Support NeoGAF

[SenjutsuSage]

I just want to say I'm a huge, huge fan of the OP.

 

[TheBROgamer]

Graphics have been perfectly fine and suitable since 7th gen. Everything else has been useless so yes, rag tracing is nothing

Agreed, Ray Tracing in it's currently implementation is more of a gimmick (it's mainly just used for reflections).

Eventually, it will be important in gaming.

Games won't be fully ray traced for possibly another gen.

Ray traced reflections (barely any games use it) alone bogs down performance on consoles, and even PC's a substantial amount.

 

[dugdug]

I get the sentiment but jesus CHRIST why are people still using that fucking Horizon photo as if it’s even a remotely accurate representation of how Aloy looks in the game?

 

[DeaconOfTheDank]

Thank you OP.

I won't lie, I love eye-melting graphics as much as the next guy, especially if you've got the hardware to take advantage of it. That being said, good graphics shouldn't come at the cost of gameplay and/or interesting mechanics or believable world simulation.

Just recently, I was hit the realization that AAA gaming is really prioritizing the wrong things when playing Dragon's Dogma and being blown away by what's essentially a 10 year old game.

 

[TheBROgamer]

Thank you OP.

I won't lie, I love eye-melting graphics as much as the next guy, especially if you've got the hardware to take advantage of it. That being said, good graphics shouldn't come at the cost of gameplay and/or interesting mechanics or believable world simulation.

Just recently, I was hit the realization that AAA gaming is really prioritizing the wrong things when playing Dragon's Dogma and being blown away by what's essentially a 10 year old game.

It used to be visual enhancements coincided with gameplay design enhancements.

Nowadays, it's "let's slightly touch up the graphics and keep the game design stuck in 2007 or even lesser so (for the most part)."

 

[TheBROgamer]

I just want to say I'm a huge, huge fan of the OP.

 

[Knightime_X]

AI and machine learning is about to take gaming as well as everything else to a level beyond our wildest imaginations.
Video game consoles are far FAR too weak to do anything you have seen in demonstrations.

Crysis was infinitely impossible during the Doom 1993 era.
The same will happen again.

Just relax.
Soon..

 

[Roxkis_ii]

Op, maybe you should take a break from gaming. If you don't see any progress in gaming since 2007, you must have a really jaded veiw. Take a break until you see a game that makes you feel that magic you felt in 2007 would be my advise.

 

[TheBROgamer]

Op, maybe you should take a break from gaming. If you don't see any progress in gaming since 2007, you must have a really jaded veiw. Take a break until you see a game that makes you feel that magic you felt in 2007 would be my advise.

Not jaded, we shouldn't accept mediocrity.

Games have not evolved enough given the hardware available.

These devs want $70 for games, hold them accountable!

Stop letting greed and laziness slide, these companies are NOT our friends.

 

[A.Romero]

This idea is wrong in many levels.

Technically there have been many improvements in the last 15 years:

- Resolution (obviously)
- Framerate (specially current gen)
- Image quality (HDR, Dolby Vision, etc)
- Sound (Atmos, Tempest)
- Polygon count
- Particles
- Physics
- Concurrent players (For example Battlefield 2 had a maximum of 64 concurrent players, the most recent release has 128... It might sound trivial but it isn't from a tech stand point)
- Loading times (15 years ago SSD weren't common even on PC)
- Streaming capabilities (remember how difficult was to get screenshots and videos, let's not talk about putting it on some platform to share)
- AI has advanced tremendously (open world games like GTAV are a good example)
- Constant connection to the Internet and all of it's benefits like asynch gaming, patches, digital stores, achievements, player profiles, etc

Amazingly all of this is now available on consoles as well. 500 dollar machines.

If anyone could play a 2021/2022 game back in 2010 would be amazed. What is true, however, is that most of these changes have been incremental so it's understandable how it might not be evident for people. It's even more difficult when taking into account that most people don't have the proper equipment to take advantage of all of this.

Regarding gameplay and design, thinking things haven't evolved in the last 15 years just shows a poor understanding of game design. Try comparing God of War II (released in 2007) vs God of War 2018: The first one is a completely different experience in game design which would not survive by today standards. Why is that? Because things have evolved greatly since then. Hell, you can tell Last of Us design is dated by playing the remake after playing the second part and that's less than 10 years.

Of course a 2D platformer will play basically the same as the first Mario Bros because fundamentally they are the same game (2D platformer) but it would be difficult to argue that a modern 2D platform is not superior to one released 15 years ago. Take for example the Witcher series. The first one came out back in 2007, it is night and day design wise compared to Witcher 3 in both gameplay, story telling and sheer extension... Hell, it takes 45 to 60 minutes to cross 1 Witcher map by horse (if the Internet is to be believed, haven't tried it). That alone is a fundamental change in game design that just wasn't possible before.

All of this is without taking into account several genres that have raised since then like: survival, battle royale or things like minecraft (wouldn't know what genre it is) and of course the accessibility that VR presents today.

So the only way one could say that games haven't evolved for the last 15 years is that someone is expecting games to grow linearly in the exact same way as they have before but that just would give us something like Quake RTX.

 

[yurinka]

Here is an example of diminishing returns in terms of graphics, and how 2007 set the standard for modern gaming as we know it.

Doom - 1993

Crysis - 2007 (14 YEARS LATER, destructible environments)

World In Conflict - 2007 (14 YEARS LATER, destructible environments/terrain deformation)

Saints Row - 2022 (15 YEARS LATER, NO destructible environments or terrain deformation)

Can anyone really say the rate of progress of the prior years, has kept up post PS360 era?

Compare the 14 year jump from Doom in 1993 to Crysis and World In Conflict which released in 2007, 14 years later.

Now compare the jump from Crysis and World In Conflict, to Saints Row 2022 (15 years later).

The comparison below represents a generation apart, PS4 on left/PS5 on right.

That is the definition of diminishing returns and why the gen to gen jump, has been minimizing.

To include destructive environments or terrain deformation is a design decision in the same way it's an 'artistic' (well, being accurate it's the woke censorship department's decision) to make females less/not pretty or attractive.

It has nothing to do with tech or generations. It's the devs deciding how are going to be the games they make. In this cases they may think that nobody cares about destructive environments and terrain deformation so they prefer to avoid wasting time with it and use their resources elsewhere.

Regarding the Horizon comparision, you also have to remember that both are PS4 games.

And well, in the last 15 years there have been a shit ton of innovations in both tech and game design, even new several genres and business models emerged. Think that back then there was no raytracing, VR, battle royale, play to earn, eSports (as a big business, I'm not talking small local tournaments), cloud gaming, F2P/GaaS with stuff like season passes weren't a thing, mobile was still very small and smartphones started to appear, etc.

 

[poppabk]

I agree that there is not enough innovation in games but at the same time I am not sure where innovation could happen. Destructability is one where the innovation died on the vine for one reason or another, which makes me sad. Bad Company 2 was awesome in that regard, probably the pinnacle and that was 12 years ago.

 

[TheBROgamer]

To include destructive environments or terrain deformation is a design decision in the same way it's an 'artistic' (well, being accurate it's the woke censorship department's decision) to make females less/not pretty or attractive.

It has nothing to do with tech or generations. It's the devs deciding how are going to be the games they make. In this cases they may think that nobody cares about destructive environments and terrain deformation so they prefer to avoid wasting time with it and use their resources elsewhere.

Regarding the Horizon comparision, you also have to remember that both are PS4 games.

Terrain deformation and advanced physics are WAY harder to implement than slightly touched up graphics.

There is a reason why the CoD franchise has never attempted it, it's hard as f*ck to implement.

Advanced physics = Hard to implement, and hard to sell.

Touched up graphics = Easier to implement, and easier to sell (humans are shallow).

Does this make sense?

 

[Crayon]

You're not wrong. It was great jumps are not necessarily all behind us, though. There could be some cool breakthrough in the future.

If you want a Great leap Forward and gameplay, you have to go vr. If you don't like vr, that's too bad.

 

[A.Romero]

Deformation and advanced physics are not used that much because the market didn't respond to them the same way it responded to other stuff.

Red Faction stopped selling (despite good reviews), Bad Company 2 sold 12 million copies by 2012 while Battlefield 3 sold 10 million by november 2011.

Everything has a budget and the whole point of making games is to make money (at least from the publishers' perspective) so why would they focus on features that don't seem to have an impact in the wider market?

 

[TheBROgamer]

AI and machine learning is about to take gaming as well as everything else to a level beyond our wildest imaginations.
Video game consoles are far FAR too weak to do anything you have seen in demonstrations.

Crysis was infinitely impossible during the Doom 1993 era.
The same will happen again.

Just relax.
Soon..

AI and machine learning are still in the infancy stage.

 

[TheBROgamer]

Deformation and advanced physics are not used that much because the market didn't respond to them the same way it responded to other stuff.

Red Faction stopped selling (despite good reviews), Bad Company 2 sold 12 million copies by 2012 while Battlefield 3 sold 10 million by november 2011.

Everything has a budget and the whole point of making games is to make money (at least from the publishers' perspective) so why would they focus on features that don't seem to have an impact in the wider market?

That logic right there is exactly why devs stopped pushing the envelope, on what games could be.

Just crank up the graphics a slight bit, and keep the actual game components stuck in the last decade+.

 

[yurinka]

Terrain deformation and advanced physics are WAY harder to implement than slightly touched up graphics.

There is a reason why the CoD franchise has never attempted it, it's hard as f*ck to implement.

Advanced physics = Hard to implement, and hard to sell.

Touched up graphics= Easier to implement, and easier to sell (humans are shallow).

Does this make sense?

Realistic terrain deformation, environment destruction or physics doesn't add anything to gameplay, in fact damages the gameplay because it breaks the level design, which is key for games like Call of Duty. It isn't hard to implement, there are libraries that can do it.

And well, none of the examples shown had anything special regarding terrain deformation, environment destruction or physics. Like basically any game they use basic rigid body physics and basically what you call 'touched up graphics'.

Imagine that you have realistic environment destruction so you blow up a bridge you have to use to reach the end of the mission. The bridge is broken, you can't complete the mission and you get stuck. So you damaged the gameplay/experience.

Some houses/cars/trees/boxes are placed strategically in some places to provide covers, a place to be hidden from enemies, also to hide that certain part of the level is being streamed, or that some enemies are spawned behind them, or simply placed strategically to make the level more fun. This is level design. If you allow to destroy this, it will suck and you'll see some of these tricks, damaging the gameplay/experience.

Same goes with AI: the enemies are relatively dumb and easy to kill because this is what people finds fun, a small challenge that they can achieve. Devs can easily make way more difficult and realistic AI for enemies, which would mean you would be constantly dying make the game frustrating and not fun for most players.

If devs don't make more realistic AI, terrain deformation, physics or destructive environments isn't because of technical limitations, it's because they consider that they should invest their available and finite resources somewhere else that actually makes the game better and not worse.

 

[Nocturno999]

Console makers keep pushing the useless resolution war + diminishing returns in chips strength + game development becoming insanely expensive and long.

 

[Balducci30]

physics and vfx like water and fire have barely progressed in a decade due to priority on 4k, 60FPs etc, - and it’s a damn shame.

VR is the only area I’m seeing legitimate leaps in innovation playing games

 

[ReBurn]

So, I guess Ray Tracing is nothing?

Correct. Ray tracing makes screenshots look better but overall it hasn't moved the needle in terms of innovation.

 

[poppabk]

Realistic terrain deformation, environment destruction or physics doesn't add anything to gameplay, in fact damages the gameplay because it breaks the level design, which is key for games like Call of Duty. It isn't hard to implement, there are libraries that can do it.

And well, none of the examples shown had anything special regarding terrain deformation, environment destruction or physics. Like basically any game they use basic rigid body physics and basically what you call 'touched up graphics'.

Imagine that you have realistic environment destruction so you blow up a bridge you have to use to reach the end of the mission. The bridge is broken, you can't complete the mission and you get stuck. So you damaged the gameplay/experience.

Some houses/cars/trees/boxes are placed strategically in some places to provide covers, a place to be hidden from enemies, also to hide that certain part of the level is being streamed, or that some enemies are spawned behind them, or simply placed strategically to make the level more fun. This is level design. If you allow to destroy this, it will suck and you'll see some of these tricks, damaging the gameplay/experience.

It absolutely can alter gameplay, in BC2 it could radically alter the map by creating or destroying cover. Which makes it hard to implement because you are right it makes balance much harder.
But everyone must have wanted the buildings in an open world game to be more than just walls that prevent you from going places. I remember a long time ago some dev talking about having all the buildings procedurally generated. Never happened, but it is still something I think could be cool.

 

[Romulus]

You don't get a jump simply because these console are underpowered as shit and just native 4k and some rtx reflections eat a lot of resources.

If you had developers working on a 3090 and a major 500 dollars cpu you could see much better stuff.


About destructible things, the more visual fidelity you have, the more physics become heavy, you can't have photorealistic trees that break in 3 equal parts like in botw, you need realistic destruction, and realistic destruction is the heaviest shit ever.

Good luck implementing this stuff on a cheap 500 dollars box

Consoles have always been underpowered compared to PCs, yet every generation was a clear leap in visuals until the ps5 generation. If anything, Ps5 is closer to a mid range PC and there's no leap.

 

[GymWolf]

Consoles have always been underpowered compared to PCs, yet every generation was a clear leap in visuals until the ps5 generation. If anything, Ps5 is closer to a mid range PC and there's no leap.

I think that at least graphic wise we are gonna see decent\good things from the usual wizards that gave us rdr2 or tlou2 on a 1.8 tf machine with a shitty cpu.

It's physics wise that i'm not so sure about...

And btw, x360 and ps3 were not as underpowered as ps4 and ps5, or at the very least they were more custom machines with clever solutions, something that got lost in the next 2 gen.

 

[A.Romero]

That logic right there is exactly why devs stopped pushing the envelope, on what games could be.

Just crank up the graphics a slight bit, and keep the actual game components stuck in the last decade+.

Well it's just business sense.

Why spend valuable resources in features with limited appeal if the market won't reward them with sales?

No component has been stuck in the last decade. I think that changes might not be suited to your taste which is understandable. There might be more focus on other stuff in indie gaming, I think there is a chance you can find interesting stuff there.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Single player hasn't evolved much since 2007.

Multiplayer sure as **** has.

 

[Knightime_X]

AI and machine learning are still in the infancy stage.

For now.
But that's rapidly changing.
Who knows what's in store in a few years time.

 

[MightySquirrel]

Not really fare to pick the worst and the most broken game of the last 10 years to represent year '22. I'm sure you can find bad games from '07. Of course that was not your intention..

 

[Guilty_AI]

Multiplayer sure as **** has.

Dunno fam. Between all the exploitative monetization, the hyper focus on competitiveness rather than the fun, and the quasi-death of user made content in these sorts of games, i'd say it has devolved quite a bit.

 

[iQuasarLV]

It’s certainly not “nothing”, but I do think it has too big a performance penalty for current gen consoles, especially how advanced/convincing the alternatives have gotten this last couple of years.

It often tanks the frame rate for too hard for simply more accurate reflections, I don’t think it’s a good trade off until it either gets more efficient of we get more powerful systems.

I believe that this is where RT is a double edged sword.

On the one hand, it truly adds a new level of immersion to the games when fully added and turned on. On the other, it forces a regression in up-scaling to maintain performance. DLSS and FSR are steps backward if you ask me. Its like a stop gap because AMD nor Nvidia cannot offer up solutions to truly push RT or 4k resolution so their PR teams have been reprogramming the masses to accept up-scaling as a new technology.

Sometimes I am flabbergasted at how the masses are so easily manipulated into conformity.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Op, maybe you should take a break from gaming. If you don't see any progress in gaming since 2007, you must have a really jaded veiw. Take a break until you see a game that makes you feel that magic you felt in 2007 would be my advise.

In what way has gaming progressed from a game design point of view? Challenge mode: you're not allowed to mention graphics.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Dunno fam. Between all the exploitative monetization, the hyper focus on competitiveness rather than the fun, and the quasi-death of user made content in these sorts of games, i'd say it has devolved quite a bit.

Then you ain't payin' attention fam! Let's examine your claims...

1. Hyper focus on competitiveness.

With breakout hits like Among Us, Fall Guys, Minecraft, Roblox, GTAV, Ark Survival Evolved...hell, Fortnite is loaded with casual modes that are built for less competitive players. And don't get me started on the 4p coop explosion we've seen recently. There has never been a better time for less competitive players to jump in.

Fact Check: False


2. "...the quasi death of user made content..."

Dreams, Minecraft, Roblox, Halo Forge, Fortnite, Rust, Ark Survival Evolved, the PC modding community has never been stronger...hell survival games thrive off user generated content and that genre has never been bigger. And I don't know if you've been paying attention to game showcases the last few years, but user made content is a pillar the entire industry seems to be embracing.

Fact Check: False


3. "...it has devolved quite a bit."

Multiplayer hasn't regressed, it has only progressed. Like games from the pre 2007 era? Modern gaming has what you need. RTS games are everywhere. Arena shooters are everywhere. MMORPGs are everywhere. If you prefer older style games...you need not look very far...they're just not as popular as they used to be.

Fact Check: False

Jump in baby. Multiplayer gamers are feasting right now.

 

[EverydayBeast]

I loved gaming since I was a little kid process is constantly being made.

 

[01011001]

Single player hasn't evolved much since 2007.

Multiplayer sure as **** has.

Multiplayer mostly changed due to the rise of free 2 play.
in terms of technology it also hasn't progressed a bit.

we already had massive shooters with hundreds of players in stuff like Planetside which released in 2003.

we got a new very popular game mode which is battle royale. but a new game mode is hardly an evolution, it's simply a mode someone came up with while creating mods for Arma 2.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Multiplayer mostly changed due to the rise of free 2 play.
in terms of technology it also hasn't progressed a bit.

The most popular multiplayer games of today are Battle Royale (100+ players), survival Games (persistent worlds), and coop games.

Technology from 10+ years ago struggled mightily with the above genres.

Technological advancements as well as design progression have catapulted multiplayer into the popularity it sees today.

 

[01011001]

The most popular multiplayer games of today are Battle Royale (100+ players), survival Games (persistent worlds), and coop games.

Technology from 10+ years ago struggled mightily with the above genres.

Technological advancements as well as design progression have catapulted multiplayer into the popularity it sees today.

sure, publishers figured out how to manipulate players more and more with the progression systems... I guess you could say that's something that evolved.

trends however aren't really evolution, you could have done all of that in 2007 easily, but the popular stuff back then were military shooters with team Deathmatch.

and it's not really true that technology backnthen would have struggled with persistent worlds and massive amounts of players.

Planetside 1 supported about 400 players per map I think

 

[Guilty_AI]

Then you ain't payin' attention fam! Let's examine your claims...

1. Hyper focus on competitiveness.

With breakout hits like Among Us, Fall Guys, Minecraft, Roblox, GTAV, Ark Survival Evolved...hell, Fortnite is loaded with casual modes that are built for less competitive players. And don't get me started on the 4p coop explosion we've seen recently. There has never been a better time for less competitive players to jump in.

Fact Check: False


2. "...the quasi death of user made content..."

Dreams, Minecraft, Roblox, Halo Forge, Fortnite, Rust, Ark Survival Evolved, the PC modding community has never been stronger...hell survival games thrive off user generated content and that genre has never been bigger. And I don't know if you've been paying attention to game showcases the last few years, but user made content is a pillar the entire industry seems to be embracing.

Fact Check: False


3. "...it has devolved quite a bit."

Multiplayer hasn't regressed, it has only progressed. Like games from the pre 2007 era? Modern gaming has what you need. RTS games are everywhere. Arena shooters are everywhere. MMORPGs are everywhere. If you prefer older style games...you need not look very far...they're just not as popular as they used to be.

Fact Check: False

Jump in baby. Multiplayer gamers are feasting right now.

Many of the mentioned games are super exploitative, Roblox is a specially bad case. Stuff like user made content and modes that existed solely to be fun used to be just the natural state of affairs, now its the exception.
-You can't make your own skins or download weird mods because companies cannot possibly allow you getting something for free when they could be charging you for it, even the ones allowing it are usually very limited.
-The notion that multiplayer game do not need to be tied to servers is completely dead, goodbye lan parties. hello intrusive anti-cheats.
-Way too much focus on taking up as much time of the player as possible. They design the whole game as if they want you to treat it as a second job.


Of course you can still find very fun MP games, ironically many of them old ones like Sven coop. But with very rare exceptions like Minecraft (which ironically is over 10 yo in fact), they aren't the most played, nor the most popular ones, and they definitely haven't evolved.
Haven't found a single fun multiplayer game that didn't already exist. DOS2 coop is very fun, but stuff like Baldurs Gate already had coop rpg campaigns. Coop shooters are fun, but they are far from a new thing too. Even massive MP maps aren't a new thing either.

 

[Uiki]

sure, publishers figured out how to manipulate players more and more with the progression systems... I guess you could say that's something that evolved.

trends however aren't really evolution, you could have done all of that in 2007 easily, but the popular stuff back then were military shooters with team Deathmatch.

and it's not really true that technology backnthen would have struggled with persistent worlds and massive amounts of players.

Planetside 1 supported about 400 players per map I think

Number of players =/= better game. Planetside 1 was not really enjoyable and straight up unplayable by today's standards.
Quality of infrastructure is miles better and impossible to achieve in the past. Cod was p2p not long ago... splatoon and destiny 2 ARE STILL P2P.

I agree in saying that technology made multiplayer games the staple that they are right now. But.... not gameplay wise. 1.6 is still a better shooter than go. BF2 is still the best battlefield. Quake 3 is still the best arena shooter ever. Opening up to a larger audience meant losing a lot of what made those shooters popular.
I would love to see something a-la destiny (looter shooter/mmo) without limitations born frmo an engine that's 10 years old and made with 360/ps3 limitations in mind.

 

[01011001]

Number of players =/= better game. Planetside 1 was not really enjoyable and straight up unplayable by today's standards.
Quality of infrastructure is miles better and impossible to achieve in the past. Cod was p2p not long ago... splatoon and destiny 2 ARE STILL P2P.

I agree in saying that technology made multiplayer games the staple that they are right now. But.... not gameplay wise. 1.6 is still a better shooter than go. BF2 is still the best battlefield. Quake 3 is still the best arena shooter ever.
I would love to see something a-la destiny (looter shooter/mmo) without limitations born frmo an engine that's 10 years old and made with 360/ps3 limitations in mind.

Planetside might have gone way too far, even today you barely see action oriented games with more than 100 players.

not sure how well Planetside 1 would have worked with only 100 players instead of 400+

 

[Uiki]

Planetside might have gone way too far, even today you barely see action oriented games with more than 100 players.

not sure how well Planetside 1 would have worked with only 100 players instead of 400+

Well, it was overly ambitious for sure. But tons of fun.

100+ players today are almost the norm for a br. Battlebit remastered (out shortly, in beta since forever) is easily 128vs128 and more. And it's an indie project financed via patreon, something impossible to see 10 years ago.

 

[Romulus]

I think that at least graphic wise we are gonna see decent\good things from the usual wizards that gave us rdr2 or tlou2 on a 1.8 tf machine with a shitty cpu.

It's physics wise that i'm not so sure about...

And btw, x360 and ps3 were not as underpowered as ps4 and ps5, or at the very least they were more custom machines with clever solutions, something that got lost in the next 2 gen.

Ps3 was a nightmare. Not only was it very difficult to code for, the gpu and RAM weren't up to par by console standards on day 1. Ps2 was very interesting by comparison and could box above it's weight.
360 seemed decent all around.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

sure, publishers figured out how to manipulate players more and more with the progression systems... I guess you could say that's something that evolved.

trends however aren't really evolution, you could have done all of that in 2007 easily, but the popular stuff back then were military shooters with team Deathmatch.

and it's not really true that technology backnthen would have struggled with persistent worlds and massive amounts of players.

Planetside 1 supported about 400 players per map I think

Comparing 400 players (not on console) of Planetside games to the BR and Survival revolution we've seen recently is a complete misunderstanding of the design revolution that's taken place.

400 players, again not on console, where you're one of a 200 person team is incredibly boring because the player has almost no impact on the outcome. BR and Survival game design turns player experience into an enthralling one because player choices have clear effect on experience.

Multiplayer game design has been completely transformed over the last 5 - 10 years. It's literally the biggest design shift since 2D to 3D gaming. Dismissing it as a trend is incredibly disingenuous. Shame on you good sir. Shame on you.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Haven't found a single fun multiplayer game that didn't already exist. DOS2 coop is very fun, but stuff like Baldurs Gate already had coop rpg campaigns. Coop shooters are fun, but they are far from a new thing too. Even massive MP maps aren't a new thing either.

There were a small number of people who despised the shift from 2D to 3D as well. It's OK to dislike BR, Survival games, and coop shooters just like it's OK to dislike Mario64 back in the 90s. We are in a new era.

But again, a paradigm shift in design knowledge doesn't require everyone to enjoy it for it to be true.

 

[Xeaker]

Only thing that improved is graphics. Everything else is worse.
Red Faction Guerilla 2009 LOL

 

[GymWolf]

Ps3 was a nightmare. Not only was it very difficult to code for, the gpu and RAM weren't up to par by console standards on day 1. Ps2 was very interesting by comparison and could box above it's weight.
360 seemed decent all around.

Yeah it was a nightmare to develop for, but when they mastered the machine, the results were pretty badass.

 

[01011001]

Yeah it was a nightmare to develop for, but when they mastered the machine, the results were pretty badass.

the results were still worse than what the 360 was capable of. so in the end, it wasn't worth it having this exotic hardware

 

[Guilty_AI]

It's OK to dislike BR, Survival games, and coop shooters just like it's OK to dislike Mario64 back in the 90s. We are in a new era.

Thats a thing, none of these are new. All the "new era" did was taking these age old genres and started designing them to exploit addictive behaviours, social media narcisism or because they're really desperate to become the new e-sport, when all these games used to exist just because people thought they were fun,

If you wanna call that "paradigm shift" a good thing, be my guest.

 

[MacReady13]

You don't get a jump simply because these console are underpowered as shit and just native 4k and some rtx reflections eat a lot of resources.

If you had developers working on a 3090 and a major 500 dollars cpu you could see much better stuff.


About destructible things, the more visual fidelity you have, the more physics become heavy, you can't have photorealistic trees that break in 3 equal parts like in botw, you need realistic destruction, and realistic destruction is the heaviest shit ever.

Good luck implementing this stuff on a cheap 500 dollars box

And this is why GAMEPLAY has stagnated. When all we are worrying about is improvement in graphics and sacrificing gameplay, well then we've gone nowhere FAST.

 

[poppabk]

There were a small number of people who despised the shift from 2D to 3D as well. It's OK to dislike BR, Survival games, and coop shooters just like it's OK to dislike Mario64 back in the 90s. We are in a new era.

But again, a paradigm shift in design knowledge doesn't require everyone to enjoy it for it to be true.

Im not even sure enjoying the experience is top of most players lists anymore.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Thats a thing, none of these are new. All the "new era" did was taking these age old genres and started designing them to exploit addictive behaviours, social media narcisism or because they're really desperate to become the new e-sport, when all these games used to exist just because people thought they were fun,

If you wanna call that "paradigm shift" a good thing, be my guest.

If you're that pessimistic about new game design paradigm shifts, you have to apply your pessimism to every innovation the industry has ever had.

Dual analogue sticks were just designed to get people more addicted.

3D games were just designed for increased addiction.

VR was just designed because addiction.

If we can't recognize brilliant design from the industries most creative people without turning to this kind of talk, then the conversation can't really progress.