. At some point soon a ps6 will make sense.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Absolutely, they are more concerned with fun first. It’s as it should be

 

[Rentahamster]

They do in theory, but as the negative consequences of trying to achieve that pile up more and more, they won't in reality.

 

[Justin9mm]

This generation has shown that for majority of games we still can't have it both ways. I really feel it's a failure on the generation of devs. A lot of veteran devs aren't around anymore and it seems more important to ensure a game is inclusive above anything else. Pushing boundaries means money and time and the industry is focused on maximum revenue even if it means releasing an unfinished game. Because fuck quality, it's good enough, we can just patch it later mentality!

There is no room for graphical evolution, they can't even optimise properly anymore, the industry is fucked!

I'm someone who would rather forgo IQ in favour of performance but if the graphical fidelity and level of detail is as good as hyped for GTA VI, I'd be fine with it just being 30fps. What I'm not fine with is shit copy and paste games that can't even run 60fps.

 

[Ozriel]

GTAV was probably the best looking game til that point when it came out. I just loaded up RDR2 to test DLSS4 last night and it still looks insane.

Surprised to see people mention GTA V as an example of mediocre graphics. Really?

 

[saintjules]

Until games reach this level, then I say there's still more to do. I think once we get to this (if even remotely possible), then I feel like we have reached peak in terms of fidelity.

 

[TGO]

Alan Wake 2 - this continues to be a darling of Digital Foundry for pushing technology, however it has failed to make back the development costs

Didn't they announced they had almost made it all back 2 week after the Physical Release.
The problem was the Release format, not just on Consoles but PC.
it's probably made it back and surpassed it by now.

 

[Schmendrick]

Everyone likes shiny graphics but not when they come at the cost of absurdly bad IQ/fps/scope.

The current console gen does not have the juice to make a decisive graphical jump from the PS4/X1 gen without compromising too much nor do 2/3rds of the PC market. And since pandering to the high end PC market isn't worth it financially in most cases we'll have to do with a few (often sponsored) pearls here and there until the next console gen forces the mainstream forward.

 

[awwr999999]

Graphical leaps became graphical baby steps. Games now take 3x as long to develop in order to get crisper imagery, 60fps, better lighting quality and textures.

The reality is that Nintendo and Sony could have stopped 'evolving' a long time ago and just flooded the world with great games.
Graphics haven't improved enough post-PS2 to warrant the massive decrease in key QoL features like boot time (PS5 takes ~2x longer) and game load times which are still significant.
In an alternate reality PS would improve the PS2's graphics while maintaining its ~11second boot time and eliminating load times.
In terms of gameplay a PS2 @540i with games that load instantly would be superior to a 4k PS5 with games that take 10-30 seconds to load.
Boot time, load time and input latency should be things that consoles do much better than PCs by virtue of having HW that's designed specifically for gaming.

 

[Pimpbaa]

Current gen consoles is too weak for any graphics evolution. Blurry UE5 games don't look much better than games that are decade old.

That’s UE5 fault. Every iteration of the engine has been bloated since the beginning.

 

[BigBooper]

It certainly doesn't appear so. Kids are way more interested in the garbage tier graphics of Roblox than the beautiful world of Dragon's Dogma 2. I think we've pretty much peaked once we reliably have 4k120.

Maybe that's my own bias though. I play at 1440p120 generally and have no desire to upgrade for the price of a high end GPU right now.

 

[ProtoByte]

Yes. It's not necessarily going to mean that a game definitely won't sell, but the grandiosity and enthusiasm is definitely being lost because we're not pushing on the cutting edge as we should, and the style a lot of these games are adopting is weak.

 

[pachura]

Minecraft - Fortnite - Roblox - Gorilla Tag

8K resolution?
Mass market- No thanks

120fps?
Mass market - No thanks

HDR? - No thanks
Raytracing? - No thanks

 

[Pegasus Actual]

Graphics from 10 years ago are perfectly fine, just get the res and frames right and you're golden. If you care about muh graphics you're more problem than solution, but call yourself an 'enthusiast' who has 'appreciation' if it helps you sleep at night.

 

[MacReady13]

Most people couldn't give a fuck about graphics. 150 millions Switch owners and millions of mobile phone users would agree. The race for the best graphics have just halted game development and, in my opinion, going a long way to ruin Sony's 1st party output trying to chase graphics and bullshit overlong stories over gameplay.

 

[Allandor]

No, and I really don't know why it should. Graphics are so good these days. There are many cases where graphics even got worse. Today we reached s standard that is more than good enough for most things.balso it gets much more complicated to get better.

And we should never forget better graphics doesn't make gameplay better. I can still play Risen and think that the game looks good. It doesn't have the latest tech, but it is a consistent look & feel in that game that makes it so good looking to me (and I know it has its rough edges).

 

[Shubh_C63]

Casuals will always care abut graphics.

Pacific Drive might be an amazing game but my friends will not touch it ever. You still need graphics to stand out of the crowd.

 

[FalconPunch]

For the mass market to care, there'd have to be ongoing graphics evolution. Most games today just look like higher res, slightly better ps4 games.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

I think people will always care, but it's become less important over time due to diminishing returns.

 

[Trilobit]

I’m also wondering how Sony sell PS6 to the mass market in 2028.

8K resolution?
Mass market- No thanks

120fps?
Mass market - No thanks

Outside of that then games that look indistinguishable from movies and cost $1 billion to develop.

Developers - No thanks

I wonder if it'll even get a single exclusive.

 

[Schmendrick]

Graphics from 10 years ago are perfectly fine, just get the res and frames right and you're golden. If you care about muh graphics you're more problem than solution, but call yourself an 'enthusiast' who has 'appreciation' if it helps you sleep at night.

god forbid people have different preferences.....

 

[BbMajor7th]

Minecraft and Roblox, and even Fortnite with its stylized visuals tell you everything you need to know. The diminishing returns of chasing the cutting edge are plain to see. On the customer side, we're waiting five to seven years for a game to drop (sometimes more), and being rewarded with visuals that barely improve upon prior generations, all while being hit with performance issues, bugs, and poor image quality. On the business side, the resource commitment is flattening ROI and choking out innovation whilst damaging brand perception.

It was always going to be unsustainable - this was inevitable.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

Current gen consoles is too weak for any graphics evolution. Blurry UE5 games don't look much better than games that are decade old.

This isn't true. I'm playing Silent Hill 2 Remake and Infinity Nikki and they both look fantastic on UE5.

Silent Hill 2 is a visual showcase, despite being an AA game, it looks better than most AAA from last gen.

Infinity Nikki has PS4 graphics but its physics and interactions are so far ahead of games like Horizon Zero Dawn that feels next-gen.

Animations are also graphics and this gen we have seen a gigantic leap in that. Many games are getting animations that in the last gen were believed exclusive of Naughty Dog.

 

[Wildebeest]

In the future, you are going to need a $15,000 gpu and several published scientific papers on advanced subatomic pixelology to explain why you are not wasting everyone's time.

 

[Madserb2023]

No, Roblox wouldn't be a thing otherwise.

 

[Tertullian]

lets give 3D another whirl, whydontcha

"Nah, it'll never catch on."

- The designer of the Sega Saturn

 

[Laptop1991]

No, and it wouldn't make a difference anyway if the games keep being released that are not good enough to buy or fun to play or broken at launch and take a long time to fix or not fixed in the end, better graphic's won't change those issues.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

Did it take off because of the graphics? Or was it just because gaming finally started reaching mass appeal? I would argue that Wii did more to appeal to the mass market than HD game graphics on PS360 did. And it topped out at 480p.

HDTV was already happening without video games. HDTV surpassed 8th gen consoles and they had to release mid gen console vestions to catch up.

I must suppose you weren’t there in the mid 90s, because the interest generated by games like Tekken, WipeOut and Tomb Raider in people who thought console vidya games were for kids was in plain sight. You’d actually see fathers wanting to buy a console without their kids having to pray them to. Heck, my own father came to me one evening and just said to me, “How about we go buy a PlayStation?”. I still have some trouble believing it.
And let’s not forget sports games. Football games with actual 3D graphics on your TV, when a minute before the best you could get was isometric FIFA on consoles and 2D overhead games like Sensible Soccer and Kick Off on PC, sold more PlayStations than anyone could have predicted.

Mass appeal of console games (and, therefore, video games in general) was the result of a graphical leap. This is not questionable. The first fully-3D gen effectively doubled the userbase of consoles, and started the process that ultimately merged console and PC games.
The Wii tapped into an audience that wouldn’t play games before, and that in no small part never did again since.

 

[Black_Stride]

Funny you mention Elden Ring when it has some of the coolest visuals of the generation.
Didnt it get nominated multiple times for Visuals, Artistic Achievement and Art Direction?

I dont even like Soulsbourne games but watching the boss battle always has me in awe.
Artstyle, Animation and Art Direction go a long way in what I would consider "good Graphics".......there are so many UE5 demos which look fucking sterile but on a surface level the graphics are top tier, I dont consider those demos to be good looking "games".
Hell ive seen people "port" Nintendo assets to Unreal Engine and imo the demos look worse than the games they are aping because the "dev" didnt understand art direction.

Elden Ring is a beautiful game in motion.

 

[RodriGames40]

GTA V was the best looking game at its time of release, no cap. Not a good example for the initial OP claims.

 

[Jinzo Prime]

Casuals will always care abut graphics.

Pacific Drive might be an amazing game but my friends will not touch it ever. You still need graphics to stand out of the crowd.

People really don't care about graphics, as long as they can play around with their friends, or share scores, or compete. Monopoly Go is a billion dollar game and it looks like this:

 

[Lucifers Beard]

I think the hardware needs to catch up with path tracing and other hardware intensive processing. Budgets are also out of control when it comes to game development and I imagine a lot of it is down to pushing graphics.

I want a good game over anything else.

 

[proandrad]

Most gamers just want a game that looks good enough and that runs/plays well.The only people that care about cutting edge graphics are a niche small group of gamers, marketing team, and the creative game director who isn’t going to be spending their time trying to optimize whatever cutting edge trash they add to the game.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Not really, to be honest. Like they care about graphical quality but not necessarily the hyper realism you might associate as a selling point for next gen. We're already at the point where game assets are as determinative of graphical quality as the tech itself.

We might even be getting into uncanny valley territory. My wife walked in on me playing Cyberpunk the other day, with all the path tracing and stuff on and she grimaced and went "Ack, that's TOO realistic, it makes me uncomfortable."

 

[Soapbox Killer]

Mario Kart 8 sold 75 million copies. It's not an ugly game by any means but like these are not PIXAR level visuals.



I don't even care about graphical evolution anymore, it the reason the Switch2/GTA6 argument is so compelling to me.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

High end graphics sell games to uneducated people.

They often get in the way of the compelling game design that people prefer,

 

[SolidQ]

Mostly gamers don't care about graphic. Looking at twitch there a lot people playing indie/old school games, even with 4090 streamers disable RT etc
Art > tech Graphic

 

[Fbh]

Graphics? not really. But I'd argue "production values" still help.
For example I think one thing that helped Baldur's Gate 3 attain more mainstream popularity compared to previous Larian games was the fact it had more traditional cutscenes, and dialogue played out from a closer third person perspective with fully animated characters. It was a considerable step up in production values compared to the original sin games where story sequences just have a text box apper but they still play out from the same isometric perspective and with more basic animations.

 

[Pegasus Actual]

god forbid people have different preferences.....

 

[Walter Matthau]

I think the mass market cares more about how enjoyable a game is to play than how cutting edge the graphics are.

 

[lakitu1982]

How about sticking with PS5?

Could they get the price down so that in say 2034 you can but a console capable of running PS5 games for £299, and evenually even lower?

easily.

 

[A.Romero]

I think it does matter.

5 out of 10 best sold games in 2024 are sports titles, 2 of them are Call of duty titles. Do I think people would buy a Madden or FC title looking like they were 12 years ago? I don't think so.

Different games have different selling points. Switch games are not big lookers (at least not technically) but we all know they sell pretty well but their selling point is gameplay, art direction, portability and the fact they are well known brands. However, would you think something like Last of Us would have the success it had without cutting edge graphics? What about Red Dead Redemption 2? Or even GTAV when it came out?

There is space for different approaches and the high end graphics one still has people interested on it. It doesn't mean they have to be the only games in the market or other games have no pull, it's just that they belong to a different space.

 

[LavitzSlambert]

They definitely do, it's a reason to upgrade from the console they already own. If there was no graphical difference between PS4 and PS5, many would just keep rolling with last gen. That said, it's a lot less of a big deal than the past. What's funny is the hardcore gaming community has gone from "graphics don't matter" to chasing marginal performance gains in a never-ending spec war.

 

[SportsFan581]

For me, PS4/X1 graphics are perfectly fine. I'll still applaud the advances, but it's not a deal-breaker. You'd need to be more specific what buyers you are talking about. AAA buyers, mobile game buyers, etc.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

duh

look at the horizon games
buying it for the gameplay they aint

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

GTA V was the best looking game at its time of release, no cap. Not a good example for the initial OP claims.

Yep, but GTAV has also kept selling ridiculous numbers long after it ceased being a showcase of cutting-edge graphics.
GTAV going on to feature in sales charts long after better-looking games have come and gone ultimately proves that its graphics don’t matter anymore, and haven’t mattered for a long time.

GTA games on the PS2 kinda looked quite like shit too, yet San Andreas should be the best-selling PS2 game if memory serves me right.