The success of AAA games is supported by their large-scale production and marketing efforts.
The success of AAA games is supported by their large-scale production and marketing efforts.
Usually not. Games from 8 to 10 years ago could match or even surpass them, using smarter techniques like ray tracing to speed things up. Instead of relying on those heavy methods, they often use simpler approaches that save time. Reflections, for instance, work much better with ray tracing without hurting performance, while GI and shadows can be adequate with traditional rasterization but still deliver solid results.
The issue lies in this fact—they even fall short there. Current AAA titles don't appear significantly more lifelike compared to BF4 or Days Gone, which were developed for the PS3/PS4 era. They rely on newer methods to seem realistic, yet they still underperform.
I understand I'm repeating points about visual quality, but the bigger concern is whether games truly need to appear more impressive than they already do. Recently, I've been enjoying titles from the 7th generation console era. For the most part, the visuals didn't feel like a missed opportunity. I played Borderlands 1 (original release, not the enhanced version) and found the graphics sufficient for immersion and learning the game mechanics. Updating it wouldn’t really change how much I enjoyed it. I also started playing Skyrim recently. Although it's been remastered, its visuals still rely on assets from around 2011, which work well enough to keep the experience engaging. The only games where I truly expect top-tier graphics are narrative-driven titles that depend heavily on realistic performance, such as The Last of Us and Red Dead Redemption. In those cases, high-quality lighting and detailed assets are essential for authenticity. For most other games outside that niche, I’m fine with visuals from around 2009.
For me there is a point where graphics are good enough. The Dark Souls games are one of my favourites of all time. And they don't really have very high quality assets. But their visuals are still amazing even to this day. And as long as it doesn't take away from the experience, older graphics won't make the game bad.
"good enough" was achieved in 2010. Sure, there is prettier stuff released after, but has anything released in as a remake in 2020 any better than it's original before 2010? Not really. To me Marvel Rivals looks pretty, but it doesn't look look prettier than Overwatch or Team Fortress 2. Visual fidelity pretty much peaked for 'cell shading' in 2010. Genshin Impact(2020) doesn't look any better than say, Persona 4 (2008). For "realism" there is no upper limit on 'realistic', but you have got to be joking if you want a cell shaded game to be raytraced (*cough*fortnite*cough*). That at worst makes the game perform worse, and at best makes it look worse because now instead of "cell shaded" shadows, you now have blurs?
It seems you're referring to optimizing gameplay at 25 frames per second. (4K/Max RT/no upscaling or FPS around 22:50)
I believe the main idea was that technology now allows many art styles to come alive, especially in stylized games where this happened sooner. For my perspective, I’d argue that recent improvements haven’t been substantial across most genres and categories. Of course, there’s still room for progress—some titles aim for photorealism or high-quality visuals like Pixar films. Those efforts have made significant strides. Additionally, certain developers excel at making the most of available tools despite constraints. Elden Ring is an example I can relate to; technically it looks quite basic by today’s standards. Still, even minor flaws like texture issues or lighting problems don’t stop it from feeling authentic once you get into the game. But performance remains poor on PC.
You had a different perspective on what "good enough" means. It could refer to realistic graphics like in real-life visuals or something more stylized such as Mario 64. Are you making a comparison between Genshin Impact and Persona 4? I’d suggest reviewing your expectations, but I get what you’re saying. The level of detail in Marvel Rivals seems superior to TF2, though optimization wasn’t perfect. It might depend on the game’s artistic direction.
A simple way to enhance a game's appearance is setting the ceiling low enough and staying within it. While high-resolution textures can improve visuals, they don't always translate into better quality if texture compression causes blurring. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ET...c973b23dac Text and interface components often suffer under compression, just like newer tech such as DLSS. Occasionally, older titles appear sharper because they were built with limitations in mind—developers had to rely on methods that worked for their era. Many games aimed for a cell-shaded anime style around 2010, and when ported to PC, they often seem outdated. For instance, Identity V offers minimal customization since it was meant for mobile, giving it a 720p PS2 feel. Dead By Daylight shares the same mechanics but feels equally dated after a PC release. Which game is more enjoyable? I'm not sure. Which looks better? It depends on personal taste. The environments differ greatly, but the biggest issue with IDV is the lack of detail in many areas. Even though you can see some elements up close, background scenes often disappear entirely. This was noticeable in Mass Effect 3—many zones had no textures at all. Comparing it to later releases like No Man's Sky or Starfield highlights how visuals shift with platform and release timing. For games designed for close-range play, such as FFXIV, distant backgrounds don't matter much, but near-field details do. The challenge lies in balancing detail with performance, especially when aiming for high resolutions.