Support NeoGAF

[Sad Affleck]

You think all 40 million of those views for that spiderman demo were people who refer to themselves as hardcore gamers? Lmfao

40 million views do not correspond to 40 million individuals, yes?

 

[Crossing Eden]

40 million views do not correspond to 40 million individuals, yes?

Dude, even considering that not all 40 million are unique views, it's the fact that yes, e3 is absolutely viewed by casual audiences too. We're not talking about GDC here.

 

[Sad Affleck]

Dude, even considering that not all 40 million are unique views, it's the fact that yes, e3 is absolutely viewed by casual audiences too. We're not talking about GDC here.

OK, what is your estimate for the size of the core console audience?

 

[Okami Haundo]

Graphics is super vague. Style is not. Cuphead may be the best looking game I've ever seen but you could argue that it's all animation and doesn't have any graphics.

No....you genuinely couldn't argue this....at all.

What the fuck is happening in this thread?...


Anyway, I think OP is wrong and that "gamers" as a whole do expect "better" graphics over time. Activision/EA wouldn't bother making prettier games if they didn't. It's literally the easiest way to give the impression of a game being "new and improved".

 

[Roshin]

Graphics is super vague. Style is not. Cuphead may be the best looking game I've ever seen but you could argue that it's all animation and doesn't have any graphics.

What is this nonsense?

 

[Sad Affleck]

What is this nonsense?

I believe he is making the distinction between realistic 3D graphics and stylistic 2D graphics.

 

[hank_tree]

OP clearly doesn’t remember the shitstorm when Halo 3 was revealed.

 

[vg260]

Look at Marvel Vs. Capcom: Infinite.

Capcom decided to do the sequel on a budget, and it's obvious the visuals suffered as a result. Despite the superb gameplay, the game has been universally panned for its dated visuals and presentation. The talk of the graphics has overshadowed every other aspect of the game. The sales were pretty bad in the end.

I don't think that's a good example. MvCI's visuals are fine technically. You can see the technical jump from MvC3 in terms of lighting, detail, and textures. It's an artstyle, modeling, and presentation failure.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

I think people do want constantly improving graphics. If the companies unveiled their next systems, and they mainly did under the hood improvements(IE Processor) changes, and the games looked more or less the same as an Uncharted or Horizon, people would think 'Why should I buy this when it doesn't look better than my PS4?'.

People absolutely want better graphics in their next big console purchase.

 

[Blobbers]

Do you read any switch thread outside of portability the number one thing people hype about it is the graphics for a handheld.




If graphics really didn't matter why stop at 1080p 60fps? Why not make all games look 3DS bad.

Also why are we trying to narrow down why things sell. Each game has it's own merits. Let each developer pursue what they want and let consumers decide. Some games with bad graphics sell well and some don't and the same with games with good graphics.

That would be too big of a downgrade. Way below the what I feel would be an acceptable level in 2020. I personally wouldn't mind a few 3DS games upscaled to 1080p, like SMT IV or Pokemon or Kingdom Hearts DDD (moot point now that we have the PS4 collection).
Looking at the 3DS screen for a prolonged time also makes my eyes hurt, as well as playing console FPS games with very narrow FOV. If there was an elegant standard where every game has to comfortably run at 60FPS and also TPS and FPS games have to have FOV sliders up to 95 and mandatory other options like head bob, blur, DOF that make some people sick, I think that would make for a pretty good gen.

Anyway, it doesn't have to be what I'm suggesting, as long as we change the console standard from "best-looking games on the most powerful hardware" to something else. Maybe something more gameplay/gamer comfort oriented

 

[anothertech]

It's judging the book by it's cover.

And yes, it's a thing that people do so it literally affects sales..

 

[ZugZug123]

I like good art design - you don't need super high end graphics for something to look good, cohesive and clear.

An example would be Hyper Light Drifter. It's pixelated but looks amazing and somehow fitting to the kind of game it is. I do not see better graphics fidelity improving on anything in that game.

Overwatch is another one, everything looks super good but it's not a graphics powerhouse and system requirements are reasonable. If anything the cartoonish clean look helps make the game look less cluttered and confusing during game play. And OW is a commercial success too.

 

[RedZaraki]

16-bit and 32-bit era spritework are the GOAT.

I would gladly buy more games of that level of fidelity.

 

[oti]

These last few weeks really feel like a huge portion of GAF trying (or rather struggling) to come to terms with the market reality.

 

[Hero]

Also, OP got called out by Daniel Ahmad hard on Twitter. Talk about backfire.

https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/920671105362341888

It's funny how everyone thinks their views are clearly the majority views. That's how the whole "moral majority" nonsense started.



As many people have pointed out already in this thread, there's plenty of evidence that purchasing trends show a clear advantage in having novel visual spectacle. That's hard, measurable fact. Why that is, exactly, is open to interpretation but there's almost certainly an aspect of being able to engage a potential audience with advertising that grabs attention quickly.

Have you ever seen an ad that tries to explain subtle gameplay mechanics and balance? I'm not sure it can be done. The trick is drawing an initial audience and giving them something to talk about so they spread positive word of mouth and that's where gameplay has a much bigger opportunity to play a role. Graphics are the hook, but to reel in more than the first week's sales you need something more.

What does visual spectacle mean? No where did I state that you can have terrible graphics, art, or assets and expect a game to sell, but when some of the biggest games in the past 10 years didn't even come close to pushing the bar (Wii Sports, Minecraft, Angry Birds, Pokemon Go, Candy Crush, etc) I don't buy at all that the arms race to super high fidelity realistic graphics was the way for the industry to go.

 

[Crossing Eden]

OK, what is your estimate for the size of the core console audience?

More people play games than ever before in the history of the medium.

What the fuck is happening in this thread?...

People apparently don't know what graphics mean. Anyone who would genuinely try to argue that Cuphead "doesn't have graphics" would have no place in a graphics discussion.

I like good art design - you don't need super high end graphics for something to look good, cohesive and clear.

An example would be Hyper Light Drifter. It's pixelated but looks amazing and somehow fitting to the kind of game it is. I do not see better graphics fidelity improving on anything in that game.

Overwatch is another one, everything looks super good but it's not a graphics powerhouse and system requirements are reasonable. If anything the cartoonish clean look helps make the game look less cluttered and confusing during game play. And OW is a commercial success too.

High end graphics in a full game and even in test renders are the result of good art design.

These last few weeks really feel like a huge portion of GAF trying (or rather struggling) to come to terms with the market reality.

Truth.

 

[Tawney Bomb]

I don’t need or want cutting edge graphics in my games. I’d rather have something fun to play that looks nice over something that looks photo realistic and isn’t great. But I can only speak for myself.

 

[Alebrije]

I demand better graphics if they help improve art style, but demand more better A.I. since is more important than graphics.

 

[jryeje29]

They come for the graphics and stay for he gameplay. I know a bunch of people who won’t play any indie games because of the way they look or will judge a games graphics but when they try it end up liking it.

 

[lingpanda]

Whenever a discussion about the rising costs of games development comes up, one of the most frequent arguments is that gamers put pressure on publishers and developers for cutting-edge graphics and ever-expanding scope. It's been said so many times that most people probably assume it to be true but I disagree. I believe it's a total myth.

First, I don't really understand who these 'gamers that demand top graphics' are. Are we talking about mainstream console gamers? Because I highly doubt that the average joe gives a crap about 4K, high-quality assets and solid framerates. Is it the hardcore console gamers then, the people who might frequent sites such as NeoGAF? But we've been told many times and in no uncertain terms that these people are only a quite vocal but very small minority that is not able to influence the industry's direction. PC gamers maybe? The most popular gamers on that platform can be played on a toaster.

What is then that mysterious gamer group that demands awesome graphics and pushes so hard that the entire industry has to bend to its will to the point that it makes the current games development model unsustainable without lootboxes? What is the make up of that group? Who are they? I believe they don't exist. I believe that the myth about gamers pushing publishers towards bigger, more impressive and more expensive games needs to be dispelled.

In my opinion the only ones constantly pushing for bigger sequels with better graphics and increased scope are the publishers themselves. Their business model is so reliant on creating and milking big franchises through GaaS or constant sequels that they have to find something to show the average gamer and say "this is why you should buy this. It has better graphics! It is open world! It has celebrity voice overs!".

I don't think gamers demand any of that. Publishers are choosing to go down that road because they don't want to be constantly creating new IP, they prefer the safety of a sequel to an already established series. So when they can't come up with compelling reasons for creating an otherwise unnecessary sequel, "better graphics" is the easiest selling point.

TL;DR The problem of ballooning AAA budgets due to the constant chase for better graphics and increased scope if self inflicted. Publishers aren't forced into that model, they chose it because many times it's the only way of enticing you to pay yet another $60 for an unnecessary sequel.

I think your question has begun being answered with the release of the PS4 Pro and Xbox X. The sales of these devices while the "regular" model is still being sold, will decide this. If people prefer the powerful console, we will know the direction the industry will take.

 

[MrMephistoX]

Whenever a discussion about the rising costs of games development comes up, one of the most frequent arguments is that gamers put pressure on publishers and developers for cutting-edge graphics and ever-expanding scope. It's been said so many times that most people probably assume it to be true but I disagree. I believe it's a total myth.

First, I don't really understand who these 'gamers that demand top graphics' are. Are we talking about mainstream console gamers? Because I highly doubt that the average joe gives a crap about 4K, high-quality assets and solid framerates. Is it the hardcore console gamers then, the people who might frequent sites such as NeoGAF? But we've been told many times and in no uncertain terms that these people are only a quite vocal but very small minority that is not able to influence the industry's direction. PC gamers maybe? The most popular gamers on that platform can be played on a toaster.

What is then that mysterious gamer group that demands awesome graphics and pushes so hard that the entire industry has to bend to its will to the point that it makes the current games development model unsustainable without lootboxes? What is the make up of that group? Who are they? I believe they don't exist. I believe that the myth about gamers pushing publishers towards bigger, more impressive and more expensive games needs to be dispelled.

In my opinion the only ones constantly pushing for bigger sequels with better graphics and increased scope are the publishers themselves. Their business model is so reliant on creating and milking big franchises through GaaS or constant sequels that they have to find something to show the average gamer and say "this is why you should buy this. It has better graphics! It is open world! It has celebrity voice overs!".

I don't think gamers demand any of that. Publishers are choosing to go down that road because they don't want to be constantly creating new IP, they prefer the safety of a sequel to an already established series. So when they can't come up with compelling reasons for creating an otherwise unnecessary sequel, "better graphics" is the easiest selling point.

TL;DR The problem of ballooning AAA budgets due to the constant chase for better graphics and increased scope if self inflicted. Publishers aren't forced into that model, they chose it because many times it's the only way of enticing you to pay yet another $60 for an unnecessary sequel.

Honestly at this point in HD and hitting 60fps I don't think it matters as much as a resolution bump to match current gen TV tech. Games look good and unless next gen literally looks like CGI I don't think it matters as much especially with the Indy scene. I'd rather have a full featured high res game like Breath of the Wild than something super narrow in scope that looks amazing like The Order. In general I'd prefer more interactivity like say a Skyrim with the same level of graphics but the true climb and glide anywhere gameplay of Zelda at a consistent framerate.

 

[TaterTots]

I still enjoy games like TF2 way more than newer titles fancied up. However, shiny things will always be enticing.

 

[m29a]

The average joes (obviously the mass people buying AAA games) care about graphics over anything else. It's the most marketable thing about a game. Trailers show off it off best, and that's what people see and decide to buy the game or not.

 

[NeonBlack]

I don't believe that casuals watch E3 trailers.

It's trailers of upcoming games that usually have no other means of advertisement yet. Why wouldn't casuals look at the YouTube video?

 

[dlauv]

You kind of want to be dazzled by 500 dollar hardware, don't you?

Also, if you have two games in the same genre of comparable quality, why wouldn't you get the one with better graphics?

 

[Tyraniboah]

On gaf it’s gameplay > graphics. But in reality it’s graphics > gameplay.

This right here. Thread is just another example of the bubble around this board lol. The average joe that plays a lot of COD, Battlefield, Madden, NBA, etc cares a ton about graphics. Anecdotally, I'm the only one of my friends that plays the large variety of games that I do so I get to hear their views on what beings them to a game in the first place. My job also puts me in the homes of people regularly. The average person wants better graphics. Good graphics are what beings them to try new games they otherwise wouldn't have too. Hell, I know a guy that refused to play Wind Waker because it looked like a cartoon. Skipped Skyward Sword and presumably Breath of the Wild because they don't chase photorealism.

 

[Axass]

I'll just quote myself:

Publishers these days are just constantly trying to one up themselves, with bigger (empty) worlds, more "content", flashier graphics (that go stale after a few years because the art is weak), and pervasive online infrastructures (that close off access to parts of the games when servers inevitably go down).

That, oft meanigless, fluff needs hundreds if not thousands of (paid) employees to produce, market and ship. No wonder they're risk averse, have unreasonable sales expectations, they kill off studios after one faux pas and they keep adding stupid, costly crap in full priced games.

The best part is that they've cornered themselves during the years, by feeding the gamers' mentality with the constant need of better graphics and bigger worlds in order to sell their games. They've done this to themselves and now they wonder why 4 million copies isn't enough. Meanwhile Nintendo, indies and level-headed mid-tier developers are quietly making their profit.

The consumer blaming, especially by consumer themselves, is revolting given the circumstances.

So, yeah, western game marketing has pretty much brainwashed the consumer about the need of more and more graphical prowess. Now they're reaping what they were sowing, because 4 millions is somehow not an acceptable sales amount to make profit on a game, they have to sell the next iteration with "better graphics" (featuring a thousand glitches) and perpetuate the insane cycle that will eventually bring the industry to its knees.

I wonder if there's any other industry on earth with as much armchair business advice as the video game industry. YouTubers and people on message boards all seem to be way smarter managers than those working for those giant companies.

You'd be surprised by how many incompetent people have very high profile jobs. Ever heard of "Peter principle"?

The Peter principle is a concept in management theory formulated by educator Laurence J. Peter and published in 1969. It states that the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence".

I've worked in a public institution and can absolutely relate to what the principle asserts. There's plenty of employees, directors, managers, analysts and presidents who don't deserve their job and suck at it.

 

[KillLaCam]

Casuals probably do want them

 

[RowdyReverb]

People are still seeking the exhilarating feeling of jumping from 2D to 3D or from SD to HD, but it’s just nowhere to be found, at least until VR/AR become more casual experiences

 

[Axass]

This right here. Thread is just another example of the bubble around this board lol. The average joe that plays a lot of COD, Battlefield, Madden, NBA, etc cares a ton about graphics. Anecdotally, I'm the only one of my friends that plays the large variety of games that I do so I get to hear their views on what beings them to a game in the first place. My job also puts me in the homes of people regularly. The average person wants better graphics. Good graphics are what beings them to try new games they otherwise wouldn't have too. Hell, I know a guy that refused to play Wind Waker because it looked like a cartoon. Skipped Skyward Sword and presumably Breath of the Wild because they don't chase photorealism.

I mean, all those games sold quite well, or at least decently, so I fail to see your point. Of course there will be individuals put off by some artstyles, they're not the majority though, or Nintendo games wouldn't sell gangbusters.

Also, I'd like to remind you all that there hasn't been a single generation so far where the most advanced console had the biggest number of units sold (pending the current one). So... maybe graphics aren't that sought after. What about the Wii? Casuals suddenly didn't care about graphics? Maybe it's just that casuals are told what's trendy and great by the media and by the marketing, and they just adhere to that. At the time it was motion controls.

Ever since the new generation started, the hype machine of the industry has been pumping out statement after statement asserting the importance of 1080p first and now 4k resolutions, photorealistic graphics, HDR, 60fps, etc. They need to do that in order to sell the next hottest thing, see PS4 Pro and X-Box One X. Consumers are bombarded by a clear message and most of them capitulate under the pressure, thinking that they're doing the right thing because they're supported in their choice by the oppressing marketing surrounding AAA games. "Of course this game needs to cost more and have DLC + microtransactions + season passes + loot boxes, or else how could my favourite companies keep pumping out sequel after sequel always with slightly improved graphics!", "they're totally justified, in fact I'll double dip to help them out!", "poor guys, they need to broaden those profit margins after all, how are they gonna eat?".

 

[Sad Affleck]

I'm not sure I buy that casuals want the best graphics. Most games that top the charts aren't really graphical powerhouses, are they?

 

[staticneuron]

This right here. Thread is just another example of the bubble around this board lol. The average joe that plays a lot of COD, Battlefield, Madden, NBA, etc cares a ton about graphics. Anecdotally, I'm the only one of my friends that plays the large variety of games that I do so I get to hear their views on what beings them to a game in the first place. My job also puts me in the homes of people regularly. The average person wants better graphics. Good graphics are what beings them to try new games they otherwise wouldn't have too. Hell, I know a guy that refused to play Wind Waker because it looked like a cartoon. Skipped Skyward Sword and presumably Breath of the Wild because they don't chase photorealism.

Indeed. Hence the leaps in power every gen skewed towards graphics. The hubub about XB One's res versus PS4 and the current PS4 Pro versus One X. Most casuals buy games day one, they buy them because the games look appealing to them and for gamers that do not follow intently, it is the graphics that sell them.

Personally I prefer games with good graphics, gameplay and story, because there is nothing in the rulebook of life that states you only have to favor one element of a game.

I mean, all those games sold quite well, or at least decently, so I fail to see your point. Of course there will be individuals put off by some artstyles, they're not the majority though, or Nintendo games wouldn't sell gangbusters.

Also, I'd like to remind you all that there hasn't been a single generation so far where the most advanced console had the biggest number of units sold (pending the current one). So... maybe graphics aren't that sought after. What about the Wii? Casuals suddenly didn't care about graphics? Maybe it's just that casuals are told what's trendy and great by the media and by the marketing, and they just adhere to that. At the time it was motion controls.

Ever since the new generation started, the hype machine of the industry has been pumping out statement after statement asserting the importance of 1080p first and now 4k resolutions, photorealistic graphics, HDR, 60fps, etc. They need to do that in order to sell the next hottest thing, see PS4 Pro and X-Box One X. Consumers are bombarded by a clear message and most of them capitulate under the pressure, thinking that they're doing the right thing because they're supported in their choice by the oppressing marketing surrounding AAA games. "Of course this game needs to cost more and have DLC + microtransactions + season passes + loot boxes, or else how could my favourite companies keep pumping out sequel after sequel always with slightly improved graphics!", "they're totally justified, in fact I'll double dip to help them out!", "poor guys, they need to broaden those profit margins after all, how are they gonna eat?".

Resisting urge to avatar quote you. The sales of the consoles aren't determined on graphical capability alone, timing, price, library, specific features all play a factor, but normally within a consoles library, the best sellers also more often than not (because nintendo fans are a unique bunch), have the best graphics. Top selling titles for each platform paint a different story entirely and that plays into why these pubs make the games this way, because most of the AAA attempts aren't made for nintendo consoles, but for the other, generally more powerful console bretherin. The results are the sales and that is why they continue to chase that target.

 

[Sad Affleck]

This right here. Thread is just another example of the bubble around this board lol. The average joe that plays a lot of COD, Battlefield, Madden, NBA, etc cares a ton about graphics.

Don't you see the common element between all these games? They are all pointless annual sequels. They have nothing else to sell you BUT graphics. That's why they are the focal point.

 

[Sulik2]

Most of the mainstream cares a lot about graphics. If you only buy Madden and COD every year I see a lot of those types of gamers not even liking sci fi, they want realistic modern 3D graphics. I think this is changing though. The generation that is growing up on Minecraft and mobile games care far less about graphics then I did when I was in my early teens building my first gaming computers.

 

[nuclearaddict]

I care to some extent about art style and visuals since I have to stare at a game for hours, but it's not something where I need the most cutting edge graphics. Some of my favorite games of all time had "dated" graphics at the time of their release.

I'll usually put a handful of hours into a killer looking game with average gameplay, compared to the hundred hours I'll put into something like Stardew Valley and Rollercoaster Tycoon 2.

 

[SapientWolf]

I'll gladly take 30FPS and prettier graphics over 60 FPS anytime.

60fps is pretty graphics. It's so smooth and silky. 4k@60fps is like having an eyegasm.

I don't think Joe Consumer cares but the hardcore obviously does. Otherwise, high end hardware wouldn't have a market.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

Graphics are the cinematography of a game. It's not just how pretty it looks, but how effectively it conveys information through visuals.

 

[Axass]

Resisting urge to avatar quote you. The sales of the consoles aren't determined on graphical capability alone, timing, price, library, specific features all play a factor, but normally within a consoles library, the best sellers also more often than not (because nintendo fans are a unique bunch), have the best graphics. Top selling titles for each platform paint a different story entirely and that plays into why these pubs make the games this way, because most of the AAA attempts aren't made for nintendo consoles, but for the other, generally more powerful console bretherin. The results are the sales and that is why they continue to chase that target.

I mean, go ahead, you'd just be proving that you can't go beyond appearances. Out the last 63 games I finished there were only 6 Nintendo games.

 

[Gaogaogao]

we would prefer more video games over fewer games
art direction can do wonders for graphics.

 

[Polygonal_Sprite]

The whole industry is built around console generations. Consumers have been conditioned to view visuals leaps as the major reason to upgrade their console every 5-7 years. The Wii was obviously a massive exception as is the Switch by the looks of it's early success.

 

[pixelation]

I demand constantly improving graphics and IQ, so count me in. I'm one of the weird ones.

 

[Shadax the wizard]

Well I wouldn’t want graphics to stay stagnant. I’m really happy with graphics this generation though.

 

[Rockandrollclown]

I wouldn't say "demand". It certainly is nice though. Performance > graphics all day long though.

 

[Wink]

I think it once was true in the days of blocky 3D graphics, every step that made a game easier on the eyes and more believable was welcomed by gamers and necessary to get over the first couple hurdles for suspension of disbelieve. But nowadays devs have so many tools to impress visually that it doesn't really matter if your game pushes the latest graphics tech. Look at the reception of The Order 1886.

It's no longer enough to impress by looking good, you also have to look and feel fun and that you can achieve by other means than just pure graphical power. Nintendo has proven the same over and over again. Indie smash hits and mods that turn mainstream have proven it.
All people want are fun games with graphics that serve the gameplay and do the setting justice. Red Dead 2 benefits from having incredibly detailed nature vistas and Fortnite benefits from having visual clarity. It all depends what your game represents.

 

[LegitMcfalls]

A few points on this:

-Sony absolutley is pushing graphics on consoles to get better each year. Playstations job isnt just to release great games each year but to also push TV sales and encourage you to buy a new 4k tv (which they hope is a sony brand tv). Xbox doesnt have a horse in the tv race but does not want to feel graphically inferior so they try to match (or in the case of the One X, succeed) the graphic power of the playstation.

-Now speaking as a enthusiast, we are always wanting more from our games like "Game X was great, i hope in the sequel we get more charcters", or "the open world was great but they need to fix the combat system". We are never satisfied and that comes to graphics too. If Horizon ZD 2 comes out with the same graphics and assets next year but with a new story, alot of people will be upset claiming its just Horizon 1.5 or devs are lazy and just want to make a quick buck. We always want new and improved, never the status quo.

 

[Dictator93]

I honestly see it as a two fold problem, yeah "gamers" in general like it when things get prettier: assets, textures, materials, lighting models what have you.

But there are development practices for reducing production time on those things... the question is how many of theseassets you are really making. Large diverse open world games (all the rage), with tons of customisation in the visual department... seem to exacerbate this.

I do not think it is on the graphics race alone, rather the scope AAA games seem to be going for and the amount and diversity of assets they seem to necessitate.

 

[Sad Affleck]

-Now speaking as a enthusiast, we are always wanting more from our games like "Game X was great, i hope in the sequel we get more charcters", or "the open world was great but they need to fix the combat system". We are never satisfied and that comes to graphics too. If Horizon ZD 2 comes out with the same graphics and assets next year but with a new story, alot of people will be upset claiming its just Horizon 1.5 or devs are lazy and just want to make a quick buck. We always want new and improved, never the status quo.

I only have one objection. If Horizon ZD 2 came out with the same graphical quality and scope but with improved gameplay, a new world to explore and a new story, I don't think anyone would complain.

 

[Huge Succeeded]

Yeah, the title quote is a myth, but it was so close to being the truth. you see, the title is missing the word 'Console' heading it up.

 

[petran79]

I don't know, I feel like the industry has always been driven by graphics. 8-Bit to 16-Bit. 2D to 3D. Polygonal 3D to Smoother 3D. SD to HD. I think we'll always be chasing better graphics, and that will always be a selling point that puts one game over another.

I'm not too worried about it though. I think with direct-capture techniques like photogrammetry and face capture the effort required in making a graphically impressive game will reach an equilibrium.

Computers and consoles had parity in the 80s. But in the 90s when first SVGA monitors appeared, computer game graphics took huge strides,even over arcades. Especially genres like strategy and fps that supported resolutions up to 1600x1200. Consoles caught up almost 15 years later.

 

[Sir Doom]

http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=235226695&postcount=24

http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=235227466&postcount=31


It's not a myth OP.

OP pivots to fit his narrative