I want shorter games with worse graphics made by people who are paid more to work less and I’m not kidding.
The “paid more to work less” part is not tenable. The games that fit that bill that you’re thinking of represent less than 1% of their peers. They are outliers, not a sustainable industry; the exception, not the rule. For every Silksong there are maybe 100 that make just enough to make ends meet, and 1000 duds that will never pay for themselves that you’ve never heard of.
What you’re saying is you want fewer steady incomes and more lottery winners. Sure, that’d be nice, but it’s not a sustainable strategy.
Ex. Wildgate launched recently. They deliberately opted to sell the game for a flat $30 rather than going F2P/P2W. As a result, they regularly get reviewed negatively by people saying “dead game, greedy devs won’t lower the price to compete with F2P games” and “the cosmetics you unlock by playing look better than the ones you can buy” (yes, there are people unironically posting those as negative reviews).
So at least understand why the most common strategy is often exploitative, and why it’s actually not a simple solution that a bunch of armchair experts have figured out in a comments section.
I would love to buy a game at a reasonable price that I actually have a chance of finishing in a weekend, or maybe one marathon session. A game with a great story and good gameplay that isn’t drawn out over 30 hours.
As for graphics, I’m quite happy if they drop all the shiny new bullshit that you have to watch a Digital Foundry video on just to even know it exists in the game, and rather focus on a good art style.
And it goes without saying, pay the people who make the games more, and the mega corp CEO’s less.
But most importantly, more fun!
Yeah, I might be showing my age, but my interpretation of “a better game” was right away “a more fun game”, which got followed up with the thought: Did it make them more fun?
I feel like we had fun figured out pretty well in the last century already. And in many ways, the higher specs are used to add realism and storytelling, which I know many people enjoy in their own way, but they’re often at odds with fun, or at least sit between the fun parts of a game.
Like, man, I watched a video of the newest Pokémon game and they played for more than an hour before the tutorial + plot exposition was over. Practically no fun occurred in that first hour.
Just imagine putting coins into an arcade cabinet and the first hour is an utter waste of time. You’d ask for your money back.
Generally games where people had fun making them feel better to play.
Yeah, for me it’s not even just the creative freedom, but an actual fuzzy feeling that me and the devs are having fun together. Open-source games also hold a special place in my heart for that reason, no matter how scrungy they are.
Have you heard of stardew valley? Made by one guy, 16 bit sprite pixelart, although he does still work his ass off.
Two outta three ain’t bad, right?
TBF, the dude has made millions off the game, and he doesn’t make the updates paid dlc. He just keeps adding to SDV because he loves it
X Doubt
I meant, they’ve been teaching gamers that better graphics is the reason to get a new console for over 30 years. Good luck now trying to unteach that.
they just need to keep the same graphics and improve optimization and stop relying on dlss and frame gen.
that shit works well, but id be really impressed to just play a game that looks great and throw on ray tracing and still dont need to use dlss to get above 100 fps.
I tried making that point on reddit. You wouldn’t believe the amount of down arrows that came at me.
It works but it introduces some awful artifacting
If game performance is what makes games better then consoles will never reach the heights of PCs.
Right? Consoles used to exist because specialized equipment would perform better than general consumer electronics. That hasn’t really been true for a long time now.
That’s not exactly accurate, it’s ignoring significantly that hardware in consoles is mostly static. The consistency and limitations on hardware undoubtedly is an important part of that equation
It says there that graphics performance doesn’t matter that much.
If it’s not graphics what is the PS5 doing that makes the games better on a PS5 if not performance?
PS5 doesn’t make the exclusives, exclusives make the PS5
Emulation my beloved
Emulation won’t exist for current-gen console until at least next-gen
I’m a patient gamer :)
Also, name 10 PS5 exclusives that aren’t remakes of prior generation games (since those can be upscaled and played via emulation)
“I think PS5 and SSD has made almost every game a better game,” he concludes.
You could read the article too
Right, so performance over graphics.
Im guessing speed. To me, one of my favorite improvements over the ps4 was load speeds of everything. It felt like I went back in time to SNES days when walking into the next room was instant, unlike on the ps1 for the same games.
Another word for less loading time could be performance right?
Everyone’s different, and you can get used to a lot.
So some people might not be able to tell 90fps from 120fps, but I definitely notice. But if I played something at 90 for long enough, I’d get used to it and stop noticing how much worse it was from 120 fps.
I will say they don’t get near enough credit for not only adaptive triggers, but them working on damn near any game that appears on PlayStation even while on PC.
I bought a ps5 just for those triggers, and gave it away (but kept a controller) once it worked on PC.
That’s the direction Playstation needs to go. If they made a new controller with Hall Effect sticks and 4 back buttons they’d absolutely clean up. They came so close with the edge, but didn’t give a back button for half the face buttons. And went “replaceable” sticks that will eventually break instead of Hall Effect.
I can’t tell the diff in FPS performance. I wish I could.
When I got my PS5 and played some games I was like, wow the future is here! Turns out I was playing PS4 games. Also I turned on and off ray-tracing for SpiderMan and couldn’t tell either.
Why would you wish to be highly sensitive to an increase/decrease in fps.
That’s just a curse and you should be happy you don’t have it.
You can just enjoy more games with a cheaper pc/console.
I solve this by turning off my FPS counter, so I can no longer tell :)
lol, just to fit in with everyone 😂
Awesome take, all of it. 100% agree. I don’t own a PlayStation console, never have, but you make perfect sense.
Moore’s Law was originally formulated as the cost per integrated component being cut in half every x months. The value of x was tweaked over the decades, but settled at 24.
That version of the law is completely dead. Density is still going up, but you pay more for it. You’re not going to build a console anymore for the same cost while increasing performance.
High end PC’s can still go up, but only by spending more money. This is why the only substantial performance gains the last few GPU generations has been through big jumps in cost.
Doesn’t surprise to hear this. If Nvidia was really holding back, then AMD would have past them. I feel like they are starting to experience what the cpu side started seeing when they hit 4ghz and had to start chipping away at more clocks. It took longer as they are doing easily parallel operations, but it was bound to happen. I really wonder how both AMD and Nvidia will compare to their prior architectures next iteration. Will my 4080 still be faster than a 6070(ti)?
If Nvidia was really holding back, then AMD would have past them.
Did you know that Jensen Huang and Lisa Su are cousins? AMD only makes graphics cards to protect NVIDIA from antitrust lawsuits.
Just make it a law that every game has to use the Decima engine because Death Stranding 2 runs at 60fps, loads in basically 1 second, and is a contender for best looking game of the generation.
People are criticizing Playstation, but I’m still really happy to have a Playstation 5 alongside my Steam Deck.
As much as I love playing old games on the deck and it has now become my main console, I’m happy to have my Playstation 5 for demanding games (mostly sim racing) and to watch blurays.
Having a powerful PC would not bring me the versatility my Steam Deck/Playstation 5/Surface Go 1 is giving me for now.
Although that might change if the Playstation 6 comes without blurays.
I don’t understand why some PC people feel the need to say consoles are useless, when it’s only to them that they would be.
I have a PC and PS5. I like my PS5 because I know when I buy a game for it, it’s going to work. On the other hand with my PC I have to triple check the specs and fiddle around with the graphics settings, and the only way I can have confidence that it will play any game is if I spend ~£1000 upgrading it. Or just get the game on the playstation.
Is this where we’re at?
It sounds like they don’t want another game to be made and we will just recycle the same classics in the current era’s standard of HD forever.
People don’t buy games to try out their new consoles, they buy consoles to play games
They very much can. I haven’t checked personally but just look at the average Digital Foundry video for all the tradeoffs and framerate drops. There is very much a market for getting a stable 1440/60 (or even 4k/160) that can then be upscaled/framegened to 4k/120 with the subsequent generation moving towards that. Similarly, higher fidelity assets DO make a difference when you are doing those side by sides.
That said: Demnstrating framerate is a real challenge. Which… is probably why Sony have been revamping the PSN Store over the past year or so. Sidestep youtube and their increasing use of generative content so that you can instead say “Wow. I can totally see the difference between Red Dead on PS5 and PS6!” and so forth.
Do I personally care? Not overly so. But most people are picking which console they buy based on performance (or, more often, which their friends have) but are buying the new console for the new Madden. And they’ll keep doing that… if they can afford a PS6.
