High fidelity is damaging game experiences.
High fidelity is damaging game experiences.
High fidelity is ruining games. The last game I played that impressed with high fidelity was the original Crysis from 2007. After watching this video For a while now I've held the belief that the push graphics is destroying game. Video cards with heat sinks so heavy and bulky that it will tear itself apart unless braced properly, photo realistic looking games that only look 10% better than what they did 10 years ago, long load times limited physics, low frame rates. I am so sick of seeing these boring lifeless realistic games that I have been looking towards retro and indie games just to escape the homogenized mess. Here's a good video on the subject This was more of a rant, but years ago I used to look forward to the latest tech. Now I dread it. I'm going to go and play some Unreal Tournament. It's like Fortnight but good. I was inspired to make this post after watching Luke and Linus talk about DLSS and how the industry might be moving away from native res. If Nintendo can make games look good on a toaster than we really gotta stop with the excuses.
It seems the latest Pokémon release hasn't caught everyone's attention yet.
I agree with your perspective. The physics in Just Cause 2 remain remarkably impressive today, and late 2000s titles can appear stunning. Cyberpunk 2077, however, offers a storyline that feels at best mediocre, with its main selling point being its visual appeal.
The more believable a game appears, the more noticeable visual flaws become. Nintendo titles benefit from a playful art direction, allowing greater creative freedom. I still believe certain genres fit realism better, and aiming for higher quality there feels reasonable.
Games often appear significantly improved compared to a decade ago. It's unclear what you're viewing... Perhaps your equipment can't reach higher settings?
And did you find the gameplay impressive? Is it because Crysis remains a benchmark in game design 15 years later, rather than just a humorous reference? Even though you might agree that prioritizing graphics over functionality has often hurt games, most of your concerns seem unrelated to gameplay, visuals, or story. Remember, lasting impact comes from core qualities, not just flashy graphics.
Actually, Crysis 1 was quite enjoyable. I appreciated the expansive yet straightforward environments—it truly captured the essence of both worlds. The open areas and freedom of an open-world experience stood out, offering the best of both styles without the constraints of fetch quests or the rigid structure of a linear game. Moving forward, I believe my first post could have been stronger, but it's important to recognize that creating a game involves significant time and financial investment. Investing more in graphics often means less focus on gameplay mechanics. This is why most of the games I’m currently playing are indie shooters with retro visuals. The highly realistic features like Last of Us or the latest UE5 technologies from Activision don’t appeal to me. Technologies such as Nanite, Lumen, and ray tracing are unnecessary for my taste. Fear and Silent Hill delivered impressive lighting without relying on such advanced effects, as the artists simply painted it in.
Horror titles and sports games, such as racing titles, often benefit from a realistic aesthetic. We've moved beyond the necessity of cutting-edge tech to achieve that visual quality. Modern tools can generate photo-realistic images using older systems. Take Tomb Raider 2013—it still feels authentic in my view. I’d prefer the earlier 2008 versions for their better presentation.