You can select the text that’s over that background to make reading easier. Most of the article is below it, so you should be fine after a couple taps of Page Down.
Or use Firefox reader view, which cleans it right up. :)
The big problem for these AAA studios is that this is their unique selling point. Hyper-realistic graphics and sprawling game worlds. If they stop doing these, they’re hardly different to the games from five years ago (which you can still buy and cheaply at that). And they’re hardly different from indie titles. They would enter quite the competitive market.
I do agree that we’re at somewhat of a breaking point. The production costs grow to absurd levels. The graphical advances are marginal. And not many gamers can afford the newest hardware to play these titles. But I don’t think, there’s an easy exit strategy for these AAA studios…
Yeah, that frustrates me a lot, too. They almost had it right, that they need to go beyond realism to make truly good-looking games. But in practice, they say that only to show you the most boring-ass graphics known to humanity. I don’t need your pebbles to cast shadows. I can walk outside and find a pebble that casts shadows in a minute tops. Make the pebbles cast light instead, that could look cool. Or make them cast a basketball game. That’s at least something, I haven’t seen yet.
I like the way you think. The logic of video games and what they display don’t have to be limited by anything in the real world. They can invent entirely new forms of perception even (like that Devil Daggers sequel that lets you see behind yourself using colour overlays).
You know the budget is spent almost entirely on the art when you actually pay attention to the credits and you see names for like 250 artists, but only 3-5 programmers.
And I don‘t think games have to look that good either… I‘m currently playing MGSV and that game‘s 8 years old, runs at 60 fps on the Deck, and looks amazing. It feels like hundreds of millions are being burned on deminishing returns nowadays…
It’s bullshit accounting, they’re not spending it on the devs or the games, they’re spending it on advertising and the c levels Paydays. There are a ton of really good looking games, that had what would be considered shoestring budgets, but these companies bitching about it aren’t actually in it for the games anymore, its just for the money.
36mil for KC:D one of the prettiest games of the time…which includes marketing.
The cost of some of these “AAAA” titles is a complete joke.
Another one, before THQ took over, metro 2033, 10-20 million estimate, and while it’s aged a bit, when it first was released it had a good bit of eye candy for a horror game.
Another one would be the first stalker, it’s not what we would consider it today, visual candy, but it’s also over a decade old now, but it was a pretty game when it came out. Cost 5mil to make
Another one:
Crysis 22mil, and if you remember it was one of the benchmarks for the longest times…can it run crysis.
Alright, not like for like exactly, and at 34M, we’re stretching the definition of shoestring. I’ll bet KC:D’s sequel spent far more, for one. I’m with you that more of these studios ought to be aiming for reasonable fidelity in a game that can be made cheaply, but when each of those studios took more than 5 years to build their sequels, that becomes more and more unlikely.
34 mil is nothing when you start looking at the cost of some of these other games, even Skyrim was over 100 million. Like GTA5, with marketing, was like 250 million. Just insanely expensive, and I guarantee you the devs are not pulling in a mil or two a year.
It’s true, and I’d certainly like to see some of these studios try to target making many games at that budget than a single game at ten times that every 7 or 8 years, but even these “cheaper” games you listed still take a long time to make, and I think that’s the problem to be solved. Games came out at a really rapid clip 20-25 years ago, where you’d often get 3 games in a series 3 years in a row. We can argue about the relative quality of those games compared to what people make now and how much crunch was involved, but if the typical game is taking more than 3 years to make, that still says to me that maybe their ambitions got out of hand. The time involved in making a game is what balloons a lot of these budgets, and whereas you could sell 3 full-priced games 3 years in a row back in the day, now you’re selling 1 every 6 years, and you need to sell way, way more of them to make the math work out.
Games had a lot less in them as well though, but even then games still took time. OoT, one of the biggest RPGs, released in 98, two 1/2 years of dev time. Games still required time, maybe less, but they also had less in them.
I’d make that trade, easily. More often I find games these days are too long to their own detriment than that they felt like they ought to be that long. Your mileage may vary on a game by game basis, but in general, that’s how it’s been lately.
When I say less, I mean as in assets and things to do. Side quests alone in a lot of games these days are damn near as many hours as the main story is.
Eh. I want hyper realistic graphics, but I also want a solid story and good gameplay mechanics. If hyper realistic graphics took a backseat to story and mechanics I’d be just as annoyed as a focus on hyper realistic graphics over story and mechanics.
Edit: Generally speaking, of course. There’s quite a few modern games with non-realistic graphics I enjoy, but I’m always waiting for that next hyper realistic game to push the boundaries.
It's not that I don't like realistic graphics. But I'm not gonna pay 100 bucks per game + micro transactions and / or live service shenanigans to get it. Nowadays it's not even that hard to have good looking games, thanks to all the work that went into modern engines. Obviously cutting edge graphics still need talented artists who create all the textures and high poly models but at some point the graphical fidelity gained becomes minuscule, compared to the effort put into it (and the performance it eats, since this bleeds into the absurd GPU topic too).
There's also plenty of creative stylization options that can be explored that aren't your typical WoW cartoon look that everyone goes for nowadays. Hell, I still love pixel art games too and they're often considered to be on the bottom end of the graphical quality (which I'd heavily disagree with, but that's also another topic).
What gamers want are good games that don't feel like they get constantly milked or prioritize graphics over gameplay or story.
I agree 100%. I’d love a AAA game that uses the studio’s clout not for cutting edge graphics but a stellar, polished story and gameplay. The story doesn’t even need to be DEEP, just solid.
I always wonder how some big ass studio announcing a title that uses (high quality) 2D or 2.5D graphics would go. Like, pump it full of many hours of great gameplay and gut and / or heart wrenching story, with lovely & beautiful art, in 2025+. No online account requirements, no Denuvo, no micro or macro transactions, just a solid buy to play title that's a blast to get immersed in.
The problem is that suits would not dare to even try this, just like they don't dare to try anything else that's not your standard formula customer milking. And that's how you get the 20iest iteration of generic graphic bliss with hundreds or even thousands of bucks to spend on macro transactions and other pain the ass bullshit.
Innovation for the big companies is dead, which is why I focus so much on Indie studios and smaller developers now. At least there's still some honest passion behind those games.
I just played Dragon Age Veilguard, and I’m now playing Dragon Age Origins, which was released 15 years ago. The difference in graphics and animation are startling. And it has a big effect on my enjoyment of the game. Origins is considered by many to be the best in the series, and I can see that they poured a ton into story options and such. But it doesn’t feel nearly as good as playing Veilguard.
Amazing graphics might not make or break a game, but the minimum level of what’s acceptable is always rising. Couple that with higher resolutions and other hardware advances, and art budgets are going to keep going up.
Agreed; Veilguard has pretty okay graphics. Not great, but acceptable - the high mark for me is BG3. But moving back to the earlier entries, they may have had stories that felt more ‘real’ (e.g., the setting felt more internally consistent) and gave more options, but the graphics and gameplay haven’t aged well.
Similarly, Fallout: New Vegas hasn’t aged so well. It was a great game, but it looks pretty rough now, unless you load it down with hi-res mods.
I don’t demand photorealism, but I’d like better visuals than PS3-level graphics.
Having read the article I don’t see how the comment your replied to is out of context. It’s very in context, especially given the article literally points to highly successful indie games as examples of low fidelity games that are incredibly popular
I think you’re misunderstanding what people are saying. The author of the article is clearly trying to say that major video game studios should stop focusing on high fidelity games, making unrealistic statements about market demands (let’s be real, that’s not how people select what games to purchase. The art style is certainly a factor, I’ve not played games with art styles that don’t jive with me and I’ve certainly had gaming experiences elevated by brilliant artwork, but regardless of art direction, of the gameplay isn’t for me I’m not going to play it) and honestly it feels like the author was told to write an article to support the title rather than reporting on actual industry trends or providing real criticism ongoing industry trends. The entire argument the author is trying to make falls over when you consider any market segment other than the AAA developers
I think the worst part is the author even points to freaking Minecraft and Roblox, both were indie titles when they first launched, and also compared triple-A titles to a live service game and Epic’s tech-demo-turned-Roblox-clone.
Honestly it reads more like they set out to write an article supporting a given narrative and carefully tuned their evidence to fit that narrative.
How about some studios that aren’t hurting and don’t fit that narrative? SCS software which makes Euro Truck Simulator 2 and American Truck Simulator hasn’t released a new game since ATS’s launch in 2016 because their business model is to keep selling DLC to the same customers, and invest that money in continuing to refine the existing games. Urban Games has openly stated they exist solely to build the best modern Transport Tycoon game they can, releasing a new iteration every few years with significant game engine improvements each time. N3V Games was literally bought out by a community member of one of it’s earlier titles when it was facing bankruptcy and simply exists to refine the Trainz railroad simulator game. Or there’s the famous example of Bay12Games which released Dwarf Fortress (an entirely text mode game) as freeware and with the “agreement” that they’d continue development as long as donations continued rolling in
The answer isn’t a move to live service games as the author suggests, nor is it to stop developing high fidelity games but simply to make good games. Gaming is one of those rare “if you build it they will come” markets where there’s a practically infinite number of niches to fill and even making a new game in an existing niche can be extremely successful whether that be due to technical differences, design differences or just differences in gameplay. RimWorld, Dwarf Fortress and Banished all have very similar basic gameplay elements but all can exist without eating eachother’s market share because they’re all incredibly different games. Banished focuses more on city building, RimWorld focuses on story and your colonists ultimately escaping the godforsaken planet they’ve crashed on, and Dwarf Fortress is about building the best dwarf civilization you can before something ultimately causes it’s collapse (because losing is fun!)
GSC in my opinion ruined stalker 2 in the chase for “next gen” graphics. And modern graphics are now so dependent on upscaling and frame gen, sad to see but trailers sell.
Unpopular opinion but I preferer the graphics of a game were absolute trash but the ost be awesome. I can forget easyly how much individual hairs are in a 3d model, but good OST will live in my mind and heart forever.
The Wii was a fantastic example of this. Less capable hardware used in very imaginative ways, and had the capacity to bring older people into the games
This is why so many indie games are awesome. The graphics don’t need to be great when the soundtracks and gameplay more than make up for it. Those are what actually matter. I have most of Undertale’s OST committed to memory at this point lol
One way to understand the video game industry’s current crisis is by looking closely at Spider-Man’s spandex.
For decades, companies like Sony and Microsoft have bet that realistic graphics were the key to attracting bigger audiences. By investing in technology, they have elevated flat pixelated worlds into experiences that often feel like stepping into a movie.
Designers of last year’s Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 used the processing power of the PlayStation 5 so Peter Parker’s outfits would be rendered with realistic textures and skyscraper windows could reflect rays of sunlight.
That level of detail did not come cheap.
Insomniac Games, which is owned by Sony, spent about $300 million to develop Spider-Man 2, according to leaked documents, more than triple the budget of the first game in the series, which was released five years earlier. Chasing Hollywood realism requires Hollywood budgets, and even though Spider-Man 2 sold more than 11 million copies, several members of Insomniac lost their jobs when Sony announced 900 layoffs in February.
Cinematic games are getting so expensive and time-consuming to make that the video game industry has started to acknowledge that investing in graphics is providing diminished financial returns.
“It’s very clear that high-fidelity visuals are only moving the needle for a vocal class of gamers in their 40s and 50s,” said Jacob Navok, a former executive at Square Enix who left that studio, known for the Final Fantasy series, in 2016 to start his own media company. “But what does my 7-year-old son play? Minecraft. Roblox. Fortnite.”
Joost van Dreunen, a market analyst and professor at New York University, said it was clear what younger generations value in their video games: “Playing is an excuse for hanging out with other people.”
When millions are happy to play old games with outdated graphics — including Roblox (2006), Minecraft (2009) and Fortnite (2017) — it creates challenges for studios that make blockbuster single-player titles. The industry’s audience has slightly shrunk for the first time in decades. Studios are rapidly closing and sweeping layoffs have affected more than 20,000 employees in the past two years, including more than 2,500 Microsoft workers.
Many video game developers built their careers during an era that glorified graphical fidelity. They marveled at a scene from The Last of Us: Part II in which Ellie, the protagonist, removes a shirt over her head to reveal bruises and scrapes on her back without any technical glitches.
But a few years later, costly graphical upgrades are often barely noticeable.
When the studio Naughty Dog released a remastered version of The Last of Us: Part II this year, light bounced off lakes and puddles with a more realistic shimmer. In a November ad for the PlayStation 5 Pro, an enhanced version of the Sony console that retails for almost $700, the billboards in Spider-Man 2’s Manhattan featured crisper letters.
Optimizing cinematic games for a narrow group of consumers who have spent hundreds of dollars on a console or computer may no longer make financial sense. Studios are increasingly prioritizing games with basic graphics that can be played on the smartphones already in everyone’s pocket.
“They essentially run on toasters,” said Matthew Ball, an entrepreneur and video game analyst, talking about games like Roblox and League of Legends. “The developers aren’t chasing graphics but the social connections that players have built over time.” Going Hollywood
Developers had long taught players to equate realism with excellence, but this new toaster generation of gamers is upsetting industry orthodoxies. The developer behind Animal Well, which received extensive praise this year, said the game’s file size was smaller than many of the screenshots used to promote it.
A company like Nintendo was once the exception that proved the rule, telling its audiences over the past 40 years that graphics were not a priority.
That strategy had shown weaknesses through the 1990s and 2000s, when the Nintendo 64 and GameCube had weaker visuals and sold fewer copies than Sony consoles. But now the tables have turned. Industry figures joke about how a cartoony game like Luigi’s Mansion 3 on the Nintendo Switch considerably outsells gorgeous cinematic narratives on the PlayStation 5 like Final Fantasy VII Rebirth.
There are a number of theories why gamers have turned their backs on realism. One hypothesis is that players got tired of seeing the same artistic style in major releases. Others speculate that cinematic graphics require so much time and money to develop that gameplay suffers, leaving customers with a hollow experience.
Another theory is that major studios have spent recent years reshaping themselves in Hollywood’s image, pursuing crossover deals that have given audiences “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” and “The Last of Us” on HBO. Not only have companies like Ubisoft opened divisions to produce films, but their games include an astonishing amount of scenes where players watch the story unfold.
In 2007, the first Assassin’s Creed provided more than 2.5 hours of footage for a fan edit of the game’s narrative. As the series progressed, so did Ubisoft’s taste for cinema. Like many studios, it increasingly leaned on motion-capture animators who could create scenes using human actors on soundstages. A fan edit of Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla, which was released in 2020, lasted about 23 hours — longer than two seasons of “Game of Thrones.”
Gamers and journalists began talking about how the franchise’s entries had gotten too bloated and expensive. Ubisoft developers advertised last year’s Assassin’s Creed Mirage, which had about five hours of cut scenes, as “more intimate.”
The immersive graphics of virtual reality can also be prohibitive for gamers; the Meta Quest Pro sells for $1,000 and the Apple Vision Pro for $3,500. This year, the chief executive of Ubisoft, Yves Guillemot, told the company’s investors that because the virtual reality version of Assassin’s Creed did not meet sales expectations, the company was not increasing its investment in the technology. ImageA person plays a video game on a tablet. Live service games that are playable on mobile devices, like Genshin Impact, can generate large amounts of revenue. Credit…Ina Fassbender/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Many studios have instead turned to the live service model, where graphics are less important than a regular drip of new content that keeps players engaged. Genshin Impact, by the studio Hoyoverse, makes roughly $2 billion every year on mobile platforms alone, according to the data tracker Sensor Tower. Going Broke?
It was clear this year, however, that the live service strategy carries its own risks. Warner Bros. Discovery took a $200 million loss on Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, according to Bloomberg. Sony closed the studio behind Concord, its attempt to compete with team-based shooters like Overwatch and Apex Legends, one month after the game released to a minuscule player base.
“We have a market that has been in growth mode for decades,” Ball said. “Now we are in a mature market where instead of making bets on growth, companies need to try and steal shares from each other.”
Some industry professionals believe there is a path for superb-looking games to survive the cost crunch.
“I used to be a high-fidelity guy; I would log into games and if it didn’t look hyperrealistic, then it was not so interesting,” said David Reitman, a managing director at PricewaterhouseCoopers, where he leads the consulting firm’s games division. “There was a race to hyperrealism, and it’s tough to pivot away. You have set expectations.”
Reitman sees a future where most of the heavy costs associated with cutting-edge graphics are handled by artificial intelligence. He said that manufacturers were working on creating A.I. chips for consoles that would facilitate those changes, and that some game studios were already using smart algorithms to improve graphics further than anything previously seen.
He expects that sports games will be the first genre to see considerable improvements because developers have access to hundreds of hours of game footage. “They can take feeds from leagues and transpose them into graphical renderings,” Reitman said, “leveraging language models to generate the incremental movements and facial expressions of players.”
Some independent developers are less convinced. “The idea that there will be content from A.I. before we figure out how it works and where it will source data from is really hard,” said Rami Ismail, a game developer in the Netherlands.
Ismail is worried that major studios are in a tight spot where traditional games have become too expensive but live service games have become too risky. He pointed to recent games that had both jaw-dropping realism — Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora (individual pebbles of gravel cast shadows) and Senua’s Saga: Hellblade II (rays of sunlight flicker through the trees) — and lackluster sales.
He recalled a question that emerged early in the coronavirus pandemic and has become something of an unofficial motto in the video game industry.
In a lot of cases, I find I’ve already read the underlying content or skipped it with my reader and therefore can go right to the comments. But ymmv of course.
Maybe it’s just me, but I like the style it’s presented in, and I have major adblockers in service so I’m not sure how it’s a drug fueled hellscape. It basically becomes a normal NYT article after a half-page of scrolling. Not all their readers are familiar with these games, so the NYT is doing its diligence by trying to show what they’re talking about, so their readers have a frame of reference. (Remember the NYT is actually aimed at an investor class who owns a second house in the Hamptons and may not be gamers at all. Go look at their Lifestyle section sometime.)
I think it’s fine but I guess I’m in the minority, but also maybe it’s less worse for me because of uBlock/Pihole/Bypass Paywalls Clean.
Yeah I did read the article. That’s why I know what the article is about, and the fact that he’s complaining about graphical fidelity in games and not getting the profit benefit. clearly AAA studios aren’t actually having this issue because, like I said, the winner of the game awards this year was a cartoony game, so clearly they are well aware that graphics aren’t everything.
I’d say it’s less about imagination than gameplay. I’m reminded of old action figures. Some of them were articulated at the knees, elbows, feet, wrists, and head. Very posable, but you could see all the joints. Then you had the bigger and more detailed figures, but they were barely more than statues. Looked great but you couldn’t really do anything with them.
And then you had themed Lego sets. Only a vague passing resemblance to the IP, but your imagination is the limit on what you do with them.
I may be outsider but lower graphic level horror games actually work more for me, because imagination fills the gaps better than engine rendering plastic looking tentacles can
nytimes.com
Najstarsze